607 article on JW website

by Pubsinger 13 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • wifibandit
    wifibandit

    Their most recent article series (two parts) are uploaded here: http://imgur.com/a/CvlvQ

    They haven't scraped the Daniel 4 stuff, they just try not to mention it too much!

    My standard Copy and Past response on this topic of 607:

    539+17+1+4+2+43 -19=587

    Date for Destruction of Jerusalem = 587 B.C.

    Compare with Tyre:

    “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination ... ip-1 p.253 par. 21

  • diamondiiz
    diamondiiz
    Just lurking here from time to time but decided to contribute to this one since many younger ones don't know the original BS calculations and supporting theology for 1914
    "As we shall see, the Bible record extends to the first year of Cyrus, B.C. 536, a well established and generally accepted date." - 1889, The Time Is At Hand, page 38
    Russell's Calculation:536BCE-70=606BC + 2520 = 1914
    Problems:
    536BCE isn't Cyrus's first year. Russell didn't realize that there was no zero year between BC and AD.
    Solution:After 50 years they came out with a solution. In 1943, Cyrus became "ruler of the world" in 539, but his first year didn't complete until fall of 538 and by the time Jews got back home, had to be 537BC. So now we have:537-70 = 607 + 2520 + 1 year adjustment for no zero year = 1914
    And there you have it. The troof with some fuzzy muff shows clearly that Jehoober is backing the filthy and disgusting scum-bag.

    ps. Don't forget that the second supporting witness to 1914 was the stone witness, the pyramid of gyza. The measurements that supported 1914 prior to 1910 were 3416" afterwards revised to 3,457" and with similar fuzzy reasoning the end point remained 1914. Well they claimed that the end would began in 1914 and may linger through most of 1915 but no longer. - wiki Well, nobody remembers this since the pyramid was proclaimed to be work of satan :) by drunk Joe Rutherfraud.
    The third support was 40 years from Jesus' return in 1874 but unfortunately this support gave way when 1874 seemed too distant and his return was officially moved to 1914 in 1943.
    I think there was another line of support for 1914 that was linked to 1874 or around there.







  • Ultimate Axiom
    Ultimate Axiom

    I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but the debate over 606/7 BCE and 587 BCE is not new. In 1904 Russell received the following letter, which was published in the October 1 Watchtower on page 296 (Reprint page 3436).

    “Dear Sir, since you have changed your views respecting Gentile Times let me suggest the possibility of still another error. You count the seventy years Babylonian captivity of the Jews as beginning with the overthrow of Zedekiah, Judah’s last king, but I notice that “Bishop Usher’s Chronology,” given in the margins of our Common Version Bibles and based on “Ptolemy’s Canon,” begins that seventy-year period nineteen years earlier-namely, in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, when he took captive Daniel and other prominent Jews and laid the Jews’ country under tribute. Now if this, the common reckoning, be correct, it would make the Times of the Gentiles to begin nineteen years later than you estimate, namely, in B. C. 587, instead of B. C. 606; and this in turn would make those times end nineteen years later than you have reckoned - in October, A. D. 1933, instead of October, 1914. What do you say to this? Are you humble enough to acknowledge that I have struck some new light, and that you and all DAWN readers have been “all wrong,” walking in darkness?”

    Russell’s reply was;

    “We reply that there are too many ifs in the proposition, and that they are all abundantly contradicted by facts and Scripture and are therefore not worthy [of] the slightest consideration. (1) The brother errs in supposing that we have changed our view of “Gentile Times.” Those “times” or years are 2520, with a definite beginning in B. C. 606, and a definite ending, A. D. 1914. We know of no reason for changing a figure: to do so would spoil the harmonies and parallels so conspicuous between the Jewish and Gospel ages.”

    So the reason Russell stuck with 606 BCE was because, to do otherwise, would “spoil the harmonies and parallels between the Jewish and Gospel ages”. Harmonies that the Watchtower has long since discarded. So right from the start, 606/7 BCE was chosen because it supported Watchtower doctrine, the facts relating to the year have always been irrelevant.

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    Even back with Russell you can see an reluctance to be critically honest and a weakness in integrity .

    I guess Russell thought, hey I've created something here that has drawn an proportionate amount of attention to myself and the literature I published, I'm not going to throw that away now.

    Russell had the compelling audacity to gather any obscure bits of information that he thought was alluring and engaging enough that he himself could self proclaim and eventually put into print.

    It was most likely that realization which drove William Conley his colleague and president of the WTS. to leave and support another Christian based organization.

    I wasn't all just a matter of standing up for his beliefs, it was also about standing up for his investments into the cost of printing what he published, as well the outward public notoriety he had cultivated around himself.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit