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

by thirdwitness 1380 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Hellrider

  When someone actually addresses with substance what I have written I will respond. Addressing everything from Russell to Millerites to the king's list to going to the movies.........shows you have no arguments left.

  ...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
• 

  AuldSoul

  thirdwitness: Revelation takes place in the Lord's day which began when Jesus became king in 1914 so unless the Lord's day is 1260 years long which I don't believe then the answer is no. The only thing Revelation does is helps us to see how long 7 times are. The reason for using a day for a year is given thoroughly in my blog. And you left out the day for a year used to calculate the arrival of the Messiah in the first century.

  I didn't read your blog, I read a post on this forum. I am not arguing with your blog. I cannot, in fact, do so. Your blog is like a Watchtower article, one-way communication inviting no original thought process (i.e. propaganda).

  I am arguing with a poster on this forum. BTW, I argued in favor of your posting restrictions being lifted, although I was warned you might become a weight on our backs through continuing to do exactly what you have done in this thread. I wonder if you will make me regret the choice I made by continually refusing to argue the points in your posts and continually redirecting people's attention away from this open discussion forum and toward another Web site which is propagandistic in nature.

  "A day for a year" is not stated in the Bible at all in reference to the 70 weeks of years. Which is why I didn't include it. It isn't Scriptural. In fact, if the same reasoning you use to apply to Daniel 4 was employed in the case of the 70 weeks of years, you would actually end up with 176,400 years, not 490 years. But if you wish to assert that the 70 weeks of years is an example of the reasoning you use for Daniel 4, be my guest. By that reckoning, we still have quite a long time to wait for the FIRST coming of Christ.

  thirdwitness: 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.

  Did the prophecy of Daniel 4 say that a ruler of God's Kingdom would come forth at the end of the seven times? No. So, why do you interpret a second fulfillment into the prophecy where there is no indication of one?

  The Hebrew word translated "weeks" in Daniel chapter 9 literally means "weeks of years", which means 70 weeks (7 days) of years (365.25 days). Not 360 day years (the number of days in a JW "prophetic year"), the interpretation given is in actual calendar years. There is no parallel AT ALL between the Watchtower Society's treatment of Daniel 9 and their treatment of Daniel 4. But let's pretend that the treatment should be parallelled:

  70 * 7 = 490

  490 * 360 = 176,400 calendar years

  THAT would make the 70 weeks of years follow the same interpretive illogic misapplied to the 7 times by the Watchtower "brain trust".

  Either way, your answer (though much longer than it needed to be) established that "a day for a year" is NOT a prophetic rule, it is an interpretive method used in SOME prophecies at the sole discretion of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses.

  Don't get me wrong, I am not angry about you parroting what they write as gospel. You are just doing what you are taught to do (except for arguing with apostates). I used to do the same thing. Then I started thinking about the basic doctrines, the ones I had NEVER questioned in my entire life, having been born into a devout JW family and learning the doctrine from the womb on. You know, the doctrines that have NO basis in Scripture whatsoever, the foundation doctrines, like requirements for baptism. Then the lights came on.

  I am not arguing with your blog, thirdwitness. I am arguing with you. This isn't a pulpit, it is a discussion forum. Your logic is not presumed correct until proven otherwise, it is presumed false until you substantiate it. I am still waiting.

  AuldSoul

  AuldSoul
• 

  stevenyc

  auldsoul:

  Either way, your answer (though much longer than it needed to be) established that "a day for a year" is NOT a prophetic rule, it is an interpretive method used in SOME prophecies at the sole discretion of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses.

  This is what I was trying to demonstrate in my post: 1759. That you can not arbitrarily state when a day or week is a year, and then a year is a number of days, and the those days are now years, like the thirdwitness is attesting too. That post was using Daniel 8 with the vision of the goat and the ram.

  13Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, "How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, and the surrender of the sanctuary and of the host that will be trampled underfoot?" 14 He said to me, "It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated."

  The Watchtower interprets this vision with pretend persecution it suffered during world war two. And, took those dates as LITERAL 2300 days. Thirdwitness just doesn't know his JDub history enough to see a connection and their stunning presumptuousness.

  steve
• 

  AlanF

  thirdwitless wrote:

  : When someone actually addresses with substance what I have written I will respond.

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

  Thirdwitless, a great deal of what you've claimed has been shown to be nothing but baseless assertions, bald claims, special pleadings and so forth. As a JW, you've been trained not to recognize such logical fallacies, because they're the meat of much of Watchtower doctrine.

  In any case, the so-called Gentile times chronology of the Watchtower Society, which leads to 1914, is based on a chain of claims. If even one link in the chain is proved false, then the entire chronological structure is moot.

  As I have repeatedly told you, and you continue to ignore, the Society's key date of 537 B.C. for the return of the Jews is demonstrably false. The Watchtower Society has given nothing but speculation to support it. I have proved that 538 B.C. is the correct date:

  Fact Jews Returned In 538 BC Kills Off Watchtower Chronology

  If you continue not to respond to this thread, then it will be even more evident -- if such a thing is possible -- that you are entirely disinterested in the facts.

  AlanF
• 

  Sunspot

  Oh MY!

  Now that I'm back posting again, I must remember to keep my hip boots and a shovel handy for posts like this one! The WTS has taught you well. They are SO GOOD at clever deception and contrived reasonings.

  As a previous poster pointed out, no one really gives a rat's a$$ about this crap reasoning. ThirdWitness is exerting a tremendous amount of wasted energy standing on his lonely mountaintop and shouting this futility into the wind.

  Annie
• 

  AuldSoul

  stevenyc,

  I agree. Application of a true "prophetic rule" could be made to any prophecy and could NOT be ignored simply to support dogma. The 2,300 days is a great example of ignoring the "rule", as is the 70 weeks of years, and the 1,260 days of Revelation. This renders application of the "rule" a subjective process, i.e. reading the application of the rule into selected passages, thereby interpreting the Bible instead of letting the Bible interpret itself.

  Unfortunately, thirdwitness is still in full blindered mode. He still believes his arguments should be automatically validate by shouting, "It's in my BLOOOOOOGGGGGGGG!" Just as my father (local Presiding Overseer) thought his arguments should automatically validated simply by saying, "It's in the Watchtower." Basically, thirdwitness' blog is nothing more his own pet Watchtower article project. He no doubt believes it encourages thought and reasoning. It actually stifles both.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  Fisherman

  3W,thank you for this post. Personally, I think that your initial post here is too long. A link to that information in my opinion is enough for those who care to look at it. What I am looking for is evidence or arguments that support using this as a pattern. In his book "Gentle times Reconsidered, the author shows how throughout history many have used this formula and that Pastor Russel was not the first person to come up with this idea. The author states that it was Rashi the "great" Jewish commentator who was the first one to apply it, comming up with a date corrsponding to his time. Thus far, all of those calculation used by different men using this as a pattern has proved false by the passing of time as the book that I mention shows. What a disappointment!

  Many loyal jws have given their lives for the truth and after so many years of hoping for a paradise earth, they finally realize that the new definition of generation puts a different spin on 1914 and what the Bible means on generation and as it is widely accepted among jws, the endcan come 50 years from now or who knows when.

  Here is the point: Jws believe what the wts teaches and if the wts changes, the jws change beliefs. And what they previously supported and PROVED, now they reject in light of the facts. Sometimes the jws dont even realize that they should no longer believe in something, the teaching having been changed in the publications sometimes without even noticing it for example the magnitude of earth quakes as sign of the last days. What the insight book says on the topic compared to what the AWake magazine wrote about it later modifying the insight. It seems to me that the teaching went unoticed.

  Another example is the definition of the hebrew word yom in Genesis. The wts argued and proved for decades that a creative yom is 1000 years and that God created the universe in 6 creative days of equal length. Now, in light of the facts, as the Creation book and the Insight Book teaches, No one knows how long a creative yom is and each creative yom can be of varying length even millions of years, so the pattern, a day is 1000 years doesnt apply here anymore as it once was taught it did and neither does the argument that since a 7 day week has days of equal lengths, creative yoms must also be of equal lengths. The argument seemed so logical at the time and the evidence presented in the freedom of the sons of God book so irefutable, but sadly it was wrong.

  When people believe in something, sweareing by it sort of speak concluding that what they believe is fact even "proving" it to others in fs, basing their lives on the beliefs, and then they have to readjust their thinking, after a while the person is more careful in they are told to believe and realizes that the information they received before was wrong and that puts into question a lot of things.

  What I am looking for is any information, arguments, or evidence that can discredit what is shown about the Gentile times in Franz's book or in Oloff's book or any points or discussion showing concisely that 1914 is still a significant date. I dont need a rehash of waht the wts teaches but I do not obeject to using wts material or the Bible in support of an argument.Or also, information that also discredits the Gentile times pattern or evidence or arguments to that effect.
• 

  Fisherman

  Alan, I think that scholar silenced you on your 538 theory.
• 

  truthsetsonefree

  If one reads Daniel, without preexisting beliefs they would likely never come up with any other explanation than the face value of that story. Further, if you have to go to that much trouble to explain it, its probably not even worth trying.
• 

  acadian

  Thirdwitness, are you talking about when Jesus establishes the kingdom of God?

  If that's what you are trying to establish, Jesus' words might help... if not please disregard this post.

  At Luke Chapter 22, verse 14, Jesus is sitting down at the Last Supper with the twelve apostles and He is saying unto them, "With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer. For I say unto you, I will not anymore eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come" (verses 14-18).

  Here Jesus states that the Kingdom is coming and that certain events will take place when the Kingdom has arrived. Jesus says he will not eat or drink anymore until the Kingdom comes. Now let's search the scriptures to see if Jesus ever does eat or drink again with the apostles

  Go to Acts, Chapter 10, verses 39-41. We are going to be looking at a "flashback." In these verses the apostles are talking about an earlier event, after Jesus rose from the dead, but before He ascended into the clouds. Peter says:

  And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

  Here we see Jesus' prediction at the Last Supper being fulfilled. Jesus said that the kingdom will come when He eats and drinks again with His apostles (Luke 22:16,18). Now at Acts Chapter 10, the apostles are bearing witness that they did eat and drink with Jesus.

  From these events, it is clear that Jesus conferred the Kingdom upon the apostles and that they bore witness that the Kingdom truly arrived.

  Let's look again at what Jesus was actually doing. The first event is Jesus telling the apostles at the Last Supper, "The Kingdom is right around the corner. I'm going to go die, and after I am raised up, the Kingdom will be fulfilled. Today I'm eating this Last Supper with you. When I eat and drink with you again, the Kingdom will be fulfilled" (Luke 22:16,18).

  Then Christ explains the character of His government and bestows His Father's Kingdom upon them (Luke 22:29). Finally, the apostles testify that they did indeed eat and drink with Jesus after He rose from the dead. This event fulfills Christ's prediction that when He eats and drinks again it will be when the kingdom of God is fulfilled (Acts 10:39-41).

  This is the Good News. The evidence is in. These are not parables. This is clear speech. The Kingdom is here. We have that same Kingdom and it is everlasting. If it happened 2,000 years ago, it has to be here now, too. It has never vanished.

  All information subject to change according to "New Light" Thank you for your support!

  Peace
  Acadian