607 wrong using ONLY the bible (and some common sense)

by Witness My Fury 492 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • TD


    My faith doesn't require Solomon's temple to have been utterly destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar's armies in 607 BC.

    I attended the Sunday session of the District Convention with my wife this year and noticed that the final speaker (Losch) made absolutely zero mention of Daniel, the "tree dream," ancient archaeology, etc. when describing the significance of 1914. I think you're probably on to something here.

  • thetrueone

    Has anyone pondered that djeggnog is actual Scholar of old. ummmmm ?

    Seems that idiot stuck to 1914 and 607 BCE. like glue and wouldn't comment on anything else.

    Is this just a coincidence ?

  • cantleave

    Did "Scholar" ever proclaim hinself a genius and then go on to prove himself a complete moron?

  • thetrueone

    Good point cantleave scratch that suggestion !

    Sounds like Dj is fighting the notion that he's been purposely deceived and exploited by the corrupt WTS. publishing house.

    The same organization that built up his own obtained self identity and arrogance as one who is " In The Truth "

  • Bungi Bill
    Bungi Bill

    He's so carried away with his own ideas that he has failed to notice that he attributed statements to me that I did not make!


  • garyneal

    Has anyone pondered that djeggnog is actual Scholar of old. ummmmm ?

    I don't think he is scholar. Scholar is not nearly as wordy as the egg nog, Scholar is a lot more fun than this guy. I frankly don't have the desire to read through all his wordy garbage to offer a response.

  • castthefirststone


    This is my first post on this forum and I lurked here for some time. I can't honestly say that I buy into JW doctrine anymore but the 607 doctrine still intrigues me.

    In my opinion you have not answered any of Ann's or any of the other posters' questions regarding your wild assumptions on how you get to the 607 date. You keep latching onto irrelevant arguments and opinions and then writes verbose explanations on these, ignoring the fact that are right in front of you.

    Now if you are really as well intentioned as you profess to be, please provide a summary with verifiable proof of how you get to 607 BCE. Not paragraph after paragraph of this nonsense.

    Also add to this, your explanation why 607 BCE has any significance in Bible prophecy and why you spend so much time trying to defend it. Seeing that you say it's only the year that the temple was destroyed. You will probably say that you have a keen interest in archaeology and that's why you feel so strongly about 607 but can you really give that answer when everyone can see from your posts that this is not the case?

  • Witness My Fury
    Witness My Fury

    Ouch! That has GOT to hurt more than ANYTHING we have been saying LOL

    Welcome castthefirststone.

    Just so you don't feel bad, this is GOOD! He claims to post all his verbiage for the lurkers benefit, ..and well it backfires LOL.....

  • AnnOMaly

    WELCOME, castthefirststone ...

    ... and for perseverance in wading through this thread - particularly djeggnog's logorrheic posts - you get a special

  • castthefirststone

    Thank you for the welcome Witness My Fury and AnnOMaly. I don't need any medals as I am just trying to figure this out but thanks for the gesture nonetheless.

    @20571pnt428571, I opened the Pastor Russell blog site and saw the Chart of Ages. Are you suggesting that I revert back to the Chart of Ages to get to 607 BCE? Thank you for providing a summary, but it is not sufficient and adds nothing new to what was already discussed and proved to be incorrect.

    Method 1 states 607 BCE as a fact but the question was to prove this date as a fact. I didn't ask to state 607 as a fact and then use some basic arithmetic and further assumptions to get to 1914.

    Method 2 uses the 70 years prophecy and the assumption that 537 is the end date of the 70 years. This is speculation that I am not interested in anymore, as AnnOMaly and WMF have shown DJEggNog, numerous times, that you can't just read "seventy years" in isolation but read it in context with other scriptures, including Jer 25:11, 2 Chron 36:21, Lev 26:34 and the rest of the Bible. 537 + 70 is not good enough, I am afraid, and if this is your best argument then you need provide more information how you reconcile the rest of the Bible and archaeological evidence to this theory.

    Method 3 brings in more assumptions and theories about when Jesus was baptized and when Artaxerxes reigned and mashes that into one big theory without any proof. Provide proof and not just theories.

    I am not interested in someone's blog or the WBTS website. Provide me evidence of all the theories you have stated and perhaps I will believe you. You state things like "we believe", who are the "we"? It seems to me that the "we" are theorists with no interest in providing evidence for their wild and inconsistent statements.

    I think I will wait for DJEggnog to respond as your post has not even scratched the surface.

Share this