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

by thirdwitness 1380 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  stevenyc

  Thirdwitness, your twisting scriptures again. This is so blatantly obvious:
  

  But the answer is Yes, Daniel showed that Jehovah's rulership was forever and that he would put whomever he liked as ruler of his kingdom even the lowliest one of mankind which";was to be";Jesus that he would appoint as king"; This would happen at the end of the 7 times.";

  
  
  That NOT what Daniel himself says:
  
  

  17 " 'The decision is announced by messengers, the holy ones declare the verdict, so that the living may know that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of men.'

  
  

  24 "...Seven times will pass by for you until you acknowledge that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes"

  Daniel says "the kingdoms of men" NOT "ruler of HIS kingdom".
  
  Stop twisting scripture!
  
  steve
• 

  hillary_step

  Saki,

  Thank you for clarifying your position. Might I ask whether you are a Jehovah's Witness in good standing and if so, whether you fully support ThirdWitness position on all these threads? Are you viewing these threads form a neutral point if view, which means that the information provided will prove the outcome of these debates, not a pre-concluded point of view?

  I note on another tread that you imply that ThirdWitness actually made his case for a 607BCE fall of Jerusalem. Might you be willing to tell the reader on what basis you reached this conclusion? If not, why not?

  He mentioned in this thread he will not reply to any other topic... 607 being the main topic for discussion. Apparently he didn't accept the invitation.

  He neither accepted my invitation to answer questions that pertained to the thread in question, which as I have previously stated makes him a liar, and you a person with an agenda in supporting his position.

  Your 'neutrality', is pure pap. I dare say you have painted yourself as an arms length observer, because you are unable to enter these debates due to a lack of knowledge of the subject, a subject in which you base your faith and your life style. Ignorance is a brutal master.

  HS
• 

  AlanF

  Thirdwitless continues to ignore a fundamental flaw in the JW chronology: Because the Jews returned in 538 B.C. -- not in 537 -- the 607 date is wrong, and with it, everything based upon it. Thus, arguments trying to prove that the Gentile times is a 2,520 year period beginning in 607 are moot.

  Thirdwitless' argument about the Gentile times can be compared to someone claiming, "Oh, New Orleans wasn't wiped out by Hurricane Katrina! It was wiped out by a tornado! After all, New Orleans is in Spain, and Spain doesn't get hurricanes but it gets a lot of tornados!" Then the moron spends a great deal of time arguing why he thinks that Spain gets a lot of tornadoes. The point here is that making an argument about Spain getting a lot of tornadoes is moot, because New Orleans isn't in Spain.

  For the intellectually challenged JW defenders reading this thread, here is the comparison:

  New Orleans is in Spain -> the Jews returned in 537

  Spain gets a lot of tornadoes -> the Gentile times is a valid WTS concept

  What bothers me so much about the JW defenders here is that they seem ineluctably incapable of understanding such simple points.

  This general tendency to ignore inconvenient facts results in completely ass-backwards thinking by JW defenders. Rather than starting with a valid historical date and working things out from there, they actually start with a doctrinal necessity and work backwards, trying to fit real history in where possible and ignoring everything that doesn't fit. Look how this works with thirdwitless. In response to two posters, he began with 1914 as the doctrinally necessary date, and worked his way backwards to an actual historical date, ignoring certain historical facts along the way:

  : Of course you cannot arrive at dates without secular sources. Even what happened in 1914 involves secular sources. Counting back 2520 years from 1914 we reach 607. Counting forward 70 years for the desolation and servitude of Babylon we reach 537. Amazingly secular history agrees that 539 was the year Babylon was conquered and so 537 fits.

  Such ass-backwards thinking also ignores the actual history of the development of the Watchtower's 1914 date. Nelson Barbour came up with it in 1875, claiming that Babylon fell in 536 B.C., that the Jews returned in 536 B.C., and that a 70-year desolation of Jerusalem necessitated that Jerusalem be destroyed in 606 B.C. He then applied a tortuous chain of reasoning largely invented by others to arrive at the notion that "the Gentile times" of Luke 21:24 were a period of 2,520 years beginning in 606 B.C. and ending in 1914 A.D. He failed to note that there was no "zero year" between 1 B.C. and 1 A.D., and should have arrived at 1915. C. T. Russell adopted all of this nonsense lock, stock and barrel. Beginning in 1913, the Watchtower Society (i.e., C. T. Russell) was made aware of the "zero year" problem, but its leaders failed to make any changes in the Gentile times chronology until 1943, when they began a 12-year process of putting their chronological ducks in order. As a result, 536 went to 537, 538 and 539, and 606 went to 607 -- all with the goal of maintaining the doctrinally necessary 1914 date.

  AlanF
• 

  hillary_step

  ThirdWitness,

  What evidence can you produce to show that any of these prophecies had a life after the C1st ( the preterist view ) apart from WTS interpretation of the way these prophecies should be adopted?

  Does you understand the preterist arguments of the prophecies in Daniel and Revelation, the very ones on which you are seeking to educate us all? How would you refute their arguments?

  Clear questions, both for yourself to answer and Saki to watch for in awe, all in line with your subject I might add!

  HS
• 

  hillary_step

  AlanF,

  What bothers me so much about the JW defenders here is that they seem ineluctably incapable of understanding such simple points.

  Yes, it is rather worrying and seems to involve the attitude expressed by the CO who holding up a green Bible said, 'well it looks green to me, but if the WTS says that it is black, then it is black'. These defenders seem to want to argue that green could be black if you looked at the colors through distorted spectacles. It is an endless loop of self-delusion.

  Some respect has to be shown to ThirdWitness and Scholar for at least trying to defend the indefensible, the more nauseating JW's are those barely able to read, let alone research issues of greater depth than the Awake magazine and who after reading twenty pages of debate write a one sentence post - 'Congratulations Thirdwitness/Scholar - you won'....lol

  I am much more interested in the psychology of these people than any arguments of scriptual minutiae, as it seems to me that their denail of the weight of evidence is borne, not from a conviction that the Bible is correct, but more from psychological patterns that they have to adhere to to survive.

  In a rare moment of lucidity, probably a unique moment, Scholar admitted to me that the WTS was going 'beyond its authority' in shunning those who question its 607BCE fantasy chronology. He recognized that if these issues can be debated so easily, the WTS does not have the right to insist that its way is the only way. I suspect that he now regrets having made that statement on this Board, but it stands as a monument to the fact that beneath every JW apologist is the kernel of a voice of reason fighting for survival like a kitten in a latrine.

  HS
• 

  KW13

  Its quite interesting for me, i tried to keep myself from these threads but then i find myself posting lol.

  thirdwitness, Scholar and company all have one thing in common. They choose what they read and respond to. That is everyones free choice, but since people want a healthy and 'constructive' debate, it doesn't help create that.

  thirdwitness/Scholar and company aren't objective, they fail to directly answer a question when it suits them or they are just annoyingly vague in answer. This is the biggest ANTI-WITNESS, because it shows the lack of answers and resources available to JW's apart from lies and half truths, that only work for the brainwashed, and in the real world have no substance.

  Each Ex-JW has one advantage - nothing to defend whereas the lurkers have everything to defend.

  When i've spoken to my mum before, we've discussed points and she's (maybe without realising) changed the subject/with selective hearing, twisted something and ignored vital points. It makes it very difficult for anyone. Like arguing with a toddler.

  Personally, i am glad i didn't stop being a Witness because of dates. Its a complicated issue, that could probably be argued forever on this site (maybe it will be), partly because its hard without a face to face or at least hearing the voices of people, trying to get a full understanding of what they are saying, and partly because of the reasons above.

  Every JW needs to ask himself - What is truth? What is a Christian? and also who are they answerable to? The Watchtower Society have said at the convention, avoid these sites. If its as easy as thirdwitness and friends have tried to make out, to 'win' against apostates, then why avoid it? why not make it a public thing and make a mockery of the clowns who are weeping and gnashing their teeth?

  thirdwitness and company also NEED secular history to prove the bible, and to get dates. So who decides what is accurate and what isn't? Surely that allows for an agenda?
• 

  saki2fifty

  Might I ask whether you are a Jehovah's Witness in good standing and if so, whether you fully support ThirdWitness position on all these threads? Are you viewing these threads form a neutral point if view, which means that the information provided will prove the outcome of these debates, not a pre-concluded point of view?

  I am not even officially a Jehovah's Witness... for I have not been baptized. However, Wife is, and we do attend meetings, service, etc. Am I viewing this thread from a neutral point of view? Absolutely...

  I note on another tread that you imply that ThirdWitness actually made his case for a 607BCE fall of Jerusalem. Might you be willing to tell the reader on what basis you reached this conclusion? If not, why not?

  Not sure which comment you are speaking of, but think it was "...it appears that JW's have their stance, and the ex-JW's have their stance on the matter... all of which has not been resolved ... even both sides cannot prove their point?".

  He neither accepted my invitation to answer questions that pertained to the thread in question, which as I have previously stated makes him a liar, and you a person with an agenda in supporting his position

  That doesn't necessarily make him a Liar... even if you previously stated it. No agenda here.

  you have painted yourself as an arms length observer, because you are unable to enter these debates due to a lack of knowledge of the subject, a subject in which you base your faith and your life style. Ignorance is a brutal master.

  I accept my ignorance of these debates. That is why I am here, to be enlightened.... to further my knowledge, to escape that ignorance. I am unable to enter these debates due to a lack of knowlege and fully accept it.

  And i have never positioned myself as being neutral.
• 

  Finally-Free

  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.

  I am not even officially a Jehovah's Witness... for I have not been baptized. However, Wife is, and we do attend meetings, service, etc. Am I viewing this thread from a neutral point of view? Absolutely...

  And i have never positioned myself as being neutral.

  Sure. I believe you.

  W
• 

  AlanF

  just2sheep wrote:

  : your continuing habit of calling people, who dissagree with you, derogatory names is getting to be a bore.

  You misrepresent what I do when I call certain people liars, morons and so forth. If the term fits the facts, then it is no more than a term describing what they do or how they act. Calling a demonstrated liar a liar is no more "name calling" than is calling a fish a fish or a convicted criminal a criminal. I don't do this with people who merely disagree with me, but only with those who obstinately refuse to accept simple facts, who repeatedly tell lies, and generally demonstrate a continued desire to act badly.

  Let me give you an example. I told thirdwitless that he is a liar and an ass. You know what a liar is. What is an ass? From Webster's online dictionary:

  ass: sometimes vulgar : a stupid, obstinate, or perverse person <made an ass of himself> -- often compounded with a preceding adjective <don't be a smart-ass>

  Does thirdwitless fit this description? Demonstrably he does. Note what Ozziepost said in one post (#12990)

  
  

  AlanF has it quite correct when he says:

  : thirdwitless wrote:

  :: I personally wrote this. Will the administrator delete it because it proves 607 to 1914 really was the Gentile 7 Times? We shall see.

  : What a devious moron you are! You're devious because you think to imply that your previous cut & pastes were deleted because they actually proved something. You were told the reason: large cut & pastes of anything are not welcome -- they are viewed as trolling. You're a moron because you actually seem to think that posters won't see your lying implication.

  Hellrider:

  : ...and as usual, Thirdwitnoid do NOT respond to points made. He refuses to answer arguments and points that he does NOT have an answer for (such as my post). He just brushes it off like it`s nothing, although we all KNOW that our arguments have killed off his WTS-theories. And posters who post but do not respond to arguments raised and points made, are TROLLLLLLS! So people should just ignore him. The "points" in his post has allready been refuted, and he has come up with no counterarguments. TROLL TROLL TROLL

  I agree.

  . . .

  3W: This thread has been allowed to run as it shows lurkers and doubters alike the extremes to which some dub supporters will go to spread their points of view and then when challenged by more able posters those teachings are shown to be the baseless conjectures of human imaginations that they are. You are doing the apostate™ cause a great service!

  So Ozziepost agrees that thirdwitless fits the description "stupid, obstinate, or perverse" -- an ass. Obviously he also agrees that thirdwitless is a liar.

  : perhaps you should read the guidelines.

  The guidelines do not state that demonstrated liars and asses should not be called by factual terms.

  : . . . your arguments are strong enough to not have to resort to name calling.

  Again you misrepresent my methods of dealing with deceitful JW defenders. I do not "resort" to name calling -- as if that's all I do. I first deal with the poster objectively, and only when he demonstrates a continuing proclivity to lie and make an ass of himself do I begin calling a spade a spade.

  AlanF
• 

  KW13

  If you think AlanF just calls people names, you need to read the hundreds of threads he's gone through with Scholar, Thirdwitness and others. He's been very patient.