JW Insider

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

We already spoke of John Aquila Brown, and his dates in 584 AD, 622 AD, 1453 AD, 1844 AD, 1873 AD, 1917 AD. Five of the key time spans in Brown's chronology were: 457 BC to 1843 AD (2300 days) 584 AD to 1844 AD, (1260 days) 622 AD to 1873 AD, (1290 days) 622 AD to 1917 AD, (1335 days) 604 BC to 1917 AD, (2520 days) Brown promoted pieces of this particular chronology starting around 1810 to 1827, including 604-1917 in "Even-Tide" (1823). Of course, days were always turned into years, a longstanding practice with a Biblical precedent already stated for periods of 40 days and 390 days. Charles Taze Russell. Starting in the 1870's and throughout his lifetime, Russell promoted a similar set of dates. These were the same dates, of course, that N. H. Barbour promoted. Also note that several of these dates sometimes varied by about a year: 1799/1798 AD, 1914/1915 AD. These dates were promoted through the Watch Tower's wide distribution of Russell's books which continued until the early 1930's: 454 BC to 1846 AD (2300 days) - Russell is 3 years different from Brown 539 AD to 1799 AD, (1260 days) - 539 AD*, not a BC date; unrelated to Cyrus) 539 AD to 1829 AD, (1290 days) - Russell says 1829 was the prophesied start of "Millerites"** 539 AD to 1874 AD, (1335 days) - when Jesus returned; start of "parousia" 606 BC to 1914 AD, (2520 days) - Russell is 3 years different from Brown * 539 AD was considered the beginning of Roman Catholic papal rule. From "Thy Kingdom Come" [Millennial Dawn, Studies in the Scriptures], Vol 3, page 81, 82: It proves that the fall of the Ostrogothic kingdom in A.D. 539 was, as clearly indicated by the prophetic measure (1260 years), the exact point of time when this desolating and, in the sight of God, abominable system was "set up." . . . in the short space of fifty years from its small beginning, A.D. 539. We may therefore feel assured that the 1260 years, or three and a half times, of papal dominion, are well and clearly marked at both ends. ** From "Thy Kingdom Come" [Millennial Dawn, Studies in the Scriptures], Vol 3, page 86, 87: But the "Miller movement" was more than this: it was the beginning of the right understanding of Daniel's visions, and at the right time to fit the prophecy. Mr. Miller's application of the three and a half times (1260 years) was practically the same as that we have just given, but he made the mistake of not starting the 1290 and 1335 periods at the same point. Had he done so he would have been right. On the contrary, he started them thirty years sooner--about 509 instead of 539, which ended the 1335 days in 1844, instead of 1874. It was, nevertheless, the beginning of the right understanding of the prophecy; for, after all, the 1260 period, which he saw correctly, was the key; and the preaching of this truth . . .

If anyone is looking for good links (mostly Google Books) to the Joseph Seiss books I mentioned, the following is a link with about a dozen of his books on it. He wrote even more than those listed. He even contributed articles in the Watch Tower magazine, including two printed in 1905. His book "The Last Times" (1856) is quoted with the very first issue of the Watch Tower, July 1, 1879 (supplement) . http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Seiss%2C Joseph A. (Joseph Augustus)%2C 1823-1904 The book on Napolean is not included in the list because it wasn't written by Seiss, and only references works by Seiss: https://books.google.com/books?id=33Za05MXtpQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false I won't link to the racist book because it is merely a response to Seiss, (Seiss was not the racist.) But it does have some useful info about the monthly periodical "The Prophetic Times" attached below. I have also attached an ad from the Napolean book:

So I'll start with the paragraph in the "Proclaimers" book, highlighting a sentence I just looked into last night: *** 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. The surrounding paragraphs will offer additional details we can get to later, and we've already discussed a small portion of this quote about John Aquila Brown elsewhere. In reading a book by Joseph Seiss last night, I thought this was the book that the paragraph intended. ("A Miracle in Stone") I realized it wasn't, when that book didn't mention 1914 (but the book still could have been hinting at it, or a date very close to it). So I went back and read portions of his "Lectures on the Apocalypse," and another very strange book that ties Astrology (Zodiac) to the Gospel. I got closer, I thought, with "The Last Times" and "Parable of the Ten Virgins" but still no 1914. (The "Proclaimers" book didn't include the resource, just the hints.) Through Google searches with his name and "Philadelphia" I found a few more items. I wasted some time with a book called: "Luis Napoleon the Destined Monarch of the World and...the Battle of Armageddon" which I saved for quoting a couple points in this topic. Next, Google pointed me to a very racist book from the early 1870's on the status of the "Negro" by "Ariel." That book proved valuable, however, in pointing me to "The Prophetic Times." You can find it here: https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QafJbQ6pCmDNcBvzoMYqXTueLwyuFnEGGCrD6NdXl9F4iVgY1ECNIypPpMkQGVhioTyZqn_BiCKv3P_aGj2SvJyCCH2k_WrZob3PZMpiOr96QhjrIuWh-eBBfW53xAmWPXa1FWHEsemWxZEm9fd2S6ULix_ETXqIMVIv6uSAtfhKdTWxct7YHmpsP7LefUhQj8PK-y_CbsI4GRE32SWs5JPoaQyzXwC8nOgpvP6wr1CK9bgFMRA4YDtQep0FPBJBapGIozDM The December 1870 issue had it. I'll discuss later. In the meantime, I decided that it was actually Seiss who seems to have had the most influence on Russell from the perspective of all the multiple angles on the chronology doctrines.

Why another topic about 1914 and 607? Because we could use a topic where we can all agree a little more easily. Seriously. In this topic, we don't need to worry about whether 607 is correct, or 1914 is correct. No one needs to say why it does or doesn't make sense to them. Let's just see if we can review the possible and probable sources that were influential, and ultimately resulted in 607 and 1914 being accepted as a Bible-based fulfillment of prophecy. No one needs to jump from another thread about 607 and Biblical evidence over to this one. In fact, I just read a couple of books last night for the first time, and I had some questions that I couldn't find an answer to, and hoped that someone from that other thread, or anyone really, might have run across the resources that might have answered the questions. I'm reading one more book first, and don't think I'll finish it tonight, so consider this topic to be kind of a placeholder for a couple days. So this is the purpose of the three current threads: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/5510-607-bce-is-it-biblically-supported/ a place to discuss mostly the Scriptural evidence for or against the 607 portion of the 1914 doctrine. https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/51655-607-bce-is-there-any-secular-support-for-the-watch-towers-view/ a place to discuss mostly the Secular evidence for or against the 607 portion of the 1914 doctrine. And this current one: a place to discuss the sources that were influential in the WTS accepting the 607 date as part of the 1914 doctrine. One place to start is with a couple sentences in the "Proclaimers" book (next post). I personally intend to avoid a certain book by COJ for this topic, to avoid unnecessary controversy, although anyone should feel free to use any resources from anywhere they wish, as long as it appears to be a statement of fact. Again, this is not about questioning the correctness of the doctrine.

The October 1904 Watchtower, page 296 [Reprints p.3437] included the following as a Question from a Reader. Note especially the first line of the answer: THE TIME OF HARVEST. AUTHOR of MILLENNIAL DAWN and Editor of ZION'S WATCH TOWER:-- Dear Sir,--. . . Now if this, the common reckoning, be correct, it would make the Times of the Gentiles to begin nineteen years later than you estimate, namely, in B.C. 587, instead of B.C. 606;--and this in turn would make those times end nineteen years later than you have reckoned,--in October, A.D. 1933, instead of October, 1914. What do you say to this? . . . * * * We reply that there are too many ifs in the proposition, and that they are all abundantly contradicted by facts and Scripture, and are therefore not worthy the slightest consideration.

I have to agree. It's very clear that @scholar JW has been dishonest. Based on a long record of his dishonesty, it does not look promising that he will come clean any time soon. Yet it is clear, too, that he is merely trying to express the Watch Tower Society's position. I think this makes it clear why the WTS has nearly always avoided the evidence, sometimes by misrepresenting the evidence, but usually by just ignoring the evidence. The WTS makes similar bald assertions without ever allowing the evidence to be close enough or clear enough to make a true comparison.

That's true, and we should be glad of it. But you are also talking about a record of what has been said on the forum(s). Remember "evidence"? This isn't the first time you got an idea that was never true, and then even when you quoted the supposed evidence that you still it thought meant one thing, and it turned out that it meant something else entirely, sometimes the very opposite of what you were claiming.

I think you should read what I said again, unless this just another example of blame-shifting or projection. My point was that you seemed to have been exploiting the word "own." As you appear to now admit. You at least understand that it is possible to "exploit" the word. That was my point.

I didn't say I couldn't remember stating this. I said I never stated it. I couldn't have stated it because it is not a true statement.