by Xander 163 Replies latest watchtower bible
scholar, so then are you saying that the results of your own research make it unarguably clear that the 7 times of Daniel are a typological period of 2520 years? I would DEARLY love to see unequivocal evidence of THAT. Ah, exegesis can be such a tricky thing, eh?
As far as 586/587/606/607 are concerned, it doesn't make any difference unless the legitimacy of "2520 years" is clearly established.
Keeping in mind here that the subject of this thread is "Where DID the 1914 timeline go awry."
Craig
onacruse
You ask for unequivocal evidence for the 2520 years. This is an absurd proposal as it is akin for asking for unequivocal evidence for 586/7 or 607. This is impossible. What is possible is the research of scholars in the fields of theology, eschatology and historiography which shows the typological significance of both the eschaton and Jerusalem in Luke and Nebuchadnezzar in the tree dream mentioned in Daniel 4.
Exegesis is indeed a tricky thing but there is no other way to understand prophecy or the written text unless you receive divine revelation. If exegesis frightens you then stick to Mc Donald theology of fast food which is the only sustenance that the majority of posters consume. Are you prepared for hard work and to think beyond the square? I am surpised that you have not made any attempt or comment on the two Lukan studies that I have referred to on this subject. Anyway,evidence for the Gentile Times can be adduced from journal articles listed in the Bibliography at page 999 in Luke 1:35-24:53, Vol.3, Word Biblical Commentary, John Nolland: Word Books, Dallas Texas, 1989.
Respecting Daniel, tou will find the section on the tree dream in the Anchor Bible Commentary most enlightening.
Regards scholar BA MA Studies in Relgion
there is no other way to understand prophecy or the written text unless you receive divine revelation.
Well then, since divine revelation is the key, here's mine--
I'm reading along in Daniel 4, and I see Nebuchadnezzar has a dream. Daniel interprets that dream, and tells the king that the point is: "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." (v 26) I see this quite clearly and simply as God's humbling of the king. Then I read "All this happened to King Nebuchadnezzar." (v 28) I see this quite clearly and simply as the fulfillment of the dream. I read along some more and "At the end of that time, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven, and my sanity was restored. Then I praised the Most High; I honored and glorified him who lives forever...Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and exalt and glorify the King of heaven, because everything he does is right and all his ways are just. And those who walk in pride he is able to humble." (vss 34-37). I see this quite clearly and simply as "lesson learned, end of episode."
Then I'm reading along in Luke 21, and see Jesus predict "They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." (v 24) I see this quite clearly and simply as Jesus' prediction of the impending fall of Jerusalem, and that he says Israel will be trampled on until the Gentiles have had their day. I consult the history books, and lo and behold, Jerusalem WAS conquered a few decades later, and that the nation of Israel was not restored until almost 1900 years later. I see this quite clearly and simply as "prophecy fulfilled, end of episode."
There is nothing, absolutely NOTHING, that inspires me to connect Luke 21 and Dan 4, much less to concoct some convoluted fantastical arithmetic extrapolation about 7 symbolic times=7 symbolic years x 360 symbolic days per symbolic year = 2520 literal years, added to an uncertain starting date and ending with hypothetical speculations.
So much for my "McDonald's theology" .
Craig
Oh, and insofar as "authorities" are concerned: The preponderance of 19th-20th century commentary supports this dichotomy.
Scholar:
In the book 'Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom', page 133, it tells us that in 1876 Russell was persuaded by N.H.Barbour that Christ's invisible presence began in 1874 :
This was influenced by the belief that the seventh millenium of human history had begun in 1873 and that a period of divine disfavor...upon natural Israel would end in 1878. The chronology was flawed because of relying on an inaccurate rendering of Acts 13:20 in the King James Version, belief that there was a transcription error at 1 Kings 6:1, and failure to take into account Biblical synchronisms in the dating of reigns of the kings of Judah and of Israel. A clearer understanding of Biblical chronology was published in 1943, in the book 'The Truth Shall Make You Free,'...as well as in later publications.
I do wonder, in view of the limited secular support for 607, the false expectations of the time, and the complexity of biblical chronology, whether 1914 would not have been dropped, as 1874 and 1975 have been, if the First World War had not made the year indelible. What do you think ?
Earnest
Edited by - Earnest on 4 January 2003 18:40:25
onacruse
Sorry I do not buy your 'divine revelation'. Did you have a mystical experience? If so, please explain as I have done considerable studies in the field of mysticism. Anyway, if your experience is genuine then you are an enlightened one. Therefore all on this board will now see you as a guru. All questions become your problem. Methinks you are 'On a Cruise'.
No doubt you have not read or will read the reference I gave to you in my last post.
scholar BA MA Studies in Religion.
I've enjoyed this tread and especially Alan F's comments, and of course Farkel's comments on page one are among the funiest I've read in a long time.
One thing that factors into my thinking on why the whole Witness teaching revolving around 1914 is not correct is simply because of the passage of time since then. That generation is virtually gone. The people who lived before then, who were alive when Russell wrote what he wrote, are gone.
I realize that the WTS has changed its treaching on the matter of a "generation", but to me, the words of Jesus in Matthew 24 involved the people who were there to hear him say them. The "end", the destruction of Jerusalem, occcured just 37 years after Jesus spoke those words, so there was no necessity for projections, revisions, and guesses - it all wrapped up within a relatively short period of time, and most of the folks who hear what Jesus said were still alive to witness the fulfillment of what he said.
As Franz wrote in Cof C, one brother in an African Branch Office asked whether it would be better to simply understand Jesus' words as applying in his time only. While a whole discussion on that is best left to another thread at another time, sometimes I think that brother had a point.
Scholar,
It appears that I am a better prophet than JW leaders, having gotten one prediction right. Yesterday I posted a question to you and a prediction:
Now, let me ask you a simple, but leading question: If I told you that I attended college in Massachusetts until June, 1980, and you later learned that I actually attended until June, 1982, would you consider my statement true or false? Why?I have no doubt that you'll make another excuse as to why you can't answer this question, or you'll fail to respond at all. But that's typical of Jehovah's Witnesses -- running away from questions they don't like. You're spiritual cowards, every one of you.
Now, the question is leading because if you answer it, readers will see clearly why the Society's pretensions to having the only accurate Bible chronology are nonsense. Why not play along? But we already know the answer.
AlanF
scholar, thanks so very much for your ad hominem non-response.
You don't have to "buy my 'divine inspiration' "(lolol), because I'm no longer a JW cultist trying to hawk my wares to unsuspecting victims.
AlanF and Farkel, once again I'm in your debt.
scholar, I wish you the best, and good-bye.
Craig
Earnest,
: I do wonder, in view of the limited secular support for 607
There is no "limited secular support for 607." There is virtually NO secular support for 607.
Farkel
scholar demolishes the Watchtower Society's claim to spiritual authority:
: Exegesis is indeed a tricky thing but there is no other way to understand prophecy or the written text unless you receive divine revelation.
That being the case, and given the fact the Jehovah's Witness leaders lay no specific claim to "divine relevation" (well, they actually do, but they hide it in double-speak verbage), then what RIGHT do they have to not only do exegesis, but ENFORCE their interpretations of it on their members upon penalty of spiritual execution for those who disagree with it?
I suspect you won't bother to address this pesky issue, either. (Be sure and let us know about your degrees and honors on every single post you make, lest we forget your puffery actually doesn't mean anything.)
Farkel
