I don't believe the nation of Israel will return as any form of theocracy as it was in the past nor will they possess anything significantly more than they have now but likely will fall by the sword again . I do get tired of christian religionists trying to convince people that it is essential to support Israel in our day becuase there is believed some sort of necessity for salvation . It's totally disgusting to me.
The destruction of the first temple
by Soledad 27 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Soledad
heathen: totally agree. it's an aberration what these evangelical christians are doing.
-
Satanus
Scholar
whereas Bible Students traditionally propose 607
Confusing. Are not bible students considered apostate? If so, why refer to them in a positive way?
S
-
toreador
Scholar
whereas Bible Students traditionally propose 607
Confusing. Are not bible students considered apostate? If so, why refer to them in a positive way?
Precisely, unless he is calling JWs "bible students", but I would think not, not since 1935 anyways.
-
heathen
Good point satanus . Russel did change the date several times not just from 606 to 607 . These people had a long history of changing the date because nothing happened . They even believed that 1914 was going to be the end of all man self governing bodies . Since that didn't happen the belief was very craftily changed to we are living under a theocracy with an invisible jesus christ directing our printing press . Who on earth could put any trust in people that confuse things like that ?
-
City Fan
Soledad,
Chronology for the 6th century BC is indisputable. There is so much archaeological and astronomical evidence for the period that no scholar questions the dating of the destruction of Jerusalem in 586/587 BC.
Looking at that website I'm still not sure how they come up with the date 422BC. It looks like the usual 'pagan records can't be trusted compared to the bible record' argument. It seems to be arguing that just because the bible only says 4 Persian kings ruled then that must be fact. A simple explanantion for this is that the bible simply doesn't mention any of the other Persian kings.
Scholar,
Scholars prefer 586
No they don't. Some scholars prefer 586 BC, and some prefer 587 BC. You know this so why the lie?
Bible Students traditionally propose 607
I presume you mean The Bible Students who are apostate from the JWs. I've posted before how the bible itself supports 586/587. Here's one such post which you said you would reply to but never did. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/74549/1199790/post.ashx#1199790
CF.
-
scholar
City Fan
From my careful and considered research into the Late Judean Monarchy, I consider that the weight of scholarship favors the 586 date for the destruction of the Temple which would not please Jonsson and his apostate devotees.
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion
-
City Fan
And therefore the 'weight of scholarship' would dismiss 607 as absurd?
-
Narkissos
Soledad,
In Archbishop James Ussher's chronology, in the early 17th century, the Fall of Jerusalem is already dated in 586 BC.
Apparently Ussher was among the first to depart, on the basis of extra-biblical evidence, from the traditional Jewish chronology which was expressed in a rabbinical work, Seder Olam rabbah. The latter might well be the source for the 422 BC date.
-
Satanus
Scholar
I consider that the weight of scholarship favors the 586 date for the destruction of the Temple which would not please Jonsson and his apostate devotees.
I don't know. Do you think that one lousy yr w regards to ancient history is such a big deal? The question is, how would the wt feel about your conclusion?
S