Since "Scholar" is obviously having fun with us by by continually using the phrase "celebrated Watchtower scholars," while refusing to personally identify these "scholars" I thought he wouldn't mind if I took a guess at their identity. : )
a_ Christian
JoinedPosts by a_ Christian
-
239
Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!
by VM44 inthis 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?
-
-
-
349
The 1914 Doctrine and The Threat of the Egibi Business Tablets
by VM44 incould the watchtower and the jehovah's witnesses survive the discarding of their 1914 doctrine?
the doctrine that in 1914 the end of the gentile times took place, jesus took up rule in heaven.
for some reason the jws think the outbreak of world war i in 1914 is proof their prophetic calculations were correct.
-
-
a_ Christian
Jeffro, You wrote: According to Jeremiah 52:29, there were only 832 exiles taken in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year anyway (though 2 Kings 24:14 indicates about 10,000+ were taken) ... Sorry about being a stickler, because I know this is a bit off topic. But 2 Kings 24:14 does not refer to captives Nebuchadnezzar took from Jerusalem in his eighteenth year as Babylon's king. It is referring to the number of people he took from Jerusalem in his "eighth year" as king of Babylon, at the time he took Judah's king Jehoiachin prisoner. (2 Kings 24:12) Mike
-
239
Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!
by VM44 inthis 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?
-
-
a_ Christian
Nark,
I'm the same a_Christian. Why the board has started treating me like a newbie I don't know. I haven't posted in quite a while. Maybe that's it. But since I was given a newbie welcome by some here who I was new to I accepted their newbie welcome.
By the way, I did not offer up my "times" suggestion for the purpose of saying this is how the Bible should be understood or to say this is how I understand the Bible. I only made this off-beat suggestion to demonstrate that there might be other ways of understanding the Bible's use of the word "times" other than just assuming that it must mean "years." However, I do believe this interpretation of the Bible's use of the word "times" is just as reasonable as the Watchtower's interpretation of any passages of scripture in which the word "times" appears. But then that is not saying much, is it?
Mike
-
239
Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!
by VM44 inthis 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?
-
-
a_ Christian
Hi Gals and Guys,
Thanks for the warm welcome. I have a feeling my efforts to get "Scholar" to do some "independent thinking" will be in vain. I tend to believe his reply to my post, if he replies, will do little more than assure me that when the Bible tells us Nebuchadnezzar was away from his throne for "seven times" it must have meant "seven years" because "CWS" (celebrated Watchtower scholars) tell us so.
Like most others here, I can't believe "Scholar" is for real. He has got to be playing with us. But even if he is, maybe something we say to him may do someone else some good, someone who really believes what "Scholar" here pretends to believe.
Mike
-
239
Watchtower Gives Up Explaining 607 BCE Date!
by VM44 inthis 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?
-
-
a_ Christian
Scholar, On more than one occasion you have referred to "Neb's missing seven years of kingship." However, the history of Nebuchadnezzar's reign is very well documented in the scriptures and in extrabiblical sources. A thorough review of all of this information shows that it is impossible to find a period of 7 years within his reign of 43 years when Nebuchadnezzar was absent from his throne or inactive as ruler. With this in mind, it seems unlikely that the "7 times" of Daniel 4:25 could have referred to a period of 7 years. Babylonian history does, however, allow for Nebuchadnezzar to have been away from his throne for seven years. JWs tell us Daniel's seven "times" were actually seven "prophetic years" containing 360 days each, with each of those 360 days in each of those seven "prophetic years" representing a true solar year containing 365.25 days. Of course, the Bible itself says no such thing. This is only highly questionable prophetic speculation. The fact of the matter is, since Babylonian history seems to clearly indicate that Nebuchadnezzar was never inactive as Babylon's ruler for seven consecutive years, some Bible commentators believe that Daniel's "seven times" more likely refer to "seven seasons" than to "seven years." If this is the case Nebuchadnezzar would have only been away from his throne for 1/4 of seven years. The idea that Daniel's "seven times" referred to seven "prophetic years" of 360 days each is based on the belief that the "1260 days" spoken of in Rev. 12:6 are there equated with the "3 1/2 times" spoken of a few verses later in Rev. 12:14. But this is not necessarily so. Some have said that the 1260 days in Rev. 12:6 may have been meant to refer to the time when Christianity was protected after the time of Christ's ascension and before the time the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Gentiles in 36 AD. Then, when the Good News began to be preached to all national groups Christianity took off, as though it had wings of eagles, and was thereafter protected for a second longer period of time. This second period of protection was the "3 1/2 times" spoken of in Rev. 12:14. This "3 1/2 times" would then be understood to be the period of time from 36 AD until the time of Christ's return. Since some interpretations of Rev. 12, such as this one, say that the "1260 days" and the "3 1/2 times" spoken of in Rev. 12 do not refer to the same period of time, it is only an assumption and very likely an incorrect one, that the concept of a 360 day "prophetic year" even exists in the Bible. JWs say God's righteous rule over the earth was pictured by the tree in Daniel 4. And they say that the time which that tree was cut down pictured the time which God would allow his rule over the earth to be interrupted. Many argue that there is no reason for us to believe that Daniel 4 was meant to have any "larger fulfillment" than the one it had on Nebuchadnezzar himself. But if God did intend for this passage of scripture to have a larger fulfillment, is the "larger fulfillment" proposed by JWs the most reasonable one? I don't think so. Other "larger fulfillments" of Daniel 4 which have been proposed seem more reasonable to me. For instance, it has been suggested that not God's rule, but Satan the devil's rule, was pictured by that tree. Like that Daniel 4 tree, Satan's rule and influence now fills the whole earth. And like that tree, the Bible tells us that Satan's rule and influence will one day be cut down and bound. The tree in Daniel 4 was bound with metal bands. Satan will be symbolically bound with metal chains. That Nebuchadnezzar was used to play the small scale role of Satan seems quite fitting. Nebuchadnezzar was, after all, a king who had persecuted and enslaved God's people. The tree was banded for "7 times." Satan will be chained for 1,000 years. How do "7 times" equal 1,000 years? JWs and others have speculated that it is God's intention to restore earth to a paradise 7,000 years after Adam's rebellion in Eden. So, everything in this speculative interpretation is based on this speculative 7,000 year period of time. Since "7 times" 1,000 years (7 X 1,000 years) = 7,000 years, the "7 times" spoken of in Daniel chapter 4 can be understood to equal 1,000 years. After those 1,000 years have passed Satan will be released from his chains just as the tree in Daniel 4 was unbanded after "seven times." Then, just as Nebuchadnezzar acknowledged God's sovereignty after seven times had passed over him, Satan will be forced to bend his knee to God before he is finally destroyed. For as the Bible says, "Every knee will bow." In the initial "small scale fulfillment" of this interpretation of Daniel 4 Nebuchadnezzar was removed from his throne for 1,000 days, a day for each year of the "large scale" fulfillment. Am I saying this is the correct interpretation of Daniel 4? No, I am only saying that if Daniel 4 was intended by God to have a "larger fulfillment" this interpretation seems more reasonable than the JW interpretation to me. Actually, to me, this interpretation seems much more likely to be the "correct" interpretation if indeed there is one. For Babylonian history does allow Nebuchadnezzar a 1,000 day absence from his throne but not a seven year absence. I hope you will stop referring to Nebuchadnezzar's "missing seven years of kingship." For the Bible never refers to any such period of time, and Babylonian history does not appear to allow it. Mike