In other words, if 607 falls, then it reduces the GB to just a bunch of men, no more appointed by God than my cat...@djeggnog
The governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses are, in fact, "just a bunch of men," but they have been called and chosen by God to be his spiritual children, and they will soon join the rest of these adopted sons of God now in heaven since Jesus' return to become co-rulers with the Lord Jesus Christ despite what you believe about these men. Not everyone that has read the Bible will respect the words it contains as having been inspired of God, so it is not surprising to hear viewpoints expressed like yours.
At this point, I would normally assume that you are speaking from ignorance. Yet, you have claimed multiple times to be an experienced, active JW. This doesn't look good for you. If we are to believe you are really an experienced JW, there is no way the connection between 607 and 1914 would have escaped your attention. The claimed events of 1914, and the events of the following few years, establish the authority of the "FDS", attach that authority to the WTB&TS, and give the GB their authority as the the representatives of the FDS.@djeggnog
You are free to draw any assumptions you wish as to my ignorance of the truth. I have asked @Bungi Bill to provide a connection between the destruction of Solomon's temple and the year in which Jesus' presence began, and now I am asking you to provide such a connection; as often as 1914 has been raised in this thread, one might expect the anyone making such a connection to be able to do so upon request, but words like these -- "If we are to believe you are really an experienced JW, there is no way the connection between 607 and 1914 would have escaped your attention" -- do not provide a connection between the year when the destruction of Solomon's temple occurred and 1914 AD. Let's say that Solomon's temple was destroyed in 587 BC, what connection is there between the destruction of the temple and 1914 AD? None. Likewise, if Solomon's temple were destroyed in 607 BC, there is still no connection between this event and 1914 AD.
I believe there the first world war in human history took place in 1914 and I don't believe there to be anything about World War I that was connected with or caused by the destruction of Solomon's temple back in 607 BC, which, mind you, is not something that Jehovah's Witnesses have ever taught, even though the argument being made here is that 'if 607 BC falls then so does 1914 AD.' No, it doesn't. Just as what occurred historically in 607 BC stands on its own, what occurred historically in 1914 AD stands on it own as well.
Jesus indicated at Matthew 24:3, 7, and Luke 21:7, 10, 11, that as a part of the composite sign of his invisible presence that 'nation would rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom.' He also indicated that there would be food shortages, pestilence and earthquakes rocking the earth in one place after another. You might want to attribute something Jesus said here in these scriptural passages to 607 BC, and that's fine, but I believe Jesus was referring to events that began to occur with the outbreak of World War I in 1914, and not at all to anything at all that had to do with 607 BC. Some of you here on JWN happen to believe that Solomon's temple was destroyed in 587 BC, and I have no problem with "you guys" believing this, but whether the temple was destroyed in 607 BC or in 587 BC, what does the outbreak of World War I have to do with the year in which Solomon's temple was destroyed? What's the connection you're trying to make with these two disparate historical events?
Now I'm reasonably certain that WWI began in 1914; I'm reasonably certain that Solomon's temple was destroyed in 607 BC based on my faith that when Babylon was deposed in 539 BC by the Medes and Persians that the exiled Jews were eventually released "that Jehovah's word from the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished," and they thus repatriated the land of Judah and were in their cities when "the seventh month arrived" in 537 BC. (Ezra 1:1; 3:1)
Jehovah had indicated by his prophet Jeremiah that "when seventy years have been fulfilled" that "I will gather your body of captives and ... bring you back to the place from which I caused you to go into exile." (Jeremiah 25:12; 29:14) I cannot prove to you that these 70 years were fulfilled in 537 BC; they may have been fulfilled in 538 BC or in 536 BC for all I know. But I believe that if this 70-year period would have begun in 607 BC, then this period would have ended in 537 BC, so if it turns out that they began in either 608 BC or in 606 BC, then the 70 years would have been fulfilled in either 538 BC or 536 BC, respectively.
My faith doesn't require Solomon's temple to have been utterly destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar's armies in 607 BC. My faith is that Solomon's temple was destroyed during the "fifth month" (2 Kings 25:8) in Ab, 607 BC, or whatever year it was that the temple was destroyed by Babylon. However, it was during the "seventh month" (2 Kings 25:25) in Tishri, 607 BC, or whatever year it was, that Gedaliah was assassinated when God's prophecy regarding the desolation of the land of Judah for a 70-year period "until the land had paid off its sabbaths" went into effect. (2 Chronicles 36:21)
However, concurrent with the destruction of Solomon's temple when Jehovah's prophecy by Jeremiah was fulfilled came Zedekiah's removal from Jehovah's throne at Jerusalem in this same year. This was a significant event. Why? Because Salem, the original part of Jerusalem, had been God's typical kingdom back when Melchizedek served as its king-priest somewhere between 1943 BC and 1933 BC. By 1117 BC, God's typical kingdom was established in Jerusalem when Saul was made the first king of Israel, followed by David, who succeeded Saul to God's throne in 1077 BC and then by Solomon, who sat on God's throne in 1037 BC and who in 1027 BC went on to build the temple that stood for 420 years until 607 BC when Babylon deposed Judah and destroyed the temple.
It was Zedekiah's removal as a representative of God's typical kingdom here on earth that marked the time when after theocratic rule ceased to exist on earth, which event gives further significance to the year 607 BC, since 607 BC marks the year when the "seven times" of Daniel's prophecy began. (Daniel 4:25) These "seven times," which began in 607 BC, are equal to 2,520 years, so that the appointed times of the nations came to be fulfilled in 1914 AD, some 2,520 years after the "seven times" began, which began in the same year when God's theocratic rulership ended, whether Zedekiah was deposed in 607 BC or in 608 BC or in 606 BC, whatever year this happens to be. Even if WWI had not begun in 1914, my faith is that the appointed times of the nations would have come to an end in 1914 if God's theocratic rulership on earth ended in 607 BC.
In this thread, people have been debating when it was Solomon's temple was destroyed -- 607 BC or 587 BC -- and the year 1914, the year in which Jesus' presence began, but there is really no connection between when the destruction of the temple occurred and 1914, since any reference that Jehovah's Witnesses make to 1914 has to do with the resumption of God's theocracy through a king in David's royal line of descent, and so the establishment of God's heavenly kingdom in 1914 has absolutely nothing at all to do with the destruction of Solomon's temple.
None of what we have been discussing in this thread has a thing to do with the events that followed some 3-1/2 years later when Jehovah's Witnesses believe the house of God were put on judgment, nor when it was that Jesus appointed the faithful and discreet slave over all of his belongings here on earth. It is evident that you question the scriptural authority of the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses to take the lead in providing oversight over the worldwide preaching work, and I have no problem with your questioning its authority as representatives of the faithful slave. None.
So how are we to view your statement above, in light of your experience and knowledge as an active JW? You must know you can't deceive any of us apostates (yes, this is an apostate site, and no, we don't have to "prove" that to you - it's [blatantly] obvious) with these misleading statements. What do you hope to accomplish other than to sway curious, unknowledgeable readers? Or perhaps it's damage control, knowing full well that my point was valid, that this thread is a world stage, and your attempts to defend the indefensible will ultimately hurt your cause more than help it? Perhaps you now think it would be good to make the above statements, hoping any JWs on the fence would still consider coming down on your side?@djeggnog
What is it that persuades you that I am here attempting to deceive "any of us apostates" or anyone else for that matter? I disagree with your characterization of JWN as being an apostate website since, if it was, then I wouldn't be posting messages here, and if it is definitely a fact that I'm posting messages here, then why do you ignore the very evidence that argues the contrary as to your contention about JWN's being an apostate website?
This would be like you arguing that you didn't see one of my messages and yet the evidence that you did lies in the fact that there should be a reply in which quotations from my message are included in your reply. Now I'm not saying that this is true, but I'm just using this is just a hypothetical I'm using in order to emphasize that the very fact that I post to JWN constitutes evidence that JWN isn't an apostate website; otherwise, I would not be posting messages here.
Now if you don't understand that what I am doing is evidence that you are mistaken, then you're stupid when it comes to comprehending this particular point, and we need to move on to discuss other things, things that you will hopefully be able to comprehend. If you don't get this point, you don't get it. You're not alone; @WMF and a few others here on JWN don't get this point it either, but, first, I have no need to do any "damage control," and, second, you made no valid point. If there are any lurkers of this thread that are actively sitting on the proverbial fence, my hope is that they make the right decision.
The above assumptions are kind. To me, it looks like you are conducting theocratic [warfare], and this is tantamount to lying.@djeggnog
What do you mean by "theocratic warfare"? Judging from how you used this phrase in your message, I doubt that you understand it in the same way that I do. Theocratic warfare certainly isn't synonymous with lying. Theocratic warfare is the Christian warfare I wage almost daily by "holding faith and a good conscience" toward God (1 Timothy 1:18, 19) when battling back misrepresentations of the Bible, falsehoods, propaganda, slanders against God and unwarranted attacks launched those of us that have been entrusted to accomplish the holy work of God.
And if that is the case, then the entire idea of a "ministry" to convert people to be JWs is a meaningless and false ministry.@djeggnog
I agree with your hypothetical, "if" what you say here should be the case. As to Jehovah's Witnesses being involved in a false ministry to convert people, not one of Jehovah's Witnesses has been given the authority by Christ to convert anyone over to Christ. Jehovah's Witnesses are commanded to preach, but we do not do this in order to convert anyone. Our hope is that those listening to us will prove to themselves that what God's says in his word, the Bible, is the truth, and will repent and turn around or convert from their former course of conduct, take in accurate knowledge of both God and Christ that their faith might increase, and upon their dedication to God, submit to water baptism and thus become one of Jesus' followers that they might be saved.
Who said anything about "forced conversions"? Why did you even bring that up?
If not forced conversions, what other conversions could you have meant? I brought this up because I had no idea of what to make of your remark that Jehovah's Witnesses have a "ministry" to "convert people to be JWs," when we have no such "ministry."
Before someone can become one of Jehovah's Witnesses, they need to have faith in God and they must also recognize the role Jesus plays in their salvation and exercise faith in his name, meaning, in the event one of the lurkers reading this statement doesn't know exactly what I mean by this, I am referring to the value of Jesus' ransom, for no one that doesn't exercising faith in it can be saved. (John 3:16-18; Romans 10:9, 10) We don't believe in forced conversions, but we do believe in converting, or turning around, from one's former way of conducting oneself in life.
I'm never really surprised to learn what Jehovah's Witnesses and those that were formerly Jehovah's Witnesses do not know, because you cannot come to learn something unless you have been taught. Just as a pupil that is perfectly instructed becomes like his or her teacher, it follows that a pupil that is not perfectly instructed will also become like his or her teacher. (Luke 6:40)
And you claim that you don't have a ministry to convert people to JWs? That is clearly a huge PR twisting of the facts. So why do you come to the door on Saturday mornings? Perhaps to sell subscriptions to the coffee of the month club?
That is my claim, yes. Jehovah's Witnesses aren't in the "conversion" business and we don't sell anything to anyone att their doors on a Saturday morning or on any other morning either. We are looking for folks that are disposed to hearing the good news about Jesus Christ and about the kingdom of God; those so disposed are being given the very same details that we have learned about the good news so that they might be equipped with the knowledge from the Bible they need -- that we all need -- to be able to make an informed decision as to their salvation. The choice to dedicate their lives to the doing of God's will and symbolizing that dedication by getting baptized is their own. We don't force anyone to make decisions that go against the assent of their own will.
You are doing us a favor by posting here. Let the world see just how hard you struggle to find any evidence for 607. Let everyone see you deny logic and reason. Let everyone watch your statements degrade into pure lies, in a vain attempt to salvage any position you can.
Am I doing you a favor? My hope is that you will see that I am not of the opinion that anyone needs to believe what I do about the significance of 607 BC. The only thing that one must believe is that Jehovah is the true God and that, by their exercising faith in the blood of his son, Jesus Christ, they will realize the benefits of his ransom sacrifice, namely, everlasting life. However, my faith has been greatly strengthened by the things I have come to learn from Jehovah's Witnesses as to the significance of 607 BC as it relates to when the "seven times" of Daniel 4:25 began.
We do not engage in forced conversions so as to make the people to whom we preach Jehovah's Witnesses.