New Jerusalem 607 B.C.E. web Site

by jdough 11 Replies latest jw friends

  • jdough
    jdough

    Hello: There is a new web site devoted to the false claim by Jehovah's Witnesses that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E. Please feel free to link to the site. http://www.geocities.com/jerusalem607/ Question:What would happen to JW doctrines if Jerusalem was not destroyed in 607 B.C.E.?

  • AK - Jeff
    AK - Jeff

    Question:What would happen to JW doctrines if Jerusalem was not destroyed in 607 B.C.E.?

    Well, 1914 evaporates, and 1919. 1935 is hung out to dry.

    As far as the dubs are concerned, unfortunately, little would change. It would all fall under new light, and the concept that binds them to this organization would still bind them.

    God, how I hate to state that - for I wish it were not true.

    Jeff

  • Mary
    Mary

    Question: What would happen to JW doctrines if Jerusalem was not destroyed in 607 B.C.E.?

  • Dansk
    Dansk
    What would happen to JW doctrines if Jerusalem was not destroyed in 607 B.C.E.?

    No 607 BCE = no 1914 = no 1918 = the governing body is a bogus lot of wrinklies! But it would be easier to head-butt a brick wall than to get through to most JWs.

    Ian

  • jeanV
    jeanV

    one day or the other GB will have to introduce this "new light" (i feel a bit sorry for all those zealous JW that have worked hard on defending it on the internet and from evening to morning they will have to claim, with the same determination and conviction, that they were wrong )

    it will be hard to swallow, but many will remain loyal. I am sure that it will be presented in a very appealing way...

  • yaddayadda
    yaddayadda

    All creeds that hinge on the 607 chronology would have to go, or be completely reinterpreted. This would seriously undermine the WTS's claim to have been appointed by Christ over all his 'belongings' in 1918-19.

    Although it would damage the Society's authority, such a change would not affect one iota the Society's core doctrines (no trinity, no immortal soul, resurrection of the dead back to earth, 1000 reign over a paradise earth, etc). All JW's are utterly convinced of these doctrines, and so most would remain loyal to the organisation no matter what happened re their 1914 chronology.

    This is the real 'concept' that keeps JW's loyal to the WTS, ie, the 'concept' that only they can be the true religion because only they teach genuine, primitive, unadulterated true Christianity that is free from Babylonish false doctrines.

  • sspo
    sspo

    The Mighty GB can do and say and switch any doctrines they want at anytime and the rank and file will follow.

    They said in the past they have no direct line to Jehovah but this coming sunday study article it brings out that the 24 elders of revelation are communicating and directing the GB.

    Big, filthy lie that will be sucked up by 6.5 million of JW's

    They can do no wrong in the eyes of the majority that worships them.

  • truthsetsonefree
    truthsetsonefree

    All of the above are reasons why they will never let go of it. I think the GB are about to dig their heels on a lot of things.

    tsof

  • moggy lover
    moggy lover

    Incidently I can't link to the site. When I punched the adress you gave the page came up blank. Evidently your adress was incomplete.

    For what its worth I can pass on something that I did pull up and which is relatively new. Its a WT favoured site and written in a manner to support WT policies. Its bright, even scholarly, and quite well written. I would reccomend it to anyone interested in a WT leaning justification for their chronology. It is written by someone called "Jim Space" [which may be a psedonym] and shows how bankrupt official WT writings are in that they have to rely on auxilliaries like "jim space" rather than themselves

    http://geocities.com/jimspace3000/JWstrs/index.htm

    Cheers

  • jdough
    jdough

    Thanks for all of your replies. Try this web address. It should bring it up nicely. Has anyone else had a difficult time bringing up this site? This is actually a response to that link you provided me, and that long defense of their position. I have spent much time on it and would much appreciate any feedback to see if I'm on the correct path. If you can't bring it up let me know. http://www.geocities.com/jerusalem607/

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit