Anyone have questions about the drivel from 'scholar'? Happy to answer any questions, but I've grown bored of going in circles with direct responses for now. I'll be checking in periodically for any requests for rebuttal or clarification from rational contributors.
Posts by Jeffro
-
178Interesting Find with Chronology
by Kelley959 ini hope this is in the right area.
i've been studying the 2520 days/years 607/587/586 debacle.
for a while now i have felt 1914 was wrong.
-
-
-
178
Interesting Find with Chronology
by Kelley959 ini hope this is in the right area.
i've been studying the 2520 days/years 607/587/586 debacle.
for a while now i have felt 1914 was wrong.
-
-
Jeffro
scholar:
This statement is problematic because nowhere in the Bible is the Fall of Assyria associated with the 70 years and that is why many scholars date the 70 years from Neb's reign which began according to their reckoning in 605/604 BCE so this latter date would be a better fit than 609 BCE which historically is a 'fuzzy date. The difficulty is that scholars cannot agree as to the 'beginning' of the 70 years as no definitive date can be assigned. The date 609 BCE meets the arithmetic; 609 BCE - 70 years = 539 BCE or alternatively, 605 BCE - 70 years=535 BCE not the posited date of 539 BCE. BIG POBLEM HERE !!!!!!
'Oh no... something actually fits the Bible's description of Babylon's 70 years... quick, replace it with an obviously flawed straw man argument.' đ¤Ł
Incorrect: The jews could not have returned in 538 BCE because they were still travelling or had not then left so it must have been in 537 BCE having already resettled in their cities by the seventh month in 537 BCE.- Ezra 3:1. Josephus agrees with WT scholars that the 70 years ended with the Decree of Cyrus which led to the end of the Exile and the 70 years and not the fall of Babylon previously..
Nope, wrong again. There were 6 months between Cyrus' accession until arriving in October. Plenty of time for arranging provisions and making the four-month trip. Your assertion that "they were still travelling or had not then left" is based on absolutely nothing. There are no 'WT scholars', and Josephus states that the temple construction began in Cyrus' second year, which is not compatible with the Watch Tower Society's claims.
-
178
Interesting Find with Chronology
by Kelley959 ini hope this is in the right area.
i've been studying the 2520 days/years 607/587/586 debacle.
for a while now i have felt 1914 was wrong.
-
-
Jeffro
scholar:
Nonsense: If this is really the case then you should be able to tabulate historically when each of those nations served Babylon.
Yes, you're right - that is nonsense. Ironically, the Watch Tower Society actually put it best on this one in Isaiah's Prophecy, volume 1, page 253:
Of course, it would be a fallactious argument from silence to assert that 70 years can only be applied to Judah because specific periods of desolation are not known for every nation (or any particular subset) that was subject to Babylon.True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babyloniaâs greatest dominationâwhen the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above âthe stars of God.â (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble.
-
178
Interesting Find with Chronology
by Kelley959 ini hope this is in the right area.
i've been studying the 2520 days/years 607/587/586 debacle.
for a while now i have felt 1914 was wrong.
-
-
Jeffro
The âgenerationâ in question (being the typical definition of a âgenerationâ) was indeed from Jesusâ time until the âgreat tribulationâ. The âgreat tribulationâ was the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE which immediately followed the âtrampling of Jerusalemâ from 66 CE to 70 CE (3.5 times, 42 months, 1260 days) -
20
It took a lot of lies, ignorance and corruption to create CHURCHIANITY!
by TruthMatters inhave you gone back to that- or lost you faith because of 'brothers'?.
-
-
Jeffro
Haha, yep, quietly ignore obvious flaws in JW interpretations and just create another thread. đ
-
56
Most of you KNOW it that we witnesses have the Truth from the Bible
by TruthMatters init just that the gb has a problem mixing biblical fact with goofy opinions.. but at least is isn't like the churces!.
.
-
-
Jeffro
No. đ¤Śââď¸ Iâm saying that whatever it is (if it exists at all) it isnât âGodâs powerâ.
Itâs so hard for some people when things go off-script. đ
-
56
Most of you KNOW it that we witnesses have the Truth from the Bible
by TruthMatters init just that the gb has a problem mixing biblical fact with goofy opinions.. but at least is isn't like the churces!.
.
-
-
Jeffro
What are you on about? đ As expected, youâre completely ignoring the fundamental problem I pointed out with the JW interpretation of the âholy spiritâ. Nothing to do with âprivate thoughtsâ.
-
56
Most of you KNOW it that we witnesses have the Truth from the Bible
by TruthMatters init just that the gb has a problem mixing biblical fact with goofy opinions.. but at least is isn't like the churces!.
.
-
-
Jeffro
You mean there were Christians who had never heard of Godâs power? đ
-
56
Most of you KNOW it that we witnesses have the Truth from the Bible
by TruthMatters init just that the gb has a problem mixing biblical fact with goofy opinions.. but at least is isn't like the churces!.
.
-
-
Jeffro
Haha... so what's the holy spirit again? Just the application of God's power?
Acts 19:2:
and said to them: âDid you receive holy spirit when you became believers?â They replied to him: âWhy, we have never heard that there is a holy spirit.â
2 Corinthians 6:6, 7:
by purity, by knowledge, by patience, by kindness, by holy spirit, by love free from hypocrisy, 7âŻby truthful speech, by Godâs power; through the weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left,
Oops. Let the word-mincing begin. đ¤Ł
-
178
Interesting Find with Chronology
by Kelley959 ini hope this is in the right area.
i've been studying the 2520 days/years 607/587/586 debacle.
for a while now i have felt 1914 was wrong.
-
-
Jeffro
Rattigan350:
Jehoikim was king for 11 years starting around610. ... The 3rd year of Jehoiakim was 607 That started the 70 years of captivity that ended in 537.
Not quite. 2 Kings 23:36 gives Jehoiakim's reign as 11 years (counting his accession year), and we know his last year was 598 BCE. So his 3rd year using Nisan-based dating (not counting his accession year per the Babylonian and subsequent custom) was 605 BCE (up until early 604 BCE prior to Nisan), which is when Nebuchadnezzar returned to the area to demand tribute after he claimed the throne.
The 70 years (of nations serving Babylon, not Jewish exile) ran from Babylon's conquest of Assyria in 609 BCE (conquest of Haran following the earlier conquest of Nineveh in 612) until Cyrus' conquest of Babylon in 539 BCE.The Jews returned in 538 BCE, not 537. This was during the first year of Cyrus with temple construction beginning in 537, as confirmed by Josephus.
And that would end in 1914 when Jesus would be sovereign king on Jehovah's throne in heavenly Jerusalem.
Entirely wrong. 1914 is based on superstitious nonsense and nothing more (and the fact that something was 'supposed' to happen suddenly in or after October of 1914 is generally ignored by JWs and they just focus on the fact that 'something' significant happened in that year). The context of Luke 21:24 refers to a period that had not started in Jesus' time, and the duration of the 'appointed times of the nations' (when Jerusalem was 'trampled') is identified in Revelation as 3.5 times, 42 months and 1260 days, all being 3.5 years, and refers to the period from the Roman response to the Jewish revolt in 66 CE culminating in Jerusalem's destruction in 70 CE.