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 .
Jeffro
Nope. Nothing about exile there, nor about only Judah serving Babylon.
---
Are you thick?
Let me give you the definition of 'exile' from the Macquarie Dictionary:
1. prolonged separation from one's country or home, as by stress of circumstances
2. anyone separated from his country or home
3. expulsion from one's native land by authorative decree
Now the next heading below 'exile' is 'Exile' : a name given to the Babylonian captivity of the Jews
Has the 'penny dropped' now?
scholar JW
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 .
Jeffro
Nope, nothing about 70 years of exile there. Try again.
---
OK! Try reading vs.9 and vs 11 wherein Neb brings destruction upon the Jews with the land becoming desolate then in vs 11 the verse describes Judah in servitude to Babylon which means the Jews must have been deported to Babylon so now we have exiled Jews living in Babylon for a fixed period of time of 70 Years which would constitute an Exile. Is that clear to you?
scholar JW
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 .
Jeffro
No such statement or suggestion appears anywhere in the Bible
--
Jer. 25:8-11 for starters.Would you like some more?
scholar JW
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 .
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 .
Jeffro
I’ve also independently added 2 and 2 to arrive at 4. It would be particularly odd to expect someone to arrive at a different answer given the same source material.
---
Good. Now we have settled this matter then we can use COJ's explanation of Jer.25:11 in the previously cited reference as a basis for discussion but I am curious as to your expression 'given the same source material' which is precisely what?
scholar JW
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 .
Jeffro
The only value in ‘engaging’ with you about Jeremiah 25:11 is to show readers how laughable the JW interpretation is. I don’t need to defer to Jonsson’s work; while his work is valid, I have analysed the original sources myself and arrived at the correct interpretation independently.
--
Nonsense for our interpretation is based on its immediate context and natural or plain reading of the pericope.Jer.25:1-11 which anyone can and must do. You claim to have engaged in independent research so if such truly is the case then you would have come with something original or different to what COJ and others have written. So, please set out plainly what your interpretation of this passage is and where and if it differs from others.
scholar JW
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 .
Jeffro and MeanMrMustard
If you wish to engage with me in an exegesis of Jeremiah 25:11 then I would recommend that you read the following information as to an interpretation of this verse proposed by Carl Olof Jonsson in his Gentile Times Reconsidered, Fourth Edition, 2004, pp.195-209.
The said scholar pouncing on those naughty poztates!!!
scholar JW
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 .
Jeffro
🤦♂️
scholar JW emeritus
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 .
MeanMrMustard
You just said "exactly" to my statement, and then affirmed the exact opposite. Just read v12 grammatically. The 70 years ends, and then the king of Babylon is brought to account, and then sometime after its made a desolate wasteland... on and on... That doesn't change the order.
---
No I simply explain the obvious to you for vs 12 clearly describes the judgement against Babylon, its King and its territory or land which judgement could only have begun after the 70 years had ended or were fulfilled which was at the release of the Exiles two years after the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE being determined as 537 BCE. You are putting the proverbial 'cart before the horse'. You must get the timing right!!
---
No, it explicitly contradicts a plain grammatical reading of the original prophecy in Jerimiah.
---
Grammar whether Hebrew or English won't save you but only sound and proper exegesis will help you and that is what the said scholar relies on as a process of interpretation.
scholar JW
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 .
MeanMRMustard
Double nonsense. You're just repeating an assertion without addressing arguments.
---
Nonsense is not necessary for the said scholar has no need of such nonsense but relies solely on exegesis a term that you are unfamiliar.
scholar JW
