When JW.org drops 607BCE...

by Nathan Natas 141 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  careful

  It will be interesting to see whether the now in-process agenda will indeed move beyond FS time reporting and dress & grooming into doctrine. When the 2013 rev. NWT came out, there was plenty of hidden rejection of FF's ideas scattered throughout the revision, so in some sense, doctrinal change had already begun a decade plus ago.

  Most R&F Witnesses could care less about doctrine and any kind of "in-depth Bible study" especially about prophecy. That's what the 607/1914 Gentiles Times madness is all about. So if the current GB changes that, I suspect there would be little negative reaction from the R&F. In fact, there might very well be relief: "Thank God I don't have to attempt to teach that anymore!"

  There would probably be serious opposition to the idea from spacy Splane who still seems enamored by prophecy (evidently the only one on the GB still caught up in that), but with the rest for a change on 607 etc, and doofus Splane witnessing what happened to his erstwhile buddy Tony Morris who stood up against the majority will, he's likely had the fear of Jehovah put into him against fighting what the bulk of the GB want as their agenda.

  I repeat, it will be interesting to watch what develops here.
• 

  NotFormer

  "Switch out 1919 for 1939 and focus on the start of WW2 and presto! You have a momentous world occasion to mark your "Biblical Chronology." Problem solved!"

  Except that the leadership is completely US-centric. Thus WW2 wouldn't have started until December 7, 1941. 😉😺

  Somewhat off topic, I remember arguing with an old JW lady about 1914. She declared that WW1 was unique in that all the nations of the world were involved for the first time. I disputed that claim, saying that the Napoleonic wars were pretty vast in scope, involving a lot of nations of the time and their colonies, and battles associated with it were happening way outside of Europe's borders.
• 

  scholar

  JW GoneBad

  Be honest you're a WT Apologist...the name suits you!🤣

  No way are you a Scholar!

  --

  The said scholar is both. A scholar and a WT Apologist to boot!

  scholar JW

  BA MA BA (Hons. inc) Religious Studies/Philosophy, Philosophy, Studies in Religion, Deakin, University of Sydney
• 

  scholar

  Phizzy

  Not just Archaeology, but a study of the Babylonian Astronomical Tablets establish without doubt that 587 BCE, (or possibly 586 but that is doubtful) IS the date that King Neb. destroyed Jerusalem.

  The Stars do not lie ! Confirmed by NASA too.

  ----

  Utter rubbish. Scholars do not know the precise date for the fall of Jerusalem whether it is 586, 587 or 588 BCE. JW's do know and it is 607 BCE which is incontrovertible. The Babylonian astronomical tablets are hopeless as Rolf Furuli has demonstrated in his research so it is far better to rely on the ancient inspired historical record of the Holy Bible which has its inherent chronology which establishes 607 BCE for the Fall and 1914 as the end of the Gentile Times.

  scholar JW
• 

  Jeffro

  JWs were saying 606 BCE until 1943 when the finally realised there was no year zero. They refused to change 1914, so they ‘changed’ history instead. 🤣

  It really will be funny seeing how ‘scholar’ behaves if they do drop 1914.

  And the correct year consistent with all of the evidence is definitely 587 BCE. Publication of Babylonian records confirmed the correct year decades ago, but various sources continue to simply repeat Thiele’s outdated chronology. No analysis of the records has pointed to 586 BCE in the last half a century.
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Ws were saying 606 BCE until 1943 when the finally realised there was no year zero. They refused to change 1914, so they ‘changed’ history instead.

  --

  Chronology as with all science is not static but is ever evolving so no surprises here!

  --

  t really will be funny seeing how ‘scholar’ behaves if they do drop 1914.

  ---

  The evidence for 1914 as with 607 is incontrovertible. Both dates have well withstood the tests of time as strands of that strong cable of Bible Chronology. Scholar is at peace!!!

  ---

  And the correct year consistent with all of the evidence is definitely 587 BCE. Publication of Babylonian records confirmed the correct year decades ago, but various sources continue to simply repeat Thiele’s outdated chronology. No analysis of the records has pointed to 586 BCE in the last half a century.

  --

  I admire your confidence but you yourself on your Blog regarding this controversy admit that we cannot know the precise date of the Fall whether it is 587 or 586 BCE so you have a biggy, big pwoblem here. (mispelling). Thiele remains the go-to source for biblical chronology as shown by its use in the current scholarly literature and academic journals.

  scholar JW
  
  

  
  
• 

  NotFormer

  Should 1914 go, would any of the faithful feel it's a bridge too far and get themselves disfellowshipped for disagreeing with the GB?
• 

  Beth Sarim

  The Borg has a way of 'scrapping" old light and reinventing itself.

  Patterns. Yes patterns.

  There was a youtuber a few weeks ago who uploaded a video by a talk given by GB member Gerrit Loesch. The word ""truth"" was uttered 120 times in 7 minutes.

  Its called mind control.

  Well same thing when it comes to the eronious 607 & 1914 theology narrative.

  Say it less,less,less & less.....

  Same tactic but in reverse.

  Stacy last week on his Surviving Paradise touched on this perfectly.
• 

  scholar

  TO ALL OPPONENTS AND CRITICS OF 607 BCE

  In all of my many decades in the pursuit of scholarship pertaining to 607 BCE whether from scholars or our critics I have not read any scholarship that disproves that 607 BCE was not the date for the Fall of Jerusalem. I have read every piece of literature published in English from the fifties to date and have not found a one, single line of evidence that disproves 607 BCE for the Fall.

  My challenge on this forum is for any such opponent or critic to show such proof that 607 BCE is not the date for the Fall of Jerusalem by means of at least one line of evidence. Surely, that is not too much to ask?

  scholar JW
• 

  Jeffro

  😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣

  ’scholar’:

  I admire your confidence but you yourself on your Blog regarding this controversy admit that we cannot know the precise date of the Fall whether it is 587 or 586 BCE

  Not just delusional but an outright liar. Pathetic.