ok roll up your sleeves and get stuck into this one! ( you will love this!)

by highdose 18 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  highdose

  came accross this website, clearly set up by a JW . It firmly states that the bible over wheamlingly supports 607 not any other date at all! and that if any other date EG 587 were to be used, it would make a mockery of the whole bible!

  They come accross as really confident... right up untill the end when they state in a "PS" they did not set out to examine any "secular evidence" as the bible is so much better. BUT that they were bemused to find that the little bit of evidence they looked at actauly supports 607 too!!!!!

  http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/607/

  read it and weap/laugh

  then tell us whats wrong with it all ....
• 

  cantleave

  I'll tell you whats wrong with it, they are using an ancient book written by ignorant people to base their assumptions on.
• 

  highdose

  OMG! they also say that they do not belive secular historians when they evidence contradicts the bible!

  there is not one since outside referance that i can find on this website, its all bible based. Which they say is the best way of finding out the turth about the real date.

  when i type in "607 Jerusalem" into google, this is the first website that appears, meaning that any who have rightfull doubts will be met with this barrage of lies!
• 

  highdose

  ok so i guess the real arguement is this: How would you tell a JW that they should look at secular evidence? Not just the bible?
• 

  Spectre

  I'm sure that "celebrated wt scholars" would approve.
• 

  Spectre

  "How would you tell a JW that they should look at secular evidence? Not just the bible?"

  It's been tried many times before. It can't be done.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Oh yeah yeah, that one. It's been around a few years. Looks snazzy but the info is awfully twisted and misleading. The author (Thirdwitness aka T-wit) has been completely pulverised many times on this forum and elsewhere (he's hanging out on topix at the moment getting pulverised again).
• 

  highdose

  there are at least 4 of these sites that i have found thus far, theres even one that claims to have taken the postion that 578 is the year, then it gives a very thin arguement with no facts and quickly reverts back to to 607. I love the quote from one of them:

  "Jehovah's Witnesses agree with secular historians that 539BCE is the year in which Babylon was conquered by Medo-Persia. There is so much evidence that it is called an absolute date and there is no Biblical evidence that would contradict this date. But here is where the discrepancy comes in. Secular historians believe Neb (Nebuchadnezzar) began his reign in 605BCE. Jehovah's Witnesses believe his reign began in 625BCE. What accounts for the 20 year discrepancy?"

  in other words, we will accept secular history when it suits us, but when it dosn't then a ancient non historical book is better!
• 

  highdose

  ok well what would you say to the arguement that 578 makes the rest of the bible fall apart and that time wise dosn't fit?

  this isn't a joke btw, i want to tell certain jw's i know about 607, but the first thing they may do is go online and find websites like this, so i need a defence!
• 

  leavingwt