I just sent this letter to a JW who came knocking on my door talking to me about 1914. I doubt it does him much good since he will probably not read it. But I thought it might help someone here deal with this issue.
Dear Terry,
In our last conversation you took exception to my statement that “the 1914 date can only be arrived at after following a very complicated and highly questionable interpretation of several passages of scripture.” Here is what I meant.
You believe that Christ was enthroned in heaven in the year 1914. You believe this to be true based on several assumptions.
I’ll here list nine of those assumptions.
First, you assume that when Christ spoke of the “the times of the gentiles” he was referring to a period of time which began when Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon and would end with his enthronement in heaven. Why do you assume this? Most understand that Jesus was referring to a period of time in which God would allow non-Jewish peoples to severely persecute Jewish people, a period of time which began with Rome’s siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 66 and has continued ever since.
Second, you assume that this same period of time (from Babylon’s destruction of Jerusalem until Christ’s enthronement) was also prophetically referred to in Daniel Chapter 4. Why do you assume this? Daniel chapter 4 does not need any interpretation by us today. Nebuchadnezzar had a dream and asked Daniel to interpret it, which he did quite well in verses 20-28. The interpretation Daniel gave seemed quite thorough. Nothing written in the Bible indicates that Daniel's interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream was either incorrect or incomplete. Thus, there exists no reason to believe that God intended for us to understand Nebuchadnezzar's dream any differently than Daniel interpreted it.
Third, you assume that in Daniel chapter 4, the rule of Nebuchadnezzar was meant to represent God’s righteous rule on earth. Why do you assume this? The rule of a pagan king who enslaved God’s people pictured God’s righteous rule? If Daniel chapter 4 was meant to have a “larger fulfillment” it would make more sense if Nebuchadnezzar’s rule, along with the tree that was cut down, pictured the earthly rule of Satan the devil. Like that Daniel 4 tree, Satan's rule and influence now fills the whole earth. And like that tree, the Bible tells us that Satan's rule and influence will one day be cut down and bound. The tree in Daniel 4 was bound with metal bands. Revelation describes Satan being bound with metal chains. That Nebuchadnezzar was used to play the small scale role of Satan seems quite fitting. Nebuchadnezzar was, after all, a pagan king who had persecuted and enslaved God's people. Revelation also tells us that after a long period of time has passed Satan will be released from his chains, just as the tree was unbanded. Then, just as Nebuchadnezzar acknowledged God's right to rule after “7 times” had passed over him, Satan will be forced to bend his knee to God before he is finally destroyed. For as the Bible says, "Every knee will bow."
Fourth, you assume that the “7 times” which Daniel said Nebuchadnezzar would be removed from his throne actually meant 7 years. Why do you assume this is true? If the angel who appeared to Nebuchadnezzar in his dream telling him he would be removed from power for “seven times” actually meant “seven years” why did he not just say “seven years”? It seems to me that if this prophecy was meant to have a “larger fulfillment” the words “seven times” may have a far deeper meaning than just “seven years.“ The fact of the matter is that the history of Nebuchadnezzar's reign is very well documented in the scriptures and in extra-biblical sources. A thorough review of all of this information shows that it is impossible to find a period of seven years within his reign of 43 years when Nebuchadnezzar was absent from his throne or inactive as ruler. With this in mind, it seems unlikely that the "7 times" could have referred to a period of seven years.
Fifth, you assume that those seven years were not ordinary years but "prophetic years" of 360 days each, totaling 2,520 days. This assumption is based on the belief that the "1260 days" spoken of in Rev. 12:6 are there equated with the “3 ½ times” spoken of in Rev. 12:14. But this is not necessarily so. For instance, some Bible commentators understand that the 1260 days in Rev. 12:6 refer to the time when Christianity was protected after the time of Christ's ascension and before the time the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Gentiles in 36 AD. Then, when the good news began to be preached to all national groups Christianity took off, as though it had wings of eagles, and was thereafter protected for a second longer period of time. This second period of protection was the "“3 and ½ times” spoken of in Rev. 12:14. This "“3 and ½ times” are understood to be the period of time from 36 AD until the time of Christ's return. Since some interpretations of Rev. 12, such as this one, say that the "1260 days" and the "“3 and ½ times” spoken of in Rev. 12 do not refer to the same period of time, the concept of a 360 day "prophetic year" may not even exist in the Bible.
Sixth, you assume that each of those 2,520 days was meant to picture an ordinary solar year of 365.24 days each. Why do you assume this? If, in this prophecy, days were meant to be understood as years, then it would follow that days in “prophetic years” having 360 days each should be understood as years having 360 days each - not years having 365.24 days each.
Seventh, you assume that from this prophecy we can determine the time of Christ’s enthronement. Why do you assume this? In Daniel chapter 4 the same person, Nebuchadnezzar, who was removed from his throne was returned to his throne at the end of “seven times.” Jesus Christ was never removed from his throne to later be returned. However, the Bible tells us Satan will be. Again, if Daniel chapter 4 was intended to have a “larger fulfillment” the rule of Satan the devil fits much better here than the rule of Jesus Christ.
Eighth, you assume that in order to determine the year of Christ’s enthronement we are to count forward in time beginning with the year when Zedekiah, the last king of Judah, was removed from his throne. Why do you assume this? The tree that was cut down in Daniel chapter 4 “was visible to the ends of the earth and … from it every creature was fed.” (Dan. 4:11,12) Like this tree, Nebuchadnezzar’s rule extended to the ends of the then known world. All nations of the ancient Near East fell under his control. So this tree picturing Nebuchadnezzar’s vast rule makes sense. On the other hand, Zedekiah, the last king of Judah, ruled over only one very small nation. So, to understand that the tree that was cut down pictured the termination of Zedekiah’s very limited rule makes little sense.
Ninth, you assume that Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon in the year 607 B.C.E. You assume this because that is what you have been told. But, as I informed you earlier, all modern historians now assure us that Babylon conquered Jerusalem in either 587 or 586 B.C.E., not in “607 B.C.E.” They do so partly with the help of an “astronomical diary” which records some thirty observations of the moon and the then known five planets during the “37 th year” of Nebuchadnezzar. This “astronomical diary” known as “VAT 4956” leaves no doubt as to when exactly Nebuchanezzar’s “37 th year” of rule took place (568 B.C.E.), and by way of extrapolation when exactly his “19 th year” of rule took place (586 B.C.E.), the year in which the Bible tells us that he destroyed Jerusalem. (2 Kings 25:8) The only reason historians have any doubt about the exact year of Jerusalem’s fall (some say 587 rather than 586 B.C.E.) is that the Bible seems to also give Nebuchadnezzar’s “18 th year” as the year of Jerusalem’s fall. (Jeremiah 52:29)
So, do you see why I called your “1914” interpretation “very complicated and highly questionable”? I did so because this understanding is based on at least nine assumptions. And if any one of them is wrong (and it seems to me they may all be wrong), then the whole interpretation is wrong.
Mike