I probably ought to rest my case here, many posters having shown the gross, self-inflicted braindeadness that seems to be part and parcel of being a JW defender.
AlanF
For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE
by Swamboozled 601 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
AuldSoul
thirdwitness: Why don't you just come right out and say you don't believe what the Bible said about the 40 year desolation of Egypt?
Well, since you didn't specify who you were addressing, I'll answer.
Because that would be a lie. I believe the Bible said the 40 year desolation of Egypt would occur. I have no evidence to even hint that it has occurred, not even in the Bible. So, until I see evidence that it happened, I am left with only one option if I believe Ezekiel was a true prophet. Wait for evidence before claiming it did happen.
Isn't it odd that Ezekiel is never referred to by a single other Bible writer and is never quoted?
Why don't you just come right out and say you don't believe the regnal years assigned by the Watchtower Society to the Neo-Babylonian kings, and therefore believe 607 BC was the year Solomon's Temple was destroyed?
AuldSoul
-
thirdwitness
Steve said: As to you posting a lightening strike with the obvious implication that we are going to die at armageddon,
Just a joke steve just a joke. I could never judge you as dying in Armageddon. I have no idea what you or I will do between now and then.
-
Kenneson
Thirdwitness states: "it was not until after many nations came against Tyre that it would never be rebuilt." Care to tell us if this has already occurred and when? Or maybe you think it will happen in the current conflict in Lebanon?
-
toreador
Hello thirdwitness,
You wrote: Why don't you just come right out and say you don't believe what the Bible said about the 40 year desolation of Egypt and so you don't believe 607 and we can all go home.
Why dont we rephrase that a little. Why don't you just come right out and say you don't believe what the WTS said about 606, or 1874, or 1878, or 1881, or 1904, or 1918, or 1925, or 1941, or 1975, or 2000 and we can all go home.
JWs and the preceding Bible Students have been wrong about this whole silly 1914 chronology from the get-go. Every date except 1914 has been abandoned, along with the unscriptural speculations derived from them. JWs today are no more right about 607 than they were about 606, or 1874, or 1878, or 1881, or 1904, or 1918, or 1925, or 1941, or 1975, or 2000.
Care to comment on AlanF's comments above? Care to prove those dates? If you didnt agree with those date when they were still teaching them you would be disfellowshipped as an apostate. If the GB came out tomorrow and threw out 607 and 1914, what would you do?
Tor
-
thirdwitness
Alan: I probably ought to rest my case here, many posters having shown the gross, self-inflicted braindeadness that seems to be part and parcel of being a JW defender.
Me: I like that Alan. Thats good.
I probably ought to rest my case here, having shown the gross, self-inflicted braindeadness that seems to be part and parcel of being a 587 defender.
-
jayhawk1
Thanks Kenneson!This is what Acts 21:3-7 says...
3 After sighting Cyprus and passing to the south of it, we sailed on to Syria. We landed at Tyre, where our ship was to unload its cargo. 4 Finding the disciples there, we stayed with them seven days. Through the Spirit they urged Paul not to go on to Jerusalem. 5 But when our time was up, we left and continued on our way. All the disciples and their wives and children accompanied us out of the city, and there on the beach we knelt to pray. 6 After saying good-by to each other, we went aboard the ship, and they returned home.
7 We continued our voyage from Tyre and landed at Ptolemais, where we greeted the brothers and stayed with them for a day.
Why would the Apostle Paul go to a city that lay in ruins and was never to be rebuilt again?
-
toreador
If Tyre was no more and not rebuilt, why is Jesus depicted as going there in Matt. 14:21;Mark 7:24, 31, etc.? And how does Paul manage to go to an unexisting place that has a Christian community? Acts 21:3-7
Good point!
-
AuldSoul
thirdwitness: Just a joke steve just a joke.
What is the joke? Oh, wait: "God's going to kill you because you disagree with me." I get it now, that is a real knee-slapper. What a jokester you are. That is one well-developed sense of humor you have there, thirdwitness.
Come to think of it, I can think of a Scriptural example of Jesus making a similar remark. Oh, wait. On second thought, no I can't. Jesting about God killing people for their beliefs seems...extremely unchristian. Heck, it even seems like an unethical thing for any humane person to do, whether or not they are a Christian.
AuldSoul
-
Leolaia
Again you have blundered with your interpretation of 'he' and 'they'. You are inconsistent.
No I haven't. And it is rich for you to say this after I pointed out your inconsistency on whether the reference to Nebuchadnezzar ends at v. 11 or v. 12.
10 Owing to the heaving mass of his horses their dust will cover you. Owing to the sound of cavalryman and wheel and war chariot your walls will rock, when he comes in through your gates, as in the cases of entering into a city opened by breaches. 11 With the hoofs of his horses he (this should be they according to you) will trample down all your streets. Your people he (this should be they also) will kill even with the sword, and to the earth your own pillars of strength will go down. 12 And they (why the change to they at this point. Ezekiel is a little late in changing the pronoun isn't he. I guess he forgot in those first two instances above) will certainly spoil your resources and plunder your sales goods, and tear down your walls, and your desirable houses they will pull down. And your stones and your woodwork and your dust they will place in the very midst of the water.’
Okay, let's look at your misrepresentations in that quote:
With the hoofs of his horses he (this should be they according to you) will trample
No, I did not mark the reference for the verb "trample". I did point out that the horses of the calvarymen are indicated as possessed by the [SING.-3S] referrent, i.e. Nebuchadnezzar. This reflects the preceding verse which describes both "he" (= Nebuchadnezzar) and the horsemen entering the city together.
Your people he (this should be they also) will kill even with the sword
No, y-hrg "he shall slay" has third person singular reference. The same verse states that Nebuchadnezzar is accompanied with "his horses". Unless you have the bizarre thought that Nebuchadnezzar would himself slay each and every person in the city while the calvary just sits around doing nothing, obviously he accomplishes this with his calvary (note: his horses) who were also mentioned in the preceding verse as entering the city with him, and v. 7 which states that Nebuchadnezzar was accompanied with "horses and chariots and horsemen and companies and much people".
And they (why the change to they at this point. Ezekiel is a little late in changing the pronoun isn't he. I guess he forgot in those first two instances above) will certainly spoil your resources and plunder your sales goods
This makes no sense. Verse 10 mentions that Nebuchadnezzar entered the city with his prsh "horsemen" in chariots, and v. 11 again states that he would "trample the streets with the hoofs of his horses (swsyw)" and "he will kill" (y-hrg) all the people. These horses are clearly the horses of the horsemen. Nebuchadnezzar is not personally riding all these horses at the same time and he does not himself personally kill all the people. The plural cavalry is implicit in this verse, which does most of the killing and which tramples the streets. And they are the ones who do the plundering and razing of the city in the next verse (v. 12).
So why don't you comment on what I pointed out as the logical sequence of the event: v. 8 refers to Nebuchadnezzar constructing a siege works against the city, v. 9 refers to the battering of the walls during the seige, v. 10 refers to the breach in the walls and the flood of forces entering the city, v. 11 describes them trampling on the streets and killing people after they enter, and v. 12 naturally describes what they do once they are inside the city: they plunder it and demolish everything inside. It's a cohesive picture of a single event, from beginning to finish. Again, I am amazed that you want to isolate v. 12-14 (or was it v. 13-14 as you earlier claimed) and apply it to a totally different event.