Posted by Bibleman [Bibleman] on November 15, 1999 at 18:20:26 {AS5l1tybL6MRXA6xmpscslyACFuF8c}:
In Reply to: *a marker in time posted by LA on November 15, 1999 at 08:34:39:
Pleaes note the problem with the WTS is not the Bible's problem. If you read Matthew 24:1-30 in one setting, you'll see that the "END" is not Armageddon as the WTS teachings, but it happens when the Messiah arrives. The "end of the ERA" here is not Armageddon but the END of the "appointed times of the nations" (Luke 21:24). The "system of things" being talked about as the theme of the "end" was the END of the appointed times of the nations or the gentile times.
So that was compeltely fulfilled per the Biblical dating. That is, the Bible requires the 70-weeks prophecy to be fulfilled by Cyrus thus you must date the 1st of Cyrus in 455BCE as Anstey and others had recognized. That was before we had such direct evidence of the revisions which redate this period 82 years earlier. But based upon the BIBLICAL DATING, even if you don't accept it, that would date the fall of Jerusalem in 529BCE and based upon that dating the "end of the gentile times" should have specifically ended in 1992. 1992 did occur before the end of a generation ending in 1914.
So the Bible is true when you actually sit down and read it correctly. The WTS' chronology doesn't work becaues they have the wrong dates and the wrong application to such things as what the "end of the era" really refers to.
Even their interpretation of the "great tribulation" is wrong which they are now saying refers to Armageddon, when Matthew 24:29 clearly says is OVER before the Messiah even arrives.
So too, you must actually see what the Bible says before making any judgments. The Bible is true and accurate but the same can't always be applied to the WTS.
What are your thoughts when you read Matthew 24:29 which says, "AFTER the tribulation of those days..."? How do you deal with the fact that it is over before the Messiah arrives?
Cheers,
Bibleman