So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander 163 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  onacruse

  Like Joseph said, the real issue hinges on whether there is any legitimate basis to derive 2520 years from the "seven times" of Daniel. This is a form of typological interpretation totally without Scriptural precedent or support. What relatively little typology may be detected in the NT is "thoroughly christological in its focus" (New Testament Interpretation, p. 210-2). Neither covenant typology, nor creation typology, nor synthetic typology, nor antithetic typology, nor judgement typology can be hermeneutically stretched from the 6th century BC to the 20th century AD to "jump over" Christ.

  Craig
• 

  deddaisy

  http://www.paulblizard.com/russell.html
• 

  johnny cip

  ok i will take a second shot at this ,as i lost my first post! without re reseaching what i have learned in the last 3 years.. i'll wing it back in 539 a.d. a prophet said the big A was to be then.. then i think another prophet said it was to be in the yr. 1000 . then some jew prophet said in the 11 or 1200's then the black plague was to be the end... in the 1300's . then another prophet said i think in the 1650's how am i doing so far, in know i left out some dates and details... a pope also said the end was sometime in the middle ages... now in the early 1800's an english prophet said that the the time of the end began in 1798/99 with the over throw of the pope..by the french. then the adventist came along and said in 1831 there was a meator storm and they said this is proof that the heavens are falling in . and jesus will return in 1844, after that they recalculated and tried for 1845. with much dissapointment the brothers were stumbled... here come the second adventists.. who were much the same as the 1st adventists.. so they take 539a.d. and add 1260 days/years and come up with 1799 add some more years you get the 10 virgins in the 1800's divide , add , subtract, times by the square root of the angles of the great pyramid " god's stone witness built by jehovah him self" and you get every date of bible prophecy in history! and walla jesus is coming in 1874 .. don't forget the great time of trouble was to start in 1872-73.. with 6000 years of mans existence.. ..after 1874 they tried getting out the protrector and times these numbers by the radius of a circle . presto you get 1876 /1878 jesus is entroned but you can't see him! now it's time for advanced math you take the co-tangent of the pyramid's gallery divided by size of a perfect triangle (pyramid) and you get russell standing on a bridge in pittsburg wearing a white robe on easter sunday 1881 with the news media to report his being taking to heaven... wish i could have been there...lol walking home from the bridge new light he forget to add 40 yrs. for a generation and ala kazam the big A is in 1914 .. go back and wow the pyamid got larger and the great time of trouble will start in 1905-07 after that 1910-12 with the big A still 1914.. now wait ww1 is the start of the big A i failed 1st grade math ,its 1915. then 1918 ,that's it 1918 on holloween 1916 on a train russell got spooked by some trick or treaters and his mind short circuited when he could not fool the kids any more with his math skills and dropped dead.. for the record you take 607b.c. add 2520 days /years and you get 1914... hope some of this bible truth and god's dates help you in understanding what a false prophjet is....john
• 

  simwitness

  ...ahem.... raising hand...

  Can I interject a thought here?

  You asked.. "When did the 1914 timeline go awry?"

  In the most direct sense, it went "awry" in 1915, the minute they had to start making excuses for their failed "prophecies", and missed "expectations". For certainly, had that date been "fixed in stone" and been "God's dates, not man's", then it could not have gone awry.

  And while WW1 certainly was world changing event, many believe that the French Revolution (in 1799) had a bigger impact on world affairs, and coincidently, was also pointed to as the time of Christ's return, and the beginning of the end. Similarly, WW2 also had a profound affect on the world's affairs.

  Every Generation, indeed every individual, has these "world changing" events. 9-11 is the most recent. To try and single any one out as the "sign" is to be both short sighted and ignorant of history.
• 

  undercover

  I do not believe that the Society's application of 1914 is incorrect or that the foundation date for the Gentile Times is unreliable or without solid evidence. The dates of 586/587 are based on secular/historical evidence but 607 is also reckoned on similar evidence. It all comes down to,hermeneutics. One must decide what methodology and biblical exgesis for that historical period is reasonable. For myself, the choice of 607 is a useful date as it provides a starting point for the prophetic period of the Gentile Times.

  Everytime this 607-1914 topic comes up, Scholar replys with his claims of there being secular proof FOR 607. And everytime someone asks for this secular evidence. And everytime none is ever offered.

  So, keeping with tradition, I ask, Scholar: What secular evidence do you have for 607?

  Undercover(of the put up or shut up class)
• 

  AlanF

  Hi Undercover,

  If scholar follows his usual route, he'll demand that you provide a complete timeline for the chronology of the Judean kings before he'll give you an answer.

  This moron is so stereotypically JW it's laughable.

  AlanF
• 

  City Fan

  Hi Undercover !

  I've also asked 'Scholar' in a previous thread to name a non-JW book or reference that gives the 607 date. I got no reply!
• 

  Gizmo

  Scholar,

  It seems that supporters for 586/587 have been seduced by the writings of Raymond Franz and the Jonsson hypothesis but it is far better to critically examine these writings before making claims about the validity of 607 and 1914.

  What fascinates me about your above statement is that your belief system in the 607 date can only be based on the findings in the WTBTS literature that was researched by the very same Ray Franz who you now say has seduced us so called apostates.

  I personally don't follow any man ..ok? And I never will again allow myself to be seduced by an organisation that is so seriously in error about so many things...but are too proud and haughty to admit it.
• 

  scholar

  City Fan

  I cannot cite any modern reference work that gives 607 for the Fall of Jerusalem. However, all is not lost. What I can do is supply many refernces in the scholarly literature which highlight the confused chronology for the Divided Monarchy ending with the Fall of Jerusalem in 586 or was it 587? In addition, the literature shows that there is considerable confusion as to the subject of the seventy years.

  Methinks the wise will stick to 607 as it avoids many problems and confusion.

  scholar BA MA Studies in Religion
• 

  City Fan

  Scholar,

  Just a couple of references will be fine.

  Thanks.