Posts by Disillusioned JW

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

Hi scholar. I appreciate that you appreciate the way I made use of Bible commentaries.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

Note: My prior post includes smiley faces, but I did not intend for that to be in the post. It is in the post because this website interpreted some characters from the online source of the commentary as such.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

MeanMrMustard, to me the grammar of the sentence of "This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years" allows for the interpretation that Jerusalem (and the kingdom of Judah) will serve the king of Babylon seventy years. To me it is clear that the verse is saying Judah and the listed gentile nations will serve the king of Babylon for 70 years (even if the desolation of Jerusalem was not proclaimed to last for 70 years).

MeanMrMustard, scholar, Jeffro, and others please note the following.

A number of Christian commentaries also have that interpretation. For example consider the Christian commentary by Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown (first published in 1871 - interestingly that is 2 years after the year Russell listened to a sermon by Second Adventist [Advent Christian Church] Jonas Wendell, and 5 years before the year that Russell first met Second Adventist Nelson H. Barbour). I own copy of its Revised Edition of 1961 (my copy was printed in 1967). The commentary can be read online at https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/jfb/jeremiah-25.html . The wording of it for Jeremiah 25:11 from that source says the following.

"11. seventy years— ( :-). [Note: Though the online source says "-- ( :-)" my hardcover printed book of the commentary says "--(Ch. 27;7)."] The exact number of years of Sabbaths in four hundred ninety years, the period from Saul to the Babylonian captivity; righteous retribution for their violation of the Sabbath (Leviticus 26:34; Leviticus 26:35; 2 Chronicles 36:21). The seventy years probably begin from the fourth year of Jehoiakim, when Jerusalem was first captured, and many captives, as well as the treasures of the temple, were carried away; they end with the first year of Cyrus, who, on taking Babylon, issued an edict for the restoration of the Jews (Ezra 1:1). Daniel's seventy prophetic weeks are based on the seventy years of the captivity (compare Daniel 9:2; Daniel 9:24)."

Regarding verse 18 the commentary says the following.

'18. Jerusalem—put first: for "judgment begins at the house of God"; they being most guilty whose religious privileges are greatest ( :-).

kings—Jehoiakim, Jeconiah, and Zedekiah.

as it is this day—The accomplishment of the curse had already begun under Jehoiakim. This clause, however, may have been inserted by Jeremiah at his final revision of his prophecies in Egypt.'

Note that the commentary references Daniel 9:2; Daniel 9:24. The commentary (as posted online at https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/jfb/daniel-9.html ) says the following about Daniel 9:1-2.

"1. first year of Darius—Cyaxares II, in whose name Cyrus, his nephew, son-in-law, and successor, took Babylon, 538 B.C. The date of this chapter is therefore 537 B.C., a year before Cyrus permitted the Jews to return from exile, and sixty-nine years after Daniel had been carried captive at the beginning of the captivity, 606 B.C.

son of Ahasuerus—called Astyages by XENOPHON. Ahasuerus was a name common to many of the kings of Medo-Persia.

made king—The phrase implies that Darius owed the kingdom not to his own prowess, but to that of another, namely, Cyrus.

2. understood by books—rather, "letters," that is, Jeremiah's letter ( :-) to the captives in Babylon; also Jeremiah 25:11; Jeremiah 25:12; compare 2 Chronicles 36:21; Jeremiah 30:18; Jeremiah 31:38. God's promises are the ground on which we should, like Daniel, rest sure hope; not so as to make our prayers needless, but rather to encourage them."

The commentary says the following for Daniel 9:24.

'24. Seventy weeks—namely, of years; literally, "Seventy sevens"; seventy heptads or hebdomads; four hundred ninety years; expressed in a form of "concealed definiteness" [HENGSTENBERG], a usual way with the prophets. The Babylonian captivity is a turning point in the history of the kingdom of God. It terminated the free Old Testament theocracy. Up to that time Israel, though oppressed at times, was; as a rule, free. From the Babylonian captivity the theocracy never recovered its full freedom down to its entire suspension by Rome; and this period of Israel's subjection to the Gentiles is to continue till the millennium ( :-), when Israel shall be restored as head of the New Testament theocracy, which will embrace the whole earth. The free theocracy ceased in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, and the fourth of Jehoiakim; the year of the world 3338, the point at which the seventy years of the captivity begin. Heretofore Israel had a right, if subjugated by a foreign king, to shake off the yoke (Judges 4:1-5; 2 Kings 18:7) as an unlawful one, at the first opportunity. But the prophets (2 Kings 18:7- :) declared it to be God's will that they should submit to Babylon. Hence every effort of Jehoiakim, Jeconiah, and Zedekiah to rebel was vain. The period of the world times, and of Israel's depression, from the Babylonian captivity to the millennium, though abounding more in afflictions (for example, the two destructions of Jerusalem, Antiochus' persecution, and those which Christians suffered), contains all that was good in the preceding ones, summed up in Christ, but in a way visible only to the eye of faith. Since He came as a servant, He chose for His appearing the period darkest of all as to His people's temporal state. Always fresh persecutors have been rising, whose end is destruction, and so it shall be with the last enemy, Antichrist. As the Davidic epoch is the point of the covenant-people's highest glory, so the captivity is that of their lowest humiliation. Accordingly, the people's sufferings are reflected in the picture of the suffering Messiah. He is no longer represented as the theocratic King, the Antitype of David, but as the Servant of God and Son of man; at the same time the cross being the way to glory (compare Daniel 9:1-27; Daniel 2:34; Daniel 2:35; Daniel 2:44; Daniel 12:7). In the second and seventh chapters, Christ's first coming is not noticed, for Daniel's object was to prophesy to his nation as to the whole period from the destruction to the re-establishment of Israel; but this ninth chapter minutely predicts Christ's first coming, and its effects on the covenant people. The seventy weeks date thirteen years before the rebuilding of Jerusalem; for then the re-establishment of the theocracy began, namely, at the return of Ezra to Jerusalem, 457 B.C. So Jeremiah's seventy years of the captivity begin 606 B.C., eighteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem, for then Judah ceased to exist as an independent theocracy, having fallen under the sway of Babylon. Two periods are marked in Ezra: (1) The return from the captivity under Jeshua and Zerubbabel, and rebuilding of the temple, which was the first anxiety of the theocratic nation. (2) The return of Ezra (regarded by the Jews as a second Moses) from Persia to Jerusalem, the restoration of the city, the nationality, and the law. Artaxerxes, in the seventh year of his reign, gave him the commission which virtually includes permission to rebuild the city, afterwards confirmed to, and carried out by, Nehemiah in the twentieth year (Ezra 9:9; Ezra 7:11 Ezra 7:11- :, "from the going forth of the commandment to build Jerusalem," proves that the second of the two periods is referred to. The words in Daniel 9:24 are not, "are determined upon the holy city," but "upon thy people and thy holy city"; thus the restoration of the religious national polity and the law (the inner work fulfilled by Ezra the priest), and the rebuilding of the houses and walls (the outer work of Nehemiah, the governor), are both included in Daniel 9:25, "restore and build Jerusalem." "Jerusalem" represents both the city, the body, and the congregation, the soul of the state. Compare Psalms 46:1-11; Psalms 48:1-14; Psalms 87:1-7. The starting-point of the seventy weeks dated from eighty-one years after Daniel received the prophecy: the object being not to fix for him definitely the time, but for the Church: the prophecy taught him that the Messianic redemption, which he thought near, was separated from him by at least a half millennium. ....'

Notice that the commentary uses the date of 606 B.C. [I have also seen other commentaries use that date] - the same date that Barbour used and that initially Russell used (before changing it to 607 B.C.), but that the commentary uses it as the year of the beginning of the servitude (of Jerusalem and Judah, and its kings, and some others, including Daniel) instead of as the year of the beginning of the desolation of Jerusalem. This might give the WT a way out regarding 1914 which would allow them to accept that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE (or 588 BCE or 586 BCE), for it would allow them to keep the 1914 date (or adjust it slightly, such as to 1915 [a date which in some editions of Studies of Studies in the Scriptures Russell said was a possibility] or to 1913) and also keep the 607 BCE date (or return to their earlier 606 BCE date), but redefine what the 607 (or 606) BCE date refers to.

In some of my prior posts (which I made before reading the above quoted sections of the above commentary) I wrote of my interpretation of the beginning of the servitude (instead of the desolation) of the kingdom headquartered in Jerusalem as possibly the start of the 70 years, according to Jeremiah chapter 25. That also makes sense as the beginning of the Gentile Times and the beginning of the trampling of the nations upon Judah and Jerusalem.

773

Breaking News: Anthony Morris III no longer serving on the Governing Body

by WingCommander in

jw
friends

this has been announced on the jw's official website, in the "jw news" section.

this is not a joke.

anthony moron da turd is out as a gluttonous body member!

Disillusioned JW

Today my best friend told me that on a different web site (one which features videos) for ex-JWs a woman said that her niece is at Bethel and that the niece saw Anthony Morris III walking inside Bethel and that such confirms he is still at Bethel. I think the person said happened on last Thursday.

My best friend also said that soon after the JW.org posted the announcement about Tony on their site, the site posted a video about addictions and a video about unrighteous riches (or maybe both topics were in the same video).

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

Hi MeanMrMustard. I notice you said "... starting thr process described ...". I am thinking you might be correct in saying that is what the phrase means. Though I didn't say it in my prior posts, I was wondering if the wording of "beginning" or "begin" might mean that, namely the start of the process, even if the first part of the process doesn't directly effect Jerusalem or Judah.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

Regarding the phrase "as it is this day" at Jeremiah 25:18, A Commentary on The Holy Bible By Various Writers (copyright 1908, 1909), Edited by Dummelow, on page 470 [the use of italics in the quote is that of the commentary] says the following. "18. As it is this day] a later insertion by Jeremiah or another as comment on fulfillment."

The Abingdon Bible Commentary (copyright 1929), edited by Eiselen, Lewis, and Downey, on 694 [the use of italics in the quote is that of the commentary] says the following. "Vv. 17-29 describe Jerusalem as desolate at this day (v. 18), and must therefore date from the time after the destruction of the capital. Their late origin is further proved by their asserting to Jeremiah in v. 17 what was physically impossible to any man. The later generation, which had lost touch with the actual situation, interpreted in a somewhat bald and literal way the fine symbol of the prophet being intrusted with the cup of divine anger. What remains after these excisions is an oracle on the day of the Lord: Jehovah is about to bring all the families of the North (v. 9, cf. 1:14) against Jerusalem first, but also against all the nations round it. The world shall become a desolation, returning to the condition from which God brought it at first (cf. 4:23f.). Jeremiah is repeating the revelation he received in the second vision after his call."

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

TonusOH I think a big part of the reason for the variation in the wording of the translations of part of a single verse that MeanMrMustard listed is due to copyright laws. In order to come out with a new translation and have it copyright protected and in order to avoid infringing on the copyright of earlier translations, the wording has differ to some extent in various places from those other translations.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

MeanMrMustard the way I see it, Jeremiah chapter 25 is including Jerusalem (which was the capital city of Judah) and all the other cities of Judah in the list of that which the chapter calls the "nations" who shall serve the King of Babylon seventy years (Jeremiah 25:11, 17-18, 25 [ASV]).

While the list of nations probably doesn't mean that calamity will come to them in that specific order, to me it clearly states (even if what is states is incorrect) that the calamity comes first to Jerusalem (begins at Jerusalem). I don't see the distinction you and some others make between the use of the word "beginning" (or "begin") and the word "starting" or "first" at Jeremiah 25:29. In your quotes of Jeremiah 25:29 you left out the words which said specifically where the calamity was said to begin, namely the city of Jerusalem. For example, note that Jeremiah 25:29 (ASV) says "For lo, I begin to work evil at the city which is called by my name ...." Verses 18 - 26 lists those who receive calamity and verse 17 (ASV) calls all of those groups "nations", and verse 18 includes Jerusalem in that category of "nations". Please keep in mind that in BCE times many cities were "nation states" (modern scholars of the history of the ancient Middle East call them such) and thus were nations (such as a the cities which the OT book of Joshua says the Jews conquered in the land of Canaan). Jeremiah 25:17 -18 (ASV) says "... and made all the nations to drink, unto whom Jehovah had sent me: to wit, Jerusalem, and the cities of Judah, and the kings thereof, and the princes thereof, to make them a desolation, an astonishment, a hissing, and a curse, as it is this day". Since verses 17 - 18 (ASV) indicates that Jerusalem is called one of the "nations" then when verse 11 (ASV) mentions that the "nations shall serve the king of Babylon for seventy years", it is including Jerusalem as one those nations - even if in fact Jerusalem did not serve the king of Babylon for literally seventy years (and even if in fact the prophecy in the name of Yahweh partially failed).

The conservative Christian evangelical commentary called The International Bible Commentary: With the New International Version (a revised edition of 1986; the former edition used the RSV scripture text), which has F. F. Bruce as its General Editor, says the following on page 780 about Jeremiah 25:15-29 [the use of italics in the quote is that of the commentary]. "... The scope of the Lord's fury embraces all nations beginning with Jerusalem and Judea and then 'the uttermost parts of the earth' (18-26; 28: 33). ... After Judah the list groups places affected by direct Babylonian campaigns (e.g. Egypt in 601 B.C. and Dedan, Tena and Buz in Central Arabia--all mentioned in contemporary inscriptions). ... 20-26. all the kings of ... : this repeated phrase has caused some commentators to reject these verses as late, but such phrases occur in contemporary historical texts. ..."

The conservative Christian evangelical commentary called The New Bible Commentary Revised (Third Edition, copyright 1970), edited by Guthrie and Motyer, says the following on page 642 about Jeremiah 25:11, 15, 29 [the use of italics in the quote is that of the commentary]. "11 The duration of exile, seventy years, ensures that all the original exiles would be dead before its end; this is a round figure approximately correct. ... 15 Cup of wine is the symbol of Yahweh's inescapable wrath over Judah and other nations (cf. Ps. 75:8; Is. 51:17). Babylon is His agent. ... 29 Observe that the fury of the Lord begins with Jerusalem (cf. v.18) and extends to other nations who also deserve the divine chastisement." Notice it says "Judah and other nations" and "Jerusalem ... and ... other nations", thus by its use of the word "other" it is treating Judah and Jerusalem each as a nation also. That backs up what I said above.

Regarding the phrase "as it is this day" at Jeremiah 25:18 it might just mean the time period in which Jeremiah wrote his account (or whoever wrote the account), namely the time of the exile of the Jews. Or, the phrase might be an insertion into the account by an editor.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

Corrections: In my prior post where I said "... from the BCE date then displaying the list of dates in the reverse order" I meant to says "... from the 607 BCE date then displaying the list of dates in the reverse order". Where I said "Since are views on this matter ..." I should have said "Since our views on this matter ...".

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

In an earlier post I said to 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?" But when I woke up this morning it occurred to me one can't add up the reigns of the Hebrew Monarchy from 539 BCE to the year in which the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem. That is because there was no Hebrew monarchy in Judah during that time period.

In the list of chronology, on pages 464 - 466 of Insight Volume 1, of the combined 12-tribe kingdom and of the separate kingdoms of Israel and Judah, the WT probably calculated those dates from the the year 607 BCE, which in turn they likely calculated by going back 68 years from the pivotal year of 539 BCE (or by going back 70 years from the year 537 BCE, which in turn was calculated by going forward 2 years from the year 539 BCE). In listing the dates from 1117 BCE forward in time to 607 BCE they likely give the impression to many readers that the 607 BCE date was determined by starting with the 1117 date. But, what the WT most likely actually did was to calculate the 1117 BCE date (and the dates between 1117 BCE and 607 BCE) from the BCE date then displaying the list of dates in the reverse order. Likewise that is probably the reason their year for the creation of Adam (stated as 4026 B.C.E. on page 459 of the Volume 1 of Insight) is 26 years earlier than the date calculated by Ussher, rather than 20 years closer to the date calculated by Ussher (his date was 4000 BC.

scholar I notice you said the following. "The issue at hand is that our Chronology is Bible-based whereas your Chronology is based on secular and pagan sources which contradict the Bible history it is that simple. ... Always be careful of science as it is a human construct prone to error." That confirms what I thought about your approach. You consider the Bible to be far more reliable than science. In contrast, I consider science to be far more reliable than religion and the Bible.

My observation is that religion is vastly more prone to error than science is prone to error. The WT and its JW religion are extremely prone error. That is partly demonstrated by their numerous doctrinal changes throughout their history.

Since are views on this matter are the opposite of each other and since our views on this matter are strongly entrenched, it is probably not worthwhile for me to continue to debate this matter (and other matters in which your religion is in conflict with science) with you.

Have a nice day.