Watchtower's 1914 Chronology - Ad Nauseum

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Rutherford supports the belief in 607 BC over your fixation on 587 BC, as if your entire existence hinged on it.

That sounds like some very dishonest and manipulative wordplay. Rutherford does not support "the belief" in 607 BC. He believed that the Watchtower (and Russell) was WRONG to believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 (606) BC. Rutherford believed it was 585 and that Russell was WRONG by 21 years. Rutherford believed that the current Watchtower was WRONG by 22 years. He would believe I was wrong to use the astronomy data, because he likes 537 for the year Cyrus captured Babylon. I agree with the current Watchtower that it was 539 BC. He would believe I was WRONG by 2 years.

 But this doesn't mean I believe the Watchtower's 539 over his fixation on 537 as if my entire existence depended on it. It's just something I believe because that's what the evidence says. The astronomy evidence says the Watchtower is right about 539 and Rutherford supports a different date. So what? Same with 587 BCE. So what?

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

He firmly upholds the notion of AD1914, while you argue that it was intended for the end of the world.

I only claim that Russell claimed that the end of the world meant the end of the "system of things." (The world: the ecclesiastical heavens and and the social earth.) The end of this world means there will be a new world, because the old heavens and the old earth will have passed away. As Russell claimed in May 1914, when his waning faith in that year was revived:

There is absolutely no ground for Bible students to question that the consummation of this Gospel age is now even at the door, and that it will end as the Scriptures foretell in a great time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation. We see the participants in this great crisis banding themselves together [...] The great crisis, the great clash [...] that will consume the ecclesiastical heavens and the social earth, is very near.

As he said for decades prior to 1914:

We see no reason for changing the figures—nor could we change them if we would, They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of the trouble.

[BTK59]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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.

Exactly. I mentioned Adam Rutherford to expose the falsehoods that you and COJ persistently propagate regarding the Babylonian chronicles. Moreover, your attempt to bring up Pyramidology only worsened the situation, as it was clear that you were grasping at straws in order to divert attention from your weak arguments, just like you consistently do.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

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. 

There's no need for you to continue in your childish game. For one,

"especially an uneducated person like Carl Olof Jonsson, whom you have supported in the past. As an ex-Bethelite

Just because I placed a period on the sentence doesn't mean anything, if I had placed a comma:

whom you have supported in the past, as an ex-Bethelite  is referring to you. So, you continue to look foolish. I don't  need to explain anything to a grown man acting like a 6-year-old.

You're once again displaying your arrogance through your comments on grammar. Take a moment to reflect upon your own grammar mistakes and perhaps consider maturing.

Why do you persist in defending COJ when he clearly contradicted 607 BC in favor of 587 BC and dismissed the 2520-year prophecy ending in AD 1914, just like you? Stop denying that you are defending him.

It is clear you lack compjrehension skills. It's obvserious you haven't read Adam rutherfords volume three in its proper context. You just want to mamipulate words to comeo ut ahead, your just a loser that can't being wrong.

"With the defeat of the Egyptians and Assyrians in 607 B.c., the domination of the peoples of Syria and Palestine passed from Egypt to Babylon. This assumption of Babylonian authority over all western Asia is confirmed by Jeremiah as dating from the accession of Jehoiakim (who was placed on the throne by Pharaoh Necho, but soon transferred his allegiance under the pressure of Babylonian authority). This explains the otherwise mysterious intrusion in Jeremiah 27,1, of the words, “ in the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim ” into a prophecy given in the reign of Zedekiah (verse 3) concerning the period of servitude to Babylon. "

According to Rutherford, the year 607 BC held great significance as it marked the end of military campaigns in the region and the beginning of the destruction of Judah, including Jerusalem. In his view, this date played a crucial role in pinpointing the end of the gentile times in AD 1914. It is important to note that Rutherford's viewpoint remains valid, regardless of whether he mistakenly believed that the final blow to Jerusalem occurred in 585 BC.

It's hard to believe that people in a sound state of mind would accept the notion that God would make the Babylonians wait for 20 years to destroy Jerusalem in 587/6/5 BC, considering that they already held control over the entire region by 607 BC. The account in 2 Kings 24 clearly points to that specific period of destruction. Could you clarify whether you are suggesting that 2 Kings 24 should be dated to 587 BC or 585 BC? Furthermore, I would be interested in seeing concrete evidence to support your claim, especially regarding the VAT 4956 tablet. Can you provide any conclusive proof that the astronomical tablet states that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BC, as you and other dissenters claim? Show me the evidence you rely on.

I have clearly presented evidence from the Babylonian Chronicles that details the military campaigns of the Babylonians in 607 BC and the parties involved. What specific aspects of this historical record are you dismissing without reason in order to defend an inaccurate date? Rather than challenging me with meaningless arguments, focus on refuting the campaigns as I have asked you to and providing concrete evidence, rather than baseless challenges that only serve to undermine your position. You should do the same for WW1. So, come on! Get serious for a change and stop making irrelevant arguments.

Adam Rutherford used 607 BC as the starting point for his chronology, not 585 BC. He combined the reigns of 3 Judean Kings in 607 BC. By refusing to acknowledge 607 BC, you are willfully challenging it out of ignorance to support an untenable argument.

You have a serious problem with 607 BC, and I'm glad people have contacted me showcasing your apostasy. They aren't wrong, just like the "Proverbs" you quoted isn't wrong, just like your personal judgement by God won't be wrong for leading people astray for that apostasy.

[BTK59]

Prove how scripture is wrong with:

 

2 Kings 24 New International Version
24 During Jehoiakim’s reign, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon invaded the land, and Jehoiakim became his vassal for three years. But then he turned against Nebuchadnezzar and rebelled. 2 The Lord sent Babylonian,[a] Aramean, Moabite and Ammonite raiders against him to destroy Judah, in accordance with the word of the Lord proclaimed by his servants the prophets. 3 Surely these things happened to Judah according to the Lord’s command, in order to remove them from his presence because of the sins of Manasseh and all he had done, 4 including the shedding of innocent blood. For he had filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the Lord was not willing to forgive.

How God sent devastating forces to destroy Judah in either 587 BC, 586 BC, or 585 BC. However, historical records do not depict any significant devastation in Judah during that particular time period. The Babylonian Chronicles, which end in 594 BC, do not provide any conclusive evidence of Judah's destruction. Instead, history shows that there were military campaigns against other nations, such as Ammon, Moab, Edom, and Egypt, which were believed to be God's judgments. Even though there is a Babylonian chronicle mentioning a siege on Jerusalem in 598 BC, there is no further mention of Judah's destruction in 587 BC. So, in order to demonstrate how you, as an ex-Bethelite, will prove God wrong and assert that 2 Kings 24 occurred in 587 BC, you must enlighten the public by using your expertise in biblical interpretation and your magical wand to conjure non-existent historical facts.

Present the complete devastation of "Judah" in 587 BC, as that is the necessary evidence to challenge the notion that 2 Kings 24 refers to the same year.

The city of Babylon existed in the region as early as 610 - 607 BC. Now, shed some light on why they chose to postpone their actions for two decades, employing historical facts and a respectful approach to interpreting biblical texts, as it's important to maintain humility when discussing matters concerning God, which is evident you lack.

 

[BTK59]

I fail to understand why JWI persists in this pattern of falsehood and deception, unless he had a personal connection with that Swedish apostate.

It is imperative to highlight the exact position of the apostate in relation to the Watchtower and why his hands are stained with blood, as documented in his correspondence to the organization in 1977. While JWI is now well-informed about this correspondence, it's uncertain whether he was aware of it during his time at Bethel. Considering the prevalence of rumors and gossip, it's unlikely that such significant information would have remained completely unknown. Yet, he persists in this venture of defending. It is worth noting that these events occurred a decade after Brother Adam Rutherford had already published his book.

The audacity here lies in Carl Olof Jonsson's claim that a so-called brother had conducted a comprehensive study of the Neo-Babylonian period, which was clearly fabricated and a blatant lie. He unequivocally stated that 587 BC was the accurate date for the destruction of Jerusalem. This deceit is being vehemently defended by JWI, who is relying solely on his own judgment.

COJ unequivocally rejects the notion of 607 BC, and unequivocally refutes the conclusion of 1914. In fact, he goes as far as to deem it "profound" to verify such claims. COJ's own statements stand as indisputable evidence, while JWI attempts to manipulate them to deny, undermine, or divert attention from the undeniable truth.

Carl Olof Jonsson
Sweden
May 20, 1977
"Dear Brothers,
A brother has done a thorough study of the Neo-Babylonian period in relation to our present understanding of the "appointed times of the nations". His "treatise", which is written in all honesty and sincere love for truth, has been carefully and critically examined by some able brothers, but it has not been possible to refute the arguments and the conclusion that 587 BCE, not 607, is the correct date for the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. If this conclusion is correct - and it really seems very hard to avoid all the facts presented - the consequences will be far-reaching as re, all things we attach to 1914: Christ's parousia, the establishment of God's Kingdom, the ousting out of Satan, eta."

His book is founded on deception, as he persistently perpetuates falsehoods. If he and others with apostate inclinations had genuinely conducted a "thorough study" of the Neo-Babylonian period, they would have encountered Adam Rutherford's works and comprehended how to accurately place the Babylonian Chronicles in their chronological order, thereby establishing the correct starting point of 607 BC, without relying on the erroneous date of 587 BC. Such corrections should have been reflected in COJ's book if he possessed any semblance of conscience. However, much like Satan blinds these apostates, he continues to obstruct those who seek victory, rather than embracing the truth.

Another important point to highlight is JWI's persistent manipulation, resorting to deflecting tactics in order to insinuate that someone is not stating something directly and redirecting the discussion towards a nonsensical argument. This is a clear example of employing wordplay at its lowest level.

 

[TrueTomHarley]

15 hours ago, BTK59 said:

It's gratifying to see that your friends are finally recognizing the illogical approach you have embraced.

We’re getting ready to stone him as you speak.

[Manuel Boyet Enicola]

...Satan made sure that WW1 would start during the same year that Barbour and Russell had predicted would be the end [of the time of troubles]... 

If I were Satan, I woudn't do that. As a resister, I'd do everything I can to make sure it won't happen! 😂 

Levity aside, let's make it simple and agree: 

1. The bible is absolute truth. 

2. Pivotal date for fall of Babylon is 539 BCE. No arguments about that. 

3. The exiles arrived in Jerusalem 2 years later, 537 BCE. 

4. Counting back 70 years for Judah's desolation brings us to 607 BCE. Now, this is the bone of contention, unless we accept point #1 above. 

5. Ergo, 2,520 years later brings us to 1914 CE. 

Simple, but not for those making a mountain out of a molehill. Cheers everyone. 😊

[BTK59]

8 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

We’re getting ready to stone him as you speak.

Now! Now! There's no need to get violent! 

[BTK59]

You express a profound truth that has unfortunately been overshadowed by a dogmatic mindset that persists to this day. The glaring reality about COJs lies is that he was unable to counter the evidence against the year 587 BC, which has already been refuted here for almost a decade now. It is perplexing that COJs and his fellow biased individuals, including one situated in the USA, did not take the time to examine Adam Rutherford's discoveries. Such an examination could have led them to a different and more substantiated position, rather than obstinately clinging to their unsupported arguments. The unequivocal conclusion remains that 587 BC, and not 607 BC, is the accurate date for the destruction of Jerusalem, as their reliance on misinterpreted historical data reveals by opposers.

Carl Olof Jonsson, even though he referred to himself in the third person, was resolute in his claim. When it was rejected by the Watchtower, he was driven to publish that distorted treatise.

The only ones keeping that apostate lie alive are opposers. They have relentlessly pursued this quest for a decade here, and I highly doubt they will ever cease. That is also a simple truth.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Manuel Boyet Enicola said:

If I were Satan, I woudn't do that. As a resister, I'd do everything I can to make sure it won't happen! 😂 

What if Satan knew that Jesus said that no one would knows the day and hour of his return, that it would be at a time we would not think to be it, and that the times and seasons are in Jehovah's jurisdiction, not for us to know. And what if he knew that Paul had said "As for the times and seasons, you need nothing to be written to you -- because you very well know that the day will come as a thief."

So Satan is seeking to devour people who are otherwise determined to be Jehovah's named people, but he would love to see them become disobedient to the spirit of Jesus's words and show the kind of hubris and pride that would make them think that what Jesus said doesn't really matter: that we want to claim that we can know the times and seasons anyway. 

So Satan finds a group of honest-hearted people looking for truth, but he needs them to have at least one major stumbling block -- disobedience to Jesus' words about realizing that the end comes as a complete surprise, just the way that Sodom was destroyed without warning. This way it's also possible to get people serving for a date, or not completely whole-souled because they think that they will be able to wait until the signs get even more specific [like a "cry" of peace and security] before they completely clear their conscience of all the things that could weigh them down in this system. They will be looking for signs, but won't be focused on what sort of persons they ought to be - and to be ready for that revelation/manifestation/parousia at any time, including 5 minutes from now. 

So making persons get absorbed in date-setting not only produces a lack of readiness, it always produces one more thing that most people don't realize. Everyone who sets certain expectation for certain dates is displaying presumptuousness and pride. They will also invariably fail, just as Russell failed with every single prediction and expectation for 1914, and 1915, and 1878, and 1881, and just as Rutherford failed in his published predictions for 1918 and 1925. The pride angle is obvious, because a leader like Russell or Rutherford (or Ellen G White, or Nelson Barbour, or William Miller, or Garner Ted Armstrong, or Frederick Franz, or Harold Camping, etc.) is saying in effect, "I know Jesus said that no one would know, but he is making an exception for me, and therefore for the group that listens to what I am saying. We are so special!"

But that type of pride has a secondary effect when the dates fail -- and they invariably do fail. To save face, every single person who has predicted something must backtrack (with few exceptions) and try to make it look like it wasn't really a failure. Instead of admitting failure, it becomes "Well it wasn't us, it was people listening to us but getting too carried away." Or, "We were expecting the right thing, just at the wrong time - a little to early." Or, "We had the time right, we were just expecting the wrong thing." And then there is the whitewashing of history, as when the Watchtower began "bragging" about how only Jehovah's Witnesses (called Bible Students at the time) were preaching for decades in advance that Jesus' invisible presence would begin and Christ's kingdom would be born in 1914." Of course, that's a dishonest statement, yet we have heard versions of it so many times that some of us believe it's true. No one ever preached in advance that Christ's kingdom would begin in 1914. No one ever preached in advance that Jesus invisible presence would begin in 1914.

There is nearly always an element of dishonesty that goes with every religion that has ever tried to set dates related to end time events. So if Satan could find a way to feed into that idea of date-setting either through a typo or through manipulation of world leaders to fool Russell into thinking one of his dates was right all along, I wouldn't doubt that Satan would try.

[BTK59]

The understanding of "Keep Watch" among Christians in the past should not be underestimated. Just as no one can predict when a thief will enter a home, it does not imply that we should not take precautions and remain vigilant for any signs of neighborhood thefts. Only an unbalanced person would teach otherwise.

So, Matthew would have to be understood correctly along with Mark.

Mark 13:5-37
Common English Bible
Keep watch!
5 Jesus said, “Watch out that no one deceives you. 6 Many people will come in my name, saying, ‘I’m the one!’ They will deceive many people. 7 When you hear of wars and reports of wars, don’t be alarmed. These things must happen, but this isn’t the end yet. 8 Nations and kingdoms will fight against each other, and there will be earthquakes and famines in all sorts of places. These things are just the beginning of the sufferings associated with the end.

9 “Watch out for yourselves. People will hand you over to the councils. You will be beaten in the synagogues. You will stand before governors and kings because of me so that you can testify before them. 10 First, the good news must be proclaimed to all the nations. 11 When they haul you in and hand you over, don’t worry ahead of time about what to answer or say. Instead, say whatever is given to you at that moment, for you aren’t doing the speaking but the Holy Spirit is. 12 Brothers and sisters will hand each other over to death. A father will turn in his children. Children will rise up against their parents and have them executed. 13 Everyone will hate you because of my name. But whoever stands firm until the end will be saved.

14 “When you see the disgusting and destructive thing standing where it shouldn’t be (the reader should understand this), then those in Judea must escape to the mountains. 15 Those on the roof shouldn’t come down or enter their houses to grab anything. 16 Those in the field shouldn’t come back to grab their clothes. 17 How terrible it will be at that time for women who are pregnant and for women who are nursing their children. 18 Pray that it doesn’t happen in winter. 19 In those days there will be great suffering such as the world has never before seen and will never again see. 20 If the Lord hadn’t shortened that time, no one would be rescued. But for the sake of the chosen ones, the ones whom God chose, he has cut short the time.

21 “Then if someone says to you, ‘Look, here’s the Christ,’ or ‘There he is,’ don’t believe it. 22 False christs and false prophets will appear, and they will offer signs and wonders in order to deceive, if possible, those whom God has chosen. 23 But you, watch out! I’ve told you everything ahead of time.

We are currently witnessing a phenomenon of apostasy in the world, and it is also present here. Those who disagree should provide solid evidence to challenge scripture, rather than making baseless accusations. Comparing Russell's early teachings, which have been manipulated and distorted, to the present doctrines of the Watchtower is not only ignorant but also perpetuates a path built on deception and falsehoods.

[JW Insider]

12 hours ago, Manuel Boyet Enicola said:

Levity aside, let's make it simple and agree: 

1. The bible is absolute truth. 

2. Pivotal date for fall of Babylon is 539 BCE. No arguments about that. 

3. The exiles arrived in Jerusalem 2 years later, 537 BCE. 

4. Counting back 70 years for Judah's desolation brings us to 607 BCE. Now, this is the bone of contention, unless we accept point #1 above. 

5. Ergo, 2,520 years later brings us to 1914 CE. 

Yes. It sounds simple. But it's even simpler to show how this is just an example of circular reasoning.

1. The bible is absolute truth. Yes. And ultimately it is the Bible's truth that can easily show us that 1914 is a false and contradictory way to look at what the Bible says about the last days, the last generation, the presence/parousia, the kingdom, the sign, the synteleia/conclusion, etc.

2. Pivotal date for fall of Babylon is 539 BCE. Yes. But the only way we can know that it was 539 is through astronomy. And the astronomy data comes to us as a set of data reaching from well before Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar, Amel-Merodach, Neriglissar, Nabonidus, and reaching to well after Cyrus and Cambyses. Through that period there are at least 50 good astronomical readings, without which we would not know any dates like 587, 607, 539, 537. Archaeology gives us dated inscriptions, and near-contemporary lists of kings with their order of succession and their lengths of reign. There are contemporary dated histories, dated business records, temple records, etc. But none of those dates are tied to our BCE or CE era. The only way that can be done is through astronomy and the supporting historical evidence through archaeology.

Even the Watchtower publications admit that they cannot date the year 539 without astronomy. When Nabonidus fell to Cyrus in 539 you'd think the WTS would use astronomy records for Nabonidus or Cyrus, but they don't. They use a damaged and partially unreliable COPY of an older inscription that gives an astronomy observation for the 7th year of Cambyses. Then they make use of a more recent King List like the one(s) Ptolemy used to see how Cambyses is related to Cyrus on the timeline. They look at the contract tablets also to see how many years that Cambyses and Cyrus ruled and to double-check that there were no other rulers or co-rulers in the meantime. 

Why just focus on the one partly unreliable INDIRECT inscription when there are at least 50 reliable DIRECT inscriptions for the entire period? That's easy. Because the entire set of reliable DIRECT inscriptions shows us that you cannot accept 539 BCE as the fall of Babylon unless you also accept that the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 587. NOT 607 BCE. So it's really only through dishonest presentation of the data that one could claim we KNOW about 539 without admitting that the only way we KNOW 539 is because we also KNOW that 607 is the WRONG date for the fall of Jerusalem in the 18th/19th year of Nebuchadnezzar.

So IF you are saying that 539 is pivotal, it's the same as saying that the entire reign of Nebuchadnezzar is at least 10 times MORE PIVOTAL. That's because there are about a DOZEN observations/records of astronomical events that DIRECTLY give us the entire reign of Nebuchadnezzar. 

If you believe 539 is correct, it's the same as saying that 607 is incorrect for ANY year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. That's because Nebuchadnezzar didn't even become a king until well AFTER 607.

The exiles arrived in Jerusalem 2 years later, 537 BCE. That's not in the Bible. It's an adjustment the Watchtower had to make in order for 1914 to still work, related to fixing the old mistake claiming it was 606 to 536 BCE.

The Bible says it was one year later, not two. Cyrus captured Babylon in October, about the 7th month of the Jewish and Babylonian year. Sometimes the Bible calls the first year of a king from that very point in his accession year, but since the Jews didn't arrive until the 7th month of the first year, this must be counting Cyrus' first year from Nisan (March/April). So it's the 7th month of 538 if you accept 539 as pivotal.

(Ezra 1:1) . . .In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in order that Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah would be fulfilled, Jehovah stirred the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his kingdom. . .(3:1) When the seventh month arrived and the Israelites were in their cities, they gathered together with one accord in Jerusalem. (3:8) In the second year after they came to the house of the true God at Jerusalem, in the second month, Ze·rubʹba·bel the son of She·alʹti·el, Jeshʹu·a the son of Je·hozʹa·dak and the rest of their brothers, the priests and the Levites, and all those who had come to Jerusalem out of the captivity started the work; they appointed the Levites from 20 years old and up to serve as supervisors over the work of the house of Jehovah.

Counting back 70 years for Judah's desolation brings us to 607 BCE. Now, this is the bone of contention, unless we accept point #1 above.  This is no bone of contention for me. I believe that Judah's desolation began within a year or two of 607 BCE. Just like Adam Rutherford, and just like the Watchtower publication, Isaiah's Prophecy, I believe the 70 years were counted from the very time that Babylon became the fear-inspiring new threat and began desolating and desecrating Judea. As BTK has indicated, the effect would be on all of Judea from the moment that the new fear inspiring Empire began attacking any of the nations around it. And it did this for a 70 year period. 

----jw.org----

Isaiah goes on to prophesy: “It must occur in that day that Tyre must be forgotten seventy years, the same as the days of one king.” (Isaiah 23:15a) Following the destruction of the mainland city by the Babylonians, the island-city of Tyre will “be forgotten.” True to the prophecy, for the duration of “one king”—the Babylonian Empire—the island-city of Tyre will not be an important financial power. Jehovah, through Jeremiah, includes Tyre among the nations that will be singled out to drink the wine of His rage. He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble.

 

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Now! Now! There's no need to get violent! 

I’m still dealing with that image of a hot potato that no one wants to touch.