The Gentile Times Reconsidered

by Spade 382 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Alfred

  Spade....

  Nice job at cut/pasting WT literature... Seems like you're on some sort of mission...

  I just have a few questions though... Since the Bible unambiguously states in Jeremiah 25:11 that “these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years”, exactly how was it possible for the Jews to continue serving the king of Babylon between 539 BCE and 537 BCE when he was killed in 539 BCE? Are you saying that the 70 years of servitude started in 609 BCE and ended in 539 BCE? Or are you saying that the Jews unknowingly served a dead king for 2 years after 539 BCE (assuming they started their servitude in 607 BCE)? You must choose one or the other since there really is no other option.

  Also, had you carefully read the FULL Biblical account (in its entire context), you would have noticed that the desolation of any of the nations (that served the king of Babylon) only came after that nation rebelled against the king of Babylon. If, for example, one of those nations only served the king of Babylon for some 20 years (out of the 70) and then rebelled against the king, the remaining 50 years of servitude would have to be completed while in full captivity and slavery (and while that nation’s land lied desolate for those remaining years). So the years of desolation do not necessarily equal the years of servitude… it just means that certain nations (not all) would eventually lie desolate until completely fulfilling their 70 years of servitude… the full Biblical account could not be clearer in this regard. Yet the Watchtower continues to teach that 70 years of servitude equals 70 years of desolation.

  I suggest you do more Bible reading and less cut/pasting of WT literature... your time would be better spent...
• 

  The Finger

  I found many things interesting in Carl Olof Jonsson's book. One which stood out to me was on page 196/197 A-1: Desolation or servitude-which?

  "The seventy years, then, should be understood to mean years of servitude for these nations. This conclusion is so obvious that the Watch Tower Society, at the head of page 826 of its large-print edition of the New World Translation (1971 ed.), automatically describes the seventy years as "70 years' servitude due."

  "Servitude " here should not be taken to mean the same thng as desolation and exile."

  In the footnote.

  "As the attention was drawn to this heading in the original version of the present work (sent to the Watchtower headquarters in 1977) and also in the published edition of 1983 it was no surprise to find that it had been changed in the 1984 large-print edition of NW. The heading (p. 965) now reads "70years' exile due."
• 

  transhuman68

  Amazing that one book can generate so much heat, and so little light! Personally, I woudn't use the Bible as a reference for anything. It belongs in the past, and should stay there.
• 

  whereami

  I will regurgitate this, though: it's ALL a huge pile of bullshit. "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" is boring and says it the hard and somewhat academic way, so I will say it the easy way:

  It's all a huge pile of bullshit.

  I can (and have) prove(d) in a simple 5 short paragraphs using ONLY WTS publications AND two Bible verses that 607 is bullshit and that 586/7 is the correct date.

  I've also shown that the claims made for 1914 are bullshit, too and have done that without any reference for earlier dates whatsoever.

  If anyone trampled on anyone's genitals, they didn't start doing it in 607 BCE. NO! They started trampling on someone's genitals twenty years later! This is GOOD news for the people who didn't want their genitals trampled on for twenty years who lived back in 607 BCE! They had a full TWENTY years to hide those genitals and keep them from being trampled on when people finally started to trample them!

  No one likes people to trample on their genitals.

  Farkel

  I officially nominate this as the post of the year!!! LMAO!!!!
• 

  whereami

  You know what's freaky? When I clicked this topic I was the 607 viewer!!!

  It must be a sign!!! Quick someone call Sab.
• 

  Leolaia

  1) You did not give any sources that date the return from captivity specifically to 537 BC, much less supporting your claim that "historians agree" on this date, as opposed to 538 BC.

  2) Again, wrt to the scripture in Ezra, there is no calendrical date in that scripture, nor elsewhere in the Bible. Your date is one that is derived through a combination of exegesis and external (secular) data. It is an arbitrary choice to pick one starting date or another. One could just as easily start with one of the earlier dates (which point to 587 BC) and claim that the seventy years proves that the 539 BCE date is in error.
• 

  jookbeard

  Alice just to repeat Ray Franz' and COJ' publications can obtained from Commentary Press that's Commentary Press
• 

  Aussie Oz

  Spade...

  that 'discrepany' you mention at the end of your unfittingly long post, and attitude you display toward such misses the point.

  a twenty year discrepancy may not be much in the stream of time.

  But when an organization is based and built and belief is enforced on a date (607) that is totaly without proof, when the whole argument for that date is based not on evidence but on trashing the historians and archeologists who do not support it, THAT IS A MAJOR PROBLEM.

  When the hopes and lives of millions of people are based on a false teaching (607) that is unraveling the further we get from 1914, THAT IS A MAJOR PROBLEM.

  Not a minor 'discrepancy' that really matters not.

  If you dont know this subject inside out, you can only expect a slaying over it.

  oz
• 

  Witness My Fury

  What was Carls motivation re 587 / 607 you asked? (albeit in a snide accusing way...)

  Well if you bothered to actually read his excellent book (4th edition) like I have then he gives the simple direct and honest answer:

  He was asked to prove the WTs 607 date for the destuction of Jerusalem by someone he called on in the ministry while he was a pioneer. He investigated and it turned into several years of research and invesigation that FAILED to uphold the 607 date. He set out to prove 607 not disprove it! But in the effort found himself disproving it for himself and thankfully for many others as well including me. I for one am thankful for his logical approach and asking the hard questions.

  Try THINKING. You might like it....

  Edit to add:

  Just in case you didnt realise it, ...by your being here continuing to post copy and paste "rebuttals" and trying to uphold the JW nonsense, you are in fact only aiding those you hope to defeat. You simply provide an excellent means for us to very publicly refute you and so the many lurkers here can see the truth about "The Truth (tm)" even clearer and a damn sight quicker. So have a pat on the back from me for services rendered.
• 

  Black Sheep

  Alice should get busy answering GiordanoBruno's deconstruction of her 'Insight on the Scriptures' paste on another forum before she starts pasting more rubbish here.

  How many times does archeology conflict with the Bible's historical cannon?

  Giordano's 'Insight' posts.