Posts by scholar

282

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside in

i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.

instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .

they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .

scholar

Jeffro

Irrelevant misdirection. Though Young’s method is sound, BM21946 definitively identifies the placement of the first siege relative to Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. Jeremiah 52:28-29 definitively identifies the placement of the final siege relative to the first siege.

---

Nonsense. Jer.52: 28 refers to the first deportation and not the 2nd deportation of Jews in Neb's 7th year in agreement with BM 21946.

Jer. 52:29 refers to a later deportation of Jews or second deportation of Jews in Neb's 18th year which formed part of Neb's final siege of Jerusalem ending in 607 BCE

This means rather than there being three deportations of Jews taken into Exile according to COJ there were only two deportations of Jews into Exile according to the Biblical record of 2 Ki.24.

scholar JW

Refer: Gentile Times Reconsidered, Carl Olaj Jonsson, 4th edn, pp.254;341-43

282

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside in

i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.

instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .

they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .

scholar

Jeffro

Well, yeah. It is only ‘based on the Bible’ in the most superficial sense. In reality, their ‘reasoning’ is a jumbled mess of unrelated passages without regard to the actual context of any of them.

---

Nah. Only solid biblical exegesis will do with a nice tight fitting of stated facts nicely woven into a rock-solid doctrine or teaching that has stood up to much criticism since the 1870's.

scholar JW

282

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside in

i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.

instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .

they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .

scholar

Beth Sarim

1914 is a date the JWBorg has to stick to in order for it's nonsensical history to hold-up

As the new GB member tried to lay-out 'imagine it was 608 BCE'', just before the fall to the Babyllonians,,,they yet double-down on their foolhardiness of such unfounded dates to rev-up their dogma.

--

1914 and its subsequent history explains the rise of the modern-day eschatological Church known as 'Jehovah's Witnesses proclaiming God's Kingdom and fulfilment of Bible Prophecy.

---

Clearly,,,no one but the Borg will substantiate that 607BCE fall but them and they have to become more unreasonable with that date.

Because no other Historian Scholar will support it. It's ridiculous.

- the celebrated WT scholars and the said scholar champion 607 BCE as the only date- the only possible date for the Fall of Jerusalem based on the historical reality of the Exile of 70 years.

scholar JW

282

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside in

i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.

instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .

they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .

scholar

Phizzy

"the convoluted selection of ‘2520 years’ doesn’t even have any direct biblical basis." I would suggest it doesn't have any indirect basis either.

--

False for it is based on both direct and indirect evidence.

----

The Book of Daniel is agreed by a consensus of Scholars to be a thinly veiled political/religious tract against Antiochus Epiphanes 1V, no way was the seven times/years envisaged by the writer to be any longer than what the Chapter says, seven years of madness for the King. "Daniels" prophecies were supposed to happen very soon, apart from the vague apocalyptic stuff.

----

Nonsense for scholars are divided as to the time of writing or composition of the book of Daniel.

Scholars are inconsistent with their treatment of the Neb's literal 7 years vacancy from the throne which falsifies secular NB Chronology.

----

To extrapolate 2520 years from "Daniel" is a twisting and misuse of Scripture, and you have to be deranged to accept it.

--

No for it comes down to exegesis of the biblical text which clearly shows the equivalence of the Danielic 'seven times' interpreted by the dating formulas contained in the book of Revelation which contain the keys for unlocking sacred mysteries.

scholar JW

282

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside in

i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.

instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .

they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .

scholar

Jeffro

1914 is just one of many dates proposed by Adventists following the great disappointment. It is complete nonsense, and the convoluted selection of ‘2520 years’ doesn’t even have any direct biblical basis.

---

Nonsense. 1914 and the Gentile Times of 2520 years are based on rock-solid biblical exegesis and have been confirmed by the fulfilment of events since 1914 as part of the Sign of Christ's presence or Parousia so you cannot be any more direct than these facts.

scholar JW

282

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside in

i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.

instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .

they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .

scholar

Jeffro

Can you imagine if JWs did abandon 1914 though. Poor old dupes like ‘scholar’ would have to start saying 1914 and 607 BCE never actually made any sense. It would be hilarious.

---

-- The jokes on you as you do not recognize the fact of the Jewish Exile of 70 years which falsifies your laughable 587 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem

scholar JW

282

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside in

i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.

instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .

they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .

scholar

Jeffro

The fact that you think my ‘methodology’ is ‘complex’ only demonstrates your own inability to comprehend quite simple deductive reasoning. There was no 70 year exile. No source mentions an exile of 70 years. 🤷‍♂️ 😂

Link Dislike Like---

Perhaps you should read the Bible and such books as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezra, and Ezekiel and then you can read Josephus .scholar JW

282

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside in

i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.

instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .

they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .

scholar

Jeffro

You can pontificate all you like about 587 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem but your charts simply prove that the biblical/regnal data combined with the selected secular data that you use does point most likely to 587 BCE. However, the biblical data alone cannot fix with certainty a date for the Fall of Jerusalem as it simply lists the reigns of the Judean kings so this alone partially constructs a scheme of Chronology for that period of Jewish history. The chronologist must then take into consideration other historical realities such as the Exile of 70 years which then fine tunes the chronology which shows a gap of 20 years. Now, the Chronology can be corrected which anchors the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE then with the known biblical data for the respective Monarchs whose reigns can then be properly adjusted.

The problem with your opinion and charts comes down to Methodology and that has now been recognized by Chronologists such as Rodger Young who first introduced the term into scholarly journals in his advocacy of 587 BCE by means of the use of Decision Tables Analysis. But again Young fails to account for the Jewish Exile even though he has produced studies on the Jewish Sabbaths and Jubille.

In short, your Chronology fails on two counts: An inadequate Methodology and a failure to accommodate the Jewish Exile. WT scholars have adopted a very different Methodology in their schemes of Chronology beginning with Charles Russell who even in those earlier times considered the historical reality of the Exile of 70 years.

scholar JW

282

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside in

i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.

instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .

they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .

scholar

Jeffro

https://jeffro77.wordpress.com/2022/11/17/586-or-587/

---

A contrivance with pretty coloured charts along with a flawed methodology disproved by the historical fact of the Jewish Exile of 70 years. Plain and simple!!!

scholar JW

282

How Will They End 1914 Teaching?

by EmptyInside in

i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.

instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .

they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .

scholar

Jeffro

Entirely wrong. Based on the secularly agreed facts of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign along with what the Bible says, 587 BCE is the correct year. But JWs don’t really care what the Bible actually says. 607BCE has no support from any reputable source at all.

----

Entirely wrong. Your methodology as used on your website discussing 587 vs 586 BCE uses a methodology that is complex and simply a contrivance in order to prove the unprovable.I am sure that serious scholars who advocate 586 BCe are well aware of the contrary arguments against 586 but it still, remains the strongest candidate within current scholarship.

The dates 586 or 587 are falsified by the fact of the Jewish Exile which was of 70 years duration ending in Cyrus' 1 st year in 537 BCE and beginning in the 18th year of Neb and the 11th year of Zedekiah which brings the simple fact that the Exile could only have begun in 607 BCE with the Fall of Jerusalem.

scholar JW