Jump to content
The World News Media


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Anna

  1. Hmmmm.....I can see you discussing 🤔 On second thought, maybe not...you're just making statements
  2. The only way anything to do with the flood and the aftermath is possible, is that supernatural powers had to be involved. When all those animals came out of the ark I doubt there was any food for them after the earth had been under water for nearly a year. I don't think this reasoning (supernatural power) is far fetched if you believe that supernatural powers were used to gather all the animals into the ark, and preserve them and the people in the ark for nearly a year in the first place....without all dying of malnutrition and suffocation. If we believe God created everything, how hard could
  3. Yes, and can we know for sure? Of course -- but the time of servitude ended in 539 BCE when there was no longer a Babylonian Empire to be in servitude to. Right, but as you said it's all up to the definition, and it depends whether you are going to use servitude or desolation as your decisive circumstance. If you are going to use desolation, as Daniel did, then it could be said that Jerusalem was desolate until the Jews returned and started building. It seems there is quite a bit of ambiguity and leeway in the interpretation of the beginning and even the end, and ev
  4. In one of the links you say: "Because Jews were taken into exile in 605/4, 597, 587 and 582 BCE, and released in 538, there was not a single period of exile or captivity. Therefore it is wrong to speak of a 70-year exile or captivity. Similarly it is wrong to speak of a 70-year desolation of Judah......" Although there was not a single deportation, and the desolation of Jerusalem and Judah occurred in stages, doesn't mean that we should disregard Jeremiah's 70 years as one continuous block of time, I don't think. That was the time set for a specific period, with a beginning and an
  5. While I have been formulating a reply to Ann’s last post on here, (which I hadn’t posted yet and probably won’t bother in view of your comments here). I had been noticing blanket statements in some of the WT publications regarding some dates. I suppose this is what you mean when you and others refer to intellectual dishonesty. In my reply to Ann I was trying to reconcile two points of view for the same event, one of servitude and the other of desolation. She says that it is “this (mis)understanding (desolation) that locks Watchtower into its chronological scheme." In my reply I wanted to
  6. True, but I think WT is looking at this from the point of view of how it affected the Israelites, since the scriptures are concerned with God's people and how surrounding political and world situations impacted them, not everyone else. In this case I think WT is correct to think that way. Yes, that's what I wondered, and this is where I found myself favoring Ezra over Jeremiah in order to make 607 fit 🤪. (I am not familiar with how WT solved that problem. I will have to take a look....) Yes. Thanks.
  7. Thanks for admitting that. Right. Which means to be on the safe side,, it would be better to start at the end of the 70 years, which the Bible is more specific about. according to..2 Chronicles and Ezra .. this happened in the first year of Cyrus. (But then the question is should we count as the return the decree to rebuild, or should we count Cyrus' conquest of Babylon). Well yes, I will not deny that. Honestly, for a lay person like me, a few years plus minus do not present a big problem. I am just chuffed that something written thousands of years ago, whether it be Ba
  8. Yes, I realize the 70 years are are not contingent on repopulation. But according to Ezra, it could have been the decree of Cyrus that signaled the end of the 70 years, and as you said earlier, that happened in 537 . : "in order that Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah would be fulfilled, Jehovah stirred the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his kingdom, which he also put in writing, saying:2“This is what King Cyrus of Persia says, ‘Jehovah the God of the heavens has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has commissioned me to build him a house in Jerusale
  9. I think we both know that he would have been "better off" had he not written any letters. He would have been viewed as "inactive" and he would not have been shunned. But he wanted to let the elders know how bad the org is, and this is why he no longer wants any part of it. What he didn't realize was that no one would announce that he voluntarily left, but that the announcement could make it look like he was disfellowshipped because he did something bad. The days when a disfelliwshiping and dissasociation were announced as two separate things are gone. Much to his chargrin....
  10. This says nothing about laying the foundations of the temple. It does say something about returning to Jerusalem to restore true worship, I suppose the decree to rebuild the temple was as good as laying the foundations? Insight 1 p.417 (captivity) "Early in 537 B.C.E., Persian King Cyrus II issued a decree permitting the captives to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. (2Ch 36:20, 21; Ezr 1:1-4) "
  11. Yes, the 70 years were a given, so you will still probably agree that the 70 years of servitude to Babylon, whether Jerusalem was to be destroyed or not, or whether some of the Jews stayed or not, had to start somewhere. Counting back 70 years from the return of the Jews to Jerusalem (or the decree by Cyrus to rebuild the temple) could still be an option to pinpoint when the 70 years started or not?
  12. Again, when does one pinpoint exactly when to start counting the Jews as "having returned to Jerusalem"? The WT article chose the date when true worship was resumed, albite as you say; on makeshift altars. I assume that would have been about 6 months prior?
  13. Yes. You try not to figure out exactly which deportation Jeremiah was applying the 70 years to, because as you know there was more than one deportation. So to be on the safe side, you count the 70 years back from when the Jews returned to Jerusalem and started rebuilding the temple. Also, I am thinking that just because the letter was sent to specific people, doesn't mean that one should have started counting from exactly that time from when the letter was delivered. The 70 years it seems were applicable to when all of Judea lay desolate and the land was unworked. This could naturally be
  14. I don't think so. Excerpt from WT 11/10/1 When were the Jews released? The decree ending their exile was issued in “the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia.” (See the box “A Pivotal Date in History.”) Thus, by the fall of 537 B.C.E., the Jews had returned to Jerusalem to restore true worship.—Ezra 1:1-5; 2:1; 3:1-5.
  15. Not that I'm aware of. See if you can find appropriate passages. Sorry, I meant Jeremiah, Jer 29:10
  16. I know we arrive at that date by counting 70 years back from 537, (Cyrus' 'restoration of the Jews to their homeland and the start of the rebuilding of the temple (I think)). Doesn't Isaiah mention 70 years of captivity to the Babylonians and the desolation of the land? And didn't the rebuilding of the temple start in 537?
  17. Yes, I know. But there was talk of 1914, and the gentile times ending, even though nothing like what he expected happened. I also know that since all expectations about it failed, 1914 got swept under the carpet for a long time, to be "resurrected" some time in the 1940's. JW history is not quite honest about that, and gives the impression that although Russell was disappointed, 1914 was always believed to be the year Jesus was enthroned, which as we know is not true. Nevertheless, it doesn't bother me too much (the dishonesty does) because I expect understanding to progress over time. It
  18. It seems that is not the concern (of WT) whether someone's bad rule is used for the sake of illustration (by Jehovah) for a secondary fulfillment of something that is good. Cameron states: "The prophecy in Daniel chapter 4 was given so that people would know that “the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind.” This in itself indicates that the prophecy has a bigger fulfillment than just the one involving Nebuchadnezzar. And throughout the book of Daniel, we find prophecies about the establishment of God’s Kingdom under the rulership of his Son. Do you think it’s reasonable to conclud
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.