Simple Question Re 1914 (page 5)

Rattigan350

We don't know exactly when the war in heaven started. While Russell looked to October but that can not be exactly pinpointed.

Everyone get tripped on months and days.

road to nowhere

Traditionally October 4/5 is the start of God's year. That is when "everything " takes place. Ignore mixing the Gregorian calendar and Jewish days starting at sunset.

I still have moments about the date every year-- ingrained training. Along with aluminum pots

Fisherman

Everyone get tripped on months and days.

Having to do with irony and poetic justice alluded to by days and months.

Vanderhoven7

McDaniel provides some insight here.

The JW theory is obviously convoluted and confusing.

If we examine Daniel 2, it is obvious that the kingdom would be established “in the days of those kings” (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome), not 1,900 years later!
The vision of the great tree has nothing to do, contextually or otherwise, with the Jerusalem kingdom but describes King Nebuchadnezzar’s greatness, his abasement, and subsequent reinstatement (cf. Dan. 4:1-37).
There are no contextual links between the “times” in Daniel 4 and Revelation 12 that would necessitate an interpretative connection. It is wrong to tie different texts together simply to prove a predetermined, unscriptural point.
Though in poetic and prophetic Biblical literature “days” can represent periods of times (or “years”), figurative language cannot be forced into a literal application. (Notice in the above quote that “seven times” is semi-literal but becomes 2,520 days—figurative—then to 2,520 years—literal. It is too inconsistent, and God is not the author of confusion!)

Obviously, with such flawed interpretations of Biblical prophecy, the third question—When did Jesus become king?—is answered incorrectly by Jehovah’s Witnesses WDJBK

Vanderhoven7

Regarding when Jesus became king, McDaniel writes:

The truth is, Jesus became king when He ascended to heaven in AD 30 and established the church. Before that time, Jesus (along with others) promised that the kingdom was at hand (cf. Matt. 4:17). The first century was the “fullness of the time” (cf. Gal. 4:4; Eph. 1:10), the predicted age of the Roman Empire when God would establish His eternal kingdom (cf. Dan. 2:44; 7:13-14). When the Lord returned to heaven, He possessed (and possesses) all authority (cf. Matt. 28:18), sat down on His Father’s throne (cf. Heb. 1:1-3; Eph. 1:18-23), and admitted the saved into His kingdom (cf. Col. 1:12-14).

So Fisherman and Scholar

Notice that Paul and all Christians at the time were saved and had been transferred from darkness into an already existing kingdom, the Kingdom of Christ in century one.

Colossians 1:13 KJV — Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

Fisherman

Daniel 2, it is obvious that the kingdom would be established “in the days of those kings” (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece,

It is not obvious Van. You've already made up your mind. You are an advocate of your beliefs. You are wrong because the kingdom would strike at the feet so the language in the days of those kings is poetic since God’s kingdom did nor strike the kingdoms you mentioned nor could ot be established until Jesus remained faithful to the death. The book of Daniel is about the future and about the time of the end. What happened to those Empires at that time is insignificant and part of a bigger picture, the statue representing all human rule replaced by the Messianic kingdom. That is the only sequitur conclusion.

NonCoinCollector

Not exactly. In fairness to our worthy combatant, he has maintained such a scholarly approach on this forum these past 21 years.

Ozziepost, is this the same person that got into epic discussions with AlanF all those years ago. Scholar just can't admit he has it all wrong can he/she? This person has been proved wrong over and over, but won't let it go. So sad.

Vanderhoven7

Hi Fisherman

It is absolutely obvious when the kingdom would be established. It has nothing to do with preconceived ideas.

https://beroeans.net/2014/07/23/watchtower-article-when-did-gods-kingdom-begin-ruling-part-1/

Fisherman

This person has been proved wrong over and over, but won't let it go. So sad.

Thats because you are not an impartial arbitrator but only an advocate.

I also debated with Allan. He claimed to have graduated from MIT. I quizzed him about something that every student there must know and he didn’t know I was talking about. I still believe him though.

His most interesting essay was on the ransom and I respected that essay but the WT already commented on the point he was challenging many years before he published his essay so it wasn’t an original research but It was an exceptional point he made .Even what scholar argues is only what wt has already commented on. WT is right on the money in Bible interpretation imho. One of the only exceptional points made on this Forum was made by cofty having to do with the distinction between the blood of an animal slaughtered for food and blood coming from a creature who was not slaughtered. Food for thought. However, WT had already commented on that distinction many years before but nevertheless cofty argument interesting.

NonCoinCollector

Thats because you are not an impartial arbitrator but only an advocate.

I once believed Watchtower was right about 607 until I was proved wrong. End of story.

Simple Question Re 1914

Share this