I want to know whether 607 is valid or not.

by XPeterX 157 Replies latest jw friends

  • PSacramento
    607 is true if you assume the bible is true and inspired

    The bible does NOT have ANY date in it.

    The bible doesn't mention 607 ANYWHERE.

  • Mad Sweeney
    Mad Sweeney

    607 is true if you assume the bible is true and inspired

    No, it isn't. There is no SCRIPTURAL evidence Jerusalem was destroyed in 607. The problem for those who claim 607 is scriptural, is that it is based WHOLLY on the SECULARLY SUPPORTED DATE of 537 for the release of the Jewish captives from Babylon. 537 ISN'T IN THE BIBLE.

    It is IMPOSSIBLE to find 607 without TRUSTING SECULAR DATING sources. Why, SCRIPTURALLY, should anyone trust that 537 was the release date and count back from there? Why, SCRIPTURALLY, couldn't Jerusalem have been destroyed in 587 and the captives released in 517 (assuming Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy referred to the destruction of Jerusalem, which context shows it did NOT)? There is NO REASON, other than to make it fit with 607/1914.

    The WT started with 1914 and worked their way backwards. They didn't discover these supposed prophetic fulfillments from the Bible. They searched for some way to hang on to 1914 decades AFTER ALL the 1914 prophecies HAD FAILED and the seven times/70-years/607-1914 crap is what they came up with.

  • Olin Moyles Ghost
    Olin Moyles Ghost


    607 is true if you assume the bible is true and inspired

    This is the entirety of the Watchtower's position on 607 BC. It's a clever ruse, but a false choice. This argument is similar to that used by young earth creationists--you know, the folks who believe that the earth and all life on it was created in six literal days, about 6000 years ago. They argue that if you don't believe the earth and all life thereon was created in six literal days, then you don't believe the Bible is true and inspired. Rather, they argue that you are relying on worldly science instead of trusting in God.

    The young earth creationists argue that it is clear that Genesis chapter 1 is referring to literal days--otherwise, why would each "day" have an evening and a morning? Also, Exodus 20:11 states clearly that in six days God created the heaven and the earth. Thus, according to the young earth creationists, any argument that a "day" really means millions of years directly contradicts the Bible.

    Of course, many Christians (including JWs) recognize that young earth creationism is simply impossible. Thus, they interpret the Bible in light of accepted science (at least to some extent) and construe "days" to mean a longer period of time.

    But the Witnesses refuse to construe the prophecies related to Babylon and Jerusalem in the context of universally-accepted archaeology and history. Rather, they stick to their wacky chronology that has been wrong over and over again. The motive could not be more clear and the duplicity could not be more obvious.

  • JWoods

    Did anybody notice that we might as well let this 607 thread die now (like about a thousand others in the past) - ?

    Original poster XpeterX has lost interest, leaving only dukefx - who is plainly delusional on the subject, and thinks the bible itself names 607.

  • isaacaustin

    I concur with JWoods. There are more than enough threads on this topic for any interested ones to examine.

  • XPeterX

    Guys stop arguing.I didn't lost interest.I just know the date: 607 B.C.E that's all

  • isaacaustin

    XPeterX, then please enlighten us. If I am missing something and wrongly believe 586 was the date Jeru was destroyed, please explain to me why 607 is correct so I can adjust my thinking.

  • TD

    Topics like this are what gave me the idea for the "JW Science Quotes"

    The idea that untrained and uneducated people, sitting at a desk in Brooklyn would know more about a subject as esoteric as ANE archaeology than those who have spent their entire lives learning the ancient languages, collecting, cataloging, collating, examining, translating, and evaluating the evidence is amazing.

    Were JW researchers and writers all truly geniuses or were they arrogant fools waving their hands before an entire field of research?

  • miseryloveselders

    Guys stop arguing.I didn't lost interest.I just know the date: 607 B.C.E that's all

    Cough, Troll, Cough!!! Excsuse me. Allergies kicking.

  • isaacaustin

    Here is his acclaimed story:

    Born in.20 years old.Only mom is in the Truth.I have 2 sisters the one studies occasionally.Dad agrees with Jw stuff but won't join.I am unbaptised publisher since I was 12,I used to read from the Bible and comment but not anymore since February.I seldom miss meetings and go door to door often (well not as often as I should).Few or none will call me out of the 125 persons of my congregation and I can't say I know them at all (except 2 persons) even though I 'know' them since 1998.I try to stick to the rule "no wordly friends" but when it comes to friendships in the JW world I end up alone.I honestly know that this situation is encountered by many teens in the Org. globally.Maybe that's what Jesus said about the absence of love in the last days.

Share this