You might have to register real quick to post but does anyone want to put some info up against this Witness?
Here's the link:
1914, does anyone want to comment on this Link's topic?
by NotaNess 5 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
NotaNess
anyone? bump
-
sweetface2233
Not personally, but I just popped in for a min and thought I would say Hi. How are you?
-
megawatt
Looks like an official response from WATCHTOWER.COM on the last post( *GASP*, WTBS using the internet, changing tactics?). To be honest, soo much info I'm going through right now, I'm not well versed yet on the 607 bce subject. But if anything like their other doctrines and fallacies, I'm sure anyone who puts a few hours of research in the subject should be able to DEBUNK all that verbal diarrhea.
I've just ordered Gentile Times reconsidered by Carl Jonsson.
-
Billy the Ex-Bethelite
I think I'll watch and see how it plays out. Frankly, since the "this generation" change, 1914 is irrelevant. Consequently 607 is meaningless.
Sure, the dubs still point to the Bible to support 1914, but don't they remember the other 'proof' of 1914 that was pointed to for decades?
B the X
-
bob1999
"Good boy Truett - now point to even one "quote" [falsely presented as they may be, but you already knew that] where in the quote it states, "This Yhwh has said ...""
<br><br>How about the statement of purpose. Awake! masthead from March 1988 until October 22 1995
Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator's promise of a peaceful and secure new world before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away.
<br><br>That sounds like the WTS is speaking in the name of....
<br><br>Peace