by Godlyman 121 Replies latest watchtower bible
Nope. Begging the question. No reason whatsoever to preemptively grant that the book is magical
Fallacy. Sure Dr. “TD” agrees. I have already explained why in a previous post. If you refuse to understand, too bad.
You would have to prove that the Bible writer was a clown and meant the Roman Empire and he was wrong. In that case tge Bible is a sham. Again, if it is not a sham then Rome is obviously not the identity of BTG to those of us who believe the Bible is inspired.
Rome was specifically a city that governed an empire with authority over its various client kingdoms.
Fallacy. Rome was an Empire. Neither was it the mother of all disgusting things of the earth as I have explained. And as I have explained it did not have the fate of BTG. Sure TD understands.
🤦♂️
Neither was it the mother of all disgusting things of the earth as I have explained
You know it’s a metaphor right? 😂
You know it’s a metaphor right?
Irrelevant. All your commentary is red herring. The allusion “disgusting thing” is idolatry or the practice of idolatry, and the mother of that cannot be secular which the bible depicts as male. Religious entities in the Bible are females such as Jerusalem, the Jewish system of worship, the symbolic wife of God. From Nimrod down through the ages, acts of child sacrifice, sex worship, and all the horrific and adhoring acts and practices religious bodies empowered by their consorts, secular governments. The destruction of BTG can only mean the extermination of all religious practices and bodies by the their very lovers, the kings of the earth. That’s how we @ JW see it. Not trying to be apologetic here to win an argument. Mentally I am convinced. The fate of BTG could not be more ironic. Good for her!
Fisherman,
It makes a lot of sense to me....
But isn't that what's wrong here? The book wasn't written to you. (Or me either) It's not a product of our culture, our language, our history, our sensibilities, or any other meaningful frame of reference.
The author's s usage of ideas and themes from his own culture and time period is not irrelevant and treating it as such elevates the interpreter over the audience for whom the book was written.
Fisherman:
The allusion “disgusting thing” is idolatry or the practice of idolatry, and the mother of that cannot be secular which the bible depicts as male.
Nonsense, as usual. The JW interpretation of ‘disgusting thing’ as ‘idolatry’ has no basis in the text. (In Daniel, the ‘disgusting thing’ was the desecration of the temple by Antiochus IV, specifically with pork. In Revelation, the “disgusting thing’ was the Roman armies in Jerusalem. Neither of these are ‘idols’.) The notion that ‘secular’ is ‘male’ is also nonsense (for example, the city of Tyre is depicted as female in Isaiah).
Fisherman:
Fallacy. Rome was an Empire
Not only does the poor doofus not know what a fallacy is, but apparently also doesn’t realise that Rome was the capital city of the Roman Empire.
The book wasn't written to you.
First of all keep in mind 2 very important factors: 1. The author of Revelation is God and 2. Babylon the Great has not been destroyed yet. Ergo (as you use this word) Rev must have been written for the reader at a different point in time also, when the things written actually take place; That is what the author, God, must of had in mind. Like the epistles and other Bible books that were not only written for the contemporary people but in addition for everyone, and also when having prophetic significance, especially for the people at the time the things written take place, for example the disgusting thing causing desolation and the prophecies that were written to comfort the Jewish people at the time but also had greater prophetic significance as Jesus explained the prophecies showing people that they applied to him also at the time.
Fisherman:
1. The author of Revelation is God
There is no evidence that a deity exists, let alone that it wrote a specific late 1st/early 2nd century Christian apocalyptic work.
2. Babylon the Great has not been destroyed yet.
There is no rational basis for concluding that the superstitious expectations offered in the story would ever actually eventuate.
Fisherman:
1. The author of Revelation is God
Do Jehovah's Witnesses acknowledge the peculiarities of Revelation? Eusebius (quoting Dionysius) said in his church history:
Moreover, it can also be shown that the diction of the Gospel and Epistle differs from that of the Apocalypse. For they were written not only without error as regards the Greek language, but also with elegance in their expression, in their reasoning, and in their entire structure. They are far indeed from betraying any barbarism or solecism, or any vulgarism whatever. For the writer had, as it seems, both the requisites of discourse—that is, the gift of knowledge and the gift of expression—as the Lord had bestowed them both upon him.
I do not deny that the other writer saw a revelation and received knowledge and prophecy. I perceive, however, that his dialect and language are not accurate Greek, but that he uses barbarous idioms, and, in some places, solecisms. It is unnecessary to point these out here, for I would not have anyone think that I have said these things in a spirit of ridicule, for I have said what I have only with the purpose of showing clearly the difference between the writings.
Without disputing the idea of inspiration, it does seem that the writer of Revelation was free to use his own words and expressions.
2. Babylon the Great has not been destroyed yet.
Isn't that a circular prior assumption of your own viewpoint?
