JW Insider

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.

It's on jw.org:

I just finished reading a few books by Seiss, after which I intended to comment further on another thread that was started only for the purpose of sharing the commonly agreed-upon history of the 607 and 1914 doctrine among Bible Students who followed Russell, Second Adventists and others who had influenced those movements. But I just discovered something that might be just a bit controversial, so I'm presenting it over here where someone might be able to point out if I am wrong about it. (I wouldn't doubt that others have already noticed the issue I'm going to present.) When I looked at the paragraph in the Proclaimers book again, I noticed that I had never really looked into a point made about Seiss, and just assumed it was part of Seiss's many theories, and gave the WTS the benefit of the doubt that Seiss had chanced upon a 1914 theory probably in a way similar to John Aquila Brown in Even-Tide, or E. B. Elliott in his work on the "Apocalypse" or in the chronology of Christopher Bowen. Here's the paragraph from Proclaimers, with the Seiss information highlighted: *** jv chap. 10 p. 134 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth *** As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in London, England, calculated the “seven times” of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length. But he did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did, however, connect these “seven times” with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. In 1844, E. B. Elliott, a British clergyman, drew attention to 1914 as a possible date for the end of the “seven times” of Daniel, but he also set out an alternate view that pointed to the time of the French Revolution. Robert Seeley, of London, in 1849, handled the matter in a similar manner. 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. I had never wondered what this "reasoning" was that C.T. Russell had later rejected. The actual 1870 source material is here. The PDF is 605 pages long, and you will need to look at the first article in the December 1870 issue of "Prophetic Times" pps. 177-184. (pdf pages 386-393). I have already excerpted the relevant sections in the 5th post here: I think I just figured out what the "reasoning" was that Russell later "rejected." The problem is, I see evidence that Russell held onto this reasoning even more strongly as time went on, and I see no evidence that he "rejected" it. I'll explain in my next post below.

No one ever gave evidence against 538 or 605. They are both good dates to put forward for the events that should be associated with them, plus or minus a year or two, in my opinion. You provide mixed up facts for me to choke on? LOL. Then why has most of WT Chronology already been dropped? About 15 of the original "non-erasable" prophetic dates that had included 1914 have already been erased from WT chronology. All that is left is a simple claim that, even though all the predictions for 1914 failed, we are going to keep it anyway because, if we merely change the meaning of "Gentile Times" we can at least say we got that part right. Of course, even this is a huge failure, because our current definition is not based on scripture. WT chronology was intended to circumvent the words of Jesus about how the times and seasons were in the Father's jurisdiction, and how no one would know the time of the parousia. It had become analogous to the way in which early Christians were using genealogies: (1 Timothy 1:3-7) . . .to command certain ones not to teach different doctrine, 4 nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies. Such things end up in nothing useful but merely give rise to speculations rather than providing anything from God in connection with faith. 5 Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on . . . Â

The actual date is still not important to me. But treating all facts, evidence and interpretations of evidence with honesty will always be important to me. Even if something is trivial in the long run, we can show our faithfulness in small things which is just as important as showing faithfulness with big things. (Luke 16:10) 10 The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much. As you know, I don't believe any of these secular dates like 539, 607 and 587 are important to any understanding of any prophecy. The Bible record is sufficient and any prophecy that depends on a knowledge of secular chronology or an interpretation of that secular evidence is clearly not in harmony with the scriptures. And you can't know about 539 without an interpretation of secular evidence. (2 Timothy 3:16, 17) . . .All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work. (2 Peter 1:20) 20 For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. No matter how sure we are about our interpretation of the secular evidence, if we have worked out a prophecy that involves a supposed "pivotal" or "absolute" secular date, like 539 BCE, or 607 BCE, or even 1914 CE, then we know for sure that this isn't the proper way to treat scriptural prophecy. If we don't learn from these hundreds of chronology mistakes in our own doctrinal past, and just continue to prove ourselves unfaithful, and unable to handle the word of God aright, then we have no right to call our doctrines "truth." Sorry, as I said I'm no longer playing your word-twisting games. If you are hoping to say something or communicate something you will have to actually say what you mean. If you want to be taken for someone who doesn't care to explain or defend his beliefs, or answer questions, that's fine with me too. You should know, however, that you have so often used this technique for the obvious purpose of obfuscation and evasion in the past, that I'm afraid it will continue to look like this is what you are up to again. Do you really believe the WT might be off by as many as 200 years? To me, all those tablets tell me the opposite, that we have a chronology that is made even more sure. We can't even try to maneuver an extra 20 years into it any more without getting caught as pseudo-historians and pseudo-archaeologists. We end up trivializing the rest of our message by being unfaithful in what is least. You mean that Jeremiah was wrong, or the Watchtower, or both? As long as you merely state vague generalities without evidence you are merely throwing out twisted words and hoping some of them might stick. Not a good or respectable methodology. Sounds like more haughty pretentiousness. Vague claims of superior knowledge with no evidence. I'm just guessing, but I suspect it will end the way "scholar JW" was found to be lying when he said that evidence about J.A.Brown would prove COJ had blundered, but wouldn't dare show his evidence. When the evidence showed up it proved that "scholar JW" had been lying. Decades of erred perception, and it took people just a few seconds to figure it out when the evidence was finally presented. You must not have any idea what you are talking about. These tablets are 100% in agreement with the Bible and the secular timeline that has been known and knowable for longer than the WTS has been around. This is another meaningless "word salad" with pretentious, but slippery dressing. You are saying that the WT made a 19-year adjustment in 2011 to remain in sync? But you don't want to spell it out for some reason. I would just call your bluff but, yes, I can already see through the dishonesty. The WT never made a 19-year time adjustment in 2011. The WTS clearly wanted to take some advantage of Furuli's lack of honesty by using hints about his work in the 10/1 and 11/1 Watchtower issues, but the WTS couched most of their words in some careful language showing that they realized they would be thoroughly embarrassed if they named the book and scholar who had sullied himself with such dishonest scholarship. You noticed that these Watchtower issues named the reputable books, but would not dare name the source of the discredited theory. Furuli would never try to defend his theory in public or try to get such a theory peer-reviewed.

I'm one of the readers on this forum and I can judge that you have done, as AlanF noted, almost nothing but dodge and weave and obfuscate and try several different logical fallacies to avoid evidence. When someone asks you a question you refuse to answer. When someone offers you a chance to show evidence you pretend it's a game to see how long you can go without providing it. Then you were caught lying about the evidence. I believe you have been thoroughly disgraced by haughtily and pretentiously claiming to be a scholar and then not even pretending very well. Since you said above that we can judge for ourselves, I would have guessed you were a teenage Internet "troll." Since I can see you have been doing this for 20+ years, I guess you must not be a teenager. I'm still entertained however.

You haven't explained why this 604 date is suddenly so important to you. The point about 604 has been made by secular archaeologists, myself, Ann, COJ, Jeffro and others for years, and suddenly you act like this is something you just found out. Have you not been reading anything written on the topic no matter how many times it was mentioned. Also, you now act like it's so important to count this 604 date (+ or - 1 or 2 yrs.) among the other two dates, which is something that people have been saying for nearly 200 years now. As you say, it shouldn't have surprised you at all. You are playing that dishonest game again where you make a vague statement that doesn't exactly mean anything in English, so that someone might have to guess what you mean. I'm not playing your word-twisting games any more. You will have to explain what you mean by "the continued assumption," and the two ideologies, for example. Yours? Mine? Which differences in this revised WT chronology? How are these assumptions affecting the date of the final destruction of Jerusalem's wall and temple under Nebuchadnezzar? Yes. Of course it matters. Why would you even have to ask? So what is your point? That Nabokalassar in this list reminds you of Nabopallassar? The book you are quoting https://books.google.com/books?id=yJLccBK6cDoC is from 1867 before hardly any of the contemporary dated tablets and artifacts were translated and published. The chronology still seemed fluid to many people when they thought it was only based on Ptolemy. The author of this book, "The Sealed Book of Daniel Opened" didn't like 539 BCE as the end of the reign of Nabonidus (and Belshazzar) because he wished that the 70 weeks of years were easier to manage based on his own Bible interpretation. A common problem. The Watchtower tried to do similar things when the secular chronology got in the way of a private interpretation. But don't forget that the Watchtower still likes 539 BCE. I like 539 BCE. Arauna and Ann O'maly both like 539. Even scholar_JW and AlanF both agree on 539. This author likes a date closer to 488 to replace 539. It's easy to guess why. Because he wants 69 weeks of years, or 483, years to reach closer to the time from the decree of Cyrus so that it' Cyrus who starts the 69 weeks of years, to reach to the Messiah who was born, he says, in 5 BCE. This has been a favorite project of "crank" Bible interpreters for years. Perhaps the Watchtower will go for it one day because it would also move the parousia from 1914 to about 1997 (+/-) or at least to 1964 depending on whether you need to reach Jesus' death or his birth. That's the kind of generation reset some WTS writers probably would have died for, because they could have avoided the flap over the overlapping generation. The author makes a lot of errors we would now consider to be stupid. You probably noticed some of them yourself.

What is the opposite of a scholar?

The N-B secular chronology is probably based on a 30,000 point theory. When I was at the British Museum last year, I asked how many different clay cuneiform documents exist that can help us to reconstruct the Neo-Babylonian period. The number 30,000 came up a couple of times. This is a good portion of the clay documents mentioned here on their site. They claim about 50,000 items in their own Neo-Babylonian collection. Iraq has at least 10,000 more. Studying cuneiform tablets The department’s collection of cuneiform tablets is among the most important in the world. It contains approximately 130,000 texts and fragments and is perhaps the largest collection outside of Iraq. It can be separated into the following main groups (all numbers below are approximate): Early Dynastic (c.3200–2500 BC) - 500 items from Ur, Fara Old Akkadian (c. 2500–2200 BC) 150 items Ur III (c. 2200–2000 BC) - 30,000 items from Lagash, Umma, Ur, Drehem Old Assyrian (c. nineteenth–eighteenth centuries BC) - 700 items from Anatolia Old Babylonian (c. 1900–1650 BC) - 20,000 items from Sippar, Ur, Larsa, Uruk, Kutalla, Kisurra non-Mesopotamian - 400 items including Alalakh in Syria, Amarna in Egypt, Elamite texts from Iran and Hittite texts from Anatolia Neo-Assyrian (first millennium BC) - 25,000 items from Kuyunjik, Nimrud Neo-Babylonian (first millennium BC) - 50,000 items from Sippar, Babylon, Borsippa, Uruk, Larsa, Ur, Kutalla.

So what did the "Prophetic Times" of December 1870, published by Seiss, actually say? It mentioned several dates because one of the points was that the 2520 years as a punishment for Israel could be thought of as having many different start dates, due to the fact that there are several important times mentioned in the books of Kings and Chronicles when Jehovah spoke of a time of special punishment relative to the kings of Israel or Judah. But of all these dates in the 1700's through the 1900's, the others were mentioned only an average of about 1.5 times each. But 1914 is mentioned SIX times in the article. The two columns in the first image represent 606 as the time when Nebuchadnezzar takes Daniel, in approximately his accession year, which was usually considered to be 605, not 606: Notice that he is generally a year off from the commonly accepted secular dates: The following are more copy-and-paste excerpts where 1914 was under discussions.

Thanks for providing this. In fact, this entire question, as worded, was what I was originally going to discuss with @Nana Fofana in response to this particular post of hers, so I'll go ahead and do that now: @Nana Fofana, First of all it should be obvious that this debate has gone on much longer than 41 years. Among Watchtower readers alone, it has gone on for over 100 years as you can see above. In the May 15, 1922 Watchtower, Rutherford was still dealing with the same issue about the 19 to 20 year "gap" in the Watchtower chronology that does not exist in the actual Biblical or secular evidence. Note this from page 147, which are the opening words in the article called "Chronology:" "WE HAVE no doubt whatever in regard to the chronology relating to the dates of 1874, 1914, 1918, and 1925. Some claim to have found new light in connection with the period of "seventy years of desolation'' and Israel's captivity in Babylon, and are zealously seeking to make others believe that Brother Russell was in error." Of course, the article goes on to use as its primary proof that Russell (the one and only faithful and discreet slave) had God's approval and therefore would not have been wrong about this chronology. Still, it does offer a few additional reasons why these dates are correct: "SOUGHT TO DISCREDIT BIBLE . . . The worldly-wise have always disliked the Bible . . . The adversary [Satan] has always endeavored to deceive people. No doubt he has had much to do towards causing the confusion in the historical records of ancient history." [Always trying to put the argument into a polemic light, so that it appears that whoever is asking is some kind of "Devil" or antagonist to the truth, or an apostate. Some things never change.] "Practically all agree that B. C. 536 was 'the first year of Cyrus'" [Not a true statement at the time, nor when Russell stated the same, nor is it true today.] "There is no contention about the first year of Cyrus being B. C. 536." [This was also not a true statement, of course.] "The Bible locates the time definitely as 3522 A. M. ( 606 B. C.), the 19th year of King Nebuchadnezzar. Secular historians vary considerably." [This was also a false statement, of course.] "We find the Jews still under the yoke of Babylon, bringing the date down 12 years later, or to 442 B.C. This would make a period of 94 years after the return of borne in 536 B.C. If we add the 70 years to that we have a total of at least 164 years, 606 to 442 B.C. under the king of Babylon." [Obviously false about the king of Babylon and the dates, but it was a way of avoiding the possibility that the 70 years applied to the kingdom of Babylon, as stated in Jeremiah.] "UNRELIABLE SECULAR CHRONOLOGY How can this be harmonized with secular chronology, which states that Nebuchadnezzar began to reign in 606 B.C., reigned 43 years, and died in 561 B.C.? We are not called upon to harmonize the Bible with secular chronology any more than we are expected to harmonize the gospel of the Bible with secular creeds." [Notice that Rutherford does not seem to notice that he is relying on secular chronology for his dates, too.] Recapitulating then, the Bible record is conclusive that the first year of Nebuchadnezzar synchronizes with the fourth year of king Jehoiakim, which was the year 3503 A. M. or 625 B. C. [Of course there is nothing "conclusive" here, only evidence that Rutherford wants to use a different secular date than the secular date supported by evidence.] And of course, the main point of the argument is really about Russell, even though it adds some new dates that Russell hadn't mentioned, but which were promoted as supposedly clear and obvious extensions of Russell's original chronology: "STAMPED WITH GOD'S APPROVAL It was on this line of reckoning that the dates 1874, 1914, and 1918 were located; and the Lord has placed the stamp of his seal upon 1914 and 1918 beyond any possibility of erasure. What further evidence do we need? . . . it is an easy matter to locate 1925, probably the fall, for the beginning of the antitypical jubilee. There can be no more question about 1925 than there was about 1914." With this in mind, notice how important it must have been to position any questioning of the chronology as angry and prideful Satan-like questioning against a humble and thoughtful Biblical position that had Jehovah's stamp of approval. This is merely a way to "tickle the ears" so that people think they are hearing a "pattern of healthful words." Note how antagonistic the questioner is meant to sound when in the question to Russell the question was characterized like this: "Are you humble enough to acknowledge that I have struck some new light and that you and all DAWN readers have been 'all wrong,' walking in darkness?" But the actual arguments had been presented in the same scholarly works that Barbour and Russell had depended on, without any antagonism towards those who had used wrong evidence for their dates. There were many different ways of attaching a chronology to the Bible prophecies and Russell himself had admitted this in the past. Some Bible commentators had been discussing these types of discrepencies since the 1850's and 1860's. But it clearly served a purpose to try to present the questioner as antagonistic toward not just Russell, but all people who considered themselves to be seekers of truth and light. Rutherford did the same thing as you can see in his article. Yet, ironically, the words turned out NOT to be true, even though it was Satan who was behind the questioning and Jehovah who had given his stamp of approval. In spite of this everything that had been said about 1874, 1914, 1918, and 1925 - beyond any possibility of erasure - had to be "erased." This includes even what was being said about 1914 at this time. It turned out NOT to be the time of violence and chaos that had been predicted. It turned out NOT to be the time that resulted in the end of the Gentile domination over the Jewish nation as predicted. None of what was predicted for 1914 turned out to be true.

The following are excerpts taken from posts that were moved because most of the post was about another topic. I'm repeating the points back here that do belong under this topic: To which AlanF already responded: Wrong. Egyptian history has some issues, but almost all historians agree that it's basically sound. According to who? As has been repeatedly pointed out, exactly the same evidence that Mommy Watch Tower cites in support of 538 also supports 587/586 as the date of Jerusalem's destruction, as well as many other historical events in Neo-Babylon history that Mommy disagrees with. The only reason the WTS sticks with 607 is that its entire religious structure would collapse without 1914. Remember that the idea was first put forth in 1875 by Nelson Barbour, a "Second Adventist" prophetic speculator most of whose doctrinal claims the WTS has rejected. And even then, Barbour and C. T. Russell claimed, not 607 as their magic date, but 606 BCE. And the WTS stuck with this 606 date until 1943/1944! The 607 date is disproved by copious amounts of evidence. All told, 587 for Jerusalem's destruction stands up to all tests, secular and biblical. AlanF ------------------------------

For @Arauna, @James Thomas Rook Jr., @TrueTomHarley, @AlanF, I should let you know that a few more posts were just moved over to the thread linked below. They were more about "evolution" etc, than about this particular topic. I'll copy back some portions of those posts that were appropriate to this 607 topic. https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/51784-monkeys-typewriters-and-evolution/ Â Â