New 607 Website

by TheListener 44 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • TheListener
    TheListener

    A pro JW 607 website. Check it out. If you're loved ones start searching the net for proof of 607 they may regurgitate some of the info. found here.

    To be forwarned is to be forearmed.

    http://ewatchman-exposed.co.uk/607/

  • Honesty
    Honesty

    I notice he has a problem with apostate reasoning.

    *runs to get popcorn and soda*

  • undercover
    undercover


    Why arguing with a JW about 607 is normally an exercise in futility:

    Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand, believe something the secular historians do not. We believe the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God, so we take the Bible's prophecies into account when calculating ancient chronology.
    .........

    So, Jehovah's Witnesses will not accept secular chronology when it contradicts the Bible.

    Quoted from that site.

    If they don't accept what historians say, and they think they know more than anyone else about chronology, how are you going to be able to debate the issue reasonably?

    edited to add: It kills me that someone (JW apologist) would go to the time and trouble to put up a website like that when the WTS has repeatedly counseled against such activities by individual JWs. If this JW was so zealous, why can't he follow direction from the slave? Why does he think he can prove what the WTS hasn't been able to?

  • VM44
    VM44

    I looked quickly at the website and noted that no mention of the Egibi business tablets is made.

    The Egibi tablets consist of legal and loan records of the Egibi banking family and span a period of time including the reigns of Neo-Babylonian kings.

    For each king's reign there are Egibi records dated for every year of the king's rulership. Hence an accurate relative chronology is established simply by looking at the 100's of documents stored by these Babylonian bankers.

    For some reason The Watchtower and JWs who put up websites like the one above, will not discuss the one piece of evidence that is not controversal, and would settle the question of how long each king reigned once and for all.

    --VM44

  • Hellrider
    Hellrider

    Looks like celebrated Scholar JW has started his own website. I especially liked this part:

  • The Bible says Jerusalem lay in ruins for 70 years.
  • Secular historians, apostates, and Christendom say it was only 50 years.
  • LoooL. No, seriously, it was just a matter of time before a website like this had to appear. Many young JWs are starting to realize the significance of this date, and in a desperate attempt to "save" their religion, they will try to come up with some "proof" for it, although such proof doesn`t even exist. I`m pretty sure that if the GBs saw this page, they wouldn`t even understand his reasonings, and that goes for GBs living today, and those from long ago, who came up with this crap. That`s the irony of it all.

  • BluesBrother
    BluesBrother
    If you're loved ones start searching the net for proof of 607

    my lot would not do that... they have the "Insight Book", what more does a Bible Student need?

  • carla
    carla

    aww, crap. just what I needed. Anybody read the whole thing? same old?

  • Alwayshere
    Alwayshere

    A bunch of damned lies on that website!

  • Shazard
    Shazard

    BTW, fridnds, just several days ago I got one idea in my head and run to check it and it prooved to be right. Ofcourse extensive check should be done, but here what I found:
    Book of Daniel NEVER mentions Israel or Judea as COUNTRY or LAND! Instead Daniel refers to Judea as to it's capital - Jerusalem. Daniel refers to "jewish people" or "your people - when somebody else talks", but no Isreael. This prooves my suspisious that similar as Isaiah, Daniel refers to Jerusalem as to whole country. Jerusalem identifies whole sacred land! It is in sync with Jeremia who told exactly that LAND will be desolated for 70 years (and whole neigboring lands too).
    So here it is... specific language of Daniel is taken too directly when context shows it should not be done!

  • PMJ
    PMJ

    i think its a great website

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit