607 date

by Cordelia 126 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  MidwichCuckoo

  The bottom line is simply this. If 607 is wrong then you have to have a replacement year.

  Didn't QUITE understand this - for us English, does it mean, ''we've cocked up 607, we're resorting to Plan B''??
• 

  AlanF

  MidwichCuckoo said:

  : does it mean, ''we've cocked up 607, we're resorting to Plan B''??

  That's not what scholar pretendus means. All he's doing is raising a straw man, and dragging yet another red herring across the path of logic. Since he has no real evidence, all he can do is try to find straws to grasp at to try to tell himself that there must be something wrong with the secular and biblical history that results in 587/6 for Jerusalem's destruction, and so by default, 607 must be right. Such 'logic' isn't logic at all -- it's nothing but a pile of stupid excuses.

  AlanF
• 

  MidwichCuckoo

  Ah - so Scholar IS resorting to 'plan B' then - whatever that is in 'WTBTS-speak'?
• 

  Robert_V_Frazier

  Ah - so Scholar IS resorting to 'plan B' then - whatever that is in 'WTBTS-speak'?

  Um, no. For "scholar", there can be no plan B. Plan A is to believe whatever the Society says is right. That's the one and only reason he has for defending 607 as the date of the fall of Jerusalem. In the unthinkable event that plan A fails, the fallback position is to defend plan A with more fanaticism, and louder. Unfortunately, he is insane. What you see in this thread and all other threads with "scholar" in them is the bizarre spectacle of reasonable people trying to persuade a madman that he is wrong. It cannot be done, but what can be done and is being done is to clearly show to all observers that he is mad, and so is the thesis he defends. He may someday snap out of his madness, but until then he will continue to defend the indefensible. He can't help himself. Robert V Frazier
• 

  hillary_step

  When the WTS manages to extricate itself from its own chronological hand-cuffs, as it undoubtedly will, and then foists on its adherents some new light that cunningly manages to blame the 'publishers' for getting 607BCE wrong, Scholar will be back on this board defending this adjusted understanding with equal vehmence.

  This is clear evidence that his interests do not lie in what is true but in what is loyal - a very dangerous intellectual territory to walk.

  If he does not agree with my statement, I offer him this challenge : When the WTS changes it view on 607BCE and it will, will you publicly repudiate your attachment to the WTS?

  The answer to that question will evidence all we need to know about Scholar's real claim to a 'scholarship'!

  HS
• 

  Leolaia

  He will praise the brilliant "WT scholars" who, thanks to brighter light, have discovered the full meaning of the "70 years" and have outdone those wiley poztate scholars who can't agree between 587 or 586, for the Society will definitively establish one of these as the absolute correct date. And he will defend his earlier defense of 607 as being faithful to God and his organization, rather than running ahead of it like those wiley poztates.
• 

  jeanniebeanz

  brilliant "WT scholars"

  <looks around the room nervously anticipating the men in white coats will show up and take someone away over that statement...>

  lol...