Watchtower's 1914 Chronology - Ad Nauseum

[JW Insider]

8 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Your argument was completely erroneous. You seem to imply that we shouldn't concern ourselves with thieves invading people's homes, and that we need not be vigilant or proactive in detecting early warning signs.

Projection again. I didn't seem to imply anything of the sort. I just said that the important thing to watch is what sort of persons we ought to be seeing that the days are wicked.

[BTK59]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

You say you brought up Adam Rutherford to expose falsehoods that I and COJ persistently propagate regarding the Babylonian Chronicles. This makes no sense to me, because I am in perfect agreement with what Adam Rutherford says about these Chronicles. I think COJ would also be in agreement.

I highly doubt that your ally would have supported Adam Rutherford. You're trying to convince people that he would, but considering COJ's misuse of the babylonian chronicles and your endorsement of his conclusions, it's clear why you are now so vehement about it.

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I don't know in what other context I'm supposed to read it. I found another work that heavily references both Adam Rutherford's book on Bible Chronology and also compares the points it makes with other scholarly resources. Turns out that this author comprehended it exactly as I had, and he highlights the exact differences I made note of. I had not seen this work until AFTER I had looked through most of Adam Rutherford's Pyramidology, Volume III, when you introduced it here. I have not yet found anyone who has explained Adam Rutherford's work any differently from the way I comprehend it -- and so far that includes you, too. You have also not shown any specific places or ways where I should comprehend it differently. 

What are the differences between the modern-day Bible Student approach to studying the Bible and the ideology of Pastor Russell, as well as our understanding of chronology? There seems to be a lot of confusion. It's important to acknowledge and learn from your mistakes.

There are other Bible Student Associations that have transitioned from old to new understandings. However, the Bible Students also have their own apostates, but that is their issue to address.

It appears that you are rejecting the term "association" as you decline to recognize its autonomy.

 

[JW Insider]

18 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

You seem to enjoy twisting and distorting facts to suit your narrative. You rely on astronomical evidence to support your claim of 587 BC, but it's clear that the confusion lies with you.

Projection again. I twisted and distorted no facts. I do rely on astronomical evidence to support my claim of what happened in 609, 607, 605, 597, 587, 562, 539, 538, etc., just as the WTS relies on astronomical evidence to support 539 BCE. There should be no confusion. All the evidence is consistent: astronomical, archaeological and Biblical. 

22 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

The truth is, the Watchtower supports the dates of 607 BC and AD 1914.

True. You and I have made that very clear, many times over. There should be no confusion at all.

[BTK59]

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

You realize, of course, that no one facilitates and  magnifies this ‘corruption’ more than you.

It is rather like a hot potato on a shelf that everyone tiptoes around, and in time it will cool. Then Allan/BTK/George/Alphonse etc says, “HEY, LOOK AT THIS POTATO! LET’S PUT IT IN THE MICROWAVE AND HEAT IT UP!”

Yet, the list should be: Tom. JWI, Anna, Thinking, Comfortmypeople, Juan Rivera, etc. So, telling the truth only seems corrupt to those causing it.

[BTK59]

8 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Projection again. I didn't seem to imply anything of the sort. I just said that the important thing to watch is what sort of persons we ought to be seeing that the days are wicked.

Everything you post appears to be a projection. People who fail to comprehend the significance of the times they are living in should not emulate your indifference towards their spiritual well-being. As far as I can discern, this contradicts the teachings of the Bible.

[BTK59]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Here are some of the excerpts I found most interesting:

Page 119 endnotes [Rutherford is quoted extensively by this author] 

I can post other Bible Student Chronolgy. To me, you just wasted a page, since they show other conclusions.

"We may remember that when Nebuchadnezzar took all of Israel to Babylon for forced labor they remained in this servitude for 70 years or until King Cyrus released them in 536 B.C. So we have two periods of Israel's history that God brought upon them that would later be repaid. We have the 19 years just prior to 606 B.C. and the 70 years. Now notice the chart, the middle portion. Here we have some remarkable time events that are now all history. Not one of us can change a date on the charts--we cannot improve upon them, nor can we disregard them as they are all history. We may affect what we do today, but we cannot even change a personal event in our life that occurred yesterday, not alone decades or centuries ago. No wonder we sing, "How firm a foundation ye saints of the Lord is laid for your faith in His excellent word."
 

"It specifies a full 70 years for both the captivity and the desolation of the land, which are
considered contemporaneous events. On the other hand, proponents of the civil historian view
(based on the Neo-Babylonian chronology) shorten the length of the desolation to only 50 years; they find an earlier starting point for the captivity, then bring both periods to a simultaneous close. Under this reckoning, it is not readily possible to find a starting point that pertains directly to Judah. Hence the 70 year period is applied to the period of Babylon's supremacy over surrounding nations, from 609 B.C. to 539 B.C. This covers the period from the year it is thought Assyria (Babylon's chief rival) first began losing power to Babylon, to the eventual collapse of the Babylonian empire. This reckoning shifts the emphasis from a Babylon
 

"The author acknowledges that in this book (B) he presents the thought that the Lord’s saints might expect to be with Him in glory at the ending of the Gentile Times. This was a natural mistake to fall into, but the lord overruled it for the blessing of His people. The thought that the Church would all be gathered to glory before October, 1914, certainly did have a very stimulating and sanctifying effect upon thousands, all of whom accordingly can praise the Lord—even for the mistake.
 
Many, indeed, can express themselves as being thankful to the Lord that the culmination of the Church’s hopes was not reached at the time we expected; and that we, as the Lord’s people, have further opportunities of perfecting holiness and of being participators with our Master in the further presentation of His Message to His people.

"Our mistake was evidently not in respect to the ending of the Times of the Gentiles; we drew a false conclusion, however, not authorized by the Word of the Lord. We saw in the Bible certain parallels between the Jewish Age and the Gospel Age. We should have noted that these parallels follow the nominal systems to destruction in both cases, and do not indicate the time of the glorification of the New Creation." B.1916 Foreword pages iii, iv."

Like I said, even the Bible Students have their own apostates they need to expose.

[BTK59]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I’m cool with that!

Focus on managing your own multiple accounts and refrain from Ad hominem attacks, rather than attempting to portray yourselves as virtuous.

[BTK59]

25 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I couldn't have said it better myself: It seems clear that the "gentile times" persist as they always have. Yet they were supposed to have ended in 1914. That's the specific failure I alluded to, and now you have alluded to the same.

Historical events unequivocally support this. What aspect is still unclear to you, such as 607 BC, when the answer is obvious but obscured by the devil as not to see the evidence? The devil tends to deceive people in this way. So, if you're going to challenge the release of the Jews from Palestine by the British in 1914 and dispute WW1, I'm eager to hear it.

[BTK59]

19 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Projection again. I twisted and distorted no facts. I do rely on astronomical evidence to support my claim of what happened in 609, 607, 605, 597, 587, 562, 539, 538, etc., just as the WTS relies on astronomical evidence to support 539 BCE. There should be no confusion. All the evidence is consistent: astronomical, archaeological and Biblical. 

For a decade, you have opposed the Watchtower's chronology, and now you bear the responsibility for the lives you have misled. The accuracy of the Watchtower's chronological order, supported by secular history, is undeniable and not influenced by apostate perspectives or corruption.

[BTK59]

22 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

True. You and I have made that very clear, many times over. There should be no confusion at all.

This is acceptable, however the difference is, the Watchtower doesn't support 587 BC as the destruction of Jerusalem like you do. What's the purpose of accepting the correct chronology when it conflicts with your own? It's illogical to even suggest it.

[JW Insider]

42 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Watchtower doesn't support 587 BC as the destruction of Jerusalem like you do.

Obviously. I accept ALL of the pieces of astronomical data because they are all consistent and there are literally tens of thousands of pieces of intertwining evidence in support of the astronomical data. The Watchtower has "painted itself into a corner" and chosen to cherry-pick only a tiny piece of that data, and only from a point in time where the Watchtower happens to agree with the secular data. Other than this tiny piece, the Watchtower is an opposer of about 99% of the astronomical data.

42 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

What's the purpose of accepting the correct chronology when it conflicts with your own? It's illogical to even suggest it.

I assume you don't like the fact that I have always claimed that the 70 years must have started within a year or two of 607 BCE. So does Adam Rutherford, so does COJ, so do hundreds of Bible commentators. That's because all of them realize the same truth that was printed in the Watchtower's Isaiah's Prophecy book: that the 70 years for Babylon must have run from about 609 to 539, with reference to the 70 years of Jeremiah 25:10. 607 to 537 is only two years off, and two years doesn't make much of a difference. It's still the generally correct time period even per the astronomical evidence. 

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

If Tom uses profanity

Only very occasionally, and with full recognition that God’s own lovable creatures, the beavers, are mostly graduates of Dam U.