Posts by MeanMrMustard

382

The Gentile Times Reconsidered

by Spade in

disproving the date 1914 as a significant year in bible prophecy is of great importance to some (e.g.

carl o. jonsson).

along with the meticulous details of bible and secular chronology, broadening one's horizons when assessing exactly what this date represents when compared against the 6000 years of human history likewise has merit.

MeanMrMustard

@villabolo:

*shrugs*... I don't think I was that mean... was I?

382

The Gentile Times Reconsidered

by Spade in

disproving the date 1914 as a significant year in bible prophecy is of great importance to some (e.g.

carl o. jonsson).

along with the meticulous details of bible and secular chronology, broadening one's horizons when assessing exactly what this date represents when compared against the 6000 years of human history likewise has merit.

MeanMrMustard

@Spade:

What's a nightmare is repeating information more than once that directly addresses an argument (I'm not doing it again). It's people like you that have a serious problem with reading and comprehension.

And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years. Jeremiah 25:11

Wonderful! Excellent! This is exactly what I was talking about. You spout off how its been such a nightmare for you to repeat information that you say "directly addresses" the objections to 607, all the while completely missing the points made by all other posters. And then, for icing on the cake, so-to-speak, you quote the scripture that everyone has been trying to dissect for you using proper grammar, misapplying it by highlighting only the first clause and ignoring the rest.

So here it is again, color coded for your reading pleasure. Perhaps the colors will help you understand that Jeremiah 25:11 is actually a compound sentence (note, for more information about compound sentences, click here)

And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, andthese nations will have to serve the king of Babylonseventy years. Jeremiah 25:11

yellow = subject

orange = verb

red = coordinating conjunction

green = object

blue = adverb, modifies a verb.

Note: its a compound sentence. That means Jeremiah 25:11 is really two separate and complete sentences joined by a coordinating conjuction - like "and" (as it is in this case). Because we are really dealing with two separate sentences, there is a subject and predicate on both sides of the "and". Both sides express two separate thoughts. So you have the first side: "And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment"

STOP.. that's it. That's the entire first thought. Simply expressing that "this land" would be devasted.

And now the second thought: "these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years." What's the subject? It's "these nations" performing the action of the verb. What verb? SERVITUDE! What's the object, the recipient of the action? It's the "king of Babylon". And at the very end, we come across the adverb "for seventy years". What verb is it modifying? Why, its the only one in the second clause - SERVITUDE.

I know what you want the verse to say. You want it to say this: "And all this land must become a devasted place for seventy years, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to servce the king of Babylon seventy years." But you can't do that without completely ignorning grammar. Yes, Jerusalem would become devasted. But the devastion is not - REPEAT - IS NOT - connected to the seventy years. Only the servitude is.

And I will make Jerusalem piles of stones, the lair of jackals; and the cities of Judah I shall make a desolate waste, without an inhabitant. Jeremiah 9:11

YAY! Another ignorant remark. I would direct the lurking JW up a few posts where AnnOMaly pointed out, quite rightly, that the exact same expression was used for Babylon when it was defeated in 539 BC - yet, it was not "without inhabitant". Poetic expression lost on you? Not necessarily a grammatical short fall on your part, but still...

Daniel bore witness to the prophecy pronounced by Jeremiah as exclusive to the Israelites. In the first year of Da·ri′us the son of A·has·u·e′rus of the seed of the Medes, who had been made king over the kingdom of the Chal·de′ans; in the first year of his reigning I myself, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years. Daniel 9:1-2

Daniel bore no such witness. Read the verse carefully. You completely skipped over the work "fulfilling" - you didn't even highlight it in your bold section. It's like it never registered in your brain.

You see, when it comes to human langage, we have something called vocabulary - that is, we have words with meaning. And if a word appears in a sentence you aren't supposed to just ignore the word. If you do, then you actually miss out on some of the meaning in the sentence. I know, I know. This must seem very radical to you...

Daniel "discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah has occured to Jeremiah" - how many years? 70. Years of what? SERVITUDE! Daniel is citing Jeremiah. He's not contradicting Jeremiah, he's citing Jeremiah. Jeremiah did not say seventy years of desolation. He wrote seventy years of SERVITUDE of many nations, not just Judah (these nations). Daniel discerned the 70 years of servitude from Jeremiah, that when expired, would mean the FULFILLING - or ENDING - of the devastations. The end of the seventy years would, by consequence, bring the end of the "devastations" on Jerusalem. READ IT CAREFULLY.

Oh, and thanks for helping all the lurking JWs understand the WTB&TS has no leg to stand on....

MeanMrMustard

382

The Gentile Times Reconsidered

by Spade in

disproving the date 1914 as a significant year in bible prophecy is of great importance to some (e.g.

carl o. jonsson).

along with the meticulous details of bible and secular chronology, broadening one's horizons when assessing exactly what this date represents when compared against the 6000 years of human history likewise has merit.

MeanMrMustard

@ Spade said:

Scripture also clearly specifies that the 70 years would be years of devastation of the land of Judah.

Pay attention to AnnOMaly's response:

No, no, NO! The 'nations serving the king of Babylon' lasts 70 years. It doesn't say the land will be a devastated place for 70 years.

Spade, your statement is only true if you accept that grammar doesn't matter when reading the Bible. That is, we can just read the bible, verbs = nouns, and adverbs can just jump around, attaching themselves to other verbs, like like little frogs. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee...

I honestly believe there is no hope of reasoning with you until you actually learn more about grammar. You are trying extermely hard to prop up a doctrine based, not only on outdated and faulty evidence, not only on fallacious logic, but on the sheer inability to read a simple sentence and understand it. You are the GB's worst nightmare. Not us. Not the apostates here. I think they fear *you*... a sympathizer that tries so hard to defend the cornerstone of the WTB&TS authority structure on a public forum, only to fail miserably for all the JW lurkers to see. They fear this type of exposure, not because there are better arguements or better evidence to present. Actually, any GB member, if faced with the same task you have taken on, could not do any better. They want R&F JWs to believe they have God-given authority, but for goodness sake, believe it quietly! Don't try to defend it on a public forum, lest everyone might see how retarded their doctine really is!

So keep it coming... publish it for all the world to see. Let's show anyone out there who is doubting, and JW looking for answer, just how utterly hopeless it is that the WTB&TS has truth...

@Spade:

You wrote:

The prophecy has a lesser but a parallel fulfillment regarding other nations, but the direct fulfillment regarding the desolation of Jerusalem is clearly indicated in related scriptures; In the first year of Da·ri′us the son of A·has·u·e′rus of the seed of the Medes, who had been made king over the kingdom of the Chal·de′ans; in the first year of his reigning I myself, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years. Daniel 9:1-2 The charter of Cyrus the Great synchronizes with Daniel 9:1-2 so there should be little question in the minds of those that have confidence in the Bible as the unerring, inspired Word of God, and are sincerely interested in knowing the truth of this matter from a Biblical perspective.

I see we have moved on to Daniel 9:2 as a proof text for seventy years of desolation or devastations. I don't blame you, it's exceedingly difficult to mold Jeremiah's words into a form acceptable to the WT. By exceedingly difficult, I mean impossible. And yet, even moving on to Daniel, you can't get away from Jeremiah. Did you notice that Daniel says he discerned "the number" by the books of Jeremiah? Daniel is claiming agreement between his statements and Jeremiah's original words. The problem is Jeremiah never applies the seventy years to the desolation of Jerusalem. The seventy years is mentioned in 25:11 and 29:10, and neither of these verses applies the seventy years to Jerusalem being desolate.

In 25:11 Jeremiah said that there would be many nations "round about" Judah, listed explicitly starting in 25:18, that would serve the king of Babylon for seventy years. He also foretold that Jerusalem would be desolate (25:11a), but this desolation was not tied to the seventy years, only the servitude of "these nations". All Bible translations agree here, even the NWT. Jeremiah 29:10, also shows that the period in question is seventy years "for Babylon." COJ did a great job showing that "at Babylon" is an inaccurate rendering of this verse. Also, by rendering it "at Babylon", you introduce a clear contradiction between Jeremiah 25:11 and Jeremiah 29:10. Seventy years "for Babylon" (indicating seventy years of Babylonian supremacy) fits very well with the thought of nations serving the king of Babylon for sevently years, as 25:11 says.

So here we have Daniel writing about the seventy years, and stating clearly that he got his information from Jeremiah. Since Jeremiah never stated that Jerusalem would be desolate for seventy years, why do you quote it in an attempt to prove your point? The answer: because the WT literature tells you that it applies, and you didn't stop and read the verse *carefully* and in *context*. Go back and read it again. You are missing the word "fulfilling" in the phrase "for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem". Daniel decerned the number of years that would pass, according to Jeremiah, for *fulfilling* the devastations. In other words, the number of years (of servitude - if it is to agree with Jeremiah) that would pass. When the 70 years ended, it would open the way for the desolation to end or be "fulfilled". Danial never equates the 70 years with a period of desolation. Rather, he draws attention to the end of the 70 years. Read it carefully.

Incidentally, the WT would have you believe that Daniel came along and cleared the whole matter up. As if Jeremiah was somewhat vague, and Daniel, living during the fall of Babylon, would know better. This is also the line of reasoning Rolf Furuili takes. It is, in my opinion, a viewpoint only a JW could come up with. I say this because if Daniel re-interpreted Jeremiah, then we have a clear example of Jehovah, the God of the universe, all powerful, the one knowing the ending from the beginning, inspiring a human, Jeremiah, to write a prophecy to warn His people about their wrong course. In the process of exercing his infinite power, He moved Jeremiah to write a clear and unambigious prophecy that everyone could understand. Unfortunately, the clear and unambigous prophecy was all wrong. He had to inspire Daniel to fix up the matter at the end of the seventy year period. Why do JWs accept this? Because its the ultimate example of new light. The God of the universe tries His best, giving accurate and clear "truth", only to adjust it later because the previous "truth" wasn't so true.

I'm sure you'll move on to 2 Chronicles next...

But before then: Spade, can you tell me when the 70 years ended, according to the clear language of Jeremiah 25:12? Please *read* the verse and not a WT before you respond. Just open a Bible and read Jeremiah 25:12 carefully.

MeanMrMustard

382

The Gentile Times Reconsidered

by Spade in

disproving the date 1914 as a significant year in bible prophecy is of great importance to some (e.g.

carl o. jonsson).

along with the meticulous details of bible and secular chronology, broadening one's horizons when assessing exactly what this date represents when compared against the 6000 years of human history likewise has merit.

MeanMrMustard

@Spade.

You wrote:

No, it is not. Facts about the Bible give reason to hold it in higher esteem when coming to conclusions about the related history.

This is not a situation where we are trapped on the horns of a dilemma, having to choose between the Bible and secular history. Let me repeat that because it bears repeating - this is not "The Bible vs. Secular History" - this is not "Which one is correct, the Bible or secular history?" Why? Because the Bible and secular history, with all the lines of evidence pointing to 587 BC as the fall of Jerusalem, agree 100%. Read this paragraph again until it sinks in.

What ex-JWs, who have looked into the situation, have found that 1) there is a mountain of evidence supporting 587 BC as the fall of Jerusalem, and not one shred of evidence supporting 607 BC as the fall of Jerusalem, and 2) the Bible does not stand against this evidence; rather it agrees with it. Again, I will repeat, because I feel that the repetition might be what finally gets you to think about the words you are reading: There is no disagreement between the Bible and secular history regarding the fall of Jerusalem and the date in which this event occurred! It is only when you insist, a-priori, that there was a 70 year desolation of the land of Judah, without an inhabitant, that you get forced into the WT's illogical and grammar-ignoring line of reasoning. Again, it is the WT's doctrine that is incompatible with secular history and the Bible, but the Bible and secular history are in agreement.

The “seven times,” in Daniel 4:25 which Jesus called “the appointed times of the nations” from 607 B.C.E. along with a multitude of other scriptures point to the 20th century for the restoration of Jehovah's visible organization

The "seven times" mean nothing unless 607 is the true date for the fall of Jerusalem. Read your very own statement above. You are calculating *FROM* 607. What I'm saying is that your starting point is incorrect. That is why I said your statements are irrelevant and that you should keep your eye on the ball. They mean nothing unless 607 is the true date for the fall of Jerusalem, and since 607 is not the correct date for that event, the WT's calculation can't even go farther than its first step. Incidentally, all the other steps are logically erroneous too, but that's another matter. 607 is incorrect. The 1914 doctrine dies there, completely.

You can call it strictly a matter of Watchtower interpretation if you choose, but after Carl Jonson's interpretation a person is left completely clueless as to when Jehovah will intervene and act on behalf of human society.

This is getting better with each post. Why do you (and the WT) feel that you must know when "Jehovah will intervene" (ie Armageddon) when Jehovah himself, in His Word, the Bible, the book you are claiming to follow, stated clearly that you are not to know the day, hour, or season of the event?

And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”’ Jeremiah 25:11 The reason “these nations” was used in Jeremiah 25:11 is because the nation of Israel divided in 997 B.C.E. The Northern Kingdom was taken by Assyria and the Southern Kingdom by Babylon. Although Nebuchadnezzar held supreme rulership during Jerusalem's destruction, not every nation and surrounding region could have become a devastated place and taken into captivity. The context clearly indicates the prophecy was primarily against the tribe of Judah: “From the thirteenth year of Josiah the son of A′mon, the king of Judah, and down to this day, these twenty-three years the word of Jehovah has occurred to me, and I kept speaking to you people, rising up early and speaking, but you did not listen. Jeremiah 25:3

No, read the verses in context. It doesn't matter that it was "primarily" against Judah. Of course it was! God didn't send a prophet to warn Babylon, he sent a prophet to warn his people. DUH!

In course of "primarily" warming Judah, God outlined the conditions of the prophecy, and thes conditions included many nations, not just Israel and Judah, being in servitude (not desolate) for seventy years.

Here are the verses in context. Notice the bold portions:

Therefore this is what Jehovah of armies has said, ‘“For the reason that YOU did not obey my words, 9 here I am sending and I will take all the families of the north,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “even [sending] to Neb·u·chad·rez´zar the king of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these nations round about; and I will devote them to destruction and make them an object of astonishment and something to whistle at and places devastated to time indefinite. 10 And I will destroy out of them the sound of exultation and the sound of rejoicing, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the sound of the hand mill and the light of the lamp. 11 And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”’

Notice it mentions the families of the north, and then it states that Babylon will come against "this land" and "all the nations round about". So we have the north mentioned, Judah mentioned ("this land"), and "all the nations round about.". If there is still any doubt in your mind, Jeremiah was kind enough to start explicitly listing the nations included in this prophecy starting in verse 18. Again, there are many (plural) nations involved in the seventy years, they are explicitly listed starting in verse 18, and "these nations" will serve the king of Babylon seventy years. It's seventy years of servitude of many nations. Not seventy years of desolation. Please read the scriptures and respect context and grammar.

MeanMrMustard

382

The Gentile Times Reconsidered

by Spade in

disproving the date 1914 as a significant year in bible prophecy is of great importance to some (e.g.

carl o. jonsson).

along with the meticulous details of bible and secular chronology, broadening one's horizons when assessing exactly what this date represents when compared against the 6000 years of human history likewise has merit.

MeanMrMustard

@Spade: You wrote:

Everyone here has completely missed the point, that the Bible is a highly unified book that points to a time when God's Kingdom as a visible organization will emerge from Christendom and will put an end to all other kingdoms.

The statement above is far removed from your opening post. The issue under discussion is NOT the above statement. The issue we are considering is whether Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BC, as the WTB&TS asserts. Please try to keep your eye on the ball.

“And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite; forasmuch as you beheld that out of the mountain a stone was cut not by hands, and [that] it crushed the iron, the copper, the molded clay, the silver and the gold. The grand God himself has made known to the king what is to occur after this. And the dream is reliable, and the interpretation of it is trustworthy.” Daniel 2:44-45

So? This has no bearing on the real topic here - mainly, whether or not Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BC.

The excavated heterogeneous fragments that conflict with the Bible's historical cannon don't compare with the complete and harmonious Biblical chronology, which gives us a time-line without contradictions, showing the total fulfillment of every prophecy Jehovah gave us.

If you are referring to the business documents as "fragments", then your statment is false. They don't conflict with Biblical chronology concerning the fall of Jerusalem. If by "fragments" you mean the astronomical diaries, then your statement is false. These, also, do not conflict with Biblical concerning the fall of Jerusalem. All these fragments DO conflict with the WT's version of history. This, however, is the WT's problem. And your problem.

it-1 p. 310 Bible The Bible is not an unrelated assortment or collection of heterogeneous fragments from Jewish and Christian literature. Rather, it is an organizational book, highly unified and interconnected in its various segments, which indeed reflect the systematic orderliness of the Creator-Author himself. God’s dealings with Israel in giving them a comprehensive law code as well as regulations governing matters even down to small details of camp life—things that were later mirrored in the Davidic kingdom as well as in the congregational arrangement among first-century Christians—reflect and magnify this organizational aspect of the Bible.

So? This has no bearing on the real topic here - mainly, whether or not Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BC. Incidentally, I don't agree with the Bible being an "organizational book", as if the WTS has some special claim of ownership to its pages. Again, please try to keep your eye on the ball.

I provided some information that you think would allow a person to step back and look at the big picture. As for the meticulous details, the fact of the matter is the archeology is there to support the end of Jewish exile at 537 B.C.E. From this date, count back seventy years to 607 B.C.E. as the year for Jerusalem's destruction. It's just that simple. None of these facts will not go away if you choose to ignore them. Maybe the Bible as the unerring, inspired Word of God has been repudiated by most here.

The Bible provides a great "big picture" at Jeremiah 25:11. Unfortunately, for the WTB&TS' interpretation to be correct, we would all have to ignore grammar. This is one of the principle points in "The Gentile Times Reconsidered". Please read it! It shows how all of the scriptures involved, if read grammatically and in context, agree with the historical sources 100% of the time; and how all of the scriptures involved agree with the WT's version of history 0% of the time.

MeanMrMustard