"We found absolutely nothing in support of 607 B.C.E. All historians pointed to a date twenty years later."
Note reference to 607 B.C.E. on page 30, COC
by Butterflyleia85 9 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
garyneal
Yeah, I remember reading that too. I also found more information in that book on the subject in the chapter 1914 and this generation. He mentions Carl's book so I decided to go ahead and order a copy of it too.
-
bohm
I often wonder how they deal with this problem at the higher levels in bethel - ie. if there are special procedures to make sure its only really, really indoctrinated bethelites who get to research these troublesome issues when something has to be changed or re-written.
-
Butterflyleia85
Thank you guys for your comments.
-
inbetween
The issue with JW, who are interested in this subject (most dont care), I was one of them, they think like that:
537 (actaully 539) is a certain date, then the bible says, Jerusalem be devastated for 70 years, so it must be 607.
If secular sources point to something else, then the bible must be right. secular sources are not trustworthy and often needed changing.
What most JW do not know, because it is hidden from the average student of Gods word (through WTS literature only):
1) 537 or 539 in that case, are also based only on secular sources
2) the time span of 70 years can and perhaps does include the time babylon dominated several countires, not limited to jerusalem
3) most important: it is quite a spectacular stretch to calculate from 7 times foretold regarding a pagan king to the time which should elapse til the reestablishment of Gods kingdom. In fact, this dream of Nebu had no further significant prophetic meaning. its just nonsense.
-
Terry
During my stint (1959--1979) as a Jehovah's Witness I only met one person who could go through the computations which produced
any significant date. Looking back on this now I feel like I was once a member of a Flat Earth Society bound and determined to "prove" the planet Earth is not a lumpy spheroid at all, just flat!
It smacks of Conspiracy Theorists who can "prove" for hours at a time that Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy. (Cubans, Mafia, LBJ, KGB, CIA, anybody but Oswald!!)
I work in a bookstore and frequently have conversations with people obsessed with some quirky nonsense only they and a small cabal of true-believers can "prove".
It's tough admitting to having been mentally ill like that!!
What else can you call it? Faith?
Well, Faith is a mental illness, then.
Come on, Jesus; get up off yer butt and do something! 96 years of you sitting on the throne and its the same old thing as back BEFORE you returned! What gives??!!!
Terry
-
Olin Moyles Ghost
Terry, that's a great observation. I think it all boils down to your starting point, or null hypothesis. For example, if your null hypothesis is that Jerusalem fell in 607 BC or that Jesus became "invisibly present" in 1914, then you will view all facts in the light most favorable to your position and you'll find a way to disregard contrary evidence.
That's one of the things that makes it so difficult for most JWs to see the light. They're ingrained with these beliefs regarding 607, 1914, etc. Thus, to the extent they'll even discuss such matters, they require incontrovertible proof that 607 is wrong or 1914 is wrong. And it's impossible to prove a negative. Therefore, these JWs stick with it "just in case" the WTS is right about these dates. Of course, the practice of shunning contributes to this mindset as well.
-
zoiks
Looking back on this now I feel like I was once a member of a Flat Earth Society bound and determined to "prove" the planet Earth is not a lumpy spheroid at all, just flat!
Nice analogy, Terry! I look back on my attempts to reconcile the huge gulfs between my untenable stance on things and EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE available, and I'm blown away. Also a little red-faced.
-
Mad Sweeney
Yup. In retrospect it's quite embarrassing.
But perhaps it shouldn't be. Maybe it's just that the psychological manipulation they use works and it wasn't our fault for buying it.
-
thetrueone
Over the decades from Russell's and Rutherford's time much more archaeological evidence has been discovered
in way of ancient tablets discovered on the site of ancient Babylon.
These discoveries further confirm that ancient Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 BCE. and that Nebuchadnezzar didn't even
take to throne of Babylon until 605 BCE.
Will the WTS. ever admit to this mistake in calculating the 1914 date though, I would assume not for to do so
would reveal the fallibility of this organization's proclamations.
The organizations proclamation that they are only the true religion stymies making adjustments
and adjustments would hurt this outward image that they've constructed for themselves.