bennyk
You prove my point exactly. You offer nothing but ridicule and sarcasm. What Gospel do you preach if you have one, Do you? If you are a Christian then how are you obeying Jesus' command at Mattjew 28:19, 20?
scholar JW
scholar
JoinedPosts by scholar
-
343
Defence of watchtower society Links
by reniaa ini thought long and hard before making this thread, that many will not agree with it but i think there needs to be balance and people to realise there are alternate viewpoints out there on many of these subjects, the ones that are most spoke about on this forum.
i was recently sent a full message containing mary's book and these links give the rebuttal to many of her points.
those that are still open-minded enough feel free to look over them even if in the end you still don't agree at least you have heard both the defence as well as the attack as they are on the internet.
-
-
-
343
Defence of watchtower society Links
by reniaa ini thought long and hard before making this thread, that many will not agree with it but i think there needs to be balance and people to realise there are alternate viewpoints out there on many of these subjects, the ones that are most spoke about on this forum.
i was recently sent a full message containing mary's book and these links give the rebuttal to many of her points.
those that are still open-minded enough feel free to look over them even if in the end you still don't agree at least you have heard both the defence as well as the attack as they are on the internet.
-
-
scholar
reniaa
Congratulations for your courage in providing a good defence of Jehovah's Witnesses, their beautiful and sacred teachings and its modern day organization.
Be assured that our teaching regarding chronology especially the date 607 BCE is soundly established on the Bible and secular history. The date is well proven and supported by several WT scholars many of whom are qualified at University level and have made significant contributions to biblical scholarship similatr to that of the NWT Committee.
Apostates hate 607 BCE and only rely on the published work of an apostate Carl Jonsson and they simply accept everything he has written without any criticism it is just as Jesus said about 'the Blind leading the blind'. Further, such ones only slander us but do not provide any alternative; If the Witnesses are not the True Religion then where is it to found today? They have no coherent doctrine, no ministry, no brotherhood in short they have NOTHING to offer except ridicule and vile hatred of Truth, Justice and Christiian Freedom.
Keep up the good work
Your brother in faith
scholar JW
-
35
Scholarly support for 607bce ?
by wobble ini mentioned to a bro.
who is supposed to be answering some of my "concerns" with wt teaching that all the non-witness refs.i have seen to the fall of jerusalem place it twenty years later at 587-586 bce.. he maintains that some scholars support 607. does anyone know of a reliable scholar ,who is a recognised expert in this period,who does support 607 ?.
i am well aware that it makes no difference,as the bible nowhere gives us 2520 years,but i am fed up with his assertions and would like to blow this one out of the water so i can ask him to please check his facts.. only help if you really have time ,it's not life or death.. many thanks.
-
-
scholar
Wobble
Reply 204
There is indeed scholarly support for the biblical date and these are the scholars both past and present who aupport 607 BCE: Rolf Furuli, Neil Mc Fadzen, Philip Couture, John Albu and the community of 'celebrated WT scholars'. It must also be pointed out in the interest of intellectual honesty that scholars worldwide cannot agree on the precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem so it is only JW's who have determoned the precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE.
scholar JW
-
2
Couture's treatise refuted
by Doug Mason inyou can obtain a copy of carl olof jonsson's refutation of philip couture's treatise at:.
http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/coutures_treatise_refuted.pdf.
(see note 53 in version 4 of carl's book gentile times revisited, p.
-
-
scholar
Doug Mason
Carl Jonsson's so-refutation of Couture's treatise is incomplete because it does not deal with the most important issues suvh as the 'seventy years'. Also because Couture's treatse is impossible to locate and source such a refutation has no value whatsover. On esuspects that Couture's research is very damaging to NB chronology and so critics of WT chronology have gone to various lengths to conceal this 'smoking gun'.
scholar JW
-
24
the seventy year thing
by logic ini hate to keep bringing it up but i would to give the jws something to think about.
if the isrealites had done as god had told them, to serve babylon voluntairly as they had done in the beginning, then when would the seventy years of so called total devastation have began.
god said that only if they did not serve babylon that they would be destroyed.
-
-
scholar
Mary
Post 9866
Sweet Mary! Scholar ignores no such evidence because he has read everything published on the subject and has well proven the fact of 607 BCE. The Bible completely agrees with our position as any reader can easily determine besides it is well demonstrated by the facts of fulfilled prophecy culminating in that epochal year 1914.
scholar JW
-
24
the seventy year thing
by logic ini hate to keep bringing it up but i would to give the jws something to think about.
if the isrealites had done as god had told them, to serve babylon voluntairly as they had done in the beginning, then when would the seventy years of so called total devastation have began.
god said that only if they did not serve babylon that they would be destroyed.
-
-
scholar
Doug Mason
Post 506
There is no place for 'higher criticism' in the understanding of any book of the Bible and 'lower criticism is also suspect. The only methodology is one that upholds the Inspiration and Inerrancy of the Bible and this is the view of the 'celebrated WT schoilars'.
scholar JW
-
24
the seventy year thing
by logic ini hate to keep bringing it up but i would to give the jws something to think about.
if the isrealites had done as god had told them, to serve babylon voluntairly as they had done in the beginning, then when would the seventy years of so called total devastation have began.
god said that only if they did not serve babylon that they would be destroyed.
-
-
scholar
logic
Post 217
My logic is sound. Our explanation of the seventry years is simple and consistent with all of the seventy year texts and it hgas a definite beginning and end whereas the alternative interpretations offered by higher critics and apostates are fuzzy at both ends. Their models do not work and that is why they prefer to view the seventy years as a round number or a symbolic term so where is the logic in that?
My 'scholar style' proves that 607 BCE is the only correct date because it is the only date that works according to chronology, history and theology. Speculations about what would have happened to the Israelites if they remained faithful does not help matters because this is simply a hypothetical, sound chronology is based upon history and facts leaving no room for 'might-be's or 'may-be's'. The fact of the matter is tghat the seventy years was a period of servitude, exile and servitude all co-joined together.
scholar JW
-
24
the seventy year thing
by logic ini hate to keep bringing it up but i would to give the jws something to think about.
if the isrealites had done as god had told them, to serve babylon voluntairly as they had done in the beginning, then when would the seventy years of so called total devastation have began.
god said that only if they did not serve babylon that they would be destroyed.
-
-
scholar
Alleymom
Post 787
Yes I have. Our interpretation is the only one that works, is in harmony with the Bible and Josephus.
scholar JW
-
24
How do JW's arrive at 537BCE for the release of the jews by Cyrus?
by digderidoo infrom all of my research so far on the 607 issue the only argument that jw's have for it is the 70 year period counting backwards from 537bce.
as 539bce is the accepted date for cyrus conquering babylon, why do they say 537bce is the date he released the jews and not 538bce or 536bce for instance?.
paul.
-
-
scholar
Awakened at Gilead
Post 1482
Josephus' comment concerning 'fifty years' pertains to the oberved fact that the Temple lay in a state of obscurity for that length of time which was within the overall seventy year period of desolation-exile and servitude. The other four references by Josephus confirm the Bible statements about the duration and nature of this fixed historic period.
scholar JW
-
103
Jeremiah and the 70 years. Jewish exile or Babylonian rule?
by digderidoo ini have never until a few days ago been able to reconcile the 70 year prophecy with the 587/6 bce date for jerusalems destruction.
although a post was about this in a previous thread by a@g , i would like to explore this more.. when the 70 years are applied to babylonian rule, rather than the jewish exile everything seems to make sense.. to ellaborate for those who haven't come across it, this is how 587/6 does match the 70 year prophecy.. i hope a@g doesn't mind but i have cut and paste his post:-.
the 587 date does match the bible.... (jeremiah 25:11) 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.".
-
-
scholar
JCanon
Post 3686
No, Josephus and the Bible agree as to the fact that the seventy years began when the Temple, Jeusalem was destroyed and the land emptied of its inhabitants by the seventh month 607 BCE. Jeremiah 44 simply refers to those Jews who had fled to Egypt to escape the Babylonian armies but they too would not escape. The seventy years did not begin in the 23rd of Neb but in his 18th some five years earlier whereby Neb took Jewish captives not from Judah but from surrounding territories.
scholar JW