So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander 163 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Xander

  Okay, I know that historical evidence is that Jerusalem fell in 586/7 instead of 607 - as the WTBTS would have.

  However, that is not compelling enough to show a hypothetical JW. They (generally) must not only be show that the opposition is correct, but that the WTBTS is wrong.

  So, where did the WTBTS explanation of 607 as the date go wrong? What data did they use to come up with that date (and how was it wrong), or, perhaps, what data did they misuse (and the error in their method) to come up with that date?

  Edited by - Xander on 30 December 2002 16:33:23
• 

  LongHauler

  In "Crises of Concious" Ray Franz wrote about it. But from what I remember, No one at Brooklyn had ever questioned the authenticity of 607 B.C. until Aid to Bible Understanding was being reasearched. Its been a while since I read Ray's book but I think you'll find a pretty good explination of the whole 1914 prophecy in it.
• 

  OUTLAW

  It went wrong the moment they(WBTS) pretended to speak for god...OUTLAW
• 

  Xander

  Yes, yes, I know that.

  Problem is, a JW in good standing won't accept anything in Crisis of Conscience (OR 'Gentile Times Reconsidered').

  Since the information in both those volumes is from the authors point of view (DFed, 'apostate' authors, in both cases), it is obviously all lies. (To a JW in good standing, anyway).

  That's why I'm looking for the explanation used. Indeed, I fear either my JW arguing capabilities *cough*reasoning from the scriptures*cough* is failing me, or no good explanation for 607 was ever presented.

  What I'm looking for is the reason or data used to draw the conclusion of 607 and why it (obviously) is flawed.
• 

  IslandWoman

  Hi Xander,

  I think for many JWs it's not so much where the timeline began as where it ended that serves to prove for them that 607BC is correct.

  1914 was a significant year in world history and while it did not result in what Russell taught it would, it did though prove to be a great year of change and a great prediction, it did usher in a time in history that has since been like a run away train.

  So, I believe the fact that Russell (and others) got the year right is a powerful support for the 607 date for many JWs.

  IW
• 

  Xander

  Hmmm...well, I certainly hope the JWs I am thinking of would not be swayed by an 'ends invalidate the means' argument.

  Indeed, I never would have.

  As it happens, I was bored and did some digging. Most 607 sites complain about the historical evidence of 586, which I already know about, and doesn't need further expounding.

  HOWEVER, that said, this is a very good site:

  http://www.disfellowshipped.org/607eng.htm

  It not only covers the historical angle, but spends a good deal of time using scriptures (from the NTW, no less!) and WT study articles showing the contradictions that make the WTBTS's calculation of 607 impossible by their own logic.

  THIS is the kind of argument I was looking for.
• 

  AlanF

  Xander said,

  : So, where did the WTBTS explanation of 607 as the date go wrong? What data did they use to come up with that date (and how was it wrong), or, perhaps, what data did they misuse (and the error in their method) to come up with that date?

  It was actually Nelson Barbour who came up with the wrong chronology in 1875. After Russell met up with him in 1876, he just accepted Barbour's wrong ideas lock, stock and barrel. Barbour went wrong in two critical areas: (1) He used a wrong date (536 B.C.) as the date of Babylon's destruction and the year of the Jews' return to Judah; (2) More critically, he used a wrong interpretation of "the 70 years of Jeremiah" (Jer. 25:11, 12; 29:10) published by an English clergyman, one Christopher Bowen, around 1860, to claim that the Jews were in captivity in Babylon from 606 to 536 B.C. (in 1943 and 1944 the WTS changed these dates to 607 and 537).

  For a full discussion of this stuff, see Carl Jonsson's The Gentile Times Reconsidered (available at various places, including www.freeminds.org and www.amazon.com).

  In a nutshell, Barbour and Russell interpreted the references in Jeremiah to "70 years" as years of captivity of the Jews in Babylon and as a time period when Judah was completely empty of inhabitants. This was wrong, since they neglected a good deal of biblical as well as secular evidence. For example, Jeremiah 25:11, 12 indicate that many nations, including the Jews, would serve the king of Babylon for 70 years, and that after 70 years had passed the king of Babylon would be punished. 2 Chronicles 36:20 states directly that after the Persians came to power (which occurred in 539 B.C.) the Jews were no longer captive to the king of Babylon. Thus, the apparent prophecy given by Jeremiah ended in 539 B.C. But the WTS claims that the Jews remained captive to the king of Babylon until 537 B.C. when Cyrus, king of Persia, allowed them to return home. Therefore, if the 70 years is assumed to be an exact period, then it must have begun around 609 B.C. So we see that WTS interpretations have always been wrong, and they have never had a solid basis for their 1914 doctrine.

  You can find a detailed discussion of how the WTS changed its date system in 1943 and 1944 here http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/index2.htm in the articles 'The Evolution of 606 to 607 B.C.E. in Watchtower Chronology', 'The Change of 606 to 607 B.C. as the Start of the "Gentile Times"' and 'History of the Change of 606 to 607 B.C. in Watchtower Chronology'.

  AlanF
• 

  Scully

  Xander asks:

  So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

  I think it was one morning when Fred Franz snuck an extra helping of Bran Flakes at breakfast time. The next morning, the 1914 timeline came to be.

  Love, Scully
• 

  JosephMalik

  So, where did the WTBTS explanation of 607 as the date go wrong?

  Xander,

  Because 607 means nothing just like 537 or some other date means nothing. They used a prophecy in Daniel that was already fulfilled and tried to re-open it for another fulfillment (a violation of scripture right off the bat) using this un-supported historical date. Dead give away right from the start. Sure it went wrong because the entire scenario was a lot of hot air to begin with. There is no such thing as 2520 years from there to here in scripture. Then when they came up with that day for a year rule to gain a large block of time you should have known that you were being taken to the cleaners by the best con men in the business. Their material is full of stull like this. Why you can not even put them in jail without them pulling some text and saying see here we are fulfilling this prophecy.

  As for the Gentile times, they began with sin and end when our Lord returns. Common sense should tell us that but when Matt, Mark and Luke are put together we can see it explained in this way.

  Joseph
• 

  IslandWoman

  Xander,

  Hmmm...well, I certainly hope the JWs I am thinking of would not be swayed by an 'ends invalidate the means' argument.

  I don't think it would be "an end invalidates the means" thing, it's more that they want to believe and enough evidence is there to make them believe so they believe. It's like a son who not only has his birth certificate as proof of who his father is but also looks just like his father, this is enough for him and if a stranger comes and tells him his father is not really his father he will not believe them.

  For me, murky secular history would not have been enough to wipe out 607 and 1914. Two times two equals four and so four divided by two must equal two, in other words if their chronology worked to make a correct prediction then the basis of that chronology must be correct. This is how my extended family and my friends in the Org. feel.

  IW

  Edited by - IslandWoman on 30 December 2002 17:22:38