by Farkel 96 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Scholar:
It was said by Link
Excuse my ignorance but the Bible says THESE NATIONS will serve the King of Babylon for 70 years. It does not say that the JEWISH NATION - or any single nation will serve for all of the 70 years.
Can you comment on this? What about the phrase "these nations"?
Thanks
Confusedjw
While I haven't done very much research on the subject, I looked up the Jewish exile in 3 sources; Encarta encyclopedia, the Catholic Encyclopedia online, and this web site. http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/HEBREWS/EXILE.HTM
All seem to agree that there were 2 deportations of the Jews, the first being in 597 BC and the second in 586/587 BC. That only accounts for a 60 year captivity. I haven't found anything that actually says they were in captivity for 70 years.
Walter
Farkel said:
Biblically tie Jesus' statement about the Gentile Times tying in with Daniel 4. If you can't do that, the whole 1914 theology collapses.
That's easy. Jesus told Pastor Miller, who lost his notes, but Pastor Barbour found them and then Pastor Russell took them to the pyramids (with his anti-cubit ruler) and prayed over them like a lamb's cloth and they referred him to J. A. Brown's work.
Anywho...who needs more proof than that?
So those true believes have two dilemmas: Biblically tie Jesus' statement about the Gentile Times tying in with Daniel 4. If you can't do that, the whole 1914 theology collapses. Second, Biblically tie the year 607 BC as being the year Jerusalem was crushed by Nebuchadnezzer. If you can't do that, the whole 1914 theology collapses.It's not just about dates, folks. It's more importantly about the "Gentile Times." If the Gentile Times does not Biblically tie to Daniel 4, it is meaningless to talk about dates.
Another reason the date doesn't matter: Neither date works with what the WTS says about how to calculate the end of the Gentile Times.
Let's say the WTS is right. Just for giggles. The temple was destroyed in 607. How do you get to 1914 from 607? Well, the seven times prophecy. What's a time? According to the WTS a time is 360 days. How do you get seven? I don't remember, suffice it to say the WTS says so. (I don't have all my references handy, so I'm going by memory. No scriptures, no WTS references). Well, if a time is 360 days, the seven times would be 2520 days. Now, that doesn't add up to 1914, does it? But wait. According to the WTS, there is a Bible rule about a year for a day, so then the seven "times" would be 360 x 7 = 2520 years. 2520 years from 607 equals 1914. Simple, right?
WRONG! 607 to 1914 is 2520 years of 365 days. It's already been establised that a "time" is 360 days. You can't change the constant. So the seven times is 2520 "times" or years of 360 day years. The difference is about 35 years. It doesn't add up to 1914.
How many other reasons does one need to see that 1914 is bogus?
undercover,
This is all easily understood by reading a piece I wrote a number of years ago, called appropriately enough, "1914 For Dummies":
1914 A.D. - the single most important date in JW doctrine, and is the result of using 607 B.C as an "anchor date", using the book of Daniel, Chapter 4, as proof.
This is based upon the following, simple reasoning:
7 "times" doesn't mean "7 times". It means "7 years".
But,"7 years" doesn't really mean 7 "years", either. It means "7 years of days". But, the "days" in "years of days" doesn't really mean "years of days, in which the days actually mean "days", but means "years of days, in which the "days" actually mean "years".
Therefore, it is easy for even a fool to see that "7 times" REALLY means "7 years" but which really means "7 years of days", but which then really means "7 years of days which aren't really days, but years", or simply stated "7 years of days of which days are really years". To put it even so a child can understand it, it means that the "times" aren't "times" at all, but are "years", which aren't "years" at all, but are "years of days", which aren't "days" at all, but are "years" AFTER all, even though they were originally CALLED "times"!
Got all that? There's more.
Strangely, however, for all of this to work, this fulfillment, based upon an ANCIENT text, still requires the use of the ANCIENT calendar for the MODERN fulfillment to work out to 1914. Therefore, ancient text + ancient calendar = modern date in modern calendar.
When doing your calculations, don't forget that there is no "zero year" from B.C to A.D. C.T. Russell forgot that and was quite embarrassed about it. The official WTS explanation in later, revised, editions of his books was that "the battery was very low in his calculator at that time" and he wasn't aware of it until after the material was printed.
Lastly, the book of Daniel was prophesied to remain "sealed" until the "last days", which, as we know, began in 1914, according to the simple reasoning just presented. So, Russell had to figure out a way to, somehow "unseal" Daniel before it was prophesied that Daniel WOULD be "unsealed" so he could then put forth a prophecy which pointed to exactly when Daniel WAS to be "unsealed", namely at the start of the "last days", in 1914.
Russell, therefore, successfully used a "sealed" book to calculate the exact date it was to be "unsealed", which at that time it was officially, "unsealed", but Russell "unsealed" it before that, because he wanted to know beforehand when it WOULD be "unsealed", because only THEN would he know when the "last days" were to start, which was, of course, when Daniel actually WAS to be "unsealed". Got all that?
I apologize to the reader for using so many words, but, this stuff is so, well, "DEEP"!
Farkel
The "sealed" vs. "unsealed" was a new twist on this for me. Very funny on top of it all. I expected it to end with Russell ending up as his own father.
Hey can you do the 1290 & 1335 days next?
City Fan
You have raised some interesting questions regarding the seventy years period and I will respond to these shortly. For the moment ley me make this one salutary point. When I first posted on this board I warned apostates and critics of WT chronology that the seventy years was vital for any constructed biblical chronology, The nature of it and its beginning and end must be consistent with all of the biblical data and this where Jonsson has failed. Scholars have a variety of opinions with no agreement about the seventy years and this easily seen when one studies the few journal articles on the subject published in the the last fifty years. Regardles of how well supported the traditional chronology of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty appears it clashes with a biblical interpreted seventy years creating a twenty year gap between the two and this is the dilemna. Jonsson attempts to marry the conflicting data with his own interpretation but it leaves serious questions that cannot be met such as what calender year should be assigned the seventy years= 605 or 609?
scholar
BA MA Studies in Religion
scholar,
: When I first posted on this board I warned apostates and critics of WT chronology that the seventy years was vital for any constructed biblical chronology,
Scholar spouts yet another strawman. What about my challenge for the "Gentile Times?" THAT is the whole crux of the claim that 1914 was so special. If the WTS was off by even ONE YEAR on their 607/70 years chronlogy, their whole claim to spiritual authority for 80+ years falls.
Farkel
Therefore, it is easy for even a fool to see that "7 times" REALLY means "7 years" but which really means "7 years of days", but which then really means "7 years of days which aren't really days, but years", or simply stated "7 years of days of which days are really years". To put it even so a child can understand it, it means that the "times" aren't "times" at all, but are "years", which aren't "years" at all, but are "years of days", which aren't "days" at all, but are "years" AFTER all, even though they were originally CALLED "times"!
I think I saw that in a movie one time:
"Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me."
"You've made your decision, then?"
"Not remotely! Because iocaine comes from Australia, as everyone knows. And Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you."
"Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
"Wait till I get going! Where was I?"
confusedjw,
: Hey can you do the 1290 & 1335 days next?
Already did both of them, but lost them in hard drive crashes. Would you settle for one on the "2300 evenings and mornings."The first link below is about that subject. I called it "Daniel 8 for Dummies."
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/18456/1.ashx
The second link is about this whole "day for a year" business. It's called, "A Day For a Year. I Need a Beer." It's about Ezekiel and God making Ezekiel lay on his side and eat poop.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/18573/1.ashx
Farkel
