Posts by BarefootServant

69

Imputation- do you agree?

by Lillith26 in

imputation is the concept that we are all sinners because of the original sin of adam.

and our only redemption is found in the sacrifice of christ on the cross/stake.

imputation implies that guilt passes from person to person from generation to generation, and redemption is passed from christ to us.

er, LuckyC... which research group has been looking for 'genetic sin markers'? Do they know what these markers look like? Do they know what every single byte of DNA codes for? Do they even know what most of the DNA codes for? I don't think so.... Printing out the machine code for Windows operating system doesn't mean you understand how it does what it does.

421

70 years = 607?

by allelsefails in

70 years of captivity?.

i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.

that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.

BarefootServant

I do things this way because my intent is not to convince or convert you but simply to provide an alternative to the specious claims of devious apostates who have no love of truth or 'The Truth'.

Scholar, it is ironic that you should attack the integrity of posters here who have debated fairly and honestly with you and not been accorded the same courtesy in return. Sorry, did I say ironic? I meant sickening. Even this last nasty little comment is a self serving lie from start to finish. You should be ashamed of yourself. You have demonstrated not the slightest bit of interest in learning any truth, and I'm pretty sure the good people here only put up with you because they perceive just how deep is the dark well of delusion which you inhabit.

421

70 years = 607?

by allelsefails in

70 years of captivity?.

i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.

that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.

BarefootServant

Scholar said:

537 BCE is not guesswork but a defined date calculated with the secular and biblical evidence if you have a better date then please put it up. No one suggests that the trek back to Jerusalem took two years but rather 4 months would be reasonable depending on what route the exiles took.

538 BCE IS A BETTER DATE AS HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVED.

3

CTR and the "zero year"

by Doug Mason in

charles taze russell (ctr) was aware of difficulties with his dates.

while he was not prepared to move his babylonian dates of 538 (babylons fall), 536 (jews return), and 606 (destruction of jerusalem), he was quite prepared to move the 1914 terminus by a full year to 1915.. later, with its fixation at maintaining the new significance being given to 1914, the wts shifted ctrs babylonian dates back by one year, to 537 and 607 respectively.

but russell was not so concerned with the accuracy of 1914 and was quite prepared to move the terminus to 1915. he wrote the following in 1912:.

BarefootServant

Interesting.

So it seems Russell's (and “chronologers Scalinger, Petavius, Usher, Prideaux, Jackson") pivotal date was the year 605/606 BCE.

Why was this year "indispensably necessary to reconcile the Canon to Holy Writ" ? Because of the understanding that there were 70 years of desolation of Jerusalem?

421

70 years = 607?

by allelsefails in

70 years of captivity?.

i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.

that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.

BarefootServant

so this is all built on the Wt claiming (with no support) the decree was issued too late for the return to be in 538BCE

Absolutely brilliant, isn't it? You've got to hand it to those unknown celebrated scholars, they sure know how to knit a good story so they can pull the wool over your eyes.

421

70 years = 607?

by allelsefails in

70 years of captivity?.

i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.

that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.

BarefootServant

Ah, thank you Isaac for posting the original source of the lie.

"Babylonian custom would place Cyrus’ first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E."

That much we agree, Cyrus' first regnal year was 538 (by which I assume his de-facto rulership may have started earlier).

"In view of the Bible record, Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E. This would allow time for the Jewish exiles to prepare to move out of Babylon and make the long trek to Judah and Jerusalem (a trip that could take about four months according to Ezr 7:9) and yet be settled "in their cities" in Judah by "the seventh month" (Tishri)"

Look at that! For no particular reason, the decree was likely made late in 538 BCE. I wonder why they should say this. Surely not because if the decree was made early in 538 BCE it would be much more logical that the exiles returned in that same year?

And it says if the decree was not made late in 538 BCE, it was likely made early in 537 BCE. But didn't Scholar say there really, really, wasn't enough time for the exiles to get back to Jerusalem by the seventh month of the same year of the decree? Obviously, there suddenly becomes plenty of time for the exiles to return the same year if the year of the decree is 537 BCE. If only these celebrated scholars had known of Scholar's work, they'd have realised that actually the only possible date for Cyrus' decree was late in the year 538 BCE.

So four months journey, sounds about right. So if, as is obviously far more likely, Cyrus' decree was made before or around March or April of 538 BCE, then according to the WT's own reference work that leaves plenty of time for them to get back to Jerusaslem by October 538 BCE.

The clever part of this is, the lie is buried deep in the documentation and easy to miss. A little word, 'likely', is all it takes to deceive.

BFS

421

70 years = 607?

by allelsefails in

70 years of captivity?.

i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.

that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.

BarefootServant

Scholar said:

But one thing for certain our chronology has no 'big wiggles' or'gaps' as the chronology accepted by apostates has.

A new lie, you certainly keep up the pace. Your chronology has a HUGE gap in explaining how Nebuchadnezzar could possibly have conquered Jerusalem in his 18th year as king. You have to insert 18 un-historical years into Nebuchadnezzar's life in order to achieve that. Perhaps you could find just one real scholar who would explain this huge anomaly in this well attested period of history.

So when you have plugged the 'gaps' then you can live with the 'wiggle' as scholar in his wisdom does. He is happy with the 'wiggle' or the 'woggle'.

Yes, I got that already, Scholar is happy with any old wiggle or woggle so long as he can derive the year 1914 from it.

Your gap or gaps is proved by the missing 'twenty years' during the reign of Nebuchadnezzer for starters and that is just the beginning because of the failure to recognize the seventy years of servitude-exile-desolation of the Jews during the period of Babylonian domination.

Don't be daft, the twenty year gap is your problem, not mine. The historical evidence is overwhelming that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/586 BCE. The Babylonian domination started in 609 BCE and ended in 539 BCE.

You have presented nothing to prove your assertion that 538 BCE is the date for the Return.

I made no such assertion, that's your department. I cannot prove that the Jews returned in 538 BCE any more than you can prove that they returned in 537 BCE. Which is a strange omission in God's word if we are meant to calculate a definitive date for the establishment of the messianic kingdom. This lack of a definitive date gives the lie to your claim that the according to the bible the only possible year for Jerusalem's destruction is 607BCE.

Daniel 4 is about God's Kingdom and right to rule over mankind

Show me the verse that raises the issue as to whether God has a right to rule.

Nebuchadnezzer confessed to this simple fact after the end of seven years of abasement.

Nope, Nebuchadnezzar confesses that God could give rulership to whoever he chooses, recognizes God's power and righteousness, and humbles himself.

The dream has several features that prove that it has a far greater significance becaus ethat kingdom was yet to be a reality in men's affairs awaiting the arrival of Jesus Christ to be installed by God as Ruler of that Kingdom for this is proved by the prophecy in Daniel 4:17.,

Daniel 4:17 says nothing about all these things that you read into it. It simply says that the events befalling Nebuchadnezzar is a lesson for the witnesses of those events.

Your argument about God always ruling simply negates or buries the reality of a coming Kingdom that was prophesied to occur and really is utter nonsense. Too silly for words. You should study the subject of the kingdom more closely. If your argument is so then what is the Gospel which means good news of a furture or coming kingdom at some point in time.

So you believe that God's rule is not permanent? Even though Daniel 4 tells us that it is? I am not denying a coming messianic kingdom, I pointed out that Daniel 4 is about God's sovereignty. Like 98% of the rest of the bible it is not about the messianic kingdom. What is too silly for words is your pathetic attempt to read into Daniel 4 something that is clearly not there.

The tree dream in Daniel 4 requires and demands interpretaion for that is the reason why Nebuchadnezzer sought out Daniel to do just that interpret and as God and so it is today that this dream demands an interpretation during the 'time of the end'- Daniel 12:4.

Good point. Daniel already interpreted Nebuchadnezzar's dream, but that holy man's God-given interpretation is not good enough for you.

BFS

421

70 years = 607?

by allelsefails in

70 years of captivity?.

i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.

that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.

BarefootServant

Scholar said:

There is very little 'wiggle room' in our chronology but more so in the history behind certain key dates but there is nothing we can do about that but for the apostates the problem is much greater because they use a chronology which has more than a 'wiggle' but 'gaps'- huge 'gaps' of at least twenty years. So I suggest that you get your own house in order before riculing anothers.

I notice that whilst you accept there is wiggle room in your chronology you have still not retracted your lie that "607 BCE is the only possible date for the destruction of Jerusalem according to the bible".

Not content with your existing lies, with admirable economy in the one sentence you introduce two more lies when you claim that 'apostates' use a chronology that has huge gaps. The first lie is that the chronology you disagree with is put about by 'apostates'. Every single qualified independent historian puts the destruction of Jerusalem at around 587/586 BCE, these are not people that 'apostates', who you hate so much, have any influence over. These are people that have studied history. The reason why they are so confident of this date is the mountain of archeological evidence, the most powerful being the mass of cuneiform writings representing every year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, making any change to the length of his reign as required by your chronology completely impossible. The second lie is that there are 'huge gaps'. The only huge gap is between the archeologically attested and scientifically accepted date of 587/586 BCE and your fanciful theologically motivated date based only counting back 2520 years from 1914.

Honesty compells one to conclude that 538 BCE is highly improbable or impossible unless some speedy form of transport was undertaken. The more reasonable, rational approach is to weigh up all of the known scriptural, historical facts and add a little commonsense and Bingo! you have 537 BCE. Nice and Easy.

Honesty? Common sense? Reasonable? Are you serious?? You've proved many times that you haven't the foggiest idea of what honesty is, and only a passing acquaintance with common sense or being reasonable. You only wish to conclude that 538 BCE is highly improbable, even in the face of the historical and scriptural evidence, because it doesn't happen to fit your chronology. Maybe they did have speedy transport, why not, if that harmonises the evidence? Even without speedy transport, there does not seem to be that much difficulty in an advance group of exiles getting back to Jerusalem in the months following Cyrus' inauguration.

The methodology of calculating 1914 CE has remained unchanged only minor technical matters have intervened in making the 607/1914 scenario irrefutable despite the spurious nonsense of apostates.

Scholar, your pants are on fire and my, what's happened to your nose?

Regarding Dan 4

You need to distinguish between God's Sovereignty and God's Kingdom. Both of these terms are explicitly and implicitly stated in this entire chapter.

No, you are making an artificial distinction between the two. The scripture says at Dan 4: 34 "For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, And His kingdom {endures} from generation to generation." The two are synonymous. They are both permanent. There is not distinction made in this chapter between God's rulership and God's rulership towards the earth .

God has the right to rule and the power to rule

More than that, the scripture says God does rule, always rules; there is nothing in Daniel 4 to suggest that God's rule is ever interrupted, the exact opposite in fact.

and the time of God directly exercising his rulership by means of an installed Kingdom after the expiration of 'seven times' was also demonstarted

The scripture says no such thing. This is an interpretation, and a poor one. You say Nebuchadnezzar represents rulership by God over the earth. Nebuchadnezzar has his rulership removed by a greater power; who removes God's earthly rulership? Nebuchadnezzar unwilling relinquishes his rulership; does God give up his rulership unwillingly? Nebuchadnezzar has no hand in the restoration of his rulership; is God a mere pawn in some other power's hands? Who exactly is pulling the strings here? Or maybe God is schizophrenic. Nebuchadnezzar's authority passes to another for 7 times; does God's authority really pass to the gentiles? If so, why does God interfere to restore the Jews to their homeland? Why does he have the temple rebuilt? Why does he punish Babylon for its misdemeanors? Why does he intervene in any earthly way between 607 and 1914? Does God say one thing and do another? You say God's started to rule the earth at the end of the 7 times; what empirical evidence do you have that since 1914 the gentiles have had any less domination of the earth than in the previous 2520 years? It's as if Nebuchadnezzar had his sanity restored and immediately went off for a holiday. You say God's rulership was removed for 2520 years; what then was Jesus on when he said the "kingdom is in your midst"? Did he not realise this was breaking God's decree?

Still, you are entitled to your interpretation. Since Jerusalem was not destroyed in 607 BCE, you might instead want to look at the year 1934 as a better year to fit the 'prophecy'.

BFS

421

70 years = 607?

by allelsefails in

70 years of captivity?.

i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.

that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.

BarefootServant

Mary said:

What you're doing is absolutely no different that the Mormons taking the scripture in Ezekiel 37:15-20 to try and "prove" that the bible and the Book of Mormon are "one" in God's hand.

Hey, that's a little unfair. Scholar has a much harder job than the Mormons, since at least they aren't up to their necks in archeological evidence that disproves what they say.

But I was a bit puzzled when he said

The very mention of this Kingdom of God is of itself sufficient proof that Nebuchadnezzer's experience had far wider and greater significance and this is before one looks at the other evidences on this matter.

since the scripture says "His kingdom is a kingdom to time indefinite". The point here is God's majesty and the permanence of his kingdom, isn't it? Why state that in the context of a prophecy where (allegedly) his kingdom is transient?

421

70 years = 607?

by allelsefails in

70 years of captivity?.

i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.

that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.

BarefootServant

Scholar said:

Unfortunately, chronology and history has a certain amount of 'wiggle room' because our knowledge of these sunjects is far from perfect.

In which case, why did you state that "there 607 BCE was the only possible date for Jerusalem's destruction"? You are once again confirming that this previous statement of yours was untrue, since you now accept that our "knowledge of these subjects is far from perfect". Do you not see how such contradictions in your statements leave you with no credibility?

the supposed date of 538 BCE is impossible

There you go again. You cannot resist making definitive statements that you cannot actually support. If the decree was made in the spring of 538 BCE there is no reason why at least some Jews could not have returned to Jerusalem by the end of the year. To claim otherwise, especially since "our knowledge of these subjects is far from perfect" is simply dishonest. Actually, as has been shown, the most likely date from historical and biblical information is 538 BCE.

scholar believes that 537 BCE is the most likely, possible/probable date for the Return consistent with current secular.biblical.historical evidence aviailable at this time

Ah, then why didn't you say that to start with, rather than deceitfully claiming that it was the only possible date. Will you now retract your statement that "based on the bible", 607 BCE is the "only possible date" for the destruction of Jerusalem?

The clincher for such an approved methodology is the fact that the Gentile Times expired in 1914 CE based upon the scholarly determined 607-537 BCE scenario.

Scholar, you must stop telling fibs. As you well know, over the years the WTS changed its 'calculated' start date in order for the alleged prophecy to end up at the year 1914 CE. So the 1914 date was arrived at by other methods, other methodologies which took priority and were used to determine the start of the seven times. Those other methods were long ago dropped, I wonder why. As for the 'success' of the 1914 date, there was none since everything that was expected for that date did not come to pass. C T Russell's prophecy was a failure since it was obvious then, and is even more obvious now, that the 'gentile times' did not end in 1914.

BFS