Posts by Bobcat

150

Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 or 568 BC?

by Vanderhoven7 in

anybody know something about vat 4956?.

nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 bc?

any independant astronomer can test it and it only matches 568 bc.. .

Bobcat

Hi Jeffro,

Got you covered! (See here.)

150

Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 or 568 BC?

by Vanderhoven7 in

anybody know something about vat 4956?.

nebuchadnezzar's 37th year matches the year 588 bc?

any independant astronomer can test it and it only matches 568 bc.. .

Just to add to Phizzy's link, here is GTR from Jonsson's own website. And here is another copy of GTR in a single PDF. (The first link is a series of PDFs linked together. So if you want a single PDF to download the second link is better for that.)

Here is a reverse listing of Babylonian kings starting with Nabonidus (& Belshazzar, who were the last Babylonian kings) and working backwards to Nebuchadnezzar II. This listing was originally on this site (JWN). I just copied it over to the DTT site and expanded the list to go back to Nebuchadnezzar's 1st year. What is ironic about the list is that the vast majority of it is agreed upon by the WT.

This post (off site and, admittedly, somewhat long) shows how WT's 20 year difference in chronology shrinks to 18 years at the exile of the ten tribe kingdom, and then expands to 67 years at the split in the Jewish kingdom after Solomon.

This post (off site) lists major problems with the WT's 607 BCE and Daniel chapter 4 interpretation.

And here is Carl Olaf Jonsson's home page with numerous other documents including his reply to the two part WT articles on 607 BCE in 2011.

Just as an aside, I think Vanderhoven is simply opening up a discussion. I don't believe he agrees with 607 BCE as the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon. I have noticed that some JWs get their FS time in posting on Quora.

One final irony: A few years ago I told myself that all this arguing over whether 607 was correct was too involved for me and I would just leave it to others to sort it out. 'Famous last words!'

34

Re: Use of revised New World Translation

by pixel in

this letter will be read this week.

you read it here first!.

re: use of revised new world translation .

Bobcat

My post here (off-site) has some of the things I have found in the revised NWT. (Not all the changes were bad, by the way.) And here was another thread where the revised NWT was the topic of concern (also off-site).

17

What did Jesus Teach the "Kingdom of Heaven/God" is?

by truth_b_known in

the books of matthew, mark, luke, john, and the beginning of acts are filled with what the authors purport are statements of jesus.

jesus is quoted as making several statements about "the kingdom of heaven" or "the kingdom of god".

those statements are often given as parables that start with a phrase something like "the kingdom of heaven is like...".

Bobcat

Hi tbk,

This post (off site) may be of help. Also check out the link at the bottom of that post.

28

May JW Broaadcast - so bad, "it's not even wrong"

by FFGhost in

don't know how many of y'all still watch it.. this month's topic is "the king of the north" - cook goes into monotonous detail over the jw interpretation about rome, germany, ussr, russia, etc.. leaving aside for other commentators the emotionally manipulative videos of jws in russian holding cells, the tearjerker interviews, the god-awful stiffness of cook (i suspect he has never genuinely smiled, much less laughed, in his 60+ years), just thought i'd comment on one topic.. the centerpiece of the program is a "morning worship" monologue from splane.

let's again just leave to the side the dude's pomposity, smugness, and inflated sense of his own genius, and think about this part of his monologue.. he was tracing the history of the "king of the north" and talked about how "britain" (not england, not the united kingdom, not great britain, but "britain" - no idea why they have that fixation - anyway...) became the kotn in the 19th century.. paraphrasing his comments: "britain would not have become kotn if france had its way.

france was much wealthier and more powerful, but at the battle of waterloo, britain defeated france.

Bobcat

There is a subtle flaw in the WT's king of the north interpretation. (Of course, there might be other major flaws also.) But the one I am referring to is based on a mis-rendering of a conjunction at Dan 11:25. See this post for an explanation.

15

Art work in the 1933 book riches

by mickbobcat in

i picked this book up at a flea market for three bucks.

the art work is great.

i love the satan and .

Bobcat

Hi Minimus,

Yea, I agree. I usually take most of the subliminal stuff with a grain of salt. But there are a few that are hard to explain any other way.

The picture with the one naked man up against the other, I wonder if CT Russel borrowed the artwork? And if so, why would he put such a picture in his publication? Was this a way to get the curious to buy the book? It seems like the poor colporteurs would be run out of town for trying to distribute this kind of stuff.

15

Art work in the 1933 book riches

by mickbobcat in

i picked this book up at a flea market for three bucks.

the art work is great.

i love the satan and .

Bobcat

See this page, about the 4th or 5th picture down. According to the web page it comes from page 257 of the 1914 book Creation.

17

Why a 1914 Return Date is Impossible

by Sea Breeze in

revelation 20:2-3. and he [jesus] laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the devil, and satan, and bound him a thousand years,.

and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.. we see that the millennial reign begins with satan being bound.

he will be bound for 1000 years.

Bobcat

Hi SB,

Wish you well.

17

Why a 1914 Return Date is Impossible

by Sea Breeze in

revelation 20:2-3. and he [jesus] laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the devil, and satan, and bound him a thousand years,.

and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.. we see that the millennial reign begins with satan being bound.

he will be bound for 1000 years.

Bobcat

Hi Sea Breeze,

Whether Jesus reigns on earth or in heaven is irrelevant in my reply above. Rev 20:4 specifically describes the 1000 years as a time when his disciples reign with Jesus, not when Jesus begins ruling. One of the links I included in my post was to NT indications of when Jesus begins ruling. As 1Co 15:25 shows, he is already ruling while he still has enemies. His disciples begin ruling with him after the destructive events in Rev 19 and Satan'a abyssal in Rev 20:1-3. Of course, Jesus' rulership during the 1000 years will be far more manifest than it has been before that. It will be open then (Dan 2:44), compared to behind the scenes (so-to-speak) as it is now. (Compare Mt 13:31-32, 33)

As for what the NT indicates about when Satan is cast out of heaven, see this thread (off site). This should not be confused with when Satan is abyssed in Rev 20:1-3.

The early church fathers you quoted are not incorrect per se. They just don't factor in that Jesus has been ruling God's Kingdom since he returned to heaven. (Col 3:13) It's just that his rulership is presently more discreet. But it will eventually be much more overt. This discreet, then overt rulership of Jesus is sometimes referred to as "Inaugurated Eschatology." (See posts # 13, 15, 17 starting here.)

26

Was your faith in Armagedddon connected to current events?

by Wasanelder Once in

remember when nixon resigned?

the big a was here some said.

remember 1986 and the "international year of peace and security?

Bobcat

I used to have the WT view of Armageddon referring to a final battle. And, indirectly, it does. But I have come to appreciate that Armageddon, based on Rev 16:13, 14, 16 refers to a "place" where worldwide forces mobilize against God's people. Megiddo and the surrounding area, as a staging area for foreign armies, would have posed an imminent threat to the ancient nation of Israel.

Now I take Armageddon as implying a movement against Christianity (as opposed to natural Israel), and thus, for me, "the place called Armageddon" is a symbolic place. It is also possible that the Har in Harmageddon is an allusion to Ezek 38:7-9. (See this thread for additional.)

In Rev 16:16-21 the gathering of forces to Armageddon (Rev 16:16) prompts a (destructive) response from God (Rev 16:17f; just as it does in Ezek 38:17-23). So, from that standpoint, "Armageddon" could be described as a "battle" since battles are often named by the place where they are fought (e.g. Normandy, Marathon, etc). But more happens at "Armageddon" than just a final battle. (Compare Rev 16:19)

Vanderhoven's link on page 1 of this thread, although it understands a preterist (1st century) application of Rev 16, it does correctly apply the term Armageddon to a gathering of foreign/enemy forces against those who are viewed as God's people.

So, back to the question in the thread topic, I now see the approach of Armageddon as being related to a worldwide anti-Christian movement on the part of all governments. Whether it happens in my lifetime or not remains to be seen. And how one nation (such as Russia or China) act towards Christianity is not necessarily indicative that the time has arrived.

In Rev 16:13-14 the "False Prophet" is one of the leaders in prompting this gathering of forces. I currently understand this to be the US/GB (i.e. Great Britain) so that, a more significant indication of the approach of Armageddon would be the attitude of the US towards Christianity. There are some indications of changes in attitudes in the US towards Christianity even now, but nothing yet of the sort described in Rev 16:13, 14, 16.

Another factor related to this is that, if the "False Prophet" is portraying the US/GB, then, it would imply that the US is still a predominate nation, able to influence a worldwide gathering of forces. Currently, the US seems to be on the verge of losing that dominate influential position. So, based on what I said just above, one might think that the gathering to Armageddon would not be too far off in the future, that is, if how I currently understand things holds true.

Of course, such views are subject to change, mine included. But that is how I understand things at the moment.

As such, other wars, pandemics, food shortages, cries of peace and security, et al, are not related to how close Armageddon is. On the other hand, Rev 9:20-21 which is part of the 6th Trumpet, portrays the majority of mankind as becoming set in their rejection of Christianity. This parallels with the gathering of forces to Armageddon in the 6th bowl (Rev 16:12-16). So the two combined portray a total rejection by the world of real Christianity and a movement to get rid of it. All of this together is what prompts God to react in the 7th Trumpet (Rev 11:15-19) and the 7th bowl (Rev 16:17-21) which essentially describe the same thing (i.e. a time of destructive judgment by God).