For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE

by Swamboozled 601 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Leolaia

  Leo, you need to go back and read. As usual you are wrong in your interpretation. Tyre being rebuilt was brought up by 587 proponents to try to prove that the 40 year desolation of Egypt was wrongly interpreted just like Tyre being rebuilt prophecy. Tyre being rebuilt or not has nothing to do with the 70 year prophecy on Tyre in Isaiah. So you are wrong about who brought up Tyre being rebuilt but why not. You are wrong on most everything else as well.

  In your very first post in this thread (#12), you mentioned Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Tyre and how the 40 years of Egypt was connected to it by discussing Ezekiel 29. You used that as a chronological basis to start the 40 years AFTER the siege of Tyre even tho the original oracle that mentioned the 40 years does not assume such a delay (and as I pointed out, the revised oracle does NOT mention the 40 years). Then in #24, you mention the "70 years of Tyre". That's the second reference to Tyre in this thread. In response to these references to Tyre that you brought up, stevenyc pointed out that Ezekiel's prophecy also claimed that Tyre would not be rebuilt and rassilion also pointed out that it bears on your reasoning about the chronology: "Fact: The prophecy about Tyre did not get fufilled during this time period. In fact the Insight book indicates it did not until several hundred years later. WHY then do you claim that this 40 years for Egypt must be fufilled during this time period. AND no there is nothing in EZEKIEL which makes it a necessity." Note that he recognizes, as I pointed out, that the oracle that mentions Nebuchadnezzar is not the one that mentions the 40 years and the oracle about the 40 years does not put it in the timeframe of Nebuchadnezzar. And note that his discussion about the Tyre prophecy pertains to your chronological arguments. And the discussion continued from there.
• 

  AlanF

  thirdwitless doesn't seem to realize that he's nicely proved the point that Ezekiel's statement that Tyre would "never be rebuilt" must be interpreted figuratively or symbolically in order not to reject the Bible's veracity out of hand. He set forth the following argument:

  The Bible clearly said Tyre would at some point be destroyed and never be rebuilt. It is an interesting question as to how this would be fulfilled?

  Here are different interpretations:

  1. The ancient Phoenecian city of Tyre was never rebuilt. It was rebuilt but not under that empire.

  2. It was never rebuilt to its former glory.

  3. It was never rebuilt because the mainland city was cast into the sea when Alexander built the causeway and therefore couldn't be rebuilt.

  4. The site of the ancient ruins and underwater ruins is testimony that it was not rebuilt.

  Note that none of the above "interpretations" take at face value Ezekiel's simple statement that Tyre would never be rebuilt. Why are these "interpretations" necessary? Because the fact that Tyre exists today demands them. Otherwise one would have to reject many other prophetic utterances in the Bible.

  : But I keep wondering why is this being discussed on a thread about 607. It seems there could only be one reason since it is 587 proponents who want to discuss it. What would that be?

  You've given the answer many times now: To prove that taking a prophecy at face value often results in conflict with the facts. Because Ezekiel's statement that Egypt would be desolated for 40 years conflicts with the facts, as you've admitted with his statement about Tyre, it cannot be taken at face value and must be interpreted as figurative or symbolic to retain any veracity at all. And I've shown how several non-JW scholars have done this.

  But you simply ignore what you've been told, because you like your strawman arguments, as below:

  : To prove that the Bible cannot be totally relied upon.

  You've been clearly told that that is just one of the alternatives. To set it forth as the only alternative is a lie and a red herring. But you're good at lying.

  : We must put the secular evidence above the Bible. Please correct me if I am wrong.

  Done.

  : But if that is not the reason then why isn't this being discussed on another thread entitled 'What does it mean that Tyre would never be rebuilt'? Why is it being brought up by proponents of 587 to disprove 607?

  You've been given the answer to this many times: The result of the discussion proves that some biblical statements must be given "interpretations" that are figurative or symbolic. Ezekiel's statement about a 40-year desolation is a case in point. And in case you don't remember, it was you who brought up this statement as a 'proof' that 587 is a wrong date.

  AlanF
• 

  AlanF

  thirdwitless wrote:

  : I suggest if you want to talk about what it meant when it said Tyre would never be rebuilt and whether Jerusalem has been rebuilt in the same sense then start a new thread. It has nothing to do with 607.

  It has everything to do with it, as I've discussed in my immediately preceding post. Your claim is a red herring.

  The fact that you refuse to give answers to simple questions such as "was Jerusalem ever rebuilt" proves your intellectual dishonesty. You know very well that giving an honest answer blows away your claims about the rebuilding of Tyre.

  Big Tex made an excellent point with regard to your refusal to answer these relevant questions: Jehovah's Witnesses who are lurking and reading this thread are getting an excellent witness against Watchtower claims.

  : And I am really not interested in discussing questions like was Jerusalem rebuilt? I told you to choose whatever interpretation you like with Tyre, it has nothing to do with 607 unless your claim is that the Bible is false.

  : Is that your claim?

  I've answered you several times now: Not for purposes of this thread. Rather, the purpose of my questions is to prove that many biblical statements must be taken as figurative or symbol to retain any veracity. The alternative is to reject the Bible altogether. While some posters explicitly do this, I certainly am not doing it in this thread. AlanF
• 

  AlanF

  thirdwitless wrote:

  :: Were the heavens and the earth created in six days, as Exodus states? : As if this has anything to do with 607. It has everything to do with it, as I've taken pains to explain. Now answer the question. : Did the Israelites wander in the wilderness for 40 years? Likely a few thousand of them wandered around for awhile. : You attempting to sidestep the question of the 40 year desolation of Egypt is apparent because you have no answer for it. On the contrary. I've answered it in spades. So have other posters. The JW lurkers who are observing this thread know it, and so do you. AlanF
• 

  thirdwitness

  Of course we know that parts of the bible is figurative. You do not have to discuss Tyre for that to be acknowledged. For you to say this is symbolic therefore this must also be symbolic is a strawman argument. You could use that argument for anything written in the Bible. Talk about a red herring. But you have absolutely no basis for concluding that the 40 year desolation of Egypt was figurative. Not Biblical anyway. You base it merely on the fact that Egypt did not record such a 40 year desolation. How surprising is that?

  Ezekiel 29-32 is unambiguous and does not mince any words. Egypt was desolated by Neb for 40 years without inhabitant. To deny this is to deny God's word. To deny this is putting secular evidence over the Bible's word. Plane and simple.

  And I am glad to see that many more are coming clean admitting that their claim is the Bible is unreliable. That is what the honest person will do who wants to stick to 587. The 40 year desolation of Egypt which no one can overcome without sidestepping the scriptures only scratches the surface as to the proof of 607 from the Bible. The link provided at the start of this thread shows 'legions' of evidence.
• 

  thirdwitness

  Lets make it clear what you and other posters have said through this long thread. The 'legions' of problems that you have shown us in 'spades' can be summed up in one sentence.

  Interpretation by secular historians of the evidence shows no 40 year desolation of Egypt at the hands of Neb therefore what Jehovah prophecied thru Ezekiel cannot be true.
• 

  AuldSoul

  Shall I then assume you will not respond on the thread I started for you, thirdwitness?

  AuldSoul
• 

  jayhawk1

  Of course we know that parts of the bible is figurative.

  Which parts?

  You do not have to discuss Tyre for that to be acknowledged.

  So Tyre never being rebuilt is figurative? How so?

  For you to say this is symbolic therefore this must also be symbolic is a strawman argument. You could use that argument for anything written in the Bible.

  Again I ask, which parts are figurative and which aren't? How does one know the difference?

  Talk about a red herring. But you have absolutely no basis for concluding that the 40 year desolation of Egypt was figurative. Not Biblical anyway. You base it merely on the fact that Egypt did not record such a 40 year desolation. How surprising is that?

  Is this to be interpreted as literal of figurative? I am confused... I am not basing my arguement on Egypt not recording a 40 year desolation. I am saying there is no proof from the victor of the war that Egypt remained desolate for 40 years. Talk about bragging rights! Imagine a war so one sided that the loser took 40 years to recover.

  Ezekiel 29-32 is unambiguous and does not mince any words. Egypt was desolated by Neb for 40 years without inhabitant. To deny this is to deny God's word. To deny this is putting secular evidence over the Bible's word. Plane and simple.

  So I am to take this part as literal and not figurative? What clue in the text is given to determine if it is literal and not figurative? Are there other texts in the Bible that clues the reader into knowing for certain that what you are about to read is figurative? Don't give me we know 7 headed beasts don't exist. I can figure that one out for myself.

  And I am glad to see that many more are coming clean admitting that their claim is the Bible is unreliable.

  The Burden Of Proof is on you to prove the Bible is reliable.

  And I am glad to see that many more are coming clean admitting that their claim is the Bible is unreliable.

  Yes, I consider myself to be an honest person. I have not said anything to give the reader the impression I was trusting what the Bible says. I only accept what can be proven by 2 sources. Just like Jehovah's Witnesses claim that an event must be witnessed by another person in order to be true. Unfortunately they just don't practice what they preach.

  The 40 year desolation of Egypt which no one can overcome without sidestepping the scriptures only scratches the surface as to the proof of 607 from the Bible. The link provided at the start of this thread shows 'legions' of evidence.

  I am not sidestepping anything. I am asking for proof from another source other than the Bible says so. Proof that doesn't seem to exist or you would have provided it by now. Again, because your arguement states that some of the Bible is to be taken figuratively and other parts literally, which is it for Egypt, Tyre, 6 days of creation and other parts. How is the reader to determine which is which? Or are we to just accept your word on it? The burden of proof is on you buddy.
• 

  thirdwitness

  And here it is again for those really wanting to know the truth about 607 vs 587

  http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/607/default.html
• 

  thirdwitness

  Auldsoul, Can you be more specific about Hila stele. For example, provide some links to it and the other bm's you talk about. I know the WTS has address the Nab's mother chronicle and its inconsistencies.