by leavingwt 77 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Another interesting question would be - how are they going to explain about being wrong about the King of the North? Who is the new King of the North going to be?
Given they've already been bold and brash enough to revise the Revelation - Grand Climax book, it wouldn't be too troublesome to do the same for the King of the North. I doubt they would completely rework everything they've published. They will do it in bits and pieces, like 1984.
God, I just love referencing 1984.
I've actually used the popular explanations provided here.
The King of the North is... Santa Claus!
And false religion has been destroyed... invisibly!
I came across this article while researching. Seems like WT$ ideas did't originate with them.
C T Russell and the Date 1914
freyd:
From my understanding the reign of the Kings ended with the death of Zedekia which occurred when he was in captivity in 606 a year after the fall of Jerusalem with it's "desolation" perhaps beginning as Dreese mentioned as early as 610. In terms of the big picture, when we add up the time beginning with the creation of Adam we get 2513 + 429(513-84) +580 +606 + 1872 =6000 . If we take the 580 date from 1kings 6 as the corrected number of a copist error, we get a further line of evidence confirming Br Russel, making 587 bogus and any chronology supported by it meaningless, as well as the period of the judges being n/a.
Vienne:
The 1914 date wasn't original with Russell. J. A. Seiss pointed to 1914, though on a different basis. He had read Seiss's Last Times. It entered his thinking as accepted doctrine during his association with Barbour.
The forthcoming book Nelson Barbour: The Millennium's Forgotten Prophet contains this bit of history (used by permission):
Barbour and his associates did not immediately reconsider Gentile Times. The issues of an invisible parousia and other chronological speculations came first. We also do not know who among them initiated the discussion. In the absence of other claims, it is probably safe to suppose that Barbour was responsible for concluding Gentile Times ended not in the 1870s, but in 1914. The first mention of the 1914 date as the end of The Times of the Gentiles is in the September 1875 issue of The Herald of the Morning. In passing Barbour remarked, “‘The time of the Gentiles,’ viz. Their seven prophetic times of 2520 years ... which began when God gave all into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, in 606 B. C.; do not end until 1914.”49
Barbour is indebted to John Aquila Brown for the 2520 year computation. Brown in turn owes the calculation of the “seven times” of Daniel’s prophecy as 2520 years and the association of it to The Times of the Gentiles to Joshua Spalding. Spaulding wrote Divine Theory; A System of Divinity in 1798, though it seems not to have been published until 1808. Spalding, writing of the seven-times of Daniel’s Great Tree Vision, said: “Seven times, or one full week of years, upon the great prophetic scale, is 2520 years. This supposition is much strengthened by the consideration, that the continuance of mystical Babylon is said expressly to be for a time, times, and a half; and as the times allotted for this division of the empire, is the half of a week, three times and a half, it is natural to conclude, that the whole of the times, called the times of the Gentiles, is a whole week, or seven times.”50
Though Spalding was an American clergyman, the British Library Catalogue testified that his books circulated in Britain. It is possible that J. A. Brown was familiar with Spalding. Yet, it seems certain that in actual influence on Barbour, Brown played a part that Spalding did not. That Gentile Times were 2520 years became a standard view among expositors, though they were calculated from various start dates. The popularization of the 2520 year calculation was probably due to George Stanley Faber. He used the calculation in The Sacred Calendar of Prophecy, published in 1828.51 When The Christian Guardian and Church of England Magazine reviewed Faber’s book in 1830, it accepted without question the 2520 day calculation, though it suggested Faber had no basis for his start date.52 Edward Bickersteth adopted the calculation in the mid-1830s. His reputation as a pious Bible scholar sealed it into Advent thinking.53
If the 2520 year calculation isn’t original to Barbour, nothing else in his “‘Gentile Times” calculation belongs to him either. Faber mentioned the 606 B.C. date in his 1811 work A Dissertation on the Prophecy Contained in Daniel ix, 24-27.54 In the 1820s several authors pointed to 606 B. C. as the date at which the seventy-year long exile began.55 In 1834 Matthew Habershon mentioned the 606 B. C. date, but calculated the “seven times” from three years later, ending them in 1918.56 William Miller adopted the 2520 year calculation but ended it in 1843.57 John Dowling, a Baptist pastor, criticized William Miller’s method for calculating the “seven times,” suggesting that “it would have answered the purpose ... much better had this subtraction happened to have brought out the number 606 B. C., the date of the commencement of the 70 years captivity of the Israelites in Babylon.”58
It seems certain that the ultimate source for Barbour’s 1914 calculation is E. B. Elliott’s Horae Apocalypticae, where the 606 B.C. to 1914 calculation is found.59 The next mention of the 1914 date in connection to Gentile Times I can find is by an anonymous author writing in The Original Session Magazine in 1850. The magazine was published in Scotland but saw circulation in the United States. This author suggested that the “seven times” would end in 1897, yet his calculation took him to 1914. He arrives at his other dates, including the 1897 date by a complicated series of additions and subtractions from the basic “2520 - 606 = 1914” calculation. If one removes all the puzzling additions and subtractions, one has Barbour’s usage. There is no way to know if Barbour was familiar with Session magazine, but he almost certainly was familiar with John Dowling and Habershon, and he tells us he read Elliott’s Horae Apocalypticae.
It is worth noting that Samuel Davies Baldwin taught that the actual date was 607 B.C. He dated the seventy years from 607- 537 B.C., a view later adopted by Jehovah’s Witnesses.60
By the summer of 1875 Barbour had a new prophetic frame work. Christ was present, walking the earth invisibly. The resurrection of the Saints occurred in 1875. Translation was due in 1878. Gentile Times would end in 1878, a date he quickly changed to 1914.
RRD:
Quote from: Vienne on Jun 15, 2008, 04:43
The forthcoming book Nelson Barbour: The Millennium's Forgotten Prophet contains this bit of history (used by permission):
Vienne,
Thanks for the information. I have looked for some info about this book by searching Google, but could find nothing. Do you know the name of the author?
Some of the minor points I will need to look into more thoroughly, but overall the information seems rather accurate. As you probably know, there is a flood of false information being spread all over the internet, and sometimes one has to study a lot to separate the false from the truth of what really happened and when.
I do, however, wonder at the title of the book, in that it speaks of Barbour as a "prophet." Does the author relate as to why he refers to Barbour as a "prophet,"
rather than as a student of prophecy? When I first saw the title, describing Barbour as a "prophet," I could not help but feel a little repelled, and was expecting to see Barbour being assailed as a "false prophet."
Christian love,
Ronald
Vienne:
The book is "forthcoming," that is not released yet. It is due out later this year. You can read a much earlier version of it at truthhistory.blogspot.com.
The authors are B. W. Schulz and Rachael de Vienne.
The book is straight history, though Barbour does not come off well. Let's just say he was a very talented but cranky man. Barbour saw himself as a prophet. Hence the title.
You will find information you may not know. Barbour's early life is elaborated. His inventions are mentioned. (He held several patents). His associations are explored. The sources of his theology are detailed.
You will also find an examination of John Aquila Brown's influence on Barbour. There is endless speculation on this point, but there is a definitive answer. There is some biographical information on Brown that seems never to have been published. He is often described as a Chruch of England clergyman. This is false.
Who Christopher Bowen was is explained in a lengthy footnote.
The 1873 movement is examined in some detail with many quotations from contemporary newspapers and magazines. Barbour's association with Russell is touched on, but not extensively. Most of the basics are widely known, and the book is about Barbour, not Russell. We are writing a follow up that considers aspects of Brother Russell's early ministry.
The Terry Island episode is discussed. Barbour's later years and associations are examined. His fellowship with Restitutionists and the Church of the Strangers is detailed. His political and social activism is explained. His influence on Bible Students, Witnesses, and Advent Christians is analyzed.
The Worcester Prophetic Conference is examined at length because of it's significance in Barbour's life. We explain at length the development and sources of Keith's research into the parousia, quoting from some of the research material he used. Keith was very specific as to his sources. This seems to have been overlooked by other writers.
There are hundreds of footnotes with references to original sources. In passing we note the false claims of others, and correct them with significant documentation.
We're waiting on permissions for a few illustrations. Other than that, the book is ready to go. It will be available from Amazon and Barnes and Noble.
For now, you may go to the "older posts" section of Truthhistory.blogspot.com and read a much earlier version. There are other articles and chapters on there too that come from the book we're writing now.
You will find biographies of Russell's early associates with material never published before. Some of this clarifies Russell’s statements about them; particularly is this true of Albert D. Jones. Russell was much more gentle with Jones than most people would have been, given the facts Russell elected not to publish. (They're found in a court case and contemporary newspapers.)
B. W. Schulz and I both have a back ground in historical research. I also write fiction, and have a novel going to paperback format in October. (It's an ebook now.)
Have I answered your questions?
ppcm:
Quote from: Vienne on Jun 16, 2008, 09:44
The book .......
The book is straight history, though Barbour does not come off well.
.......The 1873 movement is examined in some detail with many quotations from contemporary newspapers and magazines. Barbour's association with Russell is touched on, but not extensively. Most of the basics are widely known, and the book is about Barbour, not Russell. We are writing a follow up that considers aspects of Brother Russell's early ministry.
The Terry Island episode is discussed. Barbour's later years and associations are examined. His fellowship with Restitutionists and the Church of the Strangers is detailed. His political and social activism is explained. His influence on Bible Students, Witnesses, and Advent Christians is analyzed.
...........
B. W. Schulz and I both have a back ground in historical research. I also write fiction, and have a novel going to paperback format in October. (It's an ebook now.)
Have I answered your questions?
Hello Vienne
I saw Schulz's statement at http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/
Watch Tower History
...."I am not interested in bashing anyone's religion. I welcome your comments as long as you are polite. I have seldom refused to post a comment. My interest is in an accurate presentation of Watch Tower related history and that without any agenda but full disclosure. I like that the Bible presents the history of God’s people without glossing over error.
I occasionally point out an error of fact in someone else's work. I do not mean this as a personal or organizational attack. Unfortunately, some have taken it that way.
Plainly, some writers have an interest in recording and reporting what is false. I have tried to limit myself to general comments on accuracy. If your work was criticized and you think I erred in doing so, I will gladly receive your proof. A temper tantrum will not impress me.
The most frequent errors of fact are overstatements. More is read into the documentation than is there; or speculation is presented as fact. This is true of the brief article on the history of Jehovah's Witnesses in Ohio that receives mention in a footnote below. This is especially true of some controversialist writers. They make things up, pass it off as history, and expect their readers to believe it. If you’ve done that and find a comment in my text pointing out an error, a nasty email won’t get it removed. Present proof you are correct in the form of original documentation. Or admit the error.
I have no "side" in this, unless presenting a full history, including the bits ignored both by Russell's friends and his enemies, is a side. I am open to suggestions and help from any party. I do expect good behavior in posts. ..."
...Posted by B. W. Schulz
........
I saw the point list for the y'alls book at
http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-04-10T14%3A00%3A00-07%3A00&max-results=20
"..........Depending on format, about 115 pages. Most significantly there is a full bibliography and every important point is referenced in a footnote. "
I'm just a little curious as to why y'all chose to write about the topic Nelson Barbour ?
curious, PPCM
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
"looking for you to drop cums of your pizza. ...." Shamus 100
Pizza comes??????
Silly me... When the delivery guy "brings" it....
[Sorry Paladin!!! My idiotic post after your brilliant one... ]
It's important for WT society leaders to keep re-inserting the 1914 date to rank & file Witnesses or their " house of cards " will all fall down . What the WT society doesn't realize- or - refuses to realize is that to a growing number of some JW's their " house of cards" has already fallen down. WT leaders are like the emperor with no clothes that the little boy in the story exposes - yet many JW's don't see it , yet some do see it
1914 was stlill important in 2007 look at this gem sent my way
http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=47112 click here save to your hard-drive before it gets archived This was their official Press Release as recent as 2007 conventions
| |||||||
| 1870s: Charles Taze Russell starts the modern-day organization from a Bible study group in Allegheny, which is now a part of Pittsburgh. Members were known as “Bible Students.” 1881: Russell forms the Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society, which begins to publish religious material for Bible students. 1893: First publicly advertised meeting in Chicago. 1914: The Second Coming of Jesus Christ, who now rules in heaven. 1935: Name of group changed to “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” based on Isaiah 43:10. Also changed the name to distinguish the religion from Christian denominations. 1930s-40s: Jehovah’s Witnesses take a series of cases to U.S. Supreme Court. The group wins decisions allowing members to preach without a license, not say the Pledge of Allegiance and other rights. Source: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania | |||||||
----
JW apologist trolls when debated will often deny Jesus second coming in 1914 saying that this is the fabricated invention of apostates,mostly they are silent and don't reply.
Notice the mealy-mouth ambiguous evolutionary spin on 1914
One Response to “Jehovah’s Witnesses, Has The Chronology Dating The Creation Of Adam In 4026 Bc Been Changed?”
1. The world will never end, only a wicked society.
2. Discussing dates has gotten the most intelligent Bible students in trouble.
3. End of Gentile times was in 1914 and the Kingdom sat in PowerWorld conditions beg for relief-Jesus will come as a thief in the night-when we LEAST expect it
The centennial of 1914 is less than 2 years away. Will the JW leadership:
1) Highlight the significance of 2014, hoping it'll reenergize the flock (it's been 100 years since Jesus ascended his throne, the end must be really REALLY close now)?
2) Reconfigure their theology (1914 was an important year but we misunderstood its significance)?
3) Say absolutely nothing remotely unusual, drawing no attention whatsoever to the date, hoping most Dubs are too brain-dead to notice.
Guess which one my money's on?
October 2 2014 only 940 days away
Must read thread
This whole issue is very much the same as the issues surrounding the doctrine of "investigative judgment" for the Seventh-day Adventists. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigative_judgment )
Not strange, since the doctrines share about the same origin.
Does anyone know if there were any controversies concerning this, in the 7day-church, in 1944?
It is obviously possible for a church to cling on to a date long ago passed. From Wikipedia: according to "a 2002 worldwide survey, local church leaders estimated 86% of church members [still] accept the doctrine".
(First post at the forum, happy to be here.)
