JW Insider

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

I'll no longer sully myself

AlanF, I think that you will be asked to avoid the kind of insulting language and imagery. I am sure that other forums have allowed an escalation of this type to reach greater heights/depths of such. One of the things that has made this particular forum more palatable, according to several people here, myself included, is the fact that all perspectives have been able to come together WITHOUT these rough edges.

2 hours ago, Anna said:

(By the way I can't read page 208 because I can't make it bigger @Ann O'Maly. Maybe that's  because of this glitch too....)

The image was a bit small. I have page 208 in text format which generally uses the spacing and line break style of the original, with original spellings:

------------------------------------------------------

[resur-]rection of the dead, and on the triumphant era of blessed-
ness, which immediately ensues.   I would again impress
on the mind of the reader, that these events depend upon
the fulfilment of the chronological periods ; and that as
the " new heaven and new earth," which are created at
the second judgment, and at the time of the general resur-  
rection, necessarily synchronise with Daniel's era of blessed-  
ness ;  so must the " new heaven and new earth " be con-  
sidered as succeeding the '' old heaven and old earth," or
the tyrannical monarchies of the old dispensation.   The  
times of these monarchies are fixed by the " seven times "
of the symbolic image, and by the 1335 years of the Mo-
hammedan Imposture ;  and unless it can be shown that
erroneous data have been assumed, on which these chro-
nological periods have been founded, then must it be
maintained that the forty-five years of Daniel are the
period of the second judgment ; and, commencing in 1873,
are attended by the sitting of that judgment, and by the
general resurrection, the last hour of which terminates
with the " seven times " of the monarchies, and with the
1335 Mohammedan years, in 1917.  It may be further ob-
served, that it is a judgment of the " wicked " only ; be-
cause the righteous rise first, and attend Christ " at his
coming."  Death, hell and the sea, and their dead, sub-
sequently stand in judgment.
     The Saviour himself, speaking of the signs of his se-
cond coming, foretels all these events ;  and upon that
memorable occasion, when he predicted the treading down
of Jerusalem, and " that the Jews should be led captive
into all nations," during the times of the Gentiles, ob-
viously refers to the sitting of the second judgment, at
which he is to appear as the Judge. " Heaven and earth,"
or the dispensation of the tyrannical empires, which were
the instruments of the captivity and desolation of his peo-
ple, he declares " shall pass away,"---the very token of the
second judgment,--- " but my words shall not pass away."
Verily I say unto you, " This generation shall not pass
away till all be fulfilled."  Whatever, therefore, be the [p.209]
criticisms upon these extraordinary words . . .

--------------------------------------------------

Apologies to @scholar JW but it's pretty clear that the Watchtower had already given away the answer, back in 1983, which shows clearly that AlanF is correct, as was Ann, Carl Jonsson, and many others:

*** w83 8/1 p. 20 par. 15 Israel and the “Times of the Gentiles” ***

• 15 In the dream that Jehovah God sent to his “servant,” King Nebuchadnezzar, there were “seven times” that were decreed from heaven. How do these connect up with “the times of the Gentiles” or coincide and become identical with them?

THUS, EXAMPLES which would only make sense if the connection/link/etc means an "equating."

*** w98 9/15 p. 15 par. 1 Waiting in “Eager Expectation” ***

• Similarly, a prophecy providentially caused sincere 19th-century Bible students to be in expectation. By linking the “seven times” of Daniel 4:25 with “the times of the Gentiles,” they anticipated that Christ would receive Kingdom power in 1914.

*** yb75 p. 37 Part 1—United States of America ***

• Very noteworthy was the striking accuracy with which that book pointed to the end of the Gentile Times, “the appointed times of the nations.” (Luke 21:24) It showed (on pages 83 and 189) that this 2,520-year period, during which Gentile or non-Jewish nations would rule the earth without interference by any kingdom of God, began with the Babylonian overthrow of the kingdom of Judah in the late seventh century B.C.E. and would end in 1914 C.E. Even earlier, however, C. T. Russell wrote an article entitled “Gentile Times: When Do They End?” It was published in the Bible Examiner of October 1876, and therein Russell said: “The seven times will end in A.D. 1914.” He had correctly linked the Gentile Times with the “seven times” mentioned in the book of Daniel. (Dan. 4:16, 23, 25, 32) True to such calculations, 1914 did mark the end of those times and the birth of God’s kingdom in heaven with Christ Jesus as king. Just think of it! Jehovah granted his people that knowledge nearly four decades before those times expired.

*** 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.

*** w15 6/15 p. 22 par. 12 Live in Harmony With the Model Prayer—Part I ***

• 12 When the time approached for God’s Kingdom in the hands of Jesus to start ruling from heaven, Jehovah helped his people to understand the timing of events. In 1876, an article written by Charles Taze Russell was published in the magazine Bible Examiner. That article, “Gentile Times: When Do They End?,” pointed to 1914 as a significant year. The article linked the “seven times” of Daniel’s prophecy with “the appointed times of the nations” spoken of by Jesus.—Dan. 4:16; Luke 21:24.

*** w84 4/1 p. 16 par. 4 Heed God’s Prophetic Word for Our Day ***

• 4 That year 1914—what of it? Over a century ago, C. T. Russell (who became the first president of the Watch Tower Society) linked the Gentile Times with the “seven times” mentioned in the book of Daniel. (Daniel 4:16, 23, 25, 32; Luke 21:24, Authorized Version) Writing in the Bible Examiner of October 1876, Russell said: “The seven times will end in A.D. 1914.” He also was a joint publisher of the 1877 book Three Worlds, and the Harvest of This World, which showed (on pages 83 and 189) that the 2,520-year period of Gentile world domination without interference by any kingdom of God began with the Babylonian overthrow of the kingdom of Judah in the late seventh century B.C.E. and would end in 1914 C.E. Similarly, the Watch Tower issue of March 1880 stated: “‘The Times of the Gentiles’ extend to 1914, and the heavenly kingdom will not have full sway till then.”

Thanks @Ann O'Maly and it looks like thanks also to @AlanF for posting the pages in question. Of course, for anyone who really wanted to know, they already could have found enough of the content of those pages that had already been posted and discussed by both "AlanF" and a person calling himself "Earnest" on another forum and then again by AlanF on a separate blog at corior.blogspot.

On a major forum, AlanF had even exposed some of the content that @scholar JW has already made reference to here on this forum, under this current topic. (Referring to correspondence with WTS, COJ, Franz, etc.) A person on that same forum named "Earnest" had even quoted sufficient portions of those two paragraphs from page 208, which are still there to read for anyone who wishes. They can just search Google, for example, with phrases like the following (including the quote marks):

"john aquila brown" "Ray Franz, Carl Jonsson"

But I had also seen that AlanF had even quoted from a few other pages of Volume II, including the the near context of page 208 (pps. 68-9, 135, 152, 206). Just google:

"Part 5: Sanitizing the Past"

I also have the book "Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers" by Froom, volume 3. It contains a very good discussion of John Aquila Brown in the context of all his own proposed time periods compared with others being presented at the time. All in all, these resources have made it clear to me that Jonsson had it right from both a high-level perspective and a detail level perspective. It even reminded me that the April 2018 Watchtower (p.30,31) may have had this very type of exchange in mind when they spoke of allowing "apostates" and other critics to sow distrust through a forum that allows dialogue. The "Proclaimers" book gives the appearance that it may have actually been written in such a way as to engage in dialogue with "apostate" reasoning, on this specific point, as an attempt to offer a kind of "gotcha." Something similar had been tried in the Appendix of the "Kingdom Come" book in 1981, and two Watchtower articles in 2011. Unfortunately, I think that these particular attempts backfired on the WTS, and I'm sure they do not wish for this kind of embarrassment to show up again.  

19 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah,+ until the land had paid off its sabbaths.+ All the days it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill 70 years.+

Yikes! I run off for a day, and someone throws a party. I almost hate to interrupt, but it does look like you responded with 2 Chron 36, which I must admit, does appear to be the Biblical evidence against the claim I made when i said;  ' But nowhere does the Bible say that the full and complete desolation measured from some specific point in time, was to begin counting off the 70 year period. In fact, there is no Bible passage that says the entire 70 years of Babylonian domination was equal to be equal in length to a 70 year period of full desolation.'

It's almost ironic that a side conversation is going on about how John Aquila Brown had made a 'connection' between his 1260-year "Gentile Times" ending in 1844 and his 2,520-year period of the "Four Tyrannical Kingdoms" ending in 1917. John Aquila Brown made a connection without equating the periods. I think even "scholar JW" agrees with that much. And here we have 2 Chronicles speaking of a period of 70 years spoken by Jeremiah, and he connects them with a period when the land would pay off its sabbaths during all the days that the land would lay desolate. He appears to connect them, but does not equate them.

It seems to be similar to how a prophetic type in Jonah connects his being in the belly of a large fish for 3 days, and how the fulfillment is tied to the idea that Jesus would be in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights. There is an emphasis on the 3 day and 3 night period, even though the direct connection in the case of Jesus was more likely a reference to Jesus being in the grave all of Saturday, plus a few hours on Friday afternoon, and a few short hours on Sunday morning. Maybe 36 hours instead of 72 (3x24).

The prophetic period of "70 years" loomed large in these days and may have connected several periods in a loose way, especially since we know that the desolations that started as early as 604 ultimately resulted in more and more abandoned fields, abandoned cities, attacked cities, attacked populace, captured populace, two or three occasions of taking sacred utensils from Jerusalem, two or three sieges of Jerusalem. Finally, the desolation was effectively complete somewhere between Neb's 19th year and Neb's 24th year.

Nebuchadnezzar was a kind of abomination that caused desolations, not just a single desolation. The idea is used in the plural almost as often as it is used in the singular. Even when used in the singular it is often paired with plural places --desolate places-- so that the idea of plural desolations is still obvious. Notice how this fact is hidden in the NWT translation of Daniel 9:2:

• (Daniel 9:2) 2 in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of years mentioned in the word of Jehovah to Jeremiah the prophet to fulfill the desolation of Jerusalem, namely, 70 years.

But the Hebrew does not say 'desolation' חָרְבָּה of course. It says 'desolations' חָרְבֹות . As the ESV, quoted earlier says:

• (Daniel 9:2, ESV) in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years.

Can you see the difference?

Of course, as I've said before, I'm not a stickler for starting and ending these 70 years as of a specific certain event in the life of Neb., and I'm not so convinced that the 70 years must stop instantly with the event that freed the Jews from Babylonian captivity: i.e., the removal of Babylonian dominance by its capture in the first year of Cyrus over Babylon. Of course, this is the primary sense in Jeremiah, but I think it's clear that the 70-year period of that prophecy became a focus of several associated time periods that would find fulfillment either within that period, or because of that time period.

One of the "desolations" (In Hebrew, it's also the word for "drought") was the spiritual "drought" caused by the desolation of the Temple. That particular "drought" must have been seen as connected with the 70 years of desolation, too, even though the connected  70-year period would have run from about Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year up to the first few years of Darius. (see: Zechariah, Haggai)

At any rate, the evidence on the ground is that we can only find about 50 years between the destruction of Jerusalem in Neb's 19th year and the overthrow of Babylon in the first year of Cyrus. By evidence on the ground, I mean, literally, the tens of thousands of dated contract tablets, with or without the multiple examples of other evidence that will also mesh perfectly with these tablets. If we allow two or three extra years after the first year of Cyrus and start with the desolation in Neb's 8th year, we could get about 63 years, but still not 70. If we go all the way back to the time when the Babylonian power proved itself as the next power over Assyria (or even a combination of Assyria and Egypt), then we get a complete 70 years, and it perfectly fits Jeremiah's prophecy that the 70 years were "for Babylon" even though they would "effect'' the fulfillment of the desolations upon Judea and Jerusalem. I don't see a contradiction between 2 Chronicles 36 and Jeremiah 25, even if the focus is different. 

1 hour ago, Nana Fofana said:

I know "Samaria was reinhabited with imported captives from other parts of the Assyrian Empire", but I believe Jerusalem and its vicinity were to be, and were, emptied and left "desolate" , according to the  Bible.

That's correct, of course. Jerusalem and the nation of Judea were definitely to be emptied and left desolate. But nowhere does the Bible say that the full and complete desolation measured from some specific point in time, was to begin counting off the 70 year period. In fact, there is no Bible passage that says the entire 70 years of Babylonian domination was equal to be equal in length to a 70 year period of full desolation.

The Bible appears to be saying that the desolation of Jerusalem was a key part of that desolation, the final key to the desolation. But most of the exiles had been taken 10 to 11 years prior to that destruction, according to the specific numbers given in the Bible. Judean had been escaping to the nations all around them during the entire period of the 70 years given to Babylonian domination. But it was not a true safety as Jeremiah said that those nations would feel the hammer of Babylonian domination in time, themselves. Isaiah shows that all these places absorbed fleeing Judeans . . .

• (Isaiah 11:11, 12) . . .In that day Jehovah will again offer his hand, a second time, to reclaim the remnant of his people who are left from As·syrʹi·a, from Egypt, from Pathʹros, from Cush, from Eʹlam, from Shiʹnar, [Babylon] from Haʹmath, and from the islands of the sea. 12 He will raise up a signal for the nations and gather the dispersed ones of Israel, and he will gather together the scattered ones of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

One point to notice of course is that the Insight book added the word "suddenly" but then quoted two archaeologists/historians that, if you read them, are both quite clear that this was NOT a sudden desolation, in their opinion. Of course, I'm not saying it was sudden, or it wasn't sudden. That word can be subjective, depending on the historical perspective. I was only pointing out that the Bible gives an impression of a process of desolation that was never pinpointed to a specific event. Even if the Bible had tied the final and full desolation to a specific event, such as the destruction in Neb's 19th year, or the final captivity in his 24th year, that even this was never tied to the count of the 70 years.

But in all events, remember that I agree completely that the nation and city became totally desolated, a pile of stones, effectively without an inhabitant.

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

But I do know that @The Librarian favors original content. She doesn't like it when people are just lazy and link to some sorehead who they think will do their dirty work for them - especially when it is same-old same-old - something that has been discussed many times before and addressed, but a whiner just wants to repackage it and run it through again.

I suspect that this is it. I've noticed that if a person repeatedly points to their own blogs and links to their own books that there is a limit to how much of this is allowed. If you link to a single place at a time and discuss a specific piece of evidence from that site, then the link becomes a 'source' for reference for what is being discussed here and it's usually acceptable. But if the source is just to a bunch of things that we are supposed to read on another site and use that site for its own sake, then that's not considered to be a good use of this discussion forum -- just to push people over to another site or forum or blog, etc.

On 1/6/2018 at 9:22 AM, Nana Fofana said:

They were taken to Babylon from Egypt, where they'd run away to, when...

There is very little evidence for this. The Bible does not say that these 745 captives -- almost the same number taken in Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year -- came from Egypt, Ammon or Moab. It's true that Nebuchadnezzar continued to devastate and desolate the nations around Judea. After all, Jeremiah said that Babylon would be given 70 years of domination, so this is to be expected. But the theory in the Insight book, is still only a theory as you can tell by the word 'probably.' The supposed evidence from Josephus only tells us what we should already know, but Josephus does not say that this is where any of the 745 captives came from either. Also it does not take into account that the Bible says it was Nebuzaradan, NOT Nebuchadnezzar who took these captives, and the Bible only mentions Nebuzaradan in connection with the area around Jerusalem, starting with the very destruction of Jerusalem and the assignment of poor people to continue on the land. 

On 1/6/2018 at 10:00 AM, Nana Fofana said:

19th year

Jeremiah 52

18 The chief of the guard also took Se·raiʹah+ the chief priest, Zeph·a·niʹah+ the second priest, and the three doorkeepers.+ 19 And he took from the city one court official who was the commissioner over the soldiers, five close associates of the king who were found in the city, as well as the secretary of the chief of the army, the one mustering the people of the land, and 60 men of the common people of the land who were yet found in the city.

This is all true, of course. And it highlights the truth that the fullest period of Judea's desolation could be focused on the time of the destruction of the nation's capital Jerusalem. But I'm pointing out that if you look at the details, you can see that this was a process, and not something that magically happened the instant Jerusalem fell. If it were true that those 745 exiles were somehow explicitly separated from those which Nebuchadnezzar took in 598, then this might be evidence that Neb's 19th year was that 'magic' turning point. Instead we are told that there was another captivity, 5 years later, and can see that it is bundled in with the total, 6400. They are described as if associated with those found in Jerusalem and the surrounding area. If the 745 were taken from Egypt for example, this would be of great importance to the theme of how Nebuzaradan went so far out of his way to fulfill the word of Jehovah through Jeremiah. No one doubts, I hope, that the Bible's claims came true that Jerusalem and Judea were devastated to the point of complete desolation. But the evidence in the Bible never points to a full 70 years from the time of Jerusalem's destruction. If this had been the true point of the bible record then why point out that poor people were assigned to stay on the land to work the land and be vinedressers, as mentioned. 

Judea went into exile in the manner described, but the manner described includes multiple exiles going back before the destruction of Jerusalem and continuing after it. The destruction of the temple and the tearing down of the walls of Jerusalem was the key in its destruction, because there was no more material safety (the wall), and then Jehovah had obviously allowed the destruction of the symbol for spiritual safety (the temple).

Concerning Riblah and Hamath we can see that Nebuzaradan really was working separately from Nebuchadnezzar, which fits an idea that we also can get from the Babylonian Chronicles. We see that he traveled northward, past the Judea border and probably well past the old Israelite border to meet up with the king.

*** it-1 p. 1025 Hamath ***

• The exact location of this boundary (or place) is not certain. It was reckoned as the northern boundary of Israel’s territory (Nu 34:8; 1Ki 8:65; 2Ki 14:25; 2Ch 7:8) and as bordering on Damascus. (Jer 49:23; Eze 47:15-17; 48:1; Zec 9:1, 2) Some think it was the southern extremity of the Coele-Syria Valley (also called the Beqaʽ), which runs between the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon mountain ranges. Others say it was halfway between Baalbek and Riblah. Yet others suggest it was still farther N where the pass opens up between Homs and the sea.—Eze 47:20.

With respect to @Arauna's insightful comments about truth and motive, I was thinking about ways in which the entire 607 doctrine has been affected.

• At the very core of the 607 theory is the idea that we can choose the secular dates 539 to 537 without choosing the secular date 587 for Neb's 19th year, or 598 for Neb's 8th year. Yet, our publications consistently leave out the fact that all the data and evidence that we accept for 539 is precisely the same data and evidence that gives us 587 and 598. Yet we have renamed those secular years by adding 20 to each of them, but without adding 20 to 539. Most of us therefore have the impression that there is evidence and data that our 607 date is correct, and we find ourselves defending the evidence and data used for 539 and not realising we are defending the same evidence for 587 and 598. Our motive is good, but we don't even realise we are withholding evidence because we are so motivated to defend something we think must be true.
• Another idea that is at the very core of the 607 theory is that there were 70 years of complete desolation where the land would be without an inhabitant, and that this can only have occurred from the time of Jerusalem's fall until shortly after 539, or 537. But this idea does not have scriptural support as already shown in earlier posts in this thread. Note that Neb's 19th year is the Biblical date of Jerusalem's fall. So notice the claim we use, and then compare it with the Bible evidence.

*** it-1 p. 463 Chronology ***

• Hence the count of the 70 years of desolation must have begun about October 1, 607 B.C.E., ending in 537 B.C.E. By the seventh month of this latter year the first repatriated Jews arrived back in Judah, 70 years from the start of the full desolation of the land.—2Ch 36:21-23; Ezr 3:1.

But notice the Biblical evidence that we always leave out:

• (Jeremiah 52:15, 16) 15 Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took into exile some of the lowly people and the rest of the people who were left in the city. He also took the deserters who had defected to the king of Babylon as well as the rest of the master craftsmen. 16 But Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard left some of the poorest people of the land to serve as vinedressers and as compulsory laborers.
• (Jeremiah 52:28-30) 28 These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile: in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews. 29 In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem. 30 In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people.. . .
• (2 Kings 25:8, 9) 8 In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. 9 He burned down the house of Jehovah. . .

If the land was completely desolate as of Neb's 18th year or 19th year, then how could another exile happen in the 23rd year?

The motive for withholding this tidbit of information appears to be that it makes it easier to claim that the land was completely and fully desolate for 70 years starting in Neb's 18th or 19th year, even though another exile took place 4 or 5 years later.

Then we also have the Biblical evidence from Daniel and Zechariah and Jeremiah several other scriptures that has never been addressed. And when we finally get to the overall motive for skewing the evidence, support for 1914, we find that there are several more verses that suffer mistranslation or which are always completely withheld. Why, for instance, do we never mention that Revelation 11:2 is a clear reference to the appointed times of Luke 21:24?

6 hours ago, Arauna said:

Every spoken word has a motive - for a result.... and a withheld word also has motive...... if one withholds a titbit of truth - one can deceive.....

There is so much truth in this. Obviously you may have brought it up for other reasons, but it is at the core of so many issues of truth and motive in all walks of life. Even what we call 'fake news' is not usually just a set of absolutely false statements; it is often a combination of truth and absence of truth. And yes, it's done with the motive of deceiving someone into believing that a true part of the story is the whole story.

But it applies so perfectly to this discussion of 607 and in ways that are sometimes hidden until we realise the motive. And we shouldn't believe that a motive that can deceive others is always to be judged as nefarious or 'calculating.' A person who has been previously deceived --but did not realise it-- will often dismiss contrary evidence from their mind, withhold evidence from themselves, in a natural way because their motive is defense of a supposed truth. Their own wonderful motive, defending a greater truth, will become a matter of picking and choosing evidence without their even realising it. 

2 hours ago, Anna said:

But the post you commented on was addressed to me. Of course I'm not saying you can't comment on posts addressed to other people

i hadn't ever thought of that as a problem to watch out for, but hopefully i will remember this to avoid future issues.

2 hours ago, Anna said:

but I was just wondering why you had to mention that, since we are supposed to be discussing topics and ideas rather than people and their motives and levels of competence. That's all.

i didn't have to mention it, you are right about that. my primary reason at the time, of course, was that it was the most direct way of clearing up the question from 'TrueTomHarley' about whether or not 'scholar JW' was 'Allen Smith' --based on Neil's own words. I knew that Neil had not denied Ann's references to him as Neil, but Neil's own statement to you was the only one I remembered where he directly made that statement himself.

However, I will also say that when a person makes their own competence or that of a specific person, or organisation, a part of the discussion, that the person has actually forced the issue of competence to be included into the discussion. this can happen when a person claims that a folder of theirs that includes a lot of correspondence with published authors should be trusted as supporting his point of view whether or not a questionable claim in it is ever actually presented. a person may imply that their own competence is sufficient to differentiate a good chronology from a dismissable one in that it is based on methodology that followed from their own ability to validate good methodology from no methodology.

or a person can even use the idea that a particular idea is to be dismissed because it is 'controversial' - with the implication that it is controversial among scholars - when all current scholars actually agree - save a person or single group who disagrees. we have seen this as the sole reason given to accept 539 as a pivotal year -- but not any other year in the neo-babylonian chronology. why? because it's 'controversial.' why is it controversial? Because someone who disagrees has been imputed with a status that allows their disagreement to redefine something non-controversial as controversial. obviously we wouldn't allow this for some other types of evidence. and we'd immediately recognise why it's a kind of logical fallacy. we would surely think it inappropriate to allow that 2-2=0 is controversial just because we know that someone has claimed that 2-2=1. not saying anyone or any group here is claiming 2-2=1, it's just a way to show how easily the logic of this type of thinking can become skewed.

Edited to add: Whoops, it looks like I had edited out a chunk of the original post to truetom so that some of what i just said above won't make as much sense. I think you are pointing out that i only focused on his claim of competence, and not so much on evidence that he self-identified. so now i see the problem more clearly. yes, this was unnecessary in the contekst [sic] of responding to tth. I still think it's important to the rest of the conversation, however.

25 minutes ago, Anna said:

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Neil Mc Fadzen has self-identified as 'scholar' on another forum and as @scholar JW here

I already had that figured out, as might have others. But I don't think it's fair you state it.

you said you didn't think it was fair that i stated this, but it's fair because i wasn't the one to disclose it. as i said above he self-identified. note the words i highlighted in red, from his own words, just three weeks ago...

On 12/13/2017 at 8:54 PM, scholar JW said:

The real answer is that it comes down to Methodology, plain and simple and confirmed by the pioneering studies of Rodger Young  which followed from observations made by Neil  Mc Fadzen aka scholar JW.in the preceding decade and presented on the JWD forum.

10 minutes ago, John Houston said:

Not I!

If you meant that you don't want my posts to get shorter, then you are very generous and long-suffering with respect to one of my greatest weaknesses -- long-windedness.

Not sure what that meant, but I would be just as happy to stay over here, although I always have a tendency to think that every prior false or misleading statement should be addressed before addressing any new statements that might be false or misleading. --this includes addressing any of my own errors, of course--

unfortunately, there are already at least 100 statements made in this thread that were false or misleading, even if the person making the statements meant well, or thought they were defending truth. addressing just one point in the middle of all those issues, is almost like a tacit acceptance of the errors around it. But so many of the errors had nothing to do, really, with the topic of whether 607 is Biblically supported. That was the reason to make a fresh start.

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Gasp!!!!!! Neil is not allensmith28, is he? (the first one to react)

apologies in advance that a few keys on my keyboard are not working, including the shift and caps lock along with a few key letters. workarounds take a long time, so although i will repair a few of the problems created, some of this post might be hard to read.

On 1/1/2018 at 10:02 PM, scholar JW said:

 In fact, amongst the entire worldwide brotherhood there are possibly only two brothers who have publicly demonstrated competence in Chronology and these brothers are Rolf Furuli in Norway and Neil Mc Fadzen from Australia.

scholar JW

Neil Mc Fadzen has self-identified as 'scholar' on another forum and as @scholar JW here. what he is saying above is that he might be only one of two brothers in the entire world who have demonstrated competence in chronology. you admit that you have not followed the thread that closely, but perhaps you might wish to follow it more closely on this basis alone. you are evidently privileged to be in the presence of a very rare level of competence.

since this topic has veered from its original course, and it was started by me, i'm happy to create a new version of it that deals only with the more serious issues about watchtower chronology vs. bible chronology vs. secular chronology. evidently i still have the ability to move posts from one thread to another, to keep topics organised. if i still have some of these moderator functions available to me, i can always move irrelevant and irreverent posts back over to this thread.

if i do decide to start a new thread, i will probably not be moving any posts from here, but will likely try to summarise by quoting from posts made here. this might have to wait until i add a wireless keyboard to this laptop, or perhaps i'll start using my Macbook more often, which slows down my typing by about 50wpm until i get used to it. that would likely cut down the length of my posts by more than 50 percent --and who wants that?

40 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Then JWI adds some explanatory details and it is a wonder he does not go on for pages. 

There is still time!

I thought of the prosperity gospel churches too, and large "personality" mega-churches that highlight their evangelists and "faith healers" on television along with the audiences. However, I suspect that the person who made the original meme was aiming more at the hypocrisy inherent even in more typical church situations where the pastor is a couple of tax brackets higher than the congregation. Another form of clergy/laity distinction. It must seem exacerbated in those poorer neighborhoods with a church, two pawn shops and two liquor stores on every block. The churches in such neighborhoods often grow even with all the block-by-block competition, and the pastors therefore do well.

But I also noticed that Bible Speaks wanted to make it clear that this kind of thing does not happen in her congregation. But can it? She adds "Be on the watch" as if there might be some danger even among our own. But she also added "We are not called Pastors anyhow." This means, evidently, that the idea doesn't apply to us after all.

I take it for granted that most people here know that this is not really a problem among JWs. So is it something to watch out for? Ann shows that it has happened before. Rutherford kept a few houses for his personal use in several places around the world. He had more than one of these expensive cars, simultaneously during the great depression. His own "prosperity" gospel took advantage of the economic desires of his audience, but correctly turned them toward a more spiritual perspective. He had books and booklets and talks called Riches, Prosperity, and Prohibition is from the Devil? Oh wait, that last one didn't turn toward spirituality in the same was as the others, it just went ahead and "proved" that prohibition really was from the Devil. But money was clearly not the primary thing for either Russell or Rutherford. Both of them believed for much of their lives that the end was coming in a matter of years or often, even just a few months. Russell spent the Society's funds like crazy right up until October 1914. No reason to have anything left over. Rutherford didn't turn down the amenities, but he was clearly not driven by money, either.

It's always good to look at the possibilities even if we are really nothing like most of these churches that rake in millions for a feel-good and/or prosperity message that never seems to pan out for the average member. I mentioned the 125-foot yacht for the same reason that Ann mentioned the car. It's a bit thought-provoking about how easy it is to attach ourselves to material things without noticing the effect on onlookers. Watches, jewelry, vacations, chandeliers, cruises, yachts, and such can look like a showy display of one's means, even if that's not what one means.

56 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

@JW Insider is trying to tell you that there is a difference between astronomical year numbering and AD/BC or CE/BCE year numbering.

Common mistake.

Thanks Ann. The reason I wasn't explaining it again is that this mistake made me realize that the last two times I explained it carefully, that Allen wasn't paying attention. It's fine not to pay attention, that's anyone's choice, but I was simultaneously being ridiculed by Allen for supposedly not understanding and not reading carefully the last two times I pointed out this exact same point.

One time was in a discussion of Charles T. Russell misunderstanding the same point, evidently thinking that astronomers were saying there was a zero year, and thinking that he was therefore probably right in using the zero year to calculate 606 to 1914 as 2520 years. But he also used the potential difference to buy himself some flexibility in case 1914 didn't pan out as the start of Armageddon and the Great Tribulation and the Jewish repatriation of Palestine. Russell thought it might "buy some time" until 1915. As Russell said in the Watch Tower, December 1912, page 376, "The Ending of the Gentile Times."

• If we count the first year B.C. as 0, 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 0 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.

The other case was when both you and I pointed out to Allen that the lavia.org site is not fully reliable. (The lavia link was also provided by @Foreigner earlier in this thread.) In another thread ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/24592-the-superiority-of-jw-chronology/?page=7&tab=comments#comment-45134 ) Allen had ignored my earlier warnings about the site and assumed I had treated the whole thing as "reliable" and therefore somehow tied his own error to proof of apostasy in others!!

At any rate, just to show you are in good company @allensmith28, it was not only C.T.Russell, but this writer quoted below who made a similar, common mistake.

------quote from http://www.lavia.org/english/archivo/vat4956en.htm

Besides, as we can see on NASAÂ’s image, the eclipse of July 4th indicated in tablet VAT 4956, did not take place in 568 BC, but in 567 BC.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Therefore the correct calculation of the year in which Jerusalem was destroyed must be as follows:

       If 567 BC was the year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, the 19th year (18 complete years) was 586 BC.

37-18 = 19, 567 +19 = 586

Therefore Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 BC.

1 minute ago, allensmith28 said:

No mistake. It's straightforward without having to resort to calendars. But it's common to assume.

You just showed the Saros for 609 BCE and 610 BCE. Common mistake.

3 minutes ago, allensmith28 said:

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

This image does not represent 607 B.C.E.  It's the picture for 608 B.C.E.

I'm using your logic, what has changed in your view?

Nothing has changed in my view. It's just that you showed a picture of a Saros cycle for 608 BCE and referred to it as if it were a picture for 607 BCE. Common mistake.

35 minutes ago, allensmith28 said:

Secular chronology cannot use VAT4956 or the Babylonian Chronicles to pinpoint ANYTHING biblical by using their own data.

And that one is 568 B.C.E.

Also, are you really claiming that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar is not biblical? Does the same thing hold true for the first year of Cyrus?

2 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

A far cry from VAT4956, but good for 607.

This image does not represent 607 B.C.E.  It's the picture for 608 B.C.E.

6 hours ago, Witness said:

Could John be referencing the future coming of Christ in the flesh? The “many deceivers” were already well aware of Jesus Christ; thus, they knew he had been ‘in the flesh’ as a man; so possibly this refers to his future coming, or his ascension. At any rate, the Bible usage of “coming” defines it as coming and going.

If this was written around 99 C.E. then I think it would just as likely (or more likely) to have referred to the fact that Christianity started among a very small group of actual eye-witnesses of Jesus, but had grown to a "great crowd" in areas far-flung from Galilee/Judea in areas where it would be common among Greek philosophical influence to allegorize the person of Jesus into a "mythological" origin -- perhaps some kind of amalgamation of brilliant rabbi/teacher, healer, wonder-worker, angel, demigod, etc. To me, it makes much more sense that this was a great danger, much more of a dangerous "apostasy" than being concerned with what sort of a body Jesus would have when he would return.

@Israeli Bar Avaddhon, As you already know, I disagree with some of your conclusions, but I love the fact that you want to have lively, vibrant conversations about Biblical matters. And, to be fair, I have not yet taken the time to explain why I disagree with your conclusions, so I'm glad you are still around. Still, the kind of discussions you are fostering are of the type that true Bible Students have always enjoyed. It's not for everyone, of course. As you say, some like "tranquility." Hope some of these ideas become "settled" for you.

6 hours ago, Anna said:

That could be a good "Question from readers". Why don't you send it in? 

I think someone already did:

*** w11 8/15 p. 22 Questions From Readers ***

• Memorial partakers. This is the number of baptized individuals who partake of the emblems at the Memorial worldwide. Does this total represent the number of anointed ones on earth? Not necessarily. A number of factors—including past religious beliefs or even mental or emotional imbalance—might cause some to assume mistakenly that they have the heavenly calling. We thus have no way of knowing the exact number of anointed ones on earth; nor do we need to know. The Governing Body does not keep a list of all partakers, for it does not maintain a global network of anointed ones.

*** w09 6/15 p. 24 pars. 16-18 The Faithful Steward and Its Governing Body ***

• 16 Are all these anointed ones throughout the earth part of a global network that is somehow involved in revealing new spiritual truths? No. Although as a composite body the slave class is responsible for feeding the spiritual household, not all individuals of the slave class have the same responsibilities or work assignments. (Read 1 Corinthians 12:14-18.) As noted earlier, in the first century, all were involved in the vital preaching work. But only a very limited number were used to write the books of the Bible and oversee the Christian congregation.
• 17 To illustrate: The Scriptures at times speak of “the congregation” as taking certain action in handling judicial matters. (Matt. 18:17) In real terms, though, it is only the elders who take this action in their capacity as representatives of the congregation. The elders do not contact all members of the congregation to ask their various opinions before they make a decision. Theocratically, they perform the role that they have been assigned; they act on behalf of the whole congregation.
• 18 Similarly, today a limited number of anointed men have the responsibility of representing the slave class. They make up the Governing Body of JehovahÂ’s Witnesses.

 

 

12 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

And remember the Question Box from the km 9/07?

Quote

Does “the faithful and discreet slave” endorse independent groups of Witnesses who meet together to engage in Scriptural research or debate?—Matt. 24:45, 47.

No, it does not. ...

As you already mentioned, the "Kingdom Ministry" in September 2007 answered this question by saying: " 'the faithful and discreet slave' does not endorse any literature, meetings, or Web sites that are not produced or organized under its oversight."

I wonder how they could have known that for sure. Did they take a survey of 9,500 different persons? After all, in 2007 the "faithful and discreet slave" consisted of about 9,500 persons who all claimed to be part of that "faithful and discreet slave." And the Governing Body who also claimed to be part of that slave, claimed in 2007 that all the persons who were of the anointed remnant class were included in that slave class, not just the Governing Body. 

It was not until June 2009, that the Watchtower claimed that, even though all the anointed remnant were still part of that slave class, that only the Governing Body could represent them in "giving food at the proper time." To prove it, a scripture was quoted that had previously been used to prove exactly the opposite. The full context quoted should make it clear why this passage could be used to show that all the anointed remnant were part of the slave. But this time only the red portion of the passage was suggested for reading, and only the red, bolded, underlined portion below was actually quoted in the paragraphs:

• (1 Corinthians 12:14-13:3) 14 For, indeed, the body is made up not of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I am no part of the body,” that does not make it no part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I am no part of the body,” that does not make it no part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If it were all hearing, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But now God has arranged each of the body members just as he pleased. 19 If they were all the same member, where would the body be? 20 But now they are many members, yet one body. 21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I do not need you,” or again, the head cannot say to the feet, “I do not need you.” 22 On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are necessary, 23 and the parts of the body that we think to be less honorable we surround with greater honor, so our unseemly parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 whereas our attractive parts do not need anything. Nevertheless, God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that had a lack, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but its members should have mutual concern for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all the other members suffer with it; or if a member is glorified, all the other members rejoice with it. 27 Now you are Christ’s body, and each of you individually is a member. 28 And God has assigned the respective ones in the congregation: first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then powerful works; then gifts of healings; helpful services; abilities to direct; different tongues. 29 Not all are apostles, are they? Not all are prophets, are they? Not all are teachers, are they? Not all perform powerful works, do they? 30 Not all have gifts of healings, do they? Not all speak in tongues, do they? Not all are interpreters, are they? 31 But keep striving for the greater gifts. And yet I will show you a surpassing way. 13 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels but do not have love, I have become a clanging gong or a clashing cymbal. 2 And if I have the gift of prophecy and understand all the sacred secrets and all knowledge, and if I have all the faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my belongings to feed others, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I do not benefit at all.

This next scripture, also used in the past to show that all the remnant were part of the "slave" class, was not quoted this time, although it says essentially the same thing:

• (Ephesians 2:19-22) 19 So you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are fellow citizens of the holy ones and are members of the household of God, 20 and you have been built up on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, while Christ Jesus himself is the foundation cornerstone. 21 In union with him the whole building, being harmoniously joined together, is growing into a holy temple for Jehovah. 22 In union with him you too are being built up together into a place for God to inhabit by spirit.

It was not until a talk in October 2012 and a Watchtower dated July 15, 2013 that the Governing Body finally claimed to be the "faithful and discreet slave" and changed the doctrine in a way that removed the rest of the remnant from the slave class.