How to help a JW using 607, 1914 stuff.

by apocalypse 39 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  apocalypse

  Oh, I know that the vast majority of dubs are unreachable. I have seen it time and again. I see it all the time in fact.

  However, if a person is working on their mate perhaps, then they can casue a mental roadblock. It can stick to them for a long time, eating at their insides like worms. Eventually, it can have an effect.

  The first point that hurts them, that they will most certainly understand, is when thet see the encyclopedia spell it out that the 607 date is wrong.

  That will eat a hole in their gut. Give it time.

  Then if they try to fix the hole in their gut, you advance to the next stage. They have to do research in a futile attempt to justify their false reasoning. Then you make liberal use the of the quote about "an astronimically confirmed date". Use it till they reject it.

  Then you lay it on them about what the Insight book says, and pull their 539 rug out from underneath them. That will widen the hole in their gut, big enough for a truck to pass through.

  Then be patient.

  Later, a person could use the blood doctrine on "blood components" . Discuss what is the best from "God's" (WTS) point of view. When they see all the contradictions in the WTS's doctrine, allowing blood components taken from stored blood, yet not allowing them to be a blood doner, well, another gaping hole in the gut.

  Then, let them 'bleed'.
• 

  sunflowers30

  great post apoclypse!

  This was exactly what got my wheels a-turnin and ultimately made me leave. I had to do a lot of digging, but once I realized that they were accepting one date and discarding the other, I knew it was over.

  This is something you can prove! All the crazy interpretations they have, you can't PROVE that they are wrong. This is exactly the thing I plan to use if ever I get a chance to work on my extended witness family. No one with a brain can refute this. And you're right, this type of thing will eat at someone until they can't take it anymore.

  Thanks for the post!
• 

  nimue

  Thank you for that info, Apocalypse. I have been trying to understand the line of thinking (!) that got to the 1914 date. (Not now nor ever have been a JW... have an employee and a close friend who are, though)

  However, I have a question. In Jim Penton's book (Apocalypse Delayed), pages 33-37, there is an interesting review of the role of Maria Russell in publically identifying her husband Charles Russell as the Faithful and Discreet Slave. He has footnoted early Watchtower publications. If it was Maria who decided this in the first place, then the story of the transition to Rutherford, then the GB is certainly another example of revisionist history. Anyone else ever happen upon Maria's role and find it fascinating?
• 

  scholar

  apcocalypse

  Your claims about 607 not being the date for Jerusalem's Fall and the inaccuracy of WT chronology are ludicrous. There is sufficient evidence for establishing the validity for 607. You need to be certain that your exegesis of the relevant scriptural accounts for the seventy years is consistent and reliable because the weakest link in the Jonsson hypothesis is his interpretation of the seventy years. It is obvious that you are simply repeating Jonsson's claims without thinking through matters yourself.

  scholar BA MA Studies in Religion, University of Sydney
• 

  IslandWoman

  In my opinion, the greatest support for the 607 date is not secular history or Bible chronology but the 1914 date itself. The fact that the Watchtower successfully predicted a date (using the 7 times chronology etc.) which turned out to be highly significant in world history is itself proof enough for many JWs that the 607 date is correct.

  It's similar to a woman who claims that her lover is not the father of a boy who looks just like him, hard to believe!

  IW
• 

  reubenfine

  scholar, how about some proof if it is so easy. All I ever see is your credentials, which is circumspect to me until you give one shred of proof. I've thought it out and I've yet to see one iota of proof in any of your posts.
• 

  link

  apocalypse,

  You are quite right that the overwhelming majority of the evidence available today would support 586 BCE as the date for the fall of Jerusalem, however Scholar raises a valid point.

  The WBTS have their own interpretation of the events of that period that are recorded in the Bible and it is this interpretation that they use to support 607 BCE not any of the known factual evidence.

  Since you are then arguing their doctrine there can be no winners because they have moved the matter into a position whereby facts are irrelevant and it now becomes a matter of opinion whose doctrine is right and whose is wrong. It is this that need the research but do not let them get away with the argument that their version of events is the only one that fits the Bible account. That just aint true.

  link
• 

  artful

  Setting the chronology of the fall of Jerusalem aside...

  I believe that one of the weakest points in the 1914 argument is that there is no Biblical basis that Daniel's 7 times prophecy directed to the Babylonian king had any "greater fulfillment" at all. Daniel certainly did not indicate this to be so. Nor did Jesus when quoting from the book of Daniel. This "greater fulfillment" mentality which is used ad nauseam in the current WTS Isaiah books is purely conjecture on the part of the WTS and their predecessors!

  The convoluted reasoning and cross referencing of unrelated scriptures that is used to arrive at this theory, and the inability of the average JW to explain it certainly speaks volumes about its inherent value (or lack thereof)!

  Artful
• 

  Farkel

  You have your dissertations about 607/1914, I have my dissertations about 607/1914:

  If Jesus "took Kingdom Power(tm) and "began Ruling(tm)" in 1914, then please ask any dub this rather simple question:

  "What in the hell has he been DOING in the last EIGHTY-EIGHT years?" "Where is there ANY evidence that he is the KING of EVERYTHING, including this planet?" ANY evidence. Just a little evidence. Not a lot, not all of it, not even just a little of it, just ANY of it.

  So far, he's been proven to be the most IMPOTENT and disattached King in the history of this planet, if dub bullshit is to be believed.

  The only people doing any actual RULING are those miserable old assholes on the GB who promote that shit.

  Ask a dub THAT, and forget your own dissertations! My dissertations are simpler and more to the point. (I used to be a window-washer too, so I can relate to dub Elders and anyone else in their hierarchy)

  If you don't like that dissertation, I've got other dissertations! Here's one I did about 6 years ago:

  ---

  1914 For Dummies

  Reader Beware! There is a lot of "Deep" scriptural material ahead!

  607 B.C. is the fundamental date critical to supporting the entire JW framework of prophetic chronology. This date, unique to only JWs, has been rejected by virtually EVERY other Bible historian and archaeologist, which, of course, PROVES it MUST be the "Truth".

  But, what the heck! Let's forge ahead and assume this date is correct, anyway.

  1914 is the single most important date in JW doctrine, and is the result of using 607 B.C as an "anchor date", using the book of Daniel, Chapter 4, as proof.

  This is based upon the following, simple reasoning:

  7 "times" doesn't mean "7 times". It means "7 years". But,"7 years" doesn't really mean 7 "years", either. It means "7 years of days". But, the "days" in "years of days" doesn't really mean "years of days, in which the days actually mean "days", but means "years of days, in which the "days" actually mean "years".

  Therefore, it is easy for even a fool to see that "7 times" REALLY means "7 years" but which really means "7 years of days", but which then really means "7 years of days which aren't really days, but years", or simply stated "7 years of days of which days are really years". To put it even so a child can understand it, it means that the "times" aren't "times" at all, but are "years", which aren't "years" at all, but are "years of days", which aren't "days" at all, but are "years" AFTER all, even though they were originally CALLED "times"!

  Got all that? There's more...

  Strangely, however, for all of this to work, this fulfillment, based upon an ANCIENT text, still requires the use of the ANCIENT calendar for the MODERN fulfillment to work out to 1914. Therefore, ancient text + ancient calendar = modern date in modern calendar.

  When doing your calculations, don't forget that there is no "zero year" from B.C to A.D. C.T. Russell forgot that and was quite embarrassed about it. The official WTBS explanation in later, revised, editions of his books was that "the battery was very low in his calculator at that time" and he wasn't aware of it until after the material was printed.

  Lastly, the book of Daniel was prophesied to remain "sealed" until the "last days", which, as we know, began in 1914, according to the simple reasoning just presented. So, Russell had to figure out a way to, somehow "unseal" Daniel before it was prophesied that Daniel WOULD be "unsealed" so he could then put forth a prophecy which pointed to exactly when Daniel WAS to be "unsealed", namely at the start of the "last days", in 1914. Russell, therefore, successfully used a "sealed" book to calculate the exact date it was to be "unsealed", which at that time it was officially, "unsealed", but Russell "unsealed" it before that, because he wanted to know beforehand when it WOULD be "unsealed", because only THEN would he know when the "last days" were to start, which was, of course, when Daniel actually WAS to be "unsealed". Got all that?

  Understanding this takes a "discerning eye" because it is very, very "DEEP"!

  ----

  Ask a dub to refute THAT! I can almost guarantee what they'll say: "Oh, he's just BITTER" No facts, no rebuttal, no evidence, just a simple "Oh, he's just BITTER." Then they go merrily along in braindead-land and forget everything and think they won the argument.

  Farkel

  Edited by - Farkel on 17 December 2002 21:15:45
• 

  rem

  Your claims about 607 not being the date for Jerusalem's Fall and the inaccuracy of WT chronology are ludicrous.

  Scholar's predictable response lacking any semblance of evidentiary backing.

  You need to be certain that your exegesis of the relevant scriptural accounts for the seventy years is consistent and reliable because the weakest link in the Jonsson hypothesis is his interpretation of the seventy years.

  Oh, yeah... we've been doing it wrong all this time. We have to force historical evidence to fit your interpretation of the bible instead of letting the historical evidence speak for itself. Duh... no wonder you're a scholar and I'm not.

  It is obvious that you are simply repeating Jonsson's claims without thinking through matters yourself.

  It's obvious that you are simply repeating the Watchtower's claims without thinking through matters yourself.

  rem, green smiley class