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

by thirdwitness 1380 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • AlanF

    thirdwitless wrote:

    : AlanF, thats it. Thats the ripping out of my teeth.

    No, that's just a little tugging on the line. There's a lot more to come.

    : Its a bunch of mumbo jumbo.

    By this statement you've proved to be a poster boy for illustrating what a cult can do to a reasonably intelligent person's brain. For our readers, I'm going to take a side jaunt here and show some interesting material that perfectly describes the hiding of the head in the sand that JWs like you practice.

    The Watchtower Society, once it sucks a person into the cult of Jehovah's Witnesses, exercises a tyrannical authority over him. Anyone questioning it is subject to charges of "apostasy" and disfellowshipping, which can lead to complete loss of a person's family and friends.

    An excellent description of the tyranny of authority carried to an extreme, and of the mental gyrations required of its subjects, was given by George Orwell in his 1949 novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (remember "Big Brother is watching you"?). He described a totalitarian society called Ingsoc (from `English Socialism') in which a supreme state had imposed a kind of theocracy on the populace -- in effect, had created a "Kingdom of Heaven on earth." The novel was intended as a serious warning about what could happen if certain totalitarian trends that Orwell saw developing during and shortly after World War II were allowed free rein. The supreme group at the head of the state was the Party. In order to ensure that everyone thought along Party lines, the Party carefully altered facts to suit its present situation, and rigorously trained people to go along with it. Orwell wrote:

    Whatever the Party holds to be truth is truth. [Part 3, Ch. II; p. 252 hardcover; p. 205 paperback]

    In order to ensure that whatever the Party held to be truth was rigorously followed, a thought process called doublethink was enforced. Doublethink, as Orwell conceives it, "is a vast system of mental cheating":

    Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies -- all this is indispensably necessary. [Part 2, Ch. IX; p. 215-6 hardcover; p. 176-7 paperback]

    In practice, whenever clear errors in organizational teachings or policies are pointed out to Witnesses, they will either refuse to acknowledge them or deny their importance. They deny it even to themselves, to avoid an intolerable internal conflict between what they know deep down to be the truth and what they have been taught. The denial is automatic and almost unconscious, because they have been trained this way from their earliest experience with the Watchtower Society. The process is strongly reminiscent of another kind of mental gymnastic George Orwell described in Nineteen Eighty-Four:

    A Party member is required to have not only the right opinions, but the right instincts. Many of the beliefs and attitudes demanded of him are never plainly stated, and could not be stated without laying bare the contradictions inherent in Ingsoc. If he is a person naturally orthodox (in Newspeak a goodthinker), he will in all circumstances know, without taking thought, what is the true belief or the desirable emotion. But in any case an elaborate mental training, undergone in childhood and grouping itself round the Newspeak words crimestop, blackwhite, and doublethink, makes him unwilling and unable to think too deeply on any subject whatever.

    The first and simplest stage in the discipline, which can be taught even to young children, is called, in Newspeak, crimestop. Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity. But stupidity is not enough. On the contrary, orthodoxy in the full sense demands a control over one's own mental processes as complete as that of a contortionist over his body. [Part 2, Ch. IX; pp. 212-13 hardcover; pp. 174-5 paperback]

    One man became a leader in the Korean based Unification Church of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, commonly known as the "Moonies." After leaving the church he wrote a book about his experience (Steven Hassan, Combatting Cult Mind Control, Park Street Press, Rochester, Vermont, 1990). The book stated (pp. 62-65):

    Another key aspect of thought control involves training members to block out any information which is critical of the group. A person's typical defense mechanisms are twisted so they defend the person's new [religious] identity against his old former identity. The first line of defense includes denial ("What you say isn't happening at all"), rationalization ("This is happening for a good reason"), justification ("This is happening because it ought to"), and wishful thinking ("I'd like it to be true so maybe it really is").

    If information transmitted . . . is perceived as an attack on either the leader, the doctrine or the group, a hostile wall goes up. Members are trained to disbelieve any criticism.

    The above obviously describes the mindset of most Jehovah's Witnesses, and certainly that of thirdwitless who, exercising Orwellian crimestop, kicks in his "protective stupidity" so as to term my scholarly references "mumbo jumbo".


    : Its long I'll grant you that. But you said nothing and disproved nothing that the WT has ever said about parousia.

    A fine example of protective stupidity.

    The references I provided falsify the Society's longstanding claim that parousia exclusively means presence and cannot ever properly be translated as "coming", "arrival" or "advent".

    : I don't even see anything to refute because quite frankly you didn't say a thing.

    Really. I showed not only that the Society's claims about the definition of parousia are wrong, but that you yourself committed scholastic dishonesty by misrepresenting the source references you gave and deliberately failing to include any references that disprove the Society's claims. I showed that you don't even understand the references you cited, because they actually disprove your claim.

    : I hope you have more.

    Best believe it. But you must answer a crucial question (see my posts 4678 and 4683) before we can properly proceed. But even if you show your little bunny tail by failing to answer, I will proceed for the benefit of our readers.

    : Ok, reread it a few times. And I say so what? By calling it mumbo jumbo I mean that you said nothing, nothing that disproves the WT's use of the word parousia.

    Yup, there's that protective stupidity again.

    : AlanF said: It disproves the notion of an extended invisible presence. That is part and parcel of the Watchtower's "Gentile times" doctrine.

    : Ummm, no you didn't prove that.

    Like I said, there's a lot more to come. I will show in great detail why disproving the notion of an extended invisible presence disproves everything the Society has said about such a presence -- especially after it changed the doctrine extensively in 1931. Namely, it jettisoned the old 1874 date for the beginning of this invisible presence and moved it to 1914.

    : In fact some of the definitions you gave shows that parousia means presence and means the visit of a king.

    No, the definitions show that parousia can mean presence or the visit of a king. Context decides exactly what the writer had in mind.

    : Of course for the king to be present he must first arrive.

    I'm glad you recognize that.

    : But the emphasis of parousia is not just on his arrival but on his presence afterward. His presence is felt by the things that he does or accomplishes.

    Again, context shows what the writer intended. Even in English, the word "coming" can focus on the arrival, the subsequent presence, or both.

    : AlanF: Contrary to the Society’s claim, then, parousia does not necessarily have the primary meaning "presence" in Matthew 24:3.

    : Are you here saying that parousia does not necessarily mean presence, but it can.

    Can you read simple English?

    The references I gave clearly show that all modern scholars agree that parousia in Matthew 24:3 means "coming, arrival, advent" -- not "presence". References I have yet to give show why.

    : AlanF said: There's a lot more to come on this subject.

    : I hope so because so far my teeth are just fine. You didn't even give me a cavity.

    There's that protective stupidity kicking in again.


  • thirdwitness

    So far so good. What you've clearly shown us thus far is that you have contradicted yourself when you said no modern scholars agree with the WT. Clearly some definitions did agree with the WT. So much so that you could not even outrightly say that parousia cannot be translated presence. Instead you tried to cloak your statement by saying, "parousia does not necessarily have the primary meaning "presence" in Matthew 24:3." By saying this you admit that it can be translated presence and that is quite an admission from an enemy of JWs who is trying desparately to discredit them.

    Your last post proved one thing: You are obsessed with trying to discredit JWs. You are an enemy of Jehovah's people thus an enemy of Jehovah. You like to stick your finger in Jehovah's eye. That is what you have proven. You have not disproven anything that JWs have said about presence.

  • KW13
    your last post proved one thing: You are obsessed with trying to discredit JWs. You are an enemy of Jehovah's people thus an enemy of Jehovah. You like to stick your finger in Jehovah's eye. That is what you have proven. You have not disproven anything that JWs have said about presence.

    Can you prove that Jehovah is present? Or Jesus?

    You see i remember this scripture "keep on asking it shall be given...bla bla bla" well ya know, i'd like to ask, where was Jehovah, the God who sees all, when my stepdad (a jw) was hitting me?

    I don't really get one thing, why would God create earth and then fuck off leaving us here for so long? Some say, well he's giving us sufficient time to realise that without him we can't manage...OH right, well thanks God because while he's proving a point building up to a paradise, people are dieing, getting sick, hurt, abused and everything...

    Not only that, but since he's God he will of known (being all knowing) that Satan would of sinned, and that Adam and Eve were gonna sin. How can he not? The only thing is "its impossible for God to lie" but being God he knows all else...right?

    Your arrogance, your very motives for being here aren't for helping anyone, no you just wanna fight and get into big debates and cause trouble. Some fucking christian you are. The thought in paradise with 6 million of you lot makes me sick.

    You know, i prayed, i begged God not only to stop my stepdad doing what he was doing, but i also looked for a reason in my prayers, and i asked God that he would give me a joy in going to the Kingdom Hall, on the ministry, in wasn't there, why? because its a lie.

    So should i die in the great day of Jehovah, because he failed to give me a special feeling? because i just can't believe it no matter how many times i begged, i even asked he would 'force me to believe it' somehow.
    Charles Taze Russell used to call himself the faithful and discreet slave, he even believed it. When was the transition from him to the Governing Body and other annointed ones made? how do you know that in that time, your religion no longer serves God's purpose and that your running off on some huge tangent? What i see is a Society unfit for purpose.

    You like to stick your finger in Jehovah's eye.


  • AuldSoul
    thirdwitness: Really, auldsoul, you are starting to repeat the same arguments. Revelation tells exactly how long 3.5 times are. We do not have to guess. That is the whole point. According to Revelation 3.5 times = 1260 days. Jehovah directed John to use the word times purposely to show just how long 3.5 times were. Using the word times in Revelation was unneccessary to show any lengths of time in Revelation since Revelation spells it out for us, 1260 days. In other words, the 3.5 times could have been left out in Revelation and no one would have known the difference. The 3.5 times was put in there just so we could know how long 7 times were.
    You are actually making my case for me. Yes, John could have said 3.5 years. But he didn't. Purposely. Because if he had said 3.5 years then we would never have known what 3.5 times are equal to. Fortunately the word times not years was used so that we can figure out how long 7 times are.

    You have no idea how foolish your conjectured explanations appear. It is endearing, really, like watching a six-year-old explain string theory to a physicist. 7 time = 2520 days according to this argument. Which is less than 7 years. Which is another possibility given the word "iddan". As I stated earlier, use of "times" instead of "years" does not require an interpretation of more than years, it can mean less. Thank you for proving that for me.

    Your entire argument in favor of using the day for a year rule ultimately hinges on one assumption you made that you just completely disproved. You wrote:

    thirdwitness: By using the word "iddan" it becomes evident that Daniel wanted to convey the thought that something was meant beyond a simple seven years otherwise why not just use the word for years?

    But as you have just shown, using the word "iddan" did not necessarily mean something beyond seven years. It can, with equal facility, mean a time period less than seven years. In the only example in the Bible of how long a "time" is, we find that it is less than one year. Now, since there is no need to insert a second fuilfillment into the text of Daniel 4 (and quite a lot to indicate that this should not be done, AND the "times" (2,520 days for sake of argument) end without the imaginary second fulfillment ever occurring, there is strong reason to conclude that there is no second fulfillment.

    Since none of the elements mean in the second fulfillment what they meant in the first, anyone could come up with whatever application they like.

    I could take the same prophecy along with the 607 BC fictional date for the destruction of Solomon's Temple and apply it to completely different circumstances than those chosen by the Watchtower Society and end with the understanding that Satan's sovereignty over the earth was removed until 1914 when it was restored, as demonstrated by World War I. I can make an equally compelling case for that as the fulfillment. Even stronger, actually, because then Nebuchadnezzar would represent the sovereignty of Satan instead of the sovereignty of Jehovah.

    I could start from the exile of Jehoiachin in 597 BC down to 1924 AD and argue that the dream relates to the rise of Fascism in Italy in 1924 AD.Does that make any sense at all? No, of course not. But neither does making Daniel 4 out to be a prophecy regarding the Messiah.

    I could start from 587 BC as the year for the destruction of Solomon's Temple (pretending, for the moment, that this destruction has any prophetic significance at all) and I get to 1934, the year that Adolf Hitler became Führer of Germany, making him head of state as well as Chancellor. There are many distinct parallels between Hitler and Nebuchadnezzar.

    The point is, this prophecy could mean MANY things if stretched out 2,520 year into the future. Any future application that distant in the stream of time is silly. The meaning of the elements of the prophecy are made up by overactive imaginations, and you could never have arrived at this "explanation" on your own from reading Daniel 4 and studying out the rest of the Bible. The interpretation of this prophecy has undergone major revisions by the Watchtower Society over the decades.

    If you are right about Jesus beginning to exercise dominion in 1914, how can you possibly explain this verse?

    Revelation 1:4-5
    John to the seven congregations that are in the [district of] Asia: May YOU have undeserved kindness and peace from “The One who is and who was and who is coming,” and from the seven spirits that are before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “The firstborn from the dead,” and “The Ruler of the kings of the earth.”

    Jesus identifies himself to seven 1st Century congregations in three different ways, one of which is identifying himself as having sovereignty OVER the kings of the earth. According to the angel that brought John this message from Jesus himself, Jesus was under the impression he was ruling over the earth in the 1st Century AD.

    I am on pins and needles as I await your explanation...not that it will make one shred more sense than what you have written thus far, but it is fun to watch your sophism in action.


  • AlanF

    thirdwitless wrote:

    : By the way, just wondering, do you know the greek word for 'coming'? Is it parousia? Or is there a different word?

    You're quite amusing.

    There are many Greek words that are translated as "coming" or a related word. Cf. Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, under the headings "COME, CAME" and "COMING". Also the headings "PRESENCE" and "PRESENT". But you already know that.

    For my purposes, the most important Greek words related to "coming" and "presence" are listed here, along with some illustrations of usage.

    The word eleusis means "the act of reaching a point with implication of determined objective", thus: "a coming, advent, arrival" (Acts 7:52: "the coming of the righteous One"; the Acts of Paul, corresponding with Corinthians (a.k.a. Third Corinthians), text according to the Bodmer Papyrus: "the Lord . . . will soon make his appearance or advent" (from Bauer's Lexicon BDAG, 3rd edition. p. 317)).

    The word paraginomai means "to be by the side of, to come, approach, arrive" (Matt. 2:1: "astrologers from eastern parts came to Jerusalem"), or "appear, make a public appearance" (Matt. 3:1: "John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness"). Josephus went or came (paraginomai) to Tiberias; he arrived and became present (parousia), and the deserters became aware of his being there.

    The word erkhomai means "to come or go, arrive" (Matt. 24:30: "they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds"; Matt. 25:10: "the bridegroom arrived"; Matt. 11:3: "Are you the Coming One?").

    The word epiphaino means "to make to appear, to display, to be manifested, revealed" and is the verb form of epiphaneia, which means "manifestation, appearance, epiphany" (1 Tim. 6:14: "until the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ").

    Interestingly, in Vine's, under the heading "PRESENCE" (A. Nouns) the entry for parousia is referred back to the heading "COMING". So even Vine's admits that parousia and "coming" are closely related. More on that later.

    Writing about recent discoveries of 1st century Greek papyrii that shed much light on the long-disputed meanings of many Greek words, Adolph Deissman (Light from the Ancient East, Hodder and Stoughton, 1908, 1910, p. 378) made a crucial point:

    Quite closely related to parusia is another cult-word, epiphaneia, "epiphany," "appearing." How close the two ideas were connected in the age of the New Testament is shown by the passage in 2 Thess. ii. 8, already quoted, and by the associated usage of the Pastoral Epistles, in which "epiphany" or "appearing" nearly always means the future parusia of Christ [1 Tim vi. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 1, 8; Titus ii. 13.], though once [2 Tim. I. 10] it is the parusia which patristic writers afterwards called "the first." Equally clear, however, is the witness of an advent-coin struck by Actium-Nicopolis for Hadrian, with the legend "Epiphany of Augustus"; the Greek word coincides with the Latin word "advent" generally used on coins. The history of this word "epiphany" goes back into the Hellenistic period, but I will merely point out the fact, without illustration: the observation is not new, but the new proofs available are very abundant.

    I will have more to say about how Deissman conclusively proves that parousia in Matthew 24:3 must be translated "coming".



    3rd Witness..You said AlanF is "obsessed with discrediting the Jehovah`s-Witness`s"..???..Do you think before you post??..You can`t..The WBTS doe`s your thinking for you.You`ve already admited that..Jehovah`s Witness`s repeat what they`ve been told by the WBTS,just like you....AlanF isn`t discrediting Jehovah`s Witness`s..He`s discrediting what they have been told to repeat,by the WBTS...By the WBTS own published words,their Whore Organization has no place with God,nor would God want them..AlanF has not shown himself to be an enemy of God.As the WBTS is niether GOD,nor God`s organization... Jehovah`s Witness`s are supposed to take the blame for all the wrong doings of the WBTS,because the WBTS and you say so???..The WBTS is corrupt,and you are an Idiot!!...OUTLAW

  • AlanF

    thirdwitless wrote:

    : What you've clearly shown us thus far is that you have contradicted yourself when you said no modern scholars agree with the WT. Clearly some definitions did agree with the WT.

    You really are braindead. What did I actually say? Here you go:

    "presence" is a wrong translation of parousia in Matthew 24:3. No modern scholars agree with the Watchtower Society on this translation.

    The references I gave clearly show that all modern scholars agree that parousia in Matthew 24:3 means "coming, arrival, advent" -- not "presence". References I have yet to give show why.

    There is no contradiction in what I wrote, because the facts are:

    (1) No modern translation agrees with the NWT at Matthew 24:3.

    (2) Under some circumstances it is possible to translate parousia by "presence".

    (3) Context determines exactly what parousia should be translated as.

    (4) Despite the grammatically possible meaning "presence" in Matthew 24:3, no modern scholars agree that it is contextually possible -- and I have yet to post the detailed reasons why.

    You have yet to post a single thing that disputes these facts, except by your simple-minded declaration, "Tain't so!"

    : So much so that you could not even outrightly say that parousia cannot be translated presence.

    For reasons clear to anyone not blinded by Orwellian crimestop.

    : Instead you tried to cloak your statement by saying, "parousia does not necessarily have the primary meaning "presence" in Matthew 24:3." By saying this you admit that it can be translated presence and that is quite an admission from an enemy of JWs who is trying desparately to discredit them.

    Again, you're being protectively stupid. I am being scholastically honest by listing all of the definitions of parousia, and then showing why certain definitions are applicable. You are not being honest, because you've deliberately tried to hide all of the definitions. Furthermore, you're so dumb that you think that just because a translation is grammatically possible, it must be the only possibility. You have completely failed to argue intelligently against even one point I've made.

    : Your last post proved one thing: You are obsessed with trying to discredit JWs. You are an enemy of Jehovah's people thus an enemy of Jehovah. You like to stick your finger in Jehovah's eye. That is what you have proven.

    I'll grant that I enjoy discrediting Jehovah's Witnesses because they're an extremely destructive cult. That does not invalidate my arguments.

    You also make the usual mistake of JW defenders -- conflating the cult of Jehovah's Witnesses with the Jehovah of the Bible. The two are demonstrably unrelated, except in name.

    : You have not disproven anything that JWs have said about presence.

    LOL! Yup, you have all the marks of someone severely damaged by the mind control of an Orwellian-style cult.


  • stevenyc

    :Repy to Steve. All you have said has been answered. The very first post I made on this thread when I began it answers everything you said. But I will indulge you again. Steve's words in italics.

    ::Once again we can see how a Jehovahs Witness will side with what he reads in the Governing Body's literature over what he reads in the bible. We are not talking about the vision of the statue, We are talking about the vision of the tree. In the vision of the statue Daniel specifically tells us which part of the statue is king Neb, and when the events are to occur, 2:45: "The great God has shown the king what will take place in the future. The dream is true and the interpretation is trustworthy."

    :What you wrote here has no bearing on the tree dream..

    I already told you Daniel 2 has nothing to do with Daniel 4. It was you who brought it up. What I wrote here was a reply to your twisting of scripture. You implied (post 242) that when Daniel in chapter 4 v 24 says"...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", that Daniel is referring to Gods kingdom and not what Daniel actually wrote, that being ‘kingdoms of men’. You used a different prophecy, Daniel 2, to explain what Daniel ‘really’ meant. I then explained to all how you misused scripture. And, further how Daniel always explains to whom the visions apply and when they would occur.

    :The Daniel 4 prophecy is also in the future. Even the fulfillment upon Neb.

    Read Daniel 4 again, this time from the bible and not a watchtower publication. It starts, as a letter from king Neb. Why is he so gushing of praise to Daniels God? Well, as you read through Daniel 4 you get the answer.

    ::22 you, O king, are that tree!..",24 "This is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree the Most High has issued against my lord the king: 25 You will be driven away from people and will live with the wild animals; you will eat grass like cattle and be drenched with the dew of heaven..."

    :And of course Neb was the tree in the initial fulfillment. But the Bible shows that the meaning went a lot deeper than Neb.

    You see, your confusing ‘the bible’ with ‘the watchtower organization’ again. The bible clearly shows that Daniel 4 is God teaching king Neb that you shouldn’t get too haughty as all things given are from God. There is NO text in Daniel 4 that says anything suggesting a second fulfillment of this prophecy. To the contrary, the bible in Daniel 4 says TWICE that the dream WAS fulfilled in v 28 and v33.

    :Just as every prophecy in Daniel was about God's Kingdom and the Messiah, so is this one.

    However, Daniel says different. Daniel says the dream was about king Neb, and that the dream ‘was fulfilled’. V28 and v33.

    Yes, from the outset it does set the theme. Who is saying this? Remember king Neb is recounting his fall from high. Read it again, this time from the bible and not a watchtower publication. It says, from the bible:

    4:1,King Nebuchadnezzar, To the peoples, nations and men of every language, who live in all the world: May you prosper greatly!2 It is my pleasure to tell you about the miraculous signs and wonders that the Most High God has performed for me.3 How great are his signs, _ how mighty his wonders! _ His kingdom is an eternal kingdom; _ his dominion endures from generation to generation.

    “eternal kingdom”, “endures from generation to generation” nothing about Gods kingdom being suspended as you’ve previously mentioned. Why is king Neb now saying this? Remember this narrative is AFTER the vision has been fulfilled. Your next quote explains this, however, instead of letting the bible interpret itself you shamelessly let watchtower publications interpret it.

    :Continuing the theme the Bible explains the reason for the dream in simple terms at Dan 4:17, "to the intent that people living may know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that to the one whom he wants to, he gives it and he sets up over it even the lowliest one of mankind.” God's everlasting rulership toward the earth and his choosing of whomever he sees fit to place in the position of rulership is the centralized theme of Daniel 4.

    Using the NWT “that living people may know the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind”. THE KINGDOM OF MANKIND. It is the central theme of chapter 4. That it doesn’t matter how big you are, God is still the greatest.

    :As has been said before, the Bible interprets itself and so we do not have to guess about the meaning of Daniel chapter 4 at all.


    :Incredibly, similar words of Daniel 4:17 are used concerning the kingship of Zedekiah. Ezekiel 21:25-27 reads concerning …

    This is a ‘Chewbacca defense’. We are commenting Daniel’s interpretation of king Nebs dream. I wont let you distract the subject like you do with others.

    And Daniel tells us for how long

    25".. 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.

    :No argument here. And fortunately in Revelation we are told exactly to a tee just how long 7 times are. I wonder why? Hmmmm. The bible really does interpret itself, doesn't it?

    Hmmmm. In Daniel we are told EXACTLY how long the sevens times written were, by Daniel. Who they conserned. When they happened. Why they happened. The lesson and reason why they happened. And that THEY WERE FULLFILED.

    Readers, please note: thirdwitness has to REINTERPRET Daniel to make any sense his indoctrination.

    Also readers, please note that I am making no suggestion that Daniel 4 means anything other than what Daniel says it meant.

    ::who's kingdom it refers to and the reason why

    ::26 The command to leave the stump of the tree with its roots means that your kingdom will be restored to you when you acknowledge that Heaven rules.

    :Of course, in the initial minor fulfillment.

    Oh, I’m sorry, I must have missed the bit in Daniel 4 where the angels tell Daniel that there is a second, MAJOR, fulfillment to his dream. Care to quote that scripture, FROM DANIEL 4, where I missed it?

    :But even in the initial fulfillment Neb had to acknowledge that Jehovah's kingdom is to time indefinite (Neb's kingdom was not forever) and he gives it to whoever he wants. And who is it that Jehovah wanted to give His everlasting kingdom to? Was it Neb? Of course it wasn't. It was Jesus Christ.

    Read the CONTEXT. King Neb acknowledges that any ‘kingdom of men’ or ‘kingdom of mankind’ is ultimately theirs because the most holy allows it.

    NOWHERE in chapter 4, does it say the Jehovah is GOING to give His everlasting kingdom to anyone. You interpretation falls flat on its face here. Daniel has proved you wrong.

    ::When it was fullfilled

    ::8 All this happened to King Nebuchadnezzar. 33 "Immediately what had been said about Nebuchadnezzar was fulfilled..."

    :Yes, IN the initial fulfillment.

    You are referring to the fulfillment the Daniel said had no other meaning. If you consider it otherwise, YOU are reinterpreting Daniels words.

    : In examining this account and the accounts in Ezek 17, 19, 21, Isa 6, Rev 12, the other prophecies in Daniel and many other scriptures, we can easily see that there was a bigger picture that you are refusing to see.

    I’m only seeing what Daniel says. If you read the other accounts in Daniel he is VERY specific about prophecy times. When they would occur. And for whom. He is very specific with this one. He said ‘IT WAS FULFILLED’.

    Case Closed.

    :Funny how all the prophecies of Daniel pointed to God's Kingdom ruling in the final part of the days or pointed to the Messiah's earthly coming but oh not Daniel 4.

    Once again, when Daniel is talking about FUTURE fulfillments, he is very specific. When he is talking about PAST fulfillments, he is very specific, as he is in Ch 4.

    : Its just some prophecy about Neb going mad for 7 times and thats it. To believe that you would have to be wearing blinders.

    It is about humility. Read your bible. The last sentence of the whole account, taken from NWT: 37 “Now I, Neb·u·chad·nez´zar, am praising and exalting and glorifying the King of the heavens, because all his works are truth and his ways are justice, and because those who are walking in pride he is able to humiliate.”

    ::The vision of the tree in Daniel 4 is a simple demonstration of how Jehovahs Witnesses change what is written in the bible. Daniel says one thing, the Governing Body says something else.

    ::Who should the Jehovahs Witness side with???

    :I chose to side with the evidence clearly found in God's word

    Well done! At last you decided to read the bible.

    :which JWs present.


    :I believe that Jehovah provide all these other scriptures to show us just what the tree dream meant.

    You mean: I believe that “the governing body” provides[s] all these other scriptures to show us just what the tree dream meant.

    : You want it on a silver platter as I said earlier but thats not the way it happens. You have to dig and search the Bible.

    To justify failed predictions that “must be true” otherwise the tiny world of the governing body that you have dedicated your life to, and try to coerce others into losing their life to, would mean nothing.

    :In doing so it is crystal clear just what the tree dream meant in the greater fulfillment.

    If its so ‘crystal clear’ then why the pages and pages of circular arguments and ‘Chewbacca defense’?

    :Your failure to acknowledge that does not change it. Your ignoring of all the other scriptures connecting the tree to God's rulership and thus explaining the tree dream for us does not change anything.

    Except for, in this post, I have COMPLETELY destroyed your doctrine. And, as readers will note, I did it using ONLY THE BIBLE.


  • AlanF

    Fisherman said:

    : I heard that you have some work on web pages where you comment on the ransom and other stuff. Can you give me the links to your work?

    Research on the Watchtower

    : Alan I just finished the GT reconsidered by COJ. Powerful book. I do not agree with everything he wrote though. Here is the problem that I see. Wait, first I want to say that I cannot dispute his argument that if 587 is rejected because of the position that the ancients may have tampered with with the records, then why isn't 539 also rejcted? Seems to me that's very fair.

    Of course it's fair. Keep in mind that the 539 date was first established, around 1900, by reference to various cuneiform texts that show that Nebuchadnezzar's accession year was 605 B.C., that Jerusalem was captured in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th regnal year in 597 B.C., and that establish the lengths of reign of all the Neo-Babylonian kings. In other words, working forward in time from 605 B.C. with these lengths gets you to 539. Later, other cuneiform texts allowed working backwards from Cambysses' reign to 539 B.C. So the date is confirmed by astronomically confirmed cuneiform texts from before and after the date.

    : Does 3w have an answer or sholar? .

    No. All they can manage is to use bogus Watchtower arguments to claim that there must have been some mysterious king or kings between the end of Labashi-Marduk's reign in 556 B.C. and Nabonidus' accession that same year. They can produce no evidence for this claim, though. All they can do is rant and rave that "the Bible chronology" says there were 70 years of desolation from Jerusalem's destruction in 607 B.C. to when the Jews returned in 537 -- which date I've disproved.

    : Anyway he supports his finding with the HS and other evidence. I have doubts about the HS,

    Based on facts, or just gut feel?

    : but he gives a lot of other sources too. His sources stand unless someone can discredit them.

    That's right. And the 14 independent lines of evidence he presents are overwhelming. On the other hand, the Watchtower Society can produce only one thing -- its bogus interpretation of "the 70 years".

    : Also, his arguments about what trapple down can mean and his explanation of the many interpretations of Gtimes formulas throught history and the concept, casts a lot of doubt on 607-1914. His examples showing that ww1 may have been a lucky coincidence is fool proof I think. I dont want to review the book here. I say, if you want to get another perspective than the wts on Gentile times, read GTR and draw your own conclusions if you are not a jw because jws cannot read apostate books.

    I suggest that you obtain the book The Sign of the Last Days: When? by Carl Jonsson. You can get it from the Freeminds website or directly from Commentary Press. It goes into these things in a lot more detail.

    : Here is my problem: COJ says that the 70 is to be applied to the Neo Babylonian rule and not to the year of the desoloation of Jerusalem.

    That's right, because the Bible clearly shows that the 70 years were a period of servitude of many nations to Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty -- not a period of desolation of Jerusalem. On another thread, I posted the following points which prove this:

    2 Chronicles 36:20 clearly states that the Jews would be servants to Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty until the Persians began to rule, which they did in 539 B.C. when Cyrus the Persian conquered Babylon and ended Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty. Jeremiah 27:6,7 clearly states that the Jews would serve Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty until it ended sometime in the rule of Nebuchadnezzar's grandson. This grandson proved to be Belshazzar, who was killed by Cyrus' army when it conquered Babylon. Jeremiah 25:11 clearly states that the Jews and other nations would serve the king of Babylon for 70 years. In view of the preceding scriptures, obviously the Jews would cease to serve Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty when that dynasty ceased to exist in 539 B.C. Jeremiah 25:12 clearly states that when the 70 years of servitude were completed, the king of Babylon would be punished, and in 539 B.C. this prophecy was most certainly fulfilled when Babylon's local king, Belshazzar, was punished by being killed, and the empire's main king, Nabonidus, was removed from his throne. Daniel 5 clearly states that, on the night before Babylon fell, Daniel forewarned Belshazzar that his kingdom was already divided and given to the Persians and the Medes, in line with the above scriptures. In line with the above, Jeremiah 29:10 clearly states that when Babylon's 70 years of supremacy over the Jews and other nations were completed, Jehovah would turn his attention to the Jews and bring them home. In view of all these things, why does the Watchtower Society reject the Bible's clear teaching?

    Certain JW defenders have attempted to throw cold water on these points, but they do it by ignoring what the Bible actually says, or even by interpreting Hebrew words in a way that no modern scholar would agree with.

    : If 70 is applied to the desolation, then 587 does not line up with the Bible.

    Actually, it does. You just have to understand that the Bible mentions several periods of 70 years, and they are not necessarily the same. For example, in GTR4 (pp. 227-9), Jonsson shows that Zechariah 7:1-5 can be applied to the inclusive period from 587 to 518/7, which is 70 years. In 518 B.C. the Jews received a divine message about fasting and wailing for 70 years. This dating is in line with Josephus' statement that the temple was in ruins for 50 years, which ruin began in 587 and lasted until 537, when the temple foundations were first laid.

    : Since the Bible says that the land had to pay back its sabbaths and that is the reason the Bible gives for the deportation,

    Where does it say that is the reason? Jeremiah 27 is quite clear that all that the Jews had to do to remain on their land during the 70 years of Babylonian hegemony was to submit peacefully to Nebuchadnezzar. They didn't, and suffered the consequences of deportation.

    : it seems to me that 70 is connected to the deportation and not to the Neo babyl rule, hence, if this is true then the WTS' 539- 607 lines up with the BIble and the Gx book does not on this point.

    Again, carefully read Jeremiah 27.

    : Alan, I dont want to argue with you on this because I dont know. I just want to see your explantion on the 70 year application. I would take sides with the Bible on this one.

    The explanations that I've given are completely in line with the Bible.

    : But I also think, based on the GTR book, that even if 607 was the destruction of Jerus, and even if 70 year desolation began in 607 and ended in 537 and did not end in 539 as COJ suggests, that does not prove the Gx concept. COJ discredits the doctrine or better put, attempts to discredit the doctrine in his book.

    I think he does an excellent job of it.

    : THe only thing keeping the Gx doctrine alive is the wts.

    You got that right!

    : Who am I to challenge the wts scholars on the Bible and on archeology ? A JW MUST believe this teaching not because it is true but because it comes from the slave. That is it

    Again a good observation. I'm sure you've read comments by various posters that the authority of JW leaders rests (in their own minds) on the claim of having been "appointed over all Christ's belongings on earth" in 1919. This in turn rests on the 1914 date. So clobbering 1914 also clobbers the claim of spiritual authority of JW leaders, in their own minds. That's why these JW defenders cling so tenaciously to 1914 and the "Gentile times". If that claim to spiritual authority is disproved, then the JW religion cannot be labeled "the truth" and a great many JWs would go do something else. That's scary, and so they don't want the 1914 chronology to go the way of the dodo.


  • Hellrider


    And Barry, this is for you also. A conversation in the first century. It might sound familiar to you. As you read keep in mind that shabuwa means weeks and shaneh means years.

    Nicodemus: I have found the Messiah. The one prophesied in Daniel.

    Pharisee: What? How do you figure that? What prophecy in Daniel?

    Nico: You know, the one about the 70 weeks. According to that prophecy there would be 490 years from the going forth of the word....That brings us to now. Jesus appeared just as prophesied. I believe he is the Messiah.

    Phar: You must be crazy. There is no where in that prophecy that tells us that it is 490 years. It is 490 days not years, you twit.

    Nico: But shouldn't we apply a day for a year as spoken through Moses and Ezekiel?

    Phar: Why? There is no where in the text that says to apply a day for a year. If Daniel had meant 70 weeks of years he would have said 70 shabuwa shaneh. He did not say that. He only said 70 shabuwa. You are going beyond what is written.

    Nico: But that would mean the Messiah was to appear in only 70 literal weeks after the word to rebuild. That does not seem logical. What Messiah appeared then?

    Phar: Now you are getting the point my friend. Either the prophecy pointed to Nehemiah or the prophecy failed. But this Jesus, he could not be the Messiah. You interpret the prophecy incorrectly. Remember in Genesis where Jacob had to work for his wife. It was said that he would work shabuwa shaneh or 7 years. It did not say he would work shabuwa. The shaneh was put in there to show it was 7 years not one week. Daniel would have said shabuwa shaneh if thats what he meant. Do you think the Lord forgot to put the word shaneh in there. LOL. You are so trying to twist the scriptures.

    Nico: I will have to disagree with you. I believe that we must apply the day for a year rule or else the prophecy is senseless and unreasonable. Nothing happened just a little over a year after the word to rebuild was sent forth.

    Phar: Nicodumass,You are a lying moron. Everything you say is based on what Jesus has told you. Take your senseless drivel back to your god Jesus.

    Other Pharisees: That is great. You really showed him. You will teach him to question you. You made mince meat of Nicodemus' stupid arguments.

    Excellent. It seems you are beginning to understand. The pharisees here are right, and Nicodumass is wrong. This is no surprise, because the pharisees have understood that the word "MESSIAH" ( masîah) did not mean the same thing in the year 600 BC as it means now, 2600 years later, or even in the first century. It meant "messenger", prophet or annointed, and didn`t necessarily refer to the great messiah that was about to come and be saviour of the jews. I am glad you are now finally beginning to understand, witnoid. It`s so sad to be a nicodumass ones entire life.

Share this