Watchtower's 1914 Chronology - Ad Nauseum

[BTK59]

Just like you were so quick to place the attention of a false narrative about Brother Adam Rutherford being a Bible Student, you forgot to mention his specific affiliation within the Bible Student association before he moved on to another religious sect.

He was a member of the PBI. 

Pastoral Bible Institute
In 1918, the former directors held the first Bible Student Convention independent of the Watch Tower Society. At the second convention a few months later, the informal Pastoral Bible Institute was founded. It began publishing The Herald of Christ's Kingdom, edited by Randolph E. Streeter. An editorial committee continues publication of the magazine[68] in a reduced capacity, and reproduces other Bible Student movement literature, including Russell's six-volume Studies in the Scriptures. [67]

The forty-fifth Annual Meeting of the members of the Pastoral Bible Institute, Inc., was held at 10:00 a.m., September 21, in the Central Y.M.C.A., 1315 Pacific Avenue, Atlantic City, New Jersey.

members of the Institute during the previous year; after which the meeting proceeded with the election of a new Board. Brothers C. M. Glass and Adam Rutherford were appointed to act as Tellers. While they were counting the votes, the rest of the friends enjoyed a season of fellowship in praise, prayer, and testimony. At the conclusion of the count, the names of the following brethren were announced as elected F. A. Essler, J. C. Jordan, A. L. Muir, J. T. Read, P. L. Read, W. J. Siekman and P. E. Thomson

Your presentation, which led people to believe he was somehow connected to the Watchtower Bible Students, is false. You need to conduct more thorough research before getting caught in a lie. This is not an ad-hominem attack, but rather the truth. Furthermore, Adam's transition to identifying as a British Israelite, tracing back to the lost tribes of Israel, particularly during the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, is noteworthy. Some historians have linked Charles Piazzi Smyth to the revival of that ideology, and some believe he was part of the British Israelite faction. If you claim to be a researcher, then strive to be an excellent one. That's also the truth.

I have been aware of his history for over 40 years. Why haven't you, since you were at Bethel and heard the false claims made by Carl Olof Jonsson? Why didn't your conscience guide anyone there to investigate Adam Rutherford's book series, which directly addressed the Babylonian Chronicles?

[BTK59]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

don't think COJ was ever a Bethelite. And he didn't align the Babylonian Chronicles with 607 and 1914. You appear to be creating deceptions out of thin air.

I fail to understand why you are defending such an egregious person who is clearly a liar. It seems unnecessary for you to overlook his repugnant actions when his own words speak volumes.

He not only discusses the Babylonian Chronicles at length, but also provides a compelling explanation for why he discredits the Watchtower Chronology with his carefully chosen words. It's time to be honest with the public and stop deceiving them.

The Gentile Times Reconsidered -- Jonsson, Carl Olof -- 4th ed., rev. and exp, 2004

If these lists are correct, the first year of Nebuchadnezzar would be 604/ 603 B.C.E. and his eighteenth year, when he desolated Jerusalem, would be 587/86 B.C.E., not 607 B.C.E. as in Watch Tower chronology. p.99

The Babylonian Chronicle BM 21946
This chronicle covers the period from Nabopolassar’s 21st year (605/04 B.C.E.) to Nebuchadnezzar’s 10th year (595/94 B.C.E.). Photo used courtesy of D. J. Wiseman (shown in his Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, Plate VI). p.101

Why not give a Justification for persisting in this deceitful path despite your knowledge of the truth, please elaborate it to your exclusive circle of acquaintances.

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Pyramidology, largely considered to be Christian Science, was actually opposed by Pastor Russell.

Officially, I think Christian Scientists were not into pyramidology. 

 https://www.marybakereddylibrary.org/research/was-there-ever-a-pyramid-at-mary-baker-eddys-birthplace/

Some independent Christian Scientists evidently supported it, but the "mother church" did not. The only known references to Mary Baker Eddy mentioning "pyramidology" is a reference to "The Great Pyramid" and how it had been called "a miracle in stone." Eddy herself seemed like it was only good for a comparison and she said nothing much about the Great Pyramid itself outside of that reference to the public's view of it. 

I would compare this to the definite "pyramidology" of Charles Taze Russell, who spoke of that one pyramid, Giza, and only that one as Jehovah's Witness in stone, and as God's Prophet. By divining the entrails of the pyramid, he tried to derive truths about the times and seasons for the last days. He tried to derive truths that supported his pre-conceived beliefs about "Israel's double" and 1874, and 187, and 1881, 1910, 1911, 1914 and 1915. As opposed to just a sentence or two from the leader and primary author of Christian Scientist material, Russell published pages and pages about it. Chapters, sermons and articles. He defended it in all the ways that Seiss did in the book, Miracle in Stone. He published Smyth's endorsement of his main treatise on the pyramid, mentioning that this endorsement was by the person he said knew more about it than any living person on earth. Russell had pictures of the Pyramid and its entrails embossed onto the cover of hundreds of thousands of Studies in the Scriptures. He used pyramid illustrations in his "Chart of the Ages" and in various simpler illustrations to make points about pyramids in general. But mostly it was all about defending the supposed knowledge found in the Great Pyramid of Giza and which was hidden for many ages until it was providentially revealed during the great restoration period he believed he was in. 

Here is one of his pyramid illustrations that has nothing to do with the Great Pyramid of Giza, as found in the first volume, Divine Plan of the Ages:

Our oneness with the Lord Jesus, as members of the Christ, the anointed company, is well illustrated by the figure of the pyramid.

The top-stone is a perfect pyramid of itself. Other stones may be built up under it, and, if in harmony with all the characteristic lines of the top-stone, the whole mass will be a perfect pyramid. How beautifully this illustrates our position as members of "the Seed"—"the Christ." Joined to and perfectly in harmony with our Head, we, as living stones, are perfect; separated from him, we are nothing. [A83]

Jesus, the perfect one, has been highly exalted, and now we present ourselves to him that we may be formed and shaped according to his example, and that we may be built up as a building of God. In an ordinary building there is no chief corner-stone; but in our building there is one chief corner-stone, the "top-stone," as it is written: "Behold, I lay in Zion a chief corner-stone, elect, precious"—"to whom coming as unto a living stone...ye also as lively [living] stones are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up *sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. 2:4-6) And very soon, we trust, the union between Jesus, the "Head," and "the Church, which is his body," will be complete.

Bible Students who were close to Russell and loyal to Russell defended Russell's beliefs about the Great Pyramid. Russell wasn't a spiritist, or into spiritualism, or anything related to the occult. But he supported pyramidology in exactly the sense of the term that Adam Rutherford used the term when he wrote the series of volumes he called "Pyramidology." 

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Just like you were so quick to place the attention of a false narrative about Brother Adam Rutherford being a Bible Student, you forgot to mention his specific affiliation within the Bible Student association before he moved on to another religious sect.

Go back and read everything I said about him and you will see that what I said was perfectly accurate. There is no false narrative here about him being a Bible Student. So it still looks like you tend to make up deceptions out of thin air. 

3 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Your presentation, which led people to believe he was somehow connected to the Watchtower Bible Students, is false.

Everything I said about him was and is still true. So it still looks like you tend to make up deceptions out of thin air. 

3 hours ago, BTK59 said:

You need to conduct more thorough research before getting caught in a lie.

Don't make up things you wish someone had said, just so you can claim they got caught in a lie. That's dishonest. Think about Proverbs 6:16-18: 

There are six things that Jehovah hates; Yes, seven things that he detests: ¹⁷  Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, ¹⁸ A heart plotting wicked schemes, and feet that run quickly to evil, ¹⁹  A false witness who lies with every breath, And anyone sowing contentions among brothers.

3 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Your presentation, which led people to believe

Read more carefully and you probably won't be as confused.

3 hours ago, BTK59 said:

I have been aware of his history for over 40 years. Why haven't you, since you were at Bethel and heard the false claims made by Carl Olof Jonsson? Why didn't your conscience guide anyone there to investigate Adam Rutherford's book series, which directly addressed the Babylonian Chronicles?

I had never heard of him while I was at Bethel. All I heard about COJ at Bethel was that he had typed a manuscript that questioned our chronology about the Gentile Times. I first heard about it when speaking with someone in Writing who said that it is just sitting on the shelf over there because no one wants to touch it. It's a "hot potato."

[BTK59]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Officially, I think Christian Scientists were not into pyramidology. 

You seem to have limited knowledge about the connection between Christian Science and pyramidology. However, scientific tests have been conducted on several pyramids, not just the one briefly referenced by Pastor Russell.

Instead of only conducting a Google search to confirm your biased presentation, like you did with Brother Adam Rutherford, broaden your knowledge.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Bible Students who were close to Russell and loyal to Russell defended Russell's beliefs about the Great Pyramid. Russell wasn't a spiritist, or into spiritualism, or anything related to the occult. But he supported pyramidology in exactly the sense of the term that Adam Rutherford used the term when he wrote the series of volumes he called "Pyramidology." 

Absolutely! They discussed how the Great Pyramid could provide evidence for certain events that they were already familiar with. I don't think there's a need for personal bias and exaggerations in this matter. You are also right, Russell was not a spiritualist; he condemned it. However, that does not mean that those involved in Pyramidology did not focus on the spiritual aspects of it, much like the ancients. Your tendency to cause confusion on this issue should be well documented for the public.

49 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Go back and read everything I said about him and you will see that what I said was perfectly accurate. There is no false narrative here about him being a Bible Student. So it still looks like you tend to make up deceptions out of thin air. 

Your statement didn't specify the type of Bible Student association he was affiliated with. You only referred to him as a Bible student as if he were associated with the Watchtower Bible Student associations, which he was not. The PBI was a distinct type of Bible student association that diverged in many aspects from the teachings of the Watchtower, whether by Russell or Rutherford. Therefore, I did not fabricate this information; your mistaken assumption did.

Why bother defending your deceitful facade? It holds no significance for me, as I am already aware of your dishonesty. It's gratifying to see that your friends are finally recognizing the illogical approach you have embraced.

56 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Don't make up things you wish someone had said, just so you can claim they got caught in a lie. That's dishonest. Think about Proverbs 6:16-18: 

There are six things that Jehovah hates; Yes, seven things that he detests: ¹⁷  Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, ¹⁸ A heart plotting wicked schemes, and feet that run quickly to evil, ¹⁹  A false witness who lies with every breath, And anyone sowing contentions among brothers.

You have been personally affected by this for ten years. Are you just now realizing the spiritual damage you have caused? It's too little, too late.

58 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Read more carefully and you probably won't be as confused.

You are simply wasting time with nonsensical conclusions. While it may work within your closed community, it should be taken seriously for visitors to grasp the decades-old deception perpetuated by some individuals who identify themselves as JWs.

 

[BTK59]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I had never heard of him while I was at Bethel. All I heard about COJ at Bethel was that he had typed a manuscript that questioned our chronology about the Gentile Times. I first heard about it when speaking with someone in Writing who said that it is just sitting on the shelf over there because no one wants to touch it. It's a "hot potato."

During your time in Bethel, you were absorbing everything. Many Bethelites accepted the conclusions of that apostate, and some of you still do. Since that information was available then, it could have been used to challenge and refute 40 years of misinformation. Why didn't people like you take the time to conduct thorough research for the truth? You seem to think your personal research now is of value; why didn't you do it back then? It's not enough to simply say that it was a sensitive issue no one wanted to address, given that we are still dealing with the consequences of poorly researched claims made by unqualified individuals.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

During your time in Bethel, you were absorbing everything.

Hardly. I only researched what I was assigned to research. The most leeway I was given was when I had to look up and review what had been said previously about certain specific doctrines. We didn't have electronic searching of anything, or the Internet. So if Brother BS, or RL, or JN asked me to look into what we once said about house-to-house, or the literal vs the figurative heart, or a partial 70 CE fulfillment of Matthew 24, or certain medical advice, or Abaddon, or Evolution, or the Creative Days, or the Prodigal Son, then I might get a chance to read dozens of articles going all the way back through the 1930's. We would find a lot of places where the WT Publications Index needed updating, too. We didn't actually care about going back to Russell. Mostly, the brothers only cared about references going back to 1935, sometimes 1931. Then we might see if our commentary referencing Bible dictionaries and lexicons still held up with the latest versions of those references. And the Aid Book was still producing new questions to look up and double-check for accuracy. 

I was never assigned a research project about chronology, or parousia, or the generation, or Gentile Times, or the 70 years, or Babylonian kings. The closest to that was a double-check of how often anyone had written about a partial or minor fulfillment of Matthew 24 in the first century. And one time I had to look up if we had been consistent about saying that the "Lord's Day" of Revelation 1:10 had been the start of 1914. But obviously it was never a matter of questioning 1914. When COJ's manuscript came up, it was a total surprise to me that anyone would question 1914, although I soon learned that Sydlik, Schroeder, Chitty and Swingle were questioning certain aspects of it. And I soon learned COJ's name from Rusk and Schroeder, but I thought they were going to find someone to respond to the document.

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

Many Bethelites accepted the conclusions of that apostate, and some of you still do. Since that information was available then, it could have been used to challenge and refute 40 years of misinformation.

You seem to have not understood much of what Adam Rutherford was saying, then. Adam Rutherford's information is basically a confirmation of the ideas of COJ and every authority on the Babylonian Chronicles. Being only two years off from the astronomically evidenced numbers is hardly a problem unless you also want to incorporate the dozens of astronomical readings. But Adam Rutherford stuck with the relative chronology but mostly ignored the "absolute" chronology that the astronomy readings would have given.

With respect to the relative chronology, Adam Rutherford, confirms COJ's understanding and that of every person currently considered an authority on the Babylonian Chronicles. Adam Rutherford agrees completely with me, too, on the relative chronology. If he was using the Babylonian Chronicles correctly then he is saying that COJ is right, and the Watchtower is wrong. His information would mostly just confirm COJ, not challenge him. COJ goes further and takes into consideration the rest of the astronomical evidence which Rutherford also nearly had right -- only two years off. Rutherford indicates that the current Watchtower is 22 years off in the absolute, and 20 years off in the relative. 

His information could only have been use to challenge and refute the Watchtower.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

You seem to have limited knowledge about the connection between Christian Science and pyramidology.

Could be. But it doesn't seem to matter much who else was into pyramidology. If what the Christian Scientists are claiming now is wrong, so be it. 

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

Your statement didn't specify the type of Bible Student association he was affiliated with. You only referred to him as a Bible student as if he were associated with the Watchtower Bible Student associations, which he was not. The PBI was a distinct type of Bible student association that diverged in many aspects from the teachings of the Watchtower, whether by Russell or Rutherford.

I didn't bring up Adam Rutherford and "Pyramidology." You did. I never claimed that all Bible Student associations were the same. I never suspected he had to have been an associate during Russell's time as a Bible Student anyway. Turned out that he might have been. I saw the volume he published as late as 1974 and noted that he was born in 1894 and died at around age 80 and he was therefore only 22 when Russell died. I made no connection to Watchtower Bible Students or Russellite Bible Students. That was you thinking I did. (Or maybe hoping that I did?) When you introduced Adam Rutherford you made no connection at all to Russellite or non-Russellite Bible Students, and yet now you claim you knew his history for 40 years. If you didn't think it mattered then, why do you think it matters now? I only spoke of how his statements aligned with Russell's and other Bible Students concerning how he fully defended the same view of the Great Pyramid as Russell, and how he quoted phrases and even entire pages from Russell's Watch Tower publications. And how a current (well-known) Bible Student site claims he had been a Bible Student. All Bible Student groups were or are distinct in some small ways, but all appear to stick fairly close and loyal to Russell's Watch Tower publications from 1879 to 1916

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, BTK59 said:

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

don't think COJ was ever a Bethelite. And he didn't align the Babylonian Chronicles with 607 and 1914. You appear to be creating deceptions out of thin air.

I fail to understand why you are defending such an egregious person who is clearly a liar. It seems unnecessary for you to overlook his repugnant actions when his own words speak volumes.

I have no reason to defend him. I just wanted to know where you got the information that he was a Bethelite and why you were claiming that he aligned the Babylonian Chronicles with 607 and 1914. You said:

7 hours ago, BTK59 said:

especially an uneducated person like Carl Olof Jonsson, whom you have supported in the past. As an ex-Bethelite, he claimed to align the Babylonian Chronicles with 607 BC and relate this to 1914.

I think it's now clear from what you just admitted in your strange deflection that you know you were wrong. What you quoted next proves it. 

5 hours ago, BTK59 said:

He not only discusses the Babylonian Chronicles at length, but also provides a compelling explanation for why he discredits the Watchtower Chronology with his carefully chosen words. It's time to be honest with the public and stop deceiving them.

Exactly. So he does NOT align the Babylonian Chronicles with 607 and 1914. Yes, he discredits the Watchtower chronology. Wasn't that the whole point of his book? It turns out that EVERY SINGLE authority on the Babylonian Chronicles discredits the Watchtower chronology. So what else is new? Every single authority that the Watchtower publications make use of when they want to make a point about the Babylonian Chronicles also discredits the Watchtower chronology. That's why the Insight book and Aid book for example quote these authorities, but then add their own Watchtower chronology next to the quote (and sometimes INSIDE the quote) to make it look like the authorities they reference support the Watchtower chronology. I showed half a dozen cases of this in another thread. It's called academic dishonesty in an academic setting.

It's deceptive. By pointing it out, I'm hoping this will stop happening in our publications.

5 hours ago, BTK59 said:

If these lists are correct, the first year of Nebuchadnezzar would be 604/ 603 B.C.E. and his eighteenth year, when he desolated Jerusalem, would be 587/86 B.C.E., not 607 B.C.E. as in Watch Tower chronology. p.99

There. You even highlighted the portion that proves he did NOT align the Babylonian Chronicles with 607 BCE. Thank you.

5 hours ago, BTK59 said:

The Babylonian Chronicle BM 21946
This chronicle covers the period from Nabopolassar’s 21st year (605/04 B.C.E.) to Nebuchadnezzar’s 10th year (595/94 B.C.E.). Photo used courtesy of D. J. Wiseman (shown in his Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, Plate VI). p.101

There. You found another place where COJ shows that he does not align them with 607 and 1914 as you claimed. 

5 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Why not give a Justification for persisting in this deceitful path despite your knowledge of the truth, please elaborate it to your exclusive circle of acquaintances.

It just occurred to me that you might not have known the definition of the word "align." That could be the only justification I can think of for persisting in your false claim. At least that isn't deceitful. 

[BTK59]

10 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I have no reason to defend him. I just wanted to know where you got the information that he was a Bethelite and why you were claiming that he aligned the Babylonian Chronicles with 607 and 1914. I think it's now clear from what you just admitted and this strange deflection that you know you were wrong. What you quoted next proves you were wrong. 

Of course, you claim to understand and persist in your actions. However, if that feeble attempt to manipulate my words is the best you can come up with, it is clear that I am not the one appearing foolish. Even when presented with COJ's own words, you still choose to turn a blind eye. It is no surprise that you rely on others like Pudgy for support. A humorous situation indeed. LOL!

Listen to my words. The phrase Bethelite was intended specifically for you, so cease dwelling on a juvenile excuse.

15 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

There. You even highlighted the portion that proves he did NOT align the Babylonian Chronicles with 607 BCE. Thank you.

You're becoming a joke at this point. Is this how you conduct yourself in the closed club, like a child? LOL!

17 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

t just occurred to me that you might not have known the definition of the word "align." That could be the only justification I can think of for persisting in this false claim. At least that isn't deceitful. 

JWinsider has been the epitome of deceit for a whole decade, promoting nothing but falsehoods through manipulation, distortion, lies, and deception, rendering his credibility null and void.

Do you need assistance in understanding the profound connection linking Pyramidographia, numerology, and philosophy, which has elevated Pyramidology to the realm of mysticism? Allow me to guide you in your quest for genuine knowledge by conducting thorough research.

If you often find yourself in perplexity, seek assistance from one of the members within the exclusive club. I am not inclined to offer aid to individuals who have abandoned their beliefs.

[BTK59]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

With respect to the relative chronology, Adam Rutherford, confirms COJ's understanding and that of every person currently considered an authority on the Babylonian Chronicles. Adam Rutherford agrees completely with me, too, on the relative chronology. If he was using the Babylonian Chronicles correctly then he is saying that COJ is right, and the Watchtower is wrong.

Why do you keep insisting on 587 BC when even Rutherford placed it in 585 BC? By continuing to argue for this date, you may be inadvertently undermining your own credibility. This could give people the impression that there is something amiss with your mental balance.

Rutherford supports the belief in 607 BC over your fixation on 587 BC, as if your entire existence hinged on it. He firmly upholds the notion of AD1914, while you argue that it was intended for the end of the world. However, according to you, when this apostate viewpoint failed to materialize, Russell shifted the date to 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1919, or any other distorted interpretation that suits your fancy.

[JW Insider]

OK. You've explained a bit more. You clearly said that COJ was an ex-Bethelite and that he claimed to align the Babylonian Chronicles with 607 and relate this to 1914.

10 hours ago, BTK59 said:

especially an uneducated person like Carl Olof Jonsson, whom you have supported in the past. As an ex-Bethelite, he claimed to align the Babylonian Chronicles with 607 BC and relate this to 1914.

So it's clear that's exactly what you said, but now you say I was manipulating your words and that you were referring to me as the ex-Bethelite. Just to be clear then, it's YOU manipulating your words to say they mean something else now. Fine. But you are still saying that he, COJ I assume, claimed to align the Babylonian Chronicles with 607 BC and relate this to 1914. 

I don't see how you can manipulate your words about COJ claiming to align these chronicles with 607, much less 1914. He wrote his entire book to show the exact opposite. He shows how the Babylonian Chronicles do NOT align with 607 and how they therefore could never align with 1914. But you knew that, because you even quoted proof from his book. 

There's nothing to argue here. But when you manipulate your own words, to avoid admitting a simple mistake, I assume, don't accuse me of manipulating them. That's dishonest.  

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

Even when presented with COJ's own words, you still choose to turn a blind eye.

Again, always with the projection. You presented COJ's own words as if they supported what you said, when they said the opposite. As if you had chosen to be blind to what they were saying. And then you accuse me of turning a blind eye.

The entire point wasn't even necessary to defend. I don't care what COJ thinks, just like I don't care what Adam Rutherford thinks. They both write from a perspective that has an agenda. COJ had an agenda to prove that the evidence the WTS uses, doesn't align with 607 or 1914. Adam Rutherford had an agenda to prove that the Great Pyramid was the "Bible in Stone" and "God's Witness" that prophesied about these last days, exactly what Russell had said. Both COJ and Adam Rutherford agree on the relative chronology of the period, but so what? I look to see if I can learn something in comparison to other resources, but then I can move on. Rutherford avoids astronomy evidence and COJ uses it. We can compare their results to those who don't have a pro-Russell-styled agenda or an anti-WTS-styled agenda, but don't simply rely on people who write with an agenda. 

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

Why do you keep insisting on 587 BC when even Rutherford placed it in 585 BC?

What does it matter if "even Rutherford" placed it in 585 BC? He ignored the astronomical evidence. Otherwise he is stuck with 539 as the year Cyrus ended the 70 years of Babylonian domination. He needs 537 to get 607 and from there to get 1914.

100% of the current researchers, historians, archaeologists, and astronomers who have looked at the Neo-Babylonian astronomy evidence place Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year in 587 BC. I agree with all the authorities on that subject quoted in the Watchtower publications. You disagree with all those authorities quoted in the Watchtower publications. The difference here is that I have told you why I agree but you can't tell me why you are an opposer of all those authorities the Watchtower depends upon for quotations about the period.