In light of the posts that over-complicate something relatively simple; the information source for 537 as the date which Cyrus the Great decreed that the Israelites could return to Judea came from the Bible and Brown University Studies, Vol. XIX, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.—A.D. 75, (1956) Parker and Dubberstein.
The only scholarly study that challenges some aspects of these secular sources is “Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian and Persian Chronology Compared with the Chronology of the Bible volume I Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews” from Rolf Furuli.
The reason Charles Taze Russel and his associates came to a conclusion about Bible prophecy regarding the “appointed time of the nations” was to understand when Jehovah will intervene of behalf of humanity. If all the facts are obscured to the point to where no conclusions can be reached, divine prophecy is an utter failure on God's behalf, not its interpreters.
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 Bible is crystal clear when iterating prophetic words in which sound conclusions can be reached. A matrix of data can often be used to obscure clear instruction, but that's not the way God operates, that's the way some humans operate.
For God is [a God], not of disorder, but of peace. 1 Corinthians 14:33
But his disciples began to ask him what this illustration might mean. He said: “To you it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the kingdom of God, but for the rest it is in illustrations, in order that, though looking, they may look in vain and, though hearing, they may not get the meaning. Luke 8:9-10
There's no reason to go beyond what's been stated in black and white text and clear insight, deliberately obscuring Jehovah's teachings and the meaning of his word.
Posts by Spade
-
382The Gentile Times Reconsidered
by Spade indisproving 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.
-
-
Spade
-
21
Babylon The Great Is Economic Ruin (Being Fulfilled)
by Este in12 jesus entered the temple area.
he began chasing out all those who were buying and selling there.
he turned over the tables of the people who were exchanging money.
-
-
Spade
I don't think the world is ready for a tax on religion. I suspect it would start some sort of horrible war.
Money aint worth it if your dead.
-Sab
What do think will happen when God puts it into the hearts of world leaders to turn on false religion?
And he says to me: “The waters that you saw, where the harlot is sitting, mean peoples and crowds and nations and tongues. And the ten horns that you saw, and the wild beast, these will hate the harlot and will make her devastated and naked, and will eat up her fleshy parts and will completely burn her with fire. For God put [it] into their hearts to carry out his thought, even to carry out [their] one thought by giving their kingdom to the wild beast, until the words of God will have been accomplished. And the woman whom you saw means the great city that has a kingdom over the kings of the earth. Revelation 17:15-18 -
77
JW's not a cult
by Lunatic Faith inokay, before you fly off the handle--i wrote a blog on how my research proves jw's are a cult (no, i haven't read the cult book yet).
somebody linked their own findings onto my site saying the opposite.
their evidence is erroneous and as i don't have time to point this out i thought i would let you all do it for me.. www.epages.wordpress.com.
-
-
Spade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult#Origins_in_sociology
The word cult pejoratively refers to a group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre.
This is strictly in the mind of the beholder. It has been said that Hinduism is a religion of 330 million Hindu gods. That in itself is bizarre in my mind. Jehovah's Witnesses teach what only makes practical sense: that Adamic sin won't persist indefinitely while an immortal soul floats off to heaven or hell at death. That God has some purpose and hasn’t abandoned the planet he created.
The word cult originally denoted a system of ritual practices. The narrower, derogatory sense of the word is a product of the 20th century, especially since the 1980s, and is considered subjective. It is also a result of the anti-cult movement which uses the word in reference to groups seen as authoritarian, exploitative and that are believed to use dangerous rituals or mind control. The word implies a group which is a minority in a given society.
"Mind control" is nothing short of science fiction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult#Mind_controlIn the late 1980s, psychologists and sociologists started to abandon theories like brainwashing and mind-control. While scholars may believe that various less dramatic coercive psychological mechanisms could influence group members, they came to see conversion to new religious movements principally as an act of a rational choice.
Steven Hassan (Mental health counselor, advocate of exit counseling, author of two books on the subject of "cults") simply made a personal decision based on his own outlook on metaphysics and reality that worked for him. He doesn't necessarily subscribe to the facts of modern psychology.
To anyone stuck on the fictitious thinking of Steven Hassan and like minded: The only real "mind control" that can be spoken of was instituted during the Dark Ages as no one could teach anything outside what was official church doctrine without being subject to capital punishment.
There's quite a bit of ambiguity and uncertainty when defining a cult. -
46
The Evolution of God
by Spade inhttp://www.watchtower21.org/2011/01/evolution-of-god.html.
in the evolution of god, robert wright takes us on a sweeping journey through history, unveiling a discovery of crucial importance to the present moment: there is a pattern in the evolution of judaism, christianity, and islam, and a hidden code in their scriptures.
straddling popular science, ancient history, and theology, this ambitious work sets out to resolve not only the clash of civilizations between the judeo-christian west and the muslim world but also the clash between science and religion.
-
-
Spade
I don't get the point of this post. Have you read The Evolution of God? Or are you just using it's mere existence and summary of content as a conversation starter?
Conversation starter. I don't agree with Robert Wright's analysis of how religion developed;
-
77
JW's not a cult
by Lunatic Faith inokay, before you fly off the handle--i wrote a blog on how my research proves jw's are a cult (no, i haven't read the cult book yet).
somebody linked their own findings onto my site saying the opposite.
their evidence is erroneous and as i don't have time to point this out i thought i would let you all do it for me.. www.epages.wordpress.com.
-
-
Spade
The definition of a cult is a religious organization that teaches doctrines of men, not God. If examined, the very same people that try and apply this label to Jehovah's Witnesses would have to apply it to all religions, because all other religions using simple examples can be renounced as false.
-
77
JW's not a cult
by Lunatic Faith inokay, before you fly off the handle--i wrote a blog on how my research proves jw's are a cult (no, i haven't read the cult book yet).
somebody linked their own findings onto my site saying the opposite.
their evidence is erroneous and as i don't have time to point this out i thought i would let you all do it for me.. www.epages.wordpress.com.
-
-
Spade
When used to indict Jehovah's Witnesses, the word “cult” has no implicit meaning. It's basically just a slang term for a religion someone doesn't like.
-
20
Are you a spiritual? - What is the definition?
by TastingFreedom inas a jw, the definition of spirituality is very limited and narrow minded.
but i have realized that i'm a spiritual person even as an agnostic.
watchtower's use of the word is completely wrong, and only used to benefit their own agenda.
-
-
Spade
But a physical man does not receive the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know [them], because they are examined spiritually. However, the spiritual man examines indeed all things, but he himself is not examined by any man. For “who has come to know the mind of Jehovah, that he may instruct him?” But we do have the mind of Christ. 1 Corinthians 2:14-16
Part of being spiritual minded is analyzing the Bible for evidence that the 66 Bible books comprise one book, inspired by God.
Rbi8 p. 8 Introduction
MARGINAL REFERENCES: There are more than 125,000 marginal (cross) references in this edition. These citations demonstrate that there is at least a second witness to almost every Biblical matter. A careful comparison of the marginal references and an examination of the accompanying footnotes will reveal the interlocking harmony of the 66 Bible books, proving that they comprise one book, inspired by God.
The faithful and discreet slave has always proven itself to be an analytical lens that examines all matters. -
65
So I finished reading the Origin of Species last night.....
by Mr. Falcon in...oh my.. i am not trying to start a creation vs. evolution debate, but something else really did stand out in my mind upon reading this "infamous" book.
and that is that the theory of evolution is a very complex and at times, logically interesting theory.
it makes valid points as well as asking fair and legitimate questions of the theory of creation.
-
-
Spade
The cited article discusses how the parents's adaptation becomes part of the genetic heritage passed to their progeny. Those having a useful adaptation live longer, on average, than those who don't. Thus they produce more offspring, on average, than their non-adapated neighbors. over many generations, the adaptation expands from a rare abnormality to a common trait; like compound interest, a small percentage gain repeated many times produces an enormous increase.
In the future, Langkilde plans to study the mechanism behind the behavioral changes following invasion. Non-responsive lizards tend to be killed and removed from the gene pool. "Non-responsive lizards are less likely to make it to reproductive age when they would be capable of passing their non-reacting, short-legged genes on to offspring," she said.
That is an excellent summary of Darwin's theory of natural selection. When you understand this concept, you will begin to appreciate evolution as a key tool enabling the ongoing process of creation, not its antithesis. Please read at least the introduction to Darwin's book before discussing its merits!
Don't you represent the Catholic version of evolution: theistic evolution?
-
22
C.T.Russell..did you know............
by Snoozy indid you know that the man that helped form the jehovah's witness religion only had 7 years of schooling?.
"in june 1912 reverend j.j. ross, pastor of the james street baptist church in hamilton, ontario, published the pamphlet, some facts about the self-styled 'pastor' charles t. russell, denouncing russell, his qualifications as a minister, and his moral example as a pastor.
russell promptly sued ross for "defamatory libel".
-
-
Spade
You copied and pasted. Where are the hypocritical critics?
-
65
So I finished reading the Origin of Species last night.....
by Mr. Falcon in...oh my.. i am not trying to start a creation vs. evolution debate, but something else really did stand out in my mind upon reading this "infamous" book.
and that is that the theory of evolution is a very complex and at times, logically interesting theory.
it makes valid points as well as asking fair and legitimate questions of the theory of creation.
-
-
Spade
Evolutionists are all too happy to label phenomenon in the natural world as "evidence for evolution." For example;
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090121123041.htm
Evolution In Action: Native U.S. Lizards Are Adapting To Escape Attacks By Fire Ants
…is an example of adaptation, not evolution.
Creationists expect species to adapt to their environments just as evolutionists do. Are there limits to the degree of adaptation? Is the Fence lizard going to develop new structures based on complex cellular changes so that we will no longer recognize it as a lizard (showing progressive complexity)? Or is this example the limit of adaptation and other mechanisms like genetic drift? If you answer these questions you will have no empirical evidence.
The theory of common ancestry has to show a mechanism to derive complexity from simpler organisms. Vertebrates are extraordinarily complex at all levels of organization. How did they achieve this? What are the cellular mechanisms?
A whole sequence of mutations would have to be identified and determined along these lines. You can apply any and all scientific methods to this Fence lizard outside its natural habitat and it will still remain a Fence lizard. Species are static and they stay that way.
