If the theory is not supported by the facts . . . change the facts.
1904 and Russell taken to task for 606 BCE...calling you brainiacs!
by Aussie Oz 23 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
breakfast of champions
Have to give them credit, though, that they actually entertained opposing viewpoints in their literature back then. Before the "information control" was in full swing...
-
Alleymom
Elder-schmelder,
The pdf is here: http://www.archive.org/details/1904ZionsWatchTower.
It can be viewed online or downloaded and saved.Go to the October 1, 1904 issue, R3436, page 296. In the table of contents for the Oct 1 issue, it is under " The Time of Harvest."
-
Terry
R3436 : page 296 THE TIME OF HARVEST. AUTHOR of MILLENNIAL DAWN and Editor of ZION'S WATCH TOWER:- Dear Sir,— Since you have changed your views respecting Gentile Times let me suggest the possibility of still another error. You count the seventy years Babylonian captivity of the Jews as beginning with the overthrow of Zedekiah, Judah's last king, but I notice that "Bishop Usher's Chronology," given in the margins of our Common Version Bibles and based on "Ptolemy's Canon," begins that seventy-year period nineteen years earlier— namely, in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, when he took captive Daniel and other prominent Jews and laid the Jews' country under tribute. Now if this, the common reckoning, be correct, it would make the Times of the Gentiles to begin nineteen years later than you estimate, namely, in B.C. 587, instead of B.C. 606;~and this in turn would make those times end nineteen years later than you have reckoned,— in October, A.D. 1933, instead of October, 1914. What do you say to this? Are you humble enough to acknowledge that I have struck some new light, and that you and all DAWN readers have been "all wrong," walking in darkness? R3437 : page 296 We reply that there are too many ifs in the proposition, and that they are all abundantly contradicted by facts and Scripture, and are therefore not worthy the slightest consideration. (1) The brother errs in supposing that we have changed our view of "Gentile Times." Those "times" or years are 2520, with a definite beginning in B.C. 606, and a definite ending, A.D. 1914. We know of no reason for changing a figure: to do so would spoil the harmonies and parallels so conspicuous between the Jewish and Gospel ages. The only "change" in view is that the anarchy to follow the ending of those "times" will not shorten them; and that the forty years "harvest" of the Church will be complete and not be interfered with by the world-wide anarchy to follow it. This, as we have shown, makes the parallel with the Jewish age still more accurate; for the Jewish harvest of forty years ended in A.D. 69— prior to the complete anarchy amongst the Jews which came the year following. The brother seems to further misunderstand us to teach that no great trouble will come before October, 1914 A.D. This is incorrect: we expect the great trouble of Rev. 13:15-17 before that date; but it will not be the world's trouble, the anarchy which will cause the "earth," society, to melt with fervent heat. It will be a trouble peculiar to the Lord's consecrated ones. In the past these two distinctly separate troubles were less clearly discerned than now. And this is just what we should expect— that the light shining more and more unto the perfect day would not be contradictory, but establish and clarify the truths already shown us, including the times and seasons.— Dan. 12:4,10; IThes. 5:1-4. THE ERROR LONG SINCE EXPOSED. (2) In MILLENNIAL DAWN, Vol. II., pp. 36,37, we were careful to note the unreliability of all ancient histories, and, after quoting various authorities conceding this, we added, last paragraph:— "The Bible, our God-provided history of the first three thousand years, is the only work in the
-
drewcoul
One thing I have never understood, SOMEONE HELP ME PLEASE!!????:
If Jerusalem were destroyed in 587 BC, why does the WTS say it isn't in harmony with the bible? couldn't it still be consistent with what the Bible says?
I know I haven't studied this in depth, although I have read much about it. I am not getting my head around it. I understand how i 587 knocks 1914 out of the park, as well as 1918 and 1919......but why does the WTS seem to say that if one believes Jerusalem was destroyed in 587, they don't believe the Bible?
-
thetrueone
Not to pull off topic here but it seems to me that 1914 to Russell was much more of value to him as by using this date produced much
more attention to his own published works and to himself for that matter, call it a marketing catch.
It was around the time that he was living and the people who would come to listen to him at his public talks.
The apparent facts are, ancient Jerusalem was finally destroyed along with the holy temple in 587, the total amount of years of from start to end
of captivity by Babylon, was approximately 70 years. The WTS has always spun or fabricated their own doctrines to suit their own specific needs.
The WTS also likes to defame people who oppose their expressed doctrines. Their bible understanding and interpretations are always right, anyone else
who objects to their interpretations is being deliberately confused by Satan.
-
Londo111
Because this is my 606th post....bttt!
Yes newcomers to this site: before the Society proclaimed 607 BC as the starting point of the Gentile Times, it proclaimed it to be 606 BC. It wasn't until 1944 that this changed to 607 BC. See the Gentile Time Reconsidered, pages 77 to 84.
From Page 79:
Not until 1944, in the book “The Kingdom Is at Hand,” did the Watch Tower Society finally abandon the 536 B.C.E. date. By steps, Cyrus’ first year was moved backwards, first to 537 B.CE. and then, five years later, to 538 B.C.E., the date pointed to by “Ptolemy’s Canon.”
To retain 1914 as the termination date of the Gentile times, other “adjustments” had to be made. To begin with, even though the first year of Cyrus started in the spring of 538 B.C.E., the Watchtower argued that his edict permitting the Jews to return home from the exile (Ezra 1:1–4) was issued towards the end of his first regnal year, that is, early in 537 B.C.E. In that case the Jews departing from Babylon could not have reached Jerusalem until the autumn of that year. By adding 70 years to 537 the desolation of Jerusalem was then fixed to 607 B.C.E. instead of 606. Next, the fact that no “zero year” is included at the beginning of our Christian era was finally acknowledged. So from the autumn of 607 B.C.E. to the beginning of our era was only 606 years and three months; and if this period is subtracted from the 2,520 years, 1914 is still arrived at as the termination date. Hence, three separate “errors” were made to cancel each other out, and the upshot was the same! Each adjustment was made with the retention of 1914 as its goal.
-
Farkel
In 1942 or 1943 the "Let God Be True" book "explains away" the 606 BC date. Russell screwed up the date and Freddie screwed up the explanation of the screw up. It's a hoot.
I gave my explanation of this problem nearly 15 years ago: Russell's calculator merely had batteries about to run out!
Farkel
-
diamondiiz
To Russell, 1914 was what 1975 was to Freddy - means of growth in followers and possibly in revenue.
1914 was also important because it was tied to his entire insane eschatology. 1874, 1878 and 1914 were all tied together by several different means of calculating numbers including the calculation of passages of Pyramid of Giza. If Russell accepted 587BC the importance of the pyramid would be gone, the 40 year harvest that began in 1874 would be gone and the end wouldn't be imminent which would also mean that all his prior writings about the imminent end would be wrong, making Russell look like a fool to his followers.
-
Farkel
: making Russell look like a fool to his followers.
He not only looks like a fool to his followers today, he looks like a fool to all the leaders of his followers who succeeded him. Not ONE book or pamphlet or article of his is being printed today by his successors. In fact, the leaders of the descendents of his followers are told NOT to read his bullshit today, and even THEY are fools! They won't even let guys grow a beard because HE had one.
What a legacy he left, eh?
Farkel