JW Insider

Actually, I'm pretty sure that Josephus did not mention it, because it was not an ancient Jewish idea. If you have anything on that I'd appreciate knowing where it comes from. And if Josephus had said it, we would not have gotten it from him, anyway. The first known mention of the possibility of man being on the earth exactly 7,000 years appears in Pseudo-Philo which would have been written about the same time as the Greek Scriptures, and this would make it contemporaneous with Josephus and Philo, but neither one wrote the work. They think it might have started out in Aramaic/Hebrew but is only known in Latin, although a Hebrew translation was made of the Latin. Of course, this has nothing to do with the length of the creative days.
It says the following in chapter 28, in a kind of "creation" account ( http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/bap/bap44.htm ):
Hearken now, ye that dwell on the earth, even as they that sojourned therein prophesied before me, when they saw this hour, even before the earth was corrupted, that ye may know the prophecies appointed aforetime, all ye that dwell therein. 7. Behold now I see flames that burn not, and I hear springs of water awaked out of sleep, and they have no foundation, neither do I behold the tops of the mountains, nor the canopy of the firmament, but all things unappearing and invisible, which have no place whatsoever, and although mine eye knoweth not what it seeth, mine heart shall discover that which it may learn (or say). . . . And when the foundation was laid, I beheld, and from that spring there was stirred up as it were a boiling froth, and behold, it changed itself as it were into another foundation; and between the two foundations, even the upper and the lower, there drew near out of the light of the invisible place as it were forms of men, and they walked to and fro: and behold, a voice saying: These shall be for a foundation unto men and they shall dwell therein 7000 years. 9. And the lower foundation was a pavement and the upper was of froth, and they that came forth out of the light of the invisible place, they are those that shall dwell therein, 1 and the name of that man is <Adam>. And it shall be, when he hath (or they have) sinned against me and the time is fulfilled, that the spark shall be quenched and the spring shall cease, and so they shall be changed. The Talmud from sometime around the 2nd to 5th centuries also mentions 6,000 years with chaos during the last thousand, but this was based on the length of the entire creative week, not that each day was 7,000 years long, but usually that all things were literally created at the beginning in literal days, but that this time count started from creation, and since then "a day is 1,000 years" so that every thousand years since then has been part of the creative week starting with Sunday, so that the 7th millennium is a rest day, a sabbath.  (Babylonian Talmud Rosh Hashana 31a and Sanhedrin 97a). I think there are about 222 years left before "Year 6000" in the common A.M. Jewish calendar. An entry in Wikipedia called "Year 6000" gives some of the sources.
In the book "Life of Adam and Eve" the book Testament of Adam is quoted where the end and  was prophesied by Adam in chapter 3, verse 5. A book on the subject words it like this:
Next Adam predicts the Flood because of the daughters of Cain 'who killed your brother Abel because of passion for your sister Lebuda, since sins have been created through your mother, Eve.' The end of the world will be 6,000 years after the Flood. That was actually a so-called Christian book, at least it was redacted in all the known versions to be a Christian book, and the end of the world referred to Christ coming. In the Ethiopic version the 6,000 year prediction for Christ is missing.
Furthermore, thou must know, O my son, Seth, behold a Flood shall come and shall wash the whole earth because of the children of Kâyal (Cain), the murderer, who slew his brother through jealousy, because of his sister Lûd. And after the Flood and many weeks the latter days shall come, and everything shall be completed, and his time shall come and fire shall consume everything which is found before God, and the earth shall be sanctified, and the Lord of Lords shall walk about on it." A Although the 6,000 year prophecy is gone, there is a mention in the verses leading up to it where God tells Adam that even though he sinned and would have to die that God would come down to earth in flesh and die on the Cross in five and one-half days to save him.
And besides [these things] God spake unto me, saying, "Be not sorrowful, O Adam, for thou didst wish to become a god and didst transgress my command. Behold, I will stablish thee, not at this present, but after a few days." And again He spake unto me, saying, "I am God Who made thee to go forth from the Garden of Joy into the earth, which shall shoot forth thorns and brambles, and thou shalt dwell therein. Bend thy back, and make thy knees p. 247 to totter in old age, and I will make thy flesh food for the worms. And after five days and half a day1 I will have compassion upon thee, and shew thee mercy in the abundance of my compassion and my mercy. And I will come down into thy house, and I will dwell in thy flesh, and for thy sake I will be pleased to be born like an [ordinary] child. And for thy sake I will be pleased to walk in the market place. And for thy sake I will be pleased to fast forty days. And for thy sake I will be pleased to accept baptism. And for thy sake I will be pleased to endure suffering. And for thy sake I will be pleased to hang on the wood of the Cross. All these things [will I do] for thy sake, O Adam." To Him be praise, and majesty, and dominion, and glory, and worship, and hymns, with His Father and the Holy Spirit from this time forward and for ever and ever. Amen. In several apocalyptic books (non-canonical) a day is 1,000 years, so this is interpreted to mean that Christ would appear 5,500 years after Adam. Again, however, these were parts of predictions about Christ's first appearance and second appearance. The Ethiopic probably was trying to work out a second appearance of Christ within 500 years of Jesus' birth. It was not about 7,000 year creative days. The 6,000 years of mankind with a 1,000 year millennial reign idea began popping again up in many places after Christopher Columbus used it, and later Martin Luther and many other reformers.

Not to worry. This isn't a real thread. Not exactly anyway.
I was asked to try my hand at splitting off some of the diversionary topics from the thread called:
Perhaps you heard of it. Well, as you can tell from the image attached to the link, above, it quickly turned into thread about buzzards and elephants and even took a detour down Broadway. So I did a quick review of the thread and decided that it might be good to just see if I can split off only several of the side topics, so that this new thread becomes a place for the obvious side topics that always come up in a 1914 discussion, such as:
You have no right to discuss this because it's apostasy even to bring it up! You must be a follower of Carl Olof Jonsson You must be a follower of Raymond Franz You are not being loyal and faithful to the Governing Body You must have bad motives, ego issues, etc. etc. In addition since that other thread is at least 15 pages too long, this new one will likely have a lot of free space, comparatively. So we might also just move over a few of the posts that weren't directly responding to the subject, although they might make interesting side topics, which could even be broken off of this thread someday. Feel free to make suggestions. 
I wouldn't worry about this too much. In a few days, probably both of these threads could move to the back of the line. For anyone who worries about such things I won't move posts if I find out that it loses any reactions it had. Wouldn't want to change that. But I'm also worried about the chronological order of the posts and continuity of comments. So if it's not working out, then most things will just stay where they were.

1914  is not a count from Jehovah !  Its only from elders, humans. Like 1975 etc. etc.  We NOT shall making our own counts, bec. it was so often wrong !  Many JW left the truth after that wrong counts   Made NO sense...  Jehovah's counts are okay,  but not human counts.  Why humans / elders, always want counting this and that?  So often it was wrong...  awkward for JW and the world-people laughing over us !  Thats not what we want. I have spoken with different brothers and elders too. I realized, the elders not want, that special things coming to public,  hmm...   not just honestly.  We're a jw. humanely org. and making mistakes, imperfect, thats it. Jehovah knows that.  HE  is watching all, we're today HIS  loving children???
My laptop has again since some hours NO internet by my stick and camping area ;-(   Only my iPad flatrate is working !  I hope, tmw again little better !
So I say Good night to all, bec. its late enough... ???

You think I can control this thing? I'm at least half the problem!
[edited to add:]
Notice: Since this thread is so long. I might be splitting off some of the unrelated topics to other threads. I just learned that I can do this, so I will only move my own at first to get used to this awesome power. Also, I have no interest in moving around every little comment that people make just because it's off topic. There would be no point to breaking off to a musical-themed thread, for example, because I don't think anyone expected to start a full-blown discussion on that topic. But there have been a few topics that might be interesting as stand-alone topics.

I'll try to do some research on it. It has been about 30 years since I have on this particular subject and I don't remember and am quite busy with pioneering and stuff. The Watchtower I believe has not said anything about it since about 1987 questions from readers if I recall...but nothing since so it is not probably an area of interest anymore anyway. Although they never have said it was untrue or changed. {Although the type/antitype may come to mind here}  But like I said we may never know if it is true until we get there and perhaps not even then since the Bible does not directly mention it. And it dosent' actually matter to gain everlasting life. But it is fun to research anyway. I do remeber it going back over 2,000 years to time of Philo {a Jew} and he got it from somewhere earlier and ill try and find some resources for that. {Point is it's origin was not Christian but predated Christianity as Philo died in 50 C.E.]

It's a curious idea. There was a lot of speculation about this 6,000 year cut-off for many years as you are aware. The idea that the angels would have known the exact time of the 6,000 years seems so obvious. For the speculators, it's odd that this fact escaped their notice. But this idea is also interesting because for many years the Watchtower taught just the opposite, that we could know the beginning and not the end. In fact the beginning of the tribulation was timed to 1914, with a break in the tribulation that would last either a few months or a few years, and now, of course, until nearly just before Armageddon.
Another thought to ponder is that this whole idea that there was some significance to 6,000 years or 7,000 years came to us from Christendom. Perhaps no two creative days were the same length, perhaps some a few years, some a few million years. The Bible doesn't say they how long they were. And the idea that the 7th day would be 7,000 years is never in the Bible either. It was a thought that came to us from "speculators" in Christendom. We have absolutely no Biblical reason to think it might be some exact number of years divisible by 1,000. We don't even have scriptural reasons to say that the millennium must happen within the 7th day. What if the 7th creative day, the day of rest, is 7,326 years long. But no matter how long it is, it doesn't seem likely that its length would determine any portion of the time of judgment day, whether it be an early judgment beginning with a "temple inspection" or the final day of judgment. Remember that the warning about coming as a surprise also referred to the day of judgment that swept upon the people of Noah's day who weren't paying attention, and it was the day of judgment that swept upon the people of Lot's day who weren't paying attention, and it would also refer to the day of judgment that swept upon Jerusalem, when very few were paying attention.
(Mark 13:35) . . .Keep on the watch, therefore, for you do not know when the master of the house is coming, . . . This was not about the tribulation specifically or some invisible presence, it was about the time when the master comes in judgment, right?

I'm happy to see Ann O'maly engage in the conversation about 539. From what I have seen, she is much more well-read on the subject than I am. I may have some questions for her, too.
But I think this other portion of your post was directed at something that I wrote:
I would agree that there is always a reason that a person is disfellowshipped and it's usually something like what you describe. The process usually works, and the more often than not, the person disfellowshipped understands that they were in the wrong and the congregation was right to take action. This is how I have always seen it work in a congregation setting. I have agreed with every congregational case I have seen, even though I have heard about some that I would have disagreed with, as would most of us.
But I think the information you are are probably missing is that, from 1979 to 1982, there was a completely different style of justice inside of Brooklyn Bethel. 50 were dismissed in one day about 2 years before I got there. When I first arrived, Brother Knorr was using a style very much like Rutherford before him. The method was to talk to the entire Bethel family and rant and berate brothers who crossed him. Or, at breakfast, to announce dismissals right there on the spot for stealing, adultery, fornication, etc. Not a week would go by without something like this. If you saw an older brother doing hard sweaty work in an unlikely place for an old man (like a bindery or a hot laundry job, or something that seemed demeaning), there was always a story behind it, and it was usually about something he had said that crossed up against a more powerful brother's ego.
When Knorr died, several wonderful older brothers (like CQ, the editor of the Awake! magazine, for example) started getting invited back to Bethel after having been dismissed in the previous 5 to 10 years or more. Sometimes, even their adult children or relatives were also now allowed to work at Bethel. Persons were suddenly recalled from their factory and toilet-cleaning jobs and put back to work in the responsible positions they had held during Knorr's administration. Even A.H.MacMillan, one of the persons imprisoned with Rutherford in 1918, the person who wrote Faith on the March, was berated and humiliated for daring to have the audacity to write a book. (Even though --or perhaps because-- it was a book that everyone wanted and loved.)
So there was a mindset at Bethel about justice that was quite different from a congregation setting. It had developed from 1917 to 1977. A lot of the talk at Bethel from overseers reflected the language of the army, and those in the "rank and file" often saw discipline that seemed to follow army patterns. So it was not a surprise to see a kind of bunker mentality and "military tribunal" style judgments -- especially when "apostasy" was suspected. These were usually quick, on the spot, judgments. I have to admit that I paid close attention to what was going on because I knew that I had associated with persons like Brother Schroeder, Brother Sydlik and Brother Swingle who I was afraid might also find themselves on the chopping block, too. (Brother Sydlik was also serving time as an overseer relegated to the factory, the only Governing Body member assigned there, and there was a Knorr-Sydlik story behind it.) Sydlik and I had talked about chronology issues, and 1914-talk was one of the things that F.Franz was cracking down on based on comments at 'morning worship.' Sydlik, in fact, warned me that "we" (meaning he and I, both) had to watch what we say from now on because the "tongue can start a wildfire." Schroeder had "apostate" views about 1914 and the "generation" and had even spread them at his talks he gave on his trips to other countries. I was reporting directly to him on research projects at this time. He knew he could be in trouble himself, but protected himself by taking over as the prosecutor, and setting up actual "tribunal" committees to handle interrogations that only resulted in dismissals and disfellowshippings at his say-so. People joked that he was using "Star Chamber" techniques, and literally offering "plea deals" for information about higher-ups. Neither my roommate or I ever got one of these interrogations, but 4 of my friends did, and about 10 of my roommate's friends did. No one was joking when they called them "Inquisitions."
Altogether, I don't know how many recanted, or finally got disfellowshipped, or just dismissed or just demoted, but everyone seemed to get a different deal. Schroeder was in a flurry of activity and I had to leave several times when tribunals reported back to him. But in any group, there are always going to be some ego-driven persons who pride themselves on their so-called knowledge, and spread beliefs, or reveal things about others, not out of concern or love, but out of maliciousness, or to cause contentions and division.
I think that it's probably very difficult for most of us to distinguish whether there is any difference between the kinds of doctrinal differences we might discuss with others.
For example, let's say that one person here, I won't say who , appears to be going off the deep end about all the issues surrounding 1914. He claims that it is because he sees the possibility that we are taking a false step in terms of following the Christian teachings of not serving for a date along with the rest of the counsel in Matthew 24 & 25, or not producing works motivated by fear of an imminent judgment,  or not being presumptuous in proposing to others that Jehovah has blessed us with specific revealed knowledge about the times and seasons, etc., etc., etc.
But let's say that another person, who might have also proposed some beliefs that are different from the doctrines of his fellow Witnesses, claims that he knows for sure that the last days are over in 2034, the 144,000 will all be picked within a few years of that point, and that by 2054, the judgment day begins.
Those two examples might both appear just as equally "apostate." At the very least they both could appear to be equally motivated by persons who believe they are better or smarter than the Governing Body.  In fact, the 2034 proposal might seem to be a little less apostate, because it is slightly more in line with the general teachings of JWs, and it surely won't be that far off anyway. And the one who wants to drop the 1914+generation formula altogether is hoping for something much more drastic and disturbing because it, to some, attacks the core of our ministry.
So, I understand and expect the response to this that I have been receiving -- or even worse. I just hope that people will look into it and share their own reasons in defense of their faith and hope. Although you appear not to believe it, I will accept the Biblical evidence over the secular evidence any day. So far, I still see that we (Watch Tower publications) are stuck on pieces of the secular evidence, and have been using this secular evidence to try to override the Biblical evidence and Biblical counsel. I think it's always important to look more deeply into any issue like that, even to look into how it started and why we have held onto a tradition that positions itself in such a way. But I understand completely that most of us won't see it the same way. I certainly don't expect any accolades or respect for bringing up the subject. But I do think that for reasons of conscience, concern and love for the brotherhood, and faith in Jehovah, that it's important to discuss it in a serious manner.
(Philippians 4:8) 8 Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are of serious concern, whatever things are righteous, whatever things are chaste, whatever things are lovable, whatever things are well-spoken-of, whatever things are virtuous, and whatever things are praiseworthy, continue considering these things.  

I can tell what happened here. Even though I wasn't familiar with this supposed controversy and had never read about it in COJ's book, it seemed obvious that you missed the actual point of the statement you quoted above, and which I highlighted in red. COJ did not word this statement very well, but you can catch his meaning perfectly from the context you provided. I'll add a little more context from that section of the book so you can see if this makes sense:
So COJ has already explicitly stated that the Society does indeed argue that Thermistocles died about 471/70. (He also points out that it's an argument the Society gets, at least indirectly, through Christendom, originating with a Jesuit theologian and an archbishop in the 17th century.) COJ's point here is that the Watch Tower Society leaves out information which would show what the real point of the source material is. As you saw from a previous question you asked, the Society did exactly the same thing in another place in the "Insight" book when they claimed they were giving the "Jewish understanding" from Soncino, but left out just enough words to hide the fact that they were only pretending to give the Jewish understanding. In this case COJ is saying that although the WTS was quoting Diodorus Siculus in support of Thermistocles death in 471, they were actually quoting source material that never claimed anything about a death in 471, but another event in his life that must have happened well before he died anyway. So it should have been worded:
I've learned that it doesn't take much to catch the Society in these bits of "scholastic dishonesty." It's hard to say whether it's incompetence or deliberate or they just read with a kind of "wishful thinking" that some secular sources might somehow be found to offer support. I didn't know this particular one at all, but I am very disappointed that it keeps happening. I'm not sure if COJ ever noticed the previous one we talked about (the "Jewish understanding") but I can see that COJ has seen several more of these examples, and I know I have seen several too that COJ probably never deals with in his book. 
It turns out, however, that COJ was right in this case, and the Watch Tower Society was wrong.
This was from your post about Grayson's book. (Which is excellent, btw) The reason this book review uses the term "Series" like this is to avoid the repetition of the longer phrase, "Babylonian Chronicle Series." The book itself has some very good information about why 539 is no better a date to call "absolute" than any other date in the Neo-Babylonian chronology, and why the supposed break at 539 is arbitrary. The reviewer alludes to it, saying:
In Grayson's book, what was meant by this is that there is a 50 year gap in the Series after 539, but excellent coverage in the 50+ years prior.  (The book review you mentioned takes exception to Grayson calling ALL of the chronicles the "Babylonian Chronicle Series" especially because she sees no real continuity between ALL the chronicles in this "Series" especially due to the long break in the eras covered.)

Threadmeister? Great. I hereby rule that no one can make more than two posts in this thread containing lyrics from My Fair Lady. 
So show me you understand, and, if you did it, then just you wait because I know the street where you live, and with a little bit of luck, we'll carry on without you. But right now, I've got a customer to face.

Threadmeister? Great. I hereby rule that no one can make more than two posts in this thread containing lyrics from My Fair Lady. 
So show me you understand, and, if you did it, then just you wait because I know the street where you live, and with a little bit of luck, we'll carry on without you. But right now, I've got a customer to face.

Threadmeister? Great. I hereby rule that no one can make more than two posts in this thread containing lyrics from My Fair Lady. 
So show me you understand, and, if you did it, then just you wait because I know the street where you live, and with a little bit of luck, we'll carry on without you. But right now, I've got a customer to face.

I can tell what happened here. Even though I wasn't familiar with this supposed controversy and had never read about it in COJ's book, it seemed obvious that you missed the actual point of the statement you quoted above, and which I highlighted in red. COJ did not word this statement very well, but you can catch his meaning perfectly from the context you provided. I'll add a little more context from that section of the book so you can see if this makes sense:
So COJ has already explicitly stated that the Society does indeed argue that Thermistocles died about 471/70. (He also points out that it's an argument the Society gets, at least indirectly, through Christendom, originating with a Jesuit theologian and an archbishop in the 17th century.) COJ's point here is that the Watch Tower Society leaves out information which would show what the real point of the source material is. As you saw from a previous question you asked, the Society did exactly the same thing in another place in the "Insight" book when they claimed they were giving the "Jewish understanding" from Soncino, but left out just enough words to hide the fact that they were only pretending to give the Jewish understanding. In this case COJ is saying that although the WTS was quoting Diodorus Siculus in support of Thermistocles death in 471, they were actually quoting source material that never claimed anything about a death in 471, but another event in his life that must have happened well before he died anyway. So it should have been worded:
I've learned that it doesn't take much to catch the Society in these bits of "scholastic dishonesty." It's hard to say whether it's incompetence or deliberate or they just read with a kind of "wishful thinking" that some secular sources might somehow be found to offer support. I didn't know this particular one at all, but I am very disappointed that it keeps happening. I'm not sure if COJ ever noticed the previous one we talked about (the "Jewish understanding") but I can see that COJ has seen several more of these examples, and I know I have seen several too that COJ probably never deals with in his book. 
It turns out, however, that COJ was right in this case, and the Watch Tower Society was wrong.
This was from your post about Grayson's book. (Which is excellent, btw) The reason this book review uses the term "Series" like this is to avoid the repetition of the longer phrase, "Babylonian Chronicle Series." The book itself has some very good information about why 539 is no better a date to call "absolute" than any other date in the Neo-Babylonian chronology, and why the supposed break at 539 is arbitrary. The reviewer alludes to it, saying:
In Grayson's book, what was meant by this is that there is a 50 year gap in the Series after 539, but excellent coverage in the 50+ years prior.  (The book review you mentioned takes exception to Grayson calling ALL of the chronicles the "Babylonian Chronicle Series" especially because she sees no real continuity between ALL the chronicles in this "Series" especially due to the long break in the eras covered.)

I think this is usually true. If I were asked about my activity here, and it's bound to happen, I can say that I did what I thought was right at the time (which I do) but that I can do whatever it takes to make amends. I have seen this stuff go on for 40 years, and I am a very patient man . . .
I'm a very gentle man
Even-tempered and good-natured who you never hear complain 
Who has the milk of human kindness by the quart in every vein
A patient man am I, down to my fingertips
The sort who never would, never could
Let an insulting remark escape his lips 
A very gentle man
Of course, sometimes the brothers who have to do the questioning might have a completely different idea of motivations or reasonableness. Galileo could avoid disfellowshipping by just admitting that he was wrong, but it's hard to put all that stuff back in the telescope once it's been seen. It takes a lot of humility to recant when you think someone is asking you to: "Admit that 2+2=5, because Jehovah says so!!" You just have to be able to empathize, put yourself in their shoes, and remember that the roles could so easily have been reversed if they had had the same experiences you had, and you had the same experiences they had.
 

I can't tell if you are just making up things as diversions. Should I assume this when you make statements that are not backed up with evidence? For example, I have COJ's book as a PDF and just searched through it for anything about Israel/Palestine/1946/1967 and it looks like there is no evidence for what you claimed previously. Do you have any evidence?
I mentioned this already, and rather than respond, you changed the subject to how COJ insists that people believe the Watchtower was associated with WIlliam Miller. So I look up every instance of William Miller in his book, and, as I've come to expect by now, there was nothing there that ties William Miller to the Watchtower. He merely mentions Miller in the list of persons and groups that are part of the history of various Gentile Times doctrines. So how can COJ be insisting on something that he doesn't even mention is connected with the Watchtower? Again, do you have any evidence? Or am I supposed to assume that you made this up?
I have found closer connections in our own publications, than in COJ's book about a relationship with the movement of William Miller:
*** jv chap. 4 p. 40 The Great Apostasy Develops *** In the United States, William Miller predicted the return of Christ in visible form in 1843 or 1844. The German theologian J. A. Bengel set the date for 1836; . . . Such efforts to keep on the watch served to awaken many to the prospect of our Lord’s return. Russell wrote some interesting things about Miller as I said. As I also said, he did not want to be associated directly with William Miller or tied in any way to the failure and disappointment of Miller. But he did speak of the work of Miller as being foreordained through prophecy, and therefore the references to various dates with respect to Miller as fulfilling Bible prophecy, such as 1829, 1844, and later 1859, too, although this date was dropped early because it had referred solely to the work of Barbour as the vehicle of the Midnight Cry in the parable of the 10 virgins. Here is some of what Russell wrote and published, among other things, about Miller, in Volume 3, Studies in the Scriptures, p.86,87:
The May 1883 Watchtower contained the portion you quoted, and some other points:
The above article was written by J.C.Sunderlin, and only approved and published by Russell. But the most important connection to Millerism was what Russell himself  had described a couple years earlier. The article below is from October 1881, and was the very important announcement that the "door was shut." No more persons would be chosen for the 144,000 as of October 3rd, 1881.
 
 
So, evidently, the initial tie-in to Millerism was that Miller's movement was even more integral to the leading of God's people, and that these movements were of God. Miller and Barbour were both instruments for leading God's people. The midnight cry was made through Barbour, a Millerite from the beginning of that movement. The parable of the 10 virgins was not about an invitation to all persons, or even all Christians, but had a specific fulfillment from those "virgins" who were associated with the Millerite and Advent movements. And the difference was all in their response to Miller's and Barbour's chronology, nothing else. Foolish virgins were of the Millerite "class" who almost had it right but then gave up on the time element (chronology) out of fear of being disappointed again. And the prudent virgins were from that same class of Millerites, but who listened to Barbour about his chronology. (Initially, Russell accepted Barbour's chronology that claimed the "midnight cry" started going out in 1859 when Barbour first understood that this "midnight" was the halfway point between 1844 and 1874. Russell himself had not picked up on this midnight cry until he became associated with Barbour around 1877.)
Baptist preachers, like Miller, do not ever call themselves "Father" as a religious title. Neither do Second Adventists. Bible Students today agree that it was due to his being the "Father" of the Second Advent movement, so it was out of respect for his continued leadership of 50,000 or so Second Adventists even after the failure of 1843 and 1844.

I think this is usually true. If I were asked about my activity here, and it's bound to happen, I can say that I did what I thought was right at the time (which I do) but that I can do whatever it takes to make amends. I have seen this stuff go on for 40 years, and I am a very patient man . . .
I'm a very gentle man
Even-tempered and good-natured who you never hear complain 
Who has the milk of human kindness by the quart in every vein
A patient man am I, down to my fingertips
The sort who never would, never could
Let an insulting remark escape his lips 
A very gentle man
Of course, sometimes the brothers who have to do the questioning might have a completely different idea of motivations or reasonableness. Galileo could avoid disfellowshipping by just admitting that he was wrong, but it's hard to put all that stuff back in the telescope once it's been seen. It takes a lot of humility to recant when you think someone is asking you to: "Admit that 2+2=5, because Jehovah says so!!" You just have to be able to empathize, put yourself in their shoes, and remember that the roles could so easily have been reversed if they had had the same experiences you had, and you had the same experiences they had.
 

There you have it!

Your last paragraph there is preaching to the choir. I agreed 100% with @Arauna on those sentiments. But I disagree that we, (in representing and promoting the Watchtower's doctrines), should so slavishly put faith in the secular date 539/8 as if it is some holy grail that stands by itself. In truth, the evidence for 539/8 is excellent, but it really is NOT as good as the evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's "18th/19th" corresponds to 587/6. (Sorry about the slashes.) I like something that @Gone Fishing said, about how we rely on secular chronology for a doctrine that seems so important to a lot of us here. What you said about 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 is actually what opened my eyes to finally look at the evidence myself. And that's why I blame-shifted and projected the same useful counsel right back onto Russell himself. Why would any doctrine for Christians need to be based on a secular date like 539/8? Our 1914 doctrine REQUIRES that we put slavish faith in this secular date, in spite of everything we are willing to denigrate about secular dates, scientists, archaeologists.
I have no problem at all pointing to the times we have been living in since 1914 as evidence that we need God's Kingdom to be manifested for all mankind. It's the only solution, and it is all the more proved to be the only solution, as man gets himself further and further into trouble. The more advantages and knowledge we have for solving problems, the worse things get, based on greed and the human condition. Sorry . . . .now who's preaching to the choir?
You also asked that question about "What preaching campaign did he . . . found?"
I don't think he would have had patience to work on this from 1968 to 1975 if he was really looking to start something himself. Of course, I can see how ego might have come into play, but I don't know him, and I've heard that he was one of those who likes a low profile. It's easier for me to picture someone who likes to do research as a person who wants to keep a low profile, because that's also the way I am in front of people in the congregation. Probably true of most nerdy types. He must have respected the brothers in Brooklyn enough to want to ask the full question correctly, dotting all the i's and crossing all t's (assuming they have those letters in cuneiform). I'm sure he thought the brothers would be interested because it was obvious that what he was learning was very relevant to the 1914 doctrine. I talked to two brothers on the Aid Book project who said they already knew what was coming even before they had seen what  COJ had sent. They said they could guess what was in it, and had known themselves since the 1960's. But both of these brothers thought it better to just discuss it only with trusted friends.
By 1980 every researcher associated with the 1969 "Chronology" article in the Aid Book was under suspicion, and most were dismissed from Bethel before the end of 1980. But they remained elders and special pioneers because this is what they really wanted. It wasn't until someone came around to disfellowship one of them that he was forced out, not because he wanted to be disfellowshipped. From what I have read, it's the same with R.Franz. He wanted to stay in the brotherhood, and in his congregation, and had nothing against any and nothing against the Society, and no reason to "badmouth" it. It seems that in both cases, the books they wrote were published only after they believed there was false information being spread. In a related case, when I was at Bethel, I knew a few of the proofreaders especially because they often needed reference books to look up exact quotes, even for translating to other languages. When I heard that 4 of them were under questioning, 2 married couples, I saw one brother's wife trying to hide tears at lunchtime. When I told the brother that I heard the rumor, he said it was tough but, fortunately, Brother Sydlik had said he thought it would be OK for them because as he supposedly said "I can tell that you and your wife really love Jehovah, and that's why you don't really have anything to worry about." By the next morning, I had learned that it was later on that same afternoon the previous day that they had learned they were all being disfellowshipped. But within hours, the rumor had surfaced that they must not have been just apostates but must have also been "swingers" who changed marriage partners, and that the men must have also been homosexuals. I was appalled by how fast those two rumors spread. Later we discovered that one of the wives was not disfellowshipped, but somehow that didn't stop the ugly rumors from being stated as solid facts by then. My point is that none of the brothers I knew who had been either involved or semi-involved in this apostasy had really wanted to leave and start anything on their own.

I can't tell if you are just making up things as diversions. Should I assume this when you make statements that are not backed up with evidence? For example, I have COJ's book as a PDF and just searched through it for anything about Israel/Palestine/1946/1967 and it looks like there is no evidence for what you claimed previously. Do you have any evidence?
I mentioned this already, and rather than respond, you changed the subject to how COJ insists that people believe the Watchtower was associated with WIlliam Miller. So I look up every instance of William Miller in his book, and, as I've come to expect by now, there was nothing there that ties William Miller to the Watchtower. He merely mentions Miller in the list of persons and groups that are part of the history of various Gentile Times doctrines. So how can COJ be insisting on something that he doesn't even mention is connected with the Watchtower? Again, do you have any evidence? Or am I supposed to assume that you made this up?
I have found closer connections in our own publications, than in COJ's book about a relationship with the movement of William Miller:
*** jv chap. 4 p. 40 The Great Apostasy Develops *** In the United States, William Miller predicted the return of Christ in visible form in 1843 or 1844. The German theologian J. A. Bengel set the date for 1836; . . . Such efforts to keep on the watch served to awaken many to the prospect of our Lord’s return. Russell wrote some interesting things about Miller as I said. As I also said, he did not want to be associated directly with William Miller or tied in any way to the failure and disappointment of Miller. But he did speak of the work of Miller as being foreordained through prophecy, and therefore the references to various dates with respect to Miller as fulfilling Bible prophecy, such as 1829, 1844, and later 1859, too, although this date was dropped early because it had referred solely to the work of Barbour as the vehicle of the Midnight Cry in the parable of the 10 virgins. Here is some of what Russell wrote and published, among other things, about Miller, in Volume 3, Studies in the Scriptures, p.86,87:
The May 1883 Watchtower contained the portion you quoted, and some other points:
The above article was written by J.C.Sunderlin, and only approved and published by Russell. But the most important connection to Millerism was what Russell himself  had described a couple years earlier. The article below is from October 1881, and was the very important announcement that the "door was shut." No more persons would be chosen for the 144,000 as of October 3rd, 1881.
 
 
So, evidently, the initial tie-in to Millerism was that Miller's movement was even more integral to the leading of God's people, and that these movements were of God. Miller and Barbour were both instruments for leading God's people. The midnight cry was made through Barbour, a Millerite from the beginning of that movement. The parable of the 10 virgins was not about an invitation to all persons, or even all Christians, but had a specific fulfillment from those "virgins" who were associated with the Millerite and Advent movements. And the difference was all in their response to Miller's and Barbour's chronology, nothing else. Foolish virgins were of the Millerite "class" who almost had it right but then gave up on the time element (chronology) out of fear of being disappointed again. And the prudent virgins were from that same class of Millerites, but who listened to Barbour about his chronology. (Initially, Russell accepted Barbour's chronology that claimed the "midnight cry" started going out in 1859 when Barbour first understood that this "midnight" was the halfway point between 1844 and 1874. Russell himself had not picked up on this midnight cry until he became associated with Barbour around 1877.)
Baptist preachers, like Miller, do not ever call themselves "Father" as a religious title. Neither do Second Adventists. Bible Students today agree that it was due to his being the "Father" of the Second Advent movement, so it was out of respect for his continued leadership of 50,000 or so Second Adventists even after the failure of 1843 and 1844.

The Watchtower associated themselves with the "William Miller" movement by accepting the 1844 date as a date given in Bible prophecy. This does not mean that Russell was a Second Adventist, or even wanted to be associated with William Miller. He was embarrassed at their date failure, and was hesitant to admit that his fascination with the Second Adventists was primarily about their chronology. As he studied he found that he did not agree with the Adventists on a lot of things, but he always remained absorbed with their chronology. When Russell published Watch Towers that called William Miller "Father Miller" he was offering unnecessary respect to the man. But he claimed that the Millerites showed themselves to be foolish virgins whose lamps had run out of oil because they stopped setting dates.

I had no idea that COJ was into legitimizing the Jewish wars of 1947 and 1967. Sounds pretty strange to me. And of course I had no idea that he was trying to deceive R.Franz into using the accepted timeline to get him to legitimize. I had no idea what you meant previously by saying that I had the same ideology as COJ. And of course, I didn't know that this was the reason that I hadn't answered your simple question yet.
Seriously, though, although I know that it's a common belief about Israel among Bible scholars and pretend Bible scholars, I did not know that COJ got into this, too. Where did you find this? In spite of @Nana Fofana's experience, I can't find anything about COJ when I look for his full name plus 1967 war, 1947 Palestine, etc.

I think this is usually true. If I were asked about my activity here, and it's bound to happen, I can say that I did what I thought was right at the time (which I do) but that I can do whatever it takes to make amends. I have seen this stuff go on for 40 years, and I am a very patient man . . .
I'm a very gentle man
Even-tempered and good-natured who you never hear complain 
Who has the milk of human kindness by the quart in every vein
A patient man am I, down to my fingertips
The sort who never would, never could
Let an insulting remark escape his lips 
A very gentle man
Of course, sometimes the brothers who have to do the questioning might have a completely different idea of motivations or reasonableness. Galileo could avoid disfellowshipping by just admitting that he was wrong, but it's hard to put all that stuff back in the telescope once it's been seen. It takes a lot of humility to recant when you think someone is asking you to: "Admit that 2+2=5, because Jehovah says so!!" You just have to be able to empathize, put yourself in their shoes, and remember that the roles could so easily have been reversed if they had had the same experiences you had, and you had the same experiences they had.
 

I can tell what happened here. Even though I wasn't familiar with this supposed controversy and had never read about it in COJ's book, it seemed obvious that you missed the actual point of the statement you quoted above, and which I highlighted in red. COJ did not word this statement very well, but you can catch his meaning perfectly from the context you provided. I'll add a little more context from that section of the book so you can see if this makes sense:
So COJ has already explicitly stated that the Society does indeed argue that Thermistocles died about 471/70. (He also points out that it's an argument the Society gets, at least indirectly, through Christendom, originating with a Jesuit theologian and an archbishop in the 17th century.) COJ's point here is that the Watch Tower Society leaves out information which would show what the real point of the source material is. As you saw from a previous question you asked, the Society did exactly the same thing in another place in the "Insight" book when they claimed they were giving the "Jewish understanding" from Soncino, but left out just enough words to hide the fact that they were only pretending to give the Jewish understanding. In this case COJ is saying that although the WTS was quoting Diodorus Siculus in support of Thermistocles death in 471, they were actually quoting source material that never claimed anything about a death in 471, but another event in his life that must have happened well before he died anyway. So it should have been worded:
I've learned that it doesn't take much to catch the Society in these bits of "scholastic dishonesty." It's hard to say whether it's incompetence or deliberate or they just read with a kind of "wishful thinking" that some secular sources might somehow be found to offer support. I didn't know this particular one at all, but I am very disappointed that it keeps happening. I'm not sure if COJ ever noticed the previous one we talked about (the "Jewish understanding") but I can see that COJ has seen several more of these examples, and I know I have seen several too that COJ probably never deals with in his book. 
It turns out, however, that COJ was right in this case, and the Watch Tower Society was wrong.
This was from your post about Grayson's book. (Which is excellent, btw) The reason this book review uses the term "Series" like this is to avoid the repetition of the longer phrase, "Babylonian Chronicle Series." The book itself has some very good information about why 539 is no better a date to call "absolute" than any other date in the Neo-Babylonian chronology, and why the supposed break at 539 is arbitrary. The reviewer alludes to it, saying:
In Grayson's book, what was meant by this is that there is a 50 year gap in the Series after 539, but excellent coverage in the 50+ years prior.  (The book review you mentioned takes exception to Grayson calling ALL of the chronicles the "Babylonian Chronicle Series" especially because she sees no real continuity between ALL the chronicles in this "Series" especially due to the long break in the eras covered.)

Well, this is something new and refreshing. Someone appears to be willing to discuss the actual issues at hand. Unfortunately nearly all these issues had been brought up before by a certain @AllenSmith , and the answers are still the same as were given before.
I would say that of course, yes, the historical assigned dates CAN be compromised by historian's writings, or mistaken. This is one of the reasons you look for several different independent lines of evidence. In this case all the different independent lines of contemporary evidence all point to the same thing: 587/586 BCE for Jerusalem's destruction. The evidence is just as powerful, and in some ways more powerful, than the evidence for 539, which the Watchtower has called "absolute" and "assured." That's the problem with trying to punch holes in half-a-dozen independent lines of evidence. It's the same as saying that the evidence for 539 is potentially compromised or mistaken, except that we need that date in order to have a starting point to manipulate the earlier date. So we're kind of trapped: all the evidence that we are accepting is the same as the evidence that destroys our theory. The best we could ever hope for is that no one would have ever noticed the evidence. And for the most part, that has worked just fine, because very few Witnesses will look into this kind of research, even when -- or especially when -- it becomes evident that it creates conflicts with our strongly entrenched traditions.
You are talking about Nebuchadnezzar I, II, III, and IV. These are well understood. Also, any kings that ruled less than a year have no effect on the timeline. That's the beauty of having half-a-dozen independent lines of evidence that also interact smoothly and support each other. It turns out that ALL the evidence still creates only one timeline that fits. There aren't even like two or three top choices. One of the Nebuchadnezzars you speak of was not even part of the Neo-Bablonian timeline. He reigned hundreds of years outside of the timeline we are concerned about. And the other two are outside the part of the timeline we care about (and reigned only a few months each). Besides, the Watchtower already accepts the Neo-Babylonian timeline if they ever mention that the date 539 is accurate. If it's accurate, then it's because we are admitting that the Neo-Babylonian timelline is accurate. If we say that 587/6 is NOT accurate, then we are saying that 539 is not accurate. The argument you are making could be made about anything. Why question if there were only four Nebuchadnezzars? Why not propose that 2,000 different tablets that mention Nebuchadnezzars refer to 2,000 different kings named Nebuchanezzar? If all of them referred to a different Nebuchadnezzar, you would have to ADD all the regnal years from every tablet in such a case. This would also mean that (since year 20 is the average regnal year on these tablets) the Neo-Babylonian timeline was about 20 x 2000 or 40,000 years long. From your vantage point, as an opposer of the evidence, you could surmise anything you wanted about the evidence.
The other points you enumerated are not valid because you have no right to use any BCE dates for comparison if you don't accept the dates of the Neo-Babylonian period. You should never even use the date 539 or 538, if you don't really accept the chronology evidence that got you there. Just throwing out some questions, and claiming things are "perceived" when they really aren't perceived the way you say is a good way to try to poke holes. But it's meaningless unless you have an alternative theory that fits ALL the evidence, or at least tries to fit all the evidence. Then, to really test if that theory works with ALL the evidence, you put it out there and see if someone can find any contradictions in your proposal. I'm sure you have heard the expression "blowing smoke." It refers to the tactic of just throwing anything out there and hoping that it will stick. [It's not really a mixed metaphor, it just looks like one.] It's done without a concern about what it does to the rest of the evidence, or if it creates impossible contradictions. That's why you haven't really poked holes until you can hypothesize what it would mean as an alternative.

I wouldn't like to have 'crossed' King David when he was ruling. These are things that are 'too high' for me.
Uriah will surely have a reality check when he discovers that David, not only had him killed, but had him carry his own order of execution to Joab. Moreover, Jehovah overlooked it, went on to bless David greatly, and blessed his son by his ex-wife even more. "What am I - chopped liver?" he will say.
And that is only because David had the hots for his wife. Imagine if he thought Uriah was messing with the kingdom!
There are some things you do not mess with and people of the last days are too stupid to know that. Reporters peer into the pants of leaders to tell of their soiled underwear and are dumbfounded that said leaders get mad.
As to the brothers back then, I won't attribute ill conduct to any of them. I will follow the counsel given somewhere that if a friend has consistently proven himself honorable, you do not turn upon him at the first questionable report. You think: "well, probably there are things I do not know about." Having said that, one can always revert to the remarks already made about David behaving unseemly.
That is the nature of rumors. You don't want to get caught in one. Most likely there was a grain of truth somewhere that someone built on and others blew it viral. Imagine what can be done, for example, with reports that men are sitting naked together in the sauna. It's why one must always be cautious about what they relate. I keep thinking of the scripture that tells how Jehovah feels about spreading contention among brothers.
I don't see any reason, per se, to vilify men like COJ. But neither do I want to sanctify him. There's a time to back off. Even if he felt maneuvered into a tight spot, he could have always clawed his way back, making whatever amends he had to.  Michael Jackson made the Thriller album and, to deal with the fallout, expressed regret over doing that type of music, which was woven into a magazine article on (then) questionable music, he being quoted anonymously. True, he later came to grumble about that 'discipline,' but it may have been better had he taken it to heart. His later years didn't really go that well for him, did they?