Posts by scholar

40

A Modest proposal to solve the 1914 problem

by r51785 in

throughout watchtower history dates have been a problem.

the usual solution for failed prophetic dates has been to kick the can down the road.

this needs to be done with 1914. the generation that will never pass away is now 110 years old and therefore is past its useful life span.

scholar

Duran

The 70 years were from 609-539, not 607-537. 539 is the 70th year it is not the 68th year lie that the WTS tried to sneak in there.

--

That is simply one interpretation of the 70 years and is impossible as neglects the biblical and historical facts of the Jewish Exile. which ran from the Return of the Jews from Exile in 537 BCE until the beginning of the Exile in 607 BCE with the deportation of Jews to Babylon leaving an empty land. The two prophecies of Jeremiah that you have cited mean that the 70 years was a definite historic period of servitude to Babylon, an exile in Babylon leaving a desolated period all of 70 years.

scholar JW

40

A Modest proposal to solve the 1914 problem

by r51785 in

throughout watchtower history dates have been a problem.

the usual solution for failed prophetic dates has been to kick the can down the road.

this needs to be done with 1914. the generation that will never pass away is now 110 years old and therefore is past its useful life span.

scholar

Ding

I have studied GTR closely over many decades from its earliest edition even having an autographed copy of his Third edition, 1998

JW Facts .com is simply is a rehash of GTR nothing new or original in Grundy.s column as he is no scholar or chronologist.

scholar JW

40

A Modest proposal to solve the 1914 problem

by r51785 in

throughout watchtower history dates have been a problem.

the usual solution for failed prophetic dates has been to kick the can down the road.

this needs to be done with 1914. the generation that will never pass away is now 110 years old and therefore is past its useful life span.

scholar

There has been considerable criticism of the date for the destruction of Jerusalem as 607 BCE rather than 587 or 586 BCE proposed by past and current scholarship. In a recently published work and previous editions by Carl Olaf Jonsson who made it his life's work to refute 607 BCE and 1914 CE, attempts to refute such claims using seventeen lines of evidence. However, if 607 BCE is demonstrably wrong then only ONE line of evidence is needed. So, my challenge to all critics of the date 607 BCE is to provide one single line of evidence that disproves 607 BCE?

scholar JW

40

A Modest proposal to solve the 1914 problem

by r51785 in

throughout watchtower history dates have been a problem.

the usual solution for failed prophetic dates has been to kick the can down the road.

this needs to be done with 1914. the generation that will never pass away is now 110 years old and therefore is past its useful life span.

scholar

Phizzy

The 1914 Doctrine is complete and utter bollocks from start to finish, start = 607 BCE which has been totally discredited as a date for the destruction of Jerusalem, King neb. was not even ruling then ! It has been proven by several methods that are irrefutable evidence that the destruction the Org. refers to happened in 587 BCE.

--

The only bollocks is that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE which is impossible because the Jewish Exile under the Babylonians lasted for 70 years and ended with the release of the Jews in Babylon in 537 BCE. Thus counting back 70 years one arrives at the beginning of the Exile in 607 BCE and not 587 BCE. Further, scholars cannot agree as to whether the destruction of Jerusalem was in 587 or 586 BCE so scholarship is very fuzzy here .

The calculated, precise date of 607 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple under the reigns of the Babylonian King, Nebuchadnezzar and the Judean King, Zedekiah is well documented in both biblical and secular history Despite the best attempts by scholars originating with Adventist scholars in Australia and later foolish attempts utilizing so-called 'seventeen lines of evidence', the date 607 BCE is the only possible date for the Fall.

scholar JW

40

A Modest proposal to solve the 1914 problem

by r51785 in

throughout watchtower history dates have been a problem.

the usual solution for failed prophetic dates has been to kick the can down the road.

this needs to be done with 1914. the generation that will never pass away is now 110 years old and therefore is past its useful life span.

scholar

r51785

Throughout Watchtower history dates have been a problem. The usual solution for failed prophetic dates has been to kick the can down the road. This needs to be done with 1914. The generation that will never pass away is now 110 years old and therefore is past its useful life span. The best thing to do would be to find a more recent date to replace 1914 ( kind of like when the Judge replaced 1874 with 1914). I have a proposal. I apologize if someone has already brought this up, but I haven't seen it mentioned.

---

There is no problem for our dates are based on a sound biblical chronology that has served us well and that of Christendom's scholarship. Nothing needs to be done about 1914 for it is rock solid based on the following key factors:

Biblical Chronology
Gentile Times doctrine- Bible Prophecy
Modern secular history

The generation doctrine has 'muddied the waters' but remains one of the key factors that prove that we are living in the time of our Lord's Parousia and the 'conclusion of the system of things'.

----

1914 is based on a period called "The Seven Gentile Times." The Watchtower says that this is the period from the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 607 BCE to Jesus coming into kingdom power (invisibly) in 1914. The calculation is: seven times equals seven lunar years of 360 days (7 x 360 days = 2520 days). Days are converted to years thus giving us 2520 years. From 607 BCE to 1914 CE is 2520 years. But what if new light reveals that seven times is actually seven solar years? That would mean each year or "time" would be 365.25 days (365.25 x 7 = 2556.75). That means that instead of the "Seven Gentile Times" being 2520 years they would be 2556.75 years. Thus counting 2556.75 years from 607 BCE we would end at the summer of 1951. The generation of 1951 is only 73 years old! No more overlap needed!

---

Good summary! The idea that the 'seven times' can only be interpreted as 'seven solar years' makes no sense, simply fanciful. Far better to stick to the dual application model i.e. seven literal years with Neb's reign and the figurative period of Gentile rule over the potential reign of God's Kingdom typified by the Davidic Monarchy.

scholar JW

7

Can ANY JW provide Bible proof?

by BoogerMan in

hitchins razor - "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

which bible verse/s conclusively prove the following claims?.

w16 november p. 30 par.

scholar

BoogerMan

Indeed: positive or convincing proof is surely needed to establish the simple fact that JW's are indeed the True Religion in accordance with the historical basis for the Early Church as described in the Acts of the Apostles. Note that such was in accordance with 'convincing or positive proofs' - Acts 1:3.

Thus, modern-day Christians identified as Jehovah's Witnesses can testify or demonstrate such clear and demonstrable evidence as follows:

Fulfillment of Bible prophecy

Modern-day history prior to and subsequent to 1914 CE

Bible chronology establishes 1914 CE.

These three things form what the said scholar has termed an ' eschatological triennium' consisting of the key dates of 1914, 1918 and 1919 CE all based on careful exegesis and eisegesis of the Holy Scriptures.

Enjoy!!!

scholar JW emeritus

72

"Jehovah" In The New Testament.

by LostintheFog1999 in

i see they have updated their list of translations or versions where some form of yhwh or jhvh appears in the new testament.. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.

scholar

aqwsed12345

Which "scholar's opinion"? Howard? Read what he wrote about this, on the first page, he even distanced himself from you and declared that his hypothesis does not justify that you can arbitrarily include it in the New Testament without manuscript evidence!

--

I am the 'said scholar'

--

It's simple: it didn't refer to any "name" in terms of content, because "name" here means God's being. "Hallowed be the 'name' of God" is a simple Hebraism, meaning "Hallowed be God!". Read what your publication says about this, which I quoted on page 3.

--

Indeed, it is simple. The very fact that Jesus said 'Let Your name be sanctified' indicates that Jesus was not referring to the name in an abstract sense but in a distinctive sense as it is something that is possessed or belongs. In Hebraic thought the name and person are indistinguishable thus elevating the importance and significance of his personal or distinctive name -"Jehovah'.

--

The Tetragrammaton simply has no role in the context of the New Testament, in the NT the name what is relevant: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in whose name we are baptized, and the name that is above all (Philippians 2:9) is that of the Lord Jesus.

--

Regrettably what you say has occurred because the Name has been obliterated or obscured about meaningless debates about its provenance and pronunciation but providentially it has been restored 237 times places in the NT via the NWT since 1950.

scholar JW

72

"Jehovah" In The New Testament.

by LostintheFog1999 in

i see they have updated their list of translations or versions where some form of yhwh or jhvh appears in the new testament.. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.

scholar

aqwsed12345

I answered all 9 "reasons", none of them "prove" that it was in the New Testament, nor that they were entitled to include it. Do you have ADHD so you can't process what I wrote, or what?

--

That is your opinion. The said scholar's opinion is that the nine reasons are sufficient proof for the insertion of 'Jehovah' - God's Name in the NT and that the NWT Committee have full justification in so doing.

--

In the Lord's Prayer "Hallowed be Thy Name", this has nothing to do with the God's YHWH name used in the Old Testament, associated with the Hebrew cult. "Your name" here does not mean the Tetragrammaton, but God himself. "Blessed be your name", is a biblical phrase, it does not mean that the name, the string of letters that you wear, should be blessed, but that you yourself should be blessed. According to the WTS publication Aid To Bible Understanding (1971), page 1202:

--

Nonsense. If the name mentioned in the Lord's Prayer has nothing to do with God's distinctive personal Name then what name is it that Jesus referred and how is it then to be sanctified or hallowed?

scholar JW

72

"Jehovah" In The New Testament.

by LostintheFog1999 in

i see they have updated their list of translations or versions where some form of yhwh or jhvh appears in the new testament.. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.

scholar

aqwsed12345

t seems you don't want to understand my point. These "arguments" do not prove nor justify the arbitrary instertion of "Jehovah" into the NT.

--

Your point whatever it is is obscured by too much nonsense and material that is superfluous to your argument. Just make your point clear and simplify your argument.

The NWT Committee has presented the nine reasons or lines of evidence with a timeline in colour which enables any reader to understand the textual manuscript evidence. Further, since 1950 various editions of the NWT have also explained the matter by means of either, a 'Foreword', Appendixes and textual notations which it seems that you have not read or understood.

--

In the Lord's Prayer "Hallowed be Thy Name" means, we ask that God may be known, loved, honoured and served by the whole world and by ourselves in particular. This has nothing to do with the YHWH.

--

Blatant nonsense! 'Let your name be sanctified' means 'to be held sacred, be treated as holy'. This is done not by ignoring the Name or not using the Name but by using that name or elevating that Name for after all it is the greatest Name in the Universe. This is the first of the three petitions linked to the same salvation-historical reality uttered by Jesus in the 'Lord's Prayer' and as one Bible commentator states "The relationship between ame and person is much closer in Hebraic thought than for us today...The name of God is virtually indistinguishable from the person of God".

scholar JW

72

"Jehovah" In The New Testament.

by LostintheFog1999 in

i see they have updated their list of translations or versions where some form of yhwh or jhvh appears in the new testament.. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.

scholar

Phizzy

The reasons given in the Appendix have a little to recommend them, but are somewhat disingenuous even so. Of more importance is the claim to respect evidence from the MSS. which is their reason for not including certain verses, i.e the Pericope de Adultera in the Gospel of John.

--

The nine reasons presented in the NWT Appendix most certainly prove that the Divine Name, Jehovah was originally in the autographs of the NT in the absence of such documents.

--

But they have NO N.T MSS. that contain the divine name in the places they insert it, therefore their claim as to sticking to the witness of the earliest MSS is a falsehood.

--

The fact that we do not the autographs or original manuscripts is of little consequence for the evidence presented by the NWT Committee since 1950 proves that the Divine name was present in those original manuscripts.

scholar JW

Link Dislike Like