Matthew 24. Is the INVISIBLE PAROUSIA doctrine based on less likely, special definitions of SIGN, PAROUSIA, CONCLUSION, LIGHTNING, GENERATION, and "GENTILE TIMES"?

[Anna]

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Everyone gets one failed end-of-the-world date per lifetime. 

Is that like 15 minutes of fame?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

TTH

As usual, your response is a projection of your OWN inadequacies, and made up from thin air with no facts ...  or even a rational basis.

You are pontificating from colossal ignorance of any facts, and deliberately misrepresenting history as it really happened on the ground to support your twisted personal agenda.

At least your predilection for fantasy and irrelevancy  is 100% consistent!

[Arauna]

Some people here think we are not worthy 'sparring' partners.  I studied all this years ago- I can give you the date of the Fall of Nineveh 612 BCE after the fall of Ashur without looking it up on the internet.

As I said before, the secular dates are not set in stone because the Assyrian dates are set to correlate with Egyptian dates. The dynasty of Babylon FOLLOWED the Assyrian kings who controlled the region before the Babylonians and hence the Babylonian dates have to follow on the Assyrian dates .....and their dates are not 100% accurate - it is only Archeologist opinions. ..... so people on this forum  are continually referring to dates that are in line with current secular thought which are NOT 100% accurate no matter how hard you insist on it.

If you are an engineer and you look for the root cause of the problem one does not go searching around the middle - one works back from where the problem started.  I satisfied myself a long time ago that the organization has it right (give a year or two)...... because the ULTIMATE proof after all is in the signs on the ground - in 1914.  NO ONE CAN SPAR ABOUT A BETTER DATE THAN 1914 ON THE GROUND!  So what is the use of 'sparring' about any other SECULAR dates for the fall of Babylon when it brings you to a date in our time when NOTHING significant happened on the ground after 1914, until WW2 - and WW2 was a continuation of what happened in WW1.

It is just an exercise of self gratification and having someone to 'spar' with because some people spar with the 'slave' all the time!

The Babylonians went into exile for 70 years because they did not observe the Sabbath years in which the land was to lay fallow - for no other reasons- we all know that.

 

[Arauna]

Yea, I was in the Organization in 1975 (was baptized 1973) and while brothers and sisters were speculating about it all the time in private I never heard it mentioned on the platform and I did not see it in important books we were studying.  Many were thinking that the day of "rest" would start (1000 reign). 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

11 hours ago, Arauna said:

because the ULTIMATE proof after all is in the signs on the ground - in 1914.  NO ONE CAN SPAR ABOUT A BETTER DATE THAN 1914 ON THE GROUND!  So what is the use of 'sparring' about any other SECULAR dates for the fall of Babylon when it brings you to a date in our time when NOTHING significant happened on the ground after 1914, until WW2 - and WW2 was a continuation of what happened in WW1.

Absolutely. Revisionists try to redefine WWI as just "one of those things." The eventual next step will be to redefine the last days. ISIS attacks, North Korea, sexbots programmed to 'rape,' gender-hopping, addictive drug pandemics, and universal FAKE NEWS will all be just "another one of those things."

[TiagoBelager]

JWI,

Assuming that the posts are not numbered -- because I cannot find any such scheme here --, I can say that I wish that they were, because then I could reference exactly any posts I have edited. All I can say now is that I made an edit of the post I made just previous to my post of this one you are now reading. If you intend making response to it, please make sure you have read the (last) edited version. 

Tiago

 

[JW Insider]

18 hours ago, Arauna said:

Some people here think we are not worthy 'sparring' partners.  I studied all this years ago- I can give you the date of the Fall of Nineveh 612 BCE after the fall of Ashur without looking it up on the internet.

I hope no one felt slighted by Anna's remark about sparring partners. I certainly don't feel that anyone is at any kind of disadvantage, especially not you, or @AllenSmith, or  @Gone Fishing (Eoin), or @TiagoBelager, and others. (The last is a new name to me who impresses me with his maturity, organized thoughts, and style.) Resources are so easily available to everyone. All this information is available on the Internet, in the Bible, in Bible commentaries, Bible dictionaries. Even a close study of the changes and contradictions over the years, using ONLY the Watch Tower publications could lead one to the same conclusions being discussed here. If this were some completely esoteric issue that very few people could know about, then it might be wrong to even question it in a forum such as this, because it would simply be a matter of someone pontificating about a belief with no fair opportunity for anyone to respond, add to it, or discredit it. If we don't bring it up, our Bible students will rarely bring it up. And our overall message has been simplified somewhat so that the appeal is less and less to persons with the kind of educational background who would care to question it, anyway.

But on the other hand, it's dishonest to just make a claim that goes against the evidence without an explanation for WHY we are dismissing the evidence. It would be exactly as if there was a religion that started claiming that World War I started in 1894, not 1914. If we were in such a religion, we could claim it in 6,666 different places in various religious publications, and say that our Bible interpretation tells us this is true, so therefore we know it's true, and we could tell everyone who challenges it, that they are putting secular dates above the Bible dates. If someone were to challenge it with encyclopedias, coins, receipts, then they might be told they were being haughty. In religion, the leaders and members have the prerogative to do this.  But what would we think if the religion just started publishing the dates of everything prior to World War 1 by adding 20 years to it, and didn't offer an explanation? 

That's pretty much what happens even to things like the date for the "Fall of Nineveh" in 612. Because for 1914 to work, the Watch Tower publications also need to change this to 632, adding 20 years to it.

*** it-2 p. 505 Nineveh ***
Therefore, the capture of Nineveh (about seven years earlier) in the 14th year of Nabopolassar’s reign would fall in the year 632 B.C.E.

*** it-1 p. 205 Assyria ***
The fall of the empire. The Babylonian Chronicle B.M. (British Museum) 21901 recounts the fall of Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, following a siege carried out by the combined forces of Nabopolassar, the king of Babylon, and of Cyaxares the Mede during the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.): “The city [they turned] into ruin-hills and hea[ps (of debris)].” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 1974, p. 305; brackets and parentheses theirs.) Thus the fierce Assyrian Empire came to an ignominious end.—Isa 10:12, 24-26; 23:13; 30:30-33; 31:8, 9; Na 3:1-19; Zep 2:13.
According to the same chronicle, in the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.), Ashur-uballit II attempted to continue Assyrian rule from Haran as his capital city. This chronicle states, under the 17th year of Nabopolassar (629 B.C.E.): “In the month Du?uzu, Ashur-uballit, king of Assyria, (and) a large [army of] E[gy]pt [who had come to his aid] crossed the river (Euphrates) and [marched on] to conquer Harran.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 305; brackets and parentheses theirs.)

There is no evidence to move this from 612 to 632, but the Watch Tower publications have no choice, because all these dates are tied together, and must be manipulated so that 1914 still works.

Remember that it doesn't matter at all to me. It's our publications that say that the SECULAR date given for the end of the Babylonian empire in 539 is so accurate that they call it "assured" and even "absolute." That's the Watchtower that called this date "absolute." And therefore, our publications pretend that dates like 632 BCE for the fall of Nineveh are "set in stone." If you read the article on "Assyria" in the Insight book, you would even think that Babylonian Chronicle "21901" provides evidence for 632 BCE. You might also think that the same chronicle states that Haran was conquered in 629 even though all the archaeological evidence consistently points to 609 and no archaeological evidence points to 629. In fact, the publications continue to insist on these dates where they simply add 20 to the secular dates without any explanation in 99% of the cases. 

18 hours ago, Arauna said:

As I said before, the secular dates are not set in stone because the Assyrian dates are set to correlate with Egyptian dates. The dynasty of Babylon FOLLOWED the Assyrian kings who controlled the region before the Babylonians and hence the Babylonian dates have to follow on the Assyrian dates .....and their dates are not 100% accurate - it is only Archeologist opinions. ..... so people on this forum  are continually referring to dates that are in line with current secular thought which are NOT 100% accurate no matter how hard you insist on it.

By the way, you might think that the Babylonian dates depend on the Assyrian (which depended on the Egyptian). But this isn't true. Those TEN THOUSAND pieces of evidence related to the Neo-Babylonian period include astronomical diaries and other interlocking tablet evidence that consistently supports, what the Watchtower calls the "accepted chronology." I'm not claiming that the Neo-Babylonian period is set in stone, but this would evidently have been the opinion of the Governing Body based on what the Watchtower, referenced in a previous post, has claimed here:

INCONTESTABLY ESTABLISHED
When a date is indicated by several lines of evidence it is strongly established. The scientific law of probabilities imparts a united strength to the strands of the cable of chronology far greater than the sum of the individual lines of evidence. This is a law which is implicitly relied upon in important affairs: viz., that when a thing is indicated in only one way it may be by chance; if it is indicated in two ways, it is almost certain to be true; and if in more than two ways, it is usually impossible that it is by chance or that it is not true; and the addition of more proofs removes it entirely from the world of chance into that of proven certainty.

This is the actual level of independent lines of evidence behind the fact that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year should be dated to 587 instead of 607. According to the Watchtower's line of reasoning, therefore, 587 would be the proper date, even if you threw out the Egyptian and Assyrian dates. It is NOT dependent on those synchronisms. Based on the evidence, the Watchtower is inadvertently here stating that 607 must be wrong, and 587 is a "proven certainty."

Of course, I don't believe it's a "proven certainty" any more than you do. But the problem is that anyone can look at this evidence for themselves. You do not have to be a specialist of any kind. Our methods of dismissing such evidence will come across exactly as dishonest as those who would argue that World War I started in 1894.

18 hours ago, Arauna said:

If you are an engineer and you look for the root cause of the problem one does not go searching around the middle - one works back from where the problem started.

That's an excellent point.

18 hours ago, Arauna said:

because the ULTIMATE proof after all is in the signs on the ground - in 1914.  NO ONE CAN SPAR ABOUT A BETTER DATE THAN 1914 ON THE GROUND! 

Still plan on getting to that part of the discussion.

 

[TiagoBelager]

To all,

Let none of us fall into the trap of thinking that there is nothing crucially supplied our relationship with God by the guidance/corrections we are meant to find in our study of end-times prophecies (see as an example that we are meant to find such prophecy in the book of Revelation at 1:3; 22:7). Revelation alerts us that Satan would, in these last days, set traps for ensnaring unwary peoples of the earth into works of the flesh and into idolatrous (political) schemes, things opposed to God's Kingdom and His righteousness. Jehovah's people have taken to heart the prophecy of Revelation so that we neither add something to dilute any of its warnings, nor hide/withhold in our preaching any part of the prophecy about the Kingdom and what role its establishment must have in our lives in these last days (cf. Revelation 22:18, 19).  We know the identities of the various beasts and the identity of Babylon the Great; we know what are our responsibilities towards peoples of the earth for our trying to help them to respond to the call we participate in giving, namely, "Come! . . . Let anyone who wishes take life's water free" (Revelation 22:17). Read again the following passages in Revelation as to how invaluable and crucial to us is our understanding and obedience to Revelation: Revelation 2:6, 10, 13, 15; 3:19; 7:9, 10, 15; 9:3-11, 19, 21; 10:11; 11:6, 7, 11-13; 12:11; 13:15; 14:4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 16; 16:15, 21; 17:8, 9; 18:2, 3; 19:5, 6; 20:4; 21:8; 22:7, 11, 12, 15-17, 19.

Tiago

 

[JW Insider]

8 hours ago, TiagoBelager said:

Assuming that the posts are not numbered -- because I cannot find any such scheme here --, I can say that I wish that they were, because then I could reference exactly any posts I have edited. All I can say now is that I made an edit of the post I made just previous to my post of this one you are now reading. If you intend making response to it, please make sure you have read the (last) edited version. 

I think the best way is to reference a post by the date, but most topics don't go on for so many pages so it's not usually difficult. Anyway, as I read back through both of the posts that you edited post-posting, I realized that your points are very good, very interesting, relevant, useful, and that I had never actually tried to address them. So I should get back to them and I can probably find some time tomorrow to respond. Thanks for the heads up on the edit.

[JW Insider]

31 minutes ago, TiagoBelager said:

Let none of us fall into the trap of thinking that there is nothing crucially supplied our relationship with God by the guidance/corrections we are meant to find in our study of end-times prophecies (see as an example that we are meant to find such prophecy in the book of Revelation at 1:3; 22:7).

If I'm reading this right, you are saying that we shouldn't think the study of end-times prophecies is not crucially important. These prophecies are crucial to our relationship with God, especially through guidance and correction we will find in such prophecies.

Although few persons here will necessarily agree with the presentation of Biblical evidence in the way it was initiated in this discussion, I still agree 100% with that premise and the rest of your post. Agree or not, I am hoping some might recognize that this discussion is intended to defend the Bible itself, even against strongly entrenched traditions.

[Arauna]

I seem to recall that after describing wars, disease and famine in Math 24 it mentions that this is only the 'beginning ' of the pangs of distress.   So this is an indication that things will get worse.

Further down in the chapter  it mentions that if God did not step in - no flesh will be saved  - before Jehovah's people lose their integrity - he will step in.... severe distress awaiting the world.

[Arauna]

It is so easy to "whitewash" any reasonings.  This is why I am careful.  I recall Jesus calling the Pharisees out on their "teachings of men"..... By this time the Greek way of reasoning had infiltrated the Sanhedrin.  With the building of gymnasiums in the Decapolis and the appointment of non-Levites into the Sanhedrin.  Human reasoning had allowed the Jews to steer away from the Torah and start to teach " teachings of men".  These non-Levites and power-happy individuals were behind the rejection of Jesus.