The 607 / 587 / 586 B.C.E. Research (page 3)

garyneal

reslight2:

So what exactly is your take on the whole premise that the WTS teaches that Christ began reigning invisibly in 1914, surveyed all of the world's religions, and selected them as His "Faithful and Discreet Slave" in 1919? I did a brief check on your website and noticed that your are not affiliated with the witnesses. Are you a follower of the original Russellite teachings? I do know that a lot of what the society is today came primarily from "Judge" Rutherford, not "Pastor" Russell (the year 1914 not withstanding).

diamondiiz

What credentials did Russell have to support the theory of 606BC? He was a saleman and learned this crap from Barbour who was a former Millerite. Now these folks had nothing other than a belief that the end had to be near thus they had bunch of dates that they needed support for. 606BC was only a small piece of Russell's puzzel. 606 was based on 538 conquest of Babylon and it was in addition to the support of 1914 theory that in 1874 Christ returned and 40 years later he was suppoed to bring an end to the present world. 606BC was not a HUGE date in Russell's calculations but one of many pieces that he theorized which added to his speculation and conviction that 1874 was in fact a date of Christ's return and a completion date of the last days which began in 1799 was 1914. Read Thy Kingdom Come (Studies in the Scriptures vol 3) book and you'll see that 606 was not viewed by Russell on the same scale as 607 is viewed by wts today. 1874 was calculated by various numbers and various dates of popes and so forth were used and the pyramid was just another nonsense that Russell used to support his theory in a same way he used 606 for 1914.

mkr32208

Wow, I'm not seeing scholar on ANY of these debates! I hope he's not sick!

I hope he's dead...

Black Sheep

Not to be detered, he began his long winded discussion concerning how the kings list could be suspect and how the Bible speaks on another king besides Nabonidus (and not in the list) to have reigned in 539 B.C.E. saying that secular historians were not taking the Bible into account because no evidence was found to prove the Bible. I have to admit, this kind of threw me since I wasn't expecting this and I told him that I need to look into this some more.

Why should you bust your butt looking into it?

He made the statement, it is up to him to produce the paperwork to prove it. Whenever any cult member makes an unusual claim, immediately demand that they prove it.

It won't hurt to have a list of WT publications in your pocket that confirm the reigns of the kings. If there is a mistake, why have they agreed with historians in these articles?

Thomas said ..."and...". What part of 'and' does this twit not understand? If you do your homework on this scripture you should be able to make any JW look like a complete fool for several reasons. You have to learn how to control the conversation.

Happy New Year

Chris

TD

The elder stated that 'some guys in Europe' were calculating 1914 based on 607 B.C.E. and the 2520 years of the gentiles times at about the same time as Charles Russell.

Pure revisionism.

Charles Taze Russell never "Calculated" 1914. The date and the methodology were entirely the work of the Second Adventist figure, Nelson Barbour.

Russell, by his own testimony (As recorded in the July 1906 issue of Zion's Watch Tower) came across the 1914 calculation while reading the September 1875 issue of Herald Of The Morning. He was intrigued by it and paid Barbour's expenses to come to Philidelphia and meet with him. Barbour convinced Russell and the rest is history.

Witnesses today are indebted to Barbour for he one single chronological element taught during the Russell era that they still accept. Instead of giving credit where credit is due, they pretend that it was actually Russell that came up with the date.

garyneal

Black Sheep,

I hear what you are saying and I should not have backed down so easily. However, I believe if I had of pressed him for proof, all he would've done was continue to cite WT literature. He gave me a printout of kc chapter 14, well 5 pages of it, in the chapter called "The King Reigns!" He also gave me an appendix to this chapter that addresses the issue between 586/7 BCE and 607 BCE. I've read it and it seems to suggest that secular historians are NOT taking the Bible into account and using it as supreme authority.

Now, the appendix tries to suggest that the secular timelines are 'subject to change' and states that "Christians who believe the Bible have time and again found its words stand the test of much criticism and have been proved accurate and reliable." While Christians who believe the Bible would certainly agree with that quote, one thing that has always been 'subject to change' are the man made interpretations of the Bible. This is especially true within the WTS for it is my understanding that 1914 had an entirely different meaning to the Russelites in 1919 than it does to the JW's today.

Frankly, I've become rather intrigued with this whole subject of study so I will continue to see what I can dig up.

garyneal

Lady Liberty,

My apologies for not thanking you for your very well written post on this thread. I was especially intrigued with this piece:

After about 5 hours, and after much study of the scriptures themselves, comparing it with the Kings lists, he could see that 586/587 was the match, not 607!

Which scriptures were you two studying and comparing with the Kings list? Were these scriptures referenced by any of the WT publications that you two were reading?

Black Sheep

You will find a discussion on kc chapter 14 here.

The scripture Lady Liberty is referring to might be Zechariah 1:7-12, which is covered in the same discussion.

Cheers

Chris

AnnOMaly

Another, well-laid out refutation of kc chapter 14 is HERE.

The 607 / 587 / 586 B.C.E. Research

Share this