| AnnOmaly, Hi. Regarding: ------------ "40 questions"? ...The only way you'll make your (and their) letters public record is, of course, to post them on the 'net. There are a few individuals who have chosen to do that (thinking of Jonsson [link above], The only benefit you'll get from it is for yourself (catharsis) or to give your fiancee and the local JWs the satisfaction of knowing you did as they asked - you consulted the Society directly. But the WTS will have seen your questions and objections all before, a gazillion times - if indeed they bother reading your book-sized letter ;-) ----- ANS: That is exactly what is going on here. One of the questions which I thought was important to detail- and I promised to address above - I just loaded on as a separate topic: "Has anyone read Thucydides beside the author of Daniel?" I hope to get it on this topic in a more brief form, but what few posts that have come in so far, there been comments to the effect that they hadn't heard that discussion before. And neither have I. Now why should I only discuss it very discretely with the anonymous guys in HQ answering department, whom I presume have just moved to Patterson, NY? ---- Your trucker friend has probably had WTS connections in the past if he supports 607 as the date of Jerusalem's fall. I'd be very interested to know if this definitely ISN'T the case! If he's using Barnes', as you noted, those commentaries do not support that date, so he won't have got it from there. The only reason why Russell favored 606 (as it was then) was because he agreed that Cyrus' 1st year was 536 (as it was thought then from secular history) when he repatriated the exiles, and because he insisted that the land was 'desolate, without an inhabitant' for 70 years which would have become such ONLY when Zedekiah was dethroned. Russell and subsequent WTS leaders would not budge from that notion, other than adjusting the 70 year period by a year (607 - 537). ---- ANS. "Chuck the Trucker" comes from the perspective of The United Church of Christ. He latched onto one Barnes Bible note quote to place the sacking in a chronology, but he ignored the other citation for 2 Kings. Don't ask what he thinks of JWs. Much the same as Catholics. Which in either case seems to count for something when you look at an open landscape or a philosophical assertion. As I had said above, I got a quote from Russell in Studies in the Scriptures. Vol. II, as it turns out, addresses what you mention. Volume III was the supporting "pyramidal" argument. That was one of the few incidents, I believe, that the organization engaged in any scientific field work - and judging from the results, it might have got caught filing down some of the sandstone there too to meet its preconceived notions. Anyway, here's Russell on 606 BC: The Time Is At Hand, pp. 79 – 80 Chapter IV 2 nd Volume of Studies in the Scriptures THE BEGINNING OF GENTILE TIMES, 606 B.C. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Our Lord's words, "until the times* of the Gentiles be fulfilled," imply that the times of the Gentiles must have a definitely appointed limit; because an unlimited, indefinite period could not be said to be fulfilled. So, then, Gentile rale had a beginning, will last for a fixed time, and will end at the time appointed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * The Greek word here rendered "times" is kairos. which signifies a fixed time. It is the same word translated "times" in the following passages: Mark 1:15; I Tim. 6:15; Rev. 12:.4; Acts 3:19; 17:26. The word "seasons" in Acts 1:7 is from the same Greek word. 79 The beginning of these Gentile Times is clearly located by the Scriptures. Hence, if they furnish us the length also of the fixed period, or lease of Gentile dominion, we can know positively just when it will terminate. The Bible does furnish this fixed period, which must be fulfilled; but it was furnished in such a way that it could not be understood when written, nor until the lapse of time and the events of history had shed their light upon it; and even then, only by those who were watching and who were not overcharged by the cares of the world. The Bible evidence is clear and strong that the "Times of the Gentiles" is a period of 2520 years, from the year B. C. 606 to and including A. D. 1914. This lease of universal dominion to Gentile governments, as we have already seen, began with Nebuchadnezzar - not when his reign began, but when the typical kingdom of the Lord passed away, and the dominion of the whole world was left in the hands of the Gentiles. The date for the beginning of the Gentile Times is, therefore, definitely marked as at the time of the removal of the crown of God's typical kingdom, from Zedekiah, their last king. According to the words of the prophet (Ezek. 21:25-27), the crown was taken from Zedekiah; and Jerusalem was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar's army and laid in ruins, and so remained for seventy years - until the restoration in the first year of Cyrus. (2 Chron. 36 : 21-23.) Though Jerusalem was then rebuilt, and the captives returned, Israel has never had another king from that to the present day. Though restored to their land and to personal liberty by Cyrus, they, as a nation, were subject successively to the Persians, Grecians and Romans. Under the yoke of the latter they were living when our Lord's first advent occurred, Pilate and Herod being deputies of Caesar. With these facts before us, we readily find the date for 80 the beginning of the Gentile Times of dominion; for the first year of the reign of Cyrus is a very clearly fixed date - both secular and religious historieswith marked unanimity agreeing with Ptolemy's Canon, which places it B. C. 536. And if B. C. 536 was the year in which the seventy years of Jerusalem's desolation ended and the restoration of the Jews began, it follows that their kingdom was overthrown just seventy years before B. C, 536, i. e., 536 plus 70, or B. C. 606. This gives us the date of the beginning of the Times of the Gentiles - B. C. 606. Recognizing God's lease of power to these worldly or Gentile governments, we know, not only that they will fail, and be overthrown, and be succeeded by the Kingdom of Christ when their "times" expire, but also that God will not take the dominion from them, to give it to his Anointed, until that lease expires - "until the Times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." Consequently, we are guarded right here against the false idea into which Papacy has led the world - that the Kingdom of God was set up at Pentecost, and more fully established when, as it is claimed, the Roman empire was converted to Christianity (to Papacy), and it attained both temporal and spiritual empire in the world. We see from this prophecy of the Times of the Gentiles that this claim made by the church of Rome, and more or less endorsed by Protestants, is false. We see that those nations which both Papacy and Protestantism designate Christian Nations, and whose dominions they call Christendom (i. e. Christ's Kingdom), are not such. They are "kingdoms of this world," and until their "times" are fulfilled Christ's Kingdom cannot take the control, though it will be organizing and preparing to do so in the few years which close the Gentile Times, while these kingdoms will be trembling, disintegrating and falling into anarchy. During the Gospel age, the Kingdom of Christ has existed ...81 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Russell invokes Ptolemy to start the backward chronology off. Then he resorts to prophets because they are prophets. The king list of Berosus tells historians something quite different than what Russell claims; archeological and astronomical evidence he runs up against as well. But the society claims Russell was spot on except - when he was talking about things like pyramids - which were Satanic - or the exact year which was makes his start point a year off, - or where God resides (Alcyone) - which he thinks he got the goods on from lunar cartographer von Maedlin - and Rutherford sticks his neck out on this one as well in the Harp of God. Imagine all the astronomical and astrophysical reasoning that went into that - circa 1845. -- So what's the point? I am new to this forum and this set of topics. I have yet to get a sense of the demographics in these discussions. Some, I suspect, are currently practicing JWs who sought this site to discuss a range of issues. And some, I suspect, have decided that the JW organization is way out of kilter. But in the latter case, including myself, I think there is a tendency to concede to the organization most of the field. For myself, I am not going to go off about Darwinism, cosmology or geology. It would just appear as a vain snow job. And if I quote from those that have left, those that are still in assume they have the right to act like they have been confronted with vampires. However, I would say that reading Olofson or Ray Franz is like reading Trotskij or Bukharin ( The Party could be so wonderful if ...). Why should all arguments be assumed futile? It is all too clear that it is not going to slow down on forcing people to confront people with scripts that simply are not true from the get-go. Why should it be allowed that the organization can say anything that it wants? Why should I accept that it should be allowed to channel any rebuttal to a post office box in the age of the Internet? Why should it be accepted that any Elder has no responsibility for what he says and that no one would counter what he says when it is entirely clear that he is wrong? Where should I stand if I hear of young people targeted by pioneers in their neighborhood? Should I say, "Yes, that's right. We are privileged to live after the end of Gentile Times. And someday you are going to be a pioneer publisher too whose come to see the Gettysburg Address in a new and important way...And the more catastrophe we hear about this year, the more certain we are that the time is nigh." This is not hypothetical. | 
