May I just ask one simple ? on 607, apologists, and this board???

by JWoods 28 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  DJK

  Do like I do.

  "and this board???"

  That's the only reason I opened this thread.
• 

  Georgiegirl

  I think 607 is still an issue for those who have been in for 30+ years. The organization used to be ALOT more doctrinally based. I think most newbie JWs now couldn't handle the stuff we had to study. Remember the old Ezekiel book? and the God's Kingdom of 1000 years? Ugh. That stuff was dry and tedious at best but a great deal of it was "prophetic" in nature. So 607 is a HUGE point. I can tell you it is THE teaching that got me out (the other stuff, like the UN, sealed the deal) but it was the verifiably demonstrated fact that 607 was wrong, thus 1914 was wrong and thus they COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHOSEN in 1919 by their own chronology! that made my brain start to function on its own again.

  And the first place I found where I could ask questions and not be scared of something bad happening to me (like being DFd) was here. I was terrified to post in the regular forums so I posted privately for a looooooong time and the first set of my questions was about 607.

  So yeah - at this point, it gets tedious and I generally skip over those threads NOW but never underestimate how important they can be to someone. I haven't been out long - but without those discussions? I don't think I would have mentally and emotionally ever been free.
• 

  Billy the Ex-Bethelite

  When I first came here, I really hadn't thought that much about 607. After reading one of those threads with "scholar" posting his usual nonsense, it dawned on me how really wrong JW chronology was. Not just "a little off" but totally fake! And I was shocked at how stubborn the JW mindset was in defending such rubbish.

  As I looked at the history of that JW belief of 607 pointing to 1914, I came across Russell's pyramidology crap. Wow, that was an eye-opener ! As a truthful truth-lover, I now love to take advantage of sharing this pyramidological truth with others.

  If others don't care to rehash the JW 607 mish-mash, there are plenty of threads about U.S. politics to read instead.
• 

  shamus100

  It's just the flavour of the week.

  As Priest reminded me recently, we had a homosexual holocaust where literally every thread here was about gay people before Simon had enough. Hell, I had enough and I'm gay!

  Give it time... this too shall pass. So sayeth the sovergn lord jehoblah.
• 

  OUTLAW

  JWoods..

  I have been here a long time..

  I doubt theres a subject that has`nt been debated,Repeatedly..

  Including 607..

  607 will continue to be debated as Newbies show up..

  And..

  Posters like Scholar..

  Will repeatedly get thier Ass Kicked,on the Subject..

  Scholar is one of the Few..

  That never Learns from these Debates..LOL!!..

  ..............................OUTLAW
• 

  isaacaustin

  Wise people learn from others mistakes

  Smart people learn from their own mistakes

  Stupid people never learn

  Try that one on for size 'Scholar"
• 

  OUTLAW

  IsaacAustin..

  The only Size you will get from Scholar..

  Is AlanF`s shoe size..

  From the Boot Marks,he left on Scholars Ass..LOL!!

  ..............................OUTLAW
• 

  isaacaustin

  Outlaw,

  I read the dialog and AlanF PULVERIZED 'scholar' so badly I am surprised 'scholar' has not chosen a new hobby, such as gardening- let alone show his face in these forums.

  lol lol lol

  The only value that 'scholar' showed was entertainment value.
• 

  JWoods

  I know, IsaacAustin and OUTLAW - but in a way I continue to be astonished by people who show such stubborn credulity over this.

  Scholar I always dismissed as one of those people who just want to keep redundently arguing on some pet illogical idea (flat earth-like), but others really seem to come here in waves every so often, worried (maybe legitimately) about the date 607BCE.

  It seems just a little odd - (to me, anyway) - considering that the average witness I knew could barely remember just the 607 number, let alone how this was supposed to add up to 1914, 1918, or 1975.

  And especially it seems odd when we can now plainly see that none of the derived prophetic dates has proved to be anything but a falsehood.

  Yet, some seem to be destiny-bound to argue on for 607BCE - as if it now made the slightest bit of difference.
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  When it comes to arguing 607 BCE, we don't have to prove that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/586 BCE. EVERY archaeologist and historian agrees with these dates. Only those who would dare go against the tons of available evidence have explaining to do.

  Thus, the "Sticking Out Like a Sore Thumb" award goes to Jehovah's Witnesses.

  So why allow this to go on? Think of all the lurkers here, who right now, are reading Scholars inane line of reasoning, his attempts at demonizing his opponenets as "apostates" (which is right out of the GB playbook) in the hopes that dis-interested or lazy lurkers won't read up on the matter.

  I love it. Let him post his poo. If anyone with an ounce of initiative reads up on these things, they will see for themselves that Jehovah's Witnesses lie about the 607 BCE date, and the related 1914 date. (which is a date that is becoming more irrelevant as we get ready to hit the 2nd decade of the 21st century)

  Btw, here it is in a couple of sentences: The very same archaelogical evidence that gives the Society the date of 539 BCE as the date of Babylons destruction (which the Borg and historians agree on) also say, thanks to the same evidence that Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon in 587/586 BCE. This evidence is based on the careful records kept of stars and constellations, which are still in the sky today. It's simply a matter of counting backwards. Thus, one date or the other is wrong, but they are both based on the EXACT same evidence. Why keep one date of Babylons fall as a "pivotal" date (as the GB like to call it) while rejecting the other date for Jerusalems destruction?

  Jehovah's Witnesses (specifically, the Governing Body) knows that there isn't any evidence of 607 BCE. In the 1970's Carl Olaf Johnsson collected volumes of research, and humbly submitted it to the Governing Body, only to have it rejected to prop up the one "prophetic date" that Jehovah's Witnesses hold onto the most, 1914. Anyone who points this out and shows that 1914 is a sham is summarily disfellowshipped. Disfellowshipped for exposing a lie, for being honest and truthful.

  But don't take my word for it. Look it up in your history books you lurkers! To date, "Scholar" the JW apologist has not come up with one secular historian who agrees with Jehovah's Witnesses. Not one.

  Thats because 1914, 607, and in fact, all prophecies that Jehovah's Witnesses have ever tried to do are all lies, and are not accurate.

  But thats ok, lurking Jehovah's Witnesses, if you need to wait till 2014, 2034, or 2050 before it dawns on you, at least you know, some people tried to warn you.