Confronting Parents About 607 vs 587

by breezy 21 Replies latest jw experiences

  • Atlantis

    There shouldn't be any debate at all concerning the date of 607 BCE!

    In 1890 the Watchtower endorsed the book by the Edgar's which stated that Jerusalem was destroyed in 588 BCE.

    Then the Watchtower changed their mind and set 606 as the date.

    Then the Watchtower changed their mind again and changed 606 to 607.

    In-other-words, the Watchtower could not bring themselves to admit that they were wrong. Ask anyone with half a brain who they are going to believe! An organization that can not make up its mind or historical facts and scholars who know what they are talking about.

    Is the Watchtower aware that Jehovah's Witnesses themselves promote and have for download the book called: Uncle Daniel's Bible Class? This 1890 book which plainly shows Zion's Watch Tower advertisements in the front of the book, and written by John & Morton Edgar plainly states that Jerusalem was destroyed in 588 BCE.

    This book debunks 607 all together! And Jehovah's Witnesses are advertising it on their website! What does that tell you about so called "Unity" in their organization?

    The date 607 has been destroyed so many times on this board that the subject of it has become old news.

    If you want a copy of Uncle Daniel's Bible Class just send me a PM and where to send you a download link. No problem! The book is listed in Randy Watter's Watchtower Publications List. The book has been in the Internet Archives for years!


  • notjustyet

    Check out this William Miller chart Pre 1843 many decades before CTR was ever born. See the 2520 years over on the right. This would be something you could bring up as to how the WTBTS got the 2520 years? They will mention CTR then you could share that he got this info from William Miller. Also check out videos on Youtube about "The Great Disappointment" showing how WM thought the end was coming in 1844 and how that worked out.

  • tragical
    Great thread man! I can sympathize with you on this as I have to face the same crap from my parents. I love them to death but they are ignorant of reality. They can't answer your question because more and more people know that 607 was not the year of Jerusalem's destruction.
  • breezy

    Little update on this.

    They're obviously using the 537 day as for when the jews returned and then adding 70 years to get 607. When i bring up the neo-babylonian kings and where they account for them in getting that year, they disregard it because historians say there might have been periods of time where there was no king.

    So basically its just back and forth of pure nothing. We accept the fact that historians agree with 539, then when we use the neo babylonian kings reign to get to 587 ( which is taken from the bible )....... its somehow not taken in consideration because historians say there might have been periods of time with no ruler yet we don't agree with historians about 587...... My mind right now is blown

    And there is nothing i can do, to make them realize what im trying to say. Its like a brick wall is blocking all logical sense.

  • Saintbertholdt

    There are 17 ways to get to 587 BCE. See - The Gentile Times reconsidered by Carl Olaf Jansen

    An interesting question is whether C T Russell used his own Bible research to get to 1914?

    The answer is simple: Not at all. In 1823, John Aquila Brown published the book The Even-Tide. In the second last chapter called: TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND TWENTY YEARS OR DURATION OF THE FOUR TYRANNICAL EMPIRES (page 130) he asserted that the "seven times" of Daniel 4 was a prophetic 2,520 years, running from the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar's reign in 604 B.C. to 1917 A.D.

    John Brown believed that Armageddon would then take place. Brown also placed emphasis on the year 1843 (The year which William Miller used). The method Brown used to arrive at his date is exactly the same that Russell adopted, even thinking that Armageddon would arrive in 1914 as did Brown. Russell just adjusted the 604 B.C.E. date to 607.

    The idea that Russell got to 1914 using his own research is pure fantasy. It is the product of John Brown who was part of conventional Christianity or what Jehovah's Witnesses like to call: Babylon the Great.

  • xjwsrock

    Breezy -

    this video helps you understand the brick wall that you're running into

  • wizzstick

    They're obviously using the 537 day as for when the jews returned and then adding 70 years to get 607

    The idea that the 70 years finishes in 537 can be shot down using one scripture in the Bible. Jer 25:12:

    12 “‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account* the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,’ declares Jehovah, ‘and I will make the land of the Chal·de′ans a desolate wasteland for all time.

    On JW. Org when you click on the * it says punish.

    So the question for your parents is, when does this 70 years end? Presumably they will say 537. But then ask them how can you punish a King who hasn't been in place as a king for two years? He was overthrown in 539!

    Even the Bible contradicts WT theology. I guess the Bible is wrong huh?

  • mana11
    notjustyet, can you post a link where i can get that image thanks...
    I can use this in more flyers for Africa!
  • Tornintwo

    Well done - breezy bravely done - the ignorance we find in the org is extreme.

    Personally after reading a few articles in jwfacts etc. I didn't feel the need to to a great deal of research myself into this date. As soon as I found out the vast majority of historians, who have made it their life's work to research such matters, agree on 587CE, that was enough for me. The witnesses love to use secular historians to back them up when their arguments agree with jw teachings, but when they don't agree they dismiss them as wrong - complete double standards.

    Its like when a court finds against the witnesses it is 'satans' court. But when they win a case, Jehovah is using the legal system to advance the preaching work. Yeah right.

  • DesirousOfChange

    You will almost always lose when arguing doctrine.

    JWs obviously do not care about doctrine as they change it constantly.


Share with others