It's pretty funny how billythekid46 claims that he has researched the subject of 607 for 'many years', yet apart from a copy-and-paste of someone else's work, he has presented zero research, and instead resorted to insulting everyone else who disagrees with his unstated opinions.
Posts by Jeffro
-
122Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know
by Skeptical78 ini recently became aware of the new light.
please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?
.
-
-
-
122
Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know
by Skeptical78 ini recently became aware of the new light.
please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?
.
-
-
Jeffro
billythekid46:
Please people get new material.
I already have correct material. Why would I need something different?
The apostate writings of Raymond Franz, Carl Olof Jonsson, W.T. Stevenson and others are old, like Russell, and Rutherford.
I see you still cling to the JW's pejorative and incorrect use of the word 'apostate'.
I have not read any books written by Franz, Jonsson, Stevenson or any other so-called 'apostates'. (I have read Jonsson's online reponse to the Watch Tower Society's 2011 attempt to defend 607, but not before writing my own response.)
-
122
Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know
by Skeptical78 ini recently became aware of the new light.
please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?
.
-
-
Jeffro
MissMyHarley:
Billythekid46 and Jeffro- Way to scare the hell out of someone new and hyjack a simple question thread.
I have done nothing wrong by pointing out Billythekid46's lies.
There hasn't actually been any recent 'new light' about 1914. This has already been answered early in the thread by myself and others.
The 'new light' most likely alluded to is more about 1918-1919.
-
122
Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know
by Skeptical78 ini recently became aware of the new light.
please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?
.
-
-
Jeffro
billythekid46:
So then, people should just trust in fools like you Jeffro, your god now, your that perfect human being to enlighten the world with being the false prophet?
Unable to actually provide any facts, he resorts to childish insults based on nothing.
And it's you're, not your.
-
122
Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know
by Skeptical78 ini recently became aware of the new light.
please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?
.
-
-
Jeffro
Your lengthy rant has absolutely no information in support of your claims about when the Bible Students abandoned their beliefs about 1874 and 1878, and I've already provided specific details in this thread about when they were abandoned. You try to focus a great deal on Russell's split with Barbour, as a result of some changes in Russell's views. However, it has absolutely no bearing on the Bible Student's beliefs about 1914 after the split.
-
122
Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know
by Skeptical78 ini recently became aware of the new light.
please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?
.
-
-
Jeffro
Jeffro, isn't billy mixing up Storrs with Barbour too? It's hard to get the sense of what he was saying.
He also mixed up Barbour with Russell earlier in this thread too (when he claimed, "1878 was under Barbour bible students that later became Jehovah Witness under Rutherford"). In fact, his claims about when their beliefs about 1874 and 1878 were abandonded were out by a few decades.
I really don't think he knows much of the actual history at all.
-
122
Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know
by Skeptical78 ini recently became aware of the new light.
please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?
.
-
-
Jeffro
billythekid46:
Thank you to nswer *truwj* 1799 theory that was tied to Miller not the bible students,
Wrong again. I already stated quite clearly in this thread that '1799' was maintained by the 'Bible Students' until 1929.
just like the false application that people have about 1914, that people believe the WT predicated the end of the world in 1914
And... wrong again. The Watch Tower Society quite definitely claimed prior to 1914 that Armageddon would happen in 1914 as the conclusion of the 'time of trouble'.
Zion’s Watch Tower, 15 July 1894, page 226:
But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble.
Studies in the Scriptures Volume III (Thy Kingdom Come) (1911 edition), page 239:
Our Lord’s presence as Bridegroom and Reaper was recognized during the first three and a half years, from A. D. 1874 to A. D. 1878. … The year A. D. 1878, … clearly marks the time for the actual assuming of power as King of kings, by our present, spiritual, invisible Lord—the time of his taking to himself his great power to reign, which in the prophecy is closely associated with the resurrection of his faithful, and the beginning of the trouble and wrath upon the nations.
The Watch Tower, 15 May 1911, page 146:
Our readers know that for some years we have been expecting this Age to close with an awful time of trouble, and we expect it to break out with suddenness and force not long after October, 1914.
-
122
Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know
by Skeptical78 ini recently became aware of the new light.
please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?
.
-
-
Jeffro
billythekid46:
First off, I stated in my first post that the WT is NOT THE ONLY RELIGION that accepts the 1914 rendering of events.
You have not established that at all. Though you found a Protestant source that indicates some event in 607 (unsurprising since JWs derive their chronology from Protestantism via Adventism, with later adjustments), the Protestant source you quote associates an entirely different event to 607, and makes no statement about 1914 whatsoever.
*Jeffro* assumed that was my research when it was not
Yet earlier, he said:
My research was as you put it done from scratch with countless years of research and I didn’t reply on anyone’s interpretation
I suppose it was rather naive of me to conclude from your statement - that you researched something from scratch - would mean that what you would post about the subject - without any citation - would be your research. I certainly won't make that mistake again.
-
122
Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know
by Skeptical78 ini recently became aware of the new light.
please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?
.
-
-
Jeffro
I've just noticed that billythekid46 pasted the same material on a thread 9 days ago. It is a copy-and-paste from http://www.berenddeboer.net/sab/dan/1.html.
Being based on Ussher, it's a standard Protestant view. It is entirely unsurprising that it bears some similarity to the JW view that 607 must be 'special', because the Watch Tower Society got its initial biblical chronology from Ussher, including the false view that Jewish exile ended in 537 and that it lasted for 70 years—a distortion of what the Bible actually says about the 70 years.
However, the Protestant 'biblical chronology' does not go on to attach the numerological superstitions regarding 1914 as used by the Watch Tower Society.
-
122
Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know
by Skeptical78 ini recently became aware of the new light.
please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?
.
-
-
Jeffro
jwfacts:
Then in a stroke of contradiction, you claim you cannot trust them over a period of 20 years.
In fairness, billythekid46 isn't relying on the same 'twenty-year gap' that the Watch Tower Society asserts. Instead, billythekid46 tries to shoehorn a different event for 607 in order to use it as the same starting point used by the Watch Tower Society for a completely bogus numerological superstiton about 1914. In effect, billythekid46 asserts a two-year gap (607-605) during the Neo-Babylonian period instead, however, as already indicated previously in this thread, he's quite wrong.