Well i thought it was interesting!
Paul
digderidoo
JoinedPosts by digderidoo
-
103
Jeremiah and the 70 years. Jewish exile or Babylonian rule?
by digderidoo ini have never until a few days ago been able to reconcile the 70 year prophecy with the 587/6 bce date for jerusalems destruction.
although a post was about this in a previous thread by a@g , i would like to explore this more.. when the 70 years are applied to babylonian rule, rather than the jewish exile everything seems to make sense.. to ellaborate for those who haven't come across it, this is how 587/6 does match the 70 year prophecy.. i hope a@g doesn't mind but i have cut and paste his post:-.
the 587 date does match the bible.... (jeremiah 25:11) 11 and all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of babylon seventy years.".
-
-
-
103
Jeremiah and the 70 years. Jewish exile or Babylonian rule?
by digderidoo ini have never until a few days ago been able to reconcile the 70 year prophecy with the 587/6 bce date for jerusalems destruction.
although a post was about this in a previous thread by a@g , i would like to explore this more.. when the 70 years are applied to babylonian rule, rather than the jewish exile everything seems to make sense.. to ellaborate for those who haven't come across it, this is how 587/6 does match the 70 year prophecy.. i hope a@g doesn't mind but i have cut and paste his post:-.
the 587 date does match the bible.... (jeremiah 25:11) 11 and all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of babylon seventy years.".
-
-
digderidoo
I have never until a few days ago been able to reconcile the 70 year prophecy with the 587/6 BCE date for Jerusalems destruction. Although a post was about this in a previous thread by A@G , i would like to explore this more.
When the 70 years are applied to Babylonian rule, rather than the Jewish exile everything seems to make sense.
To ellaborate for those who haven't come across it, this is how 587/6 does match the 70 year prophecy.
I hope A@G doesn't mind but i have cut and paste his post:-
The 587 date does match the Bible...
(Jeremiah 25:11) 11 And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years."’
The 1st time the Bible mentions the 70 years period it mentions that Babylon would dominate other nations for 70 years. It does not say here that the Jews would be in Babylon for 70 years, although this is an idea in Jeremriah 29:10 (NWT):
(Jeremiah 29:10) 10 "For this is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to YOU people, and I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place.’
However, all other Bible translations that I know of translate use the word "for" instead of "at"...
i.e.:NIV: 10 This is what the LORD says: "When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my gracious promise to bring you back to this place.
This translation harmonizes with Jer 25:11 with the idea that 70 years refers to Babylon's time, not the Jews exile.
Babylon's domination ended in 539BCE, a date agreed upon by the WTS. This would mean that the 70 years period would have to start in 609BCE. What happened in that year? Babylon attacked Assyria in 609 BCE.
This would harmonize with both secular history and the Bible. Josephus also mentions that the Jews were in Babylon for 50 years, not 70. So it all coincides.
In 609BCE Babylon attacked the last stronghold of Assyria with the capture of Harran. Ashur-uballit the last Assyrian king then disappears from history. This then meant "nations will have to serve the King of Babylon"(Jer25:11)
A criticism of this application is that Jer 25:1 places the year of this prophecy in 605BCE when it states," in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar". Some use this as saying that it must therefore not be a prophecy as 4 years have already passed. However even if this is written 4 years into the 70 years prophecy as v1 would suggest, i still fail to see how this is not prophecy.
Upon further research i have come across this link, clearly showing a Babylonian rule of 70 years.
http://www.science.co.il/Maps-Near-East-Empires.asp
When the application of the 70 year prophecy is placed with Babylonian rule, rather than Jewish exile it all seems to make sense to me.
I would appreciate other thoughts and comments on this.
Paul
-
58
What is your strangest "supernatural" JW story?
by donny ini had just became a witness and a guy i worked with, who was also a jw, told me a story that actually made me laugh and i think it upset him a bit.
the storys were almost always in the third person.
it went as follows.. this brothers wife and him were sitting at the kingdom hall on the end seats of the row next to the back of the room.
-
-
digderidoo
An elder in my old cong used to be a missionary in Laos in the 60's. He claims a man walked in the hall, or shack, and brought in with him a stone carving of an animal. This animal proceeded to walk up and down his arm, then became stone again.
I was only 14 when he told me this and i believed it.
Paul
-
12
I feel de-programmed
by digderidoo ini have posted my thread regarding that i went back to a few meetings.
within that the debate came up about 607 v 587.. for me i have seen many criticisms against the wt society that i agree with.
but i have never been able to find conclusive or 100% proof that doctrines or beliefs are wrong.
-
-
digderidoo
Has anyone else had a moment like this? Be interesting to know how it occurred.
Paul
-
25
Words in other languages which have different meanings to when we say them
by The Nothing Man indoes anybody know of any words, which are spelt and pronounced the same, which are used in other languages but which mean completely different things?
as an example (which doesn't work i know) love in english means affection, but love in say, spanish, means hate?
dumb example i know, but do you catch my drift?
-
-
digderidoo
Fancy a shag?
Paul
-
12
I feel de-programmed
by digderidoo ini have posted my thread regarding that i went back to a few meetings.
within that the debate came up about 607 v 587.. for me i have seen many criticisms against the wt society that i agree with.
but i have never been able to find conclusive or 100% proof that doctrines or beliefs are wrong.
-
-
digderidoo
I have posted my thread regarding that i went back to a few meetings. Within that the debate came up about 607 v 587.
For me i have seen many criticisms against the WT society that i agree with. But i have never been able to find conclusive or 100% proof that doctrines or beliefs are wrong. For me i always thought that 587 was the correct date for the fall of Jerusalem but could never harmonise it with the 70 year Jewish exile. This always left me thinking that maybe, just maybe the 607 date is right.
So thanks to Lance (A@G) who posted how that 70 year exile could apply to the Babylonian rule, suddenly the penny dropped. I have now looked at critics of this view and cannot find any substance to the Jewish exile argument. Do you know that Eureka moment? That moment when you think thats it! Suddenly it all harmonised to me. Yes conclusively the WT are wrong! It's took me 11 years but finally i can see the proof for myself that the WT have it wrong on doctrine.
If they are 100% wrong on this then they are 100% wrong on other stuff too. It got me thinking about what an effect the WT has had on my life. On Friday at work, i was thinking all day about this. You see i am a window cleaner and with every window i was cleaning i was thinking i wouldn't be doing this if i hadn't have been a JW. But i must move forward and look to the future, rather than look back. I start a part time law course in October which i have posted about here, so on completion i can put those ladders away.
I have always had a firm anti WT stance. Many of their doctrines and beliefs do not sit well with me. But i could never say for 100% certainty, only 99.99999999% if that makes any sense. Finally crossing that line feels empowering.
Paul
-
11
Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection
by tsar_robles inhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/middleeast/06stone.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin
july 6, 2008 tablet ignites debate on messiah and resurrection by ethan bronner jerusalem a three-foot-tall tablet with 87 lines of hebrew that scholars believe dates from the decades just before the birth of jesus is causing a quiet stir in biblical and archaeological circles, especially because it may speak of a messiah who will rise from the dead after three days.
if such a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to a developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of jesus, since it suggests that the story of his death and resurrection was not unique but part of a recognized jewish tradition at the time.
-
-
digderidoo
Paul
-
74
Solid Non-Biblical Proof That Jesus Existed
by White Dove ini have not heard of one single (non-shroud of turin) piece of evidence that jesus ever walked the earth.
please give me non-biblical and non-shroud of turin evidence that has been found that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the jesus of the bible walked the earth.. is that too much to ask?
the bible says it happened but gives no proof to support its statements.. the shroud of turin has not been established as proof of anything beyond a good wax and dye job.. .
-
-
digderidoo
In all seriousness the one thing that makes me believe that he existed is the year. Why would our years be based upon a man that never existed. I am not saying Jesus is God or God's son, but he must have been an important man to have the calender based upon him.
Paul
-
10
Critical Reading
by megs inone of the most important things i learned in university was critical reading... when you read something, look at who's writing it, are they credible, do they have a known bias?
if they are quoting, is the quote taken in context?
the wts seem to be masters at trying to curtail critical thinking because then their bias, credibility and context would be shot.!
-
-
digderidoo
For me i began this critical thinking of WT publications when i started college. I started studying a bit of philosophy, which makes you question even the most basic. It always amazes me when JW's quote a particular scripture (can't think which one) that basically says how people went out to check for themselves the teachings. They say that JW's must do this too, but only within the confines of using WT publications.
When i started university my critical thinking really kicked in and made me question everything that i was taught.
Paul
-
89
Europe must stand up to Islam NOW
by B_Deserter injust read this today: .
http://news.aol.co.uk/prayer-refusal-pupils-disciplined/article/20080704162734190726835 .
an education authority is investigating claims that two school pupils were punished for refusing to kneel down and pray to allah during a religious education lesson.
-
-
digderidoo
I read about his a couple of days ago. This is political correctness gone mad. Britain has such a diverse culture the education system has to make allowances for these kids. My kids go to a multicultural school, predominently Sikhs, i have no issues with them joining in Divali and celebrations such as these. I think it only adds to the kids acceptence of the diverseness within this society, especially in the Midlands where i live.
However, the line has to be drawn in forcing kids to pray or take part in a religious, rather than cultural practice. This is diabolical, how certain decision makers within the education system think that by doing this they are encompassing all cultures.
As for Sharia law in this country:-
llbh, I was referring to the recent decision by Lord Chief Justice Lord Philips that "Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law." The problem is is that this ruling opens the door wide open for the most barbaric Islamic practices, such as honor killings, forced female circumcision, as well as forced marriages. The Chief Justice basically is saying that English law does not apply there, at least it could easily be construed to mean that.
There is no debate in this country as to whether Sharia law is going to supercede English law. Honor killings and forced female circumcision is not what this debate is about. If you think that allowing Muslims to practice Shariah law in this country is going to bring about these things you speak of you really have missed the point. Muslims in this country use the the elders in the Mosque in a similar way as JW's uses elders. For example with reference to marriage, a Muslim may get a divorce by the law of the land, but they may not with reference to their religion, the same for JW's. The debate in this country is how to allow shariah law run ALONGSIDE English law, not over and above it. To say that this will allow honor killings and forced female circumsion is scaremongering.
There is a large Muslim population in this country and IMO their views should be taken into consideration, whether that be in the education system, family life, etc, but not when it is in direct contradiction to the law of the land.
Paul
