 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Wolvo
Alley Cat
Joined: 06 Jul 2008
Posts: 181
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:32 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| TBax wrote: | | Why would I answer you at this point? You asked a question, I answered and you ignored the answer and moved on. If you are going to ignor the answers, you will receive no further answers. |
You haven't answered my question.
If so where? May be i have missed something.
| TBax wrote: | | Earlier, in this thread, I asked you a question to see if you could be reasonable, and you showed you couldn't. |
Where? Quote, reference please?
| TBax wrote: | | I leave you with the conclusion I gave after you showed your unreasonableness. |
What conclusion?
I think these comments show you're either answering different questions than the one i asked or you're just trying to detract from my question....
| Quote: | | How do JW's know Cyrus released the Jews in 537BCE and not 538BCE or 536BCE? |
I have not seen an acknowledgement of this question, let alone a response or answer.
| TBax wrote: | | Then we are done here. You will believe whatever you want any way you can. |
I can understand we are done, but purely because of your failure to answer my question. That failure to answer this question, throws into doubt the whole of the 1914 doctrine.
The WTBTS do not even have an answer to this question. The answer is based upon subjective estimates. I sincerely hope you have learned something about the WTBTS because of this.
| Ryck wrote: | Jerusalem fell at 586 BC.
Cyrus gave the Jews permission to return to their homeland on 537 BC.
Reconstruction of the Jewish state started at or after 538 BC.
The new Temple was completed in 516 BC. |
Ryck,
There is no evidence that Cyrus gave the jews permission to return to their homeland in 537BCE. If there is i would like to see it. The 537BCE date is based on estimates. Who's to say it didn't happen in 538BCE or 536BCE?
All we have from the bible is the month.
| Ryck wrote: | Now here is something interesting:
537 - 70 = 607 BC. That's a fit too.
So what happened in 607 BC which times-in with Cyrus giving the Jews permission to go to their homeland? |
Of course it's a fit. JW's get 607BCE by counting 70 years backwards from 537BCE.
| Ryck wrote: | | To answer my own question above, the closest thing to 537 BC is the overthrow of Babylon in 539 BC. Allowing for a two year buffer between consolidating your power on the defeated nation and other priorities, I can see Cyrus deciding the Jews' return to their homeland about two years later |
JW's and secular historians agree with the 539BCE date of the overthrow of Babylon. It could have been two years later that Cyrus released the Jews from captivity, but no one knows for sure. It could be a year either way, even later, who knows.
The disturbing thing about the 1914 doctrine that JW's hold as a certainty is the uncertainty of the 537 date. Without that pivotal date being certain, it places doubt upon the 607 date and in turn doubt on the 1914 date that JW's hold so dear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ryck
Lion King
Joined: 05 Dec 2002
Posts: 1094
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wolvo wrote: |
Ryck,
There is no evidence that Cyrus gave the jews permission to return to their homeland in 537BCE. If there is i would like to see it. The 537BCE date is based on estimates. Who's to say it didn't happen in 538BCE or 536BCE?
All we have from the bible is the month.
|
I did. From answers.com.
| Quote: |
| Ryck wrote: | Now here is something interesting:
537 - 70 = 607 BC. That's a fit too.
So what happened in 607 BC which times-in with Cyrus giving the Jews permission to go to their homeland? |
| Ryck wrote: | | To answer my own question above, the closest thing to 537 BC is the overthrow of Babylon in 539 BC. Allowing for a two year buffer between consolidating your power on the defeated nation and other priorities, I can see Cyrus deciding the Jews' return to their homeland about two years later |
JW's and secular historians agree with the 539BCE date of the overthrow of Babylon. It could have been two years later that Cyrus released the Jews from captivity, but no one knows for sure. It could be a year either way, even later, who knows.
|
So there is plausibility here.
| Quote: |
The disturbing thing about the 1914 doctrine that JW's hold as a certainty is the uncertainty of the 537 date. Without that pivotal date being certain, it places doubt upon the 607 date and in turn doubt on the 1914 date that JW's hold so dear. |
I don't know the 1914 thing. I'm only saying that 607 has a plausality. Whether it is THE answer I'm not certain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King Kong
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 2127
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wolvo,
| Wolvo wrote: | | May be i have missed something. |
Indeed you have.
Why would I answer you at this point? You asked a question, I answered and you ignored the answer and moved on. If you are going to ignor the answers, you will receive no further answers. Earlier, in this thread, I asked you a question to see if you could be reasonable, and you showed you couldn't. I leave you with the conclusion I gave after you showed your unreasonableness.
Then we are done here. You will believe whatever you want any way you can. 
| Wolvo wrote: | | What conclusion? |
Then we are done here. You will believe whatever you want any way you can.
_________________
Agape,
TBax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wolvo
Alley Cat
Joined: 06 Jul 2008
Posts: 181
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ryck,
There is no plausibility in the 537 date or the 607 date.
As you are aware it is only JW's who say Jerusalem destruction happened in 607BCE. The accepted view is 587/6 BCE which you have stated.
How do JW's arrive at 607BCE?
They agree that Babylon was captured by Cyrus in 539BCE, they then estimate it took 18 months for Cyrus to release the Jews from captivity, arriving at 537BCE.
Allowing for the 70 year desolation, they then count backwards to 607BCE. There is nothing else they use to support it.
So do you see how crucial this 537BCE date is for a JW, in that it is the only way they arrive at 607BCE.
To arrive at 1914, they use the Daniel prophecy that was mentioned earlier in the thread. Counting 2520 years forward from their supposed date of 607BCE(which they arrived at from 537BCE) forward to 1914CE.
So the whole uncertainty of the 537BCE date puts The Watchtower society in an undefencible position when claiming the certainty of 1914 as the date that Christ has been present. The two dates are linked together in this doctrine.
TBax,
I seriously haven't got a clue what you are talking about. I have asked for a reference and you haven't provided one. You have never asked me if i could be reasonable. I assume you are basing my unreasonableness on the fact that i do not agree with your JW beliefs.
It is clear you are really trying to detract from this indefencible doctrine, otherwise you would have answered me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King Kong
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 2127
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wolvo,
| Wolvo wrote: | | I seriously haven't got a clue what you are talking about. I have asked for a reference and you haven't provided one. |
You haven't got a clue because you are choosing not to figure it out. You have the ability, but just won't.  You continue to bait me when I have explained the outcome.
Why would I answer you at this point? You asked a question, I answered and you ignored the answer and moved on. If you are going to ignor the answers, you will receive no further answers. Earlier, in this thread, I asked you a question to see if you could be reasonable, and you showed you couldn't. I leave you with the conclusion I gave after you showed your unreasonableness.
Then we are done here. You will believe whatever you want any way you can.
Your final conclusion in your last post proves what I have said here. 
_________________
Agape,
TBax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wolvo
Alley Cat
Joined: 06 Jul 2008
Posts: 181
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
TBax,
I see no reference again to what you are talking about, but you want me to play a guessing game with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King Kong
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 2127
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes! Reading and understanding is a guessing game.
_________________
Agape,
TBax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Big Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 959
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TBax wrote: | I appreciate all your effort in your explanation, but you didn't answer the question. Namely:
So?????? WE both believe Jesus is present in kingdom power. So how is it this scripture applies to us and not you? |
Matthew 24:26Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
1. The Scriptures state that Jesus sits a the right hand of His father, that He has been given all authority in heaven and on earth, and that He is with his disciples to the very end...Thus, in a manner of speaking, Jesus is present in kingdom power. Obviously, Matthew 24:26 is not addressing this situation.
2. The JW's state that Jesus returned invisibly in kingdom power in 1914 and that it is only the JW's who are keenly aware of this.....thus, Matthew 24:26 shouts it's warning!
_________________
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King Kong
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 2127
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dust,
I saw that the last time you posted it, Dust. It didn't deserve a responce. Altering the time doesn't alter the location of the "secret chamber".
You believe Jesus is now ruling in kingdom power, yet us saying the very same thing means we are saying Jesus is in the secret chamber and you are not?
If you think your idea is true this is fine. But repeating your thought doesn't make it more true or reasonable. 
_________________
Agape,
TBax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Big Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 959
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
TBax,
As it is written in Matthew 24:26.....
Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
I wonder, in what instance would you invoke Matthew 24:26. Do you not see the essence and substance of this verse? or is it that in order for you to invoke Matthew 24:26, some quasi-religious group would have to specifically and exactly say....'behold, he is in the secret chambers'.
TBax, TBax, TBax, is it really such a stretch on my part, to apply the essence and substance of Matthew 24:26 to the exclusive JW claim, that Jesus returned (invisibly) in kingdom power in 1914? Is it? Be honest.
_________________
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King Kong
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 2127
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dust,
If you think your idea is true this is fine, follow it. But repeating your thought doesn't make it more true or reasonable to reasonable people.
I always try to be honest.  I believe your efforts are unreasonable. You believe Jesus is now ruling in kingdom power, yet us saying the very same thing means we are saying Jesus is in the secret chamber and you are not? When we believe it happened is entirely immaterial. It doesn't change the fact that it happened, and saying Jesus is ruling in kingdom power is proper.
_________________
Agape,
TBax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Big Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 959
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Check out this very-relevent-to-the-discussion explaination from wikipeda on self deception.....
| Quote: | | Self-deception is a process of denying or rationalizing away the relevance, significance, or importance of opposing evidence and logical argument. |
| Quote: | | It has been argued that humans are, without exception, highly susceptible to self-deception, as everyone has emotional attachments to beliefs, which in some cases may be irrational. Some evolutionary biologists, such as Robert Trivers, have even suggested that, because deception is such an important part of human behaviour (and animal behaviour generally), an instinct for self-deception can give a person a selective advantage: if someone can believe their own "lie" (i.e., their presentation that is biased toward their own self-interest), the theory goes, they will consequently be better able to persuade others of its "truth." |
Once again.....Is it really such a stretch on my part, to apply the essence and substance of Matthew 24:26 to the exclusive JW claim, that Jesus returned (invisibly) in kingdom power in 1914?
_________________
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King Kong
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 2127
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dust,
How do you know you are not practicing this "self-deception" in your desire to make your point?
_________________
Agape,
TBax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
