607 B.C.E.

[Jack Ryan]

Is there good support for our use of this year archaeologically and historically speaking?

[The Librarian]

Quote

The 70 years was a literal period of time that ended in 537 B.C.E. Counting back 70 years, the start date of the period would be 607 B.C.E.

When did the 70 years commence? ... A Jewish revolt brought the Babylonians back to Jerusalem. (2 Kings 24:20; 25:8-10) They razed the city, including its sacred temple, and they took many of its inhabitants captive to Babylon.

Within two months, “all the people [who had been left behind in the land] from the least to the greatest, together with the army officers, fled to Egypt for fear of the Babylonians.” (2 Kings 25:25, 26, NIV) Only then, in the seventh Jewish month, Tishri (September/October), of that year could it be said that the land, now desolate and unworked, began to enjoy its Sabbath rest. ... So this event evidently marked the starting point of the 70 years. And what year was that? To answer, we need to see when that period ended.  - The Watchtower, October 1, 2011, pages 27-29

 

See also your other related question: 

And yes, they are very important pivotal dates for the calculation of the 2,520 years culminating in 1914.

[JW Insider]

On 4/1/2016 at 10:03 PM, Jay Witness said:

Is there good support for our use of this year archaeologically and historically speaking?

[Adding link to 2nd pg of discussion, since my Chrome and Firefox browsers won't link to pg.2 from the "2," "Next" or ">>" links: http://forum.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/4416-607-bce/?page=2&sortby=date ]

 

This answer certainly will not sit well with some, but I'm a stickler for full disclosure. In the long run, I think we do better when we're completely open and honest with everything we have learned. 

 

• (1 Peter 3:15) . . .always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have.
• (John 3:11) 11 Most truly I say to you, what we know we speak, and what we have seen we bear witness to,. . .
• (Matthew 5:14, 15) . . .. A city cannot be hid when situated upon a mountain. 15 People light a lamp and set it, not under the measuring basket, but upon the lampstand, and it shines upon all those in the house.
• (Matthew 13:52) . . .every public instructor who is taught about the Kingdom of the heavens is like a man, the master of the house, who brings out of his treasure store things both new and old.”
• (Philippians 1:9, 10) . . .that your love may abound still more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment; 10 that you may make sure of the more important things, so that you may be flawless and not stumbling others up to the day of Christ;

There is no support "for our use of this year archaeologically and historically speaking." What might be even more surprising is that there is also no support for our use of this year (607) even Biblically speaking. It evidently started out as a mistake in the 1800's, but we have been stuck with it ever since. I'm aware of members of the Governing Body who have said that we should just "scrap our entire chronology" and "start over from scratch." (Those are almost exact quotes from Brother Sydlik, but Brother Swingle, and R.Franz, and others were of a similar mind. I only heard it from two of them personally, but there was a time when almost half the Governing Body gave evidence that they did not believe it necessary to start the "generation of 1914" in the year 1914: D.Sydlik, L.Swingle, G.Suiter, B.Schroeder, E.Chitty, R.Franz, K.Klein. There were evidently even more members of the Writing Department who believed the same way.) 

The most disturbing quote I remember on the subject was from a brother in Writing: ". . . if we showed humility, we'd be humiliated."

For many years, we (WTS) never thought that the 607 date was the strongest or most important method to reach 1914. In fact, 1914 had already been "proven" through several other methods. But after we discarded those other methods, the only one that still remained was the "7 times" (2.520 years), so we simply assumed that since 1914 was correct, all we had to do was subtract 2,520 years, and that would take us back to the destruction of Jerusalem. 1914-2520=-606. That's why we used the date 606 BCE for so many years -- up until 1943 and 1944. That was when we finally, formally accounted for the fact that there was no zero year between 1 BCE and 1 CE. (This is something that the Watchtower had previously questioned.)

Rather than keep 606, which would mean moving the end of the 2,520 years to 1915, we naturally just kept 1914 and moved back the destruction of Jerusalem to 607 BCE. The actual date for the destruction of Jerusalem (archaeologically and historically) didn't really matter, as long as it was exactly 2,520 years before 1914.

 

After saying all this, I should add that this should not create any doubts in the Scriptures, or the fact that we are living in the last days, or that our deliverance is getting near. It should not create any doubt about the fact that we have been provided with a full banquet of spiritual food, and should be appreciative of everything we have received. This should not reflect in the slightest on the thousands of truths we have learned about Trinity, Soul, Ransom, Jehovah's Sovereignty, Hell, Neutrality, Preaching, New Heavens & New Earth, etc., etc., etc.

This is only meant as a full, true and honest answer, to the best of my knowledge, to the initial question of the post.

[Guest Allen Smith]

Once again JWinsider, your interpretation is NOT up for debate. Your source of making your argument comes from speaking with some past members that either resigned (Disfellowshipped) or were removed for apostasy. You are not the only one to have personal conversations with GB members, if indeed. As a boy, I would ask many of the GB questions that had deep thought. Just because, people volunteer their time at the bethel house (Ex-Bethelite from the 80’s) doesn’t mean anything when it comes to the minds and conscience of the GB. You were not that privileged.

Quote

I'm aware of members of the Governing Body who have said that we should just "scrap our entire chronology" and "start over from scratch." (Those are almost exact quotes from Brother Sydlik, but Brother Swingle, and R.Franz, and others were of a similar mind. I only heard it from two of them personally,

Here you make a reference about many GB members, yet you only heard it from 2 personally. R. Franz, and E.C. Chitty resigned (Disfellowshipped). Interesting people you emulate by accepting the word of DF’d people and not trust in Gods revelation. You continue your false premise about Millers chronology that Russell didn’t advocate.

Lyman Swingle was a straight shooter, a hard nose, a brutally honest person. But he had no stomach for insubordination. He was a zealous man to the TRUTH. Sometimes misunderstood but never when it came to scripture. His parents started out with the Bible Student Movement, but he personally reverted his course to the JW ideology. Between Swingle and Worsley, faith and dedication flowed through them until Swingle got married in 1956. Then it was he and his wife Crystal to continue that path of righteousness. It’s interesting you didn’t mention Fred Franz. I wonder why, since Fred was in much opposition of Ray’s position as was Suiter, Schroeder, Klein, Gangas, booth, Jackson, Barry, and many others.

I knew where Raymond Franz was coming from and where he was headed with his overt view of the past. Being blinded by friendship rather than faith in scripture. Back then, we had a saying? Those that LOVE creation rather than, the creator. Raymond sure proved it. Just like everyone or anyone who wishes to make an absolute statement, can only wish it. Predictions or prophecy comes only to those that are favored by GOD. (1 Corinthians 14:33) Everything else is just speculation as you boldly put it in your past posts elsewhere. (Romans 16:17)

 

Quote

Rather than keep 606, which would mean moving the end of the 2,520 years to 1915, we naturally just kept 1914 and moved back the destruction of Jerusalem to 607 BCE. The actual date for the destruction of Jerusalem (archaeologically and historically) didn't really matter, as long as it was exactly 2,520 years before 1914. JWinsider

This is another example of postulated chronology by those that never understood the meaning. Chronology will always be for those of us that do understand the standards to be 2520+1. That’s how the WTS has always viewed the standard. Backwards it would read 2,520 – 607 = 1913+1=1914. That hasn’t changed due to the other standards coming to the same conclusion. (1 Corinthians 2:10) Here…however, anyone can adjust anytime to meet their criteria. The Jewish Nation just like the Modern Day bible Students that subscribe to the Pyramid scheme have an accurate position with chronology in their charts to affirm the years 1947/48 and 1967/68. The point being, it’s important for them to align those dates, to justify those WARS even if, biblically…it doesn’t. No different with the justification of wanting the desolation of Jerusalem to be 587/6 BCE. The only substantiated boost they got was with the Babylonian Chronicles that had Jewish influence in its background, by 2 pro Jewish scholars. It was made more controversial by an uneducated bushman that got erratic information by many ex-witnesses that agreed with his ideology. This person Carl Olof Jonsson is not a Historian, Archeologist, Linguistic, or Theologian, yet his money supposedly found Donald Trump like people per say in the midst of scholars. And people like “JWinsider” that mocked Rolf Furuli (A real linguistic scholar) findings to SUPPORT Carl Jonsson’s nonsense came out ahead. Does 588/7 make it factual, NOT entirely? There is validation for both years 608/7-588/7 but NOT in the present historical sense.

Having the ability to understand what has been written for millennium will give you an insight to Jewish understanding of the many Babylonian exile formats. The Seventy Sabbatical years of the Babylonian Exile. The Broken Sabbath years and the Babylonian Exile itself.

The four periods of seventy years

The only difference between the WTS and Jewish Chronology is the interpretation of Daniel 7:25. It’s understood to mean 3 and a ½ times. However the Jews start the reckoning at 604 when Nebuchadnezzar officially started his kingship to 539BCE, looks familiar. Looking at the 3 ½ times backwards, you end up with 607 ½. Hence 608/7. A contrast of Daniel 9:24 where the calculations would have to be with only the holy Sabbath.

When people understand all aspects of chronology, then it becomes clear why the WTS only needs the date of 607 since all other formulations run unilateral. Far too technical for one to comprehend. And that’s why the WTS is affirming with 607. It doesn’t matter how you slice it, 607 DOES align with biblical accounts of events. (Romans 16:25)

So it doesn’t matter if one thinks their rubbing people the wrong way, Gods time table continues to be revealed at it appropriate time, and the GB are doing fine works to accept the privilege given them.

[JW Insider]

On 4/6/2016 at 7:12 AM, Allen Smith said:

Once again JWinsider, your interpretation is NOT up for debate. Your source of making your argument comes from speaking with some past members that either resigned (Disfellowshipped) or were removed for apostasy. You are not the only one to have personal conversations with GB members, if indeed. As a boy, I would ask many of the GB questions that had deep thought. Just because, people volunteer their time at the bethel house (Ex-Bethelite from the 80’s) doesn’t mean anything when it comes to the minds and conscience of the GB. You were not that privileged.

Hello Allen,

Glad to see you are alert to come to our defense on 607 BCE. Defending the teaching, just as you are doing, was also my own reaction. And I am still anxious to see if anyone can even make an honest attempt. If you, or the Governing Body, or anyone else in the world can make an honest attempt to defend it, I'd be very happy.

In truth, I would expect every Witness to either come running to its defense, or at least want to see the teaching defended. I'm therefore genuinely happy to see you respond as I did. 

I also agree that my interpretation is not up for debate. This is not about my interpretation. I'm not even sure that I personally would have ever given it much thought on my own. The alternative interpretations that various Bible scholars, archaeologists, and historians have given about 607 B.C.E. are not my own, and they have nothing to do with me. They are merely interpretations and evidence brought to my attention by many other Witnesses, just because they happened to share those interpretations with me. 

So I will try to respond to what you have said so far, and hopefully we can move on to a discussion to see if there is any evidence, anywhere, for this 607 BCE date.

SOURCE?

So first let me address this idea that the "source" for making this argument comes from speaking with some past members that either resigned or were removed for apostasy. This is not true. The "sources," (not "source") include Brothers Bert Schroeder (GB), Fred Rusk, and Daniel Sydlik (GB), who remained in pretty much their same positions for the rest of their lives, health permitting.

There were also 3 former members (still living) and one current member of the Writing Department. At the time this was brought to my attention, there was also a member of the Service Department whom I conversed with, and who understood the problem about the 607 evidence. (Schroeder and Rusk never "disavowed" 607, btw, as far as I know.) Schroeder let me know his concerns about Swingle and Ray Franz (and a couple of others) but I never spoke to either Swingle or Ray Franz about it. I spoke to Swingle about the topic of 1914 in general, but never 607.

As far as I can tell, 6 out of 9 persons I refer to above never were removed from positions, never resigned, and were never disfellowshipped. Ray Franz of course has documented what happened to him. One of the brothers who was a good friend of mine was asked to leave Bethel although he remained an elder in his home congregation where he was appointed to be a special pioneer, and from where he continued to handle projects for the Writing Department. He was a primary Aid Book researcher and writer.

Also, Brother Chitty never told me directly about his views on the 1914 chronology system, but he did tell my wife (in front of Fred and Margie Rusk) who only told me when she learned that I had been discussing the same issue with Bert Schroeder.

This does not mean that there were not many more people who understood the evidence against 607. It was pretty clear that everyone in Writing had a pretty good idea about the strength of the evidence because COJ's manuscript just sat on a shelf for many months, while brothers spoke of it as the "hot potato" that no one wanted to touch. My good friend told me that it could become the end anyone's career at Bethel if they tried to respond to it fully and honestly.

As you have said, this portion of the conversation doesn't mean anything to the actual evidence. But I thought it appropriate to give a little background into how I personally came across the information about the evidence.

 

On 4/6/2016 at 7:12 AM, Allen Smith said:

Here you make a reference about many GB members, yet you only heard it from 2 personally. R. Franz, and E.C. Chitty resigned (Disfellowshipped). Interesting people you emulate by accepting the word of DF’d people and not trust in Gods revelation. You continue your false premise about Millers chronology that Russell didn’t advocate.

You are wrong about R. Franz and Chitty. (Chitty was never disfellowshipped, by the way.) I never heard it from either of them personally. As far as GB members go, it was Sydlik who said to me: 'we need to scrap the whole chronology, 1914, 1918, 1919, 1922, and start from scratch.' Schroeder said Swingle was a "non-believer" but all Swingle ever told me personally was "1914 will become less and less important, as time goes on. Not to worry."

We'll compare notes on Miller later? Russell made that subject fairly simple, so I think if we've both read the same sources from Russell, we probably already agree.

On 4/6/2016 at 7:12 AM, Allen Smith said:

Lyman Swingle was a straight shooter, a hard nose, a brutally honest person. But he had no stomach for insubordination. He was a zealous man to the TRUTH. Sometimes misunderstood but never when it came to scripture. His parents started out with the Bible Student Movement, but he personally reverted his course to the JW ideology. Between Swingle and Worsley, faith and dedication flowed through them until Swingle got married in 1956. Then it was he and his wife Crystal to continue that path of righteousness. It’s interesting you didn’t mention Fred Franz. I wonder why, since Fred was in much opposition of Ray’s position as was Suiter, Schroeder, Klein, Gangas, booth, Jackson, Barry, and many others.

Agree completely about Swingle. That's what I loved about him. It's true he was rough and gruff, and cursed a lot, even used the "n" word, but he loved Jehovah and loved the Scriptures. Don't know if I've mentioned any of my conversations with Worsley before, he said some things that were eye-opening but I already knew most of it from my table head. He didn't allow me to tape his experiences when I met with him. I have a couple hours of cassette interviews with Grace DeCecca, Maxwell Friend and Fred Franz. (Material for a couple of public talks that I gave several times on the history of the Organization.) Arthur Worsley's info is not related to this subject. It's true that Klein, Gangas, Booth, Jackson, Barry were almost 100% with Fred Franz. Suiter didn't really care, in my opinion. You probably already know that Schroeder was able to get a couple of these same brothers (Klein and Suiter) to agree with him on the "1957 Sputnik generation" but generally they voted whatever way that Fred Franz suggested. (That wouldn't have changed 607, btw)

On 4/6/2016 at 7:12 AM, Allen Smith said:

I knew where Raymond Franz was coming from and where he was headed with his overt view of the past. Being blinded by friendship rather than faith in scripture. Back then, we had a saying? Those that LOVE creation rather than, the creator. Raymond sure proved it. Just like everyone or anyone who wishes to make an absolute statement, can only wish it. Predictions or prophecy comes only to those that are favored by GOD. (1 Corinthians 14:33) Everything else is just speculation as you boldly put it in your past posts elsewhere. (Romans 16:17)

Not sure what you mean about Ray Franz. Don't know what an "overt" view of the past is, or "blinded by friendship" rather than faith in scripture. What do you mean he "loved the creation rather than the creator"? This whole paragraph of yours seems odd. When you go on to write about absolute statements and predictions only coming to those favored by God, it's almost like you are defending Franz and accusing the Watchtower just because Ray Franz writes in his book that the Watchtower shouldn't have kept trying to make so many absolute statements and predictions.

Remember that the Watchtower can still have God's favor even if imperfect men made false predictions. Jehovah is forgiving, and can use any means he wishes to get the word out. I am as embarrassed as most JWs would be that some of these absolute statements have brought reproach on Jehovah's name, but I have a feeling that, to some extent, the Watchtower's penchant for absolute statements and speculation has resulted in some good, too.

It's just speculation, of course, but I was thinking that if a person has an absolute belief that the end will be here within a few months or years, they are probably more likely to take serious steps to be ready for that day, and to abandon false traditions in other doctrinal areas without being concerned about what other people think, or how many people agree with us. I sometimes wonder how urgently Brother Russell would have progressed in other areas of doctrine (being able to abandon Trinity and Immortal Soul doctrines, for example) if he hadn't felt that the end was just around the corner..  

 

[JW Insider]

On 4/6/2016 at 7:12 AM, Allen Smith said:

Quote

Rather than keep 606, which would mean moving the end of the 2,520 years to 1915, we naturally just kept 1914 and moved back the destruction of Jerusalem to 607 BCE. The actual date for the destruction of Jerusalem (archaeologically and historically) didn't really matter, as long as it was exactly 2,520 years before 1914. JWinsider

This is another example of postulated chronology by those that never understood the meaning. Chronology will always be for those of us that do understand the standards to be 2520+1. That’s how the WTS has always viewed the standard. Backwards it would read 2,520 – 607 = 1913+1=1914. That hasn’t changed due to the other standards coming to the same conclusion. (1 Corinthians 2:10)

Allen,

OK. Now we can get the meat of the discussion. So your first point is that the WTS has always viewed the standard as 2520 + 1, where +1 must represent the need to subtract for the lack of a zero year. It is very simple to show that you are working from a false premise here. Here's where you went wrong. It was when you stated, "That's how the WTS has always viewed the standard."

You are wrong when you used the word "always" in that sentence. Russell and Barbour both made some additional mistakes, but here is a place where Russell admits clearly how he got 1914 - 2,520 = 607 BCE. He says it was because they simply didn't know for sure whether to include the "zero year."

Here's what Russell actually said in the December 1, 1912 Watch Tower, pages 377-378:

THE ENDING OF THE GENTILE TIMES

...Previous history was reckoned and styled Before Christ (B.C.) and subsequent history was styled Anno Domini (A.D.)--in the year of our Lord.

Whether Dionysius began his A.D. period January 1st, A.D. 1, or whether he began it January 1st, A.D. 0, we may not be sure; neither may we feel too certain whether he began the B.C. dates December 31st, B.C. 0, or December 31st, B.C. 1. For all ordinary purposes this question would be rather immaterial. But it has a very important bearing on our calculation of Gentile Times. Even in this particular the matter seemed less important thirty or forty years ago than it does today; for now as we come down to the close of the Gentile Times we are disposed to give every feature a critical and microscopical examination not thought so necessary some years ago.

Then, we were content to say, "606 B.C. seems a well authenticated date for the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and B.C. 536 the date when the seventy years' appointed desolation of the land ceased." Our method adopted in the STUDIES IN THE 360 SCRIPTURES was a simple one. We said: 7 The Bible times of Gentile supremacy and --- Israel's rejection equals 7 times 360, or 2,520 2,520 years. From this we deducted the B.C. 606 date before Christ (B.C.) 606. Thus we ----- found the year A.D. 1914. A.D. 1914

AN OPEN QUESTION

Coming now to a very critical examination of the date 536 B.C., there is an open question: ...What is the proper method of calculation, is in dispute. If we count the first year B.C. as , then the date 536-1/4 B.C. is the proper one for the end of the seventy years of captivity. But if we begin to reckon it by counting the first year before the Christian era as B.C. 1, then evidently the desolation ended 535-1/4 years B.C.

As to the methods of counting, Encyclopaedia Britannica says, "Astronomers denote the year which preceded the first of our era as  and the year previous to that as B.C. 1--the previous year B.C. 2, and so on."

Whichever of these ways we undertake to calculate the matter the difference between the results is one year. The seventy years of Jewish captivity ended October, 536 B.C., and if there were 536-1/4 years B.C., then to complete the 2,520 years' cycle of the Times of the Gentiles would require 1913-3/4 years of A.D., or to October, 1914. But if the other way of reckoning were used, then there were but 535-1/4 years of the period B.C., and the remainder of the 2,520 years would reach to A.D., 1914-3/4 years, otherwise October, 1915.

Since this question is agitating the minds of a considerable number of the friends, we have presented it here in some detail. We remind the readers, however, that nothing in the Scriptures says definitely that the trouble upon the Gentiles will be accomplished before the close of the Times of the Gentiles, whether that be October, 1914, or October, 1915. The trouble doubtless will be considerable before the final crash, even though that crash come suddenly, like the casting of a great millstone into the sea. (Rev. 18:21.) The parallel between the Jewish Harvest and the present Harvest would corroborate the thought that the trouble to the full will be accomplished by October, 1915.

...

There surely is room for slight differences of opinion on this subject and it behooves us to grant each other the widest latitude. The lease of power to the Gentiles may end in October, 1914, or in October, 1915. And the period of intense strife and anarchy "such as never was since there was a nation" may be the final ending of the Gentile Times or the beginning of Messiah's reign.

But we remind all of our readers again, that we have not prophesied anything about the Times of the Gentiles closing in a time of trouble nor about the glorious epoch which will shortly follow that catastrophe. . . Finally, let us remember that we did not consecrate either to October, 1914, nor to October, 1915, or to any other date, but "unto death." If for any reason the Lord has permitted us to miscalculate the prophecies, the signs of the times assure us that the miscalculations cannot be very great. ...

 

 

So, please let me know if you understand this in the same way before we go on.

[Guest Allen Smith]

Once again JWinsider. It comes to show how WRONG YOU ARE. Still having trouble understanding. I believe…I made it clear that the GB members you emulate (RESIGNED) They (DISFELLOWSHIPPED) themselves. Now with “Chitty”, and “Greenlees”, you SPECULATE it was over homosexuality. A FACT that was NEVER PROVEN, yet you continue to assert yourself as knowledgeable over this matter. I see your still playing to your audience. The type of insight you think you had at Bethel, is not applicable to what really goes on behind closed doors. Once again, you were not privileged.

The GB as imperfect human being did in many occasions over speak with no pun intended. That’s just talk. You’re making a conversation more cynical than it actually was. Do you actually think, Jesus didn’t hear imperfect chatter from the Apostles? Please. Any GB before 1960 had no patients or tolerance for ignorance. However, just like the Bible Students, the readjustments of 1931 were making the difference since 1879. To separate prospects.

You also emulate CARL OLOF JONSSON that was Disfellowshipped back, when? 1982. The biggest hypocrite to any bible understanding. The idea that he has over 40 years of research of 2 ½ millennia under his cover and books, was time wasted, not time reconsidered, just like his Teacher RAYMOND FRANZ. The book from COJ “The Signs of the Last Days-When?” was a joke. For one, he never understood when the actual “Gentile Time” started. Apparently neither do you, since you continue to CHALLENGE the 607BCE observation.

You stated it would be nice if I or the GB could enlighten you on the observation. Well as an Ex-Belelite from the 80’s, if you haven’t understood it, you never will. Not to mention, you place yourself in high regards by implying, the GB should somehow explain themselves to you. When they have, divine intervention and the spiritual food dispensed comes from that understanding, then you and people like you are deliberately challenging God’s Word, just as did the ancient Israelites. Who were they to challenge God’s spokesmen or Prophets?

So let’s NOT confuse the notion you are supporting and defending the WTS Doctrine. We are not in the same playing field. But it doesn’t surprise me by someone who called (JTR) his friend.

It seems you want to rehash the Chronology of Wiseman, Grayson, and possibly Thiele. Why hasn’t the BM submitted samples for carbon dating (K4) to see when those tablets were actually made? Your faith in them is astonishing. Perhaps you want to venture with the Calendar. When did ancients start their year? Or maybe the tablets themselves, “BM” “VAT” business tablets. How about more recent Authors like Bruins, Cline, and Finkelstein. I know you hate “Furuli” just because he agreed with certain aspects of the WTS chronology. Maybe from the time of King Josiah. When did he find the book of laws, and when did he reinstitute the first Passover.

You mentioned that the WTS shouldn’t speculate with definitive times, yet you accept definitive times of others. Your argument in this sense is distorted, therefore not up for debate as I stated earlier.

You seem to show the learning curve the Bible Students had, and LIE about the outcome, when it came to Barbour, and Russell. Your contradiction are self-evident. I would expect that from ex-witnesses but NOT from someone supposedly still in the truth. Perhaps, you were from that group of Bethelites that were asked to leave in the latter portion of the 80’s. Many Ex-Bethelites from that decade became, book authors, thwart with apostasy by misrepresenting the WTS literature. Ironically, some researchers of that time met the same fate.

 

Watchtower 1/1/1955 (pp: 7-8)

In January, 1876, Charles Russell for the first time received a copy of the monthly magazine The Herald of the Morning as published by the Rochester group headed by Nelson H. Barbour. A meeting was soon arranged between Russell and Barbour, since it was discovered that their views were the same concerning Christ’s second coming as being invisible. As a result the Pittsburgh Bible group of nearly thirty decided to affiliate with the Rochester group slightly larger in number. Russell became a joint editor along with Barbour for The Herald of the Morning. The Pittsburgh group on Russell’s initiative agreed to finance a small printing place in Rochester for the joint printing undertakings. It was also decided to publish a bound book containing their joint views, the work being completed by 1877. The 194-page publication was entitled “Three Worlds or Plan of Redemption,” by Barbour and Russell as joint authors. During this time Russell at the age of twenty-five began to sell out his business interests and went full time into the preaching work, going from city to city to talk to various gatherings of the public, on the streets and, Sundays, in Protestant churches, where he could arrange such with the clergy.

This book set forth their belief that Christ’s second presence began invisibly in the fall of 1874 and thereby commenced a forty-year harvest period. Then, remarkably accurately, they set forth the year 1914 as the end of the Gentile times.—Luke 21:24.

“Hence, it was in B.C. 606, that God’s kingdom ended, the diadem was removed, and all the earth given up to the Gentiles. 2520 years from B.C. 606 will end in A.D. 1914, or forty years from 1874; and this forty years upon which we have now entered is to be such ‘a time of trouble as never was since there was a nation.’ And during this forty years, the kingdom of God is to be set up (but not in the flesh, ‘the natural first and afterwards the spiritual’), the Jews are to be restored, the Gentile kingdoms broken in pieces ‘like a potter’s vessel,’ and the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our Lord and his Christ, and the judgment age introduced.”—Three Worlds or Plan of Redemption, pp. 83, 189.

After two years of affiliation a testing occurred that brought about a parting of the ways. In 1878 Barbour began to fall victim to higher criticism. He published an article in the Herald—

“denying that the death of Christ was the ransom price . . . saying that Christ’s death was no more a settlement of the penalty of man’s sins than would the sticking of a pin through the body of a fly and causing it suffering and death be considered by an earthly parent as a just settlement for misdemeanor in his child.”

This plain denial of basic Bible doctrine amazed the Pittsburgh group and Russell. Months of argument ensued in publishing articles in the Herald pro and con on the ransom issue. Finally the Pittsburgh Bible group withdrew association from the Barbour group to undertake a separate Bible publishing work. Many of the Rochester group sided in with Russell and his associates on the ransom issue and they too came over to the Pittsburgh association. This parting proved fatal to the Rochester group, for within a few years the Herald ceased to be published and nothing more has been heard from this early voice sounding the “second coming” call. In our next article we shall see who of these many early voices finally received the go-ahead signal from Jehovah to represent him as His witnesses for future ministerial work.

 

Watchtower 3/15/1974 (p.163)

SEVEN PROPHETIC TIMES

                   2520 YEARS

                 1 YEAR

    606 YEARS                   1913 YEARS

607 B.C.E.    1 B.C.E. 1 C.E.                 1914 C.E.

                                       End of This System

                                         Within One Generation

Now just like the Aztec Calendar that ended its 400 year cycle in 2012 thus making people think that would end the world? People so to perceived 1914 to be the end of the world, when all it meant was the end of the seven prophetic times (Gentle Time) cycle. So let’s NOT start with 606BCE when it’s clear, understanding Prophecy is not your forte.

Watchtower 4/1/1984 (pp.5-8)

 

Why Is 1914 a Marked Year?

How did Jehovah’s Witnesses know more than 30 years in advance that 1914 would be an important date for divine rulership? Though the Witnesses at the time did not understand the full implication of events about to take place, the Watch Tower magazine as far back as December of 1879 pointed to 1914 as a marked date in regard to Bible prophecy. And the March 1880 issue of the Watch Tower linked God’s Kingdom rule with the ending of what Jesus Christ referred to as “the appointed times of the nations,” or “the times of the Gentiles.” (Luke 21:24; Authorized Version) That Watch Tower said: “‘The Times of the Gentiles’ extend to 1914, and the heavenly kingdom will not have full sway till then.”

What is meant by the expression ‘Gentile Times,’ or “appointed times of the nations”? And how is it connected with God’s Kingdom? To answer these questions, let us take a more detailed look at Jesus’ words. He said: “Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations [Gentiles], until the appointed times of the nations [Gentiles] are fulfilled.”—Luke 21:24.

[JW Insider]

Allen,

Hello again. I haven't waited for a response to the point where C.T.Russell admits that he didn't know for sure whether to use a zero year or not. I think you will have to agree that your statement was incorrect. I'm not sure you will, but at the very least, I'd like to ask that you try to continue the discussion without resorting to generalizations and ad hominem style argumentation about the people you disagree with. It should not be too difficult to stick with the issues if you truly believe that you have some evidence to share about them.

If you are not clear what I mean, I will highlight those places where you have done this.

On 4/6/2016 at 7:12 AM, Allen Smith said:

This is another example of postulated chronology by those that never understood the meaning. Chronology will always be for those of us that do understand the standards to be 2520+1.

You see what you did there? Without any need for it, you generalized that --not just me-- but those people who agree with the truth (about what Russell admitted), that they are "those that never understood." You generalized that persons who make this same false claim about Russell (as you did) are the ones who "always ... do understand" chronology.

I'm sure you can understand the danger of such generalizations. You end up claiming that only people who say something false on this subject are the ones who always understand it, and that the people who say something true about this subject are the ones who have never understood. This creates confusion, interferes with the logic of the current argument, and hurts your credibility for any other points which you may have gotten right elsewhere.

It would have been much better to simply go for the facts, or if you don't know them for sure, then at the very least, just state what you believe. If what you believes seems credible, we can consider it as a "possibility" until evidence is provided. But remember that a claim without any supporting evidence is just a claim, which also means that if someone else doesn't agree with it, they need only make a claim that there is a "possibility" that it is wrong. There is no need to waste time on any claims that are unsubstantiated.

So, here's the very next thing you said that was relevant to the discussion:

On 4/6/2016 at 7:12 AM, Allen Smith said:

No different with the justification of wanting the desolation of Jerusalem to be 587/6 BCE. The only substantiated boost they got was with the Babylonian Chronicles that had Jewish influence in its background, by 2 pro Jewish scholars.

This is much better. It's true that you don't point to any evidence, but at least you make a claim about what you believe to be true, and I have now considered the possibility. I happen to be aware of the evidence that it is false, but I don't even need to present that evidence. I just make the counter-claim that I don't believe it's true. That puts the burden of evidence on you because you made the claim. You also seem to have denigrated someone's scholarship here based on the idea of Jewish influence, as if this on its own, is evidence of negative bias. This comes across as either anti-Semitism, racial prejudice, or another ad hominem. 

On 4/6/2016 at 7:12 AM, Allen Smith said:

It was made more controversial by an uneducated bushman that got erratic information by many ex-witnesses that agreed with his ideology. This person Carl Olof Jonsson is not a Historian, Archeologist, Linguistic, or Theologian, yet his money supposedly found Donald Trump like people per say in the midst of scholars. And people like “JWinsider” that mocked Rolf Furuli (A real linguistic scholar) findings to SUPPORT Carl Jonsson’s nonsense came out ahead. Does 588/7 make it factual, NOT entirely? There is validation for both years 608/7-588/7 but NOT in the present historical sense.

So, you are calling COJ an uneducated bushman. Apparently you have decided to go fully down the route of using the racial epithet, and ad hominem. Unfortunately, this style is often considered to be "evidence of lack of evidence" which, again, will simply hurt the credibility of your argument. If you provide no evidence, you pretty much clinch the idea that you are proposing a very weak or completely unsupportable argument. Personally, I don't think it matters whether COJ is educated, or R.Furuli is educated. And I'm not basing that on the quote from you personally (from the jw-archive forum) where you denigrated educated people and made fun of their stupidity. I'm basing it on the fact that not all formally educated people get things right any better than formally uneducated people. I think you would agree, because if you insisted otherwise you would end up mocking most members of the Governing Body who are not formally educated: not historians, not archaeologists, not linguists.

I don't doubt that R.Furuli is a linguistic scholar, by the way. But again, even based on things you have said previously, this doesn't validate any inaccurate arguments he has made. I should also mention that R.Furuli has written many things that are true.

By the way, I have never mocked him. When you claim that I have, in this case, this falls into a different kind of category than stating a false opinion, or an unsubstantiated idea. In this case I can say you are being dishonest. In fact, I can prove you are being dishonest.  Anyone who has seen the discussion you are referring to (which is still available, and which I have a copy of) would be able to see the same, and this, too, would hurt the credibility of any points you try to make. Although I won't mock him, I have seen that Rolf Furuli has been dishonest in terms of scholarship and argumentation. I And

You also make an ad hominem reference to COJ's money. That's a new one for me. I don't even care to know if he is as rich or as poor as Rolf Furuli, or the Watchtower Society, or somewhere in between. It's a confusing claim. So is the reference to Donald Trump-like people, which is even more obviously another ad hominem attack.

You'll notice that this barely scratches the surface as a critique of a small portion of your first response. I haven't even started on your second post, which is clearly more of the same. A reasoning person will consider each of your ad hominem attacks as an admission of weakness of your argument or your evidence. Logically, when you present someone else's argument as weak, it is a kind of attack on that argument. It does not necessarily follow that the position itself is weak, but your preference to present it as weak by resorting to false reasoning and ad hominem instead of defending it, has the same effect as "calling" it weak. Ironically, you are effectively attacking the position of the WTS by "calling" it weak and unsupportable.

If you had any real respect for the positions held by the WTS on this subject, you would not attack the Watch Tower publications in this way. I hope you can do better.

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

Once again JWinsider. It comes to show how WRONG YOU ARE.

 

I don't know who this "IT" is who comes to show how wrong I am. I noticed that you didn't even try to address the evidence that showed I was right. Remember, that the first point was the problem where direct quotes from C.T.Russell himself showed you that you were wrong in your claim. I will assume, for now, that your lack of effort to address it, is the same as an admission that you were wrong. I will happily change that assumption if you give me reason or evidence to do so.

So now that you have "admitted" you were wrong on that point, unfortunately, you are not able to draw further conclusions that were predicated on it. It invalidates your entire argument, at least temporarily.

2 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

Still having trouble understanding. I believe…

I accept that this might be your belief. But you still give no evidence.

2 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

I made it clear that the GB members you emulate (RESIGNED) They (DISFELLOWSHIPPED) themselves. Now with “Chitty”, and “Greenlees”, you SPECULATE it was over homosexuality. A FACT that was NEVER PROVEN, yet you continue to assert yourself as knowledgeable over this matter. I see your still playing to your audience. The type of insight you think you had at Bethel, is not applicable to what really goes on behind closed doors. Once again, you were not privileged.

The GB as imperfect human being did in many occasions over speak with no pun intended. That’s just talk. You’re making a conversation more cynical than it actually was.

You certainly did NOT make it clear. Neither Schroeder, Swingle, nor Sydlik resigned. There may have been others who felt the same way about 607 and understood the same things. I was not privileged to speak to them on the subject, I heard rumors about a couple of them, but I will not use those rumors, because I have no knowledge of them.

It's true that I do speculate, but I could really care less about Chitty's and Greenlees' sexual conduct. I have heard many things, and living a few doors down from one of them, I already had my speculations before I even heard rumors from Bethel elders. The topic right now is not homosexuality, however. And I can tell you that there never was any rumor of current homosexuality about Chitty, that I knew of, and I'm not saying I would have known if there had been. Very few who lived and worked close to Greenlees could have avoided the rumors about both himself and his roommate. I have no knowledge that the rumors were true. These same types of rumors had been on-going since his time with Percy Chapman in Canada. It was not until he was accused of sexual molestation of a minor that Greenlees was dismissed, but I still have some doubts about the accuracy of that accusation, but I'm pretty sure the claim, at the very least, provided a catalyst with an already rumored sexual proclivity, yet those two proclivities are usually (evidently) quite separate things.

I agree with what you said about these subjects and what went on behind closed doors: that I was not "privileged," and for that I am eternally grateful!

2 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

Do you actually think, Jesus didn’t hear imperfect chatter from the Apostles? Please. Any GB before 1960 had no patients or tolerance for ignorance. However, just like the Bible Students, the readjustments of 1931 were making the difference since 1879. To separate prospects.

Good point. I have long believed that Jesus heard imperfect chatter from the Apostles, because we even have accounts of it in the Bible. I can't say that the GB before 1960 had "no" patience or tolerance for ignorance. They have admitted that they did, and you can still find talks by Fred Franz where he enjoys poking fun at how they tolerated ignorance on many occasions. You can merely look up the term "made an a** of myself" on the Watchtower Liibrary CD. Never mind, I'll do it: (After all, it's my asterisk.)

*** w84 10/1 p. 24 ‘Jehovah Has Dealt Rewardingly With Me’ ***
Regarding his misguided statements as to what we could expect in 1925, he once confessed to us at Bethel, “I made an ass of myself.”

So, you shouldn't generalize like that. Many people warned the GB against making direct prophetic statements or claims about chronology, such as when Rutherford stated that the evidence for the claims about  what would happen in 1925 were even stronger than the evidence for 1914.

So, yes. On most subjects the GB were intolerant of ignorance. On some subjects, they were intolerant of knowledge.

2 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

You also emulate CARL OLOF JONSSON that was Disfellowshipped back, when? 1982. The biggest hypocrite to any bible understanding. The idea that he has over 40 years of research of 2 ½ millennia under his cover and books, was time wasted, not time reconsidered, just like his Teacher RAYMOND FRANZ. The book from COJ “The Signs of the Last Days-When?” was a joke. For one, he never understood when the actual “Gentile Time” started. Apparently neither do you, since you continue to CHALLENGE the 607BCE observation.

I don't emulate COJ. But I don't know why you say he was a hypocrite. You give no evidence. Without evidence you are only giving an ad hominem. If you rely on the ad hominem, you are effectively providing support for the person you mean to diparage, and are, in effect, biting the hand that feeds you. You are attacking the WTS by presenting the idea that there is no real evidence for the WTS position or against the position that COJ presented. You say his book "Sign of the Last Days" was a joke. Possibly. But without evidence you are in effect saying that whatever "joke" it was cannot be refuted. That's the same as implying that your own position is the bigger joke. That's very offensive. Try to deal with evidence, not with unsubstantiated claims. 

Of course, you might claim that your evidence is that, as you state, he never understood when the actual "Gentile Times" started. But you give no evidence of this either, and COJ certainly doesn't claim not to know when they started. I'm not sure that you really understand yet, that continuing in this type of argumentation makes your position sound much weaker than the one you are supposed to defend.

I'll break this response up into at least one more post. More to follow...

[Guest Allen Smith]

Quote

JWinsider: If you had any real respect for the positions held by the WTS on this subject, you would not attack the Watch Tower publications in this way. I hope you can do better.

Please, I’ve mentioned it before. Your reverse psychology won’t work with me, and that ad hominem phrase is for losers. I NEVER attacked the WTS as you have for almost a DECADE. Let’s get the fact straight. The only one contradicting the WTS is You.

The WTS stands behind the observance of 607BCE to be a viable date in biblical history. YOU keep saying it isn’t and that you heard it from GB’s back in your day. Whatever the circumstance might have been with your basic discussions with GB’s back then, it wasn’t made official until they meditated upon it, and the will of God made sure their conclusions harmonized with scripture. At what point were you there when that happened? I can tell you and state it as FACT, NEVER!!!

So don’t blame me for your disappointments, and lack of understanding. It’s NOT my fault you like to associate with disfellowshipped people or people that are riddled with apostasy?

So don’t get upset because I’ve been EXPOSING people like you, in order to have TRUE witnesses understand who and what their dealing with. I DON’T need anyone in my side or anyone’s accolades. The only thing I need to do is What the Watchtower of 2014/7/15 (pp.7-11) indicate, 2 fundamental truths:

1.       Jehovah loves those who are LOYAL to him.

2.       Jehovah HATES UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.

Quote

JWinsider: By the way, I have never mocked him. When you claim that I have, in this case, this falls into a different kind of category than stating a false opinion, or an unsubstantiated idea. In this case I can say you are being dishonest. In fact, I can prove you are being dishonest.

The day you contacted COJ to ridicule Furuli and attempt to expose him as being dishonest, WHAT WOULD YOU CALL IT!! From one dishonest person to another, you win!

Remember, you stated if I was still around the following year; you made a self-promotional encrypted algorithm, for what purpose. I’m still here. You buddies in these forums MADE many ATTEMPTS to delete me, in order to prevent me from calling you on your distortions of bible truth. And as always, just like James, you twist things around to have people think you’re the wiser one, how sad!

So Besides the findings of an brother Raymond Franz, and a Disfellowshipped member CARL OLOF JONSSON, your FRIEND, what proof do you have 607BCE is NOT a viable date. Remember don’t misrepresent the WTS literature to confuse people into thinking it means something that it doesn’t. Don’t be like Anonymous Brother. Let’s not pretend to be innocent, and tell the truth for once.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Allen Smith said:

The day you contacted COJ to ridicule Furuli and attempt to expose him as being dishonest, WHAT WOULD YOU CALL IT!! From one dishonest person to another, you win!

It was Rolf Furuli that I contacted. I mentioned that before. If you remember, you were never able to figure out how you had gotten that point wrong.

 

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

Please, I’ve mentioned it before. Your reverse psychology won’t work with me, and that ad hominem phrase is for losers. I NEVER attacked the WTS as you have for almost a DECADE. Let’s get the fact straight. The only one contradicting the WTS is You.

But it's still true that when you rely only on ad hominem, as a pattern, instead of reasoning, facts, and evidence, that you are inadvertently admitting that you are not able or willing to deal with any evidence. It implies that you have nothing strong enough to counter the evidence itself, so you have no choice but to go after the person.

If you do attempt to provide evidence, but it turns out to be a false claim, then you can be applauded for trying, but you haven't moved the discussion past the "ad hominem" attack.

By the way, the irony that I highlighted in your phrase "ad hominem is for losers" is pretty funny. Thanks for the laugh.

If you prefer to have the whole "Attacking the Person" explanation spelled out each time you use the tactic, rather than just referring to it by the short Latin phrase, we can always quote the Awake! magazine from 5/22/1990:

*** g90 5/22 pp. 12-13 Five Common Fallacies—Don’t Be Fooled by Them! ***
FALLACY NUMBER 1
Attacking the Person This type of fallacy attempts to disprove or discredit a perfectly valid argument or statement by making an irrelevant attack on the person presenting it.
Consider an example from the Bible. Jesus Christ once endeavored to enlighten others regarding his coming death and resurrection. These were new and difficult concepts for his listeners. But rather than weigh the merits of Jesus’ teachings, some attacked Jesus himself, saying: “He has a demon and is mad. Why do you listen to him?”—John 10:20; compare Acts 26:24, 25.
How easy it is to label someone “stupid,” “crazy,” or “uninformed” when he or she says something we don’t want to hear. A similar tactic is to attack the person with a subtle dose of innuendo. Typical examples of this are: “If you really understood the matter, you wouldn’t have that point of view” or, “You only believe that because you’re told to believe it.”
But while personal attacks, subtle and not so subtle, may intimidate and persuade, never do they disprove what has been said. So be alert to this fallacy!

I'm only warning you about the effect of your tactic. I'm pointing it out to help, but I'm not blaming you for using the tactic. In fact, I understand that you are responding, with either desperation or "righteous indignation," to what could be another logical fallacy that I have inserted into this argument myself. I am guilty of using the "appeal to authority" fallacy. (The Latin is "ad verecundiam" but that isn't really shorter, so no one says it any more.)

The difference is that I don't rely on it. And I havre no choice but to include it for disclosure. You have sometimes dismissed it, and I am fine with that, because I have not really provided evidence. I don't plan to drag anyone else into this claim at present, so I'm fine with your disbelief. I don't really expect anyone to rely on it. Naturally a few people know who I am and may indeed come forward. I welcome it. But as you already know this particular subject (607/1914) can still cause problems. There are people who immediately consider questions about evidence to be the equivalent of an attack on the WTS. So far, I believe you may included in that group, too.

But this is why I'm willing to discuss the issue from purely a Scriptural perspective, and/or from an archaeological perspective, and/or from a Babylonian historical perspective, and/or from the perspective of the WTS doctrinal development.