607

by Zico 290 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  scholar

  barry

  You ask about the three and half years from 1914 to1918 should better be understood as 1260 years instead. There are numerous theories as to how this specific time element should be applied and I would suggest that you stydy carefully what WT publications have stated on this matter. What is most essential for understanding such time elements is the context and the context as shown by Daniel and Revelation is that this event would be applied to the last days or the time of the end soon after the birth of the Messianic Kingdom in 1914 and would concern itself with developments of the true religion or church in that period.

  scholar JW
• 

  jwfacts

  I agree with Spectrum. In regards to Dan 4 there are numerous reasons that it is irrelevant regardless of 607.

  It was a prophecy that had its fulfillment with Nebuchadrezzar. There is nothing to say it should have 2 fulfillments.

  Look at the other Daniel prophecies, they only had one fulfillment, the beasts, the king of the North, the 70 weeks, so why say this one should have two fulfillments?

  This dream requires a huge imagination to think it refers to the Gentile times.
• 

  scholar

  Spectrum

  Your evasive responsive is noteworthy and I do not respond to hypotheticals. I repeat that 607 is a firmly biblical calcuable date and does not need outside confirmation from some problematic artefact open to interpretation akin to your grumblings about interpretation of doctrines and prophecy. Everything is subject to interpretation and that includes whatever date you propose.

  scholar JW
• 

  jwfacts

  Scholar 607 is not biblically verifiable as it requires outside artefacts to establish 539 from which 607 is derived.

  Also what biblical evidence is that that the call to go forth happened in 537 and not 538 or 539.
• 

  Spectrum

  Scholar,
  
  "Your evasive responsive is noteworthy"
  
  Reverse psychology doesn't work on me. My answer was direct clear and to the point. You've admitted you don't want to answer it. How evasive is that?
  
  You are behaving as though you are in a court of Law it's a legitimate innocous question to which you are afraid to answer.
  
  I believe that the whole WTBS edifice is built on this dubious date and you cannot even contemplate a hypothetical question whose answer would knock the feet from under your organisation.
• 

  scholar

  jwfacts

  Your claim that the tree dream had only a typical fulfillment with Nebuchadnezzer and not to a duration of Gentile Times ignores the facts of history and is false to the theology of Daniel which has as its underlying theme that of the Sovereignty of God. Jesus himself in Luke 21:24 mades reference to these times showing that such a period was still in progress. Many expositors and commentators have long seen a much greater fufillment of this prophecy and this accords with the fact that the lesson learnt by Nebuchadnezzer was that God himself would properly assert his sovereignty by means of the Kingdom which runs through the entire Bible.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  jwfacts

  587 is certainly not verifiable biblically. the date 607 is because it is derived fron secular and biblical data which includes some artefacts. 607 is derived from the addition of a seventy years specified biblically to a biblically specified Return of the Exiles in 537. The pivotal date merely serves as an anchor for establishing OT chronology but well lies within this critical phase of biblical history.

  537 is well established for the Return of the Exiles with the decree of Cyrus and the release of the captives in his first year as described in Ezra 1:1 - 3:1.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  Spectrum

  I do not deal with nonsense or special pleading. You only believe that the so-called WT edifice is built upon a dubious date is because others have told you this and have seduced you by their cunning. You talk a bout 607 being a dubious date. LOL What can be more dubious than 587 or 586 when scholars cannot decide which date is correct. When you can confirm the provenance of such a date then and only then can you make a some claim of 607.

  scholar JW
• 

  scholar

  morwen

  In posting the nice photos did you not stop to think why it is that scholars prefer 586 as opposed to the Jonsson/apostate date of 587? The texts with those photos simply proves the opinions of certain scholars and does not reflect biblical evidence.

  scholar JW
• 

  jwfacts

  Now I remember why i avoid doctrinal debates, they go nowhere as it is all hypothetical.

  You say that scholars don't agree on 587/6 yet no one agrees on 607/6 either, the WTS changed it at random in 1943 to suit at predetermined end date.

  As far as the many expositors and commentators who believe a second fulfillment of prophecy, I am not aware of many that say Dan 4 comes to 1914 or 1934 or any other such date. I am always amused that the WTS feels it can quote these commentators when they back up Watchtower doctrine and then label them tools of Satan when they disagree with the WTS.