I've read so many different discussions about 587 B.C.[E.] and the like. I often wondered if those issues were debatable; either way, I found the discussions of the historical data to be far too technical for the average person to absorb. If I may be so bold, I consider myself as slightly above average, in my more arrogant moments. And while I'm fascinated with history, it's just a tough subject to absorb. I always wanted to compare, say, The Gentile Times Reconsidered with the Society's own defenses of 607 B.C.E.
But in the end, that's not the point. Jehovah's Witnesses look to the Bible as their final authority. [*cough* bull**** *cough*] Excuse me. Must be that carbon emission problem going on in the area. Anyway, so, if that's what they say, then let's hold them to it. Here is why 1914 is impossible.
Daniel 4:34: "And at the end of the days, I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted up to the heavens my eyes, and my own understanding began to return to me; and I blessed the Most High himself, and the One living to time indefinite I praised and glorified, because his rulership is a rulership to time indefinite and his kingdom is for generation after generation."
Notice that word "is" in the last phrase there? It's used in reference to both God's rulership and God's kingdom. "Is" denotes present tense, ongoing. In this case, it IS obvious that 1914 is wrong. Why? Because the very heart of the premise for doing the 607 B.C.E. to 1914 C.E. calculation is in error:
Jehovah's rulership was never interrupted.
Here, in this verse, we have the very king who supposedly was allowed to interrupt God's rulership over the earth acknowledging that, not he himself, but the Most High is ruler. That the Most High's kingdom is ongoing, to time indefinite, from generation to generation. The words are very clear. And undeniable.
So, in order to defend 1914, that is, the need for a 'seven times' calculation in the first place, we are faced with two options: (1) construe these words to say something they do not say or (2) deny the Bible record of what Nebuchadnezzar said altogether.
In humiliating Nebuchadnezzar, God makes clear that no human government, regardless of who it attacks, is capable of supplanting his authority over the earth. His kingdom remained intact after Jerusalem's destruction, no matter what year it happened.
Of course, the logical defense to this assertion of mine is, well, what's the point in Daniel 2:44? If God's kingdom is eternal, why bother crushing all the kingdoms? My response? Well, it's one thing to have authority, and it's another to smash all opposition in direct exercise of said authority. Exactly, the JW would say, which is why 7 times 360 = 2,520 years, which brings us to 1914.
After pausing to grant said JW the satisfaction of being right, I again go back to Daniel 4:34. Since God's sovereignty is being acknowledged by this king, what logical reason is there to conclude this tree dream he had has any bearing on a specific year for God's Kingdom to be established? There can be no starting date for the end of God's rulership as expressed towards the earth if the guy who toppled said rulership bows and acknowledges God as king! Because by all logic, then, the calculation would have to start after Nebuchadnezzar's death. In the end, it requires us to be more and more inventive to the point where it becomes obvious we're just desperate to prove ourselves right, to justify our belief system. And thus, we have to ask ourselves, why?
Why? Why go through this trouble? Why insist that true Christianity is dependent on Bible chronology instead of on faith in Jesus Christ? Why preach a good news that is directly dependent on said chronology? This is not the message Jesus Christ preached. His focus was on love of God, love of neighbor, of repentance and faith. These are easy things for anyone to understand. They don't require a calculator, or blind faith in any group of men. They just require belief in the Lord Jesus Christ--his coming, his death, his resurrection, his ransom in behalf of our sins.
Well, I'll leave others to answer those questions, though I believe the answers are already clear to me. This is an issue that was touched upon in The Gentile Times Reconsidered, but I just wanted to add my thoughts, see if I touched upon anything new. I don't know if it was helpful, but there you have it. Take care.
SD-7