I want to know whether 607 is valid or not.

by XPeterX 157 Replies latest jw friends

  • JWoods

    About as credible as Joran van der Sloot being questioned by Greta van Susterain in my humble own opinion.

  • Mad Sweeney
    Mad Sweeney

    It took me months of research to finally conclude the Dubs had a ZERO% chance of being correct on 607 and this kid thinks he's solved it in less than a day? Child please.

  • isaacaustin

    I agree. If he goes to all the meetings an in service so much how come he does not know anyone? LOL

  • isaacaustin

    Yeah MS, I was going to comment how one article so fully convinced this person who came here questioning the issue. It takes time to research and understand what is at issue, what it means, and then work thru the related scriptures. It is not a one hour project.

  • JWoods
    If he goes to all the meetings an in service so much how come he does not know anyone? LOL

    Well, he just started yet another thread in which he says he will write down questions and ask the elders. He should be getting to know them pretty quickly if he actually does it...

  • isaacaustin

    I would think so. And people will then know him less as he will no longer be an unbaptized publisher (assuming he is who he says he is).

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

    607 is true if it is found in history books. Remember, there are no dates in the bible at all, so we rely on secular history for those. I assume that secular history is true, and that the bible (which isn't an invention of Jehovah's Witnesses Inc) if it were correct, would not contradict scholarly history.

    607 is true only if you blindly follow the Governing Body without verifying anything outside of a Watchtower.

  • AudeSapere

    In the opening post (first line),

    XPeterX wrote: I seek concrete evidence.

    Five pages into discussion,

    XPeterX wrote: I didn't lost interest.I just know the date: 607 B.C.E that's all

    The final step to grasping truth is the ability to logically present it back to someone else. If you received and achieved the concrete evidence you sought, you should be able to present the evidence to prove your conclusion. This would help you work out and solidly prove the data to your self and would be extremely kind to the silent lurkers who likely have been following this thread. That final exercise would also show respect to the many reallife people who took time out of their day to share the info they found beneficial.

    I am not conviced that you honestly researched the subject. Nor does it appear that you seriously considered any of the information presented to you.

    In the several years I have been here, I have seen many threads on this subject. Many are linked in this thread and many are not. Regardless, after doing such thorough research, I cannot recall ONE initiater of this topic to have ever so flippantly dismissed the issue.

    It's almost as if you saw that real reasoning is required to consider and evaluate the information presented and, sensing impending cognitive dissonance, you chose to fall back on one lone poster who agrees with you, take that as 'proof positive', and recoil back in your playpen with your security blanket and thumb secure in your mouth while you rock back and forth muttering "I just know the date, I just know the date."

    So much for concrete evidence.

    Best Wishes,

    -Aude Sapere (meaning: Dare to Know; Dare to Have Wisdom/Understanding)

  • isaacaustin

    "607 is true if you assume the bible is true and inspired"- This statement made by dukefx is invalid until she/he can back it up. I have requested a basis for this claim, but that request has been ignored.

  • Titus

    MS, believe me, I have answers, but I don't have honest conversationalists.

    That's why I gave up!

    Really gave up!

Share this