Posts by Jeffro

43

607 vs 587 BC - Cyrus Cylinder

by objectivetruth in

hi everyone,.

i'm researching 587 vs 607 for the date of the destruction of jerusalem... i'm not doing the research to prove or disprove anything about 1914, rather i'm looking at these dates in comparison to 1948 & 1967.. what is your view on relying on the cyrus cylinder, to accept 607 as the correct date of destruction... i know that there are many other factors.. but i'm trying to keep this portion of my research as simple as possible, so i'm primarily interested in the appropriateness of using the cylinders date of 537 + 70 = 607. one other question.. is it likely that both dates 587 & 607 have their own significance?.

Jeffro

TD:

I hate to be the fly in the punch bowl here (Because I think 607 BC is hogwash) but Luke 21:24 is actually a text book example of what is called the periphrastic progressive. (Present participle + Future form of to be)

The conclusion that this verse indicates a present continuing action (a misrepresentation of Ernest De Witt Burton, whom the site you provided copied verbatim) seems to have fairly limited support, and seems more like it is being shoehorned into that grammatical construction to suit preconceived doctrines. In fact, searching Google for "periphrastic progressive "luke 21:24" -burton" (i.e. excluding "Burton") only returns eight results, some of which are still in reference to Burton (such as the one at www.dabar.org/burtonmoodstenses/08-future_ind.htm, which also quotes Burton verbatim), and some are on JW forum discussions about the verse.

In fact, the interpolated "[continue to]" isn't even directly relevant to the grammatical form discussed. Burton states that "The force is that of a Progressive Future", indicating that something will happen in the future and it will then keep happening. This is very clearly shown by the other example Burton provides:

Luke 5:10; ἀνθρώπους ἔσῃ ζωγρῶν, thou shalt catch men, i.e. shalt be a catcher of men.

James and John were not already 'catching men'. It was a future action that would then continue. It therefore appears that it isn't even Burton's intent to say that this grammatical form is the reason for the insertion of 'continue to', and that it is only there because of an incidental interpretation that the Jews already being under Roman rule was the same as the 'trampling'.

43

607 vs 587 BC - Cyrus Cylinder

by objectivetruth in

hi everyone,.

i'm researching 587 vs 607 for the date of the destruction of jerusalem... i'm not doing the research to prove or disprove anything about 1914, rather i'm looking at these dates in comparison to 1948 & 1967.. what is your view on relying on the cyrus cylinder, to accept 607 as the correct date of destruction... i know that there are many other factors.. but i'm trying to keep this portion of my research as simple as possible, so i'm primarily interested in the appropriateness of using the cylinders date of 537 + 70 = 607. one other question.. is it likely that both dates 587 & 607 have their own significance?.

Jeffro

AnnOMaly:

Yes, a link to your discussion on it would be useful to anyone who wants to pursue this further. Hope you find it. :-)

All I can find is this link: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/245680/2/what-ever-happened-to-the-king-of-the-north-and-king-of-south#4646961, which only covers up to verse 39.

I have written more covering right up to verse 45 before and with more detail, but I'm pretty sure it was on the short-lived JWS forum (the now-dead links were at: http://www.jwsupportforum.com/index.php?topic=10300.msg158703 and http://www.jwsupportforum.com/index.php?topic=10300.msg158057). (I should have saved a copy locally. )

In brief, the remaining verses (40-45) have Antiochus Epiphanes IV 'disturbed' by 'reports out of the east and out of the north' about Parthians, and went to attack them while he sent others to deal with the Maccabees. But he then dies of a disease, with 'no helper for him'.

transhuman68:

AnnOMaly is correct. Daniel and Revelation are both apocalypses- that is their literary genre. They are open-ended to the future, pointing to an imagined time when persecution has ended and life is better. But that is the problem- how much further in the future did the writers mean?

More accurately, chapter 12 of Daniel presents the 'future' 'imagined time when persecution has ended and life is better'. The entirety of chapter 11 can be correlated with events up to the Maccabean period.

43

607 vs 587 BC - Cyrus Cylinder

by objectivetruth in

hi everyone,.

i'm researching 587 vs 607 for the date of the destruction of jerusalem... i'm not doing the research to prove or disprove anything about 1914, rather i'm looking at these dates in comparison to 1948 & 1967.. what is your view on relying on the cyrus cylinder, to accept 607 as the correct date of destruction... i know that there are many other factors.. but i'm trying to keep this portion of my research as simple as possible, so i'm primarily interested in the appropriateness of using the cylinders date of 537 + 70 = 607. one other question.. is it likely that both dates 587 & 607 have their own significance?.

Jeffro

objectivetruth:

rather I'm looking at these dates in comparison to 1948 & 1967

What is your basis for attempting to link any event during the Neo-Babylonian period with any event during the 20th century?

If you're basing it on the '2520 years' - a flawed inconsistent superstitious numerological contrivance - then it's a waste of time.

43

607 vs 587 BC - Cyrus Cylinder

by objectivetruth in

hi everyone,.

i'm researching 587 vs 607 for the date of the destruction of jerusalem... i'm not doing the research to prove or disprove anything about 1914, rather i'm looking at these dates in comparison to 1948 & 1967.. what is your view on relying on the cyrus cylinder, to accept 607 as the correct date of destruction... i know that there are many other factors.. but i'm trying to keep this portion of my research as simple as possible, so i'm primarily interested in the appropriateness of using the cylinders date of 537 + 70 = 607. one other question.. is it likely that both dates 587 & 607 have their own significance?.

Jeffro

For more detail about how 607 is not biblically supported, see my 607 for Beginners page.

43

607 vs 587 BC - Cyrus Cylinder

by objectivetruth in

hi everyone,.

i'm researching 587 vs 607 for the date of the destruction of jerusalem... i'm not doing the research to prove or disprove anything about 1914, rather i'm looking at these dates in comparison to 1948 & 1967.. what is your view on relying on the cyrus cylinder, to accept 607 as the correct date of destruction... i know that there are many other factors.. but i'm trying to keep this portion of my research as simple as possible, so i'm primarily interested in the appropriateness of using the cylinders date of 537 + 70 = 607. one other question.. is it likely that both dates 587 & 607 have their own significance?.

Jeffro

AnnOMaly:

Dan. 11:36 onward is understood to refer to the distant future.

Only by irrational people.

Right up to verse 45 is in relation to Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

I have posted more detail about this in the past. Once I find it, I'll provide a link. But I fear it was on the defunct JW Support forum.

55

THE GRAND APOSTATE "WALKOUT" - January 1, 2015

by RagingBull in

jw
friends

after knowing ttatt for many years now...i had made up my mind long ago that after 2014, i would no-longer subject myself to the boredom, pain, and frustration of following this cult...the wt...the borg.. so...i made up my mind that since the wtbts/gb makes such a big deal as to the "significance" of the year 1914 and this year 2014, there can be no greater time for me to leave it all behind.

i daydreamed of how awesome and telling it would be if everyone that could ( because i do know that some have personal circumstances of their own, as i did too) would just .... walkout...never to attend/step foot in a kingdom hall from that moment on.. independence day of sorts?

there is too much evidence, too many videos, blogs, books, news reports and lawsuits for me to keep lying to myself.

Jeffro

RagingBull:

JANUARY 1st, 2015

October 1, 1914 would be more in line with JW magical thinking.

29

How many did NOT get invited to the Memorial?

by Ding in

i didn't.. i must really be wicked....

Jeffro

There was some low-grade Watch Tower Society paper in my mailbox a few days ago. I guess it was probably a Memorial invitation. Didn't read it.

27

144000 Literal or Figurative?

by why144000 in

jw
friends

the speaker at the memorial tonight stated straight up that the 144,000 is a literal number as we will stop celebrating the memorial when jesus 'arrives' and takes the few remnant with him.

how can the society change the 144,000 to figurative without blowing themselves out of the water?.

Jeffro

144000 Literal or Figurative?

No. And no. It's imaginary.

How can the society change the 144,000 to figurative without blowing themselves out of the water?

They won't (or at least, they don't need to). They already claim that 'partakers' may be suffering from "mental or emotional imbalance", so (as usual), they see no need for any rational explanation.

13

The great flood happened about 13,000 years ago....

by EndofMysteries in

i just learned this information the past couple of days but it seems it's been out the past couple of years.

many many articles about some asteroid/meteor event about 13,000 years ago.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-03/space-rock-impact-could-have-caused-ancient-cooldown-new-evidence-says.

Jeffro

EndOfMysteries:

The great flood happened about 13,000 years ago....

No. It didn't. There is no reason at all to attempt to correlate any potentially remotely (very remotely) similar event to the bronze age 'Noah' myth.

16

Apostate NT Canon

by Pterist in

jw
friends

as mentioned in july 15th 2013 watchtower "the apostasy started in the first century and flourished by the fourth century" or words to that effect.. as i was reading ff bruce's "the bible canon" ($14 kindle ver.

on amazon) i was very surprised to read that there are no original nt documents from the first century, just copies of copies of copies of many documents from that period.

apparently the 27 book nt canon was not set until about the fourth century by trinitarian church fathers.

Jeffro

It's a perfectly valid question, and one for which the Watch Tower Society will never provide an answer (beyond something stupid like 'Jehovah did a magic thing to protect it').