Russell got all this 606(7) clap trap from Nathan Barbour.
It was Barbour we have to thank for all of us being brought up in the crap. If it wasn't for '1914 and all that', I doubt many of us would have been here now.
Thanks Nathan.
wizzstick
JoinedPosts by wizzstick
-
19
Where did Russell steal 606/7 BCE from ?
by Phizzy inthis is something i have wondered about, and our great poster stillin posed the question on another thread .
russell get the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 606/7 bce?
(he adjusted 606 to 607 when it was pointed out there was no year "0").. as in the main a plagiarist, rather than an original thinker, i guess he got it from someone else ?.
-
-
-
9
Dr Who back soon - Let the World Rejoice.
by fulltimestudent inaugust 23 is the day in the uk.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tivqztq5u6y.
-
-
wizzstick
The spirit of Malcolm Tucker Lives!
Capaldi will be the best Docter ever!
I think so too.
My wife and I have cinema tickets to see the first episode on the big screen next Saturday:
http://www.doctorwho.tv/watch/cinema/
-
100
Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?
by Bart Belteshassur ini haven't come across any arguement that does not involve secular history and external references.
in fact the wt can not get to 607 bce without using external sources as in knowing that they need to get back from 1914 ce to 607 bce, and botching an argument using an external date as reference to create their start point at 537 bce.. i realize that to get the final date we must provide a fixed figure from somewhere which can only be a historical source, but the objective would be to disprove the wt flim flam.
once that is achieve we can use which ever fixed historical point they wish to chose.
-
-
wizzstick
Thus the 70 year period ended in 539 BCE, not 537 BCE as the WT claim, so must have started in 609 BCE NOT 607 BCE.
There is no need to prove when Jerusalem fell, it has no significance.
When you lose 607 you lose 1914.
Simple as that.
And that blows the JW theology out of the water.
-
64
What was YOUR wake-up call before you left the JW´s organization?
by Mr Fool inwhat was your wake-up call(s) before you left the jw s organization?
.
-
-
wizzstick
2 overlapping groups = 1 Generation.
What a crock.
I waited for 3 years then the dam broke. Researched and walked away.
-
100
Can anyone disprove 607 BCE date using only the NWT and WT literature?
by Bart Belteshassur ini haven't come across any arguement that does not involve secular history and external references.
in fact the wt can not get to 607 bce without using external sources as in knowing that they need to get back from 1914 ce to 607 bce, and botching an argument using an external date as reference to create their start point at 537 bce.. i realize that to get the final date we must provide a fixed figure from somewhere which can only be a historical source, but the objective would be to disprove the wt flim flam.
once that is achieve we can use which ever fixed historical point they wish to chose.
-
-
wizzstick
An easy one to use is Jeremiah 25:12
12 “‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,’ declares Jehovah, ‘and I will make the land of the Chaldeans a desolate wasteland for all time.
JW's believe that the 70 years runs from 607BCE - 537BCE. But according to the above, what happens at the end of the 70 years? God calls to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error.
How can God call the King of Babylon to account in 537, when the king was overthrown by Cyrus in 539? You can't call someone to account 2 years after they've gone!
-
31
why Jehovah's witnesses? not yaweh witnesses?
by purrpurr inthis i never understood, the publications say that gods name translated from hebrew is yaweh.
why add a whole bunch of letters and vowels that change the sound of the name completely?
i've often thought surely we would gain greater respect on the ministry if we used a name that is historically and verbally accurate?.
-
-
wizzstick
Why not Yehoshua instead of Jesus.
Jesus is not two words joined together at a later time - the consonants of "Yahweh" and pronounced with the vowels of "Adonai".
So it's different.
-
30
Dissoi logoi - Jehovah's Witnesses do have the Truth! My Story Part 3
by objectivetruth ini stopped attending meetings over one year ago, and i have thoroughly made it clear to all friends & family that i am opposed to the teachings of jehovah's witnesses, and i cannot support a religion that teaches lies.. i have systematically examined each teaching & practice of the jehovah's witnesses.
concluding that many are not scriptural or logical.. after a year i have very unexpectedly arrived at another conclusion.
the jehovah's witnesses do have the truth.
-
-
wizzstick
Men love to control one another, and they all teach False Doctrine.
Or you could do this.
Say to your God: "What a bloody mess religion is. Sort it out and I'll worship you. Don't and I won't."
If God cares he'll sort out religion.
If he doesn't he won't (or maybe he doesn't exist...)
-
29
Exodus 24:10 - The Israelites saw Jehovah? Has this scripture ever been explained?
by truthseeker inhas anyone really pondered what this means?
jehovah said that no man can see god and live, and here at least 70 people saw jehovah standing on a bright blue pavement.
24 then the lord said to moses, come up to the lord , you and aaron, nadab and abihu, and seventy of the elders of israel.
-
-
wizzstick
This rendering "saw a vision of" is permissible according to what I saw from other usages of the Hebrew word that's used there,
Really?
And which Hebrew word is that?
-
59
BBC Radio 4 reference to 607 Babylonian conquest?
by 88JM inwas listening to bbc radio 4 late sunday night, and in a programme about migration, they referenced the "babylonian conquest of jerusalem in 607 b.c.
" which caught my attention.. did they not mean 587 b.c., or did i understand it wrong?.
the link to the programme is below - sorry if you're not in the u.k. as you probably won't be able to listen to bbc programmes.
-
-
wizzstick
Any more news on this?
The guy from the production company didn't call back.
There wasn't a mention on today's Feedback programme, so I've e-mailed the guy that called me (he e-mailed before he rang) and will get back with an update.
-
59
BBC Radio 4 reference to 607 Babylonian conquest?
by 88JM inwas listening to bbc radio 4 late sunday night, and in a programme about migration, they referenced the "babylonian conquest of jerusalem in 607 b.c.
" which caught my attention.. did they not mean 587 b.c., or did i understand it wrong?.
the link to the programme is below - sorry if you're not in the u.k. as you probably won't be able to listen to bbc programmes.
-
-
wizzstick
If anyone gets a response (assuming it is not a form letter), it would be great if you post it here. Thanks!
I did - just now!
Just had a call from a very nice chap at the production company that made the programme.
He wanted to know whether I would do a voice interview over a land line tomorrow morning. As my wife and I are fading I explained why I couldn't and he said he understood. I think he was trying to understand why this was an issue, so I briefly explained how the Neo-Babylonian period was a very well documented period and that there is no question of when Jerusalem fell. I also said that for Jehovah's Witnesses this is a important point, and the BBC broadcasting this date could result in them using it (in a publication).
He could see my point and is going to call me back tomorrow. He doesn't know at this point whether it would be included in this weeks Feedback programme.
He said (if I remember correctly) 3 or 4 complaints were received, so thanks to those that did.
Good to know they have responded. And I'll let you know how the follow up call goes.
(If anyone who did fill in the BBC complaint form, and I guess are in the UK, who would like to be interviewed then drop me a PM with your contact details on and I'll pass them on to the production company).