The "Overlapping Generation" Revisited.
-
Similar Content
-
- 83 replies
- 3,172 views
-
Charles Taze Russell: Dates, Expectations, Predictions, Apologies, Response, Relevance 1 2 3 4 14
By JW Insider,
- ctr
- charles taze russell
- (and 5 more)
- 161 replies
- 12,423 views
-
Overlapping generation - simplest way for public to understand
By Srecko Sostar,
- watchtower doctrines
- generation
- (and 1 more)
- 3 replies
- 989 views
-
SECULAR EVIDENCE and NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY (Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, etc.) 1 2 3 4 57
By JW Insider,
- neo-babylonian
- chronology
- (and 9 more)
- 679 replies
- 26,738 views
-
A Difficult Doctrine. With an easy explanation. 1 2 3 4 9
By JW Insider,
- 1914
- chronology
- (and 1 more)
- 103 replies
- 8,240 views
-
- 127 replies
- 11,876 views
-
ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view 1 2 3 4 41
By JW Insider,
- 7 times
- overlapping generation
- (and 10 more)
- 487 replies
- 44,636 views
-
- 0 replies
- 1,064 views
-
- 83 replies
- 5,529 views
-
- 2 replies
- 717 views
-
- 1 reply
- 894 views
-
- 18 replies
- 2,400 views
-
- 4 replies
- 6,458 views
-
Could Someone Be Disfellowshipped For Not Believing In The "Overlapping Generation" JW Doctrine AFTER Being Baptized? 1 2 3 4 6
By PeterR,
- 61 replies
- 7,841 views
-
- 72 replies
- 6,002 views
-
- 0 replies
- 1,912 views
-
-
Recently Browsing
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Popular Contributors
-
Topics
-
-
Posts
-
I have considered all of their arguments. Some even apply VAT 4956 to their scenarios, which is acceptable. Anyone can use secular evidence if they genuinely seek understanding. Nonetheless, whether drawing from scripture or secular history, 607 is a plausible timeframe to believe in. People often misuse words like "destruction", "devastation", and "desolation" in an inconsistent manner, similar to words like "besiege", "destroy", and "sack". When these terms are misapplied to man-made events, they lose their true meaning. This is why with past historians, the have labeled it as follows: First Capture of Jerusalem 606 BC Second Capture of Jerusalem 598 BC Third Capture of Jerusalem 587 BC Without taking into account anything else. Regarding the second account, if we solely rely on secular chronology, the ancient scribes made military adaptations to align with the events recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles. However, the question arises: Can we consider this adaptation as accurate? Scribes sought to include military components in their stories rather than focusing solely on biblical aspects. Similarly, astronomers, who were also scholars, made their observations at the king's request to divine omens, rather than to understand the plight of the Jewish people. Regarding the third capture, we can only speculate because there are no definitive tablets like the Babylonian chronicles that state 598. It is possible that before the great tribulation, Satan will have influenced someone to forge more Babylonian chronicles in order to discredit the truth and present false evidence from the British Museum, claiming that the secular view was right all along. This could include documents supposedly translated after being found in 1935, while others were found in the 1800s. The Jewish antiquities authorities have acknowledged the discovery of forged items, while the British Museum has not made similar acknowledgments. It is evident that the British Museum has been compelled to confess to having looted or stolen artifacts which they are unwilling to return. Consequently, I find it difficult to place my trust in the hands of those who engage in such activities. One of the most notable instances of deception concerning Jewish antiquities was the widely known case of the ossuary belonging to James, the brother of Jesus. I was astonished by the judge's inexplicable justification for acquittal, as it was evident that his primary concern was preserving the reputation of the Jewish nation, rather than unearthing the truth behind the fraudulent artifact. The judge before even acknowledged it. "In his decision, the judge was careful to say his acquittal of Golan did not mean the artifacts were necessarily genuine, only that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Golan had faked them." The burden of proof is essential. This individual not only forged the "Jehoash Tablet," but also cannot be retried for his deceit. Why are they so insistent on its authenticity? To support their narrative about the first temple of Jerusalem. Anything to appease the public, and deceive God. But then again, after the Exodus, when did they truly please God? So, when it comes to secular history, it's like a game of cat and mouse. -
I'm not bothered by being singled out, as you seem to be accustomed to defending and protecting yourselves, but it's a good idea to keep your dog on a leash. Speaking of which, in a different thread, TTH mentioned that it would be great if everyone here shared their life stories. As both of you are the librarians here, I kindly ask you to minimize any signs of intimidation or insincerity. It is you people who need to be "banned" here. However, it is quite evident that you hold a negative influence, which God recognizes, therefore you are banned from your own conscience in His eyes. -
One issue with historian Flavius Josephus is that he suggests that the Royal Captain of the (Guard) can also be regarded as General Nebuzaradan. A confusion arises from Josephus' account of the captives mentioned in Jeremiah, as he claims that they were taken from Egypt instead of Babylon. Since Nebuchadnezzar was occupied in Rilah, he directed his generals to lay siege to Jerusalem. This could potentially account for the numerous dispatches that Nebuchadnezzar would have sent to the west, but the considerable distance to Borsippa still poses a challenge. As a result, the Babylonians managed to gain control of regions such as Aram (Syria), Ammon, and Moab. The only territories that remained were the coastal cities, where the Egyptians held sway. King Josiah decided to form an alliance with Babylon instead of being under Egyptian rule. So, that part of the territory was covered until King Josiah was defeated. It's interesting how they started back then in 4129, but still end up with the same conclusion with Zedekiah's Defeat 3522 607 B.C. 3419 607 B.C. even though their AM is different.
-
-
In the era of the Bible Students within the Watchtower, there were numerous beginnings. It is essential to bear in mind that each congregation functioned autonomously, granting the Elders the freedom to assert their own assertions and interpretations. Most people embraced the principles that Pastor Russell was trying to convey. You could argue that what you are experiencing now, they also experienced back then. The key difference is that unity was interpreted differently. Back then it had value where today there is none. To address your inquiry, while I cannot recall the exact details, it is believed to have been either 4129 or 4126. Some groups, however, adopted Ussher's 4004. It is worth mentioning that they have now discarded it and revised it to either 3954 or 3958, although I personally find little interest in this matter. I believe I encountered this information in the book titled "The Time is at Hand," though it may also be referenced in their convention report. Regardless, this is part of their compelling study series 3. Please take a moment to review and confirm the date. I am currently focused on Riblah. The Bible Students who firmly believe that Israel is the prophetic sign of Armageddon have made noteworthy adjustments to their chronology. They have included significant dates such as 1947/8 and 1967/8, as well as more recent dates. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that, according to their calculations, 2024 holds immense importance. The ongoing tension of Iran targeting Israel directly from its own territory amplifies the gravity of the situation. If their trajectory continues, the subsequent captivating event will occur in 2029, rather than as previously speculated, in 2034 by some.
-
-
Members
-
-
Recent Status Updates
-
Hello Twyla, when will the weekly study material be available. I am a member.· 1 reply
Janice Lewis lewisjanice84@gmail.com
Thank you
-
Hi Twyla,· 0 replies
When will the meeting material for week com Monday 11th March 2024 be available?
You normally post it the week before, normally on a Thursday.
Please let me know if there is any problem.
Best Regards
Chloe
-
-
-
-
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics65.4k
-
Total Posts159.3k
-
-
Member Statistics
Recommended Posts