Jump to content
The World News Media

A Difficult Doctrine. With an easy explanation.


JW Insider
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Member

Looking at today's scripture text, I see that there is a fairly good reference to the concept of "core doctrines" in the commentary. Some have questioned whether this concept of core doctrines is correct, with the alternative being that we should accept ALL doctrines, great and small, with equal vigor. In other words, we should be ready to die for the our current teaching concerning "whether people of Sodom would be resurrected" just as strongly as we should be ready to die for the doctrine of the Ransom.

The day's text is about the resurrection, and the commentary speaks of the importance of including this among our key doctrines, as if it might not have been "up there" with the rest.

*** Text for Tuesday, December 10, 2019 ***
What are the key teachings of your faith? Surely you would stress that Jehovah is the Creator and Life-Giver. You would likely mention your belief in Jesus Christ, who died as a ransom. And you would happily add that an earthly paradise is ahead, where God’s people will live forever. But would you mention the resurrection as one of your most cherished beliefs? We have good reasons to include the resurrection as a key teaching even if we personally hope to survive the great tribulation and live on earth forever. The resurrection is central to our faith. Had Christ not been resurrected, he would not be our ruling King, and our teaching about Christ’s rule would be in vain. (1 Cor. 15:12-19) However, we know that Jesus was resurrected, and we hold firm to our belief in the resurrection.

Note that the text reminds us a few things that the great crowd, perhaps, do not get reminded of enough: We might die. The great hope is that "You May Survive Armageddon into God's New World." But since the book of that title came out, most of us who studied that book as JWs are now dead. The key teachings mentioned above are therefore:

  • Jehovah is the Creator,
  • Jesus' Ransom,
  • Living Forever in an Earthly Paradise
  • The Resurrection
  • The Teaching about Christ's Kingdom

I would agree that these are definitely the core teachings.

Of course that final one might be a nod to "1914" as a key teaching, but it is worded here in such a way that no one could dismiss Christ's Kingdom as a key teaching. This is true whether one focuses on the

  • Kingdom preaching beginning in 29 CE through 33 CE,
  • or the Kingdom's beginning in 33 when Christ began to rule as king (1 Cor 15, Colossians 1, Acts 2, Revelation 1, etc.),
  • or the historical outworking of the Kingdom with renewed emphasis on preaching since WWI,
  • or the focus on what that Kingdom will bring to the new heavens and new earth.

But the fact that 1 Cor 15 is quoted above as the context to the teaching about Christ's rule, and that Paul goes on in verse 25 to indicate that "sit at my right hand" is the equivalent of "rule as king" tells me that 1914 might have been left off on purpose. (Because Jesus sat at God's right hand in 33 CE., therefore he began ruling as king in 33 CE. --1 Cor 15:25)

That's an easy solution to all the current difficulties and contradictions in the 1914 teaching. But it's not the "difficult teaching" I had in mind.

If you look at the text through the Watchtower Library, you will also see that it is somewhat related to the material for the Midweek meeting (December 9-15), which starts out with a discussion of Revelation 11.

*** Text for Tuesday, December 10, 2019 ***
TREASURES FROM GOD’S WORD
• “‘Two Witnesses’ Are Killed and Brought Back to Life”: (10 min.)
Re 11:3—“Two witnesses” prophesy for 1,260 days (w14 11/15 30)
Re 11:7—They are killed by “the wild beast”
Re 11:11—The “two witnesses” are brought back to life after “the three and a half days”

I'll explain later today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 4k
  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Now I understand why many executives disallow any reports to them longer than one page. They KNOW how easy it is to be hypnotized by many words, which for some, is a finely tuned art form.

"We "MUST" obey God as ruler rather than man." To me, Jesus' words here sound like more than just a general "standpoint" (or point of view by definition) that can change depending on the opinion/situation of the observer. I don't want to get into an endless semantic debate of what "standpoint" means to you or to me, since I may be misunderstanding your line of reasoning here. (I am assuming English is not your first language and so while you may have what you are thinking clear in your mind, it

Nice and lively here today 😀   Now don't lie JTR, there was definitely a point   I am sorry. I should have prefaced it with "no need to read" . I really just posted it to illustrate that we don't do this anymore and that we have progressed as with the "WT 66 Question from readers" @b4ucuhear posted, about changes in truth where it says "at times there may be changes in viewpoint. Our basic belief may be sound Scriptural truth, but there may be some details that we did not

Posted Images

  • Member
33 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

You made good points. I would like to reformulate idea in question you put in focus: 

Are you ready to die for beliefs ?

Nothing about to die for core doctrines or less important doctrines. Because they can be changed. They can be truth, of course, but they can be useless fantasy, too.

Are you ready to die for faith?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

@JW Insider Quote " The day's text is about the resurrection, and the commentary speaks of the importance of including this among our key doctrines, as if it might not have been "up there" with the rest. "

That seems rather strange to me. But then they are getting short of things to say. 

However, i would have thought every Christian, no matter what ever 'sect' or  pigeon hole you put them in, would definitely believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and put it up near the top of important beliefs. 

However making Bible Facts, doctrines, seems unfair to God and to the Bible itself. 

doctrine
a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.
 
It's as if the JW Org tries to 'own' such things. @TrueTomHarley quite often goes on about the things that the JW Org teaches. As if those things 'belonged to the JW Org'.  Whereas a lot of the same beliefs are held by thousands of people, and they not all being of the same organisation.  
 
Quote " The Teaching about Christ's Kingdom - 
Of course that final one might be a nod to "1914" as a key teaching, but it is worded here in such a way that no one could dismiss Christ's Kingdom as a key teaching. "
 
Now here we see a difference between Bible truth and JW doctrine. 
 
Christ's Kingdom is Bible truth.   1914 is JW Org doctrine.
 
(This would bring us back to. Would a person be d/fed or 'watched' if they did not believe the 1914 doctrine?) 
 
Matthew 22 v 44 
 
‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet”’?
So if Jesus was to sit at Gods right hand, until God had put Jesus' enemies beneath Jesus' feet.  Then Jesus could not have had the power to do it himself. Therefore surely Jesus was not ruling as King immediately ? 
 
As for 1914, we know that no one of the Bible Students or JW leaders, were or are inspired of Holy Spirit. So maybe 1914 is just another guess or misuse of scriptures. 
 
What is your view of the difference between 'Core doctrines' and Key teachings ? 
 
And you seem to keep swapping expressions from Core doctrines, to Core teachings, to Key teachings.  Can you explain the difference please ?
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

It looks as though it should be a surprise if, faithful witnesses experience death. Nothing has changed since the time of Christ. Salvation has always been as though we are already dead. We are now working within a spiritual life.

There should never be an assumption that anyone will live to see the Day of Judgment. That’s not the point. The point is, to have personal salvation even unto death. Revelation 2:10

I like that. It's an excellent explanation of one of the points made in the day's text and commentary.

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Therefore, if someone is thinking, those in Sodom and Gomorrah will be resurrected, think of it this way. They were judged by God directly.

Perhaps. And so were all the 1 year old babies destroyed in the Flood. And so were the 185,000 of Senacherib's troops. I used that one because it's one for which most of us would be the least surprised if we discovered that the WT changed the teaching again. 

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

So, no one should harbor any ideals about what the “core doctrine” is perceived to be. God’s value through his son ransom sacrifice.

Not sure what you mean. I already believe that the primary core doctrine is God's value through his Son's ransom sacrifice. Other doctrines are also just as necessary, though. 

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

In that understanding, there is no contradiction with the AD1914 unless an independent understanding not supported by scripture is given to make it a controversy. That should never be an exploit of a witness.

There actually is a contradiction between the Bible and AD 1914. And we don't need any independent understanding not supported by Scripture, such as the independent understanding of John Aquila Brown, or more specifically, that of Nelson H Barbour, neither of which were supported by Scripture. It should ALWAYS be the exploit of any faithful Witness to uncover truth and try to resolve any contradictions that can be resolved by Scripture itself, not anything independent of Scriptural support. 

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Perhaps a better and easier explanation without controversy can be posted.

On the matter of the 1914 doctrine, an easier explanation with human controversy --but no scriptural controversy-- has already been posted. Easier isn't proof that it's better, but it's definitely easier. Here it is:

Jesus came to earth to preach about a God's Kingdom through Christ and give himself over to death as a perfect ransom for sin, to fulfill the Law, and SIT AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING since the time of his resurrection in 33 CE.

That's it. Simple. No contradictions with any Scripture.

From that point on, in 33 CE he SITS AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING ruling in the midst of enemies, including war, famine, sickness, and will continue ruling as king until God has put all enemies under his feet, including the last enemy: death. 

The current belief in 1914 creates a contradiction with this very point, because we are currently forced to ignore 1 Cor 15:25, which indicates that "sitting at God's right hand" is the same as "ruling as King." Right now, our current teaching is that Jesus sat at God's right hand in 33, and THEN LATER began ruling as king in 1914. Paul says that Jesus began ruling as king WHEN he sat at God's right hand.

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

And you seem to keep swapping expressions from Core doctrines, to Core teachings, to Key teachings.  Can you explain the difference please ?

I'm swapping them because they mean exactly the same thing to me. No difference. Doctrine means teaching.

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:
Matthew 22 v 44 
 
. . .  “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet”’?

True but notice the words that Paul used instead of "sit at my right hand" here:

(1 Corinthians 15:25) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet.


Turns out that when a king sits on a throne, this is actually an expression meaning rule as king. Just like when we say that a man "sat on the throne" starting in AD 1066, for example. Turns out that a king does not have to stand up from a throne to begin ruling as king. Turns out that sitting on a throne is not a synonym for just waiting around.

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

So if Jesus was to sit at Gods right hand, until God had put Jesus' enemies beneath Jesus' feet.  Then Jesus could not have had the power to do it himself. Therefore surely Jesus was not ruling as King immediately ? 

By that logic, Jesus is not even NOW ruling as king, because God has not yet put the last enemy Death beneath his feet.

(1 Corinthians 15:25,26) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Are you ready to die for beliefs ?

Nothing about to die for core doctrines or less important doctrines.

Wouldn't a core doctrine be one in which we put "unwavering" faith. This is the whole reason I mention "core" or "key" doctrines. If we were to be killed unless we publicly renounced our faith in Jehovah God as the Creator, and Jesus Christ as the one through whom the Ransom comes, we should be willing to die for that doctrine.

I would not be willing to die over my certainty that Jesus was only using hyperbole when he said that the men of Sodom would do better in a resurrection of the unrighteous on Judgment Day, than persons in towns that rejected Jesus during his earthly ministry. (Only the most diabolical of inquisitors would ask such a question anyway. I think I would go for "theocratic war strategy. 😉 )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Would this mean supernatural babies would not have received judgment because they are babies?

I was referring to natural babies. The Bible says that in the days before the Flood, men were marrying, and women were being given in marriage. A natural outcome of such natural marriages includes natural children.

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

It would be unusual for a witness to be distinct to such honor and speak of prophecy as though it was relayed directly from God to that individual.

Every Christian should let their reasonableness be known:

(Philippians 4:5) 5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men.. . .

If a doctrine produces a contradiction then it is reasonable to question that doctrine. It is unreasonable not to question it.

There is no need to claim uniqueness, or to make an unreasonable claim that prophecy was relayed directly from God to any individual who notices the contradictions. And there is no need to pretend that noticing the 1914 problems is something unusual. I'm sure that THOUSANDS of Witnesses have seen these contradictions. I'm hoping that more of those thousands will be able to freely question because it is our Christian duty as Witnesses, to show our reasonableness, be noble-minded, keep testing, keep proving, and to make sure of the more important things, and hold fast to what is fine.

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

With that said, faithful witnesses should understand the meticulous groundwork that Pastor Russell laid-out for everyone to see.

Exactly! And when we understand it, we can see where he made such far-reaching mistakes when it comes to his published chronology, almost ALL of which we have now abandoned. This is why the Watchtower has abandoned the very groundwork for the faulty system that Barbour laid out for Russell to accept. The basic groundwork was the "double" (Hebrew, "mishneh") found in Jeremiah, Isaiah, Zechariah, etc. It was understood that this referred to a duplication of time:

Thus understood, the Prophet's declaration is, that from the time of their being cast off from all favor until the time of their return to favor would be a repetition, or duplication in time, of their previous history, during which time they had enjoyed divine favor. (Studies in the Scriptures, V.2, p.218)

In this now-abandoned scheme, natural Israel had received favor for 1,845 years, from 1813 BC to AD 33. Events in this period would exactly parallel events from the new dispensation for another 1,845 years from AD 33 to AD 1878. Adding the 37 years from Jesus death to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70, meant that Russell could add 37 years from 1878 and reach 1914/1915, as the farthest extent of man-made rule by the nations.

As shown in the accompanying diagram, the period of their favor, from the commencement of their national existence at the death of Jacob, down to the end of that favor at the death of Christ, A.D. 33, was eighteen hundred and forty-five (1845) years; and there their "double" (mishneh) —the repetition or duplication of the same length of time, eighteen hundred and forty-five (1845) years, without favor —began. Eighteen hundred and forty-five years since A.D. 33 shows A.D. 1878 to be the end of their period of disfavor. A.D. 33 plus 1845 = A.D. 1878. (p.218)

.  . until the Times of the Gentiles be fulfilled," and hence, though favor was due and began in A.D. 1878, the Jew will not be received back into full favor until after 1915. Thus their rise again to favor will be gradual, as was their fall from it. It is remarkable, too, that these two periods of their falling and rising are of exactly the same length—the falling was gradual, with increasing momentum, for thirty-seven years, from A.D. 33, where their national favor ceased, to A.D. 70, where their national existence ended, the land was desolated and Jerusalem totally destroyed. History thus marks the beginning and ending of their fall, while prophecy marks both ends of their rising—1878 and 1915 —showing an exact parallel of thirty-seven years. (p.221)

So, yes, it was "meticulous" but it was meticulously false, which is why we now consider it to be just a lot of numerology for the trash heap.

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

There are 2 instances within scripture of 1260. Revelation and Daniel. What witnesses shouldn’t do is project their independent understanding of prophecy, when they are not given that power of prophecy by God.

I agree. No Watchtower writers nor Governing Body members, nor any other Witnesses, should have ever projected their independent understanding of prophecy when they are not given that power of prophecy by God. Well-phrased. That would have saved much embarrassment over all the failed dates, failed explanations and failed predictions for 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925, etc. 

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Therefore, there is no contradiction to Paul's words since the understanding of being enthroned in 1914 versus having taken control are two separate issues.

If Jesus being enthroned was so different than when he took (or takes) control, then when does Jesus take control? If you are saying it wasn't in 1914, then when do you say it was? Or will be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

I have carefully considered all of the above points, and concerning the willingness to die for one's beliefs, I have this to say about that:

Actor, comedian, and film producer, etc., Woody Allen said it best when asked about one of his latest movies, and the body of movies he had made in the past, either as star, producer, director, or all three ...

"Would you, through your movies, like to live forever in the hearts of your many fans?"

He replied "I would like to live forever, in my apartment in Manhattan."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If we were to be killed unless we publicly renounced our faith in Jehovah God as the Creator, and Jesus Christ as the one through whom the Ransom comes, we should be willing to die for that doctrine.

Yes, that is core thing in a individual faith vs collective faith. Collective faith power is visible from some WT magazine paragraph as in one who speaking about teachings that are unique to JW organization. WT Society said how Salvation is only possible inside Organization and inside respecting whole spectar of Teachings presented by GB.

Here i see contradiction that exists when JW facing with difficult situations. You made good point how issue of Salvation is on other side of spectar, and not in respecting teachings that is questionable or periodicaly changed.

But as it was already said, core faith (not core doctrine/doctrines) is Jesus. Faith in Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

as though . . .  it would perceive those children had not succumbed to the evils that existed at that time. Genesis 6:6

(Genesis 6:5-7) 5 Consequently, Jehovah saw that man’s wickedness was great on the earth and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time. 6 Jehovah regretted that he had made men on the earth, and his heart was saddened. 7 So Jehovah said: “I am going to wipe men whom I have created off the surface of the ground, man together with domestic animals, creeping animals, and flying creatures of the heavens, for I regret that I have made them.. . .

If we have faith like that of Abraham, then we will ask questions about this. Just as we have asked questions about what Jesus meant when he spoke of a resurrection on Judgment Day for those who were destroyed in Sodom. Abraham asked:

(Genesis 18:22-33) . . .Then the men left from there and went toward Sodʹom, but Jehovah remained with Abraham. 23 Then Abraham approached and said: “Will you really sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 Suppose there are 50 righteous men within the city. Will you, then, sweep them away and not pardon the place for the sake of the 50 righteous who are inside it? 25 It is unthinkable that you would act in this manner by putting the righteous man to death with the wicked one so that the outcome for the righteous man and the wicked is the same! It is unthinkable of you. Will the Judge of all the earth not do what is right?” 26 Then Jehovah said: “If I find in Sodʹom 50 righteous men in the city, I will pardon the whole place for their sake.” 27 But Abraham again responded: “Please, here I have presumed to speak to Jehovah, whereas I am dust and ashes. 28 Suppose the 50 righteous should lack five. Because of the five will you destroy the whole city?” To this he said: “I will not destroy it if I find there 45.” 29 But yet again he spoke to him and said: “Suppose 40 are found there.” He answered: “I will not do it for the sake of the 40.” 30 But he continued: “Jehovah, please, do not become hot with anger, but let me go on speaking: Suppose only 30 are found there.” He answered: “I will not do it if I find 30 there.” 31 But he continued: “Please, here I have presumed to speak to Jehovah: Suppose only 20 are found there.” He answered: “I will not destroy it for the sake of the 20.” 32 Finally he said: “Jehovah, please, do not become hot with anger, but let me speak just once more: Suppose only ten are found there.” He answered: “I will not destroy it for the sake of the ten.” 33 When Jehovah finished speaking to Abraham, he went his way and Abraham returned to his place.

In Christian parlance, even Abraham and Noah were NOT intrinsically righteous, but they were counted as if righteous due to their faith. Jehovah as the Giver of LIfe has a right to destroy everyone. He may also save persons, or bring them back from the dead. And we were made to ask questions in order to understand Jehovah better.

6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

It was clear to God, children didn’t just inherit sin, but became embroiled in that sin out of their own will.

It is clear to me that you have never had a five-month old son or daughter, or grand-son or grand-daughter. We can accept that Jehovah knew what would become of those babies in their circumstances of the time. But Jehovah also knows that only those with haughtiness and no natural affection will stop questioning and stop investigating.

(Psalm 10:4) . . .In his haughtiness, the wicked man makes no investigation;. . .

Just an aside, but that reminds me of how the psalmist almost turns the judgment imagery of the Flood "on its head" in these poetic lines:

(Psalm 36:5-8) . . .O Jehovah, your loyal love reaches to the heavens, Your faithfulness up to the clouds.  6 Your righteousness is like majestic mountains; Your judgments are like vast, deep waters. Man and beast you preserve, O Jehovah.  7 How precious your loyal love is, O God! In the shadow of your wings, the sons of men take refuge.  8 They drink their fill of the rich bounty of your house, And you cause them to drink of the torrent of your delights.

Like Noah, we are in effect "deluged" with the watery depths of Jehovah's bounteous delights and judgments.

But by blaming the young babies, don't you end up losing the natural meaning of Jesus' words about the innocence and humility of children, or what Paul meant when he said:

(1 Corinthians 14:20) . . .but be young children as to badness; . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

It was clear to God, children didn’t just inherit sin, but became embroiled in that sin out of their own will.

I think how another fact is also clear to God. Noah and their family didn't produced better humankind after Flood. According to JW preaching, today's humankind is on top of list in badness. 

According to idea you explained, best solution would be, what god once expressed in his thinking - 7 So Jehovah said: “I am going to wipe men whom I have created off the surface of the ground,- to destroy all people and to release himself from this agony :)))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

A well-established prophecy has divine providence.

True, but a well-established, misinterpretation of a prophecy has no divine providence.

6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Once again, a witness should not reflect on prophecy if prophecy is not made known to that individual.

Over the years here, Allen, I've often seen you attack the Bible when you think the Bible contradicts the Watchtower, but here you are attacking both the Bible and the Watchtower: 

*** ws17 June p. 13 par. 16 Set Your Heart on Spiritual Treasures ***
At times, our understanding of a Bible prophecy or a scripture may be adjusted. When that happens, it is important to take the time to study the adjustment and meditate on it. (Acts 17:11; 1 Timothy 4:15) We not only need to understand the main differences between the old understanding and the new one, but we also need to pay attention to the details of the new understanding. Such a careful study will guarantee that the new truth becomes part of our collection of Bible truths. Why is it good for us to make such efforts?

6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

I believe Russell also rejected some understandings of Barbour especially after the public disagreements they had and the "separation" of their works.

Russell did not reject Barbour's chronology. Years later, after their split, when Barbour began rejecting his own chronology and numerology, Russell continued to accept it and doubled down on it. The split was primarily over variations in their understanding of the ransom, but I was talking about his chronology and numerology.

6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Since I’m neither an ex-witness that is given that privilege, nor am I a conflicted witness, I don’t wish to upset anyone here.

Conflicted or not, I think you should feel welcome to express your opinions, whether they are for or against me, for or against others, the Watchtower, or even the Bible. I have not seen any indication that you are breaking any rules. Controversial discussions might upset people, but that's the value of discussion: it can upset long-established traditions (strongly entrenched ideas/things) and some people have a large emotional investment in these traditions. Some level of "upset" or "disturbance" should be expected. Neither you nor I should be expected to deal with these issues totally devoid of emotion. At least we are mostly trying to stick with the scriptures, the facts and the evidence.

 

 

Because of the way that posts are being merged (again) I will take up the subject of the 1260 days and 3 1/2 days in Revelation under another topic heading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By BroRando
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
      "During that time {Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. } will stand up, the Great Prince who is standing in behalf of your people. And there will occur a time of distress such as has not occurred since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, everyone who is found written down in the book. And many of those asleep in the dust of the earth will wake up, some to everlasting life and others to reproach and to everlasting contempt." (Daniel 12:1-2)

      "And war broke out in heaven: {Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. } battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them any longer in heaven." (Rev 12:7-8)

      The Scriptures also point out that Michael was sent and given the name to the glory of God the Father. "Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and became human." (Philippians 2:5-7)

      Yes, this very angel would be given the name to the glory of God the Father and have his Father's Name in him. “I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, watch over them on account of your own name, which you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are one."(John 17:11)

      "More than that, when he came as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, yes, death on a torture stake. For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the Name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:8-11) The Name (Jesus) when translated means “Jehovah Is Salvation.”

      Matter of fact, Jesus told his Opposers, "For I say to you, you will by no means see me from now until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name!’” (Matthew 23:39)

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • By JW Insider
      Note: An entire 30-page topic about "The disgusting thing that causes desolation" was recently deleted. The topic contained hundreds of posts, and they were from most of the usual participants here. I messaged the Librarian about it and he said he didn't know anything about how or why it got deleted, but would look into it. It's possible that the person who starts a thread has the ability to delete it, which is something else he'll look into.
      In that topic there were several posts concerning Charles Taze Russell brought up initially by @BroRando and commented on by @Thinking, @Srecko Sostar, @Arauna, @TrueTomHarley, @Anna, KF, Pudgy, PWfT, and others.
      There were several comments I wanted to respond to, especially the idea first brought up by @BroRando that C.T.Russell (early in 1914) spoke about some kind of fulfillment in 2034, which I believe is simply not true. And I will explain in this topic.
      When @BroRando brought up Russell's date references, @Thinking responded to him that she remembered reading where Russell had apologized for trying to rush Jehovah's timetable with man's timetable, or words to that effect. To that I responded that I had not remembered an apology like that. @Thinking responded that I have made many false and misleading statements about Russell. If this is true, I would like to correct those errors. Since @Thinking has not yet offered any specifics about any of those statements of mine, and because I was asked by @Thinking to look through Russell's statements myself, I have agreed to follow up on this idea.
      Another point was brought up by @TrueTomHarley which partially responds to @Thinking and her point about Russell's apology. It was one example of several times when Russell was refreshingly non-dogmatic about the chronology. It was from the January 1, 1908 Watch Tower where Russell says "We are not prophesying, we are merely giving our surmises." It also highlighted the statement: "We do not even aver that there are no mistakes in our interpretation of prophecy and our calculations of chronology." Of course, there were other times when Russell sounded much more sure and dogmatic, but there are enough statements on each side to give a much better picture of Russell's overall attitude toward dates, predictions, and his response when expectations failed.  I believe we are able to "reconcile" both the dogmatic and the non-dogmatic in a fair way towards Russell himself. We have to consider both Russell's personal perspective, the historical perspective of the times, and Russell's own changes and growth and influences through the period. It may help us not to give too much weight to statements on either end of the spectrum.
      In any case, I'm all for giving Russell the benefit of the doubt on the question of "dogmatism," but from what I remember, some of the Russell's statements which are sometimes utilized to defend Russell's supposedly apologetic nature are quite different from what I would call an apology. Again, I can explain the results of an exhaustive search. (By exhaustive, I wish I meant comprehensive, but I only mean that I'm exhausted from so much reading.)
      @BroRando had commented about how Russell made some supposedly significant comments about chronology in the year 1914, even suggesting that Russell proposed we add 120 years to 1914 which would bring us to 2034. 2034 is a date considered very significant by @BroRando. It appears to me that too much significance is still being given to Russell's dates, and judging by other comments, too much focus on the overall continuing relevance of Russell, even claiming that his work prophetically fulfilled the work of Elijah and/or John the Baptist. However, I've done a lot more reviewing of Russell's views and I'll share much of what I found because I think it answers all three of the major points I wanted to respond to:
      1. Did Russell really think anything prophetically significant might happen in 2014 or 2034? 2. DId Russell apologize for stepping ahead of God's timetable with his personal views? 3. Can we get a more balanced view of Russell's attitude and response toward dates and expectations?
    • By JW Insider
      We know that dates like 1513 BCE, 606 BCE, 587 BCE, 539 BCE, 70 CE (or AD), don't occur in the Bible, nor in the ancient astronomical diaries either. If we can pin a specific astronomical event to a record of any of Nebuchadnezzar's years, it would help. But we don't need those kinds dates yet. We can get them later.
      The first thing we need to do is to figure out where the variously listed kings fit in our timeline relative to each other. If we knew the order of the kings in succession and knew how long they each ruled for, we could at least create a "relative" timeline.
      So. To begin. Do ancient records provide an agreed upon list of kings, their order of succession, and the lengths of their rule?
      Yes.
      Do all ancient records agree?
      No. (Most would argue that they agree in all the important areas, and minor disagreements are easily fixed, but we should still admit that not all records are 100% in agreement.)
      So. Can we find two or three that do agree with each other, or perhaps even the majority of the records, in order to start a tentative timeline, and then deal with the disagreements later?
      Yes. The most important of the ancient records from Babylon itself and from those who made use of Babylonian records for astronomical purposes all agree anyway (Babylonians, Persians, Greeks). We would expect the most accurate records to relate to works for predicting or understanding eclipses (for example) or various lunar cycles  and planetary movements. We know that certain types of astronomical phenomena were predicted in advance, or even known to be occurring even if invisible behind thick clouds, or because it occurred below the horizon, or invisible because some events relative to stars and planets could not be seen in the daytime. So  we should expect records accurate enough to be used to actually calculate and predict a future eclipse even if it would be invisible.
      OK. So we'll put into our chart an example where two of these records agree with each other. For now, we'll pick the Royal King List that must have been available to Ptolemy's Almagest as a kind of "look-up table" and the writings of Berossus a Babylonian historian/priest from the Seleucid Period. They both agree on the following:
      Nabopolassar        21 years Nebuchadnezzar  43 years Awel-Marduk         2 years Neriglissar             4 years [Labashi-Marduk  9 months]* Nabonidus            17 years So, we have two "witnesses" (so far) to the names, years, and order of succession for these kings, which I will place in the chart below. To save space and give us a fairly legible font size, I only put in the last few years of Nabopolassar's 21 year reign. And we haven't discussed the length of position of Cyrus reign yet, but both Berossus and the Royal King List give him 9 years starting immediately after the 17th year of Nabonidus.
      So this, so far, becomes an 81-year span (arbitarily) from the 16th year of Nabopolassar up to the 9th year of Cyrus as King of Babylon. It might not be right, but it's a version that we can begin to test against the data to see if it holds up. E-M by the way, is short for Evil-Merodach (Awel-Marduk).

      1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Nabopo-lassar N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S C Y R U S 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  
      *Labashi-Marduk reigned only a few months, but we would NOT expect his name included in a timeline used for counting the number of years between any points on the timeline. And we definitely would not expect it to be included for any purposes related to astronomy calculations. That's because if a reign was so short that it started in a year already counted as "Neriglissar 4" and it ended before the start of "Nabonidus 1" then it should not be inserted because those full years were already counted. In fact, it would be considered a mistake then to include it in an astronomical reference, because it would have thrown off all calculations. predictions and cycles by a full year, making the entire king list worthless. In this case, Berossus, in the role of historian mentions him, but in the Royal King List used for astronomical purposes as a reference for Ptolemy's Almagest, for example, it should NOT be listed, and it wasn't.
    • By Witness
      This is a serious conversation between an individual and an elder, concerning Jesus’ apparent cleansing of the organization between the years of 1914-1919. (WT 7/15/2013 pg 11)
       He asks the elder a legitimate question, “what was this inspection and cleansing work that took place between 1914 and 1919”?
      I hope all JWs here, will take time to listen in.
       
      After 1919, the organiztion...
      Still celebrated Christmas until 1926
      Believed in the cross until late 1920’s
      Celebrated birthdays until 1951
      Still immersed in pyramidology teaching until 1928
       
       
       
       
    • By Israeli Bar Avaddhon
      Everything we read about the "70-Week" prophecy reported in the book "Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy!" (Chapter 11) is worthy of attention and demonstrates how accurate and reliable the word of God is even when pronouncing prophecies very distant in time. The historical accuracy and the numerous Scriptural references that gave weight and authority to the whole speech were also evident. Anyone who approaches the Word of God without preconceptions can not but be struck by this demonstration of power and wisdom on the part of God. The explanation of the 70 weeks is unexceptionable but can be said to be the same as other prophecies? What about those calculations on which many of us have based the hopes of a lifetime and that clashed with the criticism of the majority? We are talking about 1914. Is this also a prophecy of Daniel? Was this also treated with the same marvelous accuracy of the seventy weeks we have just read? Although it may not be easy, we try to be truly objective because understanding or not understanding the prophecy, like the rest of God's Word, can make much difference to our eternal future - John 17: 3; 2 Thessalonians 1: 8   WHAT DID OF 1914?   The book "Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy" on pages 85 to 97 explains in detail the dream of Nebuchadnezzar and the 7-time prophecy asserting that it indicates the coming of the Kingdom of God in 1914. It would therefore be profitable to take the book and compare it with what will be read below. Does Nebuchadnezzar's dream really prophesy the coming of the Kingdom of God in 1914?   THAT'S IT? Let's try to examine what is written in the book without prejudices. At a first reading it seems that Jehovah God wanted to give a lesson of humility to Nebuchadnezzar, which happened. The "seven times", at least for him, were seven years and this is confirmed by the whole story. Reading all this without preconceptions, it does not seem that we should look for other explanations more or less hidden. However, let us take the thesis that "the tree indicates a dominion and a sovereignty much greater than those of the king of Babylon. It symbolizes the universal sovereignty of Jehovah, the King of the heavens, especially with respect to the earth ". This means, first of all, that the Kingdom of God is comparing, in a certain way, to the kingdom of Babylon and this strides with many biblical passages describing Babylon as the greatest enemy of God's people. It also means that the "vigilante" (ie an angel of Jehovah) decides to overthrow the Kingdom of God and this is, to say the least, strange. Some will object that we must not look for similarities in every aspect of the prophecy but also decide which part of the prophecy must have a second fulfillment and which one could be arbitrary enough. After all, we have no other scriptural references to show us which details to focus on and which to leave out. So it is being said that the prophecy of the tree applies entirely to Nebuchadnezzar while only a small part would apply to the Kingdom of God. For the prophecy of the "seventy weeks" we did not need to break the prophecy to try to understand who was applied or if it applied to more than one person because the subject was clear and recognizable from the beginning. On the contrary, all the 7-day prophecy is built on a single verse that is what it says ... "The tree grew and became strong, and its same height finally reached the heavens and was visible to the end of the whole earth" (Daniel 4:11). Meanwhile, the writing says that the tree "becomes visible" to the end of the earth and not that "embraces the end of the earth" and the meaning is very different. The aforementioned book says: "the great tree represents the 'domain that reaches the end of the earth', which embraces the whole realm of mankind. Thus it symbolizes the universal sovereignty of Jehovah, particularly in relation to the earth. - Daniel 4:17 ". "Reaching the end of the earth" means that it extends the domain to the end of the earth while "being visible to the end of the earth" means that it is known, famous. AnyhowÂ… is not it a bit fragile, let's say risky, to build a series of prophecies (all linked together) on this single explanation? Note that the specification "particularly in relation to the earth" is due to the fact that the universal sovereignty of Jehovah is, indeed, universal, for which the tree should have been seen not only in the whole earth but throughout the universe. By specifying, instead, "in relation to the earth", we can exclude the skies from the vision and take the application for good. Anyway, we should ask a question. Is the fact that the tree reaches the heavens or the end of the earth itÂ’s a demonstration or even an indication of the fact that we are talking about the Kingdom of God? We always leave the Bible to enlighten us. Notice what Jehovah told Ezekiel in reference to the Pharaoh. Ezekiel 31: 1-8 says Â… “In the 11th year, in the third month, on the first day of the month, the word of Jehovah again came to me, saying: Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  “Son of man, say to Phar?aoh king of Egypt and to his hordes,Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. ‘Whom are you like in your greatness?  Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  There was an As·syr?i·an, a cedar in Leb?a·non,With beautiful branches like a shady thicket, lofty in stature;Its top was among the clouds.  Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  The waters made it grow big, the deep springs of water caused it to grow high. Streams were all around where it was planted;Their channels watered all the trees of the field.  Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  That is why it grew taller than all the other trees of the field. Its boughs multiplied, and its branches grew longBecause of the abundant water in its streams.  Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  All the birds of the sky nested in its boughs,All the wild animals of the field gave birth under its branches,And all the populous nations were dwelling in its shade.  Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  It became majestic in beauty and in the length of its branches,For its roots went down into abundant waters.  Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  No other cedars in the garden of GodHello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. could compare to it. None of the juniper trees had boughs like it,And none of the plane trees could match its branches. No other tree in the garden of God could rival its beauty”. Do we note some similarities with the vision of Nebuchadnezzar? Both are compared to tall and mighty trees. Both reach high heights, up to the sky in fact the expressions "reach the heavens" or "reach the clouds" are equivalent - Compare Job 22:14; Isaiah 14:14; Daniel 7:13 Of both we notice the big difference with the other trees. Of both it is said that all the flying creatures and all the wild beasts find food and shelter. Now if we apply the principle that the tree that "reaches the clouds" must represent the Kingdom of God, then even the Egyptian empire should be an antitype of the Kingdom. Unfortunately, however, in this story there is no mention of the "times" and consequently it is not possible to count anything. If you think it's ridiculous that the Egyptian empire will represent the Kingdom of God, why should it be acceptable to the Babylonian empire? Jehovah goes on to say ““Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says: ‘Because itHello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. became so tall, lifting its top among the clouds, and its heart became arrogant because of its height, Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  I will hand it over to the mighty ruler of the nations.Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. He will surely act against it, and I will reject it for its wickedness”. The Pharaoh was exalted, just as Nebuchadnezzar did, and for this reason God decided to humiliate him - Matthew 23:12 Nebuchadnezzar escaped with seven years of madness while Pharaoh's empire was besieged. Also this verse remarks the fact that God takes away and gives "the kingdom to whom he wills" (and in this case He gave the kingdom of Pharaoh to the "despot of nations"). Ezekiel 31: 12-14 continues Â… “And foreigners, the most ruthless of the nations, will cut it down, and they will abandon it on the mountains, and its foliage will fall in all the valleys, and its branches will lie broken in all the streams of the land.Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. All the peoples of the earth will depart from its shade and abandon it. Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  All the birds of the sky will live on its fallen trunk, and all the wild animals of the field on its branches.Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  This is so that no tree near the waters should grow so tall or lift up its top among the clouds and that no well-watered tree may reach up to them in height. For they will all be given over to death, to the land down below, along with the sons of mankind, who are going down into the pit.Â’. Even this tree is cut down and humiliated (Jehovah will do this through the king of Babylon). Because of the many similarities with the kingdom of Egypt, are we really certain that the tree that "reached the heavens" refers to the Kingdom of God?   When we talk about 1914, are we really like the Bereans? Or are we "Bereans" only when we have to refute the doctrines of Christianity?   There is another interesting detail that should make us reflect. The Bible compares the heavens to governments, be they human or celestial. Applying this concept to the tree that reaches the heavens and whose other trees do not stand comparison with it, it would simply mean that this tree has the kingdom over the other (smaller) kingdoms and of Babylon the Great is said to have " the kingdom over the kings of the earth "- Revelation 17:18 The only legitimate parallel that you can do with Babylon, without fear of taking corners, is related to Babylon the Great because it is the parallelism that makes the Bible. Indeed, all the world empires mentioned in the Scriptures had, for a time, the kingdom over the other kingdoms. Cyrus, in fact, said of himself ... "I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king, legitimate king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four extremities (of the earth), son of Cambyses (Ka-am -bu-zi-ia), great king, king of Anzan, nephew of Cyrus ,. . . descendant of Teispe,. . . of a family (that) has always reigned ". (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 1974, p.37). Undoubtedly humility was not a characteristic appreciated by the Persians as well as by the Babylonians but in fact the kingdom had power over the other known kingdoms (so to be called "king of the four ends of the earth") and so it could be said that its height had reached the heavens and was visible or known to the ends of the earth. In the story of Ezekiel and in that of Daniel there is no reference, just anyone, to the Kingdom of God, on the contrary ... both accounts mention a judgment from God on enemy nations, proud and violent. Any chronological calculation should respect the subject in being and in fact this part of the Scripture is very different from what is said about the "seventy weeks" - Daniel 9: 24-27 In the account of Daniel chapter 9, one speaks clearly of the Messiah (see Daniel 9:25) and it is not necessary to read what is not written. Anyone who wanted to be polemical could discuss the start date from which to count the "weeks" or even the adduct method * (one day for a year) but certainly we can not discuss the subject in existence (the Messiah). It could also be absurd to discuss who the Messiah really was (which Jews are still discussing) but certainly we can not argue that Daniel chapter 9 speaks of the arrival of the Messiah! Instead, Daniel chapter 4 speaks of Nebuchadnezzar and his kingdom, while all the "understanding" concerning the Kingdom of God is built on four lines in the book "Pay attention to Daniel's prophecies!" That read: "But the great tree represents the domain that reaches the end of the earth, which embraces the entire kingdom of mankind. Thus it symbolizes the universal sovereignty of Jehovah, particularly in relation to the earth. - Daniel 4:17 "(chapter 6, page 87 of the Italian edition of the book). Does not this seem like a very firm statement with a very weak base? Let us try not to tell Daniel 4:17 what he does not really say because it is enough to know the basic rules of grammar so as not to be distracted by the subject. The subject is Nebuchadnezzar and God makes him understand that, because of the fact that he is exalted, he would have taken away his kingdom and given it to whoever He had wanted (exactly as He did to Pharaoh). In practice the one who really rules is the Creator and the other kingdoms exist only because He allows it - Compare Romans 13: 1 So there is no reason to believe that the tree (that is, one of the many governments that Jehovah has permitted in the history of mankind), actually represents the Kingdom of God. If someone wants to imply that the fact that God mentions His dominion is indicative that the tree itself represents His dominion (and is an incredible semantic acrobatics) then we can take the story reported in 2 Kings 19: 14-19 and do it same reasoning. “Hez·e·ki?ah took the letters out of the hand of the messengers and read them. Hez·e·ki?ah then went up to the house of Jehovah and spread themHello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. out before Jehovah.Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  And Hez·e·ki?ah began to prayHello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. before Jehovah and say: “O Jehovah the God of Israel, sitting enthroned aboveHello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. the cherubs,Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. you alone are the true God of all the kingdoms of the earth.Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. You made the heavens and the earth. Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  Incline your ear, O Jehovah, and hear!Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. Open your eyes,Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. O Jehovah, and see! Hear the words that Sen·nach?er·ib has sent to taunt the living God. Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  It is a fact, O Jehovah, that the kings of As·syr?i·a have devastated the nations and their lands.Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  And they have thrown their gods into the fire, because they were not godsHello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. but the work of human hands,Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. wood and stone. That is why they could destroy them. Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  But now, O Jehovah our God, please save us out of his hand, so that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you alone are God, O Jehovah.” Hezekiah knew very well that Jehovah was "the true God of all the kingdoms of the earth" and he prayed that Sennacherib would be stopped in his intent to destroy Jerusalem. We know very well what was the answer of Isaiah which last part reads Â… “Because your rage against meHello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. and your roaring have reached my ears.Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. So I will put my hook in your nose and my bridleHello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. between your lips,And I will lead you back the way you came.” - 2 Kings 19:28 If we did the same reasoning as for chapter 4 of Daniel, then we might suppose that the "reign of Sennacherib" was also an antitype of the kingdom of God because he too had to learn (at his own expense) that Jehovah is "the true God of all. the kingdoms of the earth "or, in other words, "dominates over all mankind ". Unfortunately, even in this story there are no numbers, days, weeks or months to be calculated and therefore no reason to read "the coming of the kingdom of God" even where no mention is made of it. Is it possible that the strong desire to see the prophecies fulfill has influenced the intention and therefore pushed to read what was not actually written? This means that if you really want to see a second fulfillment of the story reported in Daniel chapter 4, you should respect the subject in being and that is Babylon. It is likely that the story of Daniel is simply telling the humiliation of Nebuchadnezzar and that the "seven times" mean only seven years but we can not be categorical. In this regard it is useful to reflect on the fact that even the humiliation of the Pharaoh, reported in Ezekiel, could have a second fulfillment as Jehovah says that he will "shake the nations" and this could be a reference to the Armageddon war.   So, without fixing ourselves too much with a specific date, in case the story of Daniel wanted to show us a second fulfillment of the prophecy, the report is actually saying: "Babylon will fall, will remain inactive for seven times and then rise again". This can only bring our mind back to the last mention that the Bible makes of Babylon - Revelation 17:5 The clues about Babylon the Great brought us to the nation of Israel so the question we should ask ourselves is ... "From what year we should start counting the 2520 years (ie 360 * 7) until we see the rebirth (if any) of Babylon? " From the story of Daniel the possible dates from which to count the seven times are two: 1) Since Nebuchadnezzar has had the vision or has fallen into "misfortune" (in fact, Daniel says "the tree is you" - Daniel 4: 20-22) 2) From the death of Nebuchadnezzar (if Nebuchadnezzar represents the kingdom of Babylon, his death is the moment when the tree is "knocked down" but it is to be noted that there is no reference to this in the narration of Daniel who, indeed, he says that the kingdom would be assured - Daniel 4:26) As far as the first hypothesis is concerned, it is impossible to have an accurate date because neither the Bible nor the secular history tells us in which year Nebuchadnezzar was expelled from his kingdom. This happened, obviously, after 597 a.E.V. (year in which Nebuchadnezzar brings the first Jewish prisoners to Babylon according to the secular date, there is a difference of 20 years with that of the slave who, in fact, puts 617 a.E.V.) and within 570 a.E.V. (if Nebuchadnezzar dies in 562 BCE - always according to the secular date - and the period of "captivity" lasts 7 years and the kingdom is returned to him presumed to have reigned for at least a year, 570 is the last useful year) . However in the first four chapters of Daniel we mention Daniel, Sadrac, Mesac and Abednego first as children (Daniel 1: 3, 4) and later as robust men (Daniel 3:12, 27) and all this before Nebuchadnezzar has the famous dream tree. This means that, from their deportation until the day when the king erected the image of gold, at least 15, 20 years passed. So if the Jews came to Babylon in 597 a.E.V. but they pass 20 years before the construction of the golden idol and having taken for good the secular date (562 a.E.V) it is possible to restrict the period from 577 a.E.V. up to 570 a.E.V. Obviously they are only estimates but the important date is the maximum time limit (570 a.E.V) so if from the deportation until the construction of the image had passed 15 years instead of 20, the starting date would be 582 a.E.V. but the last possible useful date would always be 570 a.E.V. The eventual rebirth of Babylon, if Daniel is talking about this, would have happened between 1943 E.V. (2520-577) and 1950 E.V. (2520-570). To reinforce this hypothesis there would also be the fact that the narration of his expulsion is the last story reported to Nebuchadnezzar. Few verses later, in fact, we no longer speak of him but of Baldassarre (Daniel chapter 5). It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that Nebuchadnezzar had the vision in the last years, perhaps during the last decade of his reign.   The second hypothesis concerns the death of Nebuchadnezzar, which takes place, according to the secular sources, in 562 a.E.V. According to the slave, in 582 a.E.V. (see the book "Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy" chapter 7, page 99). Counting 2520 years we arrive at 1958 E.V. in the first case and to 1938 E.V. in the second case.   Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. "Babylon will fall, remain inactive for seven times and then rise again"   What does recent history tell us? If, as we have seen, Babylon the Great is the nation of Israel, this would corroborate the first hypothesis. The first hypothesis places the rebirth of Babylon between 1943 and 1950. Indeed, the "resurrection" of Israel took place in May 1948.   Knowing the fixation of human beings for dates and calculations, however, it is prudent to pay attention to the most important things. The secular dates can not be secure, based on findings and comparisons more or less incomplete, and certainly we can not base our faith on this - 2 Corinthians 5: 7 What would happen if the 597 a.E.V., as well as 607 or 537 or any other date on which we based much of the biblical prophecies (without there being a real reason for doing so) tomorrow proved to be completely wrong? The consequences could be very serious and not just from a human point of view - Amos 3: 1, 2 We must not take Jehovah's mercy for granted, so we must be cautious in our statements. Since we have no certainty that the "seven times" do not simply represent seven years, we should not lose ourselves in these speculations. Is not the most important thing to understand the identity of Babylon the Great? Those who have truly studied the Bible without preconceptions have understood that Babylon the Great is indeed Israel and this has understood it regardless of dates and calculations. This is a crucial aspect of prophecy because it is the clues that guide us in the subjects and times in which we are living, such as road signs, and not the calculations - Compare Matthew 24:32, 33 and 2 Timothy 3: 1-5 and do a contrast with Matthew 24:36 There is no temporal indication for the killing of the two clothed witnesses (see Revelation chapter 11) but we know that they are revealed at the end of the war. We know that the city called "Sodom and Egypt" is Babylon the Great, hence Israel, and as a result we also know which nation and events to watch carefully. That the Bible actually prophesises the year of his "resurrection" or not, is certainly interesting but not fundamental for those who believe that it is indeed the inspired Word of God. Fundamental, if anything, will be "get out of it" when the UN prepares to destroy it.   * However the Bible confirms the "one day for a year" method and also that this was the same method used by God's people - Ezekiel 4: 6; Luke 3:15 ** The Bible allows us to be "fully competent" then all the speeches made on 607 a.E.V. pro and contra, they are absolutely useless. Nebuchadnezzar's dream, as we have seen, has nothing to do with the Kingdom of God    
    • By The Librarian
      A proclamation, declaring the start of war in Europe, is posted up in Whitehall, in London in 1914. Getty Images
    • By The Librarian
      Austro-Hungarian and Royal Prince of Hungary and of Bohemia, and from 1889 until his death, heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne. His assassination in Sarajevo precipitated Austria-Hungary's declaration of war against Serbia. This caused countries allied with Austria-Hungary (the Triple Alliance) and countries allied with Serbia (the Triple Entente Powers) to declare war on each other, starting World War I.
      The bullet that killed the Archduke; sometimes referred to as "the bullet that started World War I"
      --------------------------------------
      Franz Ferdinand ignored warnings that Serbian terrorist group the Black Hand — still reeling from Austrian annexation in 1908 — was plotting to assassinate him during his state visit to Sarajevo.
      Plus, the day of his tour was Serbia’s National Day. Sophie pleaded with him not to go.
      So why did he? Death was better than humiliation, said Lebow. It was a matter of honor.
      Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie riding in an open carriage at Sarajevo shortly before their assassination on June 28, 1914. Photo by Henry Guttmann/Getty Images
      On June 28, 1914, Franz Ferdinand and Sophie were riding in the third of a seven-car convoy when a bomb bounced off their hood, exploding as the fourth car passed.
      At this point, said Lebow, “any security detail worth its salt would have rushed these people out of town immediately.”
      But they didn’t. Franz Ferdinand insisted that they pay a visit to an officer wounded in the bombing. On the way, the driver took a wrong turn, and happened to reverse right in front of one of the conspirators, Gavrilo Princip, who, said Lebow, was sipping a drink outside.
      Pointing his pistol at the car, Princip fired two shots.
      When Sophie was shot alongside Franz Ferdinand in 1914, these were his last words to her, as published in “Archduke of Sarajevo”: “Sopherl, Sopherl, don’t die. Stay alive for the children!”
      And the rest, as they say, is history.
    • By The Librarian
      Eruption of Sakurajima volcano, the most powerful in twentieth-century Japan, with Kagoshima, Japan in foreground, 1914

      Via
    • By PeterR
      So if this is the basis for your belief, then probably what you'll want to do is first of all find out which bible book your foundational scripture is in. (It's Exodus by the way.)
       
      Ex 1:6 - Eventually Joseph died, and also all his brothers and all that generation.
       
      It's not a complicated scripture.
      Let me ask you this. If you die in 2017 and all your brothers and all your generation also die at some point, what does "generation" mean if you don't impose any weirdness on the text? Do your precise birth and death times change the fundamental meaning of the word generation?
      Of course there are overlaps in a "generation". The only possible way for there not to be overlaps would be for each generation to have a batch of children be born at the same minute of a certain year, and die at a simultanous minute of a later year.
      But does your grandfather suddenly become part of your generation just because your life overlapped with him? Does that overlap of a few years between you and your brothers give latitude to distort the language to allow for President Kennedy to be of your generation even if your life overlapped with him?
       
       
       
       
    • By The Librarian
      Part of the series on:

      See attached images
      Anyone by chance have a PDF of these images combined? 
       
       
       
      See also:

       












×
×
  • 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.