i was listening to the co talk to my wife’s congregation on sunday and pretty much the complete talk was justifying doctrinal and organizational changes and pretty much preparing the ‘rank and file’ for upcoming changes.
anyone on hear have any insight of what ‘new light’ is coming in the future?.
The desolation did not last seventy years but fulfilled seventy years
WT disagrees. 70 years applies to Jews and the land given to them by God. Land began to be desolate after the land was empty of Jews after the assassination of Gedaliah. Since the desolation ended when Jews returned, minus 70 from that date, simple: 537-70=607
i was listening to the co talk to my wife’s congregation on sunday and pretty much the complete talk was justifying doctrinal and organizational changes and pretty much preparing the ‘rank and file’ for upcoming changes.
anyone on hear have any insight of what ‘new light’ is coming in the future?.
Land was never desolate for seventy years.
Bible says so and WT extrapolations are based on what the Bible says.
i was listening to the co talk to my wife’s congregation on sunday and pretty much the complete talk was justifying doctrinal and organizational changes and pretty much preparing the ‘rank and file’ for upcoming changes.
anyone on hear have any insight of what ‘new light’ is coming in the future?.
so it cannot be used as a starting point for the 70 years.
You miss the point: 586 is not supported by the Bible as the destruction of Jerusalem.
539 BCE does not work for at that time the Jews were still in Exile and the land remained desolate until reoccupied by the Jewish Exiles.
You conclude too much. I never said that 539 was the beginning of the 70 years or of the date of the destruction of Jerusalem. I simply showed that 586 is not supported by God’s word using the historical date 539 and God’s word 70 years. I also stated that I believe that 537 is the starting point. However, since WT reference Bible qualified 1914 with the word circa 1914 as the end of the Gentile Times, it seems that either 537, 1914 or the method used to extrapolate these dates is an estimate.
Where does it say that the Jews repatriated Israel in 537? Can you prove that the Cyrus decree was on 537? And if so, can you prove exactly how long after 537 it took the Jews to travel and arrive in Israel? Again 586 does not work because it is a historical fact that Babylon fell in 539 and God’s word says that the land was desolate 70 years to pay back its Sabbath’s. That’s it. But if you want to know why WT figures 537, that is another topic. My post attempts to invalidate 586 not show why wt teaches 607.
deut 14:21 you shall not eat anything that has died a natural death; give it to the stranger in your community to eat, or you may sell it to a foreigner.
for you are a people consecrated to yhwh.... it seems quite self evident the ritual of blood letting prior to eating meat was understood by the deuteronomist as binding only on jews..
And from things strangled
The Christian blood injunction does not prohibit eating un-bled dead animals that died on their own. However, if it was possible to extract the blood from such animal, it would be a sin for a Christian to eat that blood according to said injunction same as it would also be a sin to eat the blood-if it was possible to extract some of it-from an animal that was properly bled, because the blood -either dead or alive or slaughtered - represents the life of that animal to God. In other words, the blood is still sacred. According to the injunction, it would also be sinful fir a Christian to eat a strangled or an unbled animal. According to a WT article, there is a distinction between the blood of a slaughtered animal and an animal that died on its own. What is that distinction?
i was listening to the co talk to my wife’s congregation on sunday and pretty much the complete talk was justifying doctrinal and organizational changes and pretty much preparing the ‘rank and file’ for upcoming changes.
anyone on hear have any insight of what ‘new light’ is coming in the future?.
537 BCE-70 years= 607 BCE
WT has always explained that Babylon fell in 539 not 537 and that the 70 years did not start until after Gedaliah was assasinated also that Jews did not leave Babylon in 539 and it took time to get there and that the land lay desolate until the first Jew set foot on eretz Israel in 537– But that is all extrapolation. We do know, however, —because it is a historical fact—that Babylon fell in 539. Although I believe that WT extrapolation is correct, it cannot be proven. The pivotal date 539 though is fact and God’s word says land desolate 70 years.—That we know.
The Reference Bible refers ( or referred if this has been changed ) to the end of the Gentile Times as circa 1914 and not 1914. 1914 is based on 537.
Simply put, 539-70 is 609. Ball park, circa, around = 607 and 1914. 537 is not a “historical date” although 539 is.
deut 14:21 you shall not eat anything that has died a natural death; give it to the stranger in your community to eat, or you may sell it to a foreigner.
for you are a people consecrated to yhwh.... it seems quite self evident the ritual of blood letting prior to eating meat was understood by the deuteronomist as binding only on jews..
and it therefore cannot reasonably be argued that the blood of such is sacred. -
According to the HS, blood is intrinsically sacred on its own to God and it’s sacredness does to depend on being used for animal sacrifices to atone for sins.
distinguishable from the consumption of blood
That is not the case because in the HS blood could not be used or stored because of its symbolic sacredness. Also, whether or not blood is digested in the stomach, the recipient of a BT consumes blood by using it inside his body and in time absorbing it. There is usage and benefit from the blood of another creature by the transfused.
The Christian injunction to “keep abstaining from blood” cannot be invalidated and does not grant permission to use blood for any reason. The tension is not whether or not the injunction means medical use or any use of blood but whether God allows violating it to save a life.
deut 14:21 you shall not eat anything that has died a natural death; give it to the stranger in your community to eat, or you may sell it to a foreigner.
for you are a people consecrated to yhwh.... it seems quite self evident the ritual of blood letting prior to eating meat was understood by the deuteronomist as binding only on jews..
And they were not guilty of violating God`s law ? and went unpunished ?
1Sam 14:32. Here is how WT sees it in a questions from readers article:
“So they may have been making some attempt to drain the blood. (Deuteronomy 15:23) Yet, in their exhausted, famished state, they did not hang up the slaughtered carcasses and allow adequate time for normal blood drainage.”
i was listening to the co talk to my wife’s congregation on sunday and pretty much the complete talk was justifying doctrinal and organizational changes and pretty much preparing the ‘rank and file’ for upcoming changes.
anyone on hear have any insight of what ‘new light’ is coming in the future?.
Thev can change 607 BC to 586 which is the actual year of overthrow of Theocracy from Jerusalem,
Simply put: 539-70=609, not 586.
what “the abomination that causes desolation” mentioned in mathew 24:15 means could be understood only by close followers of jesus because it was part of his personal discussion with them.
by stopping to greet those whom they consider as “their enemies” jws are identifying themselves as “pagans,” according to jesus.
(mathew 5:43-48) thus they cannot correctly understand what the abomination that causes desolation” that would appear as part of signs of “last days.”.
The whole point of a cross is to reflect on Jesus' death and resurrection.
Not scriptural.
And the obfuscation is focusing on the cross, or a bullet, or poison, or a rope, or a tree, or a gun, or a sword… Besides the reasons posted why the cross may be abominable to God, another reason is its previous use in pagan worship.
deut 14:21 you shall not eat anything that has died a natural death; give it to the stranger in your community to eat, or you may sell it to a foreigner.
for you are a people consecrated to yhwh.... it seems quite self evident the ritual of blood letting prior to eating meat was understood by the deuteronomist as binding only on jews..
See the topic posted by cofty on the sacredness of blood and the discussions posted on that thread.
One interesting point is that when an Israelite ate a dead animal that died of natural causes, he was not bloodguilty for doing so. Therefore, what about taking a pint of blood from an animal or human without killing anybody and consuming the blood putting it into a person’s vein for medical reasons, is such blood sacred to God or is it the same as that of a dead animal?
