I'm going back to the JW's

by Honesty 51 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Jeffro
    The date of 537 is not speculative but based on solid scriptural and secular evidence. Sadly, scholars in writing about this period do no give sufficient attention to ascribing a specific date for the Return but fortunately celebrated WT scholars do and have determined that is 537 BCE.

    Of course you can't actually state which evidence that you imaging 537 is based on, can you? Nowhere has the Society's pseudo-scholars ever pointed to any evidence at all for 537, only stating speculative reasoning, and suggesting that it had to be that year because of the circular reasoning for supporting 607.

    No, the Jews were at their homes by the seventh month of 537 according to Ezra 3:1 and soon after built an altar by the first day of the seventh month. The second month of the second year saw the foundation of the temple laid and according to Josephus this was the second year of Cyrus which corresponds to 536 BCE: Ezra 3:8.

    Are you completely retarded?? Cyrus' second year ran from April 537 to March 536. That is an undisputed fact - even the Insight book acknowledges that Cyrus' first year ran from April 538 to March 537. The second month of Cyrus' second year is indisputably May of 537. There is simply no possible way that Ezra 3:8 can refer to 536, and there is therefore no room at all for alleging that the Jews did not return in October of 538. No matter how many times you repeat yourself, you are wrong. It doesn't get any simpler.

  • Mary
    I have to ask: Is this scholar guy for real? If so, his comments seem a testament to the statement "never underestimate the power of denial".

    For those of you Newbies who are asking about scholar, let me sum it up real quick for you: The guy's an idiot. He's been coming on this board for quite some time now trying to defend the Organization's teaching that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE, even though there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it did. All the historical, archaeological and biblical evidence proves it was destroyed around 586/587BCE.

    Even so, it really makes no difference, because the Society's vastly confusing "interpretations" about the " 7 times", 1914 and 1918 have no absolutely no biblical basis whatsoever and it's easy to prove. First, the "7 times" that they talk about is NOT talking about 2,520 years (and you can only reach this dumb conclusion by having a lobotomy). Daniel chapter 4 clearly shows that it's referring to Nebuchadnezzar:

    Daniel 4: 10-28: "....Thus were the visions of my head on my bed: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew, and was strong, and its height reached to the sky, and its sight to the end of all the earth............He cried aloud, and said thus, Cut down the tree, and cut off its branches, shake off its leaves, and scatter its fruit: let the animals get away from under it, and the fowls from its branches.......Nevertheless leave the stump of its roots in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of the sky: and let his portion be with the animals in the grass of the earth...let his heart be changed from man's, and let an animal's heart be given to him; and let seven times pass over him.

    The tree that you saw, which grew, and was strong, whose height reached to the sky, and its sight to all the earth.....it is you, O king, that are grown and become strong; for your greatness is grown, and reaches to the sky, and your dominion to the end of the earth.

    this is the interpretation, O king, and it is the decree of the Most High, which is come on my lord the king: that you shall be driven from men, and your dwelling shall be with the animals of the field, and you shall be made to eat grass as oxen, and shall be wet with the dew of the sky, and seven times shall pass over you; until you know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomever he will......Whereas they commanded to leave the stump of the roots of the tree; your kingdom shall be sure to you, after that you shall have known that the heavens do rule...........All this came on the king Nebuchadnezzar

    The 7 Times simply means the 7 years that Nebuchadnezzar would live like an animal in the field and after that, according to the bible, his kingdom would be given back to him. There is absolutely NOTHING in these verses that even hints that it's referring to Jesus' Second Coming being "invisible" in 1914----that's simply an invention by the WTS.

    Secondly the "trampling of the Nations" that's referred to in Luke 21 is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE. The WT claims that this trampling "began centuries earlier" with absolutely nothing to back up their statement. When you read Luke 21: 20-24, it's obvious that it's referring to Jerusalem being destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE:

    But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is at hand. ( WT says this is talking about what happened in 70CE) Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. (yep, still talking about 70 CE) Let those who are in the midst of her depart. Let those who are in the country not enter therein. For these are days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. (still talking about Jerusalem being destroyed by the Romans in 70CE). Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who nurse infants in those days! (70CE) For there will be great distress in the land, and wrath to this people. (Happened in 70 CE) They will fall by the edge of the sword (talking about 70 CE), and will be led captive into all the nations (happened in 70CE). Jerusalem will be trampled down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. (oh, suddenly, this is not talking about 70 CE---it's talking about something unrelated that happened centuries earlier because the WTS says so).

    So in reality, even if Jerusalem had been destroyed in 607 BCE (which Honesty and others have proven that it wasn't), it would make absolutely no difference whatsoever because the other scriptures that the Society uses to try and back up their bizarre claims have absolutely no foundation whatsoever----it's built on sand.

    According to CoC, Freddie Franz and the other members were made well aware of the fact that their interpretations were way off, but they refused to change them for the simple reason that they would no longer be able to make the claim that they were chosen as the Faithful and Discreet Slave in 1918 or 1919 or whenever the hell that was.

  • moomanchu


    You make me very .

    Do you talk about anything but the s and 1914.

    celebrated watchtower scholars

    Don't you need a degree to be considered a scholar ?

    I wonder if Jesus was a celebrated scholar ?

  • Jeffro

    'scholar' gurgled:

    Regarding 537 for the date of the Return, it is a established date based upon Ezra and Josephus confirms that the temple foundation was laid in 536 which is the second year of Cyrus. Authorities do not quibble over 537 for the Return and apostates share this silence to wit, Jonsson.

    Now, I know from experience that 'scholar' ain't none too good with words, so I thought I'd do a nice simple diagram to evince his lies.

    | 538 | 537 | 536 |
    |Cyrus’ 1st |Cyrus’ 2nd |Cyrus’ 3rd |

    # Ezra 1:1 - Decree by Cyrus to rebuild temple
    ( #-----* - Several months of fine weather allowing plenty of time for Jews to go home)
    * Ezra 3:1 – Jews home in 7th month of Cyrus’ 1st year
    ^ Ezra 3:8 – Temple foundation laid in 2nd month of Cyrus’ 2nd year

    *** it-1 p. 453 Chronology ***Since the seventh year of Cambyses II began in spring of 523 B.C.E., his first year of rule was 529 B.C.E. and his accession year, and the last year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon, was 530 B.C.E. The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E.
    *** it-1 p. 568 Cyrus ***the writer was perhaps viewing Cyrus’ first year as having begun late in the year 538 B.C.E. [which cannot be reconciled with the 7th month being Tishri of 537] However, if Darius’ rule over Babylon were to be viewed as that of a viceroy, so that his reign ran concurrent with that of Cyrus, Babylonian custom would place Cyrus’ first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E.
    Against Apion, Book 1, Chapter 21:These accounts agree with the true histories in our books; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius.

    So 'scholar', just what is your 'evidence' for the Jews returning in 537?

  • Honesty
    An article entitled, "The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived" on page 29 in the January 1,1965 Watchtower magazine lists the regnal years of Nebuchadnezzar II's successors from Evil-Merodach to Nabonidus who, in this article the Watchtower confirms was ruler of Babylon when Cyrus conquered it in 539 B.C.:

    Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months. Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar’s favorite son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.

    Sorry for the omission, peaceful pete. I was concentrating on the Watchtower's validation of 539 B.C. as the date when Babylon fell under the reign of Nabonidus.

    Either way, scholar jw has lost another round in the chronicles of 607.

    He can deny that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in his 19th year of reign all he wants:

    2 Kings 25:8-10 On the seventh day of the fifth month, which was the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, Nebuzaradan, the commander of the guards, a servant of the king of Babylon, entered Jerusalem. He burned the Lord ’s temple, the king’s palace, and all the houses of Jerusalem; he burned down all the great houses. The whole Chaldean army [with] the commander of the guards tore down the walls surrounding Jerusalem.

    The chronology of the 5 Babylonian kings is verified by both secular authorities and the Watchtower Babble and Trick Sycopathic Society.

    Face it, scholar jw....

  • Lady Liberty
    Lady Liberty

    Things are going great and she wanted to discuss it more tomorrow, i said good night to her and we were actually ok with each other, i think that helped!

    Dear KW13,

    What WONDERFUL news!!!! I am SO happy for you!!! Thats REALLY GREAT!!!


    Lady Liberty

  • Bookey

    Well, the idea of worshipping Jesus at Church scares me! I still worship YHWH the Father, I just don't do it the same way the WT does... I worship Him through his son Yeshua, alone, in private, just like he asked me to. The entire point of fellowship is to gather for friendship, psalms, and hymns. Worship of the Father alone must be done alone, in spirit and truth... Not through any church building and certainly not through any organization established today as a "religion"...

    Joh 4:21

    Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father.

    Joh 4:22

    Ye worship that which ye know not: we worship that which we know; for salvation is from the Jews.

    Joh 4:23

    But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: for such doth the Father seek to be his worshippers.

    Joh 4:24

    God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth.

  • Quandry

    I really am clueless here. Even if 607 were the correct date, the point is---as has amply been made in the references to the new District Assembly, OBEDIENCE IS REQUIRED. That means no looking at this forbidden site. Scholar, what if you went into the back room and tried to insist to the elders that it is necessary to try to hold discussions with and convince what they consider apostates that the society has the correct dates? Don't you think they'd take just a teeeeeny issue with this activity? Also, there are other dates to consider. How about the 7,000 years for each creative day? Where do you fit the dinosaurs in?

  • geevee

    Quandry: I really am clueless here. Even if 607 were the correct date, the point is---as has amply been made in the references to the new District Assembly, OBEDIENCE IS REQUIRED.

    Are you kidding??? Yes mr. Scholar does break the rules and he'll be judged by thw WTS for that....if indeed that is his real name!!
    But Obedience required? Do you mean blind obedience, or is there a slight hint of sarcasm?

  • Quandry

    geevee--more than a slight bit sarcastic. Obviously this site has not been set up to deal with many many people who are merely disgruntled over the year 607 B.C.E. I am sure we could all deal with that. That does not cover the incessant rules, harsh disfellowshippings, U.N. scandal, 1914 debacle, too many little flock still here, 1975, Beth Sarem, etc. Being a "scholar" cannot make these things right, nor explain them away. Yep, a little sarcasm was called for.

Share this