The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness 1380 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • cabasilas
    cabasilas
    Cabasilas and alwayshere made similar point. I replied on that as follows: That Daniel 4 said that Neb was the head and that was it. Well if you don't want to search the scriptures of course you want find any answers or any truth. Daniel outrightly tells us that it is about God's kingdom and whoever he wants he will make rule. That is the theme of Daniel 4 as I showed in the first post I made. And the connections are clear to Ezek 17, 19, and 21.

    But, does Daniel specifically say there is any other application to the tree dream?

  • thirdwitness
    thirdwitness

    Page 4 questions:

    AlanF ask: Does anyone fail to see what an ass this guy is?

    I don't think that was directed at me to answer. I think outlaw answered that for us.

    Some more off topic stuff and comments without questions.

    Some insults. A comment about how AlanF would be like a whale swallowing up fisherman if he tried to catch or challenge him.

    Except auldsoul did ask about the 70 weeks of years of Daniel 9 which I am about to answer.

    And Cabasilas ask a few questions which were actually answered in my very first post and would mean I would have to copy and paste just about the whole thing since his questions are so broad and general. He asks: Where in Daniel chapter 4 does it specifically say that the 7 times applies to God's rulership?Where does the Bible specifically say that the tree dream in Daniel chapter 4 has any other application?Do the passages in Ezekiel 17, 19, 21 and Revelation 12 and Isaiah 6 specifically comment on the passage from Daniel chapter 4 or specifically connect it to what these other chapters are saying?

    I guess I could instead answer and say that if you are unwilling to look into the other scriptures that I cite that clearly helps understand and connects Daniel 4 with God's rulership then what can I tell you other than copying and pasting the whole essay again for you.

  • AuldSoul
    AuldSoul
    If a day for a year is not applied then that means that the 7 times lasted from 607 to 600. Did a ruler of God's Kingdom come forth then? Logical reasoning will lead a person to believe that the day for a year rule must apply otherwise the prophecy is meaningless. We have as an example the seventy weeks prophecy of Daniel chapter 9. The day for a year rule must apply in Daniel chapter 9 or the prophecy is meaningless and is of no value.

    For the moment ignoring the fact that you still have not proven 607 as a starting point, I have already demonstrated that the "day for a year" rule as applied to Daniel 4 was not applied to Daniel 9. To conserve your time in answering questions, I will try very hard to ask you only yes or no questions. Here's one: Are you aware that the word translated "weeks" in Daniel 9 literally means "weeks of years"? If so, then you know that fact renders your entire comparative argument false at best and sophistic at worst.

    As we have already shown Daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years. Therefore it must mean more than 7 years. Otherwise he would have said 7 years not 7 times. Do you think that Jehovah was trying to trick us by using the terminology of 7 times and then explaining the length of 3.5 times in Revelation only to merely mean that the 7 times that pass over are 7 years and that is all? AT the same time he supplied the rule ' a day for a year ' when Ezekiel laid on his side for so many days (which by the way pointed to the destruction of Jerusalem in 607). He also supplied the prophecy of the 70 weeks which also needs the rule of 'a day for a year' for it to have value. The 70 weeks from 455 brings us to 453.5. Nothing happened. So surely it must be a day for a year.

    "Iddan" does not have to mean more than 7 years. It can mean less than 7 years with equal facility. It can mean "measure of time", or "season" and if you were aware of this possibility prior to posting this false statement then your statement was sophistic. Were you aware that "iddan" can be less than a year, thirdwitness? If so, then you already knew your statement that "it must mean more than 7 years" was false, since you already knew of another possibility.

    With that said, is there any other reason to apply the day for a year rule to the dream? For a moment lets reason why God wanted us to know exactly how long 3 1/2 times are. In one place he calls it 42 months, in another place he calls it 1260 days. If it only meant 42 regular months then why be so specific about it. What difference does a few days here or there make? Why not just 3½ years or 42 lunar or solar months? The only time a few days does make a big difference is when you are dealing with a prophecy that has a day for a year rule applied. In this case every day makes a big difference. When you combine this with the fact that every prophecy of Daniel either concludes with Jesus arriving in God's Kingdom or with the arrival of the Messiah who is the King of God's Kingdom, then you have a pretty strong reason to apply the day for a year rule.

    The Watchtower Society interpretation of the 42 months, "time, times, and half a time", and 1,260 days is specific and is taught as spanning 3.5 years from 1914 to 1918. By this interpretation 3.5 times does not equal 1,260 years, it equals 3.5 years. Doubling 1,260 years for application to Daniel 4 only makes sense if 3.5 times equals 1,260 years. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all to compare Revelation 12 to Daniel 4. For any purpose at all. If 7 times equals 2,520 years, then 3.5 times equals 1,260 years. If 3.5 times equals 1,260 days then 7 times equals 2,520 days. But for my part, I see no need to correlate the two verses as proof texts for each other.

    You have already removed the basis for your erroneous application of Revelation 12 in your earlier answer. You stated you do not believe 3.5 times equals 1,260 years, your reasons for this disbelief are immaterial. After the current organization falls to pieces I expect big things from you, thirdwitness. You have the gift of seemingly rational argument that is as false as Phyllis Diller's eyelashes, the gift of sophistry. That gift made J.F. Rutherford and F.W. Franz very powerful within their circle of cultists.

    AuldSoul

  • Midget-Sasquatch
    Midget-Sasquatch

    ThirdWitness,

    Midget ask about why the 1260 days in Revelation are not interpreted by the WT as a day for a year. Auldsoul later ask that to which I did comment that Rev is in the Lord's day and I don't believe the Lord's day is 1260 years long so logic would dictate that a day for a year didn't apply.

    I agree with you that the Lord's Day isn't to be understood as being such a long period of time. Most non-JW christians either believe it happens on each individuals death or at still future date, but it would be a fairly quick event either way. Certainly not as long as the 92 years (and counting) held by the WTS. So given that its stretched this far, and for God a day can be "as a thousand years", or a bible's "day" can even be an unspecified length of time of several millenia (as per the WTS interpretation of Genesis), what criteria shall we use to discount these other alternatives?

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman

    "In what way would another king be brought high in 537?" Consider 2 Kings 25:27,28

  • ringo5
    ringo5
    Hoping4change made the same old tired comments about how the Bible does not give actual dates so we have to use secular history to start somewhere. Do I really need to comment on that.....again.



    Is this how you answer questions in the ministry? Hoping4change asked that on page 2 so I looked on all pages so far in this thread and have not seen that question addressed yet.

    Can you at least point to the specific post # that addresses that question, (considering you cannot arrive at any specific dates without using secular sources) since it is directly on topic with this thread?

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman

    Any comments on 2Kings25:28?

  • AuldSoul
    AuldSoul
    thirdwitness: And Cabasilas ask a few questions which were actually answered in my very first post and would mean I would have to copy and paste just about the whole thing since his questions are so broad and general.

    That's odd. I can answer each of them without cutting and pasting one word from your first post.

    (Q) Where in Daniel chapter 4 does it specifically say that the 7 times applies to God's rulership? (A) It doesn't say that anywhere in the Bible, much less in Daniel chapter 4.

    (Q) Where does the Bible specifically say that the tree dream in Daniel chapter 4 has any other application? (A) Nowhere. It isn't in the Bible, unless you include the Bound Volume "Talmud" of Jehovah's Witnesses as part of the Bible, which most JWs do.

    (Q) Do the passages in Ezekiel 17, 19, 21 and Revelation 12 and Isaiah 6 specifically comment on the passage from Daniel chapter 4 or specifically connect it to what these other chapters are saying? (A) No.

    Sheez, what was so hard about that? My answers were explicit and direct, too. The questions were very narrow and specific, you characterize them as broad and general only because your answers would have to be broad and general to remain in keeping with WTS doctrine. In only three questions a poster ripped to shreds your entire argument that the reasoning you presented is from the Bible. That's why you couldn't give direct answers to the questions.

    Your problem here is, we are not confused or thrown off the scent by your smoke and mirrors, we see exactly which sleeve the card is in, we know the tricks you use because we used to use them. We know the game, we know the bluffs, we know the sleight of hand. We left that life and the sophistry that accompanies it, but we didn't forget how to spot the tricks.

    AuldSoul

  • saki2fifty
    saki2fifty
    Outlaw: Actually saki,I sit corrected..LOL!..Saki,may I ask?..Did you have an opinion before the debate,if so,what was it?...OUTLAW

    Ha!... No opinions here... I only brought my brainwashed mind and virgin ears... Have to naturally side with TW for I'm still a witness. My 607 knowledge is limited... hence my replies to a fair trial.

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman

    Couldn'dt EZ 21:26 apply before 537 on or about 607 finding fulfillent as stated in 2kings verse previously cited?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit