OUTLAW
Post 11665
Do not you worry about scholar because no one can kick his butt for he is just too smart for his critics. Scholar says: Bring it On!!!!!!!!!
scholar JW
70 years = 607?
by allelsefails 421 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
OUTLAW
Scholar..No matter how badly you get beat up,you always think you`ve won......We will always have an ambulance waiting for you,so you can get back to WatchTower World.........It`s the least we can do,for the entertainment you provide...........................LOL!!...OUTLAW
-
AnnOMaly
Nahh, "scholar" only has a flesh wound. Perhaps he should call it a draw?
-
isaacaustin
pseudo said:
isaac austin
Post 1393
In Daniel 4 we have texts that use an expression that relates to God's Kingdom and these verses are as follows:VERSE 3, verse 17, verse 25, verse 22 and verse 34.
Then we have the expression 'times' as found in verses 16, 23, and 25 which are explained as appointed or definite times or time periods which clearly indicate something beyond a literal seven years.
Thes two basic facts are sre sufficient proof of the matter
scholar JW
My reply:
Pseudo, the verses you quoted simply show that nebuchadnezzar, as well as any ruler is in God's hand and their rulership can end or be changed by him at any time. That is all there is to it.
"Times" are not explained as 'appointed' or definite' or as meaning anything beyond a period of insanity for Nebuchadnezzar---except by the WT. Certainly the Bible does not do this. Who are you the WT pseudoscholars who you celebrate anyway? Wouldn't that be considered idolatry?
Bennyk
Post 428
The Gentile Times most certainly expired in 1914 CE as shown by modern and theocratic history. There were some expectations of those early Bible Students about 1914 that were not fulfilled nut equally there were some that were so in any event those Bible Students were farsighted in their prophesying and more importantly were not asleep or lazy as the rest of Christendom but were diligient in their watchfulness. Something apostates are not, that is being watchful and industrious with the Lord's interests.
My reply: Sorry pseudo, but only in your dreams and your WT controlled mind did 1914 bring about anything other than the start of WWI. Actually WWI came a few months prior to the so-called ending of the Gentile Times in 1914. Modern history and WT history prove absolutely nothing of the date except the WT to be false prophets. Christians are alert and awake pseudo- they take seriously Jesus words that we don't know the day or hour, but unlike the WT they also take seriously that it is not to them to know the times the Father has fixed. The Bible Students were not far-sighted in anything. EVERYTHING they predicted was false.
Their careful attention to Bible chronology was also vindicated as they followed in the footsteps of those great scholars and chronologists who love d the Bible and desired to peer into its prophecies. So scholar acknowledges the great contribution to Bible scholarship made bythose courageous and wise Bible Students.
My reply: Their careful attention to Bible chronology has produced a ridiculous stream of false prophecies. Their are no great or 'celebrated" scholars on the same path as the WT...who have such a tainted history I doubt any reputable scholar would want their name in the same sentence as the WT.
Your mischevious misuse of the quote from a 1913 WT does you no credit but at least simply proves that those early Bible Students acted with integrity and that is something lacking with apostates and a a quality that you would do well to imitate.
scholar JW
My reply: LOL You are ridiculous scholar. the 1913 WT itself says that if 1915 came and passed the WT created chronolgy would be shown to be wrong.
-
isaacaustin
Wow pseudo....Mary has repeatedly kicked your butt. I have refuted your WT garbage. EVeryone on here has. And you are like an alcoholic who can not see he has a problem. Your blindness is amazing.
-
Mr. Majestic
I must admit Scholar, being as impartial as I can possibly be, I have seen many times on here that you have had your ass kicked.
It is just that your head is so far buried in the sand you failed to notice.
-
BarefootServant
Scholar said:
There is very little 'wiggle room' in our chronology but more so in the history behind certain key dates but there is nothing we can do about that but for the apostates the problem is much greater because they use a chronology which has more than a 'wiggle' but 'gaps'- huge 'gaps' of at least twenty years. So I suggest that you get your own house in order before riculing anothers.
I notice that whilst you accept there is wiggle room in your chronology you have still not retracted your lie that "607 BCE is the only possible date for the destruction of Jerusalem according to the bible".
Not content with your existing lies, with admirable economy in the one sentence you introduce two more lies when you claim that 'apostates' use a chronology that has huge gaps. The first lie is that the chronology you disagree with is put about by 'apostates'. Every single qualified independent historian puts the destruction of Jerusalem at around 587/586 BCE, these are not people that 'apostates', who you hate so much, have any influence over. These are people that have studied history. The reason why they are so confident of this date is the mountain of archeological evidence, the most powerful being the mass of cuneiform writings representing every year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, making any change to the length of his reign as required by your chronology completely impossible. The second lie is that there are 'huge gaps'. The only huge gap is between the archeologically attested and scientifically accepted date of 587/586 BCE and your fanciful theologically motivated date based only counting back 2520 years from 1914.
Honesty compells one to conclude that 538 BCE is highly improbable or impossible unless some speedy form of transport was undertaken. The more reasonable, rational approach is to weigh up all of the known scriptural, historical facts and add a little commonsense and Bingo! you have 537 BCE. Nice and Easy.
Honesty? Common sense? Reasonable? Are you serious?? You've proved many times that you haven't the foggiest idea of what honesty is, and only a passing acquaintance with common sense or being reasonable. You only wish to conclude that 538 BCE is highly improbable, even in the face of the historical and scriptural evidence, because it doesn't happen to fit your chronology. Maybe they did have speedy transport, why not, if that harmonises the evidence? Even without speedy transport, there does not seem to be that much difficulty in an advance group of exiles getting back to Jerusalem in the months following Cyrus' inauguration.
The methodology of calculating 1914 CE has remained unchanged only minor technical matters have intervened in making the 607/1914 scenario irrefutable despite the spurious nonsense of apostates.
Scholar, your pants are on fire and my, what's happened to your nose?
Regarding Dan 4
You need to distinguish between God's Sovereignty and God's Kingdom. Both of these terms are explicitly and implicitly stated in this entire chapter.
No, you are making an artificial distinction between the two. The scripture says at Dan 4: 34 "For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, And His kingdom {endures} from generation to generation." The two are synonymous. They are both permanent. There is not distinction made in this chapter between God's rulership and God's rulership towards the earth .
God has the right to rule and the power to rule
More than that, the scripture says God does rule, always rules; there is nothing in Daniel 4 to suggest that God's rule is ever interrupted, the exact opposite in fact.
and the time of God directly exercising his rulership by means of an installed Kingdom after the expiration of 'seven times' was also demonstarted
The scripture says no such thing. This is an interpretation, and a poor one. You say Nebuchadnezzar represents rulership by God over the earth. Nebuchadnezzar has his rulership removed by a greater power; who removes God's earthly rulership? Nebuchadnezzar unwilling relinquishes his rulership; does God give up his rulership unwillingly? Nebuchadnezzar has no hand in the restoration of his rulership; is God a mere pawn in some other power's hands? Who exactly is pulling the strings here? Or maybe God is schizophrenic. Nebuchadnezzar's authority passes to another for 7 times; does God's authority really pass to the gentiles? If so, why does God interfere to restore the Jews to their homeland? Why does he have the temple rebuilt? Why does he punish Babylon for its misdemeanors? Why does he intervene in any earthly way between 607 and 1914? Does God say one thing and do another? You say God's started to rule the earth at the end of the 7 times; what empirical evidence do you have that since 1914 the gentiles have had any less domination of the earth than in the previous 2520 years? It's as if Nebuchadnezzar had his sanity restored and immediately went off for a holiday. You say God's rulership was removed for 2520 years; what then was Jesus on when he said the "kingdom is in your midst"? Did he not realise this was breaking God's decree?
Still, you are entitled to your interpretation. Since Jerusalem was not destroyed in 607 BCE, you might instead want to look at the year 1934 as a better year to fit the 'prophecy'.
BFS
-
Mad Dawg
"Scholar" said:
Your question is too easy...
Then please answer it. I need to see the light.
...for starters if you want scriptural proof for 537 BCE for the Return then you only need to read the last few verses of 2 Chronicles and then proceed to read Ezra 1:1 until 3:1. This contains all of the esential historical and chronological data that you need. Enjoy the feast.
Ok, I read the verses. Tell me what I am missing here. I don't see anywhere where it is said that any of this is 537 years before the common era or any other fixed point in time. Please, pretty please, help me. I am a lost soul in search of light. Help me find the light. Relieve me of my blindness. Please show me how these verses show that the return was 537 years before the common era. I need help with faith in God's only channel.
-
Mary
Proof of the obvious secondary fulfilment of Neb's discipline was the fact that 'seven times' was to pass and in the case of Neb who had to serve out seven literal years so now if only seven years was intended then why did Daniel use the word 'times' instead of 'years'. The fact is that the Aramaic word means a appointe time or time period is offered by the best Lexicons.
Perhaps you should read the Society's own words before you stick your foot in your mouth. The footnote to Daniel 4:16 in the NWT clearly allows for "times" to be translated as "years":
Or, "appointed (definite) times"; or, "time periods." Aram., ?id?da?nin′; Gr., e′te, "years"; LXXBagster(Gr.), kai?roi′, "appointed times"; Lat., tem′po?ra, "times." "Years," BDB, p. 1105; KB, p. 1106; Lexicon Linguae Aramaicae Veteris Testamenti, by E. Vogt, Rome, 1971, p. 124. "Seven times" as seven years are twice three and a half times. Compare 7:25 ftn, "Time"; 12:7 ftn, "Half."
There is nothing to insinuate that "7 times" means anything more than "7 years" as is shown by the Society's own literature.
The experience of Nebuchadnezzer is more than just chastisement for a proud king but he was brought to the realization that all Gentile rulers, kings or kingdoms are subject to that greater sovereignty of God as His Kingdom and that is the theological lesson of this story.
Your statement doesn't prove anything. He was chastised for being an arrogant king, he learned his lesson (that God is greater than man) and his kingdom was restored at the end of 7 years. How exactly are you getting anything else out of this?
The Gentile Times of Luke 21:24 refers to a past trampling continuing to the present of Jerusalem which typified God's Kingdom. The use of the Greek word here as 'kairos' relates to the Aramaic word 'iddan' for times so there is not only a theological connection between the two but a linguistic one as well.
More play on words that does not hold up under scrutiny. Kairos is an ancient Greek word which means 'the right or opportune moment.' The ancient Greeks had two words for time, chronos and kairos. Chronos refers to "chronological time" while kairos is referring to "a time in between, a moment of undetermined period of time in which something special happens."
Clearly, if kairos was used it is referring to the time frame from when Jesus gave the warning that Jerusalem would be destroyed to the actual event which happened---about 40 years later. However, even if chronos was used (which would make far more sense if the scripture were trying to promote a chronological event), there would still be no basis to link it to Daniel as the two events had absolutely nothing to do with each other.
Your argument falls flat yet again, scholar.
-
digderidoo
It has been proven over and over again to Scholar that Jerusalem didn't fall in 607 BCE by many 'celebrated JWD scholars'. However Scholar will always listen to the 'celebrated WT scholars' and believe whatever they say instead.
Paul
