Who besides WTS believes in 607?

by ezekiel3 11 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  ezekiel3

  This is a genuine question on my part. I understand the arguments for 587 vs 607 regarding the destruction of Jerusalem.

  What I want to know is, are there any organizations (religious or other) besides JWs that believe 607?
• 

  TheOldHippie

  Scientology.
• 

  eljefe

  When I was researching this question, I found only one non-JW reference to 607 on the Internet. Even then, the site seemed to be from an x-JW who formed his own church.
  
  I spent hours going to libraries and book stores looking at their history books for 607. I couldn't find any reference. The Watchtower hasn't found one either as you cannot find any quote or reference in any JW publication that says 607.
• 

  Gill

  Yup. 607 is that big old stumbling block that a lot of us tripped over.

  Thanks oldhippie! I had no idea about the Scientologists.
• 

  M.J.

  I doubt anyone. Who else could come up with that but someone with a vested interest in arriving at that year? It requires that (1) you accept historical proof tying the fall of Babylon to 537, (2) you reject the same historical proof when it applies to the dating of all prior events in that period, and (3) you strictly insist on a certain problematic interpretation of a 70 year prophecy in the Bible.

  Not even Russell or Adventist Barbour came up with 607. They came up with 606.
• 

  M.J.

  I don't think old hippie was serious.
• 

  TheOldHippie

  It could be understood as a joke, I see that, but in fact I was rather serious - I remember reading a "time-table" a couple of years ago made by the Scientologists, and there 607 was specified as the year for Jerusalem's conquest. I'll try to re-find it. Meanwhile, treat it as a joke ... or something .....
• 

  eyeslice

  Ezekiel3,
  
  That's a good question you raise.
  
  You would think that if 607/537 are such pivotal dates as the WTBTS makes out, then they would be incontrovertible or at the very least accepted by a majority of historians. Surely, God wants to make things as easy as possible for people to recognise the established kingship of his son and not make it like something out of the Da Vinci Code.
  
  Eyeslice
• 

  Gill

  O.K. Joke taken...or something...

  The fact, then, that only JWs come up with 607 is to them a sign that everyone else is wrong and they're right. It couldn't possible occur to them that everyone else is right and they just might be wrong.... heaven forbid!
• 

  euripides

  Check out http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/607b.htm and this will give you a history of the doctrine. Odd indeed. Of course, not one single reputable contemporary scholar says that Jerusalem fell before 587/586 BCE. That's because when you read the history you'll see the full story.

  Euripides