Posts by Ethos

22

Does 2Thes 2:1-3 prove some of the disciples gave "false prophecies"?

by booker-t in

i have mentioned a few times on this board that my jw's brother just will not let it go with me and continues to prove to me that jesus disciples and other prophets in the bible have given "false" prophecies" or "wrong expectations" concerning the end of the world.

he feels that jw's should not be condemned for their many false predictions.

as always the first thing he will tell me is that "jw's admit to their mistakes therefore we are not false prophets.

Ethos

The truth about the truth about the truth.

529

Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos in

i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

i've read numerous threads and am well aware that this topic has been addressed and dissected quite thoroughly.

therefore, if you are uninterested in participating, that's fine.

Ethos

Leavingwt asked: Have you read "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" by COJ?

Yes. This was answered repeatedly when I insinuated Jeffro's pilfering of Carl Jonnson's arguments and chronology which are delineated in his book. I believe the readers could infer that A): This question wasn't of vital import B): Deduce from my statements that I was familiar with the book

tornapart stated a plethora of statements (many of which would be futile to address at the present moment) but his question he says I ignored:

Ethos.. just answer this.. why is 607BCE so important to JWs? Why do they make such a thing about it? What about other dates in bible history, they don't get nearly so much attention, if any! Why is it that it has to fit at all costs with the 70 years captivity and the intricate explanation as to what it all means? Of what import is it as compared with other bible dates?Just a simple question... Why is 607BCE SO important to JWs?

Was answered previously on page #10, post #5 where I said: Isn't it interesting when people allude to scriptural arguments that refute their own premises? Amazing. Also I'm debating 607 because I believe it's unjustly perpetrated as an impossible and fictional date for Jerusalem's destruction, when it is the only one I've ever seen that allows for a seventy year desolation. I don't require Jerusalem's destruction to prove 1914. This slippery slope fallacy continues to be asseverated repeatedly as if I've declared that this is how I arrive at the conclusion of 1914.

TD only asked one question: I still don't know for sure if you believe that concepts like the 360 day 'prophetic year', weeks of years, etc. span the barriers we've both acknowledged. Do you?

To which I would respond: Yes, many prophecies DO span that barrier and others do not. It depends a lot on the exegesis behind the prophecies and their fulfillment as well as the situational and literary contexts of the individual scriptures used as premises to arrive at the prophetic conclusion.

I gave him a very general reply acknowledging his response, thanking him for his honesty and his reasonableness and non-bias. I didn't think the question was of vital import to the ongoing discussion since it relates to a different topic and I was also being bombarded with responses from other 607-related questions so I did not answer it.

soft+gentle asked: ethos' reasoning is quite convincing to me. Enough to ask ethos, as others have done, how the date 1914 can be arrived at without the gentile times?

Which was answered when I said to TD: "Empirical evidence of the signs Jesus foretold in Matthew 24 as well as the prophetic timeline delineated in Revelation. Other scriptural passages that refer to the refinement of God's people during the time of the end (Daniel 12 to mention just one) as well. All establish 1914 separately."

I'm guessing he wanted me to break down every bit of evidence I would adduce from Revelation and Matthew 24 to prove 1914 but that is for another thread. His question was addressed.

I see no questions from phizzy beyond this:

First of all Ethos, the 2520 days/years method is hardly concrete as a method, it is bordering on crazy, but what other method could give you 607 BCE as the date of Jerusalem's destruction ? using the Bible I mean. Come to think of it, using whatever you like, but not old discredited arguments that have been dealt with on JWD/JWN.

Or did you mean 1914 can be arrived at by another method, regardless of the incorrectness of 607 ? that you could ditch 607 and still prove 1914?

If so how ?

From my previous statement to TD regarding how 1914 is still arrived at with/without the Gentile Times (607-1914) this question was answered.

pterist asked me to prove that the group of exiles from Zedekiah's reign would return to Judah

I responded: It's in Jeremiah 25. "...which Jeremiah the prophet spoke concerning all the people of Judah and concerning all the inhabitants of Jerusalem.." So the 70 year prophecy would apply to all in Judah, regardless of when they were specifically exiled

To which he repeatedly responded: "

"And how do you explain Jeremiah 24 ?

This is what refers to Zedekiah's group Jeremiah 24-NO RESTORATION."

I didn't think it was necessary to reply to this because I believe it was obvious that Jeremiah prophesied that Zedekiah and his men would be killed and would thus not return (cf. Jeremiah 52). Jeremiah says ", this in fact is what Jehovah has said: “So I shall give Zed·e·ki′ah the king of Judah and his princes and the remnant of Jerusalem who are remaining over in this land and those who are dwelling in the land of Egypt." This is talking about those who did not go to Babylon after it was besieged. Jeremiah 52:24-27 " . . .Furthermore, the chief of the bodyguard took Se·rai′ah the chief priest and Zeph·a·ni′ah the second priest and the three doorkeepers, 25 and from the city he took one court official that happened to be commissioner over the men of war, and seven men of those having access to the king, who were found in the city, and the secretary of the chief of the army, the one mustering the people of the land, and sixty men of the people of the land, who were found in the midst of the city. 26 So these Neb·u′zar·ad′an the chief of the bodyguard took and conducted them to the king of Babylon at Rib′lah. 27 And these the king of Babylon proceeded to strike down and to put them to death in Rib′lah in the land of Ha′math. (Jeremiah's prophecy regarding the bad figs is fulfilled when the priests are killed) Thus Judah went into exile from off its soil. (those who were removed from Judah are also taken into Babylon, but they are not killed, and thus the entire country is now in exile)

Pterist has made over 30 replies in this thread, and a lot of it were rehashes of what he said previously or cut and paste from websites, so I don't think anyone expects me to address every little minute detail.

AnnoMaly's questions were answered when I wrote a detailed biblical exegesis on Jeremiah 29. All of her questions asked are there. I don't know what you want me to do, but repeat what I've already said?

So thus, no one has been ignored and I have answered all substantiated and vital and painstakingly answered even the most infantile and off-topic questions as well.

Now let me demonstrate the ludicrousness that Jeffro and his cronies continue to spout after they have been proven wrong time and time again:

Jeffro said: "There's no basis for connecting the 70 year exile with the servitude"

I showed him writings from Josephus and two other classical historians as well as Biblical commentaries by modern scholars that connect the paying off of sabbaths to the 70 years.

To which he expectedly replied: "Incorrect. Already stated that whilst Josephus' earlier writings (quoted by Ethos) mentioned the 70 years without regard to the correct context, his later writings correctly indicate both the 50 year period as well as explicit agreement with Berossus' statement of all Neo-Babylonian reigns from Nebuchadnezzar through to Nabonidus. No doubt Ethos would agree that the Watch Tower Society's earlier writings on a great many subjects can be 'ignored' in lieu of 'refinements', and yet he seems to have trouble understanding when other sources actually make corrections."

Josephus was but one of the several historians I showed that connected the 70 years to exile. So even if you discredit Josephus' writings (which you haven't) you still have several scholars who prove there is basis for connecting the two; their connection between the 70 years and the sabbath also showed your 49-year sabbath interpretation to be erroneous. Now it's time for you address the following:

Who threatened the vengeance of God and 70 years captivity, which he called the sabbaths or rest of the land, Jer 25:11." - The Geneva Study Bible

Commenting on 2 Chronicles 36:21 "To fulfill the word of the Lord - See Jeremiah 25:9, Jeremiah 25:12; Jeremiah 26:6, Jeremiah 26:7; Jeremiah 29:12. " -- Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

And in the Babylonian banishment the people passed 70 years."—Theophilus to Autolycus, Book I, Chapter XXV.

The country was an empty wasteland for seventy years to make up for the years of Sabbath rest [ a ] that the people had not kept." -- New Century Version

God's Word Translation: "This happened so that the LORD's words spoken through Jeremiah would be fulfilled. The land had its years of rest and was made acceptable [again]. While it lay in ruins, [the land had its] 70 years of rest.

I showed you thoroughly how the alleged 50 year revision would create a COPIOUS AMOUNT of problems with your chronology (which you failed to address). I will repost them and explain to you the fallacies in your reasoning once again since 'I'm not very good at this':

Book X, Chapter VII, Verse 3: "But Jeremiah came among them, and prophesied what contradicted those predictions. . . nay, that, besides this, he would burn it, and utterly overthrow the city, and that they should serve him and his posterity seventy years "

If Josephus meant to 'revise' this to 50 years as Jeffro contends, it still wouldn't make sense, since Jeffro contends the Jews served Babylon for seventy years, not fifty. The 'revision' tactic fails and so does your 609 chronology.

Book X, Chapter IX, Verse 7: "All Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years "

No; according to Jeffro, Jerusalem was never a desert for 70 years. According to him the Jews returned in 538, city was desolated in 587. Even if Josephus should revise this, this gives you 49 years not 50.

Book XI, Chapter I, Verse 1: "God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years , he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity."

Again the servitude connected directly with the exile and the restoration of God's people to their homeland. Too bad it says Jeremiah foretells the 'captivity' and thus the 'servitude' BEFORE the destruction of the city, which indicates that the servitude began AFTER the city's destruction. Jeremiah can't foretell something that had already 'started'. 609 just doesn't work here even if it said 50 years. If this should be revised to 50 years, your chronology falls flat.

Second-century (C.E.) historian, Theophilus of Antioch, also attests that the seventy years began following the destruction of the temple (thus the exile): "He transferred the people of the Jews to Babylon, and destroyed the temple which Solomon had built. And in the Babylonian banishment the people passed 70 years."—Theophilus to Autolycus, Book I, Chapter XXV.

Do you know what the word 'banishment' means? Banish: to expel from or relegate to a country or place by authoritative decree; condemn to exile : so yes, the Jews were in exile for 70 years according to this historian

The people spent 70 years in Babylon AFTER the destruction of the temple. Again the seventy year banishment starts AFTER the destruction of the temple. 609 just doesn't work here. Another secular source that proves your 609 chronology wrong, provides basis for connecting the exile and the 70 years, and no, you can't play the revision card or the 607 bias card this time.

Wrong again. Apart from the sad fact that he's repeatedly resorted to argument from fallacy (which he's not very good at because he gets some of the fallacies wrong), he continues to not actually show any evidence for his assertions, and then provides a short list of translations despite the fact that I have already explicitly demonstrated that the majority of translations do not support his view. He continues to ignore the fact that the context of Jeremiah 29:10 invalidates his (the JW) interpretation of the verse and the chapter that contains it. So he simply resorts to copy-and-pasting the same verses (in the minority) that he's already asserted, still without any supporting evidence whatsoever. Similarly, he asserts an interpretation of 2 Chronicles 36:21 that contradicts Jeremiah 25:12, while also ignoring the chiastic structure of 2 Chronicles 36:21 itself.

Is that the best you can come up with? He says I have provided no evidence but I have provided a list with over 20 translations, scholars, and secular references that support every assertion I've made: namely that the NWT translation of both Jeremiah 29:10 and 2 Chronicles 36:21 is not biased, unique, selective in the least. Jeffro tried to insinuate that the NWT 'selectively' translates these scriptures to support the 607 chronology, but it was shown that numerous other scholars and bible translators translate and interpret accordingly and thus (even if he appeals to the argument from consensus fallacy) his argument was dispelled. All he can say is I ignored the context (the context according to him) when I presented a thorough biblical exegesis on the situational, literary, and even a linguistic context as I translated the scripture word-for-word from Hebrew to English. He's now reduced to repeating like he has with the secular historians, the Catholic Encyclopedia, over 20 Bible translators/scholars, that everyone else is wrong and he is right. Infantile argumentation at best.

And, wrong again. Ethos continues to paste assertions from other sources with no supporting evidence. The fact that other editions of the Catholic Encyclopedia actually indicate the correct years is also conveniently ignored. He is yet to provide anything to indicate how it is 'likely' or even possible for the Jews to have returned in 537 to the exclusion of 538, despite explicit testimony from Josephus as well as various modern sources that specifically indicate 538 as the correct year for the return. Even while pretending to acknowledge that secular sources variously suggest either 538 or 537 as possibilities (though those that suggest 537 do not take into account all the available information), Ethos actually dogmatically sticks to his baseless selection of 537 in order to prop up his a priori beliefs about 607 and 1914.

'No supporting evidence'? "He has yet to provide anything to indicate how it is likely or even possible for the Jews to have returned in 537". I hope onlookers are laughing as hard as I am at these delusional, farcical statements. I provided several, respected, scholarly encyclopedias that support 537, and now he continues to insinuate that somehow I still haven't even proved that it was possible for the Jews to return. I don't know of anything more reliable and well-researched and documented than the information contained in the world's most respected encyclopedias. All I had to do was prove that 537 is indeed possible. He is dogmatically asserting that the Jews returned in 538 based on Josephus' writings when Josephus' own writings have thoroughly intimated that Jeffro has contradictory premises leading to his 609 conclusion, and therefore it is a fallacious appeal to authority that does not fit in this case. I have never dogmatically asserted the 537 date, as I stated, the burden of proof merely requires me to prove that such a date is indeed possible. The burden of proof is on you to definitively prove that the Jews returned in 538 B.C., which you cannot do. Secular sources are by no means dogmatic on 538 or 537.

And, surprise surprise... Ethos is wrong again. He apparently still does not understand the meaning of the word during, so he simply asserts over again with his emphasis on a different part of the sentence.

Let's change it for fifty years. 'Our city was desolate during the fifty year interval'. But there is no 50 year interval. 587 to 538 isn't 50 years. Be a little consistent. Does Josephus' mean to say 70 or 50 in his statement here? Because according to you, he meant to revise this and thus it should say 50. So when was the 50 year interval? Again you have no answer.

The first of the false 'problems' seems to be based on something AnnOMaly posted. In any case, the 70 years mentioned at Zechariah 1:12 ended after “the fourth year of Darius” (518 BCE), 70 years after 587 BCE, the year established in history that Jerusalem, with its temple, was destroyed. Sharezer and Regem-melech were then sent to ask if the weeping and fasting (that commemorated the destruction of the temple and the death of governor Gedaliah in the fifth and seventh months, respectively) should stop, because the angel had said that the denunciation would last 70 years. They asked about the fasts in the ninth month, after the annual fasts had already been held for the seventieth year, 518BCE.

Well I think you and AnnoMaly need to get it together, because your 587 to 515 interpretation simply does not work. As she so eloquently pointed out for us: the starting point (587) to (515) is 71 years, 7 months (almost 2 years) after the supposed 'exact' 70 year prophecy was fulfilled. You didn't address any of the chronological issues but merely summarized your interpretation of what transpired. You also didn't address why the Bible says Jehovah roused Cyrus spirit to rebuild a temple he had purposely prophesied would be desolate long after Cyrus death and why Daniel asked Jehovah to not delay in blessing Israel (with the completion of the temple building) when he discerned that it was to be desolate for 70 years (long after his death as well). Lastly, you failed to address how Daniel does not say "The sanctuary shall lay desolate for 70 years", he merely says "Jerusalem" which he connects the 70 years mentioned in Jeremiah (your supposed 609 chronological starting point) which is a totally different reference and prophecy, that has nothing to do with your wacky 70 year temple interpretation. BTW, since you quoted Josephus, don't forget to mention how he says the temple was desolated for 50 years, or should we leave it as 70 years to fit your interpretation?

529

Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos in

i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

i've read numerous threads and am well aware that this topic has been addressed and dissected quite thoroughly.

therefore, if you are uninterested in participating, that's fine.

Ethos

DISCLAIMER: This post will be dangerously long as I've officially reached my posting limit. Those with weak hearts and short attention spans are forewarned. They will repeat that I am not very good at this over and over but the facts prove otherwise. Jeremiah 29 has already been dealt with and explained, and I will not use my last post to repeat something so infantile.

Jeffro has been shown to be in error time and time again. He is now reduced to arbitrary responses to one or two sentences in my elucidations since it has been thoroughly demonstrated that his defense of 609 and his statements about 607/537 just doesn't add up. He is reduced to telling me a word doesn't exist or to just keep repeating 'Ethos is not good at this' to make himself feel better about his false statements. He is reduced to arguing about how many Bible translations he picked and how many he did not pick. Indeed, him and AnnoMaly can do nothing more but poorly try to discredit the secular sources and even show evidence the Jews came back in 538 BC (which is a strawman since he only asked for some proof that the Jews returned in 537) And all he can say is....Josephus was wrong, the historians were wrong, all those Bible translations are wrong, and your interpretation is wrong. Everyone's interpretations are wrong, the historians are confused, Josephus meant to revise, the Catholic Encyclopedia is just an assertion and not proof, and so on and so forth. I am awestruck that anyone who argues this way has the audacity to say someone else isn't good at this. Reeeeeeaaalyyyy?

False Statement 1: "There is no basis for claiming that the servitude of Jeremiah 25 applied to Jewish exile or any exile."

I showed him to be in error when I demonstrated the following secular (not pro-607) sources that did indeed connect the servitude to the exile.

Book X, Chapter VII, Verse 3: " But Jeremiah came among them, and prophesied what contradicted those predictions. . . nay, that, besides this, he would burn it, and utterly overthrow the city, and that they should serve him and his posterity seventy years "

The seventy years starts AFTER Neb burns the city. If Josephus meant to 'revise' this to 50 years as Jeffro contends, it still wouldn't make sense, since he contends the Jews served Babylon for seventy years, not fifty.

Book X, Chapter IX, Verse 7: " All Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years "

No according to Jeffro, Jerusalem was never a desert for 70 years (or 50 years) as his asseveration of a revision will soon show. According to him the Jews returned in 538, city was desolated in 587. 49 years not 50.

Book XI, Chapter I, Verse 1: " God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years , he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity."

Again the servitude connected directly with the exile and the restoration of God's people to their homeland. Too bad it says Jeremiah foretells the 'captivity' and thus the 'servitude' BEFORE the destruction of the city, which indicates that the servitude began AFTER the city's destruction. 609 just doesn't work here even if it said 50 years.

Second-century (C.E.) historian, Theophilus of Antioch, also attests that the seventy years began following the destruction of the temple (thus the exile): "He transferred the people of the Jews to Babylon, and destroyed the temple which Solomon had built. And in the Babylonian banishment the people passed 70 years."—Theophilus to Autolycus, Book I, Chapter XXV.

The people spent 70 years in Babylon AFTER the destruction of the temple. Again the seventy year banishment starts AFTER the destruction of the temple. 609 just doesn't work here.

Thus his statement was thoroughly debunked and proved false.

False Statement #2: Because when it's convenient, it's 'majority rules'. The fact that the vast majority of Bible translations do not support the JWs' selective translation and interpretation of Jeremiah 29:10 is also conveniently ignored.

A terrible exhibition of the argument from consensus fallacy. But I showed there was nothing selective or biased about the New World Translation's rendering of Jeremiah 29:10 AND 2 Chronicles 36:21 which showed how some scholars who do not support 607 agreed with JW's rendering and interpretation:

"This is what the LORD says: "You will be in Babylon for seventy years. But then I will come and do for you all the good things I have promised, and I will bring you home again. - New Living Translation

"For thus saith the Lord: When the seventy years shall begin to be accomplished in Babylon, I will visit you." - DR Bible

"For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years shall be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you" - Webster's

"The truth is this: You will bein Babylon for a lifetime. But then I will come and do for you all the good things I have promised, and bring you home again." - The Living Bible

"quia haec dicit Dominus cum coeperint impleriin Babylone septuaginta anni visitabo vos et suscitabo super vos verbum meum bonum ut reducam vos ad locum istum."—Latin Vulgate (c. 405).

"But thus saith the Lord, That after seuentie yeres be accomplished at Babél, I wil visit you, and performe my good promes toward you, and cause you to returne to this place."—The Geneva Bible (1560).

"For thus saith the Lord: When the seventy years shall begin to be accomplished in Babylon , I will visit you: and I will perform my good word in your favour, to bring you again to this place."—Douay Version (1609).

"For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place."—Authorized King James Version (1611, 1769).

"For thus says the LORD: After seventy years are completed at Babylon , I will visit you and perform My good word toward you, and cause you to return to this place."—New King James Version (1984; based on the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of Biblia Hebraica).

Jeffro has no leg to stand on, unless he wants to take on all these scholars for their 'selective and biased' rendering interpretation of the Hebrew Text.

God's Word Translation: "This happened so that the LORD's words spoken through Jeremiah would be fulfilled. The land had its years of rest and was made acceptable [again]. While it lay in ruins, [the land had its] 70 years of rest.

" The land of Judah became an empty desert and stayed that way for 70 years. All this time the land rested to make up for the Sabbath rests [ a ] that the people had not kept. This is just what the Lord said would happen in the warning he gave through the prophet Jeremiah." -- Easy-to-Read Version

" And so what the Lord had foretold through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: “ The land will lie desolate for seventy years, to make up for the Sabbath rest [ a ] that has not been observed.” - Good News Translation

" This is exactly the message of God that Jeremiah had preached: the desolate land put to an extended sabbath rest, a seventy-year Sabbath rest making up for all the unkept Sabbaths." -- The Message

" The country was an empty wasteland for seventy years to make up for the years of Sabbath rest [ a ] that the people had not kept." -- New Century Version

"Thus the word of the Lord spoken through Jeremiah came true, that the land must rest for seventy years to make up for the years when the people refused to observe the Sabbath."—The Living Bible

(l) Who threatened the vengeance of God and 70 years captivity, which he called the sabbaths or rest of the land, Jer 25:11." - The Geneva Study Bible

Commenting on 2 Chronicles 36:21 "To fulfill the word of the Lord - See Jeremiah 25:9, Jeremiah 25:12 ; Jeremiah 26:6, Jeremiah 26:7; Jeremiah 29:12." -- Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

Yes, many, many scholars connect the sabbaths to the 70 years which again proves Jeffro's statement to be nothing more than arrogantly presumptuous hogwash and shows his interpretation of a 49 year sabbath to be incorrect. Thus Jeffro was shown to be in error yet again.

False Statement #3: Please show any evidence of the Jews returning in 537BCE....this claim is not based on any actual evidence at all.

Perhaps his most damning statement of all as I could provide a plethora of secular sites that say the Jews returned in 537 BCE. For example,

" In 537 Sassabasar, appointed Governor of Jerusalem by Cyrus, King of Persia, and Zorobabel, a descendant of King Joachim, returned from captivity with a vast number of Jews and armed with authority to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem. 5 ---The Catholic Encyclopedia

After Cyrus the Great of Persia conquered Babylon,he allowed the exiles to return in 537 B.C.E 3 ---- New World Encyclopedia

False Statement #4: There is no reason to doubt that the temple foundations were laid in Cyrus' second regnal year (May 537), and this is consistent with Ezra 3:8. There is also no reason to doubt that the Jews returned in October of the previous year (538), consistent with Ezra 3:1. A decree at the beginning of Cyrus' first regnal year gives 6 full months to make the 4-month trip.

Jeffro here committed a contextomy fallacy by selectively quoting Josephus to parade his 538 theory, when Josephus' own writings in that very book showed him to be in error: "In Against Apion Book I, Chapter 19 §132 Josephus states: " [The Babylonians] set our temple that was at Jerusalem on fire; nay, and removed our people entirely out of their own country, and transferred them to Babylon; when it so happened that our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus king of Persia ." Now Jeffro says this should all be revised to 50. But from 587 to 537 the city wasn't desolate (he says the Jews returned in 538). It doesn't say the temple so that imaginary 70 year fulfillment can't be used. Josephus destroys his own 609 chronology. It takes a genius to quote from sources that dismantle his own position. Either way, secular sources say 538 and 537, and it is by no means a dogmatic, doctrinaire date set in stone as he wishes it was.

609-created problems that Jeffro and AnnoMaly had no serious answer for:

#1: But you said and I quote: "The sanctuary was desolate 70 years. 587 (Month V) - 515 (Month XII) = 71 years, 7 months."

So which is it, 71 years and 7 months, or 70 years? The 609 chronology is exactly 70 years, but for some reason this one goes almost 2 years off track.

Also you need to show us where Jeremiah said the temple would be desolated for 70 years, oh wait I mean 71 years and 7 months.

And also show us in Daniel 9 where it says the sanctuary will be laid desolate for 70 years since Daniel was quoting Jeremiah.

And you might need to tap Daniel on the shoulder and tell him his discernment of Jeremiah's prophecy was wrong:

"in the first year of his reigning I myself, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years."

The 609 chronology states that the city wasn't desolated during the 70 year period, and it definitely wasn't desolated from 587 to 515. So which is it? Was Jerusalem desolated for 70 years or was the temple prophesied to be desolated and if so who prophesied it?

And also why would Jehovah rouse Cyrus spirit to build the new temple when he allegedly prophesied that the temple would be desolate long after Cyrus would die? Why does Daniel say 'the devastations of Jerusalem' and not the 'sanctuary'? I can't help but notice Jeremiah never prophesies the temple being desolate for 71 years, and 7 months.

#2: Let's look at Jeremiah 27:6 again "And now I myselfhave given all these lands into the hand of Neb·u·chad·nez′zar the king of Babylon, my servant; and even the wild beasts of the field I have given him to serve him. 7 And all the nations must serve even him and his son and his grandson until the time even of his own land comes, and many nations and great kings must exploit him as a servant.’

I wasn't aware that you could give someone something they already inherit by royal descendency. Nebuchadnezzar would have inherited the nations and the land and all those things, simply because he was Nebuchadnezzar! The 609 chronology literally flats flat on its head here.

The statement they must serve even him and his son and his grandson is simply saying that all those who ascend Neb's throne must also be served by the nations. Using the term "son" to refer to successive kings is not uncommon as the Assyrians did this and the word used here is also translated "descendant" or "relative". In either case, the all important starting point of this all important 70-year prophecy is never, ever mentioned in the Bible, not even once. Why is there so much emphasis on Nebuchadnezzar, but never the person who is crucial in the starting point of the entire prophecy? It is not illogical to inquire the likehood that something occurred. The 70-year prophecy being one of the most critical prophecies in the Old Testament, taking into account the substantial historical references to Babylonian places, kings, princes, and practices from this time period, along with the prophecy being repeatedly explained and connected by several OT writers and not a few classical historians, make the probability of the crucial starting point going unmentioned, undocumented, and/or overlooked by person after person inherently unlikely.

It was also quite farcical to use an obscure omittance of Babylonian kings (as if Daniel perpetrated to document things of pious significance in his writings) and the appellation of Belshazzar as 'king' instead of 'prince' (when he in fact performed many kingly duties on Nab's behalf) when both of which are A): false equivocationsB): immaterial to the writings of Jeremiah C): non sequitir statements that do not accurately address the lack of reference to Nabopolassar

I think onlookers can see who's 'really not good at this'.

529

Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos in

i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

i've read numerous threads and am well aware that this topic has been addressed and dissected quite thoroughly.

therefore, if you are uninterested in participating, that's fine.

Ethos

Please show any evidence of the Jews returning in 537BCE. JW literature claims that it is 'likely' that Cyrus made his decree toward the end of his first regnal year, but this claim is not based on any actual evidence at all.

Sigh. HOW MANY TIMES do I have to explain to you that referencing Josephus when his own writings in that very book contradict your conclusion based on the premises arrived at from his writings is extremely fallacious, employs selective quoting (contextomy), and is misleading. JW's only contend that it is 'likely' or 'probable' that they returned in 537 B.C.E, not that it dogmatically occurred. I don't have to prove that it definitely happened, I just merely have to prove that it is possible. Perhaps you should read up on logical fallacies and especially 'the burden of proof'.

Jeffro: Please show any evidence of the Jews returning in 537BCE....this claim is not based on any actual evidence at all.

In the spring of 537 B.C. Cyrus proclaimed the famous decree which allowed the Jews to return to their country from their exile. In the autumn of the year 537 B.C. the Israelites were back on their own sacred soil. 1 -- ABC Christianity

That prophecy was fulfilled in 537 BC, and the Jews were allowed by King Cyrus to return to Israel and begin rebuilding the city and Temple. 2 -- Got Questions Ministries

After Cyrus the Great of Persia conquered Babylon,he allowed the exiles to return in 537 B.C.E 3 ---- New World Encyclopedia

After the Persians conquered Babylonia, Cyrus granted the Jews permission to return to their native land and rebuild the temple in 537 B.C.E. 4 --- Jews and Joes (A Secular Jewish History Website)

In 537 Sassabasar, appointed Governor of Jerusalem by Cyrus, King of Persia, and Zorobabel, a descendant of King Joachim, returned from captivity with a vast number of Jewsand armed with authority to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem. 5 ---The Catholic Encyclopedia

Maybe it's time for you to start retracting your ludicrous and inherently false statements.

Reference 1: http://www.abc-of-christianity.com/info/exiles-return.asp

Reference 2: http://www.gotquestions.org/Babylonian-captivity-exile.html

Reference 3: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Babylonian_Exile

Reference 4: http://jewsandjoes.com/history-and-timeline-of-israel-and-judah.html

Reference 5: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14499a.htm

529

Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos in

i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

i've read numerous threads and am well aware that this topic has been addressed and dissected quite thoroughly.

therefore, if you are uninterested in participating, that's fine.

Ethos

Jeffro: Ethos apparently does not understand the meaning of the word "during". Refer to previous 'cold weather' analogy (My post 2929 on page 6).

Here's yet another archetype of Jeffro's selective quotingwhere he purports an argument that has nothingto do with what he is supposed to be refuting. The premise was an elucidation to his previous asseveration that there was absolutely no basis for connecting the 70 years with the Jewish exile or any exile. I then presented a wealth of secular resources (several of which from the very author he fallaciously quotes earlier) that show that the Jews and secular historians of that epoch did indeed synthesize the 70 year servitude with the Jewish exile. His analogy does not fit because he is appealing to the indefinite natureof English verb usage of what can transpire during a fixed time interval instead of discussing the possible hermeneutical conclusions from the Hebrew language. Again, he fails to retract his false statement that show many historians correlated the 70-year exile with the 70-year servitude and that was the entire thrust of my argument. What a red herring!

Jeffro: This tedious argument is actually a circular reference. It is true that some historians have been confused about the application of the 70 years.Ethos ignores the fact that it is the ambiguity of the Bible (when the relevant passages are not viewed together in context) which had led various historians to make mistakes about the application of the 70 years.(However, in his later writings, Josephus gets the details correct.)

The highlighted statements are all strawmen, conjured speculation, and/or patently false since A): The argument was not about who was necessarily correct in their interpretation in their 70 years; B) The sources did provide a basis for the 70 year interpretation, meanwhile Jeffro like AnnoMaly tries to discredit the writings instead of addressing the significance of their existence (irregardless of their veracity)

Here Jeffro continues to lead the witness (or in this case the reader) with the use of a multiple leading statements.First, he arbitrarily contends that secular historians are confused about the application of the 70 years when in fact there was nothing in the quoted statements that could be used as substantiated premises to arrive at this conclusion. Then he conjectures and attributes the unsubstantiated 'confusion' to the secular historians' "failure" to note the 'relevant' passages together in context', which is an absolutely arbitrary and unsubstantiated conclusion with no premises that can be adduced from the references I provided. Then continuing with his fallacious reasoning, repeats that the secular historians 'make mistakes about the application of the 70 years' and that Josephus later 'gets the details correct' again more leading statements that cannot be adduced from the context or the secular writings. His entire elucidation was simply a cluster of a a priori assumptions where he assumes that hisinterpretation must be the correct one and that everyone else who interprets it differently is wrong and confused. Shockingly terrible argumentation.

Jeffro: Aside from the fact that he appeals to translations that make no sense when the passage is viewed in context, the great majority of translations do not support his favoured translation. The following translations say "for Babylon" except as otherwise stated. This is not an exhaustive list.

The highlighted statements are again strawmen and a priori assumptions. Jeffro repeatedly intimated that the NWT's translation and interpretation of Jeremiah 29:10 is 'selective' and 'the vast majority of Bible translations' do not support the NWT's 'selective translation and interpretation'. Whether or not he believes the translations 'make sense' or notis immaterial to the argument at hand. I showed a total of nine major translationsthat translate it 'at Babylon' and several of which articulated that the Jews would be in Babylonfor the duration of the seventy years which dismantled his argument that the NWT was biased and inaccurate. He then lists a total of 17 translations (almost half of which he admitted do not actually say "for Babylon") as if this somehow gave credence to his earlier statement. I gave you nine major translationswho exhibit absolutely no doctrinaire bias towards the 607 date (to which he attributes the NWT rendering of Jeremiah 29:10) which debunked his earlier premise. He even goes into anargument from consensuswhich does not hold up when the translations were actually assayed.

Jeffro: Except it doesn't. All elements of the supposed 'sign' of Matthew 24 (which refers to events in the first century anyway) have been shown time and time again to have happened before and after 1914. Special pleading at its finest - except the even more elastic claims about the 'prophetic timeline' in Revelation, the interpretation of which hasn't even remained constant in JW land. Still denying that JWs must link all these various scriptures to try to 'paint their picture' of 1914, he still claims that each can point to 1914 seperately. This remains to be demonstrated in any objective fashion. What is established is that the 'selection' of 'God's people' in 'the time of the end' requires circular reasoning to support itself. The sad fact is that 607 is based on nothing but 1914. When they realised there was no year 0, the Watch Tower Society didn't move events attributed to 1914, they changed their date for the return of the Jews from 536 (wrong) to 537 (also wrong).

More strawmen and refutation of information immaterial to the question at hand. TD asked: "How is 1914 arrived at without 607" and I briefly elucidated how. A lot of these things I don't personally believe so here again he exhibits the hasty generalization and slippery slope fallacies (as if 1914 is based only on 607 and by showing past inaccuracy regarding 537 the argument crumbles).

Jeffro: He continues to ignore that actual context of Jeremiah 29. Refer to previous 'visitor' analogy (my post 2801 on page 4).

There has been no overlooking or neglect on my behalf of the 'actual context' of Jeremiah 29. In fact, on page 10, post #3, I wrote a detailed biblical exegesis on the literary, social, and situational context which demonstrated the objective of that chapter and how the 607 interpretation is not enervated in the least.

Now we're resorting to argument from silence... ho-hum... There could be any number of reasons why the starting point wasn't mentioned. The most likely is that because Jeremiah referred to the period in "the fourth year of Jehoiakim" (605BCE) (Jeremiah counts accession years), he didn't need to state the starting point because his audience already knew when the period had started. It would have been common knowledge (to his audience, i.e. the king and other officials) when Babylon had conquered Assyria's final capital city and become the dominant world power (609BCE), which was the same year king Josiah was killed.

Also, I quite clearly stated that the Bible does not mention Nabonidus at all, and that the Bible instead calls Belshazzar "king" while he was really only a prince. According to Ethos and JWs in general, this is apparently okay and not at all the same as referring to Nebuchadnezzar as "king" while he was really only a prince.

No, there was no argument from silence. It is not fallacious to inquire the likehood that something occurred. The 70-year prophecy being one of the most critical prophecies in the Old Testament, taking into account the substantial historical references to Babylonian places, kings, princes, and practices from this time period, along with the prophecy being repeatedly explained and connected by several OT writers and not a few classical historians, make the probability of the crucial starting point going unmentioned, undocumented, and/or overlooked by person after person inherently unlikely.

It was also quite farcical to use an obscure omittance of Babylonian kings (as if Daniel perpetrated to document things of pious significance in his writings) and the appellation of Belshazzar as 'king' instead of 'prince' (when he in fact performed many kingly duties on Nab's behalf) when both of which are A): false equivocationsB): immaterial to the writings of Jeremiah C): non sequitir statements that do not accurately address the lack of reference to Nabopolassar

Compare Daniel 2:37.

Immaterial reference. Daniel 2:37 merely reiterates what is stated in Jeremiah 27:7. The 609 interpretation claims the 70 years begins with Babylon's dominance as a world power but the Bible says Jehovah gives Nebuchadnezzar these lands. Nebuchadnezzar would've been king of the world irregardless of what the Bible says Jehovah gives him. Here again the 609 interpretation begins to crumble.

8

Canadian Movement To Shame Clergy!

by metatron in

jw
friends

http://www.vaticancrimes.us/2012/11/join-thousands-in-shaming-expeling.html.

sounds interesting.

if you're canadian, this might be your opportunity.. metatron.

Ethos

"This nation-wide community event is your chance to publicly identify, de-frock and permanently banish child raping priests, corrupt clergy and other wolves posing as sheep in your communities"

One of the perks of being a JW is that we never have to worry about a pastor being shipped from parish to parish molesting child after child. Indeed, because JW's follow the Bible when it says: "In my letter I wrote YOU to quit mixing in company with fornicators, 10 not [meaning] entirely with the fornicators of this world or the greedy persons and extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, YOU would actually have to get out of the world. 11 But now I am writing YOU to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man."

529

Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos in

i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

i've read numerous threads and am well aware that this topic has been addressed and dissected quite thoroughly.

therefore, if you are uninterested in participating, that's fine.

Ethos

The mention of only 3 individuals proves nothing at all. There's no reason why Nebuchadnezzar couldn't be called king from an earlier time for practical purposes. According to secular history there were 5 kings from Nebuchadnezzar to Nabonidus (who also isn't mentioned at all in the Bible), and that's not counting Belshazzar (who the Bible calls a king when he was actually a prince) or the extra imaginary kings to fill the 20-year gap in the spurious JW chronology. In any case, Jeremiah 25:11 only says the nations would serve "the king of Babylon" rather than Nebuchadnezzar.

LOL. Hilarious how this didn't address the issue at all. Let's look at Jeremiah 27:6 again "And now I myself have given all these lands into the hand of Neb·u·chad·nez′zar the king of Babylon, my servant; and even the wild beasts of the field I have given him to serve him. 7 And all the nations must serve even him and his son and his grandson until the time even of his own land comes, and many nations and great kings must exploit him as a servant.’

I wasn't aware that you could give someone something they already inherit by royal descendency. Nebuchadnezzar would have inherited the nations and the land and all those things, simply because he was Nebuchadnezzar! The 609 chronology literally flats flat on its head here.

The statement they must serve even him and his son and his grandson is simply saying that all those who ascend Neb's throne must also be served by the nations. Using the term "son" to refer to successive kings is not uncommon as the Assyrians did this and the word used here is also translated "descendant" or "relative". In either case, the all important starting point of this all important 70-year prophecy is never, ever mentioned in the Bible, not even once. Why is there so much emphasis on Nebuchadnezzar, but never the person who is crucial in the starting point of the entire prophecy? Jeffro also tries to say the Bible calls Belshazzar a king when he was actually prince as if that argument holds any weight. As if that can somehow excuse the all important pivotal starting point of the 70 year prophecy being nameless. As if the two are related in anyway whatsoever and as if Belshazzar didn't perform kingly duties on behalf of Nabonidus. As if Daniel's lack of mentioning a king can be equivocated with that of Jeremiah's. Those are all poor equivocation fallacies.

The Bible (according to you) describes the end of the 70 year period with Nabonidus and Belshazzar, but it fails to mention the starting point. Why Jeffro?

Why not disregard all the scriptures mentioning of the Israelite King's regnal years since it's just so 'normal' for all important kings to be absolutely missing from the written record?

This scripture alone, in it's plain words, proves 609 to be false, but alas, I will await the response of Jeffro and see what he comes up with this time.

TD: I really enjoy conversations with you. Although you are an ex JW (?) I don't get a sense of bias or prejudice from you. I appreciate that.

Londo: You still need to show us when death and suffering and tears, all things that Revelation says were done away with on the new earth, came to an end. You also need to show us how Jesus parousia and coming already happened, but all the other kingdoms haven't been done away with. And also Revelation 11:16 "“We thank you, Jehovah God, the Almighty, the One who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and begun ruling as king." Whether you believe it should say Jehovah or Jesus, still you have a problem. How does Jehovah/Jesus begin ruling as king in Revelation (AFTER 33 CE) since you say he begun ruling in 33 CE?

529

Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos in

i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

i've read numerous threads and am well aware that this topic has been addressed and dissected quite thoroughly.

therefore, if you are uninterested in participating, that's fine.

Ethos

AnnOMaly:

It's been pointed out to you already that, under WT chronology and interpretation of Jer. 29:10, the vast majority of the exiles will be "at Babylon" 80 years rather than 70.

JW's are well aware that there were people exiled longer than 70 years since there were exiles prior to Jerusalem's destruction. Nothing of substance here.

It has already been brought to your attention, using Scripture, that Jerusalem may never have been destroyed at all,that Zedekiah and the people could have lived peacefully in their land had they obeyed Jehovah and not tried to throw off the Babylonian yoke.

This could be used for every prophecy of destruction and punishment in the Bible. The ten-tribe kingdom could have repented. The Egyptians could have repented. All the nations would be subservient to the world power of the time anyway. What is so special about that event that Jehovah has to use prophets over and over again to tell them that the nations will have to serve the world power at the time. Nothing of substance here.

It's already been put to you that it is nonsensical to believe God meant the exiles of 617 BCE (WT time) to understand that a 70 year period "at Babylon" could, but might not, start at an indeterminate time in the future when more exiles could possibly, but may never, end up joining them there.

No, as I proved thoroughly using the actual context and the verses before 10, the purpose of the prophecy was to dispel rumors that they would return in 2 years. The reiteration of the 70 year prophecy they had already heard dispelled all those rumors that only at the conclusion of the 70 year period (regardless of when it started) would they return. Nothing of substance here.

But all this has gone whoosh over your head and you're churning out the same old, ill-conceived twaddle.

Likewise.

Here are some more translation comparisons on Jer. 29:10. Both say "for Babylon":

I have no objection towards the term "for Babylon". I only showed the translations of "at Babylon" to dispel another untrue statement Jeffro made that the vast majority of Bible translations used it as such. Either way, the seventy years being FOR the Babylonian exile, the servitude to Babylon, it makes no difference in the interpretation whatsoever and several scholars who do not support 607 showed that such a conclusion and interpretation of Jeremiah 29:10 is reasonable when examining the context.

529

Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos in

i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

i've read numerous threads and am well aware that this topic has been addressed and dissected quite thoroughly.

therefore, if you are uninterested in participating, that's fine.

Ethos

Pterist: "Please give ONE scripture that points to Zedekiah group being brought back after 70 years !!!"

Is this a serious question? So you are asking me to prove to you that those in the third exile (the one that took place during Zedekiah's reign) would return to Judah?

Jeremiah 25 is addressed to all of the nation of Judah, including those who went into exile during Zedekiah's reign. Verse 1 "which Jeremiah the prophet spoke concerning all the people of Judah and concerning all the inhabitants of Jerusalem.." So the 70 year prophecy of restoration affected all in Judah, not just the first two exiles.

Londo: The “empirical evidence of the signs Jesus foretold in Matthew 24 as well as the prophetic timeline delineated in Revelation”clearly point to events in the first century. When Jesus said, “This generation will by no means pass away”, he meant it. A plain reading of Matthew 24 shows the generation he was speaking with did not pass away until everything he spoke in the Olivet discourse was fulfilled. He either spoke those words in 30 or 33. In less than 40 years, it all came true. The Bible shows the last days began in the time of Jesus and he became King upon his Resurrection, not 1914.

This is an entirely different subject for an entirely different thread. I'm guessing this is the preterist view you are advocating. Well I suppose we'll all just keep wondering how death and tears and pain were done away with in the first century and how Christ's thousand year reign has already ended since it's been 2,000 years but still hasn't brought peace and eternal life to those on the earth and how Hades gave up all those in it and was thrown into the lake of fire. Oh yeah let's not forget Daniel 2:44 "“And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms.." Well, Christ's thousand year reign, coming, and parousia have already come to pass and still hasn't crushed these earthly governments. How absurd this interpretation is.

AnnoMaly: No it isn't. Provide evidence that Cyrus' decree HAD to have been toward the end of his 1st regnal year.

I guess you missed Jeffro's entire biblical elucidation with his time table in which he establishes that the Jews were in their cities in the seventh month of Cyrus first year, based on Against Apion. I guess you also missed how Josephus own words dismantle his own "theories" about 538. I never said Cyrus HAD to give his decree toward the end of his first year, I only showed how Jeffro's interpretation that it occurred in 538 was weak and a poor argument.

Servitude is not limited to exile. This is one of the fundamental misunderstandings. The Judean kingdom had to serve Babylon irrespective of whether exiles were taken or not.

Josephus' later figures in Against Apion, based on further information, revised his earlier ones. Why dismiss his revised figures and use his old ones instead as support?

I only used the quotes to show that there is basis for connecting the servitude to Babylon with the 70 years of exile, which Jeffro so flagrantly asseverated over and over again as if it were true. Josephus' revision is of no consequence to the information I presented as it thoroughly debunked Jeffro's false argumentation.

Theophilus of Antioch - you omit to mention that, as well as placing the end of the 70 years in Cyrus' 2nd year (537/6 BCE), he ALSO places it in Darius' 2nd year (520/519 BCE). Hardly a solid source.

There are also obvious contradictions in Josephus' writings and among some of the most respected historians from this time period and earlier epochs. Pointing out that the source isn't 'solid' is again an irrelevant argument that had nothing to do with the claim presented as my response was showing any basis that connects the 70 years with the exile.

The sanctuary was desolate 70 years. 587 (Month V) - 515 (Month XII) = 71 years, 7 months.

Irrelevant, nonsensical response. Theophilus states: "And in the Babylonian banishment the people passed 70 years."

Maybe you should try a littler harder to deprecate my sources.

Now of what Christ does he speak, but of Jesus the son of Josedech, who returned at that time along with the people, and offered sacrifice according to the law, in the seventieth year, when the sanctuary was built?" (ANF05, II.14)

But you said and I quote: "The sanctuary was desolate 70 years. 587 (Month V) - 515 (Month XII) = 71 years, 7 months."

So which is it, 71 years and 7 months, or 70 years? The 609 chronology is exactly 70 years, but for some reason this one goes almost 2 years off track.

Also you need to show us where Jeremiah said the temple would be desolated for 70 years, oh wait I mean 71 years and 7 months.

And also show us in Daniel 9 where it says the sanctuary will be laid desolate for 70 years since Daniel was quoting Jeremiah.

And you might need to tap Daniel on the shoulder and tell him his discernment of Jeremiah's prophecy was wrong:

"in the first year of his reigning I myself, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years."

The 609 chronology states that the city wasn't desolated during the 70 year period, and it definitely wasn't desolated from 587 to 515. So which is it? Was Jerusalem desolated for 70 years or was the temple prophesied to be desolated for 70 years according to........

And also why would Jehovah rouse Cyrus spirit to build the new temple when he allegedly prophesied that the temple would be desolate long after Cyrus would die? Why was Daniel dissapointed and confused that the temple had not yet been rebuilt when he allegedly discerned that the sanctuary would be desolate for 70 years?

529

Analysis of anti-607 BCE Rebuttals

by Ethos in

i agreed yesterday to engage in the '607' topic.

i've read numerous threads and am well aware that this topic has been addressed and dissected quite thoroughly.

therefore, if you are uninterested in participating, that's fine.

Ethos

TD said: You would need a nominative statement, erroneous either on its own (lack of) merit or because it does not follow from the premises used to support it before an assertion like the one captioned above is justified. . .To that end, I've simply asked you some polite questions and have drawn no conclusion from them that would qualify as a strawman fallacy.

Okay let me elaborate on where the strawman fallacy is asseverated and then explain why I identified it as such. You stated the following:

Humor a non-JW here. Jumping back and forth between Daniel and Revelation to establish the length of seven 'prophetic' times (Without which this discussion would probably be unnecessary..) has always struck me as dubious. These two books are certainly of different literary genres, languages, historical periods and origins.

Without going off on a tangent, if a valid case can be made that esoteric concepts do in fact span those type of barriers, then I would question the strength of your objection above. ---END OF QUOTE

And Jeffro also stated: " Well, no it can't. And it's hilarious. Apparently Ethos is happy to give it an exemption - he's probably not even aware of the gaping contradiction. It is not clear why it is 'acceptable' to "flip back and forth between" not two but several "books of completely different literary contexts, origins, and time periods" of entirely unrelated scriptures together in order to reach 1914. But 'apparently' it is a 'ridiculous' notion to associate events spoken of by Jeremiah and Daniel (whom JWs believe to becontemporaries - or at the very least, the same 'generation') in describing the same period." (END OF QUOTE)

As I stated on several occasions the biblical exegesis of deciphering The Gentile Times is not something I wholeheartedly agree with in the least. That is why I stated that it is the absolute last thing I teach, since I don't believe it necessary to establish 1914 as the commencement of Christ's parousia. You and Jeffro both made the hasty generalization that because I am a JW, that I hang on the Governing Body's scriptural elucidations for every doctrine, when that is simply not the case. Then you both proceeded to point out obviously questionable fallacies in my statement (if I indeed agreed with the Gentile Times doctrine), as a way (not necessarily you but Jeffro) to show a short of doctrinal hypocrisy on my behalf. All of the responses to my quoted statement were then appropriatedly cognominated "strawmen" as they were attempts to deprecate my previous statement regarding proper Biblical exegesis.

TD: " How is 1914 established without 607?"

Empirical evidence of the signs Jesus foretold in Matthew 24 as well as the prophetic timeline delineated in Revelation. Other scriptural passages that refer to the refinement of God's people during the time of the end (Daniel 12 to mention just one) as well. All establish 1914 separately.