Posts by scholar

129

Is there “new light” on 1914?

by wallsofjericho in

i’m hearing paraphrasing like “we just don’t know” .

is this regarding 1914?

or micheal the arch angel?.

Bald faced lies! WWI started in July 1914, with some significant declarations in August. No historians say it started in October, and there is no basis for imaginary claims about Satan being ‘thrown out of heaven’ (an interpretation made up by Rutherford several years after Russell’s death, replacing Russell’s belief that the ‘dragon’ represented pagan rulers defeated by papal Rome).

--

The said scholar did not say that WW1 started in October for the Great War was by then already active but as the kingdom was established in October 1914 with the ousting of Satan then there was an unparalleled coincidence of events for both the heavenly and earthly scenes all in sync with the prophecy by John, the Apostle.

Of course, this is an interpretation using eisegesis but this is its beauty nicely by the purpose of this unique revelation to the true Church in modern times.

scholar JW

129

Is there “new light” on 1914?

by wallsofjericho in

i’m hearing paraphrasing like “we just don’t know” .

is this regarding 1914?

or micheal the arch angel?.

scholar

Jeffro

607 for Beginners

OK This is just all smoke and mirrors for all of these facts can just as easily be construed to fit 607 BCE. Where is a single line of evidence?

scholar JW

129

Is there “new light” on 1914?

by wallsofjericho in

i’m hearing paraphrasing like “we just don’t know” .

is this regarding 1914?

or micheal the arch angel?.

scholar

Jeffro

Most amusing, his position requires a solstice on a date that is physically impossible. It’s just pathetic.

--

Not so. You are no expert on this subject and neither is the said scholar. I make this comment "If we consider the calendar as we understand it today, the argument that a year could start in May, 43 days after the equinox seems unreasonable. Once you understand that it has been retro-fitted in an attempt to tie multiple dating systems together, and that the 2nd May is more like the 25th April in todays terms, it sounds more reasonable".

Ancient and modern calendrical systems are problematic especially more so when it comes to the purpose of Chronology for there are too many assumptions that must be made so there is no room for dogmatism. Far better to rely on a historic, text-based approach to Bible Chronology namely the Bible.

scholar JW

129

Is there “new light” on 1914?

by wallsofjericho in

i’m hearing paraphrasing like “we just don’t know” .

is this regarding 1914?

or micheal the arch angel?.

scholar

Jeffro

‘scholar’ continues with the same vague nutbag interpretations that he’s done for years. Everything he says has been thoroughly debunked. Most amusing, his position requires a solstice on a date that is physically impossible. It’s just pathetic.

--

The said scholar does not need 'vague nutbag interpretations' as our chronology has always been well explained in our publications beginning with the early Bible Students for such has stood the test of time and proven to be a strong cable of Bible Chronology as well illustrated through your website. You have not and cannot provide a single line of evidence that disproves 607 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem.

The single line of evidence that proves 607 BCE rather than 586 or 587 BCE is the historic fact of the Jewish/Babylonian Exile which ended in 537 BCE was of a duration of 70 years thus beginning in 697 BCE. This single fact alone cannot be disproved by you, by scholarship-past and present and has not been disproved by COJ in his GTR with his so-called seventeen lines of evidence.

You have your fancy website with all of its pretty, coloured charts along with much detail and yet you cannot and have not boiled the whole subject to one, single line of evidence!!!

scholar JW

129

Is there “new light” on 1914?

by wallsofjericho in

i’m hearing paraphrasing like “we just don’t know” .

is this regarding 1914?

or micheal the arch angel?.

scholar

Beth Sarim

Whoever supports 607BCe,,,will you please read Crisis of Conscience.

Its lights out. Game over.

--

The said scholar has both of Franz's books and has read both thoroughly. CoC does not discuss 607 in any detail but simply deals with Franz's research experience. Franz showed some naivety concerning 607 BC as there was much discussion by SDA scholars concerning 607 BCE originating in Australia before Franz's research for the Aid book project during the late sixties.

scholar JW

129

Is there “new light” on 1914?

by wallsofjericho in

i’m hearing paraphrasing like “we just don’t know” .

is this regarding 1914?

or micheal the arch angel?.

scholar

peacefulpete

I'd love to meet scholar. The shear dedication to this role is worthy of an Emmy. If you have a forum like this without anyone repeatedly playing the WT foil to exJWs the discussions become uninteresting and unchallenging.

---

The said scholar likes to please and he thanks you for your kind words.

scholar JW

129

Is there “new light” on 1914?

by wallsofjericho in

i’m hearing paraphrasing like “we just don’t know” .

is this regarding 1914?

or micheal the arch angel?.

scholar

enoughisenough

scholar "as confirmed by events of great war." The Studies I recall all pointer to the Fall of 1914 when Jesus threw satan to earth and he caused the war. The WWI started Jul 28 1914---Summer, not Fall

--

Your point? Are you seeking some detailed chronology of events in order to synchronize heavenly events with earthly events? Does such an interpretation reflect what the Apostle John saw and wrote down not only for the benefit of its readers in his day but those who would live in the 'Lord's Day' the time in which these events would occur?

The precise beginning of the Great War is disputed for some historians would date the event a little later but certainly by October or the Fall of that year,1914 the Great War had started which nicely coincided with the ousting of Satan to the earth with great rage. The Bible does not give a precise time for this event so we must be content with this most significant biblical and secular coincidence.

scholar JW

coincidence

43

Did Jesus Die On a Stake or a Cross?

by Sea Breeze in

dominic enyart exposes watchtower deception regarding their demonization of the cross.

information packed.

interesting take on paganism as well.

scholar

Sea Breeze

Dominic Enyart exposes Watchtower deception regarding their demonization of the Cross. Information packed. Interesting take on paganism as well.

--

What bunkum. Scholar is wary of a fellow who purports to represent scholarship wears a cap for it is not a good look.

Seriously his arguments are weak and absurd. The simple fact of the matter is that the lexical evidence for stauros in both its noun and verbal form means 'a upright pole or stake'. Over time the word came to mean a two-pieced instrument, a cross and this is given as second meaning for the Greek word. The Gospel writers who witnessed the execution of Jesus described the instrument as a stake- a single piece of wood and not as two-pieced instrument. It would have been impossible for Jesus to carry a cross over some distance over a rough road for some distance in a severely weakened state. The argument that he carried the patibulum is fanciful.

Although we cannot be dogmatic about the instrument of Jesus 'execution the NWT was quite correct in rendering the Greek word as 'torture stake' based on lexicography rather than 'cross' which is based on tradition.

Leolaia's thesis is simply nonsense failing to comprehend the compelling lexical and testimony of eyewitnesses relying mainly on a translation of the Greek word as 'cross' or 'crucify' in her use of the historic materials. which has become a trap for many scholars writing on this subject as an assumption. A good example of such folly is Marin Hengel's Crucifixion, 1977, Fortress Press.

For the latest scholarship on this subject, one should read Gunnar Samuelsson's PhD' thesis.'Crucifixion in Antiquity An Inquiry into the Background and Significance of the New Testament Terminology', 2011

scholar JW

129

Is there “new light” on 1914?

by wallsofjericho in

i’m hearing paraphrasing like “we just don’t know” .

is this regarding 1914?

or micheal the arch angel?.

scholar

Mikejw

Scholar Are you serious or a troll? You genuinely still think Jerusalem was destroyed in 607? You think that 7 times prophecy for Nebuchadnezzar had a second fulfilment and can be made into 77 weeks or years and that pointed towards 1914 when the Bible was written? You actually believe that--

===

Scholar is serious and is no troll. Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE as shown by at least one line of evidence namely the historic-biblical-theological fact of the Jewish Exile. which is ignored by WT critics. Daniel's dream in Daniel ch.4 regarding the 7 times of Neb's reign most definitely had a second fulfilment which was of 2520 years understood by many expositors as the Gentile Times. ending in 1914 CE.

---

And because that prophecy pointed towards 1914 that was going to be the year that Jesus waited until to this year to be called Michael the archangel to finally battle with Satan and the demons and throw them out of heaven.

----

Correct as confirmed by events on the earth consistent with the Great War.

---

hen using a totally random other obscure part of the Bible come up with three and a half years later which should be 1917/18 but let’s stretch it to 1919 and say this is the year that Jehovah chose his one true religion on earth?

--

The book of Revelation discusses these matters and that is why the aforesaid scholar has developed the theological term - eschatological triennium which highlights those dates of 1914, 1918 and 1919 all confirmed by modern history of God's people.

You gotta luv that mighty scholar!!!

scholar JW

129

Is there “new light” on 1914?

by wallsofjericho in

i’m hearing paraphrasing like “we just don’t know” .

is this regarding 1914?

or micheal the arch angel?.

scholar

DesirousOfChange

Scholar is serious for he is no troll

scholar JW