JW Insider

43 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Keep trying. I'm sure Aruana aka ComfortMyPeople find your explanation compelling.

You put too much focus on who upvotes a person's posts. It's probably what drives you to constantly create additional accounts so that you can upvote and downvote people. When "Little Joe" made himself available to downvote my sister's experience, along with a couple of posts from others, I was pretty sure that we would soon see @Little Joe come over to this thread and start downvoting several of my posts on chronology. Sure enough, that was just about all Little Joe was good for up to that point, but quite predictable, of course. And by the way, you probably didn't mean Arauna, because she would normally side with the Watchtower on this topic, unless she's been studying it more deeply as of late.

42 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

You seem to avoid how one deportation is included in or around 607BC,

Are you kidding? I've always discussed the possibility of a deportation in or around 605 or so. That's close enough, right? Most historians don't think this one specifically concerned Palestine or Judeans, but some believe the evidence for it is in Daniel, because it might have included Daniel. It's also possible that Daniel is using an alternate dating system to refer to the one in 597. Ezekiel uses a dating system where nearly everything is now based on 597 as a pivotal year.

42 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Therefore, if you don't post your source, why should I. I know your source, COJ's book,

You are wrong. And you probably know that it's dishonest to claim that COJ is the source of the evidence that hurts the Watchtower's 1914 tradition. You would like to pretend that it's just one person's claims. Turns out it is every single scholar of Neo-Babylonian chronology. No exceptions! And it's clear that you don't want people to see that your OWN sources hurt the Watchtower's theories and traditions.

42 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

mine come from established scholars and historians.

All of these established scholars and historians of yours agree that 607 is a false date for the destruction of Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. All of them would put that year in either 587 or 586. There is no question about this any more because just as your own source "Exile and Return" says: 

"During the Neo-Babylon and Persian periods, the time of the Exile, Babylonia produced extraordinarily rich deposits of cuneiform texts, making it one of the very best documented epochs of ancient Mesopotamian history."

This is what dozens of others say about the ease with which the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology is reconstructed, year by year, king by king:

42 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

However, Nebuchadnezzar didn't need to take control of Palestine. Now you're trying to muddy the waters as usual.

I never ever said or even implied that he did. So who is trying to muddy the waters, as usual? The "projection" is still strong with you.

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

“Math is a subject as easy as pi”

I hoped you meant that "Math is a subject as e to the pi (e^πi)." Which, coincidentally, as a function of the number "e" produces a sine of the times. (especially  π times i ) So we've now come full circle back to the topic, and back to square one at the same time. [Get it? "square one"? Because i is the square root of -1]

But the best part of this is that you can resolve it all to e^πi = -1 which proves, in effect, that two wrongs can make a right. (Similar to a thing that F.W. "Time Parallels" Franz started to prove in 1944, when he finally accepted the proof that "1 minus -1 = 1" where two eras made an error.) More specifically, it can prove, as Euler did, that two irrationals (e and π) can make a rational (-1). But the devil is in the derivatives, as you implied in an earlier post.

And there has already been a post of unknown derivation that came close to this topic but never touched it.

I know we're just plane around in this space, but diversions are beside the point and that's where I draw the line. 🙄

21 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Historical Context of the Neirab Archive

As argued by I. Eph’al, deportation is the most likely hypothesis to explain the presence of a community of Syrian natives from Neirab in Babylonia.23 Their deportation could have taken place sometime towards the end of Nabopolassar’s (626–605 B.C.E.) or the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar II’s reign (605–562 B.C.E.).

This matches what the Babylonian Chronicles have said about Nebuchadnezzar tramping about in Hatti-land very early in his reign, and even near the end of his father Nabopolassar's reign. Some have wanted to say that Hatti-land included Palestine, but limiting it to Syria has always proved a better match. A parallel trip to Palestine/Judea at that same time is only a plausible assumption, and it is based partly on dates given in Daniel, which some have considered a reference to the first of FOUR Judean deportations. Historians only focus on the two deportations acknowledged by Babylonian sources.

Anyway, from what I have read, the Neirab archive is related to a Syrian settlement in Babylon. This new settlement reflected the old Syrian settlement which had been a center to the worship of the moon, "the god of Neirab."

I notice you avoided showing your source again. It was Exile and Return: The Babylonian Context edited by Jonathan Stökl, Caroline Waerzeggers. p.63.

21 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Passage 5 : from an inscription of Nebuchadnezzar (king of Babylon 605 – 562 bc). The passage is reproduced from H. C. Rawlinson and E. Norris, The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, vol. 1

Here, again without referencing your sources, you jump in this very next sentence to a completely different book and context: [Teach Yourself] Complete Babylonian: A Comprehensive Guide to Reading and Understanding ... by Martin Worthington.

Without saying why, you have highlighted the following by underlining it.

21 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Note how, in their efforts to use second-millennium grammar, the authors of the inscription put mimation on masculine plural nouns, where it does not belong (e.g. in line 14).

I love this stuff. It's pretty interesting to be able to watch language change over time. You see it in Hebrew, with the development of certain exceptions to the usual suffixes for masculine (-im) and feminine (-ot) noun plurals. And it's so interesting that the same types of changes in a language (morphology) will have parallels in many languages. (e.g., majuscule vowels in both Korean and Hebrew texts.) Although mimation and nunation technically refer to M and N case suffixes being added in Akkadian, similar things happen in Hebrew and Arabic too. You can look at old texts in Hebrew like the Dead Sea Scrolls and see the same texts from just a few hundred years later with contractions and abbreviations that reflect how language was spoken, and influences from other languages that had influenced speech. (Old English, for example, once had different case and gender endings for nouns and the accompanying adjectives. But these have been completely dropped, too.)

Wikipedia says:

In the later stages of Akkadian the mimation (word-final -m) - along with nunation (dual final "-n") - that occurs at the end of most case endings has disappeared, except in the locative. Later, the nominative and accusative singular of masculine nouns collapse to -u and in Neo-Babylonian most word-final short vowels are dropped. As a result, case differentiation disappeared from all forms except masculine plural nouns. However many texts continued the practice of writing the case endings (although often sporadically and incorrectly). As the most important contact language throughout this period was Aramaic, which itself lacks case distinctions, it is possible that Akkadian's loss of cases was an areal as well as phonological phenomenon.

The practice of Neo-Babylonians trying to use their own archaic language in a contemporary inscription to give it a more authoritative, religious or legalistic feel, sounds similar to the use of "King James" style language 400 years later. However, it's also possible that some of these might be explained by the fact that the difference in the interchange of use of the NI sign with the NIM sign, for example, could be based on various regional dialects which changed in both directions over time. It's also possible that Martin Worthington has made a mistake in picking this particular example, because masculine plurals kept their original case endings in both archaic Babylonian AND Neo-Babylonian.

Of course, what you highlighted has nothing to do with the 1914 doctrine, nor does it answer the question raised about Wiseman and Grayson, which I didn't expect you to answer.

It looks like you are diverting to a subject that Allen Smith argued with Ann Omaly several years ago. Something about how later historians spoke of a direct route over the desert ("a way of thirst"), and I I always wondered whether this would really have been any quicker than the long way around taking the "Crescent" route by the rivers. But I still haven't changed my mind on this. You don't know how long that one particular trip took, and neither do I. For me it makes no difference, because the only date that is used for the destruction of Jerusalem is called, in the Bible, Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year or his 19th year (no doubt based on the two different counting systems which we have often discussed.) A difference of a few weeks travel time way back near or before the official start of Nebuchadnezzar's reign is meaningless in the overall picture.

9 hours ago, César Chávez said:

It seems you are now trying to distance yourself from false claims you started with exactly those people mentioned.

No, not at all. The claims I made so far have been shown to be correct, not false.

9 hours ago, César Chávez said:

However, I don’t expect you to agree with the Watchtower as a conflicted witness. You haven’t for over seven years. Why start now.

Most everything the Watchtower teaches agrees with the Bible, therefore there is no conflict. I agree with almost every explanation, except for some problems with secondary interpretations of prophecy. The original, primary interpretations (fulfillments) are nearly always correct, in my opinion, but the Watchtower has had the most problems with trying to push for a secondary interpretation (a "larger" fulfillment) that is usually applied to Bible Students or Witnesses in more modern times, and these are ones we've most often had to drop or modify. And of course, we rely too much on secular chronology for the major prophecy about 1914. And then the WT finds that it must cherry pick which parts of the secular chronology it needs, and which parts to reject.

However, if the WT could show evidence that these explanations are correct and Biblical, I'd go back to those explanations immediately.

9 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Trying desperately to dismiss structured historical facts will never be discredited by one single person. People give themselves too much credit if they think they can.

The Watchtower does dismiss structured historical facts. And it's a shame because this is done for the purpose of creating a doctrine that appears to defy the counsel of Jesus and Paul about chronology. From what I can tell, if the Watchtower accepted structured historical facts about Neo-Babylonian archaeology, they could use these facts to help show how well it aligns with the Bible's record, the accuracy of Bible prophecy in Jeremiah, Daniel, and Zechariah, for example. And it would show that the Bible has more historical credibility than many unbelievers will give it credit for. But as persons who walk by faith, we personally shouldn't need to concern ourselves too much with either support or possible discrepancies with the secular record, because we shouldn't need to rely on the secular record to interpret prophecy. Yet the Watchtower relies on the secular record to come up with the 1914 date, doesn't it?

Paul said that "regarding chronology, brothers, we need nothing to be written to us."

(1 Thessalonians 5:1, 2) . . .Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night.

9 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Reasoning with historical facts the proper way is intellect. Carl Olof Jonsson is NOT intellectual or a scholar. He is a, disgruntle ex-witness that used the Babylonian chronicles deciphered by “Wiseman” and Grayson” to criticize the Watchtower’s chronology

Why is Carl Olof Jonsson so important to you? It doesn't matter in the least if this one person is right or wrong or intellectual or a scholar. The evidence against the Watchtower tradition on 1914 does not come from one man, it can come from any of the thousands of persons who have seen the overall picture from tens of thousands of Neo-Babylonian tablets. Every one of those dated tablets adds to our picture in support of the facts. Every one of them therefore detracts from the 1914 tradition.

9 hours ago, César Chávez said:

I recommend you divert your attention away from your friend COJ and do proper research. Right now, I can only see what TTH claims!

Carl Olof Jonsson is not my friend, and he never was. When I first knew about the "hot potato" manuscript at Bethel, I thought I might even be given an assignment to help counter it. I wasn't. But COJ himself was not my friend, except in the sense that he was, at the time, one of our Christian brothers. But I never spoke with him. Also, no one needs his research. You don't even need Wiseman and Grayson any more to decipher the chronicles. I think that there are now hundreds or even thousands of researchers and scholars who could do an adequate job. The fact that nearly all of them agree completely with COJ doesn't mean that COJ is important to this discussion. It just means that COJ discussed the same relevant evidence about the Neo-Babylonian chronology, just like all the others. And I'm sure you know that no one has found any evidence supporting the Watchtower's view of 607 yet. And every new piece of evidence continues to support the previous evidence and shows how foolish the Watchtower has been for trying to hang onto this 1914 tradition so long. And you can also see from various articles that the Watchtower has gone so far as to misrepresent the evidence instead of celebrating how this evidence supports the Bible.

So far, EVERY piece of Babylonian archaeological evidence HURTS 1914. None of it helps 1914. And there are literally TENS of THOUSANDS of relevant tablets. And I'm sure you know that the Watchtower Society is well aware of this, too.

In another post, I'll look into the references your are quoting from. For now I notice that you have not addressed my request about pointing out which corrections of Wiseman and Grayson you were referring to. And more importantly, whether those corrections have had any effect on the dating of Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year.

Also, I'm not sure why you bring up Nebuchadnezzar's speed between Babylon and Hatti-land. I don't care how long it took him, and don't see why anyone should care. Whatever year the Babylonians thought best to call his regnal year and his first year or his 18th or 19th year is fine with me. Let's say he didn't get back in time for the new year after his father died, or some similar quirk of fate. If he had become so important that they shaved off a year from his father's reign to start counting his own, then what difference does this make in the long run. Even if such a situation could potentially shift a date by a year, we already know which year was his 19th or 37th, just as well as we know Cyrus' 1st or 8th. So why fret over a difference of a couple weeks based on the speed of his horses or his traveling entourage?

Anyway, I said I'd wait and do this later, so I'll stop for now.

22 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Some scholars have updated their chronology, just like some scholars noticed the errors in "Wiseman" and "Grayson's" linguist interpretation. Even Grayson corrected his works. Why haven't you updated yours. Some of Wiseman's tablets were "reconstructed" but to what end? Meaning, having to add your own notches to complete an interpretation. To some, doing that is called guessing.

I guess I should respond to this point too, since you added "Some scholars have updated their chronology . . . Why haven't you updated yours?"

First of all I don't care about Wiseman and Grayson or your COJ references. I believe Jesus was right when he said chronology is in the jurisdiction of the Father, and that it does not belong to us to get to know the times and the seasons. Paul said that as for the times and seasons brothers you need nothing to be written to you.

So while I don't have any personal interest in even trying to see how a secular chronology might match the Bible, I am only concerned that we aren't getting overly concerned about certain specious claims that turn out to be untrue, and have already resulted in expectation postponed that makes the heart sick. One of our responsibilities as Christians is to encourage one another and build one another up. If false stories and genealogies are likely to end up disturbing our brothers in the long run, our obligation is to make sure of all things so that we can hold fast to what is fine.

To that end I've read some of Wiseman and Grayson and Delitzsch, etc. I've checked out several of the major books they've produced, especially to read parts on the Neo-Babylonian period. The NYPL allowed me to make hundreds of pages of photocopies of some of these books that are only allowed for reference. And, of course, these days it's easy just to take a smartphone snap every relevant page.

But I don't know why you think these particular adjustments are important. You didn't even say for sure which adjustments you were referring to. May I assume you didn't give details because it has absolutely no effect on the date for the destruction of Jerusalem. Most of the adjustments I know of in Wiseman and Grayson are about the Assyrian period: Assurnasurpal, Shalmaneser, etc. There have also been typos in Babylonian tablets, even by trained scribes of the time. And sometimes the typos might have been in an original that was not corrected when copied. And sometimes the scribes made a note when they were making a correction of a previous typo when copying. None of this surprises me.

But even a dozen corrections of the sort I've read about could never override the evidence of hundreds, even many thousands of tablets that give us the entire picture of the Neo-Babylonian period. Even if there were only 7 lines of independent evidence, you could prove that 3 of them were complete frauds, and it would still not overturn the remaining lines of independent evidence. For a long time, the Watchtower publications hinted that Ptolemy was wrong and therefore they can claim anything they want about how to cherry-pick dates for a chronology and reject others. This turned out to be a fantasy, because no one needs Ptolemy at all to understand the overwhelming evidence for the neo-Babylonian chronology.

For evidence of what I am saying, I'll just ask you to share how these supposed adjustments in Grayson and Wiseman would have any effect on the date for Nebuchadnezzar II's 18th and 19th year. If you are are anything like the predecessor accounts you have emulated, I'm sure you won't oblige.

Sorry. I was just pointing out the same thing that The Librarian pointed out. I just saw his post so I removed mine. Not that you could't fill one of those kegs with real beer, and not that Rutherford didn't have a reputation for drinking. (Homebrewers reuse these types of kegs all the time, but the root beer flavor is the hardest flavor to remove completely. You end up still tasting or smelling a bit of root beer with your beer, unless you go to a lot of trouble with all the little parts.)

My table head at Bethel disliked him, and included alcohol, smelly cigars and philandering among the habits that he "semi-accused" him of. But his primary complaint was that he would send out Bethelites to places where he thought they had the best chance of getting beat up or landing in jail.

On 12/20/2019 at 12:10 AM, César Chávez said:

I believe, the one that has a problem with the Watchtower implementation of 1914 is you here. I don't find the watchtowers' explanation difficult nor does it have an erred understanding.

I don't have any problem understanding it, or even seeing its "intellectual" appeal to those who still believe Jerusalem was destroyed around 607 BCE. It's not even difficult to explain, if you are willing to cut a few corners scripturally. The difficulty is not with the doctrine, which I believe is simply wrong, it's with resolving the contradictions between the 1914 tradition and the scriptures.

20 hours ago, César Chávez said:

My post simply demonstrate that the 2520 years has been around for a long time.

Yes, that's why I have often referred to this teaching as a long-standing tradition, a lofty, strongly entrenched thing.

(2 Corinthians 10:4, 5) . . .but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. ⁵ For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God. . .

20 hours ago, César Chávez said:

It was not an Adventist calculation made by “Miller” that JWinsider contends.

2520 was not an Adventist calculation. I never contended that it was "made" by Miller. Miller might have used terminology that made it appear that he came up with it himself, but I dealt with that kind of egotistical presentation earlier. Here's a site that contains a lot of quotes directly from Miller on the subject:

https://the2520.com/william_miller.htm

"I WILL NOW BRING FORWARD SOME PROPHECIES WHICH REMAIN TO BE FULFILLED, OR WHICH HAVE RECENTLY BEEN ACCOMPLISHED"

The editor of the site above takes that as evidence that Miller got there first:

William Miller was the first person in modern times to have discovered the 2520, below are some of his thoughts on the subject

It's true that Miller was fairly early among those who discussed 2520 from some potential 7 times prophecies. Maybe as early as 1818, about 10 years before the 1828 work of Faber that was quoted in the 1830 periodical you already referenced about Faber. (Your other quote was from Chamberlain around 1860, about the time Barbour was readjusting some of Miller's starting points for the 1260, 1290, 1335, etc.)

But if you read Barbour and Russell closely, you will notice that they make the same mistakes that Miller made, and they highlight the points with the same priorities as Miller and those who communicated with Miller. (For example, notice how closely the priorities of this work match Russell's by Miller's associate, Hiram Edson, as found in a series of articles from the Review and Herald, starting in January 3, 1856. The articles are called the Times of the Gentiles, and it matches several points that Russell uses in his 1876 article contributed to The Bible Examiner (published by George Storrs). The Times of the Gentiles by Hiram Edson 

Although it's not true of the more sophisticated (more scholarly) sources, Miller-related sources use Leviticus 26 as a more important source of the 7 times than Daniel 4, as did Miller and Edson. (And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.) This was also true of Barbour and Russell. Russell also admitted that the even better source for calculating 1914 would be "Israel's doubles" by which he meant the "parallel dispensations" that mapped the same number of years to fleshly Israel as to events for "spiritual" Israel. Hiram Edson used the same scriptures (like Isaiah 40:2) to "double" the 1260 to 2520.

Also, it's not true of the more scholarly sources (like Faber) to make a mistake with the zero year inclusion. Adventist sources that had been based on Miller and Barbour had made this mistake. The sitehttps://the2520.com/william_miller.htm includes this admission:

At the time William Miller wrote the above quotes, he did not understand the transition between B. C. and A. D.  Therefore his dates are off by one year at the beginning or the end of the his understanding of the 2520.  This was because of a simple mathematical error; in math, when we go from a negative number to a positive number zero will count as one position.  In chronological year dating, to go from B.C. to A. D. you have to add one to your total because there is no year zero.

20 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Russell didn’t use a “former” Adventist member, Barbour when Russell meet him as basis for Russell’s own calculation but used them as a historical fact.

Russell admitted in the Watch Tower that he pretty much just accepted Barbour's chronology lock, stock and barrel, or maybe I should say, "hook, line and sinker."

20 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Ex-witnesses and opposers alike accuse Russell of being and Adventist.

Russell admits that he was influenced by Adventists, and the influence is obvious. That doesn't mean he was an Adventist. But if you look closely at his doctrines, even more than just Barbour's chronology, he shows much more Adventist's influence than he appears to admit.

19 hours ago, César Chávez said:

I didn’t understand how conflicted some people are here to try to use disingenuous calculations to subvert the Watchtower understanding about the 2520 years and the 1914 completion of the gentile times.

The Watchtower theory on the 2520 evidently conflicts with the Bible, reason and logic, and also conflicts with the same secular support the Society depends upon for 539 BCE. You didn't even try to show that any calculations were disingenuous. And I'm only showing evidence that the calculations the Watchtower used about the 2520 contained a couple of obvious mistakes. I'm not claiming that Watchtower writers were necessarily disingenuous, even where they sometimes appear to be.

If the calculations I am showing are wrong, please show me where and I will correct them immediately.

19 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Especially when 11 years are added to 1260 when the Watchtower doesn’t subvert that calculation.

You seem confused. The Watchtower does not add 11 years to the 1260 days. The Watchtower adds 11 days, not years. It uses 1260 days+11 days=1271 days, to get from 12/28/1914 to 6/21/1918. The Watch Tower publications never turn them into years, as your own references have done. The Watchtower just keeps it in days, and never uses the supposed "day for a year" principle on the 1260 days.

19 hours ago, César Chávez said:

I am not sure by making an illustration of the 2520 prophecy now becomes contentious to those bent on using an erred calculation to demonstrate their own falsehood.

That sentence appears too convoluted. I'm guessing it's another attempt to insult something you can't defend, but you are not clear about what that is.

19 hours ago, César Chávez said:

That means, people are grasping at straws to substantiate their own conflicts with a well-established and recognized prophecy which is my point about these examples of the 2520 prophecy.

You used one example that had nothing to do with the seven times of Daniel 4. Later in the post you used an example from Walter Chamberlain that does reference Daniel 4, and does associate the 2520 with the Gentile Times, similar to Faber but with adjustments. You might even go on to J.A.Brown and a few others who worked with a 2520 prophecy ending not far from 1914. (Although J. A. Brown held the Gentile Times to 1260 years, not 2520).

But you might already know that Chamberlain, Campbell, Cuninghame, J.A.Brown, Elliott, Faber, Thomas, Miller, Barbour, and many others were never completely original. They all worked from, and added to, the ideas of persons who came before them. More recently, some scholars have tried to go back over the history of these "historicists" to understand their methods instead of just as defenders of their overall religious viewpoints. This has resulted in the uncovering of a common theme. Even B. W. Schulz noticed it in researching Watch Tower history. What they've noticed is that many of these persons wouldn't give credit to the person(s) from whom they were borrowing and plagiarizing. Persons like N.H.Barbour and E.G.White were even beginning to gain a status of "prophet," or dropping hints that they were the "faithful and wise servant," the channel through which persons needed to receive proper spiritual food.

Miller himself has been noted for a similar method of passing himself off as mostly just a self-taught farmer, yet he borrowed from persons before him without crediting them. B.W.Schulz defends the practice as common in those days. But it was extremely common among would-be Bible prognosticators. There is a well-researched, well-footnoted, 238-page paper on Academia.edu that says the same thing about Miller, that has been said about Barbour, White, and Russell. (https://www.academia.edu/1035050/_A_Feast_of_Reason_The_Roots_of_William_Miller_s_Biblical_Interpretation_and_its_influence_on_the_Seventh-day_Adventist_Church😞

p.205 says:

The view espoused by some Seventh-day Adventists that Miller’s Bible study was conducted in isolation and that his “Rules of Interpretation” were developed completely independently is unsustainable when the historical evidence is examined. Miller’s hermeneutics were in fact, not particularly original, innovative, or new—they bear, for example, a great similarity to the methods used by his contemporary Alexander Campbell.

p. 188 says:

Consequently, unlike Miller, White makes no systematic explanation of her principles of biblical interpretation. In fact, her most complete presentation on the topic is a simple reiteration of Miller’s views—some forty-four years after they were first

p. 105 even implies that Faber, who you quoted earlier, has been indirectly handed down through Miller and White.

White’s phrasing in these passages brings to mind Miller’s statement previously mentioned: .  .In fact, in reference to Miller, White explicitly makes use of such phrasing:. . . While it is unlikely that White read George Stanley Faber’s The Sacred Calendar of Prophecy, her use of these phrases clearly echoed that of Faber and other early historicists, as well as Miller himself.

You go on to quote "Isaiah's Call to England: being an exposition of Isaiah the eighteenth" by Walter CHAMBERLAIN. This work is a little more scholarly in that it mentions the position of Faber, Elliott, Thomas, etc, and you probably recognize more than a few similarities to J.A.Brown, and other earlier works.

Chamberlain's argument is similar to yours. He says (p.348) that these persons before him were wrong in many of the details and exact dates they used, but the very fact that several of them discussed the possibility of using a period of "7 times" as 2520 years, shows that there must be something to it. Therefore he went on to predict his own false alarm for the restoration of Israel within that same range of dates limited to 1864 up to 1914, because "end of Gentile Times" referred to the restoration of the physical nation of Israel in Jerusalem.

And these few examples only indicate that people had trouble making use the actual number that the Bible associated with the "Gentiles Times" and they were so anxious to prove themselves right that they ignored the counsel of Jesus. The evidence that these included examples of persons being blinded by their own egos is clear from some of the things that many of them said about themselves, and how so many didn't have the humility to credit their sources, but wanted credit for themselves.

Edited to add: If anyone cares to read the work (Anatolia) by Thomas that Chamberlain referenced, it's here: https://books.google.com/books?id=rCBcAAAAQAAJ  Chamberlain says " But I entertain no doubt that they can, and was agreeably surprised to find that this very thing has been done by an American author, named Thomas." I have seen phrases like this so often, that I have come to see them as code for: "This is one of the places I got the idea from, but even though he already wrote it first, I want people to think I found this on my own, and that this other person just happened to agree with me by coincidence. Even if it was many years before me."

11 hours ago, César Chávez said:

I believe I made it clear, that was just to show others concurring with the 2520 prophecy, not the erred timing.

But you did NOT show any others concurring with the 2520 prophecy. "The 2520 prophecy" according to the Watchtower, is the tree dream of Daniel 4, where the non-Jewish, wicked king Nebuchadnezzar represents the Jewish Kingdom at Jerusalem. Nebuchadnezzar is toppled, but banded and protected to rise again, so that his return to power represents Jesus' rise to power in 1914 as King of Jewish kingdom.

And it was not just the erred timing.

What you quoted and spoke of as "overwhelming proof" was about a man in 1830 who didn't even see these seven times as related to anything in Daniel 4. It had nothing to do with the 7 time periods of Nebuchadnezzar's insanity. He never hinted that this insanity pictured the Messianic Kingdom.*

But here's where you pulled another "Allen Smith." Allen Smith, you might remember, was well known on this forum for finding supposed evidence for something and not realizing that his evidence actually showed just the OPPOSITE of what he wanted to prove.

Here's how you did that here.

20 hours ago, César Chávez said:

What is indisputable, everyone that has calculated the “gentile times” has started with Nebuchadnezzar’s time period. They either, use his birth, his command, his reign or enthronement as a starting point. But the use the same time period.

11 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Everyone starts with Nebuchadnezzar ii.

What you apparently hadn't realized is that the article you quoted from shows why Mr. Faber was WRONG. Not only wrong, but wrong to start with Nebuchadnezzar. The article shows why the more popular and preferable period of 2,520 years needs to start, NOT WITH NEBUCHADNEZZAR, but with the Assyrian assault on Israel in 728 BC, as already presented by Cuninghame who, by this logic, would have mapped two 1260 year periods as follows:

Periods II to III above, were within 6 or 7 years of the same endpoints that Miller, Barbour and Russell accepted for the 1260-year period. Russell ran it from AD 539 to AD 1799. (sometimes AD 538 to 1798).

So what you called indisputable was disputed by your own reference. As you might recall, this is why I suspected that Allen Smith would rarely tell where he got his references from, because it so often led to someone reading that reference and seeing how it often demolished his supposed "indisputable" and "overwhelming" evidence. And Allen's common "defense" was to claim that persons were only using "word play" to prove him wrong.

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

If scripture stipulates 2 instances of 1260 and can be proven overwhelmingly, then one opinion doesn't matter.

That's true, if it can be proven.

But the Watchtower says that these two instances of 1260 refer to the same events, both the 1260 in Daniel and the 1260 in Revelation. As I said they go from about December 28, 1914 to about June 21, 1918. So both of them equal about 1,271 days. Nothing about years. And they overlap perfectly, so they are not back to back like the evidence you gave from Faber's failed prediction.

You accept the Watchtower's interpretation of 1914, right? So, why don't you accept the Watchtower's interpretation of the 1260 days? Is it because you believe that a different interpretation from the Watchtower has been proved overwhelmingly?

I've explained that my reasons are Biblical. I'm not comfortable with traditions that conflict with scripture. But it appears you prefer overwhelming proof from someone who was clearly wrong, and had no scriptural foundation for his belief. I'll summarize your overwhelming proof that you quoted from 1830:

1. The Bible indicates that the Gentile Times are 1,260 days in Revelation 11.
2. But if we turn those days into years, we can't find anything important that started at some point in the past and ended 1,260 years later close to our own generation.
3. But if we multiply that number by 2 we find we could get from an event in Nebuchadnezzar's lifetime to 1864.
4. Now we can even make an assumption about something that might have happened at the midpoint of those two periods of 1260 years.
5. Therefore, the Gentile Times will end in 1864.

I think the only thing that your Faber evidence got right by 1830 was the fact that he understood the correct way to handle the 0 year problem. 100 years later the Watchtower still hadn't resolved that particular mistake, but they did finally get the zero year right in 1943/4.

26 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

The bigger picture is outsiders understand the 2520 concept to be a real understanding of scripture. It doesn’t matter if people here believe it or not.

Not that the majority are always right anyway, but I think that hardly any Bible scholars understand the "2520 concept" to be scriptural. I just looked up 10 online commentaries on Daniel 4 and NONE of them considered the number 2520. The number 2520 is not found in the Bible. Extrapolating 2520 days from 7 times is already a stretch, and turning those days to solar years is another stretch. Even this word iddan (time) that Daniel uses, just means a time period, which CAN be a year, but not always specifically a year. In fact, how long is this period in Dan 7:12? (below)

These verses represent the majority of the uses of iddan in Daniel outside Daniel 4, itself:

(Daniel 2:8, 9) . . .The king replied: “I am well-aware that you are trying to gain time [the time, iddan], for you realize what my final word is. 9 If you do not make the dream known to me, there is only one penalty for all of you. But you have agreed to tell me something false and deceitful until the situation [the time, iddan] changes. So tell me the dream, and I will know that you can explain its interpretation.”

(Daniel 2:20, 21) . . .“Let the name of God be praised for all eternity, For wisdom and mightiness are his alone. 21 He changes times [the times, iddan] and seasons, Removes kings and sets up kings,. . .

(Daniel 3:15) Now when [at the time, iddan] you hear the sound of the horn, the pipe, the zither, the triangular harp, the stringed instrument, the bagpipe, and all the other musical instruments, if you are ready to fall down and worship the image that I have made, fine.. . .

(Daniel 7:12) But as for the rest of the beasts, their rulerships were taken away, and their lives were prolonged for a time [time, iddan] and a season.

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

It doesn’t matter that people that support people here out of their own misconceptions in agreeing with people that don’t understand, becomes inconsequential.

At least I can inconsequentially agree with you there.

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Again, this number of three times, (or years) and a half, is always commenced in Scripture, not at the commencement of the present vision of the great image, but about the middle of its history. The conclusion is therefore very natural and probable, that the period of the continuance of the present vision, from its rise to its termination, containing within It, as it does, the entire history of the four great empires, is seven times, or 2520 years, being twice the three times and a half, or 1260 years.

Your quote from "The Christian Guardian" (February 1830) reports on Mr. Faber's interpretation of prophecy, and reminds me of what we spoke of earlier on these topics: that people will always look for a time period long enough to reach their own day. In the 1200's, people could easily reach their own day with a 1260 year period. In the 1400's one could always take a 1335 year period and tack it on to some event in Jesus' life. But when the 1800's rolled around, there were no 1800 year periods. They could start looking for events 2300 years earlier and even more, but that ended up nowhere. During these years Miller, among others, was forced to use a 2520 year period, never found in the Bible. So in the 1830's Miller had to use conjecture to attach a 2520 year period to attach to some event about Babylon from the book of Daniel.

The full context of your quote is here. https://books.google.com/books?id=Rg8EAAAAQAAJ  (p.41,42)  As you partly indicate, the person behind your 1830 quote above did something quite similar, doubling the 1260 year periods, for no other reason other than he thought that 3.5 seemed like it needed to be doubled since it was half of 7. Then he attaches that 2520 to a Daniel reference, in this case Nebuchadnezzar, the head of gold -- and he used his birth year, assumed to be about 657 BC. This was a means of reaching his own modern times, and therefore was able to falsely predict 1864 as the end of the gentile times.

But I don't know how impressed we should be that a person was able to make another false prediction for his own generation. Here's what the Watchtower said about such false alarms:

*** w53 11/1 p. 647 Christ’s Second Presence No False Alarm ***
Following Augustine’s time . . .  all were misinterpreted as “signs” foretelling the imminent return of Christ. Joachin of Floris determined that the 1,260 days mentioned in Revelation 12:6 could turn out to be the year A.D. 1260 when Christ would return. Militz of Kromeriz, a forerunner of John Huss, looked for the coming of Christ between the years 1365 and 1367. Wycliffe pointed to the power of the papacy and emphasized that the time of the return was at hand. John Napier predicted the coming end of evil and the return of Christ between the years 1688 and 1700. William Whiston first selected 1715, then 1734, and later 1866 as the date for the inauguration of the millennium.
In the early part of the nineteenth century Christoph Hoffman hurried from Germany to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple in preparation for Christ’s early return. William Miller predicted that Christ would make his appearance during the year 1843, but later postponed the day to October 22, 1844. When these speculations did not materialize, religious sects became a laughingstock, great divisions took place among them, the doctrine was scoffed at, the people who taught it were jeered, and as a whole the idea was pooh-poohed in religious and nonreligious circles alike. All, without exception, were false alarms.

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

What matters, how God made it known to humanity.

It looks like God didn't make it known, except to make it known that the attempt is a waste of time, false stories leading to nothing. These mistakes are just examples of humans "flailing" because men's egos make them forget what Jesus said about the times and seasons being only in the Father's jurisdiction. Not even angels could figure out the times and seasons, but this didn't stop men from treading there.

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Therefore, it doesn’t matter who calculated what for what time period. The period that God provided by physical evidence becomes the prevailing evidence for humanity.

If God had provided the evidence, surely these men including Russell and Barbour and Miller and Faber and Rutherford would have been able to predict something correct with that evidence. 100 percent of Russell's predictions for 1914 turned out to be false.

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

People can continue to reject the other 1260. That is the evidence provided here.

The evidence you provided here was that the first period of 1260 years ended in AD 604., in the time of Pope Gregory the Great, and the spread of Buddhism, etc., in the medieval period. The second period of 1260 was also to have started around this time. The Watchtower Society rejects both of these 1260's, too. For the WTS the 1260 periods from Daniel and Revelation are not even years, they are literal days starting just about 3 days after Christmas in 1914 and reaching up to the Summer Solstice of 1918.

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Opinions don’t matter. Approval of disingenuous people toward each other doesn’t matter. What matters, who is faithful to God, and who will heed his signs.

Good! Something else I can agree with completely.

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

What is indisputable, everyone that has calculated the “gentile times” has started with Nebuchadnezzar’s time period. They either, use his birth, his command, his reign or enthronement as a starting point. But the use the same time period.

Very false! Complete nonsense. It is very rare that anyone calculates the Gentile Times with a period of 2520. After all, Revelation indicates that it should be calculated with a period of 42 months, or 1260 days. And nowhere does it say that this period is about 1260 years.

(Luke 21:24) . . .into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.

(Revelation 11:2) . . .to the nations, and they will trample the holy city underfoot for 42 months.

Nowhere do these two references to the Gentile Times refer to a second period of 1260 days, just one. Also, we can see from Jesus said in Luke 21, that these Gentile Times had NOT yet started, so it couldn't have reached back to Nebuchadnezzar anyway.

2 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Either you get it ....... or you don't.

Very true! . . . . . But I don't get it.

49 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

The teachings on the Trinity and Hell etc, are from God's word, not from the Soc / W/t / GB / JW Org. I see no reason to pat the Org on the back for believing what God tells us in His written word. 

Maybe. But like I said, I would not be comfortable in an association that got involved in divisive politics and war either, and I think we're right on the idea of a paradise earth. Find me another church with approximately the same teachings and practices JWs have on war, politics, trinity and hell, and a future paradise on earth, and I will visit it with an open mind.

49 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

But unfortunately I have seen the shunning of people, and the looking down on people when they re-enter the hall. 

Shunning is a bit like what Jesus said regarding divorce. Even though it came from the perfect law of God, Jesus said it was just a concession that came from Moses out of regard for human hard-heartedness. We all have a lot to learn about love, but this doesn't mean we associate so freely with just anyone, either.

49 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

So, i haven't seen this love you talk of.

I can find it at almost any meeting, especially visible at the very largest of our conventions, but I also can see it from afar when I happen to drive near a group of Witnesses working a local suburban territory. I can wave and see all smiles, no matter what kind of a day they are having.  I have even run across Witnesses in Paris and other places and can get the same reaction. Yes, up to a point this is at least partly true of many clubs, associations, and even other religious groups. But I know what is driving that smile among Witnesses, and I like it.

49 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

Even the ministry here in southern England, i found that congregants were not even keen to go out.

Not all congregations have the same level of joy, love, "spirit" etc. Revelation 2 & 3 lets us know that this shouldn't be surprising.

Speaking of southern England, I was using a flight simulator just last night and took off out of London over satellite-imaged terrain to see if I could keep a purely visual course from Gatwick to Paris just by guessing when to adjust slightly over a SSE direction. I just watched the compass, and altitude, and crossed the Channel from Eastbourne to Dieppe to Paris. Did OK, but then I thought of "you" and turned around to see if I could find a house I thought you and your wife were working on, which I had found a year ago from satellite imagery and some Google help. Even at 400 mph it was going to take too long, and when I got closer I switched to a slow prop plane to get a better look at the ground. This time I couldn't find that house from memory, although I'd recognize the area from a few thousand feet.

Now it turns out you are in "southern England" a whole new spot no doubt.from the place I thought you were at. 😉

2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

My thinking here is that if the GB / JW Org are not getting things quite right, and if we need to keep on the watch about ourselves, then do we truly need to be a JW ?  Is there any scripture that relates to saying, we must be one of Jehovah's Witnesses to gain either spiritual blessings and/or salvation ?

Obviously we must be witnesses for Jehovah and Jesus. We would do this out of appreciation for what Jehovah has done for us, especially his purpose and kingdom through Jesus. No matter who we associated with, we would have to watch out for ourselves, and pay attention to our teaching, too. There are many churches, and all of them have problems from traditions and human leadership. Problems of an obsolete chronology are more common in the history of churches than you might think, too.

Perhaps, like TTH said, the "carrot and stick" of a chronology that gets us motivated at first is not a terrible thing, as long as we start serving for the right motivation.

I will still go back to how, if we are honest hearted Christians, we will be attracted to association with groups of Christians or wannabe Christians who try very hard to maintain a brotherhood that is marked by love for one another, who attempt to overcome national, political and racial divides. There are many imperfections and exceptions, but I see this in the brotherhood of Witnesses, much more often than not. Then I would personally only be attracted to a Christian association that speaks out against wars and warmongering. Who will not go to battle against another nation, especially because we have Christian brothers in those other nations too. I happen to think that our teachings on Trinity, Hell, Paradise in a New Earth, etc., are far more important than a chronology tradition we have been stuck with. It's about the same to me as if we were told that all our Kingdom Halls should have 4 windows and a light blue carpet. Maybe we'd be stuck with such a dumb rule for 100 years, but I couldn't care less about it. It would not be important to me, no matter how authoritative the demand to follow that rule sounded. Perhaps someone might even find scriptures that made it seem important, too. I could safely ignore it without feeling conflicted, and I could safely go along with it in the congregation itself, so as not to cause trouble. But then again I might find an outlet where I could safely speak my mind if I thought it went beyond the things written.

I believe that most Witnesses will seem frustrated that they are not able to defend the Watchtower's chronology on either secular grounds or scriptural grounds. I was surprised at this situation, but didn't have to go through a frustration phase, because my expectations were managed when Brother Dan Sydlik said that we ought to just get rid of all this chronology stuff and start from scratch. (He was specifically referring to the 1918/1919/1922 stuff at the time.) From a human perspective, a fleshly perspective, the Watchtower's chronology makes us feel good. As Brother Splane said, it might even send chills up and down our spine. But he admitted that this does not always mean that that such teachings (and I include this chronology) have been right. He indicated in his 2014 talk on types and antitypes that the Watchtower had been steeped in the traditions common to Catholicism, Protestantism, and especially those religions from whom the Bible Students had been recently associated. He spoke of how some of these traditions had been used by other religions to make the Bible appear to be talking about themselves and their own groups. He spoke of how the pyramidology that Russell promoted had become a strongly entrenched thing, with a strong emotional attachment to at least one brother (A. Smith, was the name he used in his example.)

Yet, over time, the Watchtower has dropped almost every date that Russell promoted, literally about a dozen such dates, with the exception of 1914. Since then the Watchtower has dropped another half-dozen prophetic instances that had been tied to the 1914 through 1935 era. Obviously, we had been steeped in long-standing traditions, some of which the Watchtower held for 120 years or more before dropping them. Some, like pyramidology, held for only about half a century, was finally identified as something raised up against the knowledge of God:

(2 Corinthians 10:3-5) . . .For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare according to what we are in the flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. 5 For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, . . .

(Mark 7:7). . .they teach commands of men as doctrines.’ 8 You let go of the commandment of God and cling to the tradition of men.”

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

So what does one look for when keeping 'on the watch' ?

(2 Peter 3:11, 12, 17) 11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought YOU to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 awaiting and keeping close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah,.  . . .YOU, therefore, beloved ones, having this advance knowledge, be on YOUR guard [i.e., watch] that YOU may not be led away with them by the error of the law-defying people and fall from YOUR own steadfastness.

We don't watch for signs. We watch out for ourselves, we watch out for false teachings, we watch out for our brothers and sisters in case they need help or encouragement -- because the days are wicked, because the Devil walks about like a roaring lion seeking to devour someone.

(Matthew 12:38, 39) 38 Then as an answer to him, some of the scribes and the Pharisees said: “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.” 39 In reply he said to them: “A wicked and adulterous generation keeps on seeking a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Joʹnah the prophet.

(Matthew 16:3-6) . . .’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but the signs of the times you cannot interpret. 4 A wicked and adulterous generation keeps seeking a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Joʹnah.” With that he went away, leaving them behind. 5 Now the disciples crossed to the other side and forgot to take bread along. 6 Jesus said to them: “Keep your eyes open and watch out for the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

(Matthew 24:42-44) 42 Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. 43 “But know one thing: If the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it.

We keep on the watch, not to figure out when the Lord is coming, because we'll never know. But if we watch ourselves (our conduct) then we will be ready at all times and the "night" won't overtake us.

Just like when Jesus told the disciples that they would not get an advance sign of the parousia (so that they should not be fooled by wars and earthquakes) he said something very similar to the Pharisees.

(Luke 17:20-24) . . .On being asked by the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God was coming, he answered them: “The Kingdom of God is not coming with striking observableness; 21 nor will people say, ‘See here!’ or, ‘There!’ For look! the Kingdom of God is in your midst.” 22 Then he said to the disciples: “Days will come when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, but you will not see it. 23 And people will say to you, ‘See there!’ or, ‘See here!’ Do not go out or chase after them. 24 For just as lightning flashes from one part of heaven to another part of heaven, so the Son of man will be in his day.

The NWT makes it a bit difficult to get the sense of "striking observableness." This is because the Greek is better translated just "observableness." (μετά παρατηρήσεως, in such a manner that it can be watched with the eyes). Jesus said, the Kingdom of God is not coming with things you can observe. In other words, the Kingdom is not coming with visible signs. Other translations get the sense of the Greek a little better like this:

(Revised Standard) he answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; (Luke 17:20)

(NASB) He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; (Luke 17:20)

(New English Translation) so he answered, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, (Luke 17:20)

(New Living Translation) Jesus replied, “The Kingdom of God can’t be detected by visible signs. (Luke 17:20)

So when Jesus' disciples also asked him for a sign, he said do not to be misled. No one would be able to say "see here" or "see there" because when the parousia did come it would be be like lightning flashing from one part of the heaven to another. No sign would appear in the heaven when it was too late. No signs could help them prepare for the Son of man in his day.

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

But one would not be disfellowshipped for leaving one’s husband, whether he was violent or not.

I believe I have already related the case of my own sister, 5 years younger than me, who was disfellowshipped for leaving a violent husband. He was a ministerial servant when I was at Bethel, and he hit her fairly often. She went to my father (an elder) who gave her the usual counsel about more study, more prayer, more field service. This was frustrating to her because she was already a full time pioneer and praying more than ever.

Her breaking point came when elders, including my father, told her she couldn't go to the hospital because they might ask her how it happened and this would bring reproach on Jehovah's organization. And she couldn't lie. She was told she should hide her bruises and cuts as well as she could. All the while he remained a ministerial servant. I called him from Bethel and threatened to beat him up if he laid a hand on my sister again. I expected a meeting with elders who would want to talk with me after I made a violent threat, but nothing came of it.

Long story short, my sister had her meeting with the elders, and she wanted to separate from her husband. Although this should have been allowed the elders were still adamant that this, too, would bring reproach. She insisted she would ignore their counsel, and that she would even try to get a divorce, so they formed a judicial committee from which my father had to recuse himself. She had not asked for a divorce, but this would be considered both unscriptural and bring additional reproach. In her mind, she should obtain a divorce, even if she wasn't thinking about remarriage. As long as she didn't commit adultery or remarry, (which would be the same as adultery) she thought a divorce was a stronger, more legally binding version of a separation, which would have been allowed (or at least should have been allowed).

Basically, she was disfellowshipped for defying the counsel of the elders, who were "only trying to avoid bringing reproach on the congregation." (To her they accused her of "bringing reproach on the marriage bed.") The circuit overseer agreed with them, and she remained df'd for a while. The circuit overseer also had her husband lose his "status" as a ministerial servant, and I think this lasted more than a year before he was reappointed, and later became an elder.

This was around 1978, when most elders had little experience, and there was a lot of patriarchal dominance in some of the midwest congregations like this one. Also, my sister was not really made aware of any appeal process. Now the information about the appeal is part of the process. Training in such matters is a little different today, and I certainly do not think this would happen again in any congregations I know about.

12 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Something that has been said here for over 7 years. No conflicted witness will understand what is before them. They have already made up their minds, not to view prophecy as indicated in scripture by staying alert and keeping on the watch.

6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Yes it would be evident to those that are not conflicted, that 1914 plays a prominent role in prophecy.

Whenever we see conflicts and contradictions, there is no need to feel conflicted. We can merely accept that the Bible makes sense a certain way that might be true, and that other explanations might also be true. For example, we can accept a new Watchtower doctrine when it changes, without needing to feel conflicted, just because we are now aware that we have held two different interpretations for the same verse. The Writing Department uses Bible commentaries like Matthew Henry, Barnes Notes, Keil and Delitzsch, etc., and these commentaries offer various possible explanations for difficult verses. But they are rarely dogmatic and each of them may offer various potential explanations. This is how a Bible commentary published about 314 years ago (Matthew Henry) has been able to remain relevant and valuable for these three centuries.

Most Witnesses have found no outlet to safely discuss these conflicts and contradictions between the Bible statements and the Watchtower doctrines. So it is difficult to tell if they actually feel conflicted. But with a less dogmatic attitude toward certain types of conjectural doctrines, there is no reason that they MUST feel conflicted. As you say, perhaps, "conflicted Witnesses" have already made up their minds, not to view prophecy as indicated in scripture by staying alert and keeping on the watch. If so, that's too bad, because it was the whole purpose of Jesus telling us not to be misled by wars and reports of wars, for example. If people think there will be various "signs" that show when the Great Tribulation is near, they will be less likely to truly keep on the watch, and less likely to watch their own conduct and attitude and what sort of persons they ought to be.

This is one of the problems with 1914 playing a prominent role in prophecy. The very role it most likely plays, in my opinion, is that it became a primary instance of proving Jesus right. He said not to be fooled by wars into thinking that the parousia was imminent. I believe that this prophecy has come true, not just in 1914, but in many wars over the past hundreds of years. People hear about wars, earthquakes, pestilence, famine, persecution, imprisonments, etc., and are easily misled into thinking they are seeing a sign of the parousia.

6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

The fact that misinterpretation continues to play a role to argue against 1914 when, others have agreed with 1914 along with their own narratives of the 2520 calculation to further their studies only shows the unwillingness of those not understanding prophecy will go to great lengths to discredit a sound calculation.

Misinterpretation and miscalculation and a need to rely on SECULAR dates have ALWAYS played a large role in the 1914 doctrine. When the doctrine was originally formulated, Barbour and Russell incorrectly thought Cyrus released the Jews in 536 BCE. This idea had forced the theory that the destruction of Jerusalem had to be moved to 606 BCE, and this left no room to build in much time for the Jews to pack and travel. Barbour had based this 536 date on "Ptolemy's Canon" -- he thought. When Russell published Three Worlds with Barbour, that publication stated that Ptolemy was accepted as accurate by all the scientific and literary world. But when Russell discovered that Ptolemy's Canon actually gives 538 for the first year of Cyrus and 587 for the destruction of Jerusalem using the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar, then Russell began attacking this king list. He attacked Ptolemy too, because he also incorrectly thought that Ptolemy was the originator of Ptolemy's Canon (king list).

Then Russell, apparently not being completely honest, or at least being very sloppy, claimed that "ALL" students of chronology may be said to be agreed that the first year of Cyrus was 536. He had misunderstood that Bible chronologists like Isaac Newton and Bishop Ussher were not using Ptolemy's Canon here, but just using a Bible interpretation to try to fit Jeremiah's 70 years from Nebuchadnezzar's first year to Cyrus 1st year. The Canon had given 604 to 538 for the period, which is really only 66 years, shy by 4 years. But the Bible seemed to put Darius the Mede in there for a year or two before Cyrus first year. So that's why Ussher (and some others) guessed that it couldn't really be 538 but two years later, 536, adjusting the Canon by two years to allow for the book of Daniel. Since that only got them 2 of the extra 4 years, they also moved Nebuchadnezzar's first year back from 604 to 606. Unfortunately for Russell and Barbour, and for others who had relied on works by Ussher, thousands of tablets had been discovered that showed that Ptolemy's Canon was exactly correct all along. This meant that sooner or later they would recognize that the real date was 587 for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year (destruction of Jerusalem) and 538 for Cyrus 1st year. There was no admission by Barbour and Russell in their early publications that they had slipped Nebuchadnezzar's 18/19th year (destruction of Jerusalem) into the date that had actually been intended in the scholarly literature as the year Nebuchadnezzar first came to power (0th year to 1st regnal year).

Of course, Russell did discuss in a Watch Tower whether there had been a zero year, and dismissed the correct answer because it would have moved the 1914 date to 1915. Russell began using the 1915 date in place of 1914, especially when he surmised that it was not likely that everything he had expected still had enough time to happen. For a few months from late 1913 to early 1914 Russell twice discussed the possibility that the entire chronology had been wrong and that people might look back with interest on it 100 years from now (which would have been 2014).

When 1914 coincided with WWI, however, Russell never had to think about the zero year question again, and 1914 was used consistently rather than 1915 for the end of the Gentile Times. And so Russell never had to admit he had been wrong. Later, the Watchtower went back again to speaking of 1915 being the end of the Gentile Times, realizing that 1914 had failed to result in anything yet predicted for that year. But that didn't last long.

When Watchtower publications finally admitted they had been wrong about the zero year, it was 1943/1944, and the solution was to move back the destruction of Jerusalem from 606 to 607. By 1944 it was too late to move 1914 to 1915, and there was never any evidence for either 606 or 607, anyway. It was 587/586 all along, so sticking with 606 was neither here nor there.

But P.S.L.Johnson, who worked with Russell, had already noticed during Russell's lifetime that Cyrus' first year was actually 538, something we know today, but Russell still didn't want to accept. P.S.L.Johnson said he checked a dozen encyclopedias, and all of them said 538. (So much for Russell's claim that ALL students of chronology had said 536!)

In 1944, the Watchtower finally compromised by one of those two years towards Ptolemy's Canon, and used 537. Then finally in 1949, the Watchtower admitted that Cyrus first year was actually 538, the date that Ptolemy's Canon had indicated all along. This meant that we now had to explain a two year adjustment. The solution was to speculate that Cyrus decree had been near the end of his first year, and that it took well into the next year for the Jews to pack and travel and resettle.

That fixed one of the two adjusted years, and this was the actual time when the zero year problem was admitted, that provided the other adjusted year, when 606 was changed to 607. This way 1914 could remain intact, no matter what mistakes had to be readjusted from previous history.

That's me in the picture:😉

I called in a favor and asked the Society to reduce my competition by running the following statement in the Watchtower:

*** w18 April p. 30 par. 2 Questions From Readers ***
Others have used material from our publications or our jw.org logo in advertisements, on products offered for sale, and in mobile device apps. By securing copyright and trademark protection, we have a legal basis to prevent such misuse. (Prov. 27:12) But if we knowingly allow people, even our brothers, to post our digital content on other sites or to use the jw.org trademark to sell merchandise, the courts may not support our efforts to deter opposers and commercial enterprises.

For non-JWs I also have a line of engraved plaques with some excellent engraved pictures around the edges. They say:

"Thou shalt not make any graven images."

Oh, and I also sell laminated copies of the April 2018 Question From Readers, quoted above.

26 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

So, are the Apostles / disciples to 'rest a little while longer' even now ? In fact right up until the last of the Anointed has proven faithful. And if so is the Watchtower / GB / Org, going against the things written by suggesting that the Apostles have already been resurrected in the spirit form and are now in heaven with Christ ?

This is exactly the point made in Revelation, but it also matches what Paul says in 1 Cor 15 and 1 & 2 Thess, which matches Matthew 13. This is the explanation that causes no inconsistencies. Unfortunately the 1914 doctrine causes many inconsistencies in my opinion. Perhaps I'll write up a longer answer later, but I think your question could be further answered by just reviewing a couple of those other Bible passages that are related:

Some people in Paul's day were getting over-anxious about the timing of the parousia, and he had to remind them that this could be a ways off. If the Watchtower is right, Paul could have said, it can't happen yet, because Jesus is not even ruling as King yet!

But instead,

(2 Thessalonians 2:1-8) . . .However, brothers, concerning the presence [parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here. 3 Let no one lead you astray in any way, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction. 4 He stands in opposition and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he sits down in the temple of God, publicly showing himself to be a god. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you, I used to tell you these things? 6 And now you know what is acting as a restraint, so that he will be revealed in his own due time. 7 True, the mystery of this lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who is right now acting as a restraint is out of the way. 8 Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence.

(1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:2) . . .Moreover, brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who are sleeping in death, so that you may not sorrow as the rest do who have no hope. 14 For if we have faith that Jesus died and rose again, so too God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep in death through Jesus. 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. 17 Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we will always be with the Lord. 18 So keep comforting one another with these words. 5 Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night.

First of all notice that the parousia is the same as the day of the Lord (Jehovah) in the 2 Thess 2. But also note that at the trumpet's call they all go together at the same time. This trumpet call is associated with a time that the Watchtower now admits to be future when it is mentioned here:

(Matthew 24:30, 31) . . ., and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity.

(Matthew 13:39-41,44) . . .The harvest is a conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are angels. 40 Therefore, just as the weeds are collected and burned with fire, so it will be in the conclusion of the system of things. 41 The Son of man will send his angels, and they will collect out from his Kingdom . . . At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father.

Notice too the verses already quoted above from 1 Cor 15:23-27;50-52. We can already see problems with 1914. Notice that Paul writing in the first century gives an overview of the major events of the kingdom, that include those expected in the future.  

1. Christ is resurrected.
2. Then those belong to Christ (anointed) are resurrected "at the parousia."
3. Then the "end" when he hands the Kingdom back to his Father (Jehovah), after he has completely brought to nothing all governments and power and even Death, the last enemy, has also been brought to nothing. (In Revelation this is the same as saying that Death has been completely destroyed, "tossed into the lake of fire.")

Notice anything missing in this sequence? Even if it were OK to translate "at the parousia" as "during his presence" we notice that this taking the reins of the Kingship is NOT considered an important event in the sequence.

And it's pretty obvious why. It's because Paul assumes that Jesus Christ is already reigning, (1 Cor 15:25) and already reigning in the midst of his enemies, and already beginning to show his power over those enemies by accepting "subjects" into the Kingdom who are already under his command, accepting that Jesus has already been given ALL AUTHORITY. So why would Jesus need to be declared King at some later point if he was already given all authority, and was already commanding his subjects?

(Matthew 28:18-20) . . .Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.”

(Jesus also declared that his "presence" had already begun: "I am with you." Also, if the conclusion began in 1914, Jesus would only be with them until 1914.)

There's another instance of this idea that showed up in one of the Watchtower quotes above:

*** w98 2/1 p. 17 pars. 18-19 Greater Blessings Through the New Covenant ***
Then Daniel saw that “the holy ones took possession of the kingdom itself.” Jesus is the one “like a son of man” who, in 1914, received the heavenly Kingdom from Jehovah God. His spirit-anointed disciples are “the holy ones” who share with him in that Kingdom. (1 Thessalonians 2:12)

The Watchtower quoted 1 Thess 2:12 to indicate that this starts in 1914, but Paul wrote 1 Thess in the first century and indicated that it was ALREADY begun.

(1 Thessalonians 2:12) 12 so that you would go on walking worthily of God, who is calling you to his Kingdom and glory.

4 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

What is the teaching / belief of the Watchtower / JW Org in that respect. Do they believe / teach that the Heavenly Kingdom was set up in 1914 ?

Yes. Basically. I'm not trying to get too technical here, but the Heavenly Kingdom has been a part of Jehovah's heavenly organization from "time indefinite." This is why you will more often see the idea worded like this:

*** w09 4/15 p. 30 par. 10 Appreciating Jesus—The Greater David and the Greater Solomon ***
. . . in 1914 when he was enthroned as King in the heavenly Kingdom.

*** w05 5/1 p. 11 par. 14 The Resurrection—A Teaching That Affects You ***
In 1914, Jehovah enthroned Jesus as Messianic King of the heavenly Kingdom and commanded him to rule in the midst of his enemies

*** w00 5/15 p. 17 par. 10 Have Faith in God’s Prophetic Word! ***
When “the appointed times of the nations” ended in 1914, God established the heavenly Kingdom under Christ.

So, technically, Jesus became the King of a Heavenly Kingdom that had been there all along. It was now set up or established under Christ. This is why he is said to hand it back to the his God and Father when the "mission" is accomplished. (1 Cor 15:24, below)

(1 Corinthians 15:23-27) 23 But each one in his own proper order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the Christ during his presence. [literally, at his parousia] 24 Next, the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing. 27 For God “subjected all things under his feet.”. .

But the expressions "the Messianic/Davidic Kingdom" and the "Heavenly Kingdom" have at times, especially in the past, been carefully distinguished, but it is now simpler, and we often say "the heavenly kingdom was 'established' in 1914" which is the same as saying it was "set up" then. In fact, it was really only supposed to be "set up" in a new and different way starting in 1914, where Jehovah entrusted Christ to rule from his right hand, and go on conquering, first by proving his power over the Devil by casting him out of heaven, gathering a congregation of loyal subjects, commanding those subjects to go preaching, declaring that the "lease" of power that had been given to the nations had now run out, etc

4 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

And, if the Kingdom was not set up in 1914, but was established in the first century, then presumably Jesus was reigning as King in heaven at that time. If so, were the apostles / disciples resurrected to heaven immediately on their dying as humans ?  

That's a good question. But it appears that they must wait until the resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous.

(Revelation 6:9-11) . . .When he opened the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those slaughtered because of the word of God and because of the witness they had given. 10 They shouted with a loud voice, saying: “Until when, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, are you refraining from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11 And a white robe was given to each of them, and they were told to rest a little while longer, until the number was filled of their fellow slaves and their brothers who were about to be killed as they had been.

As for the resurrection of the righteous:

(Matthew 13:41-43) 41 The Son of man will send his angels, and they will collect out from his Kingdom all things that cause stumbling and people who practice lawlessness, 42 and they will pitch them into the fiery furnace. There is where their weeping and the gnashing of their teeth will be. 43 At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father. . .

The Watchtower used to say that this resurrection started in 1918, but inconsistently, the words "at that time" are now applied to a future time associated with the "great tribulation." The Watchtower still allows that this first resurrection of those anointed already sleeping in death would likely have happened between 1914 and 1935, with 1918 still being "an interesting possibility" 

*** w07 1/1 p. 28 par. 12 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***
Jesus Christ was anointed as the future King of God’s Kingdom in the fall of 29 C.E. Three and a half years later, in the spring of 33 C.E., he was resurrected as a mighty spirit person. Could it, then, be reasoned that since Jesus was enthroned in the fall of 1914, the resurrection of his faithful anointed followers began three and a half years later, in the spring of 1918? That is an interesting possibility. Although this cannot be directly confirmed in the Bible, it is not out of harmony with other scriptures that indicate that the first resurrection got under way soon after Christ’s presence began.

This 1918 date had been taught as a definite thing, for many years, but it was really just a leftover piece of the tradition about "parallel dispensations." In the earlier version of this parallel dispensation, there were 3.5 year segments from Oct 1844 to Passover/Spring 1878 to October 1881. (Jesus had been raised in the spring of 33, 3.5 years after he became Christ in 29 C.E.) This had been updated to October 1914 +3.5= Spring 1918, a parallel time for a resurrection. Since there is no Biblical basis for parallel dispensations, this had to be dropped to only "an interesting possibility."

*** w98 2/1 p. 17 pars. 18-19 Greater Blessings Through the New Covenant ***
Then Daniel saw that “the holy ones took possession of the kingdom itself.” Jesus is the one “like a son of man” who, in 1914, received the heavenly Kingdom from Jehovah God. His spirit-anointed disciples are “the holy ones” who share with him in that Kingdom. (1 Thessalonians 2:12) How?
19 After their death, these anointed ones are like Jesus raised from the dead as immortal spirit creatures to serve with him as kings and priests in heaven. (1 Corinthians 15:50-53; Revelation 20:4, 6)

(1 Corinthians 15:50-52) . . .. 51 Look! I tell you a sacred secret: We will not all fall asleep in death, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we will be changed.

I think if we look closely at these arguments presented in the Watchtower, we'll see at least 5 problems where the Watchtower is inconsistent with the Scriptures. Otherwise I would not bring up the problems with the doctrine.

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

Mr Harley is so stupid.

For a second there, I thought AlanF was back, until I realized that was it and this wasn't going to be a string of 10 insults in the same post.

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

Most of this is beyond me but I've noticed that you are working from the year 1914 (the setting up of the Heavenly Kingdom), and I had thought that 1914 itself was in question on here somewhere ?  Is the date 1914 firmly established as TRUTH in your eyes, or is it the case that 'if you say it enough, people will believe it'. 

It's probably confusing because I am reviewing the details of the current interpretations that include 1914, but I can't currently agree with all of them.

The date 1914 is true in some ways, as there was a fulfillment of prophecy in that year. During several points in the last days, we should expect critical times hard to deal with. We should expect to see wars and reports of wars. 1914 was one of the dates where such fulfillments were definitely experienced. So was the effect these critical times had on the Watchtower Society leaders and Bible students. Recall that Jesus said "they will persecute you and put some of you in prison."

The only problem I have with putting too much emphasis on 1914 is that Jesus warned us NOT to look to wars and pestilence and earthquakes as part of any SIGN that could be used to inform us about the parousia. Recall that Jesus said, there would be a great judgment upon the Jerusalem Temple where it would be completely destroyed. So the disciples asked if they could learn if there would be any signs so that they would know WHEN this parousia might happen. So Jesus said, don't be misled, you will see lots of things that are bad, the kinds of things that fool people into thinking they are seeing a sign, but that this particular judgment will come like a thief in the night, by surprise, as if with no warning. But that was their warning - so they would be prepared for the right reasons at all times. It was enough to know that it MIGHT come in their own lifetime. Same with us. It MIGHT come in our own lifetime, but for all of us it is a short period of time, our own lifespan, or perhaps shorter than that if we live to see it.

No I don't believe 1914 is the time of the establishment of the heavenly kingdom, because the Bible says that it was established in the first century. We might see things in history that prove to us that it is "more and more" established, and this would be like when the Jews could celebrate an event with a phrase like "Jehovah has become king." It didn't mean he wasn't always "king" but that there was some new manifestation or appreciation of that kingship due to some exciting and significant event.

But from a technical perspective, the Bible already calls Jesus the king of kings in the first century, but we can still expect future significant events when we might say again "Jesus has become king!" It depends on how much prophetic significance we give to those events, as we believe we are seeing Bible prophecy fulfilled. I don't think anyone should blame Russell and Rutherford for thinking that Jesus became king in 1878. They were excited to believe they lived in the time when Jesus had returned to be present again in 1874, and thought they were seeing prophecy being fulfilled. I don't think Rutherford should be blamed for changing it to 1914 several years after thinking about the probable prophetic significance of that year. But I think that part of this was a way to save face, since a lot of significant things happened in 1914, but none of them were related to the things they had once predicted for 1914.

9 hours ago, b4ucuhear said:

But, on the other hand, I also see that one time period (three and a half days) is not consistently rendered as a literal time period whereas the three and a half years is understood to be literal - both time periods within the span of a few verses in the same chapter of Revelation 11.

Yes. I agree that this is inconsistent:

• Based on the last time the actual dates were specified, the 1,260 days means a period of 1,271 days. (12/28/1914-6/21/1918)
• Based on the unspecified date in 1919 (sometimes called "early 1919") that appears to be in the spring of that year according to the charts, the "three and a half days" means a period of about 300 days. (304 days from June 21, 1918 to April 21, 1919)
• 1,260 = 1,271
• 3.5 = 300+

But we've got several more inconsistencies.

I'll start with the mention of the olive trees, lampstands, and the "two witnesses."

The two witnesses are explained like this:

“Two witnesses”: The small group of anointed brothers who were taking the lead when God’s Kingdom was established in 1914

There is an implication in the Pure Worship book that the two witnesses primarily BEGAN with Russell/Rutherford in 1914 but that it merges into more modern times, with mid-20th century briefcases and then late 20th to 21st century microphones. I don't know how much instruction (or license) the artist was given, but the first in the forefront appears to be an exact merge of a picture of Russell mixed with Rutherford. But the background is mixed. Just for fun, these silhouette-like pictures remind me of existing photos of the following persons, from left to right: Fred Franz (far left), Tony Morris next, then the Russell Russell/Rutherford amalgam facing forward, then Raymond Franz behind him with nearly a phonograph-size briefcase (artists inside joke, if true), then a later Rutherford or Milton Henschel, then Milton Henschel again, then an unknown person at the podium.

In 1914 itself, there were only probably very few who might have been considered qualified for taking the lead in the United States, based on the criteria by which the 1919 GB has been defined. Including the Watch Tower Editorial Committee, and the Watch Tower Society Officers, there were probably 7 or 8. Yet Russell was the only one whose name was well-known, and Rutherford, the attorney, hadn't started that much public speaking until he published an "attorney's" defense about Russell's supposed "scandals" in 1915 (Great Battle in the Ecclesiastical Heavens).

But all that is just an aside. The definition is those men who were taking the lead in 1914, and those of that group who remained faithful would be appointed in 1919 as the "faithful and discreet slave." When this is mentioned, we usually find the expression "those who remained faithful" because of the fact that majority of those who were already in the position to be considered the "Governing Body" were dismissed and replaced with new persons to make room for Rutherford's election to the presidency in 1917.

But here is a place where we may have ignored a Biblical explanation of the "two witnesses." And this gets back to the "type-antitype" talk by Brother Splane. Not that this particular Biblical explanation (below) is the only one or the correct one, but it should still be important to explain why we dismiss a plausible Biblical explanation in favor of a modern-day interpretation.

A POSSIBLE BIBLICAL EXPLANATION FOR THE TWO WITNESSES

We should remember that the chapter starts out like this:

(Revelation 11:1-4) And a reed like a rod was given to me as he said: “Get up and measure the temple sanctuary of God and the altar and those worshipping in it. 2 But as for the courtyard that is outside the temple sanctuary, leave it out and do not measure it, because it has been given to the nations, and they will trample the holy city underfoot for 42 months. 3 I will cause my two witnesses to prophesy for 1,260 days dressed in sackcloth.” 4 These are symbolized by the two olive trees and the two lampstands and are standing before the Lord of the earth.

So the subject of Revelation 11 is something about the temple, the nations, and two witnesses symbolized by two olive trees and two lampstands.

The only current explanation of the olive trees and lampstands is very tenuous, and never attempts to explain the imagery, except to say it reminds us of Zechariah's prophecy, where they represented two anointed ones, and who perform signs like Moses and Elijah.

*** w14 11/15 p. 30 Questions From Readers ***
First, we are told that they “are symbolized by the two olive trees and the two lampstands.” (Rev. 11:4) This reminds us of the lampstand and two olive trees described in the prophecy of Zechariah. Those olive trees were said to picture “the two anointed ones,” that is, Governor Zerubbabel and High Priest Joshua, “standing alongside the Lord of the whole earth.” (Zech. 4:1-3, 14) Second, the two witnesses are described as performing signs similar to those performed by Moses and Elijah.

If the Bible actually gives us a plausible explanation of these two Witnesses, then why are we looking to match them to perhaps 8 or more persons in modern times? One reason is because we try to explain anything already fulfilled in Revelation in terms of the events surrounding 1914 through 1925. Anything else is unfulfilled future events surrounding the great tribulation, Armageddon and the 1,000 year reign. (Except for a little bit of 1935, and the League appearing as the UN in 1945, we go on for about 80 years with no more fulfillments.)

But in the Bible a "Revelation" is often a revealing of what is going on behind the scenes in heaven to help explain what has happened, or is happening on earth. Much of it, but not all of it is supposed to be about the future. Think of the revealing of what was going on in heaven behind the scenes in the book of Job, or in the case of Micaiah, or in Stephen's case when he sees the vision of Christ standing at God's right hand.

So what if we were to look for any two witnesses that might be associated with lampstands?

(Acts 26:22, 23) . . .I continue to this day bearing witness to both small and great, but saying nothing except things the Prophets as well as Moses stated were going to take place, 23 that the Christ was to suffer and, as the first to be resurrected from the dead, he was going to publish light both to this people and to the nations.”

(Acts 13:46, 47) . . .“It was necessary for the word of God to be spoken first to you [Israelites]. Since you are rejecting it and do not judge yourselves worthy of everlasting life, look! we turn to the nations. 47 For Jehovah has commanded us in these words: ‘I have appointed you [Paul] as a light of nations, for you to be a salvation to the ends of the earth.’”

(Galatians 2:2-8) 2 I went up as a result of a revelation, and I presented to them the good news that I am preaching among the nations.. . . 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I [Paul] had been entrusted with the good news for those who are uncircumcised, just as Peter had been for those who are circumcised— 8 for the one who empowered Peter for an apostleship to those who are circumcised also empowered me [Paul] for those who are of the nations—

So we already have two witnesses who represent those who were taking the lead in bringing LIGHT to the Jews and a LIGHT to the NATIONS.

I also find it odd that there is already a chapter in the Greek Scriptures about two olive trees, and it turns out that they are representative of the same thing. The BIBLE's explanation for the two olive trees also associates them with the witness to the same two different groups, the Jews and the Gentiles. There was the garden olive tree and the wild olive tree:

(Romans 11:24) ²⁴ For if you were cut out of the olive tree that is wild by nature and were grafted contrary to nature into the garden olive tree, how much more will these who are natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree!

Paul gave the explanation in the same context:

(Romans 10:19-11:13) . . .First Moses says: “I will incite you to jealousy through that which is not a nation; I will incite you to violent anger through a foolish nation.” . . .  Do you not know what the scripture says in connection with E·liʹjah, as he pleads with God against Israel? . . . 7 What, then? The very thing Israel is earnestly seeking he did not obtain, but the ones chosen obtained it. The rest had their senses dulled, . . . But by their false step, there is salvation to people of the nations, to incite them to jealousy. 12 Now if their false step means riches to the world and their decrease means riches to people of the nations, how much more will their full number mean! 13 Now I speak to you who are people of the nations. Seeing that I am an apostle to the nations, I glorify my ministry

I also highlighted Paul's contextual references to Moses and Elijah because of the references to Moses and Elijah in Revelation 11:6.

Another problem with the 1918 - 1919 explanation is that we have changed the view on the captivity to Babylon the Great which effectively removes 1918 from the picture, where it had once played a large part in the interpretation of the cleansing of the Temple. So that we now have TWO visions of the "anointed" being killed, this time around the year 100 CE, not 1918 CE.

*** w16 March p. 29 par. 3-p. 31 par. 1 Questions From Readers ***
For a number of years, we explained that this captivity began in 1918 and involved a brief period of time when God’s people came under the control of Babylon the Great. For example, The Watchtower of March 15, 1992, stated: “Yet, as God’s ancient people were taken into Babylonian captivity for a time, in 1918 Jehovah’s servants came into a measure of bondage to Babylon the Great.” However, further research has shown that this captivity began much earlier than 1918.
.  . . What a fitting way to describe the spiritual resurrection of God’s people that culminated in the events of 1919! But what does this vision reveal to us concerning the length of time involved?
. . .
With these Scriptural details in mind, it becomes clear that the captivity of God’s people to Babylon the Great must have been much longer than the events of 1918-1919. The captivity parallels the time when the symbolic weeds would grow together with the wheatlike “sons of the Kingdom.” (Matt. 13:36-43) That growing season refers to the period during which genuine Christians were greatly outnumbered by apostates. The Christian congregation, in effect, was held captive by Babylon the Great. That captivity began sometime in the second century C.E. and continued until the cleansing of the spiritual temple in the time of the end.—Acts 20:29, 30; 2 Thess. 2:3, 6; 1 John 2:18, 19.
  .  Later, such tools as the “Photo-Drama of Creation” in 1914 and the book The Finished Mystery in 1917 also strengthened God’s people. Finally, in 1919, God’s people were given life, spiritually speaking, and were settled in their new spiritual land. As time has progressed, this remnant of anointed ones has been joined by those with an earthly hope, and together they have become “an extremely large army.”—Ezek. 37:10; Zech. 8:20-23.

*** rr p. 118 10B “Dry Bones” and “Two Witnesses”—How Do They Relate? *** (2018, Pure Worship)

TEACHING BOX 10B
“Dry Bones” and “Two Witnesses”—How Do They Relate?
THE year 1919 saw the fulfillment of two related prophecies: one regarding “dry bones,” the other about “two witnesses.” The vision of “dry bones” foretells a very long period (which turned out to be many centuries) that ends with the coming to life of a large group of God’s people. (Ezek. 37:2-4; Rev. 11:1-3, 7-13) The prophecy about the “two witnesses” describes a short period (fulfilled from late 1914 to early 1919) that ends with the coming to life of a small group of God’s servants. Both prophecies depicted a symbolic resurrection, and both prophecies saw a modern-day fulfillment in 1919 when Jehovah caused his anointed servants “to stand on their feet,” leave their captivity to Babylon the Great, and be gathered in the restored congregation.—Ezek. 37:10.
Note, though, that the fulfillment of these two prophecies differs in an important way. The prophecy of the “dry bones” foretells the coming to life of all members of the anointed remnant. However, the prophecy of the “two witnesses” foretells the coming to life of some members of God’s anointed remnant—those who were taking the lead in the organization and who were appointed as “the faithful and discreet slave.”—Matt. 24:45; Rev. 11:6.
“The Valley Plain . . . Full of Bones”—Ezek. 37:1
AFTER 100 C.E.
From the second century C.E. onward when the anointed Christian congregation was killed symbolically, “the valley plain” was filled with “bones”
EARLY 1919
1919: The “dry bones” came to life when Jehovah caused all anointed ones to leave Babylon the Great and be gathered in the restored congregation
“Two Witnesses”—Rev. 11:3
LATE 1914
preaching “in sackcloth”
1914: The “two witnesses” preached “in sackcloth” for three and a half years. At the end of that period, they were symbolically killed symbolic death
EARLY 1919
1919: The “two witnesses” came to life when a small group of anointed brothers who were taking the lead in the organization were appointed to serve as “the faithful and discreet slave”

There are a few other potential inconsistencies with these explanations, including the idea that there has been no planting of seeds since 1919. As the  The captivity parallels the time when the symbolic weeds would grow together with the wheatlike “sons of the Kingdom.”

Perhaps I'll comment on that in another post as this is too long.

[Except that all these posts are getting merged, and are much too long now anyway . . .]

It is stated that all planting/sowing happened prior to 1919 and started in 33CE. Is no one doing any planting or sowing today?

And if the harvest is done by angels, did it really start in 1914? And if the gathering into storehouses started in 1919, then why do the weeds not get burned until the Great Tribulation/Armageddon? 

*** mwb18 February p. 3 The Illustration of the Wheat and the Weeds ***
[Chart on page 3]
33 C.E. SOWING BEGINS
1914 HARVEST SEASON BEGINS
1919 GATHERING INTO THE STOREHOUSE

This makes little sense in light of the verses in Matthew 13, which could all be explained very simply and completely by taking 1914 and 1919 out of the picture. There we would have wheat and weeds growing together from 33 on to today and harvested at the time of the harvest, a time of judgment, when the Son of man will send his angels and they will collect and burn with fire. In fact, the Bible has the weeds collected and burned BEFORE the wheat, yet our explanation REVERSES this:

(Matthew 13:28-30) . . .He said to them, ‘An enemy, a man, did this.’ The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go out and collect them?’ 29 He said, ‘No, for fear that while collecting the weeds, you uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and in the harvest season, I will tell the reapers: First collect the weeds and bind them in bundles to burn them up; then gather the wheat into my storehouse.’”

(Matthew 13:37-43) . . .In response he said: “The sower of the fine seed is the Son of man; 38 the field is the world. As for the fine seed, these are the sons of the Kingdom, but the weeds are the sons of the wicked one, 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the Devil. The harvest is a conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are angels. 40 Therefore, just as the weeds are collected and burned with fire, so it will be in the conclusion of the system of things. 41 The Son of man will send his angels, and they will collect out from his Kingdom all things that cause stumbling and people who practice lawlessness, 42 and they will pitch them into the fiery furnace. There is where their weeping and the gnashing of their teeth will be. 43 At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father. Let the one who has ears listen.

Our current explanation breaks this up into long time periods.

*** w13 7/15 p. 9 “Look! I Am With You All the Days” ***
Why can we conclude that from the first century C.E. until today, there have always been anointed Christians on earth?

*** w13 7/15 pp. 9-10 par. 3 “Look! I Am With You All the Days” ***
At the dawn of the second century C.E., “the weeds appeared” when imitation Christians became visible in the world field.

** w13 7/15 p. 12 par. 10 “Look! I Am With You All the Days” ***
First, collecting the weeds. Jesus says: “In the harvest season I will tell the reapers, First collect the weeds and bind them in bundles.” After 1914, the angels began to “collect” weedlike Christians by separating them from the anointed “sons of the kingdom.”—Matt. 13:30, 38, 41.

*** w13 7/15 p. 12 par. 12 “Look! I Am With You All the Days” ***
Second, gathering the wheat. Jesus commands his angels: “Go to gathering the wheat into my storehouse.” (Matt. 13:30) Since 1919, anointed ones have been gathered into the restored Christian congregation. For those anointed Christians who will be alive at the end of this system of things, the final gathering will take place when they receive their heavenly reward.

With reference to the weeping and gnashing and being pitched into the fiery furnace and the shining brightly, the Watchtower says:

*** w13 7/15 p. 13 par. 16 “Look! I Am With You All the Days” ***
The fulfillment of these words still lies ahead.

The full explanation involves breaking up the first messenger in Malachi 3:1 into 2 messengers (plus Jesus, the messenger of the covenant) so that one messenger can have a modern day fulfillment just prior to 1919, whereas the Bible already explained that the messenger was John the Baptist paving the way for Jesus. Now we also think it means, in effect, persons like Russell and those associated with him as they paved the way for the Governing Body.

There is another complexity that seems even more obvious, but I'll hold off for now.

All these extra complexities go away when we remove 1914, 1918 and 1919 from the picture and read Matthew and Malachi and Revelation again.