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 .
‘scholar’:
Tell that to our Lord Jesus, our sweet Lord Jesus who prophesied about great earthquakes as part of the Sign of his Presence in the Olivet Discourse.
There’s no evidence that Jesus said any of the words later attributed to him. Sorry if you missed the memo but Jesus is dead.
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 .
‘scholar’:
Even right now we see the current earthquake in Turkey as a confirmation that we are living in the Parousia of our Lord beginning in 1914 CE.
Rubbish. There has been no statement from the US Geological Survey or any similar organisation associating the earthquake in Turkey with any religious superstition, nor do they indicate 1914 having any bearing on the frequency or severity of earthquakes. It is typical of doomsday nutters to latch on to any natural disaster and claim it is significant to their nutbaggery.
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 .
‘scholar’:
1. The preponderance of evidence based on NB Chronology advocated by current scholarship positively identifies at least two dates for the Fall of Jerusalem: 586 and 587 BCE.
You keep making this trite assertion, because you like to make it appear as though there is ambiguity regarding the secular dating. But various sources simply repeat Thiele’s dating of 586 BCE from the 1940s before more information was available. The correct year is definitely 587 BCE. I note you never cite any modern sources that assess the date as 586 BCE rather than simply repeat that old traditional dating.
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 .
🤦♂️
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 .
‘scholar’:
Would it not be funny to watch people like Jeffro if current scholarship abandoned 586 or 587 BCE in favour of 607 BCE which validates 1914 CE as the birth of God's Kingdom.
1. The preponderance of evidence positively identifies 587 BCE as the correct year. 2. If it were discovered that 607 BCE were the correct year (despite this not being plausible at all), assuming it were based on reliable evidence it wouldn’t bother me as I have no superstitious vested interest in 587 BCE (though the post-exilic compiler of Leviticus connects paying off sabbaths with a period of 49 years). 3. 1914 would remain a coincidental contrivance as just one of many years posed by Adventists for ‘something’ to happen. JWs would be left quietly ignoring the fact that there was no sudden change in world events in October of 1914, tediously remarking that something significant happen in that year. It would not be validated as a reliable doctrinal position as Babylon’s 70 years of dominance were explicitly said to end when Babylon was called to account and explicitly didn’t mean exile (Jeremiah 27:8-11).
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 .
Fisherman:
Jeffro, all you do is go off into tangent irrelevancies such as they are not anointed and mix in your commentary.
Incorrect. Though it is true that I often tire of JW nonsense that fails at step 1 meaning there is sometimes little benefit in proceeding to step 2. 🤷♂️
Also, sorry I didn’t see your imaginary purportedly implied but not actually evident in any way parentheses. 😂
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 .
🤦♂️
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 .
Fisherman:
What a waste of time responding to you.
Indeed. Though I went on to address the actual subject matter, all you did was complain, incorrectly, about my initial statement. 🤦♂️
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 .
Fisherman:
I already put the word in parenthesis for you knowing your proclivity to fallacy.
Fisherman earlier:
Where did the anointed claim they witnessed something going on in heaven?
🤷♂️
study article 19. how can we strengthen our faith in jehovah’s promise of a new world?.
17 many servants of jehovah have applied jehovah’s counsel to “keep in expectation”—even for decades.
louise, for example, began serving jehovah in 1939. she says: “at that time, i thought armageddon would come before i finished high school.
the Bible narratives of Noah, Abraham, Joseph
Those characters had the benefit of being fictitious, so waiting was far less tedious for them.
