How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco 208 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Disillusioned JW

  scholar I notice you wrote "... WT Chronology is based not on Barbour but Charles Russell and his associates ...". By including "not on Barbour" in your words you made it look like you were claiming that Barbour was not one of Russell associates. But the WT's Proclaimers book admits that for a period time that Barbour was one of Russell's associates and that Russell got his chronology of 'prophetic' dates from Barbour. Interestingly the same WT web page I mentioned (in my prior post) of chapter 5 of the Proclaimers book says the following. "Because their present understanding of Bible truths and their activities can be traced back to the 1870’s and the work of C. T. Russell and his associates, and from there to the Bible and early Christianity." That gives me the impression that you got your wording of "... Charles Russell and his associates ..." from the Proclaimers book. So why not accept that Barbour for a period time was an associate of Russell (since the Proclaimers book admits he was) and that Russell and the WT (in its early years) got their "prophetic" date chronology from Barbour? Granted the WT (under Rutherford) later abandoned a number of Barbour's dates and replaced some them with other dates (such as replacing 1874 with 1914 and replacing 1878 with 1918). But the WT's 1914 date is one which they got from Barbour. Also their 607 BCE date is a very slight revision of the Barbour's 606 BC date. Furthermore, the WT retains the 2,520 year number which Russell got from Barbour.

  Regarding the chronology which the WT had while Russell was alive the WT's online edition of the Proclaimers book says the following.

  'Concerning the chronology he often presented, Russell stated: “When we say ‘our’ chronology we merely mean the one we use, the Bible chronology, which belongs to all of God’s people who approve it. As a matter of fact it was used in practically the form we present it long before our day, just as various prophecies we use were used to a different purpose by Adventists, and just as various doctrines we hold and which seem so new and fresh and different were held in some form long ago: for instance—Election, Free Grace, Restitution, Justification, Sanctification, Glorification, Resurrection.” '

  Update: I now notice that while I was composing this post you (scholar) posted a post (4 minutes before I posted this post) in which you admit that Russell was indebted to Barbour and that Barbour's chronology influenced the chronology which Russell and the WT later adopted. That is good.

  However the WT is very wrong in saying that Jerusalem and the kingdom of Judah fell in 607 BCE, Whereas secular chronology is correct in saying it fell in 587 BCE. Furthermore the WT is wrong is saying became king over the Earth invisibly in heaven in 1914. The WT needs to ditch their second adventist derived chronology pertaining to 607 BCE, 1914, and 1918, as well as the idea of Christ's invisible presence as king. Those ideas are rubbish - not the secular date of 587 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem.

  scholar you comment of "... such Bible Chronology enables faithful people to locate themselves in the stream of time by means of being able to understand Prophecy" is incorrect in regards to 607 BCE and 1914 CE. There is no personal God, not even Jehovah God. Jehovah God as described and defined in the Bible definitely does not exist.
  
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  The WT believes in a form of Second Adventism but Second Adventism is incorrect, for there is no Christ in heaven; Jesus if he ever existed is dead, not alive in heaven. As a result the WT gives an extremely incorrect portrayal of where people are in the stream of time.

  There will be no battle of Armageddon in the biblical sense; no bowls of wrath will be poured out (nor have been poured out) from God in heaven upon the Earth. Christ will not go to war against human armies and human governments, nor against individual humans (such as those whom the WT claims are a part of Babylon the Great). Christ did not kick Satan the Devil out of heaven in 1914 (or at any other time), since Satan the Devil does not exist as an actual being (but only 'exists' in the sense of an incorrect imaginary idea of many humans).
  
• 

  scholar

  Disillusioned JW

  However the WT is very wrong in saying that Jerusalem and the kingdom of Judah fell in 607 BCE, Whereas secular chronology is correct in saying it fell in 587 BCE. Furthermore the WT is wrong is saying became king over the Earth invisibly in heaven in 1914. The WT needs to ditch their second adventist derived chronology pertaining to 607 BCE, 1914, and 1918, as well as the idea of Christ's invisible presence as king. Those ideas are rubbish - not the secular date of 587 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem.

  ---

  How can a calculated precise date of 607 BCE be wrong when you cannot agree as to whether it is 587 or 586 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem? How can it be that a definite date-607 BCE be falsified by an indefinite date-586 or 587 BCE?

  The subject of Christ's Parousia is a matter of Biblical Theology based on a careful exegesis of various biblical texts as an introduction to Eschatology derived from the books Daniel and Revelation. This means that our teachings are well established and confirmed by the facts of modern history since 1914 which course is the first part of an eschatological triennium: 1914-1918-1919 CE.

  ---

  scholar you comment of "... such Bible Chronology enables faithful people to locate themselves in the stream of time by means of being able to understand Prophecy" is incorrect in regards to 607 BCE and 1914 CE. There is no personal God, not even Jehovah God. Jehovah God as described and defined in the Bible definitely does not exist.

  --

  The dates 607 BCE and 1914 CE are validated by Bible History-Bible Theology - Secular History both Ancient and Modern. You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to my interpretation.

  scholar JW
  
  

  
  
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  scholar even if modern biblical scholars (and I) are indefinite as to whether the destruction happened in 587 BCE or 586 BCE they (and I) are definite that it did not happen in 607 BCE. They are in agreement that it definitely did not happen any time before 587 BCE and that it definitely did not happen any time after 586 BCE.

  Your argument is flawed where you say the following. "How can a calculated precise date of 607 BCE be wrong when you cannot agree as to whether it is 587 or 586 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem? How can it be that a definite date-607 BCE be falsified by an indefinite date-586 or 587 BCE?" 607 BCE is not a definite year for the destruction, in the sense of it being proven as a correct date by a consensus of biblical scholars. It is only 'definite' in the sense of it being one specific year and in the sense that the WT and many JWs teach it is correct, but those people are not biblical scholars. The governing body of the WT and the other writers of the WT's literature (except maybe for rare exceptions of the Writing Committee) and nearly all of the other JWs did not get a university degree in biblical studies, nor an studies of any middle eastern ancient history, nor in ancient middle eastern languages. Extant archaeological artifacts in no way indicate that the destruction happened in 607 BCE or even in some year within the range of 607 BCE plus or minus 10 years. In contrast biblical scholars have demonstrated a precision of their date to within 1 single year, without having to resort to claims made in biblical prophecies (such as a prophecy in the book of Jeremiah). Instead, the biblical scholars made use of extant historical records which said that it happened during a specific year of a specific king's reign, however the years for the start of a king's reign don't start in the same month as the years of our Gregorian calendar years start in. For a hypothetical example, one year of the reign of a king might have started in March 15, 587 BCE and ended in March 14, 586 BCE (like a fiscal year of a modern day corporation; for example one whose 10th year of operation was from May 2010 through April 2011, instead of from January 1, 2010 - December 31, 2010). As a result when one reads an ancient document that says an event happened in a specific year of the king (such as perhaps the 19th year of the king), which doesn't also mention the month (or give a clue as to the month), that means that according to our calendar it might have been in the year 587 BCE or the year 586 BCE, in this hypothetical example, according to our Gregorian calendar, but definitely not 607 BCE. That is because in this hypothetical example the 19th year of the king overlapped with parts of two years of our modern day Gregorian calendar.
  

  Consider the following as another example. Someone might say that something happened in either in 400 CE or 401 CE, and definitely not in some other year (such as the year 350 CE). Someone else might say it happened in 350 CE instead. Just because someone might be uncertain as to whether it happened in 400 CE instead of in 401 CE, that doesn't mean they are wrong in being certain it didn't happen in some year which was neither than 400 CE nor 401 CE. It does not mean the one who say it happened in 350 CE is correct.
  
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  How can a calculated precise date of 607 BCE be wrong when you cannot agree as to whether it is 587 or 586 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem? How can it be that a definite date-607 BCE be falsified by an indefinite date-586 or 587 BCE?

  The logic here... 🤦

  You know the difference between precision and accuracy, right?

  I can give you an incredibly precise measurement for the weight of a full grown elephant: 5.1745385637655364469346 ounces. Is it accurate?

  Accepting for a moment that there a big debate between 586 and 587: The fact that you propose a more precise date doesn't mean it's correct. And if there is a large body of evidence pointing to a less precise date range, it can most certainly disprove your incredibly precise fantasy date.
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  I think way to much about religious matters. I need to spend much more of my time thinking about things which will benefit me (including in practical ways), such as intensely studying the stock market (including how various factors influence the prices of stocks) to greatly improve my results in stock market trading and hopefully become wealthy.
  

  My being raised from infancy in the WT's JW religion over time eventually developed a strong interest in me in religion, which in some respects is very disadvantageous to me. I somehow need to stop studying the Bible, to stop writing (including debating and arguing) about religion on this website, to stop reading religious posts on this web site (but most of this web site is about religion, and much of the rest is about politics and unproven conspiracy theories), and to stop being interested in the subject of religion. However, I have become hooked on those matters (despite me now being an atheist and nonreligious) and it is thus very hard for me to completely cease doing those things. I spend several hours per week (with most of that time on my days off from work) thinking about religion, including spending hours per week on this site making posts about religion.

  Perhaps the only way I can stop thinking about religion is so much would be if I somehow managed to stop caring about what other people think about religion. But, it is highly doubtful I could achieve that since I strongly want human society to become atheistic naturalists and to be nonreligious.
  
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  I think way to much about religious matters. I need to spend much more of my time thinking about things which will benefit me...

  Ditto! I agree. I think it's healthy to step away now and again.
• 

  scholar

  MeanMrMustard

  Accepting for a moment that there a big debate between 586 and 587: The fact that you propose a more precise date doesn't mean it's correct. And if there is a large body of evidence pointing to a less precise date range, it can most certainly disprove your incredibly precise fantasy date.

  --

  The simple fact is that we have a definite date not wishy-washy date for the Fall of Jerusalem. A precise date does not of itself prove its accuracy but if you compare the alternative dates for the same event then it comes down not only to accuracy but methodology and confidence.

  scholar JW
  
  
• 

  scholar

  Disillusioned JW

  scholar even if modern biblical scholars (and I) are indefinite as to whether the destruction happened in 587 BCE or 586 BCE they (and I) are definite that it did not happen in 607 BCE. They are in agreement that it definitely did not happen any time before 587 BCE and that it definitely did not happen any time after 586 BCE---

  ---

  What you are saying is nonsense. How can you be definite that a definite or precise date such as 607 BCE is wrong when you cannot offer up any other precise alternative?

  ---

  Chronology is about accuracy or precision and is not about fuzziness. The fact is that based on the Bible, WT scholars over many decades have proven that 607 BCE is the only possible, validated date for the Fall and no other evidence has been found to disprove 607 BCE'

  The best attempt to disprove 607 BCE is the scholarship of Carl Olaf Jonsson published as Gentile Times Reconsidered which claims that there 17 lines of evidence that disprove 607 BCE. A scholarly examination of his thesis shows that not one of these lines of evidence disproves 607 BCE so 607 has been held up to scrutiny and has passed with Honours.

  scholarJW
  
  
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  On page 2 of this topic thread Splash lists pages in the Insight volumes about the Babylonian kings. Moments ago I started reading the one about Belsshazzar and I find myself fascinated about what it says. I am astonished that it (on page 283) demonstrates there are archaeological records which are consistent with, and even collaborate, some statements in the book called Daniel. Prior to today I had little interest in reading the Insight volumes (or the Aid to Bible Understanding), even though I obtained the Insight volumes in first year they were published (1988) and even though that prior to that I tried to order the Aid book from the WT (but it had gone out of print by then). In the year 2006 I finally found and purchased a used copy (in very good condition) of the complete Aid book (1971 Edition), thus replacing the 1969 Edition I had since childhood.

  I notice that Insight Volume 2 page 457 says that Nabonidus "... ruled some 17 years (556-539 B.C.E.)." It thus explicitly agrees with with what Splash calculated as the first year of the rule of Nabonidus, and thus at point in the chronology the WT agrees with the secular chronology. But when we come to Evil-Merodach the Insight book (Volume 1 page 773) explicitly says that Evil-Merodach began his rule in 581 B.C.E. whereas Splash calculates 563 B.C.E instead, a difference of 18 years (but not 20 years). Thus it appears that some of the difference in the WT's dates from the secular dates is somewhere in between the reigns of Nabonidus and Evil-Merodach. Likewise
  Insight Vol 2 p.480 gives a date differing by 18 years form that calculated by Splash, the Insight book says "Nebuchadnezzar ruled as king for 43 years (624-582 B.C.E.) ... " and thus claiming Nebuchadnezzarbegan to rule in the year 624 B.C.E. instead of Splash's calculated date of 606 B.C.E. Does perhaps the WT think that
  Neriglissar ruled for about 18 years more than 4 years? Apparently not, since on page three of this topic thread Vanderhoven7 says "Neriglissar ... reigned four years Babylon the Great Has Fallen - God's Kingdom Rules p.184". I do see that the Babylon Great book (as published in the 1999 Edition of the Watchtower Library does say that which Vanderhoven7 quoted it as saying. Does then the WT think there is an unknown king missing from the extant Babylonian records of their kings?

  Splash says "Minus Neriglissar (4 years) = 561 BCE - Insight Vol 1 p.453" however I don't see Insight Vol 1 p.453 as saying that Neriglissar ruled for a total of 4 years. Instead in my copy of the Insight book (which is the "First Printing") I instead see the following. "For Neriglissar, considered to be the successor of Awil-Murduk, contract tablets are known dated to his fourth year. Notice it does not claim "up to his fourth year", but it does say Awil-Murduk is Evil-Merodach for in the prior sentence it says "... Awil-Murduk (Evil-Merodach, 2Ki 25:27, 28) ...".

  On page 6 of this topic thread scholar says the following (which I think is interesting).

  "By constructing a scheme of Chronology based on the backward computation of the reigns of the N B Period you get 586/587 for the Fall of Jerusalem base dom material in the Insight volumes. I get that!.

  However, if using the same methodology by means of counting back using the regnal data- reigns of the Hebrew Monarchy as published in that same volume then you get 607 BCE. Do you get it?"

  scholar which pages of the Insight book are you using for the data of the reigns of the Hebrew Monarachy which add up years from 539 (or 537) B.C.E. to get 607 BCE? Are you referring t the chart which is on pages 404-406 of Insight Volume 1? That chart is counting up (forward in time) from what the Insight book says happened in 1117 BCE. I don't see it counting backward in time from the well established date of 539 B.C.E. Therefore please provide us with more information so I and others can see what you are using to support your claim.