scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
Fisherman:
Non JW are always telling me what I should do to be a JW.
Poor you. đ JWs tell people not only what they should do to be a JW, but also that anyone who doesnât become a JW will die at Armageddon (âsoonâ), though they are less than honest about telling people that on initial contact.
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
Yeah, bored now.
(The conspiracy theorist now seeks to ânormaliseâ the conspiracy by temporarily leaving out the religious superstition, to be roped back in later if one chooses to go down the rabbit hole.)
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
âscholarâ:
Which of the two 'word salads' is the better? The said scholar' or Geoffreys'?
Itâs hard to say which was âbetterâ. Your wordy gibberish wasnât overtly dishonest like Jacksonâs, so thatâs something I guess. But youâre very frequently dishonest on this forum, so donât think youâre in the lead or anything.
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
Good grief. đ¤Śââď¸ Itâs funny how the people who claim to respect the Bible the most pay the least attention to the actual intent of the authors, including the historical and cultural context at the time of writing.
Instead, they are desperate for it to have some âhidden meaningâ for now and into the future. Whether itâs Jorden and his UN conspiracy (and no, that doesnât mean I think the UN and governments are made of rainbows and puppies), or âscholarâ and Fishermanâs Adventist end-times beliefs.
They either pepper quotations of scripture with interpolations of what the passages âreallyâ mean (e.g., â[UN]â), or refuse to quote the evasive scriptures that supposedly support their views (e.g., â70 years of exileâ).
It makes people feel good to think they have âinsiderâ knowledge that only their special group can âdiscernâ from abstruse passages of ancient texts, but it remains a fantasy.
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
Jorden:
[Daniel 8:23 âAnd in the final part of their kingdom, as the transgressors act to a completion, there will stand up a king fierce in countenance and understanding ambiguous sayings. 24 And his power must become mighty, but not by his own power. And in a wonderful way he will cause ruin, and he will certainly prove successful and do effectively. And he will actually bring mighty ones to ruin, also the people made up of the holy ones.
Daniel 8:23 refers to actions by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 168BCE.
[Revelation 17:11 And the wild beastâŚit is also itself an eighth king...13 These have one thought, and so they give their power and authority to the wild beast.]
Revelation 17:11 refers to a hypothetical version of Nero, specifically referencing the widespread superstitious belief at the time that Nero would return from the dead (Nero Redivivus).
[Revelation 13:5 And a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies was given it , and authority to act forty-two months was given it. 6 And it opened its mouth in blasphemies against God, to blaspheme his name and his residence, even those residing in heaven. 7 And there was granted it to wage war with the holy ones and conquer them, and authority was given it over every tribe and people and tongue and nation]
Revelation 13:5 refers to Rome, and specifically Nero, at the beginning of the '42 months' in 66CE.
Stop trying to scare people with nonsense.
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
'scholar':
This is utter nonsense for the Bible clearly teaches that the 70 years was a period of Exile a period of servitude to Babylon under its domination and a Desolation of Judah beginning in 607 BCE and ending in 537 BCE.
Liar. The Bible never mentions 70 years of exile. That is why you always defer to these stupid 'summaries' of JW belief instead.
Further, your interpretation is bogus because you do not believe in these events for you do not believe the Bible so any opinion you express is insincere and inauthentic.
Fallacy of division.
You should be paying attention to the 42 months, seven woes and the seven trumpets
I've given them due attention. The '42 months' ended nearly 1,953 years ago, so it's not a cause for concern. Similarly, the events symbolised by the 'woes' and 'trumpets' relate to the period of early Christianity (representing a combination of various real and imagined events), and are no cause for concern, despite the claims of conspiracy theorists, crackpots and fear-mongerers.
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
đ¤Śââď¸
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
âscholarâ:
Far better to stick to the biblical account
Okay. The biblical account of the Neobabylonian period indicates that all the nations would serve Babylon for 70 years (Jeremiah 25:11) until Babylon was conquered by Persia (Jeremiah 25:12; 2 Chronicles 36:20). During that time, nations could avoid exile by serving Babylon (Jeremiah 27:8-11). After Babylonâs 70 years ended, attention would be given to the Jewsâ return (Jeremiah 29:10; 2 Chronicles 36:21). Since it is known that Babylon was conquered by Persia in 539BCE, Babylonâs 70 years therefore began with its defeat of Assyriaâs last king in 609BCE.
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
âscholarâ:
Very compelling as the said scholar depends on reason and not on fancy interpretations based on silly pretty coloured charts.
Poor âscholarâ. I know you like the pretty colours but you have to actually read the words too.
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
Fisherman:
Not what I said. For example, the Bible states a flood occurred, Adam and Eve were created and Bible chronology. Obviously that can be challenged with scientific evidence.
Backpedaling I see. âAdam and Eveâ and the âFloodâ (and the âExodusâ) are all examples of Bible stories that definitely didnât occur in reality. There is a fallacy of composition regarding the broader sweeping statement of âBible chronologyâ, which is accurate for the Neobabylonian period (both of which contradicts JW chronology) but not for the fanciful stories in Genesis.
But you said:
Conclude what you like and go away if you conclude it is fake. ⌠If the Bible is approached from the position that the Bible is a fake, end of discussion.
So despite your attempt (and the repeated fallacy of composition), you did indeed indicate your view that anyone who doesnât agree with everything in the Bible should âgo awayâ along with a moronic opinion that âunbelieversâ canât discuss the Bible, demonstrating your confirmation bias.
