Desolation of Jerusalem

by Alwayshere 240 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • scholar
    scholar

    Jeffro

    In fact, what constitutes the end of the seventy years is as just as important as the beginning of that period. At last you agree that the end of the seventy years involved the Return but it goes further than that because that was the fulfillment of the seventy years according to Jeremiah. Then you further say that the Jews would return in accord with the seventy years and that too is correct but then you make the completely stupid comment that the return of the Jews could not indicate the end of the seventy years. Your stubborness and unreasonableness is breathtaking.

    The fulfillment of the seventy years obviously refers to its ending or being brought to an end but it also describes the what the period constitutes in that it had to be something in its entirety as the prophet describing. Jeremiah describes not just the ending but also its nature: the seventy years was a period of exile, a period of servitude, a period of desolation ending with the Return in 537 BCE.

    Also, you make the illogical statement that the seventy years ended with the king of Babylon was called to account in 539 and then you contradict yourself by then saying that 'I do not agree at all that the period had not then ended'. Further compounding your dilemna you then state that you agree that Daniel mentioned the Return in connection with the end of the seventy years but not theiir fulfillment. Jeremiah, Daniel and Ezra do not used the expression the 'end of the seventy years but in al lcases refer only to the fulfillment of the seventy years connecting this directly with the Return in 537 BCE.

    Our interpretation of the seventy years is exactly the same as that of Josephus which he made many references to. So we have historical support but you have no historical support whatsoever in history.

    In some respects I agree that Jeremiah 25 could determine how 29:10 should be handled but I would press the entire book of Jeremiah with special attention on the immediate context of ch 29.All of the secular evidence points to 607 and not other implausible dates or theories.

    The Bible speaks of many exiles including Assyria and Babylon but there is one specific exile by Jeremiah that is the most important because that exile is described in some detail with a precise beginning and end and that was first mentioned by Jeremiah and was written from the backgound of an earlier exile which had already begun which ten years later saw the big exile lasting for 70 years. It is correct to say that for some Jews in Babylon their exile would have longer than seventy years as was the case of Daniel and for others it would be less becuse new generations would have arisen. Jeremiah gives relevant time markers when he prophesied and when major events happened so it is easy to reconstruct the history for that period and its chronology and I am afraid that your theory does not work.

    Josephus' observation on the seventy years is not essential to our view on matters it simply provides a support or witness to the history for the period so it cannot be ignored. Josephus gives no dates as you allege but gives the period of seventy years between the Fall and the Return. Nice and simple.

    It is foolish to ignore later writers who make direct commentary on the very prophecy or book that we are disputing namely Jeremiah. Daniel was contemporary living in Babylon and at that time of the seventy years from beginning to end. Ezra wrote the history of the Return and showed the fulfillment of Jeremiah in Chronicles and Ezra. Both men Daniel and Ezra were inspired of God.Later writers certainly greatly assist the modern to understand much earlier writers and there should be an agreement between primary and the secondary souces in both directions and Josephus who stands outside this hermeneutic circle confirms our interpretation and not yours.

    The only thing common in relation to Babylon in Daniel and Jeremiah is that both foretold its FALL, Jeremiah described further its destruction, not Daniel but Daniel described its Fall not destruction.

    I am not saying nor have I ever said or implied that becuse there is confusion over dating within scholarship that it proves us right. What proves us right and you wrong is what the Bible says. The confusion amongst scholars proves only that their methods or methodology is unworkable.

    Having an association with another scholar or other scholars is a personal matter and of no concern of anyone else. Both of us share a love and respect for the Bible

    scholar JW

  • avishai
    avishai
    What proves us right and you wrong is what the Bible says. The confusion amongst scholars proves only that their methods or methodology is unworkable.

    Nice circular reasoning..................

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro
    In fact, what constitutes the end of the seventy years is as just as important as the beginning of that period. At last you agree that the end of the seventy years involved the Return but it goes further than that because that was the fulfillment of the seventy years according to Jeremiah. Then you further say that the Jews would return in accord with the seventy years and that too is correct but then you make the completely stupid comment that the return of the Jews could not indicate the end of the seventy years. Your stubborness and unreasonableness is breathtaking.

    I realise from your track record that it takes a while for things to get through your obviously quite thick skull. There is no "at last". I have not suddenly decided that the seventy years ended at the return of the Jews. I have consistently said that the Jews returned after Babylon's 70 years ended in 539. It is simply fantasizing when you say that the Jews returning relates to the 70 years means that the 70 years ended when they returned. Jeremiah is quite clear that Babylon's king was judged after the 70 years ended, and your lies will not change that. "Stubborness" is not a word. Breathtaking? Hopefully it will shut you up then.

    The fulfillment of the seventy years obviously refers to its ending or being brought to an end but it also describes the what the period constitutes in that it had to be something in its entirety as the prophet describing. Jeremiah describes not just the ending but also its nature: the seventy years was a period of exile, a period of servitude, a period of desolation ending with the Return in 537 BCE.

    Gee, what a lot of waffling. Jeremiah described the 70 years as a period of nations serving Babylon and made no specific reference to Judah when he defined the parameters of the 70 years. He indicates that they would end, and then Babylon's king would be judged. Ergo 539.

    Also, you make the illogical statement that the seventy years ended with the king of Babylon was called to account in 539 and then you contradict yourself by then saying that 'I do not agree at all that the period had not then ended'. Further compounding your dilemna you then state that you agree that Daniel mentioned the Return in connection with the end of the seventy years but not theiir fulfillment. Jeremiah, Daniel and Ezra do not used the expression the 'end of the seventy years but in al lcases refer only to the fulfillment of the seventy years connecting this directly with the Return in 537 BCE.

    There is no contradiction, and your quoting me out of context is typical of you. The full quote was based on my response to your statement: "You agree that Daniel mentioned the seventy years after 539 because the period had not then ended". What I do not agree with is your assertion that Daniel meant that the seventy years had not yet ended post 539. "Dilemna" is not a word. A "dilemma" is 'a situation where one is forced to choose one of two options', which is not the case here either. There is no difficulty at all in indicating that the 70 years ended in 539, which aided (and therefore was in accord with) the return of the Jews to their homeland. Your attempt to define the 70 years in terms of statements made following their initial pronouncement is irrelevant.

    Our interpretation of the seventy years is exactly the same as that of Josephus which he made many references to. So we have historical support but you have no historical support whatsoever in history.

    It would be too long a list to bother recounting the many historical synchronicities that I have with many historical sources for someone so ignorant and unappreciative, and many have been previously indicated on this forum anyway. You have nothing. According to the Society, "Josephus has many inconsistencies in his dating of events and is therefore not the most reliable source", and they make this kind of statement precisely because he doesn't fit in with the Society's views.

    In some respects I agree that Jeremiah 25 could determine how 29:10 should be handled but I would press the entire book of Jeremiah with special attention on the immediate context of ch 29.All of the secular evidence points to 607 and not other implausible dates or theories.

    It is amusing that you would try to hang the entire context of Jeremiah into the context of chapter 29 (and more specifically the badly translated verse 10), for verse 1 of that chapter indicates there were still people living in Jerusalem when he implies that the 70 years were already in progress. As I have stated previously, it would be meaningless for Jeremiah to indicate an exile of 70 years to people already in exile if the 70 years had not started yet.

    The Bible speaks of many exiles including Assyria and Babylon but there is one specific exile by Jeremiah that is the most important because that exile is described in some detail with a precise beginning and end and that was first mentioned by Jeremiah and was written from the backgound of an earlier exile which had already begun which ten years later saw the big exile lasting for 70 years. It is correct to say that for some Jews in Babylon their exile would have longer than seventy years as was the case of Daniel and for others it would be less becuse new generations would have arisen. Jeremiah gives relevant time markers when he prophesied and when major events happened so it is easy to reconstruct the history for that period and its chronology and I am afraid that your theory does not work.

    Gee, a 70-word sentence... that is some impressive rambling. Not impressive in any other sense though. "Written from the backg[r]ound of an earlier exile what had already begun which ten years later saw the big exile"? Drivel. You simply demonstrate (though not clearly) that it is illogical for Jeremiah to indicate a 70-year period to exiles for whom there was more than 70 years of exile.

    Josephus' observation on the seventy years is not essential to our view on matters it simply provides a support or witness to the history for the period so it cannot be ignored. Josephus gives no dates as you allege but gives the period of seventy years between the Fall and the Return. Nice and simple.

    You ignore all other sources that disprove your interpretation, just as you ignore Josephus' statement that the temple was desolate for 50 years. I did not allege that Josephus provides specific dates. Either you misread something or you are a liar. It is amusing that you attempt to appeal to Jewish tradition when it suits you. Your piece-meal style of selecting supposedly supportive sources while rejecting other things said by the same sources is simply laughable.

    It is foolish to ignore later writers who make direct commentary on the very prophecy or book that we are disputing namely Jeremiah. Daniel was contemporary living in Babylon and at that time of the seventy years from beginning to end. Ezra wrote the history of the Return and showed the fulfillment of Jeremiah in Chronicles and Ezra. Both men Daniel and Ezra were inspired of God.Later writers certainly greatly assist the modern to understand much earlier writers and there should be an agreement between primary and the secondary souces in both directions and Josephus who stands outside this hermeneutic circle confirms our interpretation and not yours.

    Ezra and Daniel knew that the return of the Jews would be in accord with the end of the 70 years, so they wrote in relation to their understanding of the period, but with a focus of the Jews returning to their homeland. Daniel 5:26-31 specifically indicates the events that Jeremiah stated would indicate that the 70 years had ended, specifically the judgement of the king in 539.

    The only thing common in relation to Babylon in Daniel and Jeremiah is that both foretold its FALL, Jeremiah described further its destruction, not Daniel but Daniel described its Fall not destruction.

    Jeremiah described the judgement of the king and an on-going destruction. Daniel described the judgement of the king. The commonality is the judgement of Babylon's king, which was undeniably in 539.

    I am not saying nor have I ever said or implied that becuse there is confusion over dating within scholarship that it proves us right. What proves us right and you wrong is what the Bible says. The confusion amongst scholars proves only that their methods or methodology is unworkable.

    You have indeed said that because you have a (supposedly) exact date and scholars differ over 586/7 that your interpretations is supposedly superior. My interpretation is completely compatible with the Bible. You simply ignore anything that doesn't fit your interpretation, including scriptures, instead of actually providing any explanation for how it fits.

    Having an association with another scholar or other scholars is a personal matter and of no concern of anyone else. Both of us share a love and respect for the Bible

    Keep telling yourself that. Good little 'tow-the-line' Witnesses would not have such an arrangement unless they were counting the time spent with the person as a bible study. Is that it, and if so does the person know you're using them to count time? However, your presence here indicates that you're not quite the good little 'tow-the-line' Witness since you flagrantly disregard their direct warnings about JW-related websites.

  • scholar
    scholar

    Jeffro

    The Jews returned back home from Babylon in 537 thus fulfilling and ending the seventy yeras as confirmed by Jeremiah in acord with Jeremiah, Daniel confirmed by Ezra and Josephus.

    Jeremiah in ch 25 clearly applied the seventy years to Judah alone and that other nations would also come under servitude to Babylon. That same chapter described Judah's punishment as one of exile, servitude and desolation lasting for a fixed period of seventy years and that Babylon would be called to account by desolation as with all the other nations.

    It was hardly meaningless at all that when Jeremiah addressed the exiles in Babylon concerning how long they were to remain in exile because they would be comforted by the fact that once seventy years had passed then it would all be over. Thet were in fact joined by the remainder of their fellow Jews whoc as a collective exiled group would be in Babylon whilst the land was empty for that seventy years.

    Josephus is the only outside witness or source confirming that period of Jewish history and is account coincides with ours and not yours. Josephus is the only source for Berossus and when it suits you rely on Berossus and Josephus but whe the facts turn against you then you seek to discredit Josephus. When you discredit Josphus you discredit Berossus.

    Daniel 5:26-31 has nothing at all to say about Jeremiah, the seventy years or the Return so it is untenable and implausible to try connect a fact with a nothing.

    Our methodology and interpretation is superior to that of modern scholars because we have revelation form God about such matters and His Word. Further, we have a precise calender date, a year which you do not have. Your misguided interpretations cannot give and has not given you a year because if you are so certain then name your year, write a paper complete with spreadsheet and tell everyone what a clever little boy you and that only you have sold a problem which has baffled scholars for decades namely the year of the Fall. Perhaps you may even score an award for such flashes of truth.

    scholar JW

  • undercover
    undercover

    I don't post on these "scholar" threads anymore...too much of a waste of time...

    but, this quote on another thread is quite apropos, I thought:

    You apostates blah blah blah, stumbled blah blah blah, the bible said blah blah blah, and you should be ashamed blah blah blah.
  • Alwayshere
    Alwayshere

    Undercover, you couldn't have said it better.

  • lookingfortruth2
    lookingfortruth2

    Scholar,

    I'm curious as to why you haven't/didn't reply to post 3089 from Honesty on page 3? Is it because you rely on your own research and NOT on the WTS or do you have an explanation for the inconsistencies?

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    scholar pretendus said:

    : The Jews returned back home from Babylon in 537

    Really! So you claim, but you cannot prove this from the Bible. Indeed, the Bible provides a good deal more proof that the Jews returned to Judea in 538, not 537, B.C.E.

    Of course, we've dealt with this issue a number of times in earlier posts on this subject. In every case, scholar pretendus has run away from discussion, for the obvious reason that the Watchtower Society itself has published nothing, aside from easily disproved nonsense, about it. A simple check of Watchtower claims on this subject shows that its doctrine amounts to exactly that -- pure claims, without substance.

    : thus fulfilling and ending the seventy yeras

    Yes, 70 yeras, posted by a yoyo.

    : as confirmed by Jeremiah in acord with Jeremiah, Daniel confirmed by Ezra and Josephus.

    LOL!

    : Jeremiah in ch 25 clearly applied the seventy years to Judah alone

    Abject nonsense. The passage from Jer. 25:8-12, from the NWT, is rather clear:

    8 "Therefore this is what Jehovah of armies has said, ‘"For the reason that YOU did not obey my words, 9 here I am sending and I will take all the families of the north," is the utterance of Jehovah, "even [sending] to Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these nations round about; and I will devote them to destruction and make them an object of astonishment and something to whistle at and places devastated to time indefinite. 10 And I will destroy out of them the sound of exultation and the sound of rejoicing, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the sound of the hand mill and the light of the lamp. 11 And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years."’

    12 "‘And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘their error, even against the land of the Chaldeans, and I will make it desolate wastes to time indefinite. 13 And I will bring in upon that land all my words that I have spoken against it, even all that is written in this book that Jeremiah has prophesied against all the nations. 14 For even they themselves, many nations and great kings, have exploited them as servants; and I will repay them according to their activity and according to the work of their hands.’"

    As anyone can see, nothing in the passage mentions Judah, which fully disproves the claims of this scholar pretendus. Rather, it mentions "this land and . . . its inhabitants and . . . all these nations round about." Indeed, Judah is included in this much more sweeping passage as an afterthought. The overall vision is one of the entire Middle East, of which Judah is but a minor part. So it's obvious that people like scholar pretendus are far overstepping the bounds of reason by claiming that the tiny land of Judah, and by prophetic extension, the claims of the modern-day and irrelevant cult known as Jehovah's Witnesses, have any so-called "prophetic fulfillment" beyond the clearly stated goals of the Bible writers. Thus, astute readers understand the circular and entirely self-serving nature of the "arguments" posted by such as "scholar pretendus" and apologetic Jehovah's Witnesses of his ilk.

    : and that other nations would also come under servitude to Babylon.

    Duh. That's what the passage clearly states.

    : That same chapter described Judah's punishment as one of exile, servitude and desolation lasting for a fixed period of seventy years and that Babylon would be called to account by desolation as with all the other nations.

    The usual JW distortion. The overall passages in question clearly state that Judah and the nations round about would become desolate under one simple condition: that they failed to submit to the Babylonian yoke. If they submitted, they would serve the king of Babylon until his time ran out. Most nations submitted. but the Jews did not. Thus, the Jews suffered the extreme penalty of the prophecy -- complete servitude until the Babylonian empire ended. That's what the passage states would happen, and that's what various other Bible passages state did happen (2 Chron. 36, Ezra 1). To claim different is to claim that the Bible says other than what it says -- but this is par for the course with JWs.

    : Josephus is the only outside witness or source confirming that period of Jewish history and is account coincides with ours and not yours.

    What a complete distortion of the facts! You, along with virtually all Watchtower apologists, are gross liars, as I will prove.

    Josephus, as you know very well, said in a somewhat vague way in two passages in his earlier writings that the exile of the Jews lasted 70 years. What he meant by that is anyone's guess, since in his third and last comment on the subject he said that the desolation of the temple lasted 50 years (Against Apion, I, 21). In this last writing on the subject, Josephus explicitly refers to the reigns of various Babylonian kings and lists their reigns totaling to 50 years for the period in question, not 70 (cf. Jonsson, The Gentile Times Reconsidered, 4th Edition, pp. 298-301). So, given the above facts, Josephus is at best a neutral source reference. That you claim Josephus as a confirmation of Watchtower nonsense is, well, a measure of your braindeadness as a JW.

    : Josephus is the only source for Berossus and when it suits you rely on Berossus and Josephus but whe the facts turn against you then you seek to discredit Josephus. When you discredit Josphus you discredit Berossus.

    Nonsense. On the other hand, it's trivial to prove that your criticisms apply in spades to the Watchtower Society's written arguments about all of this "Bible chronology". This has been done many times over the years, and you've completely glossed over all the evidence, which proves that self-proclaimed loyal JWs such as yourself have no respect for the very Bible you claim to uphold, or for simple facts of history.

    : Our methodology and interpretation is superior to that of modern scholars because we have revelation form God about such matters and His Word.

    Really. Such as C. T. Russell's revelation that the world of mankind would end in 1914. And when it didn't, his further revelation that it would end in 1918. And when it didn't, that the world would end in 1920. And when it didn't, that it would all end in 1925. And when it didn't, 1941 or so, and 1951 or so, and 1975, 1984, 1994, 2000, and as the Watchtower Society claims to this day, "Armageddon is just around the corner".

    The simple fact is that Russell's date of 1914 was a mistake from its inception. When Nelson Barbour first came up with that date as the "end of the Gentile times" back in 1875, he messed up. He did not know that there was no "zero year" between "AD" and "BC". So when he argued (incorrectly) that the "times of the Gentiles" began in 606 B.C., as opposed to current Watchtower claims of 607 B.C., he was wrong. Since he was wrong, his claims were not a product of "revelation", which disproves your overall claims -- obviously wrong interpretations cannot be a product of an infallible God. And of course, when Fred Franz in the 1940s discarded virtually all of Russell's prophetic dates in favor of his own dates, which were accepted without apparent question by the entire community of "Jehovah's witnesses", he repudiated Russell's dates and clearly declared that all of Russell's so-called "Bible chronology" was a mere product of a man's -- Russell's -- imagination.

    : Further, we have a precise calender date, a year which you do not have.

    Anyone can come up with a precise calendar date. Here you go: 1946.

    The problem is to relate a claimed precise calendar date to so-called Bible prophecy -- without circular arguments and so forth. No JW to date has been able to do this with the "Gentile times chronology" or anything else. If you disagree, then do point our readers to the appropriate references, the Internet being preferred in this venue. Of course, I know very well that you can not and will not do so.

    : Your misguided interpretations cannot give and has not given you a year because if you are so certain then name your year, write a paper complete with spreadsheet and tell everyone what a clever little boy you and that only you have sold a problem which has baffled scholars for decades namely the year of the Fall. Perhaps you may even score an award for such flashes of truth.

    LOL! A typical JW-ish sidestep! The simple fact -- as you know perfectly well -- is that scholars are divided on the question of the date of Jerusalem's destruction based on only one fact -- the Bible itself is unclear. The clear Bible passages that we have, in conjunction with the clear cuneiform passages we have from the relevant time period or thereabouts, suggest that either 586 or 587 B.C. was when Jerusalem was destroyed. Based on the available information, secular scholars favor 587, whereas most evangelical scholars, based on the work of Edwin Thiele, favor 586 B.C. The point is irrelevant for Watchtower chronology, which claims 607 B.C. (but until 1944 the Society claimed 606 B.C.), because neither 586 nor 587 has anything to do with the Society's present claim that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C. -- a claim for which there is no secular evidence at all.

    Given scholar pretendus' usual abysmal scholarly performance, here are a few facts he cannot refute:

    1) No one can prove whether the Jews returned to Judah from Babylon in 537 B.C. as opposed to 538 B.C.

    2) Jeremiah 25 clearly speaks of various nations around Babylon, including but not limited to the Jews, as included among the nations condemned to the denunciations that the prophet Jeremiah spoke of.

    3) Jeremiah 25:12 clearly states that, when the punishment declared by Jehovah upon the Jews and the nations around it was completed, the king of Babylon was to be punished. That punishment, without argument, was visited upon the king of Babylon in 539 B.C., when Belshazzar the king of Babylon was killed in the night when the army of Cyrus breached the walls of Babylon and conquered the city and the Babylonian empire. Thus, when the prophet Jeremiah, in Jer. 25:12, clearly states, "when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon", we have no choice but to conclude that the Bible writer agrees that the end of the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy corresponds with the punishment of the king of Babylon, when the 70 years had ended, and the end of the subservience of the Jews and the nations round about it to Babylon. Thus, the claims of the Watchtower Society and its defenders, such as scholar pretendus, are proved false.

    AlanF

  • Jeffro
    Jeffro
    The Jews returned back home from Babylon in 537 thus fulfilling and ending the seventy yeras as confirmed by Jeremiah in acord with Jeremiah, Daniel confirmed by Ezra and Josephus.

    Incompatible with Jeremiah. You are a liar.

    Jeremiah in ch 25 clearly applied the seventy years to Judah alone and that other nations would also come under servitude to Babylon. That same chapter described Judah's punishment as one of exile, servitude and desolation lasting for a fixed period of seventy years and that Babylon would be called to account by desolation as with all the other nations.

    What rediculous drivel. Jeremiah 25 makes no reference to Judah at all when it defines the 70 years. It specifically states that the 70 years were of all of the nations of the region serving Babylon, and that Babylon's king would be judged after the 70 years had been fulfilled. You are a liar.

    It was hardly meaningless at all that when Jeremiah addressed the exiles in Babylon concerning how long they were to remain in exile because they would be comforted by the fact that once seventy years had passed then it would all be over. Thet were in fact joined by the remainder of their fellow Jews whoc as a collective exiled group would be in Babylon whilst the land was empty for that seventy years.

    By your interpretation, the 70 years hadn't even started when Jeremiah told the exiles they would be there for 70 year; it would be of absolutely no benefit to the exiles because they would be expecting to be released before your actual 70 years had finished. You are a liar.

    Josephus is the only outside witness or source confirming that period of Jewish history and is account coincides with ours and not yours. Josephus is the only source for Berossus and when it suits you rely on Berossus and Josephus but whe the facts turn against you then you seek to discredit Josephus. When you discredit Josphus you discredit Berossus.

    I did not discredit Josephus. You are a liar.

    Daniel 5:26-31 has nothing at all to say about Jeremiah, the seventy years or the Return so it is untenable and implausible to try connect a fact with a nothing.

    Why would it need to say anything about the return? Jeremiah said quite clearly that the 70 years would end with the judgement of Babylon's king. Daniel said that Babylon's days had been numbered, and that Babylon had been weighed, and found deficient, and the king was killed, after which the Babylonian empire ceased to exist, and there was no Babylonian king to be judged. You are a liar.

    Our methodology and interpretation is superior to that of modern scholars because we have revelation form God about such matters and His Word. Further, we have a precise calender date, a year which you do not have. Your misguided interpretations cannot give and has not given you a year because if you are so certain then name your year, write a paper complete with spreadsheet and tell everyone what a clever little boy you and that only you have sold a problem which has baffled scholars for decades namely the year of the Fall. Perhaps you may even score an award for such flashes of truth.

    Now you're claiming revelations from God? Oh dear. The events for your supposed calendar dates never happened. That they never happened in 607 is proved by the fact that your other supposed events didn't happen on your "exact date" in 1914. I do not need exact dates because I don't have an end-times agenda. It is amusing that you feel the need to sink to such base condescension. Grow up.

  • ellderwho
    ellderwho
    Our methodology and interpretation is superior to that of modern scholars because we have revelation form God

    You've got to be posting from some small office at Watchtower Headquarters in NY. Cus brotha you havin delusions.

    PS. Where's your kings list?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit