607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)

by Witness My Fury 492 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  just n from bethel

  DJ hates Jehovah's Witnesses more than anyone on this forum. He said:

  I am not like the many Jehovah's Witnesses that cannot defend their faith without making a trip to the home library they maintain of older WTS publications which might go back some 50, 60 years (or more!), which library serves as a crutch for them, or, nowadays, the Watchtower Library cdrom on which books in retirement like Let God Be True first published in 1946 and then revised in 1952 aren't included, and are no longer needed due to what our progressive understanding of the Bible is today, and which is likewise a crutch.

  DJ - how can you be something you disdain so much?

  If only my family and friends would be willing to disobey the watchtower like DJ and come to this site. I would show them some of DJs posts and they would be done with the religion faster than DJ can type his typical run-on sentence. It would be priceless to see the expressions on lurking JWs faces when they read DJ's posts. When they see how the most long-winded JW apologetic on the forum thinks his "brothers and sisters" are stupid and ignorant, they realize that this religion is not one of love but one of scorn and prideful egos, as DJ so clearly shows.

  And then to top it off - he consistently ignores requests to back up his claims regarding this whole date thing which even the Watchtower hasn't touched on in 20+ years. He's been shown from the bible, from history, from JW literature, and truthful facts that 607 is wrong. The more he writes the more he shows how wrong he is and the more people get to see his foolishness, but, as a bonus, he throws in a boat-load of his own contempt for his so-called fellow Jehovah's Witnesses.

  If you're a lurking Witness, reading this, all I can say is, with friends like DJ in your midst, who needs enemies?

  I can promise you this, nobody on this forum thinks you're stupid and ignorant except your fellow JWs like DJ. Mislead? Sure, but we still will bend over backwards to keep real friendships with you in place. And we will never use a debate about doctrine and chronology to write long tangents about how stupid and mentally handicapped you are. Only your fellow witnesses do that.

  So to all you JW lurkers, I know how it feels to finally realize how this religion teaches its constituents to view one another, as exemplified by DJ. But hopefully it won't make you sad, but make you take action - action that will free yourself of the idiocracy that DJ claims to represent. I can already tell by the new posters that register and post, people like DJ, are responsible for the many JWs that move on to real freedom, away from the mindset that has to re-write history to make their beliefs relevant. So for that DJ, we thank you.
• 

  OUTLAW

  you are really prosecuting a war against the Almighty since the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are based on the Bible!.....DjEggNogg

  What a Joke..

  JW Beliefs are based on,whatever the WBT$ tells JW`s to believe..

  The WBT$ used to teach..And..JW`s Used to Believe..

  The Book study is the most important meeting you can go to..The WBT$ cancelled it..

  The generation of 1914 will not pass away..The WBT$ cancelled it..

  Armageddon by 1975..The WBT$ cancelled it..Ect..ect..ect..

  All the Crap the WBT$ has taught,then cancelled..Was never in the Bible to begin with..

  Just like 607 BCE isn`t in the Bible..Or..

  Governing Body..Or..Organization..Or..Ect..Ect..ect..

  It`s all made up,WBT$ BullSh*t..

  ................;-)...OUTLAW
• 

  djeggnog

  The following is the balance of my Post 398:

  @Jonathan Dough wrote:

  A cursory reading of the phrase "In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon …" might suggest that the seventy years entailed the entire nation being exiled at Babylon seventy years which could only happen if the period began at Jerusalem’s destruction. Under the Dominant Babylonian Empire theory, "at Babylon" is more properly rendered "for Babylon." The difference is significant.... [¶] This is a serious point of contention. The question is whether Jeremiah 29:10 may properly read "In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon?"

  @djeggnog wrote:

  I found this comment of yours rejecting the word "at" in translating Jeremiah 29:10 in favor of the word "for" is ridiculous.

  @AnnOMaly wrote:

  Hardly. The rendering 'for' is borne out by the context. The discrepancy in the WTS time-line cannot be satisfactorily resolved if the preposition 'at' is used here.

  I don't use any "WTS time-line," @AnnOMaly. The Bible's timeline happens to agree with what you are referring to as a "WTS time-line," but I have not used here, and do not now use, anyone else's timeline, but the Bible's own. If you feel you must reject my timeline because some deviation exists between it and your timeline, I'm ok with that since, unlike you, I accept the Bible's timeline on faith, and would never think to substitute Ptolemy's Canon, for example, for God's word, which I believe to be true.

  As I see it, the fact that you are here making a federal case out as to the word "at" being used instead of "for," just as @Jonathan Dough had done, suggests a resentment on your part as to my attacking your agenda, for your rather weak case and @Jonathan Dough's) isn't made any stronger based on this insistence on the use (or non-use, actually) of a preposition. Whatever.

  Further to your follow-up Post 1821:

  @AnnOMaly wrote:

  Nabonidus was thought to have come from a different dynasty and thus, as son-in-law, would not have been blood related to Nebuchadnezzar. 'In-laws' are very often not blood related to each other - did you know that?

  @djeggnog wrote:

  But it's clear that although I do admit writing that "I do not agree with the view of the author of Setting the Record Straight as to Nabonidus not being a "blood relation to Nebuchadnezzar," there is no legitimate excuse for your making the argument, "'In-laws' are very often not blood related to each other - did you know that?" to me.

  @AnnOMaly:

  You are blustering about one easily resolvable thing (Nabonidus was not blood related to Nebucahdnezzar - you made a(nother) mistake and agree after all), and go on and on and on and on and on and on and on ... and on ... but you are completely ignoring the 'weightier matters' of the discussion YET AGAIN!

  How so? It isn't relevant that Nabonidus wasn't a blood relative of Nebuchadnezzar. When I wrote that "I do not agree with the view ... as to Nabonidus not being a 'blood relation to Nebuchadnezzar,'" I had intended to write that I don't believe it accurate for the author of Setting the Record Straight to have said that "the captive Jews also served other kings of Babylon, including Neriglissar, Labashi-Marduk and Nabonidus, none of whom bore any blood relation to Nebuchadnezzar." I shouldn't have singled out Nabondius at all, for the point I wished to make (but missed!) was that I don't agree that none of these "other kings of Babylon, including Neriglissar, Labashi-Marduk and Nabonidus," bore any blood relation to Nebuchadnezzar, for Belshazzar, being the offspring of Nebuchadnezzar's son-in-law, Nabonidus, his eldest son by Nebuchadnezzar's daughter, Nitocris, would have made Belshazzar a "blood relation to Nebuchadnezzar."

  @djeggnog
• 

  OUTLAW

  Whatever......DjEggNogg

  LOL!!..Your most intelligent rebutal to date..

  If your a 14 year old High School girl..

  ..................;-)...OUTLAW
• 

  just n from bethel

  DJ said: I don't use any "WTS time-line," @AnnOMaly. The Bible's timeline happens to agree with what you are referring to as a "WTS time-line," but I have not used here, and do not now use, anyone else's timeline, but the Bible's own.

  If any real JW can please stand up - and show me just one person - one single serious bible reader, who has read the Bible, never hearing of JWs or ever having read their literature, and came to the conclusion that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE, I'll return to the kingdom hall for a year and let DJ study with me.

  DJ is lying like I've never seen a witness lie in all my years as an elder. I've seen some good ones too, but I've never met one JW or otherwise who believed in 607 without having had read rewritten history by the Watchtower. Thanks again for lying DJ, more lurking JWs leave everytime they read your blathering.
• 

  just n from bethel

  Whatever......DjEggNogg

  LOL!!..Your most intelligent rebutal to date..

  If your a 14 year old High School girl..

  ..................;-)...OUTLAW

  That is hilarious. It's also DJ's shortest phrase he's ever used. I'd say he's making progress.
• 

  jonathan dough

  Eggnog: While it is true that Jehovah's Witnesses have concluded that it was in the year 607 BC that Babylon destroyed Solomon's temple in Jerusalem, which led to the desolation of the land of Judah and the exile of the Jews...

  This is another false teaching. The destruction of Jerusalem did not lead to the desolation of the land of Judah.

  Large parts of Judah were destroyed before Jerusalem fell. Before Jerusalem was destroyed Nebuchadnezzar’s army conquered all of Judah’s many cities except two:

  And Jeremiah the prophet proceeded to speak to Zedekiah the king of Judah all these words in Jerusalem, when the military forces of the king of Babylon were fighting against Jerusalem and against all the cities of Judah that were left remaining, against Lachish and against Azekah; for they, the fortified cities, were the ones that remained over among the cities of Judah." (Jeremiah 34:6, 7).

  An objective reading of the Jewish condition should hopefully lead one to conclude that the land of Judah, and its principal city Jerusalem, had become “a devastated place, an object of astonishment” even before the final and complete destruction of Jerusalem, and even though it was inhabited. Jehovah's destruction obviously could not have started with Jerusalem. http://144000.110mb.com/607/i-6.html

  Eggnog: and the repatriation of Judah by the Jews at the end of 70 years as set forth in the Bible.

  Another false teaching referred to as the JWs Return Theory, clearly repudiated by scripture because you can't come up with your 70 years according to clear and unmistakable verse. As mentioned in a previous post, nowhere in the Bible does it state that the 70 years ended when the Jews returned and were repatriated in the land of Judah. Leviticus 26:32-35 states that the period of time when Judah would pay off its sabbaths ended while the Jews were in Babylon, not Judah.

  Jeremiah 25:12 states that only after the seventy years had ended, or been fulfilled, Jehovah would call the king of Babylon to account, which he did beginning with its fall to Cyrus in October 539 B.C.E., one date the Jehovah’s Witnesses and everyone else seem to agree on. The seventy years ended when Babylon fell, not two years later when the exiles stepped foot back on the soil of Judah. You're missing two years for your theory to work properly.

  For the sake of argument, even if Jeremiah 29:10 were to read that the 70 years of servitude ended while they were "at" Babylon rather than "for" Babylon, it still proves you and the JWs wrong because the period of servitude ended while the captives were in Babylon, not on their return and repatriationi in Judah. Again, your version of the 70 years are a fabrication, mere fiction.

  2 Chronicles 36:20 states that the captives removed to Babylon would be servants to the king “until the royalty of Persia began to reign,” which began October 539 B.C.E. and not until the exiles physically returned to Judah two years later.

  "Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign; ... "

  Both sides agree that Babylon fell to the Persians in October 539 B.C.E. That fall signaled the beginning of Persia’s reign. The prophet Daniel foretold its sudden collapse when he interpreted the writing on the wall for Babylon’s king Belshazzer,“This is the interpretation of the word: MENE, God has numbered [the days of] your kingdom and finished it.” And he did in 539 B.C.E. The 70 years did not end when they returned, and you still lack 70 years under your theory.

  This, in actuality, is unimpeachable evidence that the seventy years of servitude came to an end first in 539 B.C.E. and only later, in 537 B.C.E. would the Jews return. Even with their improper rendering that the seventy years would be accomplished at Babylon, the Jehovah’s Witnesses' Return theory lacks merit. Jeremiah 29:10 supports the Dominant Babylonian Empire theory and disproves the Jehovah’s Witnesses' Return theory.

  http://144000.110mb.com/607/i-3.html#G
• 

  Alwayshere

  Last Assyrian King Ashuruballit (612- 609) (Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia )

  When Assyria fell, Babylon was the next World Power. 609-539= 70years of Serving the King of Babylon

  just like the Bible says at at Jeremiah 25: 11. Verse 12 shows Babylon would fall when the 70 years

  were acomplished and it did.
• 

  djeggnog

  @Alwayshere:

  djeggnog, still has never provided a scripture from the Bible where it says, Jerusalem was desolated in King Neb. 18th year. And that's because he can't.

  Even if were to provide such a scripture, you would still not believe Jerusalem was destroyed in Nebuchadnezzar's eighteenth year. I believe you would refuse to understand that one can reckon the reign of Nebuchadnezzar by the inclusion of his accession year, which is the reason Jeremiah makes reference to Nebuchadnezzar's nineteenth year at 2 Kings 25:8 and at Jeremiah 52:12, but, in a previous message, I did provide a scripture where the same prophet -- Jeremiah -- makes reference to Nebuchadnezzar's (Nebuchadrezzar's) eighteenth year:

  I should point out to you that the date of Jerusalem's destruction would only be Nebuchadnezzar's "nineteenth" year if counting from his accession year as Jeremiah does at Jeremiah 52:12 (2 Kings 25:8), but it would be his "eighteenth" regnal year, which is the reckoning that Jeremiah uses at Jeremiah 52:29.

  Open up your copy of the Bible and hopefully you won't be found here arguing still that there is no mention in the Bible that refers to Nebuchadnezzar's eighteenth regnal year.

  @djeggnog
• 

  cantleave

  I think the Genius eggnog realises that he is losing this!!