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

by thirdwitness 1380 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  AuldSoul

  thirdwitness: Where is this amazing book written by Christendom that outdoes the insight book?

  The density keeps increasing. You better be careful lest your head turn into a lump of anti-matter. This question was in reply to this comment:

  Frank: The Watchtower condemns Christendom's churches but robs constantly from Christendom's sources without giving credit where credit is due.

  You see, we write in English on this forum. When a word is plural it means "more than one" of whatever the word was.

  Secondly, a few activated brain cells should clue you in that the claim was never made that the plurality of unsourced sources stolen from to compile Aid to Bible Understanding were better than, or outdid Aid to Bible Understanding, or its doctrinally corrective descendant, Insight On the Scriptures. The claim was that the compilation failed (for the most part) to properly credit the sources of the material presented.

  Lastly, Christendom doesn't write books. Christendom has never written a single book. People write books. That is, outside of cultic organizations that try to produce organizationally binding doctrine anonymously people write books. Perhaps you were led to believe Christendom wrote a book by the possessive form being used. Possession can also convey the idea of familiar association to a particular segment of society, it rarely signifies origin. Use of the possessive forms more frequently signifies possession (ownership or use) of the noun in question.

  With such blatant illogic and linguistic incapacity woven through nearly every post of yours, I am surprised that any lurker would credit anything you write.

  AuldSoul
• 

  TD

  Alan said:

  NT Greek is supposed to be a precise language, and since we can easily and unambiguously express in English action that began in the past and will continue into the future, it stands to reason that the same could be done in NT Greek. I'm no Greek scholar, so I can't say more.

  I'm no Greek scholar either --just someone that enjoys reading it.

  You're right. Greek in general and the ancient dialects in particular are precise, at least more so than English. --Which is exactly why the Elvis illustration doesn't fly.

  They're aren't a whole lot of clear examples in the Bible itself, but here's one:

  anaqemati aneqematisamen eautouV mhdenoV geusasqai ewV ou apokteinwmeV paulon

  We have bound ourselves under a curse that we will eat nothing until we have killed Paul (Acts 23:14)

  From the standpoint of the speaker(s), the action here began in the past, exists in the present and extends into the future. The portion of the action referenced is only that portion which extends into the future and ends at a finite point introduced by the temporal preposition. Therefore the idea here is virtually identical to what thirdwitness has argued that Luke 21:24 really means

  Yet the future aspect of the negated action is expressed not with the future tense, (And certainly not with the future indicative) but with an Aorist infinitive. Acts 23:21 expresses the same basic idea and is very similar in construction. Thirdwitness has created a grammatical problem in claiming that a simple use of the future indicative could include progressive action initiated prior to the statement itself. Further, the argument that he is attempting to make (Subject context as opposed to lexical or grammatical context) won't make this problem go away.
• 

  poppers

  My cursory examination of this long thread showed that only one person (OUTLAW) brought up this ridiculous TW statement:
  "And no I couldn't have written it without the aid of the WT publications as they are the only religious publications in the world today that explain Bible truths."
• 

  thirdwitness

  Ok, well , this is going off in another direction. If there is nothing new to bring up then I will sit back and wait. I believe all questions have been answered. Many of them more than once.
• 

  thirdwitness

  TD, the 'will be' phrase has been answered. Even AlanF had to agree that it could mean 'will continue to be'. And the text supports that conclusion.
• 

  hillary_step

  ThirdWitness,

  Ok, well , this is going off in another direction. If there is nothing new to bring up then I will sit back and wait. I believe all questions have been answered. Many of them more than once.

  You have not answered ANY of my questions, except to suprise us not at all by your admitted ignorance of the existence of preterism as a theology. They are all to do with the subject at hand. Why will you not answer them. Apostacat got your tongue? HS
• 

  hillary_step

  ThirdyThingy,

  Just in case you did not read my post, I will repeat it.

  ThirdWitness,

  hillarystep: 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?

  You'll have to be more specific. I know very little about preterists.

  There now, I noted that JW's do not get out much theologically didn't I.

  Here is a link that will give you a broad stroke idea of what Preterists and Partial Preterists have concluded about the eschatological elements of the Bible.

  After you have disgested some of this, perhaps you might answer a couple of questions that I have already asked, but not received an answer to and the fill in the blanks in the statement below :

  Do you accept, as does the WTS that the apostles Peter, Paul, John and James were expecting the 'culmination of all things' in their lifetime?

  Do you believe that one can only understand prophetic elements of the Bible, such as Daniel, by means of the Holy Spirit, or can accurate conclusions be reached even by academic means only?

  Then the statement :

  I ( ThirdWitness ) believe that it is impossible for all the prophecies in Daniel and Revelation to have been fulfilled by the second fall of Jerusalem in 70CE because__________________________________

  Now, you have a tendency to ignore questions that might make you feel uncomfortable theologically often claiming that you will not answer them as they are not in keeping with the theme of the thread. I am sure you will agree, that this post is in keeping with your chosen theme.

  Many thanks.

  HS
• 

  TD

  thirdwitness

  TD, the 'will be' phrase has been answered.

  Sorry, no. The ambiguity and the accompanying freedom of interpretation inherent in an intuitive and relatively uninflected language like modern English cannot be retroactively imposed on a precise, stilted, highly inflected ancient language like Koine Greek. The "Elvis" illustration is possible in English, but the NT was not written in English, so the question becomes one of whether it is possible in Greek. I have contended that this creates a grammatical problem and have explained why.

  Even AlanF had to agree that it could mean 'will continue to be'

  Alan is a smart guy who is usually right when others are wrong, but I don't believe he actually reads ancient Greek.

  I think you would have made a large step in the right direction if you could produce any Bible translation in any language that offers this rendering.
• 

  thirdwitness

  I ( ThirdWitness ) believe that it is impossible for all the prophecies in Daniel and Revelation to have been fulfilled by the second fall of Jerusalem in 70CE because__________________________________

  I did not answer this because it is too simple. I guess I could bring forth the kindergarden class to answer it. It is off topic and I have no interest as I have said in reteaching the basic doctrines of the bible to those who should already know them but have returned to the vomituous teachings of Christendom or the endless philosophies of men.

  But just to fill in your blank since it can be done so quickly:

  I ( ThirdWitness ) believe that it is impossible for all the prophecies in Daniel and Revelation to have been fulfilled by the second fall of Jerusalem in 70CE because the man of lawlessness was not yet fully revealed, Jesus had not yet secured kingly power and rewarded the faithful, destroying the unfaithful, there was not a Great Tribulation greater than all tribulations before it, Revelation was written after 70 CE(please save your breath about the theory of how it was written before 70 CE), and so much more I could say. But I think this is enough.
• 

  jayhawk1

  Thirdwitness said,

  Ok, well , this is going off in another direction. If there is nothing new to bring up then I will sit back and wait. I believe all questions have been answered. Many of them more than once.

  I disagree! I asked the following...

  Thirdwitness' reply

  jayhawk: Does the Book of Daniel say in any part of it that its prophecies are written for the Mesiah? I am asking, because I don't know.

  All of the prophecies in Daniel are about the Messiah.

  Does it say in any part of Daniel that it's prophecies are written for the Mesiah? Look, I know you believe they are, but does it say they are? (I am still looking for anybody who cares to answer it. Is there a scripture in Daniel that says The Book of Daniel's Prophecies are written for the Mesiah? Any takers?)

  Now, can I assume you are unable to answer? Does this mean the Prophecies in Daniel do not apply to the Messiah? Prove that they do! I am tired of your assumption reasoning, give me solid proof without speculation and the only way that is possible is a scripture that says the prophecies about Nebuchadnezzar also apply to the coming Messiah. You can't do it can you?