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
Unable to find any support in the Bible for 70 years of exile, the inept ‘scholar’ instead alludes to the fact that the Jews were exiled at all. Pathetic.
--
It is pathetic. What you are saying is that there was no conquest of Jerusalem by Neb, no deportation of the Jews from Judah to Babylon, no Return of the Jews from Babylon and that the 70 years was a mythical number. What a tangled web we weave!
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 .
wozza
I read those verses and Jerusalem ,Judah and the nations are going to serve Neb .
Nowhere does it say be exiled ,they could be in servitude wherever they live in their own territory.
Seems to me you are reading more into it because your mind has been trained to.
---
Not really but just the plain reading of the text.for it describes the land being desolate so that means it was uninhabited therefore its population must have been deported somewhere and that was Babylon whereupon they served or were in servitude to Babylon. Further, the population were not vassals to Babylon as COJ wrongly asserts for that vassalage to Baylon was only under the reigns of Kings Jehoiakim, Jehoichin and Zedekiah which terms of servitude ended with the rebellion leading to the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE which led to desolation- deportation and Exile for 70 years.
Simple is it not?
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 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
