Posts by Jeffro

282

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside in

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 .

Jeffro

🤦‍♂️ fallacy: argument from popular opinion, also a straw man argument

282

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside in

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 .

Jeffro

‘scholar’:

According to Open AI the date 586 triumphs over 587

🤦‍♂️ Aggregated data doesn’t actually make AI results magical. The reasons for various sources saying 586 is more traditional than factual, ultimately based on outdated (pre-1950s) assumptions about the years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. 587 is definitely the correct year.

282

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside in

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 .

Jeffro

‘scholar’:

Nonsense. Jer.52: 28 refers to the first deportation and not the 2nd deportation of Jews in Neb's 7th year in agreement with BM 21946.
Jer. 52:29 refers to a later deportation of Jews or second deportation of Jews in Neb's 18th year which formed part of Neb's final siege of Jerusalem ending in 607 BCE
This means rather than there being three deportations of Jews taken into Exile according to COJ there were only two deportations of Jews into Exile according to the Biblical record of 2 Ki.24.

How can you be so completely wrong at every turn? 😂 Firstly, yes verse 28 refers to the first deportation and 29 refers to the second, which is plainly stated in the passage. 🤦‍♂️ And, as I correctly stated, these verses confirm the placement of the end of the second siege relative to the first. 🙄 Secondly, 607 is hopelessly wrong no matter how many times you say it, as clearly evidenced by the fact that there are contemporary records for every single year, explicitly including every transition of the known kings. Thirdly, BM 21946 confirms that Nebuchadnezzar collected tributes throughout Palestine in early 604BCE, which could have included captives (though because Daniel is fictitious it isn’t strictly necessary that captives were included). Fourthly, though it isn’t strictly necessary that there was a ‘deportation’ in Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year, Jeremiah 52:30 does indicate a later third deportation in 582 BCE so you’re wrong anyway. 😂

282

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside in

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 .

Jeffro

Poor ‘scholar’. Always on the back foot and spouting unsupported drivel.

282

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside in

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 .

Jeffro

Phizzy:

I would suggest it doesn't have any indirect basis either.

Well, yeah. It is only ‘based on the Bible’ in the most superficial sense. In reality, their ‘reasoning’ is a jumbled mess of unrelated passages without regard to the actual context of any of them.

282

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside in

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 .

Jeffro

🤦‍♂️

1914 is just one of many dates proposed by Adventists following the great disappointment. It is complete nonsense, and the convoluted selection of ‘2520 years’ doesn’t even have any direct biblical basis.

282

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside in

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 .

Jeffro

‘scholar’:

The problem with your opinion and charts comes down to Methodology and that has now been recognized by Chronologists such as Rodger Young who first introduced the term into scholarly journals in his advocacy of 587 BCE by means of the use of Decision Tables Analysis. But again Young fails to account for the Jewish Exile even though he has produced studies on the Jewish Sabbaths and Jubille.

Irrelevant misdirection. Though Young’s method is sound, BM21946 definitively identifies the placement of the first siege relative to Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. Jeremiah 52:28-29 definitively identifies the placement of the final siege relative to the first siege.

The period of 49 years from the destruction of Jerusalem until the Jews’ return does indeed fit very well with the concept of jubilee years and paying off sabbaths from Leviticus though.

282

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside in

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 .

Jeffro

‘scholar’:

The jokes on you as you do not recognize the fact of the Jewish Exile of 70 years which falsifies your laughable 587 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem

😂 Yes, the “jokes” is ‘on me’ and the entire scholarly community because a minor Adventist sect insists on an alternative date for a historical event 🤦‍♂️. This is called delusion.

And let’s not pretend that there is any source mentioning 70 years of exile. The Jews were exiled from early 597BCE and some returned in 538 BCE. Many never left Babylon at all.

282

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside in

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 .

Jeffro

‘scholar’:

Not so for the Bible clearly indicates the Parousia beginning with the king's arrival must precede the Great Tribulation as shown by means of the successive events described in the Olivet Discourse.

Poor deluded ‘scholar’. Just another example of the fact that JWs don’t really care what the Bible actually says where it disagrees with their doctrines.

Matthew 24:21, 26–27, 29–30: for then there will be great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world’s beginning until now, no, nor will occur again. ... 26 Therefore, if people say to you, ‘Look! He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; ‘Look! He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For just as the lightning comes out of the east and shines over to the west, so the presence of the Son of man will be. ... 29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Mark 13:19, 24–26: for those days will be days of a tribulation such as has not occurred from the beginning of the creation that God created until that time, and will not occur again. ... 24 “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, 25 and the stars will be falling out of heaven, and the powers that are in the heavens will be shaken. 26 And then they will see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

282

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside in

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 .

Jeffro

Can you imagine if JWs did abandon 1914 though. Poor old dupes like ‘scholar’ would have to start saying 1914 and 607 BCE never actually made any sense. It would be hilarious.