Posts by Jeffro

posted

42
Source of Flood Waters
by VM44 in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i do not have access right now to the watchtower cd library, could someone check and tell me what the watchotwer now says is the source for the great flood waters?.

do they still believe the theory of isaac vail that the waters came from above and that there was a water canopy in orbit about the earth?

or does the watchtower now say that the canopy was a vapor layer, not in orbit, but a simply above the atmosphere?.
Jeffro

Moses pulled the floodwaters out of his ass.
Fair enough... after all, words came out of Balaam's ass.
763
Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?
by Little Bo Peep in
1. watchtower
2. bible
hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.
Jeffro

AlanF wrote:
In a reply to Alleymom, you wrote:
: zeh is a demonstrative pronoun; it refers to something that is nearby either in space or time rather than far away. With or without zeh, it is still understood that a singular collective '70-year period' is intended, and it can still refer to the period as not yet having ended.
Once again you're assuming your conclusion, namely, that there was a "singular collective '70-year period'". But as I've shown in this post, this is unwarranted.
In your last post, you wrote:
: It is agreed that the 70 years functions as a singular 70-year period in Zechariah chapter 1.
It is certainly not so agreed. See above.
On May 25, AlleyMom posted:
Zechariah 1:12 says "THESE seventy years" (the Hebrew zeh is the singular form of the demonstrative pronoun, and the word for year is singular. In English, this would literally be "THIS seventy YEAR"; i.e., THIS seventy year period, treating the substantive as a collective noun.
It is based on this statement that I suggested that it is agreed that the 70 years functions as a singular 70-year period in Zechariah chapter 1.
763
Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?
by Little Bo Peep in
1. watchtower
2. bible
hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.
Jeffro

: At Amos 8:5, it asked when the next new moon will be. Times between new moons are a known period, especially by people who use a lunar calendar. The question is asked in frustration, not to receive an enumeration of days. A similar principle may be in involved in Zechariah chapter 1.
Ok, now I understand your point. However, if you carefully consider the actual words of the prophet, you'll see that your argument doesn't apply. In Zech. 1:12, it is the angel of Jehovah who asks the question (NWT): "O Jehovah of armies, how long will you yourself not show mercy to Jerusalem and to the cities of Judah, whom you have denounced these seventy years?" The angel certainly wasn't frustrated about not knowing how long the denunciation of Jerusalem and Judah would last. Indeed, you've already argued that the angel must have known how long it would last! So you're mixing up the point of view of the angel with a postulated point of view of the Jews who you seem to think might have posed the question, but did not.
It is evident by your statement, "The angel certainly wasn't frustrated about not knowing how long the denunciation of Jerusalem and Judah would last" that you did not understand my point about referring to Amos 8:5, so I will expand on it. Almost every single instance of a question in the Hebrew scriptures in the form "How long...?" is an expression of frustration of the circumstances, not a request for an actual length of time, whether that time period is actually known or not. For example, Numbers 14:27:
"How long will this evil assembly have this murmuring that they are carrying on against me? I have heard the murmurings of the sons of Israel that they are murmuring against me."
It is very unlikely that God was expecting Moses to reply, "Oh, give it a week or two." It was an expression of dissatisfaction with the current situation.
(Compare Exodus 10:3,7; Exodus 16:28; Numbers 14:11,27; 24:22; Joshua 18:3; 1 Samuel 1:14; 16:1; 2 Samuel 2:26; 1 Kings 18:21; Job 8:2; 18:2; 19:2; Psalms 4:2; 6:3; 13:1,2; 35:17; 62:3; 74:9,10; 79:5; 80:4; 82:2; 89:46; 90:13; 94:3; Proverbs 1:22; 6:9; Isaiah 6:11; Jeremiah 4:14,21; 12:4; 23:26; 31:22; 47:5,6; Hosea 8:5; Habakkuk 1:1; 2:6.)
All of these verses ask a question "how long", referring to some unfavourable situation from the viewpoint of the person asking. In harmony with this, the angel asking the question "How long" does not mean that the angel did not know the length of the period.

(On the other hand Nehemiah 2:6, Daniel 8:13 and 12:6 contain questions specifically asking for a period of time.)
763
Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?
by Little Bo Peep in
1. watchtower
2. bible
hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.
Jeffro

You say this with the a priori assumption that there was one and only one period of 70 years ("the 70 years") mentioned by Zechariah, one that had a definite beginning and a definite end.
Using a priori instead of prior doesn't add weight to your post; writing your entire post in Latin - now that would be impressive! I have not made prior assumptions. If you properly read my previous posts, you will note that I have stated that the text allows for either interpretation, not that I am right and you are wrong.
I'm getting the impression that you simply don't understand an important point
Have you been getting posting tips from scholar? Please don't presume to tell me what I do and do not understand. Understanding a point you have made does not mean I can not put forward a different one that fits the text but disagrees with your point.
one that I've tried to explain a number of times in this thread: just because someone says that some specific period of time has elapsed from a beginning event until today does not necessarily mean that the person is assigning a completed period -- a chunk of time, if you will, with a definite beginning and a definite end -- to the elapsed time. I'm 53 years old, and if I happen to say that I've lived 53 years, that in no sense implies that the period of my life has ended! So it is with the statements in Zechariah: they imply, not periods that have ended, but periods that are ongoing, and happen to have been ongoing for about 70 years when the prophet wrote down the words of the angel or whoever.
If the periods are both ongoing, there is linguistically nothing to suggest that they are not the same period anyway.
Since these fasts would become "an exultation and a rejoicing", they must necessarily continue beyond the then present. And if they would continue, then clearly the observances of fastings that had begun in 587 B.C. were to continue long after the time in 518/17 when the elapsed time from 587 to 518/17 just happened to be 70 years. Therefore there was no end point to the period of fastings -- they continued from 587, through 518/17, right on until the Jewish nation was essentially annihilated in 70 A.D.
If I say that winter becomes spring, I don't mean that winter continues. The fasts of mourning "became" - 'were replaced by' - rejoicing.
Well that's exactly my point: there was no period that had ended -- it was simply the elapsed time from when the denunciation began, likely in 589 B.C., to when Zechariah received his angelic message in 519 B.C. The period of denunciation obviously continued on until the things mentioned by Zechariah as prime evidence of continuing denunciation were gone -- in particular, that the temple was rebuilt, which was not done until about 515 B.C.
Technically neither mention of the 70 years immediately marked the end of that 70-year period, but the reference in Zechariah 7 can be seen as much closer to the end of that period if they are viewed as the same period.
Because it marked the virtually complete destruction of Jerusalem along with the destruction of the temple. These were obviously not destroyed in the earlier sieges, so there's a huge difference between the earlier sieges and the siege of 589-587. I'm sure you'll admit that the indignation that resulted in the destruction of the temple was far greater than anything that went before.
It can just as rightly be said that it was the destruction of Jerusalem and it's temple in 587, rather than the siege in 589, that marked God's indignation.
You're entirely missing the points I've made.
See my comments above regarding putting a point forward not meaning that I am rejecting other valid interpretations.
First, you're assuming, without proper justification, that there was a definite end to one definite period. Otherwise you couldn't sensibly write about "the length of the period".
See my comments above regarding the end of the 70-year period.
My arguments above show why these are wrong assumptions. Second, you're simply ignoring my argument about "these 70 years" and so forth. You can't prove anything by ignoring peoples' arguments.
Again, I have not ignored your arguments, I have never said that you are wrong, only that another intrepretation is valid.
Of course there is, as Alleymom has shown. If you look at the actual Hebrew text, you'll find that in each instance in my previous post where I highlighted in red the word "these", you'll find the Hebrew word zeh (this or these). So in each case, the Hebrew is clearly talking about a specific elapsed time which had elapsed for 70 years (but not ended) at the point when Zechariah received his divine message.
Apparently the source I have is not as comprehensive as Alleymom's, and apparently does not exhaustively indicate combining forms, which caused some confusion on my part and for that I apologise. As stated in previous posts, the presence of zeh does not take away from the interpretation I have given.
Now that you know the facts about the Hebrew word for "these", you'll have to go back and try again to understand the arguments I've made, instead of rejecting them based on your misunderstanding of the Hebrew.
Did scholar teach you this? I don't have to agree with you to understand you. You don't need to keep asserting that your interpretation is valid as I have never suggested that it is not.
Ok, now I understand your point. However, if you carefully consider the actual words of the prophet, you'll see that your argument doesn't apply. In Zech. 1:12, it is the angel of Jehovah who asks the question (NWT): "O Jehovah of armies, how long will you yourself not show mercy to Jerusalem and to the cities of Judah, whom you have denounced these seventy years?" The angel certainly wasn't frustrated about not knowing how long the denunciation of Jerusalem and Judah would last.
Just as the question about the 'new moons' of Amos is not about "not knowing how long", niether is the angel's question. It is asked in frustration of the circumstances, not over not knowing the time period.
Indeed, you've already argued that the angel must have known how long it would last! So you're mixing up the point of view of the angel with a postulated point of view of the Jews who you seem to think might have posed the question, but did not.
That's just too condescending. Please don't presume that I would make such a fundamental mistake as that. You have said that you understood my point about Amos 8:5, though this suggests that you did not.
As I have shown, your position is not just extremely unlikely, but contradicts fairly straightforward scriptures.
What have I contradicted? ie, what have I stated that is not consistent with valid interpretations, whether or not they are consistent with your understanding?
Once again you're assuming your conclusion, namely, that there was a "singular collective '70-year period'". But as I've shown in this post, this is unwarranted.
I am simply applying Occam's Razor.
Your reasoning here is entirely self-inconsistent. If the word zeh refers to something that is present, then it's pretty obvious that the time period that is present in Zech. 1 (a period of denunciation spoken of in Darius' 2nd year) is quite different from the time period present in Zech. 5 (a period of fastings and mournings spoken of in Darius' 4th year). Obviously then, these two time periods are different.
See my comments above. As the use of zeh agrees, the period of "these 70 years" could be said to be current or present at any point during that period, just as I could refer to this century as "these hundred years" at any point in the century.
763
Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?
by Little Bo Peep in
1. watchtower
2. bible
hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.
Jeffro

It is agreed that the 70 years functions as a singular 70-year period in Zechariah chapter 1. The presence of the word zeh does not require that the period had ended any more than its use at Genesis 27:21 requires that Esau had ended. It refers to something that is present.
It therefore does not require that the 70 years of Zechariah chapter 1 is not the same period as in chapter 7. There is ample evidence however that it is not the same as the period referred to in Daniel, Jeremiah and 2 Chronicles.
763
Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?
by Little Bo Peep in
1. watchtower
2. bible
hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.
Jeffro

These twenty years I have been with you = I have been with you twenty years now
Whilst the two expressions convey the same idea, in context the expression "these twenty years" (as used in the sense of Zechariah's 70 years, or more properly 'this twenty years') suggests a singular collective of 'a 20-year period', whereas the expression "twenty years now" means '20 [of] individual years'; 'now' cannot simply be substituted for "these" without affecting the noun group '20 years'.
763
Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?
by Little Bo Peep in
1. watchtower
2. bible
hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.
Jeffro

Actually, if you look again, you will see that there is indeed a "these"in the Hebrew text --- it's the Hebrew word "zeh". This was discussed upthread in some depth in messages by Narkissos and myself. Zeh is actually singular in both these verses (Zech. 1:12 and 7:5), as is the word for year. It's as if the seventy years is being treated as a collective, thus taking singular agreement.
Interesting... the source I have lists zeh (Strong's 02088) 38 times in the Hebrew Scriptures: Genesis 5:1, Genesis 7:1, Genesis 7:11, Genesis 24:9, Genesis 25:22, Genesis 27:21, Genesis 27:36, Genesis 32:29, Genesis 37:17, Genesis 38:21, Genesis 41:38, Genesis 50:25, Exodus 13:3, Exodus 13:8, Exodus 14:20, Exodus 15:2, Exodus 24:14, Exodus 25:19, Exodus 26:13, Leviticus 23:14, Deuteronomy 5:29, 1 Samuel 17:17, 1 Samuel 21:9, 1 Samuel 21:11, 1 Samuel 25:21, 1 Kings 17:24, 2 Kings 1:5, 2 Kings 5:7, 2 Kings 6:9, Job 14:3, Psalms 68:8, Psalms 75:8, Psalms 104:8, Ecclesiastes 3:19, Ecclesiastes 6:5 (twice), Ecclesiastes 7:18 and Isaiah 58:5
zeh is a demonstrative pronoun; it refers to something that is nearby either in space or time rather than far away. With or without zeh, it is still understood that a singular collective '70-year period' is intended, and it can still refer to the period as not yet having ended.
763
Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?
by Little Bo Peep in
1. watchtower
2. bible
hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.
Jeffro

Actually, in neither case is it explicitly stated that the period in question had ended, so this argument applies equally to chapter 7. Therefore it can't be a valid argument. The form of the statements is simply that "something has been happening these past 70 years".
Yes, but in chapter 7, it is very strongly implied that the 70 years had finally ended because Sharezer and Regem-melech asked if the weeping and fasting should stop, which was the point that would mark the 'LORD's return to Jerusalem with compassion'. Conversely, there is little point in the question "how long?" in chapter 1 if the period had already ended. Why should the siege in 589 mark the beginning of God's indignation when there had previously been sieges on Jerusalem by Babylon?
: It is reasonable to believe that the angel could have known the length of a period that had not yet ended.
This ignores the plain statements about "THESE 70 years", which plainly refer to the "today" when the Lord's word occurred to Zechariah.
Are you suggesting that it is not reasonable to believe that the angel knew the length of the period? "THESE 70 years" is translated from shib`iym (Strong's 07657), which means "70 years". There is no "THESE" in the original text.
(Compare Amos 8:5).
I may be missing something, but I don't see anything of relevance in that passage.
At Amos 8:5, it asked when the next new moon will be. Times between new moons are a known period, especially by people who use a lunar calendar. The question is asked in frustration, not to receive an enumeration of days. A similar principle may be in involved in Zechariah chapter 1.

Again, I am not stating that the verses cannot refer to two periods, but the position I have put forward is just as likely.
763
Daniel's Prophecy, 605 BCE or 624 BCE?
by Little Bo Peep in
1. watchtower
2. bible
hello all, i've been reading your site for a couple of years now, and have found, for the most part, it to be very helpful.

i must say, at first i was very "scared" at what i might find, but contrary to what i grew up learning, there is a "wealth" of information outside of the watchtower organization.

i haven't attended meetings for about two years now, and like many i've read about, have spent many hours researching, telling myself "i'm not wrong for searching", and doing more research.
Jeffro

the only argument in favour of 607 is divine revelation. In that case the date may well be correct and the missing twenty years may yet be found.
607 is clung to simply to prop up the 1914 doctrine. There are several things that show it to be untrue.
There is nothing in Daniel chapter 4 requiring a secondary fulfilment
The Society does not apply the same rule to the other 'times' mentioned at Daniel 7:25 and 12:7
'Removing the turban' at Ezekiel 21:25-27 is directed to Israel, not Judah
World War I started several months before the supposed October fulfilment
The original text of Luke 21:24 indicates that the 'appointed times of the nations' is a period that began at or after 70AD
Jeremiah said the 70 years were of nations serving Babylon, not specifically exile.
Babylon's king could not be called to account 2 years before the 70 years ended
The NWT rendering of Jeremiah 29:10 is inconsistent with Jeremiah 25:12 and is not recognised as correct by most scholars
Daniel 5:26-31 indicates the fulfilment of the 70 years in 539BC
Judah still had inhabitants in Nebuchadnezzar's 23rd year
The Society is inconsistent in applying the entire 70 years to Judah but not Tyre
It was Persia's beginning to reign, not payment of Sabbaths, that fulfilled the 70 years of Jeremiah
The Hebrew words chorbah - 'devastated', shamem - 'desolated', and za'am - 'denounced', do not require complete depopulation
The 70 years of Zechariah could not have ended in 537BC
Secular records exist for every year of the known Babylonian kings but absolutely no records have been found for the 20-year gap of the Society's interpretation
The Society accepts 539BC as a pivotal date using means it rejects as being unreliable
No source other than the Society recognizes any significant event regarding Babylon and Jerusalem in 607