So, where DID the 1914 timeline go awry?

by Xander 163 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  aChristian

  Alan,

  I hope all is well for you. I've been busy lately making a living and working on a pet research and writing project. These discussions get pretty old after a while. A newly reacquired case of JW discussion board burn out causes me to keep away from the Net for a few months every year or so. I believe you have been previously infected.

  I am always amazed that a person such as "Scholar" can learn what he has learned and still continue to write the things that he does. He is certainly well aware of the fact that all available historical evidence, and there is now a mountain of it, tells us that Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon in 587/6 BCE, not in 607 BCE. The Society's 607 BCE date was arrived at well over a century ago (though the date was then "606 BCE") when the dating of Jerusalem's destruction was not nearly as well established as it is today. It was then arrived at entirely by counting backwards in time 70 years from 536 BCE (now 537 BCE), based on what we now know has to be a misunderstanding of the Bible's "70 years" prophecies. This misunderstanding was largely influenced by the King James Bible's poor translation of Jer. 29:10 which refers to 70 years "at Babylon" rather than 70 years "for Babylon." Most modern translations have corrected this error. The NWT is of course an exception.

  Surely "Scholar" knows at some level of his consciousness that the only reason the Watchtower Society stubbornly clings to this obvious misinterpretation of the Bible's "70 years" prophecies, and continues to reject the mountain of historical evidence that proves that their "607" date is in error, is because they find themselves unable to let go of their "1914" date, which is based entirely upon their "607" date. If one falls so does the other. And if Jesus did not invisibly return in 1914 then he never did, after a 3 and 1/2 year inspection period, appoint the men who run the Watchtower Society as his "Faithful and Discreet slave," "over all his belongings." And if he did not do so, then the men who run the Watchtower Society are revealed to be false teachers and worse, since they have taught this highly presumptuous, self glorifying doctrine for nearly a hundred years.

  I can understand why the men who run the Watchtower Society have had such a hard time admitting the truth about their 607 date and their 1914 date. But why do people like "Scholar" have such a hard time doing so? Sure, he will have to admit that he has believed and taught others things that are not true for many years. But then so did I and so did you. And so have many others. In the process we have all lost family and friends. If we have all managed to "handle the truth" why can't guys like "Scholar"? Sometimes I just don't get it.
• 

  AlanF

  Hi aChistian,

  Your comments are dead nuts on.

  JWs like "scholar" don't want to know the truth about "the truth" because it would be too upsetting for them. They'd have to quit the JWs and that's just too big a change. So, contrary to their claims about loving truth and so forth, what they really love is the sense of security that the Watchtower gives them. In other words, they're spiritual, moral and intellectual hypocrites and cowards.

  AlanF
• 

  RR

  Actually, we can't be 100 percent positive whther its 607 or 587. Having hisrical and prophectical books dating back to the late 1700, seemed that everyone who piointed to the ending of the gentile times was off by a few years here and there, all quoting Biblical and historical resources as their proof.

  So now we have 587. Personally 1914 did not have the same interpretation for Russell that it has now for the Society. They're apples and oranges.

  RR
• 

  onacruse

  Russell... just ran with whatever evidence jibed with the conclusion he wanted to reach,

  I think this is borne out rather well by Russell's comment (bold added):

  If our chronology is not reliable we have no idea where we are nor when the morning will come. Bishop Ussher's chronology, as we have pointed out (DAWN II. p. 51) puts the end of six thousand years nearly a century future and would destroy every prophetic application as we have seen and profited by it.

  (

  WT October 1, 1907 p. 295 "Knowledge and Faith Regarding Chronology")

  Craig

  Edited by - onacruse on 6 January 2003 20:43:10
• 

  setfreefinally

  No Apologies wrote

  Have you read the appendix to the Kingdom book? You know, where they admit that all the secular evidence points to 586/7?

  What is the full name of the book you are referring to? I didnt know that the wts had admitted secular evidence pointed to 586/7. Or if anyone else knows let me know.
• 

  AlanF

  Good catch, Craig!

  Setfreefinally: The book is Let Your Kingdom Come (1981); the source is the appendix to chapter 14 at the end of the book.

  AlanF
• 

  hillary_step

  Scholar,

  Here we are again back on your screens for the first time, same arguments, same defenses. If you remember last time we spoke on this issue I asked you where you thought the secular weight of evidence lay with regard to this issue. You did not answer me.

  Weight of evidence works in this fashion and I use an example that is currently an enflamed issue, and has been for some two hundred years in literary circles. The weight of evidence seems to suggest that Shakespeare wrote at least the majority of works ascribed to him. Some people vehemently disagree with this view and assert that Marlowe or even possibly Bacon wrote the major plays. As yet though weight of evidence seems to indicate that Shakespeare was indeed the author of his works and until clear evidence is presented to the contrary the weight of evidence rests in the favor of the conventionally accepted views. There may be a 5%, or 10% chance that Shakespeare did not pen his works, but a 90% chance that he did.

  No person knows the exact date of the fall of Jerusalem though the secular weight of evidence as of todays date seems to indicate that it fell around the years BCE586/7. Until any weight of evidence exists to overturn this view can you offer the readers of this Board good reason why they should alter the pattern of their lives to suit the interpretations of some researchers such as WTS researchers who feel that not only is the conventional date incorrect, but that the date that they have fallen upon indicates that we are living close to Har-Mageddon, the culmination of all things? Scholars rely on weight of evidence, not personal convenience, or Bible-code type games to draw conclusions.

  No person can call themselves a scholar if they chose to ignore weight of evidence in favor of the agendas of thick-skinned Adventists who strive to prop up a theology that fell asleep over a hundred years ago, or other religionists with equally alarmist agendas.

  So Scholar, I ask you again for the sake of the readers, what does the secular weight of evidence suggest as to the correct date of Jerusalems fall? If you are courageous enough to quantify this at what stage would the secular weight of evidence balance you in favor of more conventional chronology, 50%, 70%, 90%?

  I suppose what is more important to ask is why your God of Order has made the whole issue so bloody complicated and uncertain that only certain graced and gifted people in Brooklyn can truly understand, making Wycliffes poor plough-lad unworthy of Scripture.

  HS
• 

  Farkel

  Alan and HS,

  Thank you both for your fine contributions. "We appreciate(tm) the fine work you've done in behalf of...." Shit. Forget that WT phony platitude. I just say "thanks" for your good job.

  I suspect that is the last we'll hear from "scholar." That is, until he blows into town again at some future point and pretends he didn't get toasted in the past and starts a new agenda all over again.

  Dubs are SO predictible. They depend upon stupidity and confusion to succeed. When they run across folks who have neither, they are defenseless. And lost. Then they hide and run. But since their God will KILL them if they don't keep doing their thing, they try again and again. What a pathetic life the WTS has created for these people. Fear, debate, retreat. Fear, debate, retreat. For their entire lives. Sad.

  Farkel

  Edited by - Farkel on 6 January 2003 23:46:45
• 

  Xander

  What's irritating is the JW misdirection he keeps using.

  'Scholars can't decide whether Jerusalem fell in 586 or 587 BC. Indeed, although generally agreed on as close, those years may not be. So, OBVIOUSLY, it MUST be *precisely* 607 if it isn't 586 or 587, and thus we are living in the end of the world QUICK SEND US MONEY!!!'

  They use this tactic with evolution a lot. If science (or historians) can't prove 100%, for sure, beyond any chance at ALL that their theory or date is EXACTLY to the SECOND correct...then obviously, it must be completely false, and the exact opposite must be true whether there is even any evidence to support it or not.

  That the WTBTS then goes on to teach the exact opposite as the sole truth of the universe must be simply coincedental or something.
• 

  Earnest

  Hi Alan,

  Apparently it was the transposition of the phrase "four hundred and fifty years" from a position after the phrase "after these things he gave them judges until Samuel" to a position before it that caused the incorrect rendering [of Acts 13:20] based on the older NT manuscripts.

  Yes, it was the transposition of this phrase which caused the incorrect rendering but it was the older NT manuscripts (except for codex Bezae) which had the correct rendering. The incorrect rendering was based on the Textus Receptus collated by Erasmus.

  Codex Bezae is an unusual manuscript with variant readings in many places, dated to the fifth century, and had a number of scribal correctors. In Acts 13: 20 the original scribe wrote:

  'And all that during "u kai v [English : u and n]" years, he gave judges until Samuel the prophet.'

  The second corrector thought this was either unclear or in error and apparently copied from another manuscript the transposed phrase on which the King James Version is based. There is one other early manuscript (codex Laudianus - sixth century) which also supports this reading.

  However, as I said, the NT texts used for the KJV and Emphatic Diaglott were not the only ones available to obtain an accurate rendering of Acts 13:20 when C. T. Russell first published Nelson Barbour's Bible chronology in 1877 in Three Worlds, and certainly not by the time the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society was founded.

  Quite right. In addition to the texts you refer to, there was even a Greek New Testament published in 1864 (edited by Edward Hansell) with codices A, B, C, D and E in parallel columns for comparison.

  ...if Russell were delving into translational details to this extent, while claiming that God was working exclusively through him to teach mankind "the truth", surely he must have also dealt with the above-mentioned Greek texts and complete translations that render Acts 13:20 properly. We are left with only two possibilities: Russell was incompetent as a scholar; and/or Russell deliberately suppressed the textual problems so as to lend a false sense of solidity to his chronological claims in the minds of his readers. As far as I'm concerned, it's a combination of both, such that Russell was so confident that God was guiding him that he just ran with whatever evidence jibed with the conclusion he wanted to reach, and ignored all other evidence, and so deceived himself and his readers.

  I agree that Russell ignored this textual problem, but in my opinion he did so because the Alexandrian text apparently places the period of 450 years between the distribution of the land of Canaan (verse 19) and the appointment of the judges (verse 20) which is clearly at odds with the account in the OT. I think that by nature Russel would use the textual tradition which would support the internal harmony of the Bible rather than that which apparently contradicts. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament suggests that the origin of the transposition was probably to prevent the reader from drawing this erroneous conclusion about the 450 years. As there was some doubt as to which text was correct, I am inclined to give Russell and his motives the benefit of the doubt.

  Earnest : In "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" (UBS, 1971, pp.406,407), Bruce Metzger discusses these two texts of Acts 13:20 and indicates the UBS Translation Committee had a high degree of doubt in selecting the older reading as the more accurate.

  AlanF : I don't get that sense from what this reference says. It speaks of difficulties "both textual and exegetical", but I see no comments to the effect that the Committee had any "high degree of doubt" about their selection. Can you tell me what they said that leads you to this conclusion?

  On page xxviii of the Introduction it explains that "in order to indicate the relative degree of certainty in the mind of the Committee for the reading adopted as the text, an identifying letter is included within braces at the beginning of each set of textual variants. The letter {A} signifies that the text is virtually certain, while {B} indicates that there is some degree of doubt concerning the reading selected for the text. The letter {C} means that there is a considerable degree of doubt whether the text or the apparatus contains the superior reading, while {D} shows that there is a very high degree of doubt concerning the reading selected for the text. In fact, among the {D} decisions sometimes none of the variant readings commended itself as original, and therefore the only recourse was to print the least unsatisfactory reading."

  The selection for Acts 13:20 is identified with {D}- a very high degree of doubt.

  And, finally:

  Now, to make my point, when I finally make it, crystal clear, let me ask another question: If I told you that my two brothers came to be employees of IBM's hard drive design division until Fujitsu bought the division, could my statement in any way be taken to allow that my brothers were employed by IBM after Fujitsu took over? This time, please explain your reasoning.

  I had an excellent chess match this evening at the local club. I played King's Gambit and gave away three pawns in order to have what turned out to be an overwhelming strategical advantage. I have a sneaky feeling that your offering me one of those pawns...but I'll play anyway.

  My answer must be "no" because the word "until" indicates that when Fujitsu bought the division your brothers were no longer employees of IBM's hard drive design division. Actually, that would still allow them to be employed by IBM in some other division although that is not the natural and obvious sense of the statement. But you ask could your statement "in any way be taken to allow" that they remain employees of IBM so my final answer must be "yes".

  Your move.

  Earnest

  Edited by - Earnest on 7 January 2003 0:10:25