Posts by Jeffro

99

Scholar, please don't post and run...

now, could you do us all a favour and read the replies to your post in the 607 thread?

there were a lot of questions raised by your comment and i think it would be a good witness if you would at least attempt to answer them.

two very important ones are:.

Jeffro

Jehoiakim reigned as king some years before Nebuchadnezzer became enthroned as king but it was only at the end of Jehoiakim's reign, that is the last three years that he came to grief with Nebuchadnezzer. So your comment about WT folklore and the beginning of his reign is simply your distortion of historical fact because

So your evidence that Jehoiakim started his reign in some fashion in his 8th year is that he "came to grief with Nebuchadnezzar". The WT retellling of events is not based on any historical facts - by necessity of itself, it ignores them.

Jehoiakim's reign was well along in duration when Neb invaded Judah in his eigth year.

Yes, yes it was. So obviously Daniel was taken earlier.

239

Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!

by VM44 in

this is a very important observation, that the watchtower has not tried to explain in print why 607 bce is the year for the destruction of jerusalem for the last 17 years!!!.

all that the watchtower has done over most of the last two decades is to repeat over and over the year "607bce" in its publications as if it is an unquestioned fact!.

the last time an explaination for the year was attempted by the watchtower was in 1988 when the "insight" volumes were published, but since then, no explaination for the validity of the year has appeared in print.. this must mean something, but what?

Jeffro

Celebrated WT scholars have provided the in-depth reasoning, biblical and historical facts as confirmed by Josephus that our chronology is rock solid and has not and cannot be refuted. Carl Jonsson has been regarded as the most foremost critic of WT chronology especially 607 bit scholar has shown that his presentation of matters is absurd, confusing and yields more to higher criticism than loyalty to God's WORD.

Our Bible based chronology withstands all such criticism because it is simple, event based, practical and faithful to the prophetic word. I am proud to be able to defend it.

"most foremost"?

Scholar, your chronology already has been refuted. You continue to provide no meaningful rebuttal for the many points raised against it, and you just keep spouting the same tired expressions.

239

Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!

by VM44 in

this is a very important observation, that the watchtower has not tried to explain in print why 607 bce is the year for the destruction of jerusalem for the last 17 years!!!.

all that the watchtower has done over most of the last two decades is to repeat over and over the year "607bce" in its publications as if it is an unquestioned fact!.

the last time an explaination for the year was attempted by the watchtower was in 1988 when the "insight" volumes were published, but since then, no explaination for the validity of the year has appeared in print.. this must mean something, but what?

Jeffro

the first 11 verses specifically apply to Judah alone

This exhibits clearly your willful ignorance in the extreme. It is obvious that nothing will get through to you because you ignore even the bible in defense of the Society's doctrines. No unbiased reader with the finest sliver of intelligence can honestly say that verses 8 to 11 apply only to Judah.

239

Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!

by VM44 in

this is a very important observation, that the watchtower has not tried to explain in print why 607 bce is the year for the destruction of jerusalem for the last 17 years!!!.

all that the watchtower has done over most of the last two decades is to repeat over and over the year "607bce" in its publications as if it is an unquestioned fact!.

the last time an explaination for the year was attempted by the watchtower was in 1988 when the "insight" volumes were published, but since then, no explaination for the validity of the year has appeared in print.. this must mean something, but what?

Jeffro

Hellrider,

976 bc is marked as "end of day three, beginning of day four", I`m not sure what this means, though.

The 'days' referred to here are a reference to 2 Peter 3:8, which indicates that a thousand years is like a day to God. The year correlates to the beginning of the 4th millenium (3001 in first column on that row) from man's creation according to Jewish tradition.

But nothing significant happened in 997 bc, according to this page.

No it didn't, but 'scholar' prefers circular reasoning. He can point to all of the dates in the Insight book (that are derived from their 607 dogma) that all 'prove' that 607 has to be the right year. LOL

239

Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!

by VM44 in

this is a very important observation, that the watchtower has not tried to explain in print why 607 bce is the year for the destruction of jerusalem for the last 17 years!!!.

all that the watchtower has done over most of the last two decades is to repeat over and over the year "607bce" in its publications as if it is an unquestioned fact!.

the last time an explaination for the year was attempted by the watchtower was in 1988 when the "insight" volumes were published, but since then, no explaination for the validity of the year has appeared in print.. this must mean something, but what?

Jeffro

eyeslice:

This thread has rambled off topic.

The point is that WTBTS has ran out of ideas. The 607 thing is not being pushed. They make vague statements like 'Bible Chronology proves'.

I disagree. The flow of this thread well illustrates the reason why the Society has not dared to approach the 607 issue in any depth for some time. Scholar's continued irrational reasoning evidences the fact that the Society would prefer to let "sleeping dogs lie" then to try to prove the unprovable.

I remember several comments from the platform at Meetings™, usually from Circuit Overseers™ and District Overseers™ that 'we shouldn't worry too much if we can't explain 607 or 1914'. The reason for that is that if the information is studied in any depth outside of Watchtower® literature, it becomes evident that 607 is empty dogma.

239

Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!

by VM44 in

this is a very important observation, that the watchtower has not tried to explain in print why 607 bce is the year for the destruction of jerusalem for the last 17 years!!!.

all that the watchtower has done over most of the last two decades is to repeat over and over the year "607bce" in its publications as if it is an unquestioned fact!.

the last time an explaination for the year was attempted by the watchtower was in 1988 when the "insight" volumes were published, but since then, no explaination for the validity of the year has appeared in print.. this must mean something, but what?

Jeffro

LoL, what`s that? I didn`t know that one. 390 years, is that another "magic number"? Where in the Bible is that number mentioned? One "time" is 360 days (years, according to JW-doctrine), not 390. Where did the 390 - thing come from?

Ezekiel 4:5

However, the real question is "where does this magical year of 997 come from"? It is derived by the Watchtower Society using their own chronology working backwards from 607. So of course it works for counting forwards to 607. It is typical Society circular reasoning.

239

Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!

by VM44 in

this is a very important observation, that the watchtower has not tried to explain in print why 607 bce is the year for the destruction of jerusalem for the last 17 years!!!.

all that the watchtower has done over most of the last two decades is to repeat over and over the year "607bce" in its publications as if it is an unquestioned fact!.

the last time an explaination for the year was attempted by the watchtower was in 1988 when the "insight" volumes were published, but since then, no explaination for the validity of the year has appeared in print.. this must mean something, but what?

Jeffro

It is you that looks foolish because the chapter from its first verse to verse 11 is clearly applied and directed to Judah with a mention of the nations. The oracle then is addressed to thoise nations in greater detail from verse 12. Modern commentators divide this chapter as such:
Judgement on Judah 25:1-11
Judhement on Babylon 25: 12-14
Judgement on the Nations 25:15-29
Oracles agaiinst the Nations 25:30-38
So there!

Ooooohhh.. you said "so there!" You must be right... wait a minute.... no, you're just demonstrating your lack of understanding again. Verses 1 and 2 are addressed to only the reader. Verses 3 to 11 are indeed addressed to Judah. Verses 3 to 7 are about how Judah has behaved. Verses 8 to 11 contain information that Jeremiah addressed to Judah about what would happen to the entire region, including but not limited to Judah. Verses 12 to 14 are also addressed to Judah about what will happen to Babylon. Verses 15 to 26 are about the nations, related by Jeremiah, and address only the reader. Verses 27 to 29 address the nations about what will happen to them. Verses 30 and 38 are about what will happen to the nations.

I invite posters to indicate who looks foolish.

99

Scholar, please don't post and run...

by in a new york bethel minute in

now, could you do us all a favour and read the replies to your post in the 607 thread?

there were a lot of questions raised by your comment and i think it would be a good witness if you would at least attempt to answer them.

two very important ones are:.

Jeffro

The translation of malkut as kingship is a valid rendering because the Hebrew word denotes the activity of rulership and I never said that malkut means vassalage but such is characteristic of the reign of Jehoiakim. Right? There is absolutely nothing that indicates that Daniel was taken in Neb's acc or first regnal year either but the evidence is certainly there thar Daniel along with princely captives was taken in the first deportation at the end of Jehoiakim' reign or his 'third year'.

Jehoiakim was a vassal appointed by Necho. Nebuchadnezzar never appointed Jehoiakim as king, and it is solely WT folklore that suggests that Jehoiakim's reign was ever counted as beginning in any manner from the point from which Nebuchadnezzar demanded tribute from him in his eighth year.

99

Scholar, please don't post and run...

by in a new york bethel minute in

now, could you do us all a favour and read the replies to your post in the 607 thread?

there were a lot of questions raised by your comment and i think it would be a good witness if you would at least attempt to answer them.

two very important ones are:.

Jeffro

Scholar:

Whilst posting on this board you indicate how shallow your knowledge and all that you are doing is simply repeating apostate nonsense with nothing new but poor logic and a poor sense of biblical history.

Shall we take a tally of posters on the board of how many agree with me and how many agree with you?

239

Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!

by VM44 in

this is a very important observation, that the watchtower has not tried to explain in print why 607 bce is the year for the destruction of jerusalem for the last 17 years!!!.

all that the watchtower has done over most of the last two decades is to repeat over and over the year "607bce" in its publications as if it is an unquestioned fact!.

the last time an explaination for the year was attempted by the watchtower was in 1988 when the "insight" volumes were published, but since then, no explaination for the validity of the year has appeared in print.. this must mean something, but what?

Jeffro

onacruse:

The proof is in the pudding.

This is way off topic, but no, the proof is not "in the pudding". This is a common error in lieu of the expression "the proof of the pudding is in the eating".