JW Insider

Queen Esther, I don't know if it was you who edited the title of this thread, but that's quite a change! I was expressing an opinion, and I still hold to it 100%, but the new title might make others uncomfortable, especially if they were only intending to responding to the thread under it's original title. Thanks for the vote of confidence to you, or whomever made the change. If the "hype" in some of the articles were reworded to a more rational presentation there would be dozens of little changes to make, and I'm not trying to be that picky. But Gordon's site does have several comments on it from Jehovah's Witnesses, too, and they are quite supportive of course. This was one of the reasons to be careful. If I get time, I'll present some of these other problems for those who might be interested. I just noticed that even Nehemia Gordon himself didn't like the new title of this thread. See?

This whole claim is being oversimplified nearly to the point of dishonesty. First of all, "Jehovah" is a perfectly acceptable English name for the Tetragrammaton as long as we admit that it is not intended to match the original Hebrew pronunciation. We have admitted this multiple times: *** nwt p. 1735 A4 The Divine Name in the Hebrew Scriptures *** He said: “Modern grammarians argue that it ought to be read Yahveh or Yahaveh; but JEHOVAH seems firmly rooted in the English language, and the really important point is not the exact pronunciation, but the recognition that it is a Proper Name, not merely an appellative title like ‘Lord.’” Earlier versions of the NWT were very clear that the name "Yahweh" was considered by the NWT translators to be closer to the original Hebrew pronunciation, but chose to use "Jehovah" because it was better known in the English-speaking world. Non-English translations of the NWT are based on this same assumption made for the English translation. The following is from the Foreword of the NWT as published from 1950 through the 1960's: While inclining to view the pronunciation "Yahweh"' as the more correct way, we have retained the form "Jehovah" because of people's familiarity with it since the 14th century. None of this takes away from the point being made in Bible that the whole world will know Jehovah. This is a correct Bible statement even if the original pronunciation was actually YA-HU or YA-HO or YAH-VEH or even a dialectical pronunciation of I-O. The Biblical phras. e was obviously not intended to refer to a specific pronunciation, but a refers to specific actions from God. Next, the initial video is from Michael Rood. Rood is a prophetic "crank" (crack-pot) who continues to use prejudice and misinformation to push his own "End of the World" routine because clearly an end of the world agenda attracts a lot of people and produces a lot of sales activity for his books and DVDs. Perhaps the beard makes one think of a Hebrew scholar, but he is a "Neo-Christian" doomsday preacher. Note the comments here: http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/spl_rood.htm His first major prediction was for the end of the world in 1999, and of course most predictions since then are tempered by using questions and inexact wording instead of direct statements. For example, notice how this video of his is sub-themed: "The Rapture: 2017?" Now it's not fair to associate Nehemia Gordon directly with Rood. But Gordon has now been seen to use many such promoters of "crack-pot" end-times religions to help promote his own work. He may be a good scholar, but he participates in hyping it with people like Rood. I have already found several interviews with and about Nehemia Gordon where this method is obvious, and Gordon plays along with those like Rood and his competitors. I am not saying it's exactly the same thing, but there have been several persons from academia who have worked on niche books and articles and then found a way to promote these through the support of religions whose members are expected to want that scholarly or academicc information to support a "niche" religion. People have even written articles in defense of "cults" like Scientology (using euphemisms instead of cults, like "new religions") and then used well-publicized "academic" seminars to their publicize information that they hope will be desired by members of the "cult." This doesn't mean that Nehemia Gordon is wrong, but we should always be careful when we see anything hyped up using such methods. But we should also notice that a lot of information is being left out in order to lead people to the same conclusion that Nehemia Gordon has made.

Anyone who can read can learn exactly what qualifies one as a "scholar." You don't have to be a scholar to know what qualifies a person. I think that even you yourself probably know what qualifies one to be a scholar. Yes, in previous topics, I've already explained the difficulties I go through from the perspective of what I can and can't teach in the congregational setting. I don't get into trouble in the congregation, but it would be very easy for this to happen, and a few people are well aware of my conscientious stance on a couple of subjects. Naturally, I don't consider my views to be "apostate," as they are based on prayer, study, conscience, the Bible, and a desire to be honest in all things. I probably would only be aware of these differences between the Bible view and the Wathtower's view because several persons in the Writing Department and even a couple people on the Governing Body were helpful and instrumental in pointing out some of these things to me while I was at Bethel. Based on their own example and recommendations, I held back from speaking about the wonderful things I was learning, and it was not until just the last few years that I realized I should not hold bak due to fear of men, fear of loss of position, or attachment to traditions. I still think that discussing such things in a congregational setting could be damaging to unsuspecting and unwary ones, but, like you, I find persons in this type of online environment to be much better prepared for controversial subjects and I find it to be a fairly good venue to be always ready to make a defense and let our reasonableness be known to all. I guess I'll have to take your word for it. That would be nice. Any idea of a time frame for mentioning these "in due course"? Only to the extent necessary to keep strict watch over my teaching, and thereby keep a clean conscience: (1 Timothy 4:15, 16) . . .. 16 Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. . . . I've said all I need to say about your own scholarly issues, but I can see you know nothing about mine. I hope so. I'd sure hate to see a rehash of the gibberish I've already seen on this subject.

Perhaps it is too easy to throw it around as an insult. I don't plan on dealing with the question of honesty or dishonesty at much length, especially not on a personal level with you, but I thought that something should be said, especially because some persons here have probably not had the pleasure of reading the long history of comments you have left at various places through the years. And some persons have made comments here which clearly show they haven't looked into any specifics of your claims. If they had, I'm sure that some think your comments are probably well-researched, but if they would look at them carefully, the same people might be appalled at the both the inanity and sometimes even the insanity of many of your comments. But I've also noticed that dishonesty invariably becomes a part of all Bible chronology discussions, especially from those groups, including our own, that came out of the "Great Awakening" after Miller promoted a preview version of the Watchtower's first chronology. I've now read much of the Second Adventist writings, Seventh Day Adventist writings, Barbour's, Russell's and other Bible Student writings --even John and Morton Edgar. They all lead me to believe that a study of the differences among all of the following should be a prerequisite: dishonesty, insincerity, wishful thinking, shallow thinking, logical fallacies, shoddy scholarship There is absolutely no doubt that you are, by definition, a troll. Repeatedly calling yourself a "scholar" while simultaneously showing a complete disregard for scholarship, and an unwillingness to provide anything of any scholarly value is, in itself, a provocation. For example, going onto sites where non-JWs and ex-JWs frequent, and where you repeatedly refer to "celebrated WT scholars" can have only one purpose, especially if you have also gone to some lengths elsewhere to show why these same scholars have supposedly remained anonymous specifically so that, as they claim, they will not become "celebrated" or "celebrities" in any way. Strange, maybe, but hardly mysterious to me. That makes no sense. Perhaps you meant "that really annoys(?) our critics." At any rate, you didn't stump anyone, and I'm sure I have now completed all the "Jeremiah 29:10" discussions on the previously referenced forum where you are (or were) involved. In fact, it is easy to show you made many false statements, made many logical fallacies, acted like the opposite of a scholar, indicated that you had not read or had not comprehended any sources that anyone was quoting, made the flimsiest of excuses, asked other people to do more work when they had already demolished your argument, showed yourself unwilling to present any information that would have been easy for you to see or find, would evade instead of answering questions, or claim you had proven a point by merely asserting that another person was wrong. I could go on and on. Your posts read like a parody of scholarship. As you already admitted: it will remain your considered opinion until the Watch Tower publications tell us to consider another one. Obviously, that will instantly become your new "considered" opinion. You could not begin to write a scholarly paper with the complete lack (or even disdain) of scholarship that you have shown. It doesn't matter how tempered and unemotional it is; it would need more than just your empty claims that you are right to accept an interpretation based on little to no evidence and that everyone else is wrong to accept an understanding based on most or even all the best evidence. That's a much better view. Although I linked to the entire context and merely included a statement you made just in front of your Jeremiah 29:10 quote and a statement from just after that Jeremiah 29:10 quote. I added your own context specifically so that you couldn't honestly make a claim that it was out of context. But you did anyway. Feel free to explain, and I hope your explanation is NOT simply that everything you have ever said has been out of context. Since it was an observation that explains so much to anyone who might find you "mysterious" I thought it worth mentioning. But I won't make any more claims about what you have said elsewhere. You may have the last word in your own defense if you wish, and I will definitely attempt to only respond to the specifics of any claims you have made here. I'm happy to look at any good, sound scholarship related to the points of this topic.

I just read several threads on this exact topic over on another forum that you have frequented in the past, such as this one: Jer. 29:10 -- Dr. Ernst Jenni replies to Leolaia and Scholar I know it's not fair to call you dishonest here just because you have been dishonest on other forums. And I am not doing that. You have already left a trail of dishonesty here, too. But I'm still marveling at how you appear to have learned nothing in the 13 years since that particular topic was discussed in such detail. Your method has not changed either. Much more scholarly persons than you summarized your own method there so perfectly by saying things like this about you: Read all about it! Read all about it! - "Knocked Out Boxer Claims Victory". modus operandi is basically bluffing and saying anything in favor of the NWT and seeing whether it would stick. record of unfulfilled bluffs and false claims And then after several of these completely false claims were summarized for you, you immediately went on to make another ridiculously false claim which you could have easily looked up for yourself, as any true scholar would have. I notice that you claim above in your discussion with AlanF that you have always argued undogmatically for a range of meaning for Jeremiah 29:10. You have an odd method of doing this which involves 2 steps. Your argument is that, yes, there is a range of meanings in the lexicon, but then you move on to arguing that "therefore" the NWT is absolutely right in the meaning they give it in the context of Jeremiah 29:10. It's a simple assertion until you are pressed to add some evidence, and then you just literally make stuff up. You try to play this one out of both sides of your mouth however. You claim that others cannot be dogmatic, but then go on to dogmatically claim that this means that only the NWT here is correct. Just as you already said on a forum 12 years ago: (Last quote of yours from another forum, I promise.) There is no need to offer an alternative Neo-Babylonian chronology because the date is incomplete or unreliable, if that position is altered by new research then celebrated WT scholars will be pleased to devise a new constructed scheme. Jeremiah 29:10 is translated accurately by the NWT and refers to all of those exiles living in Babylon up until their release. . . . There are no other views other than that of celebrated WT scholars that provides a consistent, holistic account of the seventy years based upon the Bible. That is such a good summary you made of your own views: There is no need to offer an alternative to the WT view unless the celebrated WT scholars devise a new scheme for you. Jeremiah 29:10 is accurate in the NWT. And then, most dogmatically of all, "There are no other views other than that of the celebrated WT scholars. . . " Based on all that you have said here, I can see that your modus operandi is also to be purposely unscholarly so that the hypocrisy of calling yourself a "scholar" drives people to expose you. You admitted that the average Witness is uninformed on these matters, and you are therefore able to count on them to see you as "persecuted for righteousness' sake" instead of noticing that your dishonest method was easily exposed by more honest minds.

Exactly! It's very useful to look at all the various ways that this time period was interpreted prior to Ussher. And after Ussher, more and more evidence continues to show that Ussher's date was not based on any evidence, either secular or Biblical. It was merely based on counting backwards from the secular date he preferred to use for the major events in Jesus' ministry. And, of course, there have been many attempts by Jewish persons going back to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Josephus and several more attempts among Jewish scholars and commentators and the dates are all over the place. Of course, even though we generally keep to the explanation from the Watch Tower you quoted, this particular theory for the date has had even more damaging evidence against it which continues to pile up. What some other Bible commentators have done is to keep a similar set of dates and count them with 360 day years. Some allow them to land closer to 70 C.E., and some still look for ways to dismiss the Persian chronology to start the 70 weeks closer to 539 B.C.E as seen in sources that AllenSmith has repeatedly posted.

By your words here you appear to misunderstand WHY you believe 607 is the year the wall was breached, and the temple burned, etc. You believe Zedekiah's 9th year was 609, and was the beginning of the siege, and that 607 was his 11th year. So then you question why the 70 years of domination would not run from 609 to 539. You seem to forget WHY you believe in 539. How did you get that 539 date? If you would ever look into it and admit WHY you personally concluded that it's a reasonable date, then you would immediately realize why 609 could NEVER be the 9th year of Zedekiah. Any of us who admit that we think that Jerusalem could have been destroyed in 607 or that the preceding siege started in 609 are inadvertently admitting that we have never looked into the matter of why we accept 539. EVERYONE who knows why we accept 539 knows that it is dishonest to accept 607 and 609 for those particular events that came upon Jerusalem. This is how and why it is instantly possible to tell that someone who claims to have truly looked into the matter is being dishonest if they still insist that both 539 is correct and this view of 607 is correct. This is why someone who has claimed to study the issue for several decades and who touts their secular degrees and scholarship should be immediately called out for hypocrisy, sloppiness, or dishonesty. You can see on this very thread that those claiming to be scholars, but who have accepted 607 to 537, have learned to avoid evidence altogether. ON THE OTHER HAND. . . I think that 609 to 539 is perfectly adequate as the secular timing of the 70 years of Babylon's domination, although I have no real use for the specific secular years. I think that 607 to 537 is also an adequate secular timing of the 70 years of Babylon's domination since the greatest effect upon Judea from Babylon was likely felt from about 606 to 538, which includes about 69 years. Now that I have looked into it carefully I see it would be dishonest for ME to attach the same events to those years as you attach to them, but of course, I can see your reasoning. You would claim, as most all Witnesses have claimed at some point, that this period of greatest desolation on Judea in particular could be Biblically dated from about the 18th year of Nebuhadnezzar to the accession year of Cyrus. It could be tempting to name this period as the same as the 70 years of Babylon's greatest domination, and several commentators, especially in previous centuries did just that. In the same way, several commentators thought that the beginning of the 70 weeks of years (Daniel) must have started with Cyrus' decree, rather than in the years of Artaxerxes. Secular data got in the way and commentators had to adjust. It turned out not to be what had seemed like the simplest and most obvious interpretation. But it can also be shown that we should have questioned this "most simple and obvious interpretation" even without the secular data, but just on Bible data alone.

I will happily admit that there is a small measure of Biblical evidence that there could have been 70 years between Nebuchadezzar's 18th and Cyrus' accession. (Which could also be known as Nebuchadnezzar's 19th and Cyrus' 1st, depending on your counting method.) That particular understanding of the evidence is called into question by additional Bible evidence, not just by secular evidence. But this thread was more specifically about whether 607 is supported Biblically. And of course it isn't. No secular date is supported Biblically. We have to consider why we think (or why we ever thought) that 607 might be supported. Our reasoning is clear: it's because we accept that Cyrus conquered Babylon on a certain secular date, 539, and then we count back 70 years from that secular date and say that the fall of Jerusalem must have been the exact start of the time when the 70 years were given to Babylon. It's easy to see what's wrong with that reasoning, and why 607 is not Biblically supported. It's because it requires us to accept the secular date 539. So then we need to consider why we accept the date 539. There is absolutely no Biblical support for it, because the Bible gives us no secular dates. If we were to admit why we accept 539 this would be a disaster for 607. We accept 539 only if we are accepting that it is part of the Neo-Babylonian/Persian timeline that has been built up and verified by tens of thousands of pieces of evidence. It's part of a block of time based especially on lines of evidence running from about 626 to 522. There is no 539 without accepting this block of evidence. It is simply not honest to claim that one particular date is better than others for any year of the reign of any king in this period. The Watch Tower publications imply that there must be an unknown or yet undiscovered king in this period, or that any of the kings of this period may have had a reign longer than what the evidence shows. In other words, the Watch Tower publications indicate that they doubt this same evidence, yet ask us to be certain about one particular date within the block of evidence they are uncertain about. This is dishonest. It's using two sets of scales, or "a cheating pair of scales." (Proverbs 11:1,3) A cheating pair of scales is something detestable to Jehovah, but a complete stone-weight is a pleasure to him.. . . 3 The integrity of the upright ones is what leads them, but distortion by those dealing treacherously will despoil them.

I agree completely. There were several different periods of exile of varying lengths depending on which group of persons any particular person was exiled in. Apparently there were 4 that were significant enough to get a Biblical mention: Nebuchadnezzar's accession year (Daniel 1) Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year (Jeremiah 52) Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year (Jeremiah 52) Nebuchadnezzar's 25th year (Jeremiah 52) And there were several different periods of servitude during the 70 years of Babylon's hegemony, as you already mentioned. So if it is also true that we can also speak of multiple desolations leading up to the most significant desolation I would think we should be able to agree that there is nothing in Jeremiah that ties a 70-year period to a single instance of those desolations. Just because there was a single desolation that might have been worse than all the others, or one that finally rid the land of the most significant final threshold of inhabitants, this doesn't mean that a 70-year clock starts counting at that event. You have given additional evidence of this yourself, and I'm sure you are aware that there is plenty more in the book of Jeremiah that confirms that Jeremiah carried on a theme about 70 years of Babylonian domination that was poised to produce punishments all around and which would ultimately result in complete desolation of Judea as a country. Judea collapsed. Judea's capital city, religious center, independence, self-governance, peace and safety were so devastated that the people could not remain on the land in any sustainable fashion. This was punishment from Jehovah that they could have avoided. The wording of Ezekiel 21 is another point of interest. Notice that you quoted several verses, even from Jeremiah 25 that shows that punishment is being brought upon Judea and the nations around them. With reference to the earliest of these punishments mentioned in Daniel, we should notice the time and specifics mentioned here. When a nation creates incursions that kidnap persons from Judea, this is part of the punishment, too. Ending up in a nation where you are liable to be thrown into a lion's den or a fiery furnace at the whim of some high officials should be seen as a terrifying consequence of Jehovah allowing Babylon to rise in power over the nations all around. Yet this obviously happened well before the "final punishment" to the kingdom of Judea itself, as you quoted from Ezekiel 21:25. I am merely repeating the point that the 70 years of power that Jehovah gave to Babylon obviously resulted in a long process that ultimately resulted in complete devastation of the population of Judea. In this way the 70 years for Babylon were obviously very closely related to Judea's ultimate and final desolation. It makes perfect sense that the process of punishment, exile, and desolation could go on or a period of 70 years and that the "final punishment" could occur closer to the end of that time, not the beginning. At it happened, evidently, the "full and final punishment" reached its peak only about 20 to 25 years into the 70, leaving about 50 years or at least 45 of those years for Judea to have reached that peak of punishment.

Yes. Jeremiah speaks of desolation upon Jerusalem, but nowhere does Jeremiah say anything about 70 years of desolation. He speaks of 70 years of Babylonian domination over the nations around Babylon. Babylon has been granted 70 years of "empire" or hegemony. The first point above was that it makes no sense to speak about a 70-year period of exile, because there were several periods of exile, some longer and some shorter. Historically, there was not a 70-year period between Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year and Cyrus' accession year. But even if there had been, we learn from the Bible that a larger exile took place 11 years earlier, and another important exile took place 5 years later. If the Bible says there were exiles several years before and several years after Nebuchadnezzar's 18th, then it makes no sense to speak of a 70-year exile, anyway. Thus, the Bible never mentions a 70-year exile. So, after skipping that point, you have now gone on to make the point that there would be 70 years of desolation. Again, Jeremiah says nothing about 70 years of desolation. But I would agree that there is a possible implication that can be made from the statements in Jeremiah 25:18, 29 that punishment and ruination would begin with Jerusalem and the cities of Judah. This doesn't account for the fact that the punishment and ruination was an ongoing process. This would be a major reason that Babylon was given 70 years to continue making the nations serve them. Daniel 1 says, that for Judea and Jerusalem, it started as far back as the first year of Nebuchadnezzar. This fits the Babylonian chronicles, which says that Nebuchadnezzar was taking booty back from the Judean area even before he had become king (605). Ultimately, the desolation would become nearly total as far as the independent power of Judea as a nation was concerned. (habitation, agriculture, economy, etc.) We know that the desolation was a process rather than driven by a single specific event because Daniel uses the term "desolations" (plural) even where the NWT changes it to a singular term "desolation." We also know from the description of 70 years of desolation upon Tyre for example, as mentioned above. If the 70 years were counted by "events" then how could Tyre have a full 70 years of desolation? Did it start at exactly the same time as the 70 years of a single desolation upon Jerusalem? This would imply that the idea of 'first' is one of primacy and importance, or that it "starts" with Judea, but continues getting worse and worse for them.

Yes, Judah was significantly desolated in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th/19th year. But Jeremiah never said that the 70 years were to be counted as 70 years of a specific desolation of Judea. He said that the 70 years were the 70 years given to Babylon to dominate the nations all around them. This would include Ammon, Moab and Tyre and Judea, of course, but not all nations would see exactly 70 years of desolation starting and ending at exactly the same time, right?

I have no problem with starting the 70 years for Babylon in 607 (+/-). However, since I accept that the first year of Cyrus over Babylon was in 539, then it would be dishonest for me to try to claim that the Fall of Jerusalem could have been in 607. If you accept the evidence that puts the accession year of Cyrus over Babylon in 539, then you are accepting the evidence that puts Nebuchadnezzar's accession year in 605, and his 18th year in 587. You can't claim that you are using historical evidence to agree that WWI ended in 1918, but then claim that WWI started in 1894 under U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. Once someone points out that all the evidence shows that Grover Cleveland was the U.S. President in 1894, it is even more dishonest to just print up a 20 million magazines every few months that would use an expression like "When President Woodrow Wilson saw the United States enter WWI shortly after 1894. . . ." Yet, this is almost exactly what the Watchtower is doing when it uses an expression like: "When Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. . . . " It would not be dishonest to claim that we think that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 because we disagree with the archaeological evidence. But it is completely dishonest to claim that we believe there is good evidence for 607 because we we accept the evidence for 539. After all, we have the evidence for 539 because we have the evidence for 607, and vice versa.

It's possible that what you really meant that it doesn't matter whether you render the one word as "for" or "at" because either one can be made to seem to support the meaning the Watchtower insists upon. But if you really meant to say what you said, then you are saying that both renderings, either "for Babylon" or "at Babylon" can have either meaning. In other words: "for Babylon" can mean the same as "at Babylon" "at Babylon" can mean the same as "for Babylon" That's an interesting proposition, because it also admits that the meaning could also be as follows. "When 70 years have expired for Babylon, I will turn my attention to you. . . and bring you back here to Jerusalem." Meaning, of course, when the time given for Babylon to rule the nations expires, then you'll know it's the time when I am going to keep my promise to you and allow you to come back home. "When 70 years have expired at Babylon, I will turn my attention to you. . . and bring you back here to Jerusalem." Meaning, of course, that when the 70 years of domination now centered at Babylon expires, then you'll know that it's time when I am going to keep my promise to you and allow you to come back home. This is a perfect match to what Jeremiah has said about the 70 years all along. (Jeremiah 25:9-12) 9 I am sending for all the families of the north,” declares Jehovah, “sending for King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these surrounding nations. I will devote them to destruction and make them an object of horror and something to whistle at and a perpetual ruin. 10 I will put an end to the sound of exultation and the sound of rejoicing from them, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the sound of the hand mill and the light of the lamp. 11 And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’ 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 Chal·deʹans a desolate wasteland for all time. Notice that Jeremiah never says that inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judea would be exiled for a 70 year period, or that any other particular nations would be exiled for a 70 year period. It's BABYLON that gets the 70 years of domination over other nations. It would be quite a trick if Babylon rises to domination and suddenly every nation all around begins serving Babylon at the same time for exactly 70 years. This is exactly what is perfectly stated about the meaning of Jeremiah 25 in the "Isaiah's Prophecy" book: *** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre *** Jehovah, through Jeremiah, includes Tyre among the nations that will be singled out to drink the wine of His rage. He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble. And, of course, all of this has been said before, but I don't think you took an opportunity to respond to why the Watchtower publications were wrong on this point in the "Isaiah's Prophecy" book. Also, it was mentioned before, but it is clearly impossible to claim that it was the inhabitants of Judea or Jerusalem that had to be in exile for exactly 70 years. This was made perfectly clear by the passage in Jeremiah 52 that shows that exiles occurred, not just in Nebuchadnezzar's 18/19th year, but as Jeremiah 52 states: (Jeremiah 52:28-30) These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile: in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews. In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem. In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people. In all, 4,600 people were taken into exile. If it really started counting from Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, then not just some, but MOST of the exiles were taken 11 years earlier, and just about as many were taken 5 years later, as were taken in the 18th year. Obviously, the exiles taken 11 years earlier didn't get to leave 11 years earlier, before Babylon fell. And, obviously, the exiles taken 5 years later didn't have to stay an extra 5 years after Babylon fell. So the 70 years never made sense as an exact time of exile for Judeans. This is why it was always about the start and end of Babylon's rise to power over the nations around them. Also, just because a preposition can have a lot of different meanings in a lexicon, does not mean it will have all those possible meanings in the specific context of the verse in question (Jer 29:10). We know that the scholarly understanding of Biblical Hebrew usage has become better, not worse, with the discovery of more Bible manuscripts. Therefore, before drawing the conclusion that either term means the same thing, we should be able to explain why the majority of translations up to the King James (plus the NWT) have used "at" and the majority of translations since the KJV have used "for." Can you explain why "for" is preferred in almost all modern translations? I'm not asking why you think the Watchtower doesn't use the majority view, or why the Watchtower disagrees with the majority view; I'm asking if you can explain why modern translations prefer "for." If you can't, then your claim at the beginning of your post is merely an assertion without evidence.

I heard Brother Klein give this illustration about "a sailboat tacking into the wind" during his comments on the morning text at Brooklyn Bethel. (The text, comments and prayer at the breakfast meal at Bethel are called "morning worship.") You could sometimes get a hint of what article a brother in the Governing Body was working on by their morning text comments. Of course it could be a few months before you finally saw the article in print, although I worked in the Art Department and sometimes we'd see the articles in an unfinished state to begin working on artwork. The brother who got this article didn't realize that the illustration has much less application to big sailing ships like packet ships, clipper ships, and schooners. It's more applicable to sailboats where the force of drag on the keel doesn't cancel the force of the Bernoulli effect. The final article was worded much better than the original comments by Brother Klein. In the original it was more like the spirit blows a certain way and you want to go exactly the opposite direction. It was easy to interpret him saying that Bible pushes you in one direction and you wish to explain how we ever got to a position that was exactly the opposite of the Bible. He didn't actually say that, but it was so easily confused that I never expected these comments to finally get into an actual Watchtower article. Also, Brother Klein gave too much attention to the ship's rudder which is also only a very small part of the effect. The wind force on a well-shaped sail really becomes about perpendicular (90 degrees) to the actual direction of the wind, so the rudder is important to maneuver at 45 degree angles against the wind in "tacking", but this isn't where the effect comes from. He described 45 degree angles as if they were all-important, but a good sailor/sail can use the effect without requiring such a large tacking angle.

Yes. A very close relative of mine abandoned her husband who was a ministerial servant and who is now an elder. He had beaten her several times, and he even sent her to the hospital once. The elders in her congregation warned her about bringing reproach on Jehovah if she were to explain to any hospital or law enforcement personnel that these injuries came from her husband. She was counseled to stay with him, continue to show a humble, meek, mild, obedient spirit, and thereby "heap fiery coals" upon his head to soften him. She could get through it by making sure she always did more in the field ministry (she was already pioneering), more prayer, more study, etc. She obeyed the elders by not turning in her husband, but was angry enough at this overall directive to tell them know that she was leaving him right then instead of waiting until it happened again. She received a "public reproof" and was threatened with disfellowshipping. In her new congregation, the following month the elders got the recommendation to take away her pioneer "status" because of her willful and unrepentant choice to disobey the directives of the elders. Her husband was spoken to but not reproved or disciplined in any way that would have been discernible by the congregation as a whole. I called him from Brooklyn Bethel and threatened to send him to the same hospital where he would be free to let them know exactly what happened. I was never counseled over the incident. I prayed for forgiveness over my outburst of anger, but I'm not so sure yet that I am fully repentant.

The Danish, Norwegian and Swedish NWT ("2013 Revised") were just released in the last few days. Of course, these are not direct translations of the original Hebrew and Greek into those languages, but translations of the English NWT into those languages. Evidence of this is the new and updated translation of Jeremiah 29:10 in Danish and Swedish. This particular translation (in the English especially) has been used to prop up the idea that the 70 years mentioned here might have meant the exact time period of the Jewish exile in Babylon. In Jeremiah, however, the "70 years" always refers to 70 years of Babylonian domination that Jehovah allowed to them so that the nations all around them would ultimately end up in servitude to Babylon at various times during these 70 years of "empire" or domination that Jehovah gave to Babylon. The new Danish revised translation that just came out on JW.ORG: “Jehova siger nemlig: ‘Når der er gået 70 år i Babylon, vil jeg rette min opmærksomhed mod jer, og jeg vil opfylde mit løfte og føre jer tilbage hertil.’ BING.com's translation into English: "Jehovah says: ' When 70 years have passed in Babylon, I will direct my attention to you, and I will fulfill my promise and take you back here. ' Yet here is the Danish NWT as it still appears on JW.ORG if you change the translation back to the Reference NWT: https://www.jw.org/da/publikationer/bibelen/bi12/bøger/jeremias/29/ 10 „For således har Jehova sagt: ’Først når halvfjerds år er udløbet for Babylon vil jeg vende min opmærksomhed mod jer,+ og jeg vil over for jer stadfæste mit gode ord ved at føre jer tilbage til dette sted.’ BING.com's translation: 10 "For thus, Jehovah has said: ' Only when seventy years have expired for Babylon will I turn my attention to you, + and I will agree with you to confirm my good words by bringing you back to this place. ' Here is the new Swedish Revised translation that just came out on JW.ORG: 10 Så här säger Jehova: ’När det har gått 70 år i Babylon ska jag ta mig an er, och jag ska infria mitt löfte genom att föra er tillbaka hit.’ Yet here is the Swedish NWT as it still appears on JW.ORG if you change the translation back to the Reference NWT: https://www.jw.org/sv/publikationer/bibeln/bi12/böcker/jeremia/29/ 10 ”Ty detta är vad Jehova har sagt: ’När sjuttio år har gått för Babylon skall jag vända min uppmärksamhet till er, och jag skall gentemot er befästa mitt goda ord genom att föra er tillbaka till denna plats.’ BING.com's translation into English: 10 "For this is what Jehovah has said: ' When seventy years have gone for Babylon, I will turn my attention to you, and I will fortify in you my good word by bringing you back to this place. '

That's a good point, and it applies to a couple other issues with the chronology. But not the issue of the 100 years that Russell argued should be added to the rendering of 1 Kings 6:1 which reads 480 in both the KJV and the NWT. The NWT does resolve several issues where Bible texts differ, such as the 8 vs. 18 years of Jehoiachin. Another place, that can effect a reading of chronology, where the NWT and KJV agree is the use of the term "at Babylon" in Jeremiah 29:10 instead of "for Babylon." This has been used by some as evidence for equating the captivity with the desolation, something that Russell did not want to do intentionally. As Russell says in the same article (about Ussher): "He evidently makes the not uncommon mistake of regarding those seventy years as the period of captivity, whereas the Lord expressly declares them to be seventy years of desolation of the land, that the land should lie "desolate, without an inhabitant."" Apparently, people better understand why Ussher understood it as he did when this apparent error in the KJV is corrected, as it has been in almost all modern translations. (I say "apparent" error because the Watch Tower Society still publishes most --but not all-- of its translations in the same way the KJV does here. The WTS is in the minority here, but they would argue that both the KJV and the NWT can be properly translated this way in Jeremiah 29:10.)

Perhaps too quick for his own good. The bulk of the 124 years he needed to change were resolved by claiming there was a copyist error in the Bible that accounted for 100 of those years. But after about 60 years, the Watchtower changed back to Ussher's view on that point. Another place to adjust, of course, was the 18-year to 20-year "gap" that we still deal with today. Here's is Russell's explanation from "The Time is at Hand" Vol 2 of Studies in the Scriptures, page 51-54. It's curious how he so simply resolves a piece of the problem by claiming that he relies completely on the Bible, and then shows why the Bible is very likely in error at the point where Ussher used a Bible passage and Russell claimed it was a copyist's error in that part of the Bible: ---------------quote from "The Time is at Hand" page 51-54 ---------------------- This and Usher's Chronology Compared It will be interesting to some to know wherein the above chronology differs from that inserted in the margin of the common version of the Bible, known as Usher's Chronology. The difference between the two, down to the time of the seventy years of desolation, is one hundred and twenty-four (124) years. This difference is made up of four periods of 18,4,2 and 100 years--as follows: Usher dates the seventy years desolation eighteen years earlier than shown above--i.e., before the dethronement of Zedekiah, Judah's last king--because he figured the king of Babylon took many of the people captive at that time.* (2 Chron. 36:9,10,17; 2 Kings 24:8-16) He evidently makes the not uncommon mistake of regarding those seventy years as the period of captivity, whereas the Lord expressly declares them to be seventy years of desolation of the land, that the land should lie "desolate, without an inhabitant." Such was not the case prior to Zedekiah's dethronement. (2 Kings 24:14) But the desolation which followed Zedekiah's overthrow was complete; for, though some of the poor of the land were left to be vine-dressers and husbandmen (2 Kings 25:12), shortly even these--"all people, both small and great"--fled to Egypt for fear of the Chaldees. (Verse 26) There can be no doubt here: and therefore in reckoning the time to the desolation of the land, all periods up to the close of Zedekiah's reign should be counted in, as we have done. *Note, however, this partial captivity occurred eleven, not eighteen, years before the dethronement of King Zedekiah. The four years difference is in the reign of Jehoram. Usher gives it as a reign of four years, while the Bible says it was eight years. 2 Chron. 21:5; 2 Kings 8:17 Of the two years difference, one year is found in the term of the reign of Ahaz, which Usher gives as fifteen, while the Bible says it was sixteen years. (2 Chron. 28:1; 2 Kings 16:2) And the other is in the term of Jehoash, which Usher reckons as thirty-nine, while the Bible gives it as forty years. 2 Kings 12:1; 2 Chron. 24:1 These differences can be accounted for only by supposing that Usher followed, or attempted to follow, Josephus, a Jewish historian whose chronological dates are now generally recognized as reckless and faulty. We rely on the Bible alone, believing that God is his own interpreter. Aside from these twenty-four years difference in the period of the Kings, there is another variance between the above Bible chronology and that of Usher, namely, one hundred years in the period of the Judges. Here Usher is misled by the evident error of 1 Kings 6:1, which says that the fourth year of Solomon's reign was the four-hundred-and-eightieth year from the coming out of Egypt. It evidently should read the five-hundred-and-eightieth year, and was possibly an error in transcribing; for if to Solomon's four years we add David's forty, and Saul's space of forty, and the forty-six years from leaving Egypt to the division of the land, we have one hundred and thirty years, which deducted from four hundred and eighty would leave only three hundred and fifty years for the period of the Judges, instead of the four hundred and fifty years mentioned in the Book of Judges, and by Paul, as heretofore shown. The Hebrew character "daleth" (4) very much resembles the character "hay" (5), and it is supposed that in this way the error has occurred, possibly the mistake of a transcriber. 1 Kings 6:1, then, should read five hundred and eighty, and thus be in perfect harmony with the other statements. Thus the Word of God corrects the few slight errors which have crept into it by any means.* And remember that those breaks occur in the period bridged effectually by the inspired testimony of the New Testament. *A similar discrepancy will be noticed in comparing 2 Chron. 36:9 with 2 Kings 24:8, the one giving eighteen years and the other, evidently incorrect, giving eight years as the age of Jehoiachin, who reigned three months, and did evil in the sight of the Lord, and was punished by captivity, etc. Such a mistake could easily occur, but God has so guarded his Word that the few trivial errors of copyists are made very manifest, and the full harmony of his Word gives ample foundation for faith. So, then, whereas Usher dates A.D. 1 as the year 4005 from the creation of Adam, it really was, as we have shown, the year 4129, according to the Bible record, thus showing the year 1872 A.D. to be the year of the world 6000, and 1873 A.D. the commencement of the seventh thousand-year period, the seventh millennium, or thousand-year day of earth's history. -------------end of quote----------------

Rather than spending all the time in the small details, we should get a higher level view of what was going on, too. There's more speculation in any high-level view, but here's an attempt, hopefully not too controversial: Protestants were not well-known until the mid-1500's. Almost by definition, Protestantism involved an immediate reflex to begin openly speaking of the Pope and Papal authority as the Antichrist. It was pretty easy then to go to the next step and realize that Biblical eschatology predicts some movement or maneuvering of the Antichrist in the final days -- the last days before the Judgment. The success of Protestant groups must have seemed enormously important in the historical scheme of things. Something very important must be brewing, and it made sense that these Protestants had escaped "Babylon" just in time to barely escape Babylon's destruction. It just had to be true that the "end of the world" had drawn near. So the more educated among Protestants would have been looking immediately at Bible prophecy, end-times prophecy (eschatology) to give more credibility to these claims that the end was upon them, and the Antichrist (related to some Papal authority, no doubt) was about to show herself, etc. etc. Today, scholars see the success of Protestantism as the result of several social, economic, industrial, political, educational and religious factors. Some were driven by the recent invention of the printing press so that both Bibles and more secular books were bought and shared by common people. Other inventions helped expand the horizons of Europeans by extending navigation and exploration. Europeans discovered they were not alone in the world. The Catholic church itself, through its own teachings and its universities, had been exposing people to the philosophy of classical Greek thinking. Options were available, including optional doctrines. In the 1600's, Protestantism in the American colony was especially ripe for theories about Bible prophecy and the significance of the Protestant escape from the Roman Papacy, or even the "French" or "Anglican" Papacy. This made sense because the very existence of the American colony was seen as a kind escape from "Egypt" to the "Promised Land" where the most famous of early settlers claimed that Jehovah's blessing could be seen in how easily the Native American "Indians" were being wiped out through disease. It was as they often didn't even have to fight, when smallpox and other diseases were killing whole villages of "Indians" while the White "pilgrims" and "pioneers" were blessed with relative immunity. Europeans, of course, had already built up much of this immunity through their own plagues of the 13th through the 15th centuries. Looking at the historical sweep of a Catholic Church, with its ancient books and buildings, it seemed to tie itself all the way back to the first century -- to the apostles themselves. But the American Protestant universities (Harvard, Princeton, etc.), were becoming hotbeds of even more prophetic speculation, discussing the latest books on Bible prophecy, hosting lectures on prophecy. Famous early American names including John Harvard, Roger Williams, Mathers, Cotton, Jonathan Edwards were all involved. Perfectly timed to all of this was Bishop Ussher's chronology in the mid 1600's. Catholic and Jewish Bible commentators had already seen the possibility that the time periods of the bible 390, 490, 1260, 1290, 1335, 2300, even 2520, could be translated to years and reach from Biblical times into their own era. Bishop Ussher had developed a chronology that tied secular dates to the events in the Bible. Bishop Ussher completed a chronology between 1648 and 1650 that had Jesus born exactly 4000 years after Adam was created, and had Solomon's temple exactly 1000 years before Jesus. This fed into another common idea that the thousand-year reign at the END of the 6000 years would make a perfect "Grand Week" of 7,000 years. This idea had been out there well before Ussher. But there was a problem in that Ussher's dates that pushed the end of 6,000 years all the way out to 1996/7. Adventists (and C.T.Russell) were quick to correct this by finding ways to push creation back another 120 -150+ years, so that the millennium could start closer to 1843 or 1873. Ussher himself had evidently begun to use Revelation 11:1-4 to predict a great persecution by the Papists in England, Ireland and Scotland, and a book about it was written very soon after he died: "The Prophecy of Bishop Usher." (available on Google Books. Also see a Cotton/Laud connection in the same book). The late 1600's finally cemented the reasons why John Aquila Brown, Miller, Barbour, Russell and so many others were still so concerned with keeping key pieces of their chronologies in sync, and why many groups continued with almost identical chronologies into the 1900's and some even until today (Bible Students, Seventh Day Adventists). It explained the reason that all these chronologies had been so closely tied to the political domination of the Papists. It may have started here with Ussher himself, but the most salient reason they became "set in stone" actually started with others in the mid-1600's and then an amazing prediction came true based on these prophecies. In 1633, a Cambridge-educated preacher named John Cotton had emigrated to America in 1633 because of religious persecution by William Laud back in England. Preaching especially in 1639-1640, and then publishing between 1642 and 1655 or so, he had already tied the 1,260 days to the Papacy from the first use of the term "Pontifex Maximus" in about the year 395 up until the end of the Papacy's power that he thus predicted for about 1655 since 395+1260=1655. This basic idea had already been put forward much earlier by Walter Brute and especially John Napier in 1593. But before the 1600's were out, some were already predicting (nearly 100 years in advance) that the end of the Papacy would be centered on uprisings in France at the end of the 1700's. The French Revolution played out from about 1789 to 1798, resulting in a surprisingly "correct" fulfillment of the prophecy, especially the one spelled out in 1701 by Robert Fleming in "The Rise and Fall of the Papacy" which pointed especially to France and the fall of the Papacy in 1794. That would explain why every one of the prophetic chronologies above, including the one that Russell and Rutherford promoted (through Watch Tower publications) until the 1930's included dates for the rise and fall of the Papacy. The Watch Tower claimed that the last days had begun in 1799, and that the 1,260 days/years referred to the Papacy, too. And it also could explain why the Roman Catholic Church remained a special target of Rutherford throughout his entire lifetime.

We can now quickly compare the variations of these dates among Millerites themselves, other Second Adventists, Seventh Day Adventists, and even non-Adventists (like Seiss). Miller says he formulated his dates in 1818, and began preaching about them in the 1820's, shortly after John Aquila Brown had been publishing the dates shown above (Brown actually began publishing as early as 1810; see Froom, V3.) William Miller Based, for example, on his own words from 1845 here: http://centrowhite.org.br/files/ebooks/apl/all/Miller/William Miller's Apology and Defence, August 1.pdf 457 BC to 1843 AD (2300 days) 538 AD to 1798 AD, (1260 days) The years of Papal supremacy, as with Russell, etc. * 508 AD to 1798 AD, (1290 days) * [less explicit after the "Disappointment"] 508 AD to 1843 AD, (1335 days) 677 BC to 1843 (2520 days) - Starts with loss of independent kingdom under Manasseh Even after the "Great Disappointment" of 1843 (and re-tried in 1844), Miller still finds general support for large parts of his chronology in the prior respected works of Bush, Hinton, Jarvis, Morris and others. But in his 1845 "apology" he apparently already realizes what some later Second Adventists will pick up on, that it appears rather contrived to make either the 1260 and 1290 start on different dates just so that they can end on the same date, especially if the 1335 and 1290 start on the same date. In restating his beliefs in 1845, he explains everything else, but carefully avoids explicit mention of the start and end dates of the most contrived-looking pieces. Seventh-Day Adventists, who derived from Millers closest supporters had already tied themselves to this original set of dates through writings, direct promotion of Miller, and even some personal visions and prophecies of their own that tied it all up to 1844. For them, all they had to do was re-explain 1844 as expecting the wrong thing, but at the right time. They re-explained that something prophetically important actually did happen in 1844, but invisible and in heaven. Therefore, one of the famous Seventh Day Adventist books, by Uriah Smith, 1897, that is still popular today, still promotes the old Miller dates: 457 BC to 1844 AD (2300 days) p.223,233 (no-zero-year explains 1844, otherwise 1843) 538 AD to 1798 AD, (1260 days) p.533 508 AD to 1798 AD, (1290 days) p.342 508 AD to 1844 AD, (1335 days) p.342 nothing applicable, (2520 days) p.785 In fact, on page 785, the author (Uriah Smith) makes it clear he has seen charts of the type that Barbour and Russell presented, and that these almost always include the "seven times." He says this about Leviticus 26, then Daniel 4: Almost every scheme of the "Plan of the Ages,"** "Age-to-come," etc., makes use of a supposed prophetic period called the "Seven Times;" and the attempt is made to figure out a remarkable fulfilment by events in Jewish and Gentile history. All such speculators might as well spare their pains; for there is no such prophetic period in the Bible. But we need borrow no trouble on this score; for the expression "seven times" [Leviticus 26] does not denote a period of duration, but is simply an adverb expressing degree, and setting forth the severity of the judgments to be brought upon Israel. The expression in Dan.4:16 is not prophetic, for it is used in plain, literal narration. (See verse 25.) ** Russell's first volume was called "Plan of the Ages" before the name was changed to "Divine Plan of the Ages." A big difference between Seventh Day Adventists and other chronology-laden groups like Second Adventists, Russellite-styled Bible Students, or Jehovah's Witnesses is that SDAs do not have any prophetic dates going past 1844. It's one of the reasons that the discussion of the history of all Adventist prophetic dates by L.E.Froom displays a seeming irritation that J A Brown, the first person to evidently point to 1843/4, didn't stop there but created a prophetic continuation of dates by allowing the 1260, 1290, and 1335 to all begin at the same time. Starting them all at the same time (when Papal power began to dominate as political power) forced his dates beyond 1844. Later SDA commentators, after Miller, apparently found it impossible to agree that a 2,520 year period would start with Manasseh to end in 1844, but starting any time after that would force a date beyond 1844.

In the Watch Tower, October 1909, Russell continues the same thinking about the "parallels" but never even mentions Daniel 4 or Nebuchadnezzar in the discussion. In fact, he defends the use of "seven" in Leviticus to mean "seven times" even though, by now, it is clear that Russell has heard the argument about the actual meaning of the Hebrew words. The Hebrew in Leviticus 26 was about as helpful in creating "time periods" as saying that Naaman bathed 7 times in the Jordan, or that the three Hebrews of Daniel 3:19 were thrown into a furnace heated "seven times" hotter. Instead, Russell, "digs in his heels" and mixes the two meanings together to create a "continuous" period of seven times to mean 2,520 years. God foretold that if Israel would be faithful he would bless them in every sense of the word, but that if they would walk contrary to him, he would walk contrary to them and chastise them "seven times for their sins." (Lev. 26:28.) This expression in this connection is, with variations, repeated three times. In one instance the word "MORE" is used. "I will chastise you seven times more for your sins." The Hebrew word rendered more, according to Strong's translation, would properly be rendered "continuously." This threat of punishment we interpret to mean, not that the Lord would give Israel seven times as much punishment as they should have, but that he would punish them seven times (seven years) more (continuously) for their sins. These seven times or seven years were not literal years surely, for they received more punishment than that on numerous occasions. The seven times we interpret as symbolical years, in harmony with other Scriptures--a day for a year, on the basis of three hundred and sixty days to a year. Thus the seven times would mean 7 x 360, which equals 2520 literal years. And the word more or continuously would signify that this period of 2520 years would not be the sum of all their various years of chastisement at various "times," but this experience of 2520 years of national chastisement would be one continuous period. Next we should ask, Has there been such a continuous period of disfavor in Israel's national history? The answer is, Yes. In the days of Zedekiah, the last king to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord, the Word of the Lord concerning the matter was, "O, thou profane and wicked prince, whose time has come that iniquity should have an end: Take off the diadem! Remove the crown! I will overturn, overturn, overturn it [the crown, the kingdom] until he comes whose right it is, and I will give it unto him." (Ezek. 21:25-27.) This period of 2520 years, or seven symbolic times, will expire, according to our reckoning (DAWN-STUDIES, Vol. II., Chap. IV.) in October, 1914. In other words, the period of Gentile times, of Gentile supremacy in the world, is the exact parallel to the period of Israel's loss of the kingdom and waiting for it at the hands of Messiah. In the "Studies in the Scriptures" series, Russell, also focuses on Leviticus 26:28 first, and then Ezekiel 21:25-27, but there he does include brief references to the tree dream of Daniel 4. When he wrote Volume 2, he was still concerned about the differenes in the Hebrew between Leviticus and Daniel and made a statement about the Hebrew word prior to the statement quoted above which was false (understood better in 1909, but never fixed in future printings of Volume II itself): All these periods being far longer than "seven times" or years literal, yet the "seven times" being mentioned as the last, greatest and final punishment, proves that symbolic, not literal time is meant, though the Hebrew word translated "seven times" in Leviticus 26:18,21,24,28, is the same word so translated in Daniel 4:16,23,25,32, except that in Daniel the word iddan is added, whereas in Leviticus it is left to be understood. It's like saying, it's the same Hebrew word, except that it's different. But he is still consistent that there are two parallel time periods: the "chastisment [trampling] of Israel" and the "time of the [domination by the] Gentiles." This is from Vol 2, "The Time Is At Hand," page 192, 193: In the same chapter in which he tells them of the punishment of seven times under Gentile rule, he tells them, also, that if they would neglect the year Sabbaths he would punish them for it by desolating their land. (And, as a matter of fact, the seventy years desolation was also the beginning of the seven Gentile Times, as already shown.) The Lord's threatening reads thus: "Your land shall be desolate and your cities waste. Then shall the land enjoy her Sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate and ye be in your enemies' land,...because it did not rest in your Sabbaths when ye dwelt upon it." Lev. 26:34,35,43 . . . The entire number being seventy, and nineteen of these having been observed in a half-hearted way by Israel before the desolation, it follows that the remaining fifty-one (70-19=51) mark the period from the last Jubilee which Israel imperfectly observed, down to the great antitype. Notice, as an aside, that Russell comes 'curiously' close to finding a solution for the supposed "20-year gap" when he mentions that it was intended to cover for Jubilees observed in a half-hearted way for 19 of the 70 years, and failing completely for 51 of the seventy years. Just above this in the same article Russell had highlighted the connection between the separate phrases about a usual reference to the "70 years of captivity" as perhaps different from the "Biblical" reference to the "70 years of desolation." It's a side point, but might indicate that the "wheels were turning" to discover a way to push the 606 reference back to the actual chronology proposed by Seiss, instead of the 19 to 20 year mistake Russell had accepted through N.H.Barbour. (Seiss had recognized 606 as the first year of captivity and exile, referring to Daniel and others, from the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar, not the 18th/19th year when Jerusalem was destroyed. For that matter, so had E.B.Elliott.) But back to the point at hand. Russell showed again and again that his primary source for the 7 times, even the "seven Gentile Times" was Leviticus 26, not Daniel 4. Without further quoting long passages, we can see this in several more places, in no particular order. The following is a fairly comprehensive list of every time the period of "seven times" (as 2,520 years) was mentioned by Russell in the Watch Tower magazine: The Watch Tower article in July 1915, supports the "seven times" only with Leviticus, not Daniel. The February 1892 Watch Tower, page 61 also only uses Leviticus, not Daniel, and states the prediction for "1915" instead of 1914: Seeing Israel's kingdom cut off, and finding themselves for centuries uninterfered with in ruling the world, they conclude that it shall so continue always, and know not that their days of empire are limited to "seven times" or 2520 years, which will end in A.D. 1915 The June 1912 Watch Tower still speaking of the literal, physical nation of Israel only uses Leviticus 26, not Daniel. as a nation, they have for centuries been receiving the very "curses" specified under their Covenant. (See Deut. 28:15-67.) Verses 49-53 describe the Roman siege, etc.; verses 64-67 describe the condition of Israel since. As shown in previous writings the Lord (Lev. 26:18-45) declared the symbolical "seven times," 2,520 years, of Israel's subjection to the Gentiles, and their deliverance--A.D. 1914. The October 1909 Watch Tower is quoted earlier in this post, and only uses Leviticus, not Daniel. The December 1912 Watch Tower is actually about the potential problem with the potential existence of the "zero year" between BC and CE, and the article also makes a point that even back in 1904 the Watchtower had already hedged toward 1915 anyway, just in case. The parallel time periods are mentioned, without any mention of either Daniel or Leviticus, however: "We find, then, that the Seven Times of Israel's punishment and the Seven Times of Gentile dominion are the same; and that they began with the captivity of Zedekiah, and, as will be seen from the Chart, they terminate with the year 1915. In the November 1914 Watch Tower, the Times of the Gentiles is still being discussed with only references to Leviticus, and not Daniel. Just as in the Seiss publication, the primary references are to Leviticus 26 and Ezekiel 21, and the only reference to Nebuchadnezzar is to Daniel 2 where he is called the "head of gold:" Through our Lord Jesus Christ, God has mentioned the Gentile Times (Luke 21:24), and now in the Old Testament we find out how many Times there are-- how many years; for in Scriptural usage a Time means a year. As we studied the subject still further, we found that God had told the Israelites that they would come under His disfavor for Seven Times. (Leviticus 26:14-28.) . . . each symbolic "Time" would be 360 years. So then, this period of Seven Times must mean 7 x 360 years, or 2520 years. Thus we found that this was to be the period of time during which Israel was to be overturned (Ezekiel 21:25-27) --to have their kingdom and their government subject to the Gentiles. So, it turns out that Daniel 4 might never have been used as a proof text for the 2,520 years in the Watch Tower itself during Russell's lifetime. It was in Volume II of Studies in the Scriptures, but even there it was not used much, but was discussed in a section more than two-thirds of the way into the article, after 20 pages, under a subheading of the chapter on the Gentile Times, called "Another Line of Testimony." So even here, it was considered to be an additional perspective, treated as secondary, after the Leviticus 26 explanation had been given as primary. Another side point I found interesting is that there are several phrases that echo Seiss's publications, even though it may have been Barbour who had already provided the direct conduit to Seiss, and Russell's references are perhaps only through Barbour. But it's also true that when Seiss published this work in 1870, that it didn't actually quote Ezekiel 21:25-27, per se, but quoted the exact same verses from Ezekiel 21:30,32 using Leeser's Reading, which renumbers some verses. The Watch Tower began selling Leeser's translation as a recommended study aid back in 1884, but rarely quoted from it in the Watch Tower. The first quote from it that I have found was in February 1884, and the second quote from it was 8 years later in the same article mentioned above from February 1892, and the quotation is from Ezekiel 21:31,32, just as Seiss had published this passage (and only this passage) from Leeser's in 1870.

I guess this publication must have thought that ownership of the Suez Canal was more directly related to the future political prospects of a Jewish nation in Palestine. I don't remember that this particular application was anything that the Watch Tower ever bought into. However, Russell was also very interested in how developments in the world during the 1800's would help to settle the question of Jews going back to Jerusalem in Palestine and setting up the nation of Israel as the foundation for the time in 1914 when they would be the only remaining government on earth after the smashing to bits of all other [Gentile] governments. But Russell spent a bit more time on internal and external religious influences that laid the foundation for Zionism. In "Thy Kingdom Come" Russell says: As the time for the promised restoration of God's favor to Israel draws on, we see a preparation being made for it. In the September 1906 Watch Tower, Russell said it was 30 years earlier when he first began championing the return of the Jews to Israel, meaning around 1876, of course. Russell says, on page 291 of this issue: " . . . natural Israel is yet to play an important part in the world's affairs, naturally watch keenly everything transpiring throughout the world affecting the Jews. Noting that the favor to Spiritual Israel meant the disfavor of natural Israel, and that the completion of Spiritual Israel would mean the return of natural Israel to divine favor, we more than others were prepared to look for and to apply the prophetic promises which belong to fleshly Israel. Thus it was that thirty years ago we were preaching the regathering of natural Israel to Palestine before A.D., 1914. Others mocked, and even orthodox Jews assured us that they did not expect such things for several centuries. Not for fifteen years after that did Dr. Herzl and Dr. Nordau and others dream of and organize the Zionist movement for the reoccupation of Palestine by the natural descendants of Abraham, who, the Apostle says, are still "beloved for the fathers' sakes." That same article said this about the Canal. (The article was called: "The Jew! The Jew! The Jew!") England, alarmed at the situation in Egypt, and by the efforts of the Sultan to encourage a "Holy War" by the Mohammedans, has viewed with alarm the building of a railway from the Sinaitic Peninsula into Palestine, lest it should give the Sultan a military advantage and endanger the interests and political value of the Suez canal. It is easy to believe that England therefore would be pleased to see the Jews, a friendly race, enter Palestine in considerable numbers. I lived in a state where the Mississippi flowed backwards (February 7, 1812) a bit before my time. Hurricane Isaac (2012?) made the surface waters, at least, flow backwards for quite a while even more recently, but that was further downstream.

We can find out whether Russell really ever rejected this reasoning. We can trace his discussions of the topic from the very first to the very last. When Russell first wrote about the Gentile Times it was in the October 1876 Bible Examiner (published by George Storrs). *** jv chap. 10 pp. 134-135 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth *** Shortly thereafter, in an article entitled “Gentile Times: When Do They End?”, Russell also reasoned on the matter from the Scriptures and stated that the evidence showed that “the seven times will end in A.D. 1914.” This article was printed in the October 1876 issue of the Bible Examiner. The entire article is at: https://archive.org/stream/1876BibleExaminer/1876_Bible_Examiner_Russell#page/n0/mode/2up. Here is some of what he said: We believe that God has given the key. We believe He doeth nothing but he revealeth it unto His servants. Do we not find part of the key in Lev. xxvi. 27, 33? “I, even I will chastise you seven times for your sins: . . ." In explaining the "Gentile Times" of Luke 21:24, this is the first scripture he quotes, Leviticus 26:27,33. [Actually, Russell only quotes from Levitius 26:28,32,33.] Then he quotes from Ezekiel 21:26-27 ("Remove the diadem, take off the crown, . . . I will overturn, overturn, overturn it, . . . until He comes whose right it.") Leviticus 26 is no longer part of our 1914 doctrine, but Ezekiel 21:25-27 is still a key part of it. Then he references Daniel 2:38 about Nebuchadnezzar: "Further, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, the head of gold, is recognized by God as the representative of the beast, or Gentile Governments." So far, all of this perfectly echoes the publication by Seiss nearly six years earlier. ("Prophetic Times" Dec 1870). There, the 2,520 years was also mentioned in connection with Leviticus 26:18,21,24,28, after which the 1870 article goes on to make the same point from Ezekiel 21:25-27. The only mention of Nebuchadnezzar in the "Seiss" article is a similar reference to Daniel 2 as just quoted from : . . . with the corresponding investiture of Nebuchadnezzar, with as absolute dominion as God has ever delegated to man, as the "head of gold," contemplates the commencement of the "times of the Gentiles," which points to A.D. 1914 as the "time of the end" . . . Of course, they both are saying the same thing about Nebuchadnezzar which would appear to preclude making Nebuchadnezzar represent the non-Gentile government, if he is such a perfect representation of the Gentile governments! So, the publication by Seiss never attempts to bring in Daniel 4, but Russell follows Barbour's lead here and attempts it anyway. Russell seems to be only slightly aware that his thinking is getting terribly muddled here, about who Nebuchadnezzar represents. Using some long and convoluted sentences, in his 1876 article, Russell says: . . . as in the case of Israel, their degradation was to be for seven times, so with the dominion of the Image; it lasts seven times; for, when in his pride the “Head of Gold” ignored“ The God of heaven,” the glory of that kingdom (which God gave him, as a representative of the Image,) departed, and it took on its beastly character, which lasts seven times. Dan iv:23 – and, (prefigured by the personal degradation for seven years, of Nebuchadnazzar, the representative) until the time comes when they shall acknowledge, and “give honor to the Most High, whose Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom.” Russell's point is NOT that Nebuchadnezzar represents the Messianic Kingdom, as the Watch Tower publications tell us today. Instead, Russell is arguing that there is a "parallel" in the length of punishment because the two "events" are parallel periods: "trodding of Jerusalem" and "times of the Gentiles." The first single sentence quoted above in its entirety actually said the following: God had taken the crown off Zedekiah and declared the Image, of which Nebuchadnezzar is the head, ruler of the world until the kingdom of God takes its place (smiting it on its feet); and, as this is the same time at which Israel is to be delivered, (for “Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled”), we here get our second clue, viz.: these two events, noted of the Scriptures of truth-“Times of Gentiles,” and “Treading of Jerusalem,” are parallel periods, commencing at the same time and ending at the same time; and, as in the case of Israel, their degradation was to be for seven times, so with the dominion of the Image; it lasts seven times; for, when in his pride the “Head of Gold” ignored“ The God of heaven,” the glory of that kingdom (which God gave him, as a representative of the Image,) departed, and it took on its beastly character, which lasts seven times. Yes that was only one sentence. But the point is that there are two periods of seven times: seven times of degradation for Israel (Treading of Jerusalem), and seven times for the dominion of the image (Times of the Gentiles). They will run in parallel. The first of those periods about the punishment of Israel/Jerusalem is from Leviticus 24 and the second of those periods is about the dominion of the Gentile nations and is from Daniel 4. Of course, Russell's overall point was that by 1914 "the Jew" would be delivered because "the nations" would be "dashed to pieces" (smashed as with an iron rod) , and 1914 would be the time when the nations would therefore acknowledge God as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. There would be no more Gentile governments as they would collapse in chaos, and only Israel's government (assumed to be from the physical city of Jerusalem) would now have power. ". . . the seven times will end in A.D. 1914; when Jerusalem shall be delivered forever, and the Jew say of the Deliverer, “Lo, this is our God, we have waited for Him and He will save us.” When Gentile Governments shall have been dashed to pieces; when God shall have poured out of his fury upon the nation [sic], and they acknowledge, him King of Kings and Lord of Lords. If the Gentile Times end in 1914, (and there are many other and clearer evidences pointing to the same time) and we are told that it shall be with fury poured out; at time of trouble such as never was before, nor ever shall be; a day of wrath, etc. So was Russell consistent about this reasoning or did he reject it as stated in "Proclaimers"?

This post follows up on my last post looking more closely at the words in the Proclaimers book, repeated here: At least by 1870, a publication edited by Joseph Seiss and associates and printed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was setting out calculations that pointed to 1914 as a significant date, even though the reasoning it contained was based on chronology that C. T. Russell later rejected. From what I can tell, the basic idea of these periods of time, especially the ones associated with 2,520 years, were about judgments visited upon the nation of Israel/Judah. As Seiss published: Upon this one feature all prophetic periods‘ are made to depend; “the seven times” of Moses, the two thousand and three hundred days,” and the other shorter periods of Daniel, all have primary reference to the chastisements visited upon this people and nation. Taking first the "seven times," or the two thousand five hundred and twenty years of dispersion and denationalization, for the disobedience and rebellion of Israel under the Law, as predicted by Moses (Lev. 26:18,21,24,28) and indicative of the entire period of God's displeasure toward them, and accepting the historical dates of God's afflictive dispensations. . . . The point here is that the "seven times" or 2,520 years are not taken from Nebuchadnezzar's tree dream prophecy in Daniel 4, but are called the "seven times" of Moses. This means, of course, that they come from Leviticus 26:18-28 which says: (Leviticus 26:18-28) 18 "If even this does not make you listen to me, I will have to chastise you seven times as much for your sins. . . . 21 But if you keep walking in opposition to me and refuse to listen to me, I will then have to strike you seven times as much, according to your sins.. . . 24 then I too will walk in opposition to you, and I myself will strike you seven times for your sins. . . . 28 I will intensify my opposition to you, and I myself will have to chastise you seven times for your sins." The word here is not the word "times" in the sense of "iddan" as in Daniel which can refer especially to time periods, like weeks, months, seasons, years, etc. In Daniel the word is therefore translatable as "seven periods of time" but in Leviticus the term is not really "seven times" literally, but just "seven" as in the meaning of "7 times as much," or 7 instances. The literal word "times" doesn't even appear, and can be understood as a numerical multiple, as in the way "double/twice" or "triple/thrice" or "quadruple" can be used with numbers like 2, 3 and 4. Something similar (and probably related) happens when Daniel prays about the fact that the 70 years of Jeremiah must be completed, and Daniel is told that it's not just going to be 70 years, but "7 TIMES 70" years before a complete fulfillment is seen. But did Russell really ever reject this reasoning?

I don't think he's quite as young as Brother Sanderson was when he was appointed, I think in his early 50's. Probably 53 to 55.