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

by Witness My Fury 492 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • PSacramento

    The problem with that WMF is that the NWT has been written in such a way as to "prove" their interpretation of 607BC.

    And since they view no bible translation other than their own is correct, it's a lost cause in that regard.


  • thetrueone

    I think its worthy to realize that 1914 was a important date for the WTS. for it was first proselytized through the

    false ideology of Pyramidology. The first world war started in 1914 didn't it ! The loose and quite frankly unscriptural dating

    chronology was already established, its just that they had to come up with something else if they were to toss Pyramidology out.

    There is a mountain of evidence against 607 either through bibical dating or archaeological evidence. Unfortunately most people who

    are immersed into the JWs take their word as the most trust worthy, blindly believing their false teachings since they have confidently

    assumed the WTS. as god's ( only ) chosen organization here on earth. Rationalizing the consequences of not believing them has established

    a platform of blind faith to their own discredited folly.

  • WontLeave

    1914 was a important date for the WT

    Not really. 1874 was the important date. 1914 was just the end of a 40-year "generation" by which everything Jesus was going to do on earth would be finished. Basically, the Bible Students decided a "generation" was 40 years and Jesus said that "generation" would by no means pass away before everything was done. It wasn't until much later they moved the 2nd Advent (parousia) to beginning in 1914, because nothing of import happened in 1874 to indicate the world was going to Hell in a handbasket (despite the Watchtower claims to the contrary). But something interesting did happen in 1914, so they moved Christ's return to 1914.

    The fact the Bible students had mentioned 1914 before was purely coincidence, because the events of 1914 weren't even similar to the Bible Students' foretelling of events for 1914. The fact that they were throwing out dates left and right and felt that anything that ever happened in the Bible could be stapled to any time prophecy in the Bible to come up with a modern date lent itself to many years around that time being mentioned.

    They checked their notes and crunched some numbers until they found something close: The fall of Jerusalem + Daniel's 7 times (if you count a year for a day). Close enough! Use 360-day years, fudge 539 to 537, and use 607. Bingo, we have a time prophecy.

    Decades later, we'll start telling people we saw it coming, even though we never mentioned it until 1930. Everybody who knows different (and cares) will already have left over all the failed prophecies or be dead. We'll label the ones still alive as "The Evil Slave". Dusty books in people's attics and the Internet are annoyances, but to a cult that encourages ignorance and stupidity, demonizes the Internet, and forbids its followers from listening to any detractors, it's no big deal. The ones who know too much will leave on their own; if they don't, they can be labelled "apostate" and thrown out.

  • Witness My Fury
    Witness My Fury

    PSacramento you are correct again. Yes the NWT has several "adjustments" in translation to make it appear 607 is correct, in my own research into this I've noted them....and showing JWs "other" bibles is never a good way to show them anything as we are conditioned to believe the NWT is SUPERIOR.

    Sadly you are likely correct in your view that doing this from the bible is a waste of time, however I will be doing just that with my familly at the relavent opportunity.

  • bohm

    For once i actually enjoy djeggnogs posts! .

  • thetrueone

    Not really. 1874 was the important date.

    I'm a little fuzzy on how the WTS. came up with that date, could someone clarify or have some information to this ?

  • TD

    How does an archaeologist arrive at 539 BC? Specifically?

    I know in a general sense that there are inscriptions on various tablets and steles, but everything except the astronomical observations seems to be relative. Apparently a fixed anchor point is set from an astronomical observation and then relative dates and events are simply counted from that point (?)

    For example, if you accept 539 BC as a good solid date for the fall of Babylon, then it seems to me that you pretty much also accept that Cyrus defeated Astyages of Media, captured Ecbatana, and united Persia and Media in the year 550 BC.

    I guess you can see where I'm going with this and I'm not trying to be devious. For two dates in ancient history that are only 48 (Or 68) years apart, it seems like we're dealing with some of the same data and methods for both.

  • PSacramento


    That is why you never go with one line of evidence but multiple lines.

    As has been shown many times, 597 BC is attested by more sources than 539 BC for example.

  • WontLeave

    how the WTS. came up with that date

    That was a carry-over from the Second Adventists. It supposedly marked 6k years of human existence. Later, JW calculations determined somebody in the 2nd Adventists forgot there is no "0" year and failed to carry a 1 (actually, I'm just being facetious here), so decided on 1975, instead. The 1975 thing is just a rehashing of the 1874 thing.

  • Witness My Fury
    Witness My Fury

    @thetrueone ...I'm pretty sure it was an early 1975 method. i.e same event 6000 yrs from Adam.

    1975 was arrived at by "corrected" chonology as they found out they had lost 100 years somewhere.

Share this