i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
You are attempting to make an equivalence between "70 years" and "desolation"
That’s how we see it. The Bible text integrates the 70 years with the desolation, 70 CE as a striking reminder pointed to Jerusalem. Have fun with your belief. I don’t buy yours.
i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
This is in no way requires an equivalence of desolation to 70 years.
According to you. But the Bible says 70.
i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
They put Russel on trial for not being a scholar. I read the transcript of Court record of his cross examination. I think your doctorate is in theology.
I don’t think the Bible can be translated using strict rules of grammar alone. I think that the translator has a belief to begin with and the grammar conforms to that belief when interpreting and translating to another language. His belief is the rule or the guide and not the grammar. It just so happened that the beliefs of the JW founders were in phase with the grammar.
i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
establishing that God even exists
You got it all wrong. That’s what the Bible is all about: “They will have to know that I am Jehovah.” And that is what Christianity is about: “They will see, the Son of Man.” “Every eye will see him.” and the vindication of his church. That is miraculous proof from God which man cannot provide. Not like the miracles recorded in the Bible as evidence that Jesus was the Messiah —-which the Jewish nation rejected. But the sort of evidence that the Bible refers to as:
“in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus.” —But that is not what this Forum is about. I am only replying to your question from the Bible. The proof that you seek cannot be provided by me.
i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
So, what you’re saying is, the Bible is essentially a useless ‘choose your own adventure’.
Not at all. You were told by “God’s organization” what the Bible means. You reject it and have your own views instead that you believe are true. If God is not a variable in the Bible, then the Bible is only literature. If God is not behind “God’s organization” then their interpretations and direction is not important—which is what this forum is about. But getting back to my post, given your stated position that the Bible is not God’s word and looking at the information in discussion prima facie, what I said applies.
i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
isn’t “the word spoken by Jeremiah” at all,
Sure it is. That is what the verse says. Jeremiah was applying God’s word in Leviticus and the irony of the curse for breaking the covenant .Before Judah’s 70 year desolation in Bavel, Zedekiah had proclaimed a Jubilee for the land and Jehovah turned back until Zedekiah backslided then the deportation.
Any written statement such as laws or Scripture can be interpreted more than one way. You have you view. Good luck.
i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
2 Chronicles 36:20,21 — 20 He carried off captive to Babylon those who escaped the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia began to reign, 21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill 70 years.
It is not that complicated.
jerusalem will be trampled by the nations until the gentile times are fulfilled.
— luke 21:24 .
the bible book of luke records jesus prophecy of the last day with his parousia including the verse about the gentile times.
So, the "times of the Gentiles" start in 70 CE
How could that be since Jerusalem had been under Gentile rule since the destruction of the first Temple. So therefore the Gentle times had to begin when Jerusalem lost its sovereignty and the Jews were subjugated. Even after the restoration, Gentiles ruled Jerusalem, from Babylon to Rome and beyond so the trampling must have begun in the past and Jesus must have been referring to the completion. The nature of grammar is that another meaning is possible, but trampling beginning in the future doesn’t make sense for the reasons I explained.
Interestimgly, Jehoiakim was appoimted king of Judah by Nebuchanezzar in Babylon during the deportation so technically he was the last king of Judah but purely a mockery and totally insignificant and meaningless . A king over nobody.
jerusalem will be trampled by the nations until the gentile times are fulfilled.
— luke 21:24 .
the bible book of luke records jesus prophecy of the last day with his parousia including the verse about the gentile times.
The grammar in Luke indicates a period that hadn’t started yet in Jesus’ time.
I disagree. The wording even in English describes an action already started that has not been completed. The wording can also be used to describe action with a future beginning but that is not the case here as I explained in my OP.
i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
Grammar whether Hebrew or English
Daniel 9:2 — 2 in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of years mentioned in the word of Jehovah to Jeremiah the prophet to fulfill the desolation of Jerusalem, namely, 70 years.
