607 date

by Cordelia 126 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  hillary_step

  Slimfatboy,

  Technically it does 'underpin' everything Jehovah's Witnesses believe about authority among Witnesses and all that.

  Correct.

  I understand the mechanics of that. But I just don't buy it either. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that they have the truth because they believe that they teach the truth (duh). They believe that Jesus picked them because they had the most things right in 1919, or 1918, or whenever. But at the end of the day, when Jehovah's Witnesses eventually drop the 1914 thing, they will still insist that they are God's chosen people because they teach true doctrines. That is why both Jehovah's Witnesses and apostates are wrong to focus on this date. Better to just get straight to the beliefs and evaluate them - because that is the true basis for Jehovah's Witnesses sticking with the 'channel'.

  There is no doubt about it that the WTS will eventraully drop the 1914 / 607 BCE teaching. I am sure that plans are underway for this to take place. A few years ago I spoke with a member of the GB about this very issue. He acknowledged that it had problems but indicated that in the big-picture it was not important as Christ gave us the 'signs', not an exact date and that the 'signs' have the final word on the matter.

  You however, miss a very important point here. Each time that the WTS reverses or fiddles with its major doctrines it loses tens of thousands of worshippers. Many on this board who were once zealous Jehovah's Witnesses exited the corporation exactly because examination of the 1914CE / 607BCE issue. Numerous others because of the WTS change in its interpretation of the 'geneo'.

  Growth within the WTS is slowing, more and more people are becoming enlightened regarding the major flaws in their doctrines that you describe as boring and leaving the WTS due to questions like the one posed by Cordelia being answered.

  Who are you Slimfatboy? I have a feeling that you have been on this board before under a different handle.

  HS
• 

  M.J.

  Jehovah's Witnesses believe that they have the truth because they believe that they teach the truth (duh). They believe that Jesus picked them because they had the most things right in 1919, or 1918, or whenever. But at the end of the day, when Jehovah's Witnesses eventually drop the 1914 thing, they will still insist that they are God's chosen people because they teach true doctrines. That is why both Jehovah's Witnesses and apostates are wrong to focus on this date. Better to just get straight to the beliefs and evaluate them - because that is the true basis for Jehovah's Witnesses sticking with the 'channel'.

  I agree that eventually they'll have to drop this. But the reality is that although witnesses will assert that the WTS as representative of the truth because of what they teach, the WTS asserts its authority on the basis of its divine appointment to do so. Compare this with the Christadelphians, for example, who believe they have the truth SOLELY because of their teachings, without the belief in a divine authority/revelation granted to a central leader or organization. There would be much less resentment against the WTS if it did not think so highly of itself and humbly cease to operate from such an authortarian premise.
• 

  scholar

  Cordelia

  You ask concerning the validity of 607 and I can assure you that there is abundant biblical evidence for this date and sufficient secular evidence for its support. The WT publications present the matter simply and clearly as well the follow-on date 1914. If you need any assistance on this matter then I am only to willing to help.

  scholar JW
• 

  AlanF

  Cordelia, the 607 date is wrong, and the Watchtower Society knows it. They can't yet get rid of the doctrine because there are too many JWs left who would croak if they changed it, having been fed on it and a lot of corollary nonsense for too long.

  If you want to see the incredibly stupid gyrations that a JW apologist can go through attempting to defend this indefensible doctrine, look at this thread:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/87714/1.ashx

  AlanF
• 

  stevenyc

  1914 is very important to the Jdub organization. They use this date as biblical proof of 'the sign of the times' because they struck it lucky with WWI. However, it is a misconception that the Jdub's originaly calculated this date. It came from Nelson H. Barbour of Rochester, New York who was funded by Mr Russell(The original leader) . They also use this date as a certificate of proof for the authority of the governing body. They quote some scripture (I can't remember which one, I'm sure someone here can put it in) in reference to the governing body being jailed on charges of being against the US during the war, and the subsequently released as part of proof of their legitimacy.

  The 1914 date they calculate from 607. If 607 is wrong, WWI prophecy is wrong, the whole authorized governing body is wrong.

  This is the problem with Adventist type religions. They base their premise on prophecy dates that don't exist. Russell was heavily influenced by 2nd day Adventists and liked this date stuff. He even used the 'God built' great pyramid at Giza as proof of the second coming. When the Jdub's promised the big 'A' arriving in the late twenties, they lost a huge percentage of followers in the early thirties.

  The Jdub's will eventually see new light on this issue and change it. They will lose a huge percentage of followers. However, money rules, and I don't think they will disappear. Jdub's talk about the original growth of the organization as being Jehovah's spirit working. This is not the case. Mr Russell was a rich man who deposited a large amount of money into his misguided passion. When they lose massive amounts of disillusioned people, soon, you have to remember they are a publishing corperation worth millions of dollars. They will continue.

  steve
• 

  Honesty

  The WT literature proves that 607 B.C. is an invalid date for the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.

  The actions, prejudices and conditional love prove the JW's are not Jesus' followers.
• 

  hillary_step

  Scholar-Puppet,

  You ask concerning the validity of 607 and I can assure you that there is abundant biblical evidence for this date and sufficient secular evidence for its support. The WT publications present the matter simply and clearly as well the follow-on date 1914. If you need any assistance on this matter then I am only to willing to help.

  lol...You have a very sharp sense of humor I will give you that! You put me in mind of a one-legged man trying to hop up a mountain in the vain hope of finding a pair of shoes at the peak.

  Cordelia,

  This subject has been a matter of discussion on this Board on numerous occasions and a search will bring up some interesting material. Scholar's defence of WTS theology has been thoroughly dismantled time and time again, but as ever, the unconcious boxer is claiming another victory.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  ozziepost

  the majority would simply say that they believe it is the truth because they are convinced by the things they teach now.

  SlimBoy:

  such as? I'm interested. Really.

  Or maybe I should say intrigued.

  Many of the current teachings depend on the 1914 doctrine. Would you care to elaborate on that? You may see why 607 is so important. You can't explain away current JW teaching without it.

  Ozzie
• 

  scholar

  Cordelia

  Once again those wiley poztates jump out of the woodwork to scream out that 607 is wrong. But use your intelligence, remember that most of those who are shouting that it is the wrong date at one time believed that it was the right date. So there is a matter of intellectual integrity that must be addressed. By all means read the voluminous material posted on this very complex subject for I have long debated this subject for many years and have caused these poztates much grief over this matter as judged by the hysteria this subject has caused.

  The bottom line is simply this. If 607 is wrong then you have to have a replacement year. Now you have a choice of the following: 588, 587, 587/586, 586. This is the stark reality of the situation as any reference work will demonstrate. Consult any encyclopedia or a book on biblical history and you will see that there is not a single agreed date for the Fall of Jerusalem as presented by all scholars. Now this singualr fact is not what the poztates want you to know.

  scholar JW
• 

  IP_SEC

  quote: Now this singualr fact is not what the poztates want you to know.
  
  
  Ho brother scholar, talk about intellectual integrity. No apostate will try to hide or even worry about that. That is because it is the bible that causes the ambiguity. Dont make a mountain out of an ant hill bro.