Where did 607 come from?

by MrFreeze 100 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  Post 1400

  You say that 607 BCE is a 'provable falsehood' but how can this be when the computaion of 607 BCE, the events of biblical history are fully described and it has a prophetic outreach prove beyond doubt that this is the only correct and possible date for the Fall. It is only this date that honours Jehovah as the God of True Prophecy.

  COJ did not tip me off regarding Young's article because he never said anything to tip me off. He simply included his name in a long list of other names. COJ has never commented about Young's article either in the past or the present.

  WT chronology is not contrived to suit some agenda nor has it ever been so contived as you allege. WT chronology was initially presented to focus on Christ's Second Coming and the nRestoration of all things promised by Jehovah God. This chronology has always had as its objective to be faithful and loyal to the Word of God a matter in which secular chronologies are indifferent to this noble and honourable purpose.

  scholar JW
• 

  hotspur

  Chronology not contrived? You've got to be kidding right? You can't have studied the WTS' latest view of "a generation"
• 

  AnnOMaly

  You say that 607 BCE is a 'provable falsehood' but how can this be when the computaion of 607 BCE, the events of biblical history are fully described and it has a prophetic outreach prove beyond doubt that this is the only correct and possible date for the Fall. It is only this date that honours Jehovah as the God of True Prophecy.

  More badly expressed bunkum.

  COJ did not tip me off regarding Young's article because he never said anything to tip me off. He simply included his name in a long list of other names. COJ has never commented about Young's article either in the past or the present.

  Great. More confirmation of what I said - you first learned of the article from COJ.

  WT chronology is not contrived to suit some agenda nor has it ever been so contived as you allege.

  No, it was a inference you made when you said,

  "Delusion not needed but simply the use of a chronology to suit ones own purposes."

  This is exactly what the WTS does.

  WT chronology was initially presented to focus on Christ's Second Coming and the nRestoration of all things promised by Jehovah God. This chronology has always had as its objective to be faithful and loyal to the Word of God a matter in which secular chronologies are indifferent to this noble and honourable purpose.

  I have no doubt that initially the WTS' (specifically Russell's) intentions were honorable, but it doesn't alter the fact that the WT chronology is wrong for that era nor does it alter the fact that, after having been alerted repeatedly to their chronology's erroneousness for the best part of a century now, the WT leaders should know better than to promote it as Truth!
• 

  PSacramento

  WT chronology was initially presented to focus on Christ's Second Coming and the nRestoration of all things promised by Jehovah God. This chronology has always had as its objective to be faithful and loyal to the Word of God

  Ah, NO.

  The WORD of God said there is NO chronology and that man should NOT seek it, that is God's provedence and NOT man's.

  Jesus said so and it was repeated in Acts Chapter 1.
• 

  isaacaustin

  OMG, Jesus said it was no for man to know God's timetable. The org says 'yes, it is!'
• 

  PSacramento

  Jesus even warned that there would be people claiming he had come and to NOT listen to them.
• 

  MrFreeze

  Forget it Ann... it's Chinatown.

  It's clear scholar doesn't get it. He says it must be the date. Not because of any facts or proof but because the JW's say it is. That's the only proof he has given. You know what, when it comes to dates, there is fact and their is fiction. Everybody but the JW's agree that it was NOT 607. That should be your first hint right there considering 607 falls conveniently in their supposed timeframe. The Bible does specifically say 607 was the year. Why is scholar going outside of what the Bible says? You know what the Bible says about interpretations of man right? You should fear for your eternal life scholar. You put an interpretation of man above what the Bible says.
• 

  scholar

  AnnOMaly

  Post 1401

  'Bunkum' well describes your pitiful efforts in discrediting the validity of 607 BCE.

  No, I did not learn of Young's article from COJ but found it from my own research.

  Chronology is after all a product of Methodology and Interpretation so any chronology does indeed 'suit a purpose' whatever that may be and that is what all scholars do.

  Russell's chronology also included material concerning the Life and Death of our Lord and this chronology has been widely accepted within scholarship. His chronology has not been proved wrong at all but has been confirmed with a little 'fine tuning' to be a correct chronology of both the OT and the NT. Any chronology must be a'work in progress' as is true of all scientiofic knowledge.

  scholar JW
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Forget it Ann... it's Chinatown. It's clear scholar doesn't get it.

  Actually MrFreeze, I think he does 'get it' really. But you saw where he said on the other thread that his postings over recent years have produced an audience? I think he takes the polar opposite view, against all reason, just to gain attention.

  As has been shown over and over again during these past years, the more he's pressed, the more incoherent, contradictory and divorced from reality his answers become (see post #1888 above as a typical example). As for me, I enjoy sporting with him from time-to-time.
• 

  PSacramento

  Russell's chronology also included material concerning the Life and Death of our Lord and this chronology has been widely accepted within scholarship. His chronology has not been proved wrong at all but has been confirmed with a little 'fine tuning' to be a correct chronology of both the OT and the NT. Any chronology must be a'work in progress' as is true of all scientiofic knowledge.

  You know, saying soemthing that is WRONG over and over will not make it right, just as being a porponent of a lie and increasing that lie by further lies, will not make it the truth.