Your lengthy rant has absolutely no information in support of your claims about when the Bible Students abandoned their beliefs about 1874 and 1878, and I've already provided specific details in this thread about when they were abandoned. You try to focus a great deal on Russell's split with Barbour, as a result of some changes in Russell's views. However, it has absolutely no bearing on the Bible Student's beliefs about 1914 after the split.
Posts by Jeffro
-
122Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know
by Skeptical78 ini recently became aware of the new light.
please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?
.
-
-
-
122
Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know
by Skeptical78 ini recently became aware of the new light.
please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?
.
-
-
Jeffro
Jeffro, isn't billy mixing up Storrs with Barbour too? It's hard to get the sense of what he was saying.
He also mixed up Barbour with Russell earlier in this thread too (when he claimed, "1878 was under Barbour bible students that later became Jehovah Witness under Rutherford"). In fact, his claims about when their beliefs about 1874 and 1878 were abandonded were out by a few decades.
I really don't think he knows much of the actual history at all.
-
122
Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know
by Skeptical78 ini recently became aware of the new light.
please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?
.
-
-
Jeffro
billythekid46:
Thank you to nswer *truwj* 1799 theory that was tied to Miller not the bible students,
Wrong again. I already stated quite clearly in this thread that '1799' was maintained by the 'Bible Students' until 1929.
just like the false application that people have about 1914, that people believe the WT predicated the end of the world in 1914
And... wrong again. The Watch Tower Society quite definitely claimed prior to 1914 that Armageddon would happen in 1914 as the conclusion of the 'time of trouble'.
Zion’s Watch Tower, 15 July 1894, page 226:
But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble.
Studies in the Scriptures Volume III (Thy Kingdom Come) (1911 edition), page 239:
Our Lord’s presence as Bridegroom and Reaper was recognized during the first three and a half years, from A. D. 1874 to A. D. 1878. … The year A. D. 1878, … clearly marks the time for the actual assuming of power as King of kings, by our present, spiritual, invisible Lord—the time of his taking to himself his great power to reign, which in the prophecy is closely associated with the resurrection of his faithful, and the beginning of the trouble and wrath upon the nations.
The Watch Tower, 15 May 1911, page 146:
Our readers know that for some years we have been expecting this Age to close with an awful time of trouble, and we expect it to break out with suddenness and force not long after October, 1914.
-
122
Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know
by Skeptical78 ini recently became aware of the new light.
please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?
.
-
-
Jeffro
billythekid46:
First off, I stated in my first post that the WT is NOT THE ONLY RELIGION that accepts the 1914 rendering of events.
You have not established that at all. Though you found a Protestant source that indicates some event in 607 (unsurprising since JWs derive their chronology from Protestantism via Adventism, with later adjustments), the Protestant source you quote associates an entirely different event to 607, and makes no statement about 1914 whatsoever.
*Jeffro* assumed that was my research when it was not
Yet earlier, he said:
My research was as you put it done from scratch with countless years of research and I didn’t reply on anyone’s interpretation
I suppose it was rather naive of me to conclude from your statement - that you researched something from scratch - would mean that what you would post about the subject - without any citation - would be your research. I certainly won't make that mistake again.
-
122
Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know
by Skeptical78 ini recently became aware of the new light.
please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?
.
-
-
Jeffro
I've just noticed that billythekid46 pasted the same material on a thread 9 days ago. It is a copy-and-paste from http://www.berenddeboer.net/sab/dan/1.html.
Being based on Ussher, it's a standard Protestant view. It is entirely unsurprising that it bears some similarity to the JW view that 607 must be 'special', because the Watch Tower Society got its initial biblical chronology from Ussher, including the false view that Jewish exile ended in 537 and that it lasted for 70 years—a distortion of what the Bible actually says about the 70 years.
However, the Protestant 'biblical chronology' does not go on to attach the numerological superstitions regarding 1914 as used by the Watch Tower Society.
-
122
Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know
by Skeptical78 ini recently became aware of the new light.
please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?
.
-
-
Jeffro
jwfacts:
Then in a stroke of contradiction, you claim you cannot trust them over a period of 20 years.
In fairness, billythekid46 isn't relying on the same 'twenty-year gap' that the Watch Tower Society asserts. Instead, billythekid46 tries to shoehorn a different event for 607 in order to use it as the same starting point used by the Watch Tower Society for a completely bogus numerological superstiton about 1914. In effect, billythekid46 asserts a two-year gap (607-605) during the Neo-Babylonian period instead, however, as already indicated previously in this thread, he's quite wrong.
-
122
Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know
by Skeptical78 ini recently became aware of the new light.
please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?
.
-
-
Jeffro
billythekid46:
You didn’t mention Miller’s movement of 1844
Why would Miller's movement be included in a list of the Watch Tower Society's false predictions?
1874, 1878 was under Barbour bible students that later became Jehovah Witness under Rutherford.
Rutherford took over the Watch Tower Society in 1917. '1878' was abandoned in 1927. '1874' wasn't abandoned until 1933. Obviously this means that both were retained long after Russell's split with Barbour in 1879.
However the date 1799 eludes me, please enlighten me on that.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_doctrine (source includes citations from Watch Tower Society publications):
Miller had formulated doctrines drawn from Daniel 12:4,9 on the "time of the end", when the meaning of certain prophecies would be finally revealed. Russell made a slight amendment to the teaching, explaining that it began in 1799 when French general Berthier entered Rome, abolished papal government and established the Republic of Italy. The "time of the end" would last 115 years to 1914. The 1799 date, in turn, had been established by linking the 1260 days of Revelation 11:3 with time periods mentioned in Daniel 2, 7, and 12. Using the year-day principle, the period indicated 1260 years from 539 (when Justinian I recognised the pope as universal bishop) to 1799.
1890: The "Time of the End" of Daniel 12:4 is identified as beginning in October 1799—when Napoleon invaded Egypt and ended the power of the papacy—and closing in 1914, at which point violent worldwide revolution would mark the end of the old world order and the beginning of a new one.
1927: Identification of "time of the end" as a 115-year period from 1799 to 1914 discontinued. Final reference appeared in J. F. Rutherford's Creation (1927).
1929: Beginning of "Time of the End" of Daniel 12:4 changed from 1799 to 1914.
The understanding I took from this organization before I left
From your implied defense of JWs' views about 1975 and your attempts to 'rescue' their claims about 1914 by trying to 'justify' 607, it seems that you still cling to various JW doctrines and that you haven't mentally left.
-
122
Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know
by Skeptical78 ini recently became aware of the new light.
please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?
.
-
-
Jeffro
billythekid46:
However your assertion that your research is better than mine would be absurd.
Actually, it's not absurd at all. Firstly, you seem to 'try' to 'make' the '70 years' 'fit' a particular purpose. Straight away, that's a big red flag. Secondly, that 'purpose' doesn't even agree with what is actually stated in the Bible. Thirdly, your timeline disagrees in relative terms with BM 21946 and ignores the evident difference in dating systems identified by the Babylonian interpolation at Jeremiah 52:28-30. My research requires no appeals to magical thinking and is consistent with mainstream scholarship on the matter, even though I arrived at it independently.
I researched not just the works you speak of but others in connection with biblical events.
As indicated by my use of "etc" in my previous response, I did not provide an exhaustive list of the sources I researched.
I didn’t reply on anyone’s interpretation
It's blatantly obvious that you relied on Ussher's interpretation.
-
122
Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know
by Skeptical78 ini recently became aware of the new light.
please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?
.
-
-
Jeffro
billythekid46:
Thats my point *Jeffro* we can go on and on, with me tilling you, your dates and events are also WRONG,
You could. However the timeline you offered is not supported by the actual source material, and is based on fundamental errors relating to dating systems. Whilst anyone can suggest any old absolute years, your timeline does not correctly represent the relative time periods either.
which historian explained it to you better than who or because this persons research is more credible than who?
I have considered the material from scratch, relying on the source materials (the Bible, the works of Josephus, Babylonian chronicles, etc) rather than interpretations of later historians. (However, I have also considered later sources and found them to agree.)
If the information in the Bible is reliable, the timeline I have provided is correct. If the information in the Bible is not reliable, it doesn't matter anyway.
So the first siege was in 607, the second siege was in 599 (not 597 as secular history has it), and the third and last in 589 BC
This is merely an attempt to 'make' '70 years' 'fit' from '607' until '537'. Except 537 is wrong anyway, because comparison of Ezra and Josephus indicates 538 to be the year in which Jews were allowed to return to Jerusalem. Additionally, it's a misrepresentation of what the '70 years' were about, which was a period of Babylonian dominance over all the nations, and not a period of exile or dominance over Jews. (Also, comparison of LXX and later manuscripts indicates that the specific period of '70 years' was written in later rather than being 'prophetic'.)
-
122
Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know
by Skeptical78 ini recently became aware of the new light.
please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?
.
-
-
Jeffro
billythekid46:
First of all the exact date is 607 BC according to Bishop Ussher , not 606 BC. This was indeed the first year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar if we just count as the Bible counts.
Your claim (and Ussher's claim) about 607 here is wrong. This is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the accession-year system and the differing calendations of Judah and Babylon. As a result most of the rest of your post is also wrong, including all of the years suggested (except for the year in which Nabopolassar died). The correct years for the period you've indicated are as follows:
- 609 Babylon becomes world power after conquering Assyria’s final capital, Harran. Seventy years of nations serving Babylon begin.
- 609 (late) Jehoahaz reigns for 3 months, then imprisoned
- 608 King Jehoiakim begins his 11-year rule in Jerusalem.
- 605 (summer) Battle of Carchemish
- 605 (August/September) Jeremiah warns that Babylon will come up against Jerusalem.
- 605 (September) Nebuchadnezzar begins his Babylonian rule.
- 605 (December) Fast proclaimed in Jerusalem
- 604 (February) Jehoiakim becomes tributary to Babylon. Daniel* and others given as part of tribute along with some temple treasures.
- 603 Daniel interprets Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in his 2nd regnal year. Daniel not known by Nebuchadnezzar prior to interpreting dream.
- 601 3 years of training ends for Daniel and others. Daniel known as “ten times wiser” than all others.
- 601 (December) Nebuchadnezzar attacks Egypt.
- 600 (early) Jehoiakim rebels after learning of Nebuchadnezzar’s attack on Egypt.
- 599 Bands of marauders sent by Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem
- 598 (December) Nebuchadnezzar besieges Jerusalem.
- 597 (March) Nebuchadnezzar takes exiles including Ezekiel, temple treasures, and temple utensils. Jehoiachin placed on throne.
- 594 Jeremiah writes to exiles in Babylon, telling them Babylon would be dominant for 70 years.
- 590 (December) Zedekiah rebels, siege begins.
- 587 (August) Jerusalem destroyed, temple burned. The first seven of the seventy ‘weeks’ begins. This is the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar (18th when not counting his accession year; compare 2 Kings 25:8 & Jeremiah 52:29), the 11th year of Zedekiah.
- 587 (October) Jews flee to Egypt.
*The historicity of Daniel is disputed, but the story can be correctly contextualised.
This timeline can be confirmed by comparing 2 Kings, Daniel, Jeremiah, Josephus and the Babylonian chronicle BM 21946.