scholar

Joined

• started 4 topics
• posted 3,054 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by scholar

• 
  101

  The Next Big Thing In WT World

  by NotFormer in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  things got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.

  there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.

  now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Poor ‘scholar’, still beating the same tired drum. It can only be jealousy.

  --

  Poor Jeffro still beating the same tired drum. It can only be fear

  scholar JW
  
  
• 
  101

  The Next Big Thing In WT World

  by NotFormer in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  things got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.

  there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.

  now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Duran

  He is right in it being incorrect. The WTS by their pointing to recent events and WW3, etc... shows that it is wrong and pointless to debate 607/587. They used 607 to get to 1914 because WW1 occurred then. Using 587 didn't work so they added 20 magical years. But now if peace is being taking away because of recent events and world war with nuclear weapons is on the horizon with the GT to follow then all that was said about WW1 timeframe was not the case.

  ---

  If Jeffro is so smart and is right in that 607 BCE is incorrect then how come with all his pretty blogs he is unable to provide a single line of evidence that disproves 607 BCE?

  scholar JW
  
  
• 
  101

  The Next Big Thing In WT World

  by NotFormer in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  things got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.

  there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.

  now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Duran

  What is the relevance of 607 now being that the WTS are no longer pointing to WW1 as the point the horsemen started their ride?

  --

  Tell that to Jeffro for he has a vested interest in 607 BCE being incorrect!!!

  scholar JW
  
  
• 
  101

  The Next Big Thing In WT World

  by NotFormer in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  things got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.

  there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.

  now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Poor ‘scholar’ keeps irrationally bleating his demands for ‘one line of evidence’, which is simply a smokescreen for the fact that his position is entirely unsupportable under the slightest scrutiny. He can’t even get past the fact that his position requires a solstice on a physically impossible date. Instead he pleads ignorance and insists no one else understands the subject because he doesn’t. Then he returns to his inane mantra about ‘one line of evidence’. Pathetic.

  ---

  Pathetic well describes you in your inability or refusal to simply provide a single line of evidence that disproves 607 BCE for this is something that neither COJ or yourself can do!!

  scholar JW
  
  
• 
  101

  The Next Big Thing In WT World

  by NotFormer in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  things got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.

  there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.

  now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Phizzy

  Of course we have proof, incontrovertible, irrefutable proof, that the 607-1914 Doctrine of the Org. is FALSE. Undoubtedly the most unarguable is what we get from the Babylonian Astronomical Tablets, the "Heavens"do not lie, and establish beyond argument and doubt the true dates !

  "Scholar" therefore tells a blatant lie in the Post above where you provide your link. He strikes me as being of the same ilk as ultra Right Wing Republicans, and Right Wing Conservatives here in the U.K, deep down they know they are uttering untruths, but that is all they have, coupled with insults.

  Truth and "Scholar" are completely estranged.

  --

  Now that you have been enlightened by Jeffro's website with all of its incontrovertible and irrefutable proof that 607 BCE is so wrong it should be now possible as you read the various blogs on the website to simple present at least one line of evidence that disproves 607 BCE. This is my challeng for you
• 
  101

  The Next Big Thing In WT World

  by NotFormer in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  things got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.

  there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.

  now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  ‘scholar’ is so pitifully wrong that the best he can do to ‘refute’ the information I’ve provided is to complain that the many problems with his dogma aren’t only ‘one line of evidence’ (which is just bizarre). He can never discuss specifics because he always gets backed into a corner, so he instead makes trite remarks about ‘pretty colours’ and false claims of plagiarism. His recent desperate attempts to plead ignorance about dating systems regarding the impossible solstice is particularly amusing.

  ---

  If what you say is true with such information showing the many problems with 607 BCE then how is it that you are unable to provide only one line of evidence that refutes 607 BCE? Surely this should be a simple task for you to do!!

  scholar JW
  
  
• 
  101

  The Next Big Thing In WT World

  by NotFormer in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  things got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.

  there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.

  now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Your website is simply a rehash of COJ's nonsense along with the same old tired misinterpretation of the bibllical evidence for 607 BCE and 1914 CE.

  Further, your blogs on the website do not contain a single line of evidence that disproves 607 BCE. So, where is it?

  scholar JW
• 
  101

  The Next Big Thing In WT World

  by NotFormer in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  things got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.

  there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.

  now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  joey jo

  I still say Scholar is trolling us

  --

  You are mistaken for the said scholar is no troll.

  scholar JW
  
  
• 
  101

  The Next Big Thing In WT World

  by NotFormer in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  things got a bit lively after the agm leaks in october.

  there was a lot of discussion going on on this board for a few months.

  now that all the leaks have been more or less confirmed as policy, and we've had lively discussions at length concerning the changes, things seem to have slowed down here.. a few suggestions have been raised as to what might be the next changes, such as women being allowed to wear slacks (in the usa, anyway), decoupling from 1914 as an anchoring date and others.. so, what changes do you think will be announced this year?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  They simply have too much vested in 1914 to drop it altogether. (Though if they did, it would be very amusing watching ‘scholar’ bleat about how 607 was actually wrong all along.)

  --

  Only in your dreams. Such a change is highly improbable especially when WT critics cannot provide a single line of evidence that disproves 607 BCE!!!

  scholar JW
  
  
• 
  129

  Is there “new light” on 1914?

  by wallsofjericho in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

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

  is this regarding 1914?

  or micheal the arch angel?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  scholar

  Jer2527

  Daniel was not taken to Babylon in 607 BC.
  

  He was taken there in 605 BC.

  He was taken there in 605 BC because the Jews refused to serve the King of Babylon from 609 BC and instead had made or had tried to make an alliance with Egypt, so Babylon came, gave them a slap and 'took spoil' putting them in their place, Daniel being part of this spoil.

  --

  Incorrect. Daniel along with King Jehoiakim of Judah and others were deported to Babylon in 597 BCE and not 605 BCE as shown in Dan.1:1.as Nebuchadnezzer came up against Judah for the first time because of Jehoiakim's rebellion.

  ---

  Daniel 2:1 In the second year of his kingship, Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar had a number of dreams, and he was so agitated that he could not sleep.

  Nebuchadnezzars 1st year was 605 BC - when Daniel was taken.

  Nebuchadnezzars 2nd year was 604 BC

  Nebuchadnezzars 19th year was 586 BC, when Jerusalem was finally destroyed:

  2 Kings 25:8-10 In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; he also burned down the house of every prominent man. And the walls surrounding Jerusalem were pulled down by the entire Chal·deʹan army that was with the chief of the guard.

  Previous to this, Nebuchadnezzars again HAD to came to Jerusalem because it had still not properly subjected itself after the slap of 605 BC. This time, a great many were further taken captive. This occured in 697 BC.

  This additional, larger exile, occurred, according to Jeremiah, in Nebuchadnezzars 8th year or 605 - 8 = 697 BC.

  --

  Your Chronology for Neb's reign needs to be adjusted to 20 years in order for it to synchronize with Bible Chronology which is far superior to NB Chronology.

  ---

  This additional, larger exile, occurred, according to Jeremiah, in Nebuchadnezzars 8th year or 605 - 8 = 697 BC.

  2 Kings 24:12 King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, along with his mother, his servants, his princes, and his court officials; and the king of Babylon took him captive in the eighth year of his reign.

  2 Kings 24:14 He took into exile all Jerusalem, all the princes, all the mighty warriors, and every craftsman and metalworker—he took 10,000 into exile. No one was left behind except the poorest people of the land.

  That the exile began, WAY BEFORE THE CITY FELL, can be seen from examining Ezekiel's later words:

  Ezekiel 40:1 In the 25th year of our exile, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth day of the month, in the 14th year after the city had fallen, on that very day the hand of Jehovah was upon me, and he took me to the city.

  The 25th year of exile is refering to the big one which occured in 597 BC

  25 years after this was 597 - 25 = 572 BC where Ezekiel receives the temple vision.

  NOTE THAT THIS IS 14 YEARS AFTER THE FALL OF THE CITY.

  572 + 14 = 586 BC

  JERUSALEM FELL IN 586 BC

  ----

  Incorrect for your Chronology has a shortfall or gap of 20 years and thus needs to 'fine-tuned' in order for it to synchronize with Bible-based Chronology. Jeffro would not be happy that you state that Jerusalem fell in 586 BCE and not 587 BCE so you have a big problem with this date.

  --

  THE JEWS WERE HANDED OVER TO SERVE BABYLON FROM 609 BC

  Because they refused to subject, this ended up in exile 1, a small one, this taking place in 605 BC - where Daniel was taken captive.

  A larger exile in 697 BC

  Then in Jerusalem's destruction in 586 BC

  ALL THIS BECAUSE THEY DID NOT SUBJECT FROM 609 BC

  Jeremiah 25:11, 12 And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’ “‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,’ declares Jehovah, ‘and I will make the land of the Chal·deʹans a desolate wasteland for all time.

  Some people just cannot listen and instead chose suffering...

  --

  The Exile began with the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple with the total deportation of its population in 607 BCE and lasted for 70 years however there was adeportation of Jewry some ten years earlier but this was not the Exile.

  scholar JW