Did you use WT dates as well as things found from a secular perspective? If a witness was researching the 607 dates strictly from Watchtower info, would it still become clear they are wrong? Or does the WTBS *make* the dates add up...? Hopefully, I communicated what I'm trying to ask
For those who researched 607...
by AwSnap 95 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
-
PSacramento
Yeah, I studied it here:
http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/607
And I am sick of 587/6 theories.
Yep, no bias there...
I do agree with you though, I think ALL of us are sick of debating dates.
-
AwSnap
Was that coming straight from the Society or did it come from one of Jehovah's Witnesses? I'm not sure that was the answer I was looking for if it hasn't come straight from the Society (however, I will read it). I don't think the Witnesses I'm speaking with are willing to look to the internet for help. They probably only want to use WT official literature.
-
AwSnap
Psacramento...I'm not asking for details. I promise
Ok, let me rephrase: Has anyone researched the 607/586 debate through the WTBS literature only and found that 607 is not supported? I'm not trying to get a debate going on who is right or wrong. I haven't done the research yet, but I'd like to with a fellow JW who will only look at jw official literature
-
leavingwt
Regarding 607. . .
This topic can be as complex (read COJ's 'The Gentile Times Reconsidered') or as simple (Freddy Franz changed 606 to 607 upon discovering there was no Zero Year).
The WT accepts 539 from secular history, yet rejects 586/7. This is done arbitrarily, so that the beginning of WWI can coincide with their fantasy of the End Times.
-LWT
-
PSacramento
Ok, let me rephrase: Has anyone researched the 607/586 debate through the WTBS literature only and found that 607 is not supported? I'm not trying to get a debate going on who is right or wrong. I haven't done the research yet, but I'd like to with a fellow JW who will only look at jw official literature
The WT basis the 607bc date on how THEY interpret certain passages of the bible and base the 1914 date on calculations that they decided are the corrrect ones based, again, on how they interpret THEIR TRANSLATIONS of certian biblical passages.
So if you are arguing that date based SOLELY on WT doctrine and "evidence" then, NO, you can't "win".
Like leavingwt said, the WT chooses which secular evidenc eto use and which to disregards based soley on the outcome they want to reach.
-
AwSnap
Interesting, thanks leavingwt. I think I have heard that before & can probably incorporate that info at some point.
Has anyone researched the 607/586 debate through the WTBS literature only and found that 607 is not supported?
(I typed that big & bold for the future people who want to comment, not to those who have already) I really don't want to turn this into a thread about which date is correct.
That's all I'm asking. At this point, any details will go totally over my head. I plan on doing it step by step in the future.
Ohhhhh, I see Psacramento, I see what you're saying. I think you & WT have answered my question. (I was hoping for a "yes", hehe) Thanks
-
alanv
Interestingly former governing body member Ray Franz researched it when he was working on the Aid book inthe late 70s. His conclusion was that you can't successfully prove it was 607, so the society simply tried to show how secular dates for 586/7 may be wrong.
-
PSacramento
Ray Franz researched the 606 BC date when he was working on the chronology section of the "aid to bibl eunderstanding" books, I forget what they are called now, "insgights into scriptures? "
Anyway, he started to research the date to "back it up" with secular evidence and, well, found out that there wasn't any.
The samething happened with Carl Johanson.