The 1914 Doctrine and The Threat of the Egibi Business Tablets

by VM44 349 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  The last post by jgnat is simply foolish and not worth any comment. Jeremiah gave a vivid description of the land of Judah during its domination by Babylon and that description of the land as desolate, without an inhabitant, an object of astonishment can only prove that the land was indeed completely and utterly desolate for the period of seventy years. I can add no more to this as his language is quite sufficient for any rational mind to understand the matter. There can be no room for a partial or incomplete or a maybe desolation as most critical scholars amd apostates claim.

  The facts of the matter that 1914 saw the end of the Gentiule Times, the birth of God's Kingdom, the parousia, last days, birth of God's organization, global preaching etc. Scoffers and ridiculers are dismissive of such facts and even their ridicule was also foretold so these matters stand and if you choose to disbelieve or ignore the evidence then that is your choice.

  Please in regard to Luke 21;24 learn a little Greek and learn to do parsing before you parade your ignorance. I simply gave you the literal rendering of the passage and the NWT correctly conveys the meaning that the Gentile Times began in the past, continued in the present and off to the future.

  scholar JW
• 

  Leolaia

  If you were the Babylonians who had just conquered a corner of the Fertile Crescent rich with resources (i.e. Palestine), does it make any sense for you to leave it untouched for the duration of your empire? Or would you try to exploit its resources....just as any other empire would? The archaeological facts show that the Babylonians did just that....particularly as it pertained to olive oil production. Rather than discuss this evidence, you instead lamely say that historians and archaeologists are slowly coming around to a realization of the emptiness of the land... without addressing any of the positive evidence of settlement (which means that it is most unlikely that they will ever approach your preconceived belief that the land was entirely vacated without a single inhabitant).

  As for Jeremiah's language....have you ever heard of this handy literary device that authors at times use for dramatic effect called.... hyperbole? Surely no allowance can be made for that, right?
• 

  scholar

  Leolaia

  I do not regard the language of Jeremiah as a literary device to appease modern day critics or apostates. His language is direct and specific and fulfills the treaty-curses of Leviticus and Deuteronomy wherein the land would be desolate until its sabbaths were repaid. Josephus also confirms that the terrritory of Judah was a desert for seventy years so there is compelling evidence that the land was completely and not partially desolated.

  scholar JW
• 

  Narkissos

  Perhaps scholar is dead by now and his computer generates the responses automatically...

  Scholar, please, say something (else).
• 

  Jeffro

  The last post by jgnat is simply foolish and not worth any comment. Jeremiah gave a vivid description of the land of Judah during its domination by Babylon and that description of the land as desolate, without an inhabitant, an object of astonishment can only prove that the land was indeed completely and utterly desolate for the period of seventy years. I can add no more to this as his language is quite sufficient for any rational mind to understand the matter. There can be no room for a partial or incomplete or a maybe desolation as most critical scholars amd apostates claim.

  An interesting attempt at misdirection, 'scholar', however... of the nine times that the expression "without an inhabitant" occurs in the bible, none of them make reference to a period of 70 years in its entirety, or to any other specific duration. None of the words that are used with reference to the 70 years requires depopulation. Whether Jerusalem was depopulated for a period of time of unspecified duration is irrelevant.

  The facts of the matter that 1914 saw the end of the Gentiule Times, the birth of God's Kingdom, the parousia, last days, birth of God's organization, global preaching etc. Scoffers and ridiculers are dismissive of such facts and even their ridicule was also foretold so these matters stand and if you choose to disbelieve or ignore the evidence then that is your choice.

  Anyone can make up some kind of fulfilment of something already written and state that the rediculers are those mentioned in the prophecy. This is not proof. The facts are that the phrase "Gentile Times" is misapplied; the events attributed to the supposed fulfilment were several months too early; there is no tangible evidedence whatsoever of the "birth of God's Kingdom", the "parousia" happened at all; the organization already existed prior to 1914 and was not 'born' in some other fashion; the preaching work is a reaction to what is written, not a fulfilment.

  Please in regard to Luke 21;24 learn a little Greek and learn to do parsing before you parade your ignorance. I simply gave you the literal rendering of the passage and the NWT correctly conveys the meaning that the Gentile Times began in the past, continued in the present and off to the future.

  Your supposed literal rendering attempts to apply different senses in English of the same Greek words in the original, and is therefore invalid. Esomai means "will", referrring to an event that is yet to occur, as demonstrated by all of its four appearances in the verse.
• 

  Jeffro

  I do not regard the language of Jeremiah as a literary device to appease modern day critics or apostates. His language is direct and specific and fulfills the treaty-curses of Leviticus and Deuteronomy wherein the land would be desolate until its sabbaths were repaid.

  Indeed, Jeremiah is quite direct and specific when he states that Babylon's king will be judged once the seventy years have been fulfilled.

  Josephus also confirms that the terrritory of Judah was a desert for seventy years so there is compelling evidence that the land was completely and not partially desolated.

  Actually Josephus says that Judah was a desert during the seventy years. But that the temple was desolate for fifty years.
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Indeed the king of Babylon was to receive the same fate that befell the kings of Judah namely devastation of the land because Judah was the first to experience such devastation. Clearly, from verse 12 of Jeremiah ch.25, Babylon was to become a desolate place to times indefinite and that did not occur at 539 but in the course of time Babylon became a desolate and remains thus to this very day.

  Josephus in all of the many references except one states that the land, city, temple would be a desolate for seventy years from the Fall until the Return. The only two passages that refers to the seventy years are in Jeremiah which in ch. 25 does connect the matter. In 2 Chronicles 36:20-22 the seventy years is equated with the desolation of the land in no uncertain manner. Also, Daniel 9:2 makes a similar straightforward, positive connection. The Chronicler and Daniel lived much closer to the timeframe than we do so their testimony is much more credible than the armchair critic or apostate today.

  If Jeremiah states that the land would be desolate without an inhabitant and that then could sufficiently describe a 'depopulation' then what words should Jeremiah have used? Jeremiah's language can only be suggestive of total and absolute depopulation even if the modern critic cannot find absolute evidence for it at the present time.

  The matter of events in 1914 and how these fulfilled prophecy are matters of faith and interpretation but no one can ignore the physical realities on earth at that time so there is evidence for all to see and it boils down to personal heart and attitude. The ridiculer and fool can never be convinced so that becomes his choice.

  I repeat you need to parse the Greek before you can give a meaningful comment on the Luke 21;24 so parse the verbs and then you will know waht is truly meant. You have access to the greatest Bible translation ever made available to mankind, truly a gift from God, so then use the splendid NWT and you will become truly wise.

  scholar JW
• 

  ICBehindtheCurtain

  You have access to the greatest Bible translation ever made available to mankind, truly a gift from God, so then use the splendid NWT and you will become truly wise.

  BUUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

  Scholar surely, you're just saying that right? You do know that good ole Freddy was the writing committee and translator although he barely knew Hebrew.

  IC (of the Scholar can't be for real class)
• 

  ellderwho

  You have access to the greatest Bible translation ever made available to mankind, truly a gift from God, so then use the splendid NWT and you will become truly wise.

  scholar JW

  Funny the Dubs used the ole King jimmy longer then the Nwt. I guess Jehovah researched the first gift and updated to the nwt. C'mon Neil.
• 

  Jeffro

  Indeed the king of Babylon was to receive the same fate that befell the kings of Judah namely devastation of the land because Judah was the first to experience such devastation. Clearly, from verse 12 of Jeremiah ch.25, Babylon was to become a desolate place to times indefinite and that did not occur at 539 but in the course of time Babylon became a desolate and remains thus to this very day.

  Regardless of for how long Babylon would be desolate, it doesn't shift the beginning point of such desolation from being after the seventy years had ended, as is clearly stated at Jeremiah 25:12, with no possible alternative interpretation.

  Josephus in all of the many references except one states that the land, city, temple would be a desolate for seventy years from the Fall until the Return. The only two passages that refers to the seventy years are in Jeremiah which in ch. 25 does connect the matter. In 2 Chronicles 36:20-22 the seventy years is equated with the desolation of the land in no uncertain manner. Also, Daniel 9:2 makes a similar straightforward, positive connection. The Chronicler and Daniel lived much closer to the timeframe than we do so their testimony is much more credible than the armchair critic or apostate today.

  For a start I wouldn't really say that Josephus makes "many" references to the seventy years. There're something like 9. They don't require that there were absolutely no inhabitants for the entire 70-year period. What is more, Josephus explicitly indicates in his account that he agrees with the Babylonian sources he quotes at length. The end-point of the seventy years referred to in Jeremiah is inextricably bound to the fall of Babylon in 539. There is no possible way to validly interpret the scripture in some other way, as the language used is quite definite and expresses a simple order of events. In contrast, you insist that the terms such as "desolate" used to describe the seventy years mean complete depopulation, but actually the original-language words do not.

  If Jeremiah states that the land would be desolate without an inhabitant and that then could sufficiently describe a 'depopulation' then what words should Jeremiah have used? Jeremiah's language can only be suggestive of total and absolute depopulation even if the modern critic cannot find absolute evidence for it at the present time.

  There is not one reference in the bible to Jerusalem being "without an inhabitant" for seventy years. As has been indicated over and over again, the Hebrew words that do describe the seventy years simply do not require depopulation, any more than when the same words were used to describe the state of Jerusalem's walls when examined by Nehemiah when there quite definitely were inhabitants.

  The matter of events in 1914 and how these fulfilled prophecy are matters of faith and interpretation but no one can ignore the physical realities on earth at that time so there is evidence for all to see and it boils down to personal heart and attitude. The ridiculer and fool can never be convinced so that becomes his choice.

  Which 'realities' do you claim fulfilled the prophecy at the time? There was no fulfilment "with suddenness and great force" in October of 1914. Nothing happened on time whatsoever. An earlier event that coincidentally happened in the same year was awkwardly said to fit the prophecy. Your reasoning of "personal heart and attitude" is meaningless (even after removing the superfluous "and"); to suggest that anyone who doesn't accept Witness doctrines has a bad heart attitude is a baseless cop-out.

  I repeat you need to parse the Greek before you can give a meaningful comment on the Luke 21;24 so parse the verbs and then you will know waht is truly meant. You have access to the greatest Bible translation ever made available to mankind, truly a gift from God, so then use the splendid NWT and you will become truly wise.

  According to the transliteration in the Society's Kingdom Interlinear, the same form of esomai occurs four times in the verse as I have previously indicated, and its meaning cannot be changed for only one of the instances (as you would have us believe) without applying the same rule to the other instances (and applying your definition to all of them destroys any temporal context for the verse). As far as this verse is concerned, the NWT is possibly as good as any other translation (though doesn't really have grounds to be called especially "splendid"). The NWT provides no more justification than any other translation for suggesting that the original text means anything other than the actual meaning of esomai, which refers to an event that is yet to occur.