Posts by Jeffro

32

Date of Adam's "Creation?

by Slidin Fast in

how do jws resolve these conflicting facts.. 1. no matter how you spin it, bible chronology calculates to circa 4000 bc for adam's creation.

i followed the trail many years ago and that's what it adds up to.. 2. the most cursory investigation of any branch of relevant science puts man's habitation on the earth as hugely earlier than that.

it's now so well-proved that anyone disputing it is guilty of wilful ignorance.

Jeffro

Simon:

the WTS are young-earth creationists wether they like it or not

They are day-age creationists.

Though they have stepped away from directly stating that the 'creative days' were 7,000 years each, they still never say the 'days' were millions or billions or years, only ever saying that all the 'creative days' together may have been "many thousands" of years (though Insight says "at least thousands"), and they have never expressly stated that the 'creative days' were not 7,000 years each. (Though they allow for the period between 'the beginning' and the 'first day' to be millions or billions of years.)

32

Date of Adam's "Creation?

by Slidin Fast in

how do jws resolve these conflicting facts.. 1. no matter how you spin it, bible chronology calculates to circa 4000 bc for adam's creation.

i followed the trail many years ago and that's what it adds up to.. 2. the most cursory investigation of any branch of relevant science puts man's habitation on the earth as hugely earlier than that.

it's now so well-proved that anyone disputing it is guilty of wilful ignorance.

Jeffro

truthlover123:

If Adam was "made" outside the garden as it indicates, the instance when he was placed in the garden would be the start of the creation date, would it not?

No. Obviously it’s a fictitious creation myth. But in the context of the story, Adam’s age at death is unambiguously stated, and not derived from his stated location at any particular time. Your suggestion would fall in the category of fan-fiction.

540

Simple Question Re 1914

by Slidin Fast in

wt claims that satan was thrown out of heaven in october 1914 precipitating ww!

and the end times.

a small problem with that is ww1 started on july 28th 1914 whilst satan was still in heaven picking his nose.. how did we not see this and waste years of precious life?

Jeffro

Fisherman:

In other words:
37For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be.38For as they were in those days BEFORE the Flood...

You seem to be attempting to associate the 'flood' in the analogy with the 'tribulation'. If that is your aim, you are plainly wrong. The events described are explicitly described as being after the tribulation, and the 'flood' as used there is analogous to the 'gathering (or what some call the 'rapture') of the chosen ones' who have already been through the 'tribulation' (which would be 'cut short on their account'). The order of the purported events in Matthew 24:29-42 is quite clear. Matthew 24:40-41 in particular confirms that the 'presence' is not some protracted period incorporating events leading up to the tribulation, or the tribulation itself. The period leading up to the presence is directly analogous to the period leading up to the flood, and the 'presence' is analogous to the unexpected arrival of the 'flood' itself.

But on the day that Lot went out of Sodʹom, it rained fire and sulfur from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 It will be the same on that day when the Son of man is REVEALED.

The word rendered 'revealed' is not linguistically associated with 'parousia' at all. However, in context, the verse reflects the 'sign of Jesus' presence' that Matthew explicitly describes as appearing after the tribulation.

540

Simple Question Re 1914

by Slidin Fast in

wt claims that satan was thrown out of heaven in october 1914 precipitating ww!

and the end times.

a small problem with that is ww1 started on july 28th 1914 whilst satan was still in heaven picking his nose.. how did we not see this and waste years of precious life?

Jeffro

Fisherman:

The sign of the parousia ironically includes the sign of the son of man seen by the enemies when it is too late.

No. "The sign of the parousia" is "the sign of the son of man", it doesn't merely 'include' it. You are conflating the response to the initial question 'when will these things be' with the response about the 'presence'. Jesus' response indicating the 'parousia' (Strong's G3952), which includes the 'gathering of the chosen ones', is only mentioned in connection with the sign that would appear after the 'tribulation' had ended. No part of the events leading up to the 'triublation' are described as Jesus' 'parousia'. In Jesus' response (in Matthew chapter 24), the word 'parousia' appears only in verses 27, 37 and 39; it doesn't appear at all in the other 'gospels'.

540

Simple Question Re 1914

by Slidin Fast in

wt claims that satan was thrown out of heaven in october 1914 precipitating ww!

and the end times.

a small problem with that is ww1 started on july 28th 1914 whilst satan was still in heaven picking his nose.. how did we not see this and waste years of precious life?

Jeffro

Fisherman:

The text describes the sign of the son of man before and after the tribulation begins.

Entirely and unambiguously incorrect. The 'sign of the Son of man' is explicitly described as appearing only after the 'tribulation' has ended. Earlier events (as a preamble to the 'tribulation') that you are conflating with the 'sign of the Son of man' are explicitly described as an indication that "he is near", not that his 'presence' had already begun.

540

Simple Question Re 1914

by Slidin Fast in

wt claims that satan was thrown out of heaven in october 1914 precipitating ww!

and the end times.

a small problem with that is ww1 started on july 28th 1914 whilst satan was still in heaven picking his nose.. how did we not see this and waste years of precious life?

Jeffro

'scholar':

The structure of the narrative as recorded in the Olivet Discourse shows that the timing of the Great Tribulation is associated with the ;chosen ones'

That is 'word salad'. It isn't the 'structure of the narrative' that 'shows the timing'. The direct statements in Matthew 24:15-31 indicate the 'timing'. Regarding the 'chosen ones', the passage directly states that the 'tribulation' would be 'cut short' on account of the 'chosen ones', and only after the tribulation had ended was 'Christ' meant to appear to 'gather' the 'chosen ones'. No part of the 'structure' suggests the 'presence' of Christ prior to or even during the 'tribulation'.

The JW claim that Jesus' presence began in 1914 with a yet future 'great tribulation' contradicts the Bible's quite direct order of events: 'great tribulation', and then Christ's presence. Their view is a relic of C. T. Russell's failed claims about 1799, 1874 and 1878 and J. F. Rutherford's subsequent attempts to retrofit those claims to 1914 and beyond.

540

Simple Question Re 1914

by Slidin Fast in

wt claims that satan was thrown out of heaven in october 1914 precipitating ww!

and the end times.

a small problem with that is ww1 started on july 28th 1914 whilst satan was still in heaven picking his nose.. how did we not see this and waste years of precious life?

Jeffro

'scholar':

Too easy. The structure of the narrative as recorded in the Olivet Discourse shows that the timing of the Great Tribulation is associated with the ;chosen ones' so it would appear that such an activity including that there would be false prophets that would attempt to mislead those same chosen ones would occur not at the beginning of the Parousia but rather towards the end of the Parousia.

Nope. No Bible citations to be found there. You have provided speculative commentary about an interpretation that contradicts the plain reading of the relevant scriptures.

What the Bible does say is that the "false prophets" (for which you are a fine allegory) would be claiming that 'Christ' would appear before the end of the 'tribulation', whereas Jesus is quoted as explicitly saying his 'presence' would be after the tribulation. (Matthew 24:15-31; Mark 13:14-27).

540

Simple Question Re 1914

by Slidin Fast in

wt claims that satan was thrown out of heaven in october 1914 precipitating ww!

and the end times.

a small problem with that is ww1 started on july 28th 1914 whilst satan was still in heaven picking his nose.. how did we not see this and waste years of precious life?

Jeffro

‘scholar’:

Each one of the Synoptics show the following pericope that immediately after those events that there would be celestial events accompanying the appearance of the Son of Man which clearly did not occur in the first century with the events at the time of Jerusalem's destruction.

The fact that some things they expected to happen didn’t happen isn’t evidence that it will happen at a later time. They were just wrong.

It’s also amusing that you recognise that the ‘celestial’ signs were supposed to happen after the ‘tribulation’ but ignore the fact that Jesus’ presence is supposed to happen after those ‘signs’.

540

Simple Question Re 1914

by Slidin Fast in

wt claims that satan was thrown out of heaven in october 1914 precipitating ww!

and the end times.

a small problem with that is ww1 started on july 28th 1914 whilst satan was still in heaven picking his nose.. how did we not see this and waste years of precious life?

Jeffro

‘scholar’:

Your little summaries contain nonsense for such are easily refuted. LOL!!

Thanks for the irrelevant baseless assertion (I wonder if he even realises that something isn't actually refuted just by claiming it can be). Anyway, since you’re so confident, provide scriptural backing for the JW notion that the ‘great tribulation’ occurs after Jesus’ presence begins. Of course this is just one example of the many problems, but it will do for now.

32

Date of Adam's "Creation?

by Slidin Fast in

how do jws resolve these conflicting facts.. 1. no matter how you spin it, bible chronology calculates to circa 4000 bc for adam's creation.

i followed the trail many years ago and that's what it adds up to.. 2. the most cursory investigation of any branch of relevant science puts man's habitation on the earth as hugely earlier than that.

it's now so well-proved that anyone disputing it is guilty of wilful ignorance.

Jeffro

Disillusioned JW:

Wouldn't what you said make the flood stories inconsistent with (not compatible with) the facts pertaining to evolution

Yes, it was an elaboration, not a disagreement.

There is strong evidence that a local flood caused by a rise of the Black Sea was the basis for the flood story which from which the flood stories of Genesis derived from.

The fact that local floods occur in various places or that people make up stories about them is entirely mundane. The Genesis flood myth was derived from a Babylonian myth which was itself derived from an earlier Sumerian myth, most likely based on a local flood in Mesopotamia. It is unlikely the original core is from a flood from the Black Sea, but possible and entirely unremarkable that details of a later flood from that area were incorporated into the later story.