OUTLAW
Post 11665
Do not you worry about scholar because no one can kick his butt for he is just too smart for his critics. Scholar says: Bring it On!!!!!!!!!
scholar JW
scholar
JoinedPosts by scholar
-
421
70 years = 607?
by allelsefails in70 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.
-
-
-
421
70 years = 607?
by allelsefails in70 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.
-
-
scholar
Bennyk
Post 428
The Gentile Times most certainly expired in 1914 CE as shown by modern and theocratic history. There were some expectations of those early Bible Students about 1914 that were not fulfilled nut equally there were some that were so in any event those Bible Students were farsighted in their prophesying and more importantly were not asleep or lazy as the rest of Christendom but were diligient in their watchfulness. Something apostates are not, that is being watchful and industrious with the Lord's interests.
Their careful attention to Bible chronology was also vindicated as they followed in the footsteps of those great scholars and chronologists who love d the Bible and desired to peer into its prophecies. So scholar acknowledges the great contribution to Bible scholarship made bythose courageous and wise Bible Students.
Your mischevious misuse of the quote from a 1913 WT does you no credit but at least simply proves that those early Bible Students acted with integrity and that is something lacking with apostates and a a quality that you would do well to imitate.
scholar JW
-
421
70 years = 607?
by allelsefails in70 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.
-
-
scholar
Mad Dawg
Post 181
Your question is too easy for starters if you want scriptural proof for 537 BCE for the Return then you only need to read the last few verses of 2 Chronicles and then proceed to read Ezra 1:1 until 3:1. This contains all of the esential historical and chronological data that you need. Enjoy the feast.
scholar JW
-
421
70 years = 607?
by allelsefails in70 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.
-
-
scholar
Mary
Post 10670
Hardly a narrow interpretation of Daniel 4 because the entire book of Daniel including this chapter resonates with God's Kingdom in fact it was the first and only book of the OT to do so. There is no need for a 'narrow' view but rather a honesty view of matters that compells one to recognize the theme of this chapter. Get your blinkers off and read the chapter carefully.
Proof of the obvious secondary fulfilment of Neb's discipline was the fact that 'seven times' was to pass and in the case of Neb who had to serve out seven literal years so now if only seven years was intended then why did Daniel use the word 'times' instead of 'years'. The fact is that the Aramaic word means a appointe time or time period is offered by the best Lexicons.
The experience of Nebuchadnezzer is more than just chastisement for a proud king but he was brought to the realization that all Gentile rulers, kings or kingdoms are subject to that greater sovereignty of God as His Kingdom and that is the theological lesson of this story.
Scholar twists nothing for there is nothing to twist but to simply state the obvious and that is that chapter 4 is about God's Kingdom along with the rest of Daniel and indeed of the entire Holy Bible.
The Gentile Times of Luke 21:24 refers to a past trampling continuing to the present of Jerusalem which typ;ified God's Kingdom. The use of the Greek word here as 'kairos' relates to the Aramaic word 'iddan' for times so there is not only a theological connection between the two but a linguistic one as well.
scholar JW
-
421
70 years = 607?
by allelsefails in70 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.
-
-
scholar
Hobo Ken
Post 173
In your dreams for none of my postings have been demolished nor proved to be fallacious because such postings continue to attract the attention of our critics and apostates in their blind hatred of truth for they continue to love the lie.
Our dates have never given us a problem but simply prove that Jesus' true disciples have continued to heed the Master's admonition to 'Keep on the Watch', it is the dates of the apostates that are naive and empty for these deny the significance of prophecy and fail to produce faith. In short, our opposer's dates are dead and empty.
Yes, it is only the Bible that contains the relevant information pertinent to 607 BCED so you have foolishly wasted your time looking for support in secular sources for a biblical date so now you should get cracking and study the Bible as God's Word.
scholar JW
-
421
70 years = 607?
by allelsefails in70 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.
-
-
scholar
isaac austin
Post 1393
In Daniel 4 we have texts that use an expression that relates to God's Kingdom and these verses are as follows:VERSE 3, verse 17, verse 25, verse 22 and verse 34.
Then we have the expression 'times' as found in verses 16, 23, and 25 which are explained as appointed or definite times or time periods which clearly indicate something beyond a literal seven years.
Thes two basic facts are sre sufficient proof of the matter
scholar JW
-
421
70 years = 607?
by allelsefails in70 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.
-
-
scholar
Barefoot Servant
Post 70
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.
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.
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 JW
-
421
70 years = 607?
by allelsefails in70 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.
-
-
scholar
Barefoot Servant
Post 70
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. God has the right to rule and the power to rule as Nebuchadnezzer was made to learn during the course of seven years of banishment and the time of God directly exercising his rulership by means of an installed Kingdom after the expiration of 'seven times' was also demonstarted and is in harmony with the entire book of Daniel.
scholar JW
-
421
70 years = 607?
by allelsefails in70 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.
-
-
scholar
alleldefsails
Post 68
Pastor Russell as guided by the 'celebrated WT scholars' of the day used the best scholarship of the day and as scholarship has progressed then adjustments to our understanding of the Bible increased. Chronology has always been a work in progress from the time of James Ussher so it is to expected that 'fine tuning' occurs. I hope this helps.
scholar JW
-
421
70 years = 607?
by allelsefails in70 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.
-
-
scholar
Mary
Post 10666
Oh Mary, Sweet Mary! You really contribute dribble. The fact is that Daniel 4 along with the entire book of Daniel is about God's Kingdom which is set against the historic intervention of Nebuchadnezzer with the typical Kingdom of Judah. He was shown the present and future reality of God's Sovereignty expressed by that Kingdom. One does not need any Bible aids to understand this theme which is easily seen from both a casual and critical reading of Daniel 4..
It is for others to judge whether Alan F or scholar has won the argument but that is not the point for scholar is not about point scoring but simply in making an apology or defence of our Bible-based chronology.
The entire chapter of Daniel 4 resonates with a lesson that Nebuchadnezzer had to learn and that is that God's Kingdom is beyond and above all other earthly kings-rulers and kingdoms and that God alone exercises complete sovereignty over mankind. That is the lesson sweet Mary, Oh Sweet Mary.
The mention of God's Kingdom which scholar has forced you to focus on is an exeghetical key to the understanding of the dream and scholar can not be accused of twisting anything for there is nothing to twist. The dream or vision is about rulership and kingdom with its surative aspect of times or as the Master described it as the Gentile Times.- Luke 21;24.
May the entertainment continue. Oh Sweet Mary!
scholar JW