JW Insider

The October 1, 2011 Watchtower says this date is important for two reasons. 

*** w11 10/1 p. 26 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One ***
But why be interested in the actual date when Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II razed the city of Jerusalem? First, because the event marked an important turning point in the history of God’s people. . . .
Second, because knowing the actual year when this “ultimate catastrophe” began and understanding how the restoration of true worship in Jerusalem fulfilled a precise Bible prophecy will build your confidence in the reliability of God’s Word. So why do Jehovah’s Witnesses hold to a date that differs from widely accepted chronology by 20 years? [Emphasis added]

My job allowed a lot of international travel. I retired, but still get called back as a consultant once in a while. Also, something we, as a family, enjoyed doing for many years now, is stopping in to visit a local congregation on every vacation.  Hawaii, Costa Rica, Belize, Mazatlan, Oaxaca, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, etc, we look up some local congregation or Witnesses, and we know that a donation here goes a lot further than back home. (If you give $100 in some places it's like giving $2,000 in the USA.) Not everywhere is so poor, but we are going to Milan, Italy in a few weeks (in May) and it adds an interesting dimension to any visit to take some time away from the beaten tourists paths. It's amazing how quickly the roads from the coastal resorts turn to poverty just a few miles inland. So it also provides a perspective that no vacationer should miss.

4 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

The only hypocritical thing I keep reading is your assertion of somehow being more enlightened than God’s Loyal Helpers. At what point did you receive a revelation to suggest to the entire JW community your negative ideology driven by apostasy is the one to be reckoned with. At this point, you should be disfellowshipped for that arrogant stance. Just like Carl Olof Jonsson. If anyone is going to correct the Slave Class, it will be God, as was evident with the resignation of Raymond Franz (Disfellowshipped). By the way, you keep insisting COJ’s journal was placed in a shelf to collect dust. I’m sure you have COJ’s letters to the WTS and the WTS responses. So let’s not misrepresent that to.

I will be creating a new 607 topic. You are welcome to join in the discussion, as is anyone else, of course. However, as I said, I will be deleting all points that make use of the ad hominem tactic. We can practice over here, and I'll get to some of your very interesting points. But first I'd like you to notice the yellow areas highlighted above. I won't explain how each of those highlighted phrases contains at least one element of "attacking the person." With nearly a dozen bits of innuendo and false assumptions and false characterizations in a single opening paragraph, I'm thinking you'll have some trouble with the idea of merely presenting evidence so that we can compare it with the Bible and evaluate it against accepted evidence. 

4 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

Start researching new chronology if it means that much to you. True Christians accept a Chronology driven by Gods Holy Spirit, Not Men.

1.       Raymond Franz-Crisis of Conscience. Ray spent all his time in this book to harp about his mistreatment without expanding how his worldly view was hurting him, not the WTS, not to accept the repeated attempts to bring him back to bible understanding.

I'm quite willing to look into researching this "new chronology." I like the phrase you used "True Christians accept a Chronology driven by Gods Holy Spirit, Not Men." That idea is related to the entire reason for bringing up the discussion. What should we do if we find out that we are accepting a chronology driven by men, not by the Bible? To me, that's the most important thing. Obviously, I would have no interest in Neo-Babylonian and Persian chronology if it weren't part of our doctrinal system.

I read Raymond Franz' book "Crisis of Conscience' but I never, ever noticed him harping about his mistreatment. I don't even know what worldly view you are talking about. From what I can tell there were never any repeated attempts to bring him back from his Bible understanding, but only attempts to get him to admit out loud that he didn't believe in one or more of the unique Watchtower teachings. Once they could get him to say one of those things out loud, they could have him disfellowshipped. He apparently kept his ideas to himself, except for private discussions with two or three close friends who wanted to discuss some alternate ideas with him (primarily a Circuit Overseer, Rene Vasquez and the Gilead Registrar, Ed Dunlap). It was because they didn't have any real evidence of exactly what he had discussed that they finally had to disfellowship him for having lunch with his employer, a friend who would give him employment who was also disfellowshipped. I understand that all the repeated attempts were to make sure they could find a reason to push him out, never any attempts to bring him back. If you found a reference for something different, I'd be interested.

4 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

Carl Olof Jonsson-The Gentile Times Reconsidered. Carl spent all the time making the argument that 587BCE was the true date. 587BCE is driven by a Jewish Hope to support and legitimize their Nation. Obviously, you don’t understand the millennium conflicts between the Jews and Arabs, and the things they have destroyed to avoid any conflicts between each legitimate hold on the disputed land. Hardliners like ISIL, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. have destroyed or are destroying such evidence that sways the argument their way. Israel does the same thing, they’re not innocent in this matter.

I'm sure COJ spent a lot of time making that argument, but not all his time. I read the book and learned a lot about chronology, that helped a lot. It helped me understand the Watchtower's references a lot better. I didn't know enough about Berossus, or Ptolemy, the Hebrew calendar, or even how these astronomical tablets worked. I even used to think that Jerusalem must have fallen in October since 2,520 ended in October 1914. Somehow I hadn't even noticed that this idea wasn't Biblical until reading another perspective. His book was very deep reading for me, and I had to do a lot of research on my own. I spent the equivalent of weeks in the New York Public Library at Bryant Park requesting reference only materials regarding the Babylonian tablets, chronicles, their astronomy, etc.

What you are saying about the 587 being driven by a Jewish Hope to legitimize their nation reminds me of what I have read several times. But what this was about was critical of the Bible's account, saying that the Bible accounts were "falsified" or at least greatly exaggerated to set up the idea that whoever remained on the land after the final deportations was illegitimate and from a Biblical perspective "were not even there" because of the totality of the desolation and deportation. It's an old theory, but I think you should be careful with it because if true you saying the Watchtower is wrong to accept the idea of total desolation. Fortunately, we already have enough repetition in the Bible about what happened so that we know the intent of Biblical view, but we can also realize that we don't need to denigrate and criticize the Bible to understand what happened. The Biblical view does not require a total 70 years of absolute desolation anyway. The exiles occurred over a period of nearly 70 years, and Daniel speaks of desolations (plural) which clearly refer to the several different events. Daniel was in a very early deportation. Ezekiel speaks of the exile as happening 10 years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. Even after Jerusalem was destroyed, we still have another gathering (and chasing) of the few remaining ones. So the Bible itself shows that there were multiple, ongoing desolations of the land. We don't need to resort to the anti-Biblical theory that distorts the Bible's account. Samaritans and others (likely poorer "itinerate" Jews, and a few struggling Northern Israelites filled the vacuum, as it were). But, yes, I understand that even during the so-called "total desolation" there is supposedly evidence that some Jewish settlements remained undisturbed and inhabited continuously throughout the entire 70 years of desolation. This may or may not be true. I don't know how they would even prove such a thing. But if they can, it doesn't negate the grave punishment that Jerusalem and Judea suffered. I'll look up later if this is the idea you refer to, because that's the one where I have even heard rumors of dismissal (destruction?) or minimizing of such evidence, based on the claim that rich people returning from exile wanted their land back from poorer Jews and others who were claiming "squatter's" rights for continuing to work the land all those years.

I'll just make some of those yellow marks again

4 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

I see you’re still stuck on the Raymond Franz, And Carl Olof Jonsson FALLACY. The way historians see the biblical time line for some has been corrected to show a new ridiculous time table. A table that reflects an 83 year expansion. Nowhere close to the 70 year desolation of Judea. I’ll say it again, in order to understand chronology, it needs discernment and wisdom NOT knowledge. A fallacy that has been with you for a long time.

I have already pointed out the logical fallacy you used that matched what the Awake! said about logical fallacies. So, based on those circumstances, you'll have to tell me if you intended these highlighted ideas as more "ad hominem" or just simple "blame-shifting" or something else, perhaps. Who uses this "new ridiculous time table"? I can see it's not the Watchtower, or you, or COJ, or R.Franz. I know who uses it, and they are not scholars. There is no evidence for it being correct, although they claim the Bible is the authority for this "ridiculous" chronology (your word).

The whole table you reference is also found here: http://www.letgodbetrue.com/reference/biblechronology.pdf

Still, you show a lot of interest in this "new chronology" where the "corrected" date includes the 83 year expansion. This would place the "pivotal" date that the Watchtower has called an "absolute date" of 539 BCE all the up 83 years later in 456 BCE. The 2520 years from events this chart ties to 607 would end in 1996, and 2520 years from its date for the destruction of Jerusalem would end up being within a year of 2007.

I can guess the real reason you point it out:

I don't think you are promoting this new chronology as much as just trying to use it to show that there are variations being examined that go outside the bounds of "Ptolemaic" chronology -- which is the one that the WTS relies on for 539 BCE. If this variation is even remotely possible within the realms of the evidence at hand then Furuli's theories are not so far-fetched. (That idea would probably be argued thus: Because Furuli's theory and this "new corrected" chronology will both require that we accept that something is completely wrong with the evidence we have relied upon for the Neo-Babylonian period. Both Furuli and promoters of this 83-year expanded theory, they BOTH require that we consider the possibility that some of our famous cuneiform documents are forged, or badly misunderstood, or mislabeled, misidentified, etc.)

I already know of one proponent of this "new chronology" and I know why they follow this chronology and I already know what "fallacy" they have fallen for in order to promote it.

Here's how it goes. Daniel 9:25 seems to be pretty clear that the Messiah will arrive in 70 weeks of 7 years each, or 490 years, and this 70 years starts at the time the "command to go forth and rebuild Jerusalem" occurs. If that command is considered to be the command by Cyrus one year after Babylon is destroyed, then it's about 538 BCE. Therefore Jesus arrived in 48 BCE. Only he didn't. So now what they need is an excuse to say that Cyrus REALLY destroyed Babylon around 455 BCE. Now, voila! Jesus first presence as Christ starts around 29 C.E, he dies around 33 C.E. and the final week ends around 36 C.E. 

Much simpler than trying to figure out what happened in the REAL 455 BCE. You'll notice that this is exactly what happened when Nelson Barbour and then the Bible Students figured out that 2,520 years from Jerusalem's destruction in 587 BCE didn't land on 1914. 1914 was already determined to be correct, so all they had to do was theorize a new, unsubstantiated date for the destruction of Jerusalem: 606, then 607.

Their fallacy is the idea that only one method of determining the year 539 or 587 existed. This is one of the big flaws in Furuli's books, too. He focuses on Ptolemy when it turns out that we could now throw away everything Ptolemy collected about chronology and we could still discover that Cyrus destroyed Babylon in 539 and therefore that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 (not 607).

By the way, you will probably also notice that the date you highlighted in Zechariah was 520 BCE from the Enc.Judaica. Curious, isn't it? That Zechariah speaks of memorial dates for Jerusalem's destruction that are just then going on 70 years? 520 is 67 years from 587 BCE. It's 87 years from 607. Which date is closer to the 70 years that Zechariah speaks about? If the evidence for 520 is viable, and the Watchtower agrees that it is, then which date is more Biblical according to this evidence? It's not 607, it would be 587. 587 would not produce a Biblical contradiction, yet 607 creates a Biblical contradiction.

4 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

Even though earlier historians do align 606BCE or 605BCE as the first conquest of Judea? They

Have a problem with 3 ½ times. 66 years or 66 ½ years.

You have a long way to learn, since you think the WTS was or is the only one thinking of that time table. Instead about arguing on 607BCE and how apostasy proves it wrong according to you? Focus in understanding past and present historical data, and the myriad of information that contradicts everything under the sun, yet you are beholding to an outdated; how did you phrase it, obfuscate ideology.

When you say that earlier historians align 605 BCE as the first conquest of Judea, this is NOT about the destruction of Jerusalem but the first incursions of the Babylonians when they began taking exiles such as Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. This was very early in the process of Babylon bringing desolations upon Judea. Ezekiel was part of a group that was taken about a decade later, and about a decade after that, Nebuchadnezzar sieged the city, removed the last Messianic King from the throne and burned Jerusalem. More desolations and capturing of prisoners followed. So you are speaking of the first years of Nebuchadnezzar around 605, which would make the destruction of Jerusalem 18 years later, in 587 BCE. You are referring to what you called the chronology of Carl Jonsson and Ray Franz. (It's really not theirs at all, but the same chronology of every serious historian who studies Neo-Babylonian evidence.) By not giving your source you have obfuscated the point.

In fact, your chart with the triangle (based on Charlie H Campbell's work) is also the exact same chronology that the WTS rejects. (His website rejects the Watchtower, too, of course.) For Watchtower chronology, that 605 would be about 625, Jeremiah would minister beginning around 647 BCE. Ezekiel would begin closer to 613.

http://alwaysbeready.com/prophecy-eschatology

And your clip from Cameron correctly confirms 539 BCE. However, if we accept the evidence confirming 539 BCE, then we have just accepted evidence that also confirms 587 BCE as the destruction of Jerusalem, not 607 BCE. His mention of 2,510 years is another way of saying he wrote that part of the book in about 1972, even though published in 1974, right? (2510-539=1972?)

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

  22 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

The WTS made its stance very clear in the Watchtower 10/1/2011 (pp.26-31).

I made that comment under the heading about the article you were quoting. The October 1, 2011 Watchtower. The article on when Jerusalem was destroyed (pp. 26-31). That's the same article I was referring to. Seems like the most appropriate article.

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Rom. 12:3-8

Eoin has included a great scriptural passage relevant to the verse. With the bolded emphasis on the third verse it might be a bit confusing, though.

(Romans 12:3-8) 3 For through the undeserved kindness given to me, I tell everyone there among you not to think more of himself than it is necessary to think, but to think so as to have a sound mind, each one as God has given to him a measure of faith. 4 For just as we have in one body many members, but the members do not all have the same function, 5 so we, although many, are one body in union with Christ, but individually we are members belonging to one another. 6 Since, then, we have gifts that differ according to the undeserved kindness given to us, if it is of prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; 7 or if it is a ministry, let us be at this ministry; or the one who teaches, let him be at his teaching; 8 or the one who encourages, let him give encouragement; the one who distributes, let him do it liberally; the one who presides, let him do it diligently; the one who shows mercy, let him do it cheerfully.

Highlighting verse 3 only might imply that the seven or so persons on the current GB have 'thought more of themselves as is necessary to think' in the sense that have changed the doctrine to apply only to themselves when it once applied to over 100,000 different persons. I don't think this is what he intended, although Eoin should certainly correct me if I am wrong.

A better support for the practice of accepting that only a few should become teachers (James 3:1) is found in verse 8. The expression "the one who presides" actually means the same in Greek as "the one who takes the lead." One could argue that this is true in every congregation, not at a global level. The type of ministry that we, as JWs, specialize in, however, is an international evangelizing and teaching work that apparently requires a higher level of taking the lead over the entire worldwide congregation. (At least it can produce much more consistency and efficiency.)  Also, the implementation of a "Governing Body" is apparently paralleled by the idea of the apostles staying together in Jerusalem to focus on prayer and teaching, while selected "ministerial servants" managed the food distribution. That group of apostles evidently "morphed" into a "council of elders" at Jerusalem which included more than just the apostles. Prior to that, Luke says that they began a process of the 11 apostles voting to replace Judas with a replacement to keep the number at 12. Although this was done, it doesn't mean it was the "right" thing to continue doing. Similarly with the "council of elders," we don't know if this was something that would be required for all time.

But even without those precedents from Jerusalem in the book of Acts, we have Paul's word in Romans about different members having different functions. I don't think one can make a strong argument against having 'leaders who take the lead' both at a local congregation level and at a overall congregational level.

12 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

I have no need to expand or explain myself on how you actually DENY 607BCE because of secular interpretation of events any further. You answered that yourself. While you focus on my personal attacks, you shy away from the actual points of evidence. Points that were made in many past conversations on how wrong you are to think 607BCE is not a viable point in chronology. But your buddies DELETED all of those points to HELP you, didn’t they.

I think I have a good solution for this problem.

Actually, I still have most of those past conversations saved, but you seem to have forgotten that you provided no evidence, then. You spent so much time creating personal attacks, that you apparently forgot to offer any evidence or counter-evidence.

This time you have actually included some information for discussion. And I thought we were beginning to discuss it. But you have evidently stopped discussing it as soon as you were shown that your first point was incorrect. I'm sure you already know this, but being found wrong on a single point is not necessarily important to the overall discussion. If the past is any indication, I will obviously be making many mistakes along the way, but this is how we learn.

I'm sure you would agree that we should handle this type of discussion in a peaceful and orderly fashion. This doesn't mean that your personal attacks will just be allowed to stand without response, especially since they are nearly always false.

So here's the plan. Let's present the evidence for and against the 607 BCE date, perhaps under a new heading. I see that Anke has moderator status to maintain the daily text postings. I'll contact the moderators and see if they'll let me use moderator status, to maintain this particular discussion and I will use it only to remove the personal attacks. We can leave this current thread here as a place where you can put all the personal attacks you want, that way you won't feel that your contributions are being censored. (I will only ask to delete personal attacks that you attempt to insert into the wrong topic areas. I had to mention that because you did that a lot on "jw-archive" and have already started doing it here at "worldnewsmedia." I should also mention that a lot of people obviously caught on to your trick of using several different names to post under. I hope you won't do that here.

---

Now, just for old times sake, I will respond here to what you just said in your previous post.

15 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

your communication with Furuli was to PROVE how DISHONEST he was to CARL OLOF JONSSON’S claim,

My communication with Furuli was, over several months, to talk to him about his first two books and his plans for a third. By the way, he sent me his third book for free, and I hadn't even asked for it. (By "third book" I'm referring to Furuli's second one on chronology.) Therefore, Furuli can probably tell you who I am. We also had several discussions on the B-Greek (Biblical Greek) forum for several years prior to his books. With only a few exceptions, Furuli added a lot of good points in those discussions, too. I thought his first book on Bible translation was good. I thought his first book on chronology was awful.

15 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

by the way, why do you keep suggesting you DIDN’T contact COJ to speak to him about Furuli’s claim, your lies just keep piling on.

Why? Simple. Because I didn't, and it therefore would be a lie for anyone to try to suggest that I did.

15 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

Other than that, when I find a credible proof reader, I will make my findings known to the public in support of scripture, as I told you before. Nice try though.

No problem. Sounds good.

15 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

The WTS made its stance very clear in the Watchtower 10/1/2011 (pp.26-31).

Yes. Everything that was new in that article was based almost entirely on Furuli's book. Everything else in that article tacitly admits that have no real evidence, which is true. What the article doesn't address is the fact that there is also overwhelming evidence against the WT theory that has never been addressed. Perhaps that's the article we should start with.

15 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

The fact that you hold the present day Governing Body in Contempt is still no need to prove themselves to you or people like you, only to GOD. You lost you mention in life by losing your faith. That’s between you and God. My mission is to show the hypocrisy from all of you.

. . . Where’s your proof about going against God’s Will. Not your lengthy comments about ad hominem attacks. In other words stop throwing red herring fallacy, it means nothing to me.

I have respect for the GB, and I also have respect for the truth and the Bible. I do not disrespect any by making it appear that they can only be defended by ad hominem attacks. I prefer a discussion of the Bible and the evidence. If there is real evidence that the GB might be making a mistake and we have a opportunity to help, then what should we do? We could choose to hide the evidence or obfuscate through a pattern of ad hominem tactics. But any person who did that would be hypocritical if they also claim that they obey God as ruler rather then men.

On 3/24/2016 at 11:04 PM, Epiraima said:

I don't think so, as 1914 C.E would shift the date of Adam's creation back also. We think 1975 was 6,000 years since Adam's creation and still use that chronology for other dates of significant events in Bible history. All other dates would need to be pushed back, wouldn't they? Sorry, Ive never been the greatest mathmetician lol

We (WTS) used to think that 6,000 years of man's existence ended in 1873 and thus 1874 was the beginning of the thousand years. This is why the primary books of that time period were called "Millennial Dawn." The 1,000 year "day" had just dawned, and "we" were in the early morning of that day.

The fact that so many Bible chronology "proofs" led to the year 1874 was the reason that we kept that date "on the books" as significant for so many years. Up until around 1930. Changes became official for removing 1874 from our chronology "portfolio" in 1943/1944. After that, we kept 1878 as a significant prophetic year "on the books" even up until past when I was born (1957). So, although I don't remember it, we still studied that date at our "Congregation Book Study" in my lifetime.

On 4/5/2016 at 9:48 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

Reading the chapters through  Rev. 16:12- 19:21 shows how the same general sequence of events is repeated 3 times with different features, rather than a chronological shopping list. I see it rather like a procession of tableaux, each exceeding the previous in detail and scope. . . .

Rev. 16:17-21. Features of Babylon the Great's destruction and accompanying events described in brief summary.

That seems right. It's logical for the bowls to be sequential since they are numbered and the plagues on Egypt were in a certain order. But I agree that it's reasonable that the 6th bowl (16:12) is only a more imminent gathering towards Armageddon, not the actual battle. But the 7th bowl is "final" and even if only a brief summary, 16:17-21 does refer to the actual fall of Babylon.

We also know it's the "kings of the earth" who are the primary focus of Armageddon:

(Revelation 16:14-16) . . .they go out to the kings of the entire inhabited earth, to gather them together to the war of the great day of God the Almighty. . . . 16 And they gathered them together to the place that is called in Hebrew Armageddon.

And after the more detailed look at what happens to Babylon . . .

(Revelation 17:1, 2) 17 One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me: “Come, I will show you the judgment on the great prostitute who sits on many waters, 2 with whom the kings of the earth committed sexual immorality. . .

. . . note who are still looking on to see her fall:

(Revelation 18:9, 10) 9 “And the kings of the earth  who committed sexual immorality with her and lived with her in shameless luxury will weep and beat themselves in grief over her when they see the smoke from her burning. 10 They will stand at a distance because of their fear of her torment and say: ‘Too bad, too bad, you great city, Babylon you strong city, because in one hour your judgment has arrived!’

3

(I think it's in the book of Job, somewhere)

Interesting question. It was a custom up until the last 10 years or so to handle this inconspicuously. In NYC it was usually possible for almost any congregation to invite a brother from Bethel who professed to be of the anointed to give our talk, if we got the request to him in time. They usually, not always, took a seat first. But more often, the brother will now handle it from the stage. Saw this in 2013 and last year, but this year that brother didn't give the talk.

It looks odd when they handle it so formally. It reminds me of the movies where you see the Catholic priest take the bread and wine with an assistant up there with him, and a lot of exchanging of items and words back and forth. Looks a bit pompous, which is probably what we were trying to avoid.  

On 4/9/2016 at 4:25 AM, Eoin Joyce said:

@JW Insider Thanks for the detail. Confirms my feeling on the flexible nature of what the term references.

True. You could have numbers ranging from 30 to 40 to 50-something. This 4 generations in 400 years seems like a maximum, but the Bible explicitly lists about 8 generations during that time (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Joseph's children, Joseph's grandchildren, the generation that died out in the wilderness so as not to see the promised land (a "40-year generation" as Allen pointed out), and also the youngest generation that did see the promised land. Those 8 generations could cut the average down to 50 years.

We studied this several times at Bethel back in the 1970's and 80's. And I know that others were given the same research task long before and long after. The most interesting thing I remember about that research is something that really surprised me when it hit me: Jesus said it would NOT be one generation. His point contrasted with 40 year generation that died out in the wilderness.

So Jesus point was NOT so that we could speculate that, for example, a generation can be up to 50 years and therefore 50 years from that point would be the Jewish "Armageddon" in 70 AD. His point was that most of them would live to see it. Jesus knew that it would be much less than 50 years. If it would be 50 years, then most of them would NOT see it, and there would be no reason for anyone to lift up their heads because their deliverance was getting near.

So evidently the expression "this generation will by no means pass away" was nearly the equivalent of saying:

(Luke 9:27) "But I tell you truly, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death at all until first they see the Kingdom of God.”

Of course, that particular verse can be tied the fore-glimpse of the Kingdom that some apostles received just days after Jesus said it. What happened in Jerusalem's great tribulation, was also only a glimpse of what would happen in the world's great tribulation. The Christian community received a powerful lesson that we can also learn from.

But if we start calculating the maximum length of a generation and use it to determine the farthest range of time for which God Kingdom "will be done on earth" then we have missed the point.

3 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

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

The Awake! magazine on logical fallacies included the idea that innuendo is also a form of "attacking the person" instead of the evidence. I'll mark in blue each place where you included innuendo.as part of your tactic. You are obviously pretty good at what you do.

So, if you are done with those tactics, I am happy to get back on track, here. You asked "what proof do you have 607BCE is NOT a viable date"? Good question, remember, that the WTS does not claim "proof" that their use of 607BCE is viable. This is a discussion of evidence and patterns of evidence. Our concern should be about what patterns of evidence support the Bible. 

We already started this discussion, and I hope we can keep it reasonable and rational.

My first point that you already began a response to was that the WTS gave evidence that it didn't really matter when Jerusalem was destroyed, because the primary concern was to start with the acceptance of 1914 and just count back 2,520. One evidence of this was the fact that when they were not sure of the "zero year" problem, they used 606 (2520-607=1914). You said they were always sure of the zero year. I responded that Russell admitted he wasn't sure and he even gave the new outcome if it was true. (1915) The fact that he ultimately went back to 1914, and that the WTS later merely changed the date to 607 when they formally accepted the truth about the zero year. 

I offered evidence that your claim was wrong. So my first point is still valid. Correct?

Your response? 

3 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

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

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

1.       Jehovah loves those who are LOYAL to him.

2.       Jehovah HATES UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.

Yes. Excellent points in the study article. We already dealt with the first point you make about association when you confused Rolf Furuli with COJ. And when you made that same mistake before I reminded you that it made you look like you were accusing Rolf Furuli of apostasy. Perhaps you never understood the point of that. No matter anyway; it's not relevant. Just something you still needed to be corrected on because you continue to spread the same untruth no matter how times you have been corrected.

The same article included:

*** w14 7/15 p. 10 pars. 15-16 “Jehovah Knows Those Who Belong to Him” ***
Should we, however, be suspicious of our fellow Christians, second-guessing the genuineness of their loyalty to Jehovah? Absolutely not! It would be wrong to entertain baseless suspicions about our brothers and sisters. (Read Romans 14:10-12; 1 Corinthians 13:7.) What is more, having a tendency to distrust the integrity of others in the congregation would be harmful to our own spirituality.
16 Each Christian should “examine his own actions.” (Gal. 6:4) Because of our sinful inclinations, there is always the potential for inadvertently adopting traits that are less than sincere.

and the next article took some of those same themes further:

*** w14 7/15 p. 14 par. 12 Jehovah’s People “Renounce Unrighteousness” ***
The Bible encourages each individual to train his “powers of discernment . . . to distinguish both right and wrong.” (Heb. 5:14) The Scriptures set forth basic principles that a Christian can weigh when selecting entertainment. In all areas of life, our goal should be to “keep on making sure of what is acceptable to the Lord.”

3 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

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

This, by the way, you are also arguing here with an "appeal to authority" but in this case we obviously accept that appeal as valid, at least among ourselves. Especially as the GB have indeed written a lot about the subject.

You say "it wasn't made official until they meditated upon it, and the will of God made sure their conclusions harmonized with scripture." Is that really how you think it works? I assume you believe the GB started in 1919 at a time that J.F.Rutherford was taking the lead. Are you really saying that "the will of God made sure that their conclusions" about 1925 "harmonized with scripture." According to a quote from the Watchtower in a previous post, Rutherford said "he made an a** of himself." He didn't blame or credit the "will of God." In fact, 606 was kept until 1943. Was it only after 1943, or 1960 or 1999, that your theory is valid?

Did the pre-2014 type-antitype doctrines (about 200 such doctrines) harmonize with Scripture? If they did, then why were they dropped in 2014 as explained in the 3/15/2015 Watchtower?

So you are postulating an event that might never have happened. In fact there is plenty of written evidence in the publications that indicates that no such meeting happened within the GB prior to the acceptance of either 606 or 607. It's pretty much spelled out how we inherited the dates and how and why they evolved into what we have now. Of course, even if such a meeting had taken place, it's absolutely irrelevant to the point under discussion.

2 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 hour ago, Allen Smith said:

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

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

2 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

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

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

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

2 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

Still having trouble understanding. I believe…

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

2 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

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

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

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

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

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

2 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

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

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

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

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

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

2 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

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

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

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

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

Allen,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jehovah God, the Father, calls. And so does Jesus. No contradiction. Because, in will and purpose --even though the Father is greater-- Jehovah and Jesus are the same. ("I and the Father are one"). The "call" in this case is a "command" which results in the effect of raising the dead to life. It is the simultaneous purpose of both Jehovah and Jesus to effect this resurrection and judgment. This may sound contrived and convoluted, but notice that this is the exact same explanation Jesus gives in John chapter 6:

(John 6:38-40) 38 for I have come down from heaven to do, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me. 39 This is the will of him who sent me . . . . that I should resurrect them on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who recognizes the Son and exercises faith in him should have everlasting life, and I will resurrect him on the last day.”

(1 Thessalonians 4:15, 16) 15 For this is what we tell you by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord will in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death; 16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.

(Philippians 3:14) 14 I am pressing on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God by means of Christ Jesus.

My Greek is far from perfect, but if this verse was translated from any major mss, then I can't figure how they got that translation. Except for word order, which doesn't matter much in Greek, I think all the mss match up pretty well on this verse anyway.

The addition of the word, μὲν, plus the context, makes it impossible to translate "neither" into the text as far as I can tell. (That word, plus the context of the following verse, pretty much forces it to have the same meaning that the NWT presents.)

Sounds to me like they translated it that way because of a personal preference. It's still possible to look at how men's hair grows naturally to a shorter length on average than a woman's. The verse doesn't say anything about exact hair lengths.

On 3/14/2016 at 1:25 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

What would be the length of a generation as mentioned in Gen 15:16?

The Chronology article in Insight should be helpful here in mapping the 4 generations to the 400 years mentioned n verse 14:

*** it-1 pp. 460-461 Chronology ***
The period from Abraham’s move to Canaan until Jacob’s going down into Egypt was 215 years. This figure is derived from the following facts: Twenty-five years passed from Abraham’s departure from Haran to the birth of Isaac (Ge 12:4; 21:5); from then to the birth of Jacob was 60 years (Ge 25:26); and Jacob was 130 at the time of his entry into Egypt (Ge 47:9); thus giving a total of 215 years (from 1943 to 1728 B.C.E.). This means that an equal period of 215 years was thereafter spent by the Israelites in Egypt (from 1728 to 1513 B.C.E.). . . . “You may know for sure that your seed will become an alien resident in a land not theirs, and they will have to serve them, and these will certainly afflict them for four hundred years.” (Ge 15:13; see also Ac 7:6, 7.) This was stated prior to the birth of the promised heir or “seed,” Isaac. In 1932 B.C.E. Ishmael was born to Abram by the Egyptian servant girl Hagar, and in 1918 B.C.E. Isaac was born. (Ge 16:16; 21:5) Counting back 400 years from the Exodus, which marked the end of the ‘afflicting’ (Ge 15:14), would bring us to 1913 B.C.E., and at that time Isaac was about five years old. . . .  The very fact that this incident was recorded in detail in the divine record also points to its marking the commencement of the prophesied 400-year period of affliction that would not end until the Exodus.—Ga 4:29.

So these 4 generations could be understood to take the full 400 years. Of course there is also a good possibility that the 4 generations refers only to the portion of those 400 years that begins after Abraham is promised a peaceful death in old age (1843 BCE), or just as likely, the portion of time that four generations of offspring will be foreigners n Egypt..

(Genesis 15:13-16) 13 Then He said to Aʹbram: “Know for certain that your offspring will be foreigners in a land not theirs and that the people there will enslave them and afflict them for 400 years. . . . 15 As for you, you will go to your forefathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age. 16 But they will return here in the fourth generation, . . .

*** it-1 p. 31 Abraham ***
Finally, at the good old age of 175, Abraham died, in 1843 B.C.E.

If it's the 215-year portion spent in a land not theirs (Egypt) then it's 215 divided by 4 which is nearly 54 years. If it's the full 400 years divided by 4 generations Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the "12" brothers, then that averages 100 years each. If it's 400 years that starts after Abraham's death.in 1843 BCE, then 1843 to 1513 BCE leaves an average generation of 82.5 years.

The most likely one that fits the other generation examples would have to be the four generations that spent time in Egypt, not only after Abraham died, but even after Joseph died.  In this case, that's about 54 years.

(Exodus 1:5-8) . . .. 5 And all those who were born to Jacob were 70 people, but Joseph was already in Egypt. 6 Joseph eventually died, and also all his brothers and all that generation. 7 And the Israelites became fruitful and began to increase greatly, and they kept on multiplying and growing mightier at an extraordinary rate, so that the land became filled with them. 8 In time there arose over Egypt a new king, one who did not know Joseph

*** it-1 p. 778 Exodus ***  ". . .there could have been more than three million persons."

*** it-2 pp. 110-111 Joseph *** Joseph survived his father by about 54 years, reaching the age of 110 years. It was his privilege to see even some of his great-grandsons. Before his death, Joseph, in faith, requested that his bones be taken to Canaan by the Israelites at the time of their Exodus.

So, it obviously required 4 generations to produce the millions who traveled with Moses. Notice the average, even during times when lifespans were recorded up to nearly 1,000 years of age,

*** it-1 p. 28 Abraham ***
Abraham was the tenth generation from Noah through Shem and was born 352 years after the Deluge, in 2018 B.C.E.

That's about 35.2 years when you divide 352 years by 10 generations.

We also already know that one of the meanings Jesus had in mind was about 33 to 36 years from 33 C.E. up until Jerusalem was surrounded in 66 C.E. up until it was destroyed in 70 C.E.

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

Quote

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

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

Allen,

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

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

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

THE ENDING OF THE GENTILE TIMES

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

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

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

AN OPEN QUESTION

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

3 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

I agree, however is this for the individual witness or are they to "wait on Jehovah"? You see this comment IS biblical from both Acts 17:11 and 2 Corinthians 13:5. The problem being that within the organization, this is not allowed to the individual witness, but rather the society. It is "wait on Jehovah" to correct the GB, but that is the problem of following men instead of God. God's word does not change, it is men and their interpretation that changes. Those that follow men and end up dying before the change takes place, what happens to them? are they posthumously acquitted and no longer disfellowshipped? wouldn't make much difference then though. 

In the end, I think we are more in agreement than not. I just can't see how anyone or any group can proclaim a biblical teaching that is not one and hold it so dear when it is the thoughts of men.

Thanks for your response.

As individuals, we have a responsibility to wait on Jehovah, but not to wait on the organization, if they are at odds. Fortunately this should rarely be a problem. We are under a dual obligation to serve Jehovah but also to follow those who are taking the lead among us. We (many of us, anyway) should also be reaching out for the office of overseer so that we can also take the lead, too.

I think you might not realize just how fast things will keep changing, especially now that the Internet is available and 20 million people have paid attention to us through participation, Bible study, meeting attendance, etc. And don't think that the Governing Body aren't having trouble keeping up with "Jehovah's Chariot" themselves. In a practical sense, changes happen faster when more questions come in, and more of those questions can't be answered by "correspondence," "service," "legal," and "public relations" departments. More doctrinal changes have happened in the last 10 years than have happened since 1929 in this Organization. I might be biased but I think the last decade of changes actually makes much more sense than the previous versions of the changed teachings. Jehovah's Chariot speeds because there are now millions more people who might ask a difficult question.

Also, I think you know that Jehovah is the ultimate Judge, and those who were hurt and stumbled will be cared for with whatever extra it may take for Jehovah to satisfy the desire of every living thing. Jehovah has an eternity to make up for some injustices that will seem like a forgotten second of time, an eternity from now. When he wipes out every tear from our eyes, and pain, that would have to mean every kind of pain, even those that we inflicted upon each other in this life. Faith drives our motivation to do what is right toward each other, but as imperfect people, we sometimes do wrong. Jehovah looks at the motivation, and can undo the harm.

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

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

Hello Allen,

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

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

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

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

SOURCE?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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