JW Insider

It's not new. The possibility that 616 might be correct, was already acknowledged by a person who was born between only about 15 to 30 years after the apostle John died. At such an early date, every known difference among the Bible manuscripts would have been significant, because there were so few manuscripts of the Bible books at this time, compared to later. So any differences, if not caught right away, could result in a mistake that would be with us for the next 2,000 years.
As it turns out, we don't need the "witness" of the man born as few as 15 years after the apostle John died. The very earliest known fragment of the book of Revelation also says 616, not 666. Note this from Wikipedia:
Around 2005, a fragment from Papyrus 115, taken from the Oxyrhynchus site, was discovered at the Oxford University's Ashmolean Museum. It gave the beast's number as 616 ????. This fragment is the oldest manuscript . . . of Revelation 13 found as of 2017.[2][3]Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, known before the P115 finding but dating to after it, has 616 written in full: ????????? ???? ??, hexakosioi deka hex (lit. "six hundred and sixteen").[17]  
Fragment from Papyrus 115 (P115) of Revelation in the 66th vol. of the Oxyrhynchus series (P. Oxy. 4499).[16] Has the number of the beast as ???, 616. What looks like XIC in the fragment is actually Greek for "xis" which are the numerals for 6+10+600 or 616. But to show that this was no simple copyist error, the verse also spells out the word for 616 in the way that we spell it out in English as "six-hundred sixteen" (oder auf Deutsch "sechshundert sechzehn"). In the text of the manuscript in Greek this is spelled out as "hexakosioi deka hex" as already noted above. Irenaeus, the man born as few as 15 years after John, preferred 666 to 616, but provides the evidence that he already saw the number 616 in manuscripts in the same generation as the apostle John. Irenaeus said:
Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six; that is, the number of tens shall be equal to that of the hundreds, and the number of hundreds equal to that of the units (for that number which [expresses] the digit six being adhered to throughout, indicates the recapitulations of that apostasy, taken in its full extent, which occurred at the beginning, during the intermediate periods, and which shall take place at the end), - I do not know how it is that some have erred following the ordinary mode of speech, and have vitiated the middle number in the name, deducting the amount of fifty from it, so that instead of six decads they will have it that there is but one. [I am inclined to think that this occurred through the fault of the copyists, as is wont to happen, since numbers also are expressed by letters; so that the Greek letter which expresses the number sixty was easily expanded into the letter Iota of the Greeks.] - Adv. haer. 5.30 The Bible manuscript (P115) is not the only manuscript in which the 616 is found. Wikipedia also says:
Although Irenaeus (2nd century AD) affirmed the number to be 666 . . . theologians have doubts about the traditional reading[13] because of the appearance of the figure 616 in the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C; Paris - one of the four great uncial codices), as well as in the Latin version of Tyconius (DCXVI, ed. Souter in the Journal of Theology, SE, April 1913), and in an ancient Armenian version (ed. Conybeare, 1907). Irenaeus knew about the 616 reading, but did not adopt it (Haer. v.30,3). In the 380s, correcting the existing Latin-language version of the New Testament (commonly referred to as the Vetus Latina), Jerome retained "666".[14][15]   The P115 mss is probably from 225 C.E. to 250 C.E.  Here, below, is how "666" was written in the Codex Vaticanus (between 350 and 400 C.E.):
So either version has the potential to be correct. But the earliest evidence we have is for 616, not 666. Also we can think about whether it was more likely that a mnemonic number like 666 would more likely turn into a non-mnemonic 616 or would it be more likely that a non-mnemonic would be retained as a mnemonic. In the study of the history of textual changes, the difficult is simplified more often than the simple is made more difficult.
In this case, however, there is an even better explanation as to why both 666 and 616 were both known at such an early date in the history of the manuscripts of Revelation. But that's another story, that is not necessary for this discussion.

Exactly. I don't think that can be justified unless the behavior is so outrageous that even you would want someone banned for unjustifiable personal attacks on yourself or calls for violence against your religion's leading representatives or some other outrageous forms of speech, imagery, etc. I don't think we should be dishing it out, but I think all of us should learn to handle some name-calling and ad hominem attacks. It's the nature of religious, political and otherwise ideological discussion these days. If we can't handle it, it's something we should discuss with others, because we're just going to see more and more of it in this world.  
I agree with this too. Although I would hate to be the one involved in meting out warnings and suspensions, I think that the worse that should happen is a temporary suspension for those who have OBVIOUSLY broken the rules. Perhaps the suspensions should get a bit longer if a person breaks the rules more often. But the problem is about being fair, because two people may cause just as must dissension and disruption, but one might be more liked or disliked and people would be quicker to suspend the one they dislike. I don't like the fact that a person who is banned forever can't get their posts back, and most of those posts just disappear. If only a couple of posts deserved warnings and suspensions, that's no reason to destroy a history of work by that person.
The only kinds of accounts I would like to see banned are those that come on here like "bots" just to sell a product, where you can't interact with the person about their product. Some software bans them automatically, but a few have slipped onto this forum just to spam with links to advertisements of products.
There's also the idea of private sub-groups. I like these, but they can be overused. I belong to a couple of small mostly JW Biblical discussion forums where you have to be invited. This is fine as far as it goes, and if someone could just come on there to disrupt it would make no sense to invite them. Like having a discussion forum about cats where someone comes on there just to talk about how they hate cats.

Exactly. I don't think that can be justified unless the behavior is so outrageous that even you would want someone banned for unjustifiable personal attacks on yourself or calls for violence against your religion's leading representatives or some other outrageous forms of speech, imagery, etc. I don't think we should be dishing it out, but I think all of us should learn to handle some name-calling and ad hominem attacks. It's the nature of religious, political and otherwise ideological discussion these days. If we can't handle it, it's something we should discuss with others, because we're just going to see more and more of it in this world.  
I agree with this too. Although I would hate to be the one involved in meting out warnings and suspensions, I think that the worse that should happen is a temporary suspension for those who have OBVIOUSLY broken the rules. Perhaps the suspensions should get a bit longer if a person breaks the rules more often. But the problem is about being fair, because two people may cause just as must dissension and disruption, but one might be more liked or disliked and people would be quicker to suspend the one they dislike. I don't like the fact that a person who is banned forever can't get their posts back, and most of those posts just disappear. If only a couple of posts deserved warnings and suspensions, that's no reason to destroy a history of work by that person.
The only kinds of accounts I would like to see banned are those that come on here like "bots" just to sell a product, where you can't interact with the person about their product. Some software bans them automatically, but a few have slipped onto this forum just to spam with links to advertisements of products.
There's also the idea of private sub-groups. I like these, but they can be overused. I belong to a couple of small mostly JW Biblical discussion forums where you have to be invited. This is fine as far as it goes, and if someone could just come on there to disrupt it would make no sense to invite them. Like having a discussion forum about cats where someone comes on there just to talk about how they hate cats.

Exactly. I don't think that can be justified unless the behavior is so outrageous that even you would want someone banned for unjustifiable personal attacks on yourself or calls for violence against your religion's leading representatives or some other outrageous forms of speech, imagery, etc. I don't think we should be dishing it out, but I think all of us should learn to handle some name-calling and ad hominem attacks. It's the nature of religious, political and otherwise ideological discussion these days. If we can't handle it, it's something we should discuss with others, because we're just going to see more and more of it in this world.  
I agree with this too. Although I would hate to be the one involved in meting out warnings and suspensions, I think that the worse that should happen is a temporary suspension for those who have OBVIOUSLY broken the rules. Perhaps the suspensions should get a bit longer if a person breaks the rules more often. But the problem is about being fair, because two people may cause just as must dissension and disruption, but one might be more liked or disliked and people would be quicker to suspend the one they dislike. I don't like the fact that a person who is banned forever can't get their posts back, and most of those posts just disappear. If only a couple of posts deserved warnings and suspensions, that's no reason to destroy a history of work by that person.
The only kinds of accounts I would like to see banned are those that come on here like "bots" just to sell a product, where you can't interact with the person about their product. Some software bans them automatically, but a few have slipped onto this forum just to spam with links to advertisements of products.
There's also the idea of private sub-groups. I like these, but they can be overused. I belong to a couple of small mostly JW Biblical discussion forums where you have to be invited. This is fine as far as it goes, and if someone could just come on there to disrupt it would make no sense to invite them. Like having a discussion forum about cats where someone comes on there just to talk about how they hate cats.

Of course 1866 was important in the defeat of the Confederate States of America.
What significance does that have in Bible prophesy?
Nothing whatsoever.

How would the poster justify the banning of others just to keep your group intact?  Can a person regain their old identity? If not, then why speak of something that's out of someone's control. Yet, the anonymity is high in forums. It would appear, it's not like this group is fooling anyone by their protection. They are allowed to speak their minds in any manner and retain their original accounts. This smells of hypocrisy.

Yes. I don't think anyone else (who has watched multiple-page discussions with him) really doubts that they know him from previous accounts. But not me.  I won't make a big deal about that any more. I told him I wouldn't. He has just as much right to post as anyone, under whatever account name he chooses. It's not like he's really fooling anyone anyway.

True. I used your number. Makes me wonder what date you thought your number would lead you? You might be able to see your mistake for yourself if you could answer that. Where did you think your 653 date would lead? 
 
It just means that either you can't see it yet, or if you can, you prefer to pretend that you can't see it so that you don't have to admit a mistake. You would probably get a better understanding of Brown's theory if you would try to answer any of the questions that have been raised. For example, try these three questions that can now be put in a simple YES or NO format:
1. Did John A Brown EVER say that the Gentile Times were of a length different from 1,260? Yes or No. 2. Did John A Brown EVER say that the Gentile Times were 2,520 years in length? Yes or No. 3. Did John A Brown EVER say that the Gentile Times would end in 1917? Yes or No. If you think the answer is YES to any question, then simply quote the reference.
I suspect that you know the answer but will dodge the question and, if past is prologue, you might even claim that I'm the one dodging the question. Still, they are simple questions, and if you can't or won't answer, people can just make a note of that and move on. Perhaps more serious persons would be interested in the topic.

True. I used your number. Makes me wonder what date you thought your number would lead you? You might be able to see your mistake for yourself if you could answer that. Where did you think your 653 date would lead? 
 
It just means that either you can't see it yet, or if you can, you prefer to pretend that you can't see it so that you don't have to admit a mistake. You would probably get a better understanding of Brown's theory if you would try to answer any of the questions that have been raised. For example, try these three questions that can now be put in a simple YES or NO format:
1. Did John A Brown EVER say that the Gentile Times were of a length different from 1,260? Yes or No. 2. Did John A Brown EVER say that the Gentile Times were 2,520 years in length? Yes or No. 3. Did John A Brown EVER say that the Gentile Times would end in 1917? Yes or No. If you think the answer is YES to any question, then simply quote the reference.
I suspect that you know the answer but will dodge the question and, if past is prologue, you might even claim that I'm the one dodging the question. Still, they are simple questions, and if you can't or won't answer, people can just make a note of that and move on. Perhaps more serious persons would be interested in the topic.

Yes. I don't think anyone else (who has watched multiple-page discussions with him) really doubts that they know him from previous accounts. But not me.  I won't make a big deal about that any more. I told him I wouldn't. He has just as much right to post as anyone, under whatever account name he chooses. It's not like he's really fooling anyone anyway.

Not sure, but this kind of reasoning remember me to another person very tidy [not sure if this is a correct word] you used to have long talks with him

True. I used your number. Makes me wonder what date you thought your number would lead you? You might be able to see your mistake for yourself if you could answer that. Where did you think your 653 date would lead? 
 
It just means that either you can't see it yet, or if you can, you prefer to pretend that you can't see it so that you don't have to admit a mistake. You would probably get a better understanding of Brown's theory if you would try to answer any of the questions that have been raised. For example, try these three questions that can now be put in a simple YES or NO format:
1. Did John A Brown EVER say that the Gentile Times were of a length different from 1,260? Yes or No. 2. Did John A Brown EVER say that the Gentile Times were 2,520 years in length? Yes or No. 3. Did John A Brown EVER say that the Gentile Times would end in 1917? Yes or No. If you think the answer is YES to any question, then simply quote the reference.
I suspect that you know the answer but will dodge the question and, if past is prologue, you might even claim that I'm the one dodging the question. Still, they are simple questions, and if you can't or won't answer, people can just make a note of that and move on. Perhaps more serious persons would be interested in the topic.

Why am I reminded of a certain local sister’s remark years ago about witnessing to her own former people, the Pentecostals? ‘When they’ve got their music on, you can’t touch em.’
In the background as I write this, family members play ‘Jehovah Give Me Courage’—it’s not only music, but video. 

I have a very simple test to determine whether or not Moise Racette’s pseudo analysis is correct or not.
I just look out the window.
Reality is what it is.
…. and the fact remains that everyone in the history of the human race that is trying to interpret these prophecies has been wrong, and there’s no exception.
 

Flat notes they were.
For me, it is the 49 round boxing match of my great uncle, Joe Jennette against Sam McVey in Paris, both of whom used to routinely fight Jack Johnson, until the latter captured with World Heavyweight title and thereafter himself refused to face Black challengers.
As the 50th round began, Sam refused to budge from his corner, moaning, “This man ain’t human!”
The date was 1909, so it more or less matches prophesy, particularly if one isn’t fussy.

Of course I don't accept what he wrote in his book. It all turned out to be wrong. For example, here are a couple of snippets in the paragraphs just following the page you quoted.


And, as you must be aware, he interpreted dozens of political events, especially in Turkey and Europe, to be fulfillments of nearly every trumpet and vial and quake and beast and other symbol he could find in Daniel, Revelation and Ezekiel. All of them are to be rejected because none of his expectations about any of them turned out to be true.
But I'm not in denial that J A Brown actually wrote such preposterous and presumptuous interpretations. What you posted twice is still part of the same valid evidence we have that J A Brown did NOT believe the 3.5 Gentile Times ended in 1917. He ended them in 1844.
The entire history of all nations from the Head of Gold in the image of Daniel 2 down to the time when God's Kingdom would crush and put an end to all these nations would therefore start with Nebuchadnezzar's reign and end in 1917, according to Brown. Therefore, every political thing that ever happened after Nebuchadnezzar began his reign would have to fall somewhere between 604 BCE and 1917 CE.
Therefore the 1290 years falls within that range of time, but that doesn't mean that the Gentile Times are the 1290 years. The 1335 years must also fall within that range and cannot extend beyond it, but that doesn't make the 1335 years the same as the Gentile Times either. The entire range of 2520 years must fall exactly within that same range from 604 BCE to 1917 CE, but that doesn't make the 2520 years the same as the Gentile Times either, according to Brown. The 391 year period that Brown speaks about, from (1453 CE to 1844 CE) must also fall within that same range, but that doesn't mean that those 391 years are the Gentile Times either. Same goes for the 2,300 days.
In fact, only one of those periods, the 1,260 days, is the one that Brown said was the Gentile Times, because it was the 1,260 year period, he said, where the Mohammedan Abomination was standing where it ought not, around Jerusalem, and which therefore got in the way of Israel creating a nation. But there would be a first judgment upon the Mohammedan impostiture in 1844, at the end of the 1,260 "days" of the Gentile Times. (And Brown expected Jews to begin returning to Palestine in the 7 years leading up to that date, starting in 1837.) Then there would be a total extirpation of the Muslim presence in 1873, the 1290 days. Then of course, total "happiness" would come to all who are able to wait the 1,335 days to that final second judgment upon all nations.
Notice that the parts you quoted from Even-Tide above is what I had pointed out before, that Israel can finally be established when the Gentile Times end in 1844, "the RISE of the Jewish kingdom." Then they become an Empire by 1873. Then they become the transcendent Glory of Israel in the world at the time of the last judgment in 1917.

More or less what I expected you to say based on past experience in this type of a discussion. Reminds me of a scene from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie_the_Pooh_and_the_Blustery_Day
OK, if there's a 1 to 2 year "play" then why do you prefer 1865 then? Are you able to answer that question, at least?
Why would this be about the United States?
What game?

More or less what I expected you to say based on past experience in this type of a discussion. Reminds me of a scene from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie_the_Pooh_and_the_Blustery_Day
OK, if there's a 1 to 2 year "play" then why do you prefer 1865 then? Are you able to answer that question, at least?
Why would this be about the United States?
What game?

More or less what I expected you to say based on past experience in this type of a discussion. Reminds me of a scene from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie_the_Pooh_and_the_Blustery_Day
OK, if there's a 1 to 2 year "play" then why do you prefer 1865 then? Are you able to answer that question, at least?
Why would this be about the United States?
What game?

Of course I don't accept what he wrote in his book. It all turned out to be wrong. For example, here are a couple of snippets in the paragraphs just following the page you quoted.


And, as you must be aware, he interpreted dozens of political events, especially in Turkey and Europe, to be fulfillments of nearly every trumpet and vial and quake and beast and other symbol he could find in Daniel, Revelation and Ezekiel. All of them are to be rejected because none of his expectations about any of them turned out to be true.
But I'm not in denial that J A Brown actually wrote such preposterous and presumptuous interpretations. What you posted twice is still part of the same valid evidence we have that J A Brown did NOT believe the 3.5 Gentile Times ended in 1917. He ended them in 1844.
The entire history of all nations from the Head of Gold in the image of Daniel 2 down to the time when God's Kingdom would crush and put an end to all these nations would therefore start with Nebuchadnezzar's reign and end in 1917, according to Brown. Therefore, every political thing that ever happened after Nebuchadnezzar began his reign would have to fall somewhere between 604 BCE and 1917 CE.
Therefore the 1290 years falls within that range of time, but that doesn't mean that the Gentile Times are the 1290 years. The 1335 years must also fall within that range and cannot extend beyond it, but that doesn't make the 1335 years the same as the Gentile Times either. The entire range of 2520 years must fall exactly within that same range from 604 BCE to 1917 CE, but that doesn't make the 2520 years the same as the Gentile Times either, according to Brown. The 391 year period that Brown speaks about, from (1453 CE to 1844 CE) must also fall within that same range, but that doesn't mean that those 391 years are the Gentile Times either. Same goes for the 2,300 days.
In fact, only one of those periods, the 1,260 days, is the one that Brown said was the Gentile Times, because it was the 1,260 year period, he said, where the Mohammedan Abomination was standing where it ought not, around Jerusalem, and which therefore got in the way of Israel creating a nation. But there would be a first judgment upon the Mohammedan impostiture in 1844, at the end of the 1,260 "days" of the Gentile Times. (And Brown expected Jews to begin returning to Palestine in the 7 years leading up to that date, starting in 1837.) Then there would be a total extirpation of the Muslim presence in 1873, the 1290 days. Then of course, total "happiness" would come to all who are able to wait the 1,335 days to that final second judgment upon all nations.
Notice that the parts you quoted from Even-Tide above is what I had pointed out before, that Israel can finally be established when the Gentile Times end in 1844, "the RISE of the Jewish kingdom." Then they become an Empire by 1873. Then they become the transcendent Glory of Israel in the world at the time of the last judgment in 1917.

"That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach".
Aldous Huxley

Yep. That's a big part of the point I was hoping to make.
J A Brown was likely a strong influence directly or indirectly on William Miller who accepted the 1844 date. Miller was very influential on Nelson Barbour who had been a Second Adventist follower of Miller, and Barbour was the one who added 1873 and 1914 to Miller's mix, similar to how J A Brown had previously added 1873 and 1917. And Barbour was obviously very influential on C T Russell who admits that he learned his chronology from Barbour. And of course, Rutherford and Franz learned it from Russell. 
J A Brown is therefore clearly a part of our own JW history. Which reminds me:
George Santayana: “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Karl Marx: "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce." (Romans 15:3, 4) . . .“The reproaches of those reproaching you have fallen upon me.” 4 For all the things that were written beforehand were written for our instruction,. . .

No. It's just that some people might still be confused about what J A Brown said. He never said that the Gentile Times would end in 1914 or 1917. It looks like you are confusing what Brown said about the "4 Tyrannies" (2,520 years) running for "7 times" starting with the first year of Nebuchadnezzar until 1917. You were probably led to believe that Brown considered those 7 times to be the Gentile Times. Of course, these could NOT be the Gentile Times, according to Brown, because for him, the Gentile Times were only 3.5 times (a time, 2 times, and a half a time), not 7 times.
Brown said that the Gentile Times started in AD 622 and would end in AD 1844. Brown said that the Gentile Times would be 1,260 years long: Brown said that AD 1844 would be the end of several different prophetic periods. The 1260 lunar years of Mohammedan (Muslim) Impostuture (from AD 622) The 1260 solar years of Papal claims to infallibility (from AD 584) The 2300 solar years of Jewish Polity & cleansing of the Sanctuary (from BC 457) The thought is repeated several times by Brown.

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

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

Just read several pages of his book. You'll see that this has nothing to do with theory. It's all pretty straightforward and he repeats a lot of the same things over and over again.
 

I wonder what you thought John Brown was right about, then, when you said "that doesn't mean he was wrong about 1914."
For the record John A Brown (in 1823) said that:
The end of the Gentile Times was going to be just a few years off, in the year AD 1844. The beginning of the Gentile Times was the start of Mohammedism (Muslims) in AD 622. The Gentile Times were 3 and 1/2 times in length, using the length Revelation 11:2 assigns to them. Multiple times he clarifies that the length of the Gentile Times in Luke21:24 = 1,260 (day/yrs) The reason this looks like only 1,222 [solar] years is because he uses "Mohammedan" lunar years So there is really nothing about John A Brown thinking there are "seven" Gentile Times. (Of course, the ONLY length of time that the Bible ever associates with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24 is 1,260 days, so Brown uses that period in years.)
The completely separate 2,520 year period which he derives from Daniel 4 is a period he sets to the start of Nebuchadnezzar's first year of reign in 604 BCE. That would be the year to start the "head of gold" from the image found in Daniel 2  So to Brown it's unrelated to Jewish or Messianic rulership, or the destruction of the Temple about 18 or 19 years later (which Brown would have therefore associated with 587 or 586 BCE.)
And Brown never indicates that the Gentile Times would end in 1914 or 1917 or any time around World War I. He ends the Gentile Times in 1844. He ends Daniel's 1,290 day period in 1873. And he ends Daniel's 1,335 day period in 1917. Because all the periods started with the beginning of the Muslim Mohammedan religion in AD 622.
C.T.Russell and many other commentators had focused on the Papal and secular politics of the Holy Roman Empire, using only Solar years, and therefore had started the 1,260 "days" earlier and ended them in 1799. That made the 1,290 "days" end in 1829 and the 1,335 "days" end in 1874. J A Brown appears to be the first commentator to end the 2,300 days in 1844, which Adventists also accepted, both using solar years and starting around Ezra's time in 457 BC.

@Pudgy With respect to the so-called "overlapping generations," John A Brown had "solved" this (in 1823) by saying that Jesus was referring to the literal, physical "Nation of Israel." Curiously, his arguments also count on the fact that the natural nation of Israel would NEVER pass away, but would be restored at Armageddon in 1844, and would become a world empire, surviving the attack of Gog and Magog in 1873, and would reach its full and glorious realization in the entire world by the time of the second judgment in 1917. Some of this is similar to C.T.Russell's view in the Watchtower, and even Rutherford's view up until at least 1925, that the nation of Israel would gradually become the only surviving nation in the world, ruling from Jerusalem in Palestine.
A lot of Witnesses are not aware that C.T.Russell was a "world famous" Zionist according to some current Zionist historians. But Rutherford's last major support for Zionism was the book "Comfort for the Jews" in 1925, containing teachings that Rutherford dropped completely by 1930 (in the books, Light I and Light II).