looking forward to the first episode of this new computer-game to tv-show adaptation that airs this sunday.. it has pedro pascal from got and the madalorian plus bella ramsey, also from got, who played the bad-ass lady mormont.. lots of it was filmed near us, some right round the corner (there's quite a few productions film around here, we get ice-cream near where they filmed scenes from interstellar).. this show is a post-apocalyptic zombie series and early reviews are that it's awesome, so i'm hoping for good things, especially since walking dead jumped the shark a few seasons ago and we gave up on it.. anyone else planning to watch?.
@Simon:
Watching too. These days I'm looking for a decent story. I liked Episode 3. I know a few people that were ticked off by it being a gay couple, not because the story was bad, but just because anything like that seems as if it's forced into the script. But I have to say, I don't think they forced it. It wasn't the main focus. They put effort into the characters, not the politics. So, I was ok with it.
Episode 4 and 5- watched those too. Have you?
i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
@DD :
Maybe they should consider hiring you. You aren't anointed, and you seem to have some ideas. Plus I hear they can pay in quality liquor.
i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
Imagine a biography about John. In the biography, in response to a question about after dinner activities, John's grandmother says:
"John will clean the kitchen, and the family will take a walk for 30 minutes."
Employing scholar's method of "exegesis", clearly (because John is the main subject by context - his biography), this should be understood as John cleaning the kitchen for 30 minutes while simulateously taking a walk for same amount of time. And even though the next paragraph in John's biography lists each family member on the walk (some 20+), the writer definitely didn't mean it as family, but rather the main subject (John) only on the walk.
Also, there is no way John could start cleaning 15 min into the walk, as it's not the family, but John only, it's all 30 min.
i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
According to you. But the Bible says 70.
The Bible says 70 years of servitude of nations (plural). You are attempting to make an equivalence between "70 years" and "desolation". It's nowhere in the Bible, especially Jeremiah 25:11.
i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
Utter nonsense. The text is quite ambiguous according to scholars and commentators for a number of translations into English are possible based on the Hebrew text. The immediate context proves that the subject in view is not Babylon or the nations but Judah.
This is simply your opinion for I would argue that the 70 years of servitude and desolation apply both to Judah and the nations.
Grammar won't help you because the text as it reads is ambiguous so you have read this verse in context and the subject in focus is the Land -Judah.
Servitude or 'serving Babylon under Neb's reign took different two different forms , first , one of vassalage under a present monarch and an Exile whereupon the Monarch was deposed and forced into Exile to Babylon.
i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
Sure it is. That is what the verse says. Jeremiah was applying God’s word in Leviticus and the irony of the curse for breaking the covenant.
i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
To fulfill, or finish, 70 years. It's the same language. There is no equivalence there.
Read it carefully.
Note: Again, you are attempting to set up internal contradictions in the Bible.
i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
Daniel 9:2 — 2 in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of years mentioned in the word of Jehovah to Jeremiah the prophet to fulfill the desolation of Jerusalem, namely, 70 years.
i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
In the same verse, yes. But there are two grammatically independent statements, separating elements 1 and 2 from 3 and 4. Element 3 and 4 are in the second half of a compound sentence. Some Bibles render this verse with a separating semicolon (making the separation stronger than ", and"). Some some Bibles just make this verse two separate sentences completely.
'And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years". - Jer. 25:11, NWT, 2013 .
You will notice that there are four elements in this verse:
1. Land (Judah) to be desolate
2. Land to become an object of horror
3. Nations to serve Babylon
4. Period of 70 years
All of these elements are tied together in a single verse, ...
What does servitude mean? Ch 27 is pretty explicit, listing nations, and encouraging every nation that doesn't want to be destroyed to "bring its neck under the yoke" of Babylon.
i'm sure this has been discussed, but 1914 has to go away.
instead of, the overlapping generation teaching, they should have just ditched 1914. .
they should have done that a long time ago with 1975. it's the last of the teachings in the charles taze russell era.. i'm thinking they just will stop talking about it, and it will be out of the mind of the rank and file loyal witnesses .
What they need is a young Fred Franz. Someone new, someone smart. Someone capable of spinning new doctrinal webs. Then perhaps there is a way of saying, "607 is wrong, and so is 1914, but in reality, we were right all along"...
