The Only Real "Take" You Can Have on the Date of Jerusalems Destruction

by AllTimeJeff 112 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Gordy


    I agree with your original post. When a JW and the old 607/587 thing came up I also used to think the same way.

    How can the WT reject so many scholars, archaeologists etc who, to my mind, shows that 587/6 is the date.

    Then in the same breath use the same scholars etc, to prove another date.

    Its as if they were saying the scholars are right on every other single date in history except this one.

    That is one of the things that started me to think something wrong with WT.

  • AllTimeJeff

    Hey my friends. Scholar frequently likes to enter discussions about the date of Jerusalems destruction and repeat himself over and over again with statements like this.

    Your comments are based on ignorance and foolishness for the date of Jerusalem's destruction was the beginning of the Gentile Times ending in 1914 CE proven by the facts of modern history so the validity of 607 BCE is a matter of establihed fact.


    For your information and for the sake of accuracy 607 BCE is proved by the following:
    The Bible
    Secular souces both ancient and modern
    Bible scholarship both past and present
    WT Publications

    And notice, does not provide a single independent resource, not even one scholar (real one) not one historian, nothing. If you were to look at his posting history, you would find him to be like a skipping record, repeating the same things over and over again. Thats his game. And it is a game.

    This would be akin to me maintaining that the US Constitution was signed in 1676 at Plymouth Rock. Don't believe me? I have secular sources and scholarship to back me up to. Just don't ask for names, books, nouns or verbs.

    Scholar, I won't debate you. Here is your problem, and here is the problem with the JW position: You would like us to believe that with wide sweeping statements, you can argue against all historians and scholars on this subject. It is a lie. Thats all dude. A lie. I can go to any bookstore, and middle or high school, and show you the date of Jerusalems fall from books independently written. You can't. The only place you can direct anyone is to WT publications. Thats all. You lose. JW's lie. Happy New Year.

  • life is to short
    life is to short

    Great thread Jeff. I have saved it in fact because I love the way you reason.

    Thanks for such great reasoning points. LITS

  • Ri

    demonic attacks on the Bible by higher critics and other opposers which has as its sole objective to destroy the faith, missiion, love and unity of the Lord's people and His Organization.

    scholar JW

    My question is: How do you know it is DEMONIC attacks?

  • thetrueone

    Yes the Scholar dances around with unreserved devotion to his master the Watchtower Corporation

    and his accredited scholarship in theology is tainted with basis toward that company.

    I would like to hear his scholarly academic report on how this Corporation came up

    with an accurate time calculation of mans existence on earth of 6000 years ending

    in the fall of 1975. Sounds like he has acquired his degree in theology from inside a box of Corn Flakes.

    Go for it Scholar

  • AllTimeJeff


    Just click on scholars name, and read up. I really don't want him to hijack this thread. You can see for yourself how he reasons. ("reason" is a very generous word in his case)

    I take him at his word that he is a JW with a more detailed knowledge of JW eschatology and exegesis, making him more culpable then your typical JW.

  • thetrueone

    Yes Jeff I went back to look at his postings from years ago on the forum.

    I guess tainted truths and beliefs are hard to let go of when they offer you something in return.

  • darth frosty
    darth frosty

    As my MIL would say: 'those mean ole scientest and historians are just trying to make Jehover look bad.'

  • Mickey mouse
    Mickey mouse

    Thanks Jeff, your thread got me thinking and I started my own.

    607 is a big issue to me but unfortunately, most discussion of it here does not appeal to me because of precisely the insanity you speak of.

  • wobble

    May I add my thanks too AT Jeff for this thread, and your other contributions to the site too.

    I am glad that somebody like "Scholar" comes on here, it was reading stuff like his, and from other JW apologists that convinced me they have no case at all to support 607/1914, well apart from dear Mickey Mouse's argument (see her latest thread)



Share this