Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 14:48 — 13.7MB) | Embed
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Android | Google Podcasts | RSS | More
Video Script
Hello. Eric Wilson again. This time we’re looking at 1914.
Now, 1914 is a very important doctrine for Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a core doctrine. Some might disagree. There was a recent Watchtower about core doctrines and 1914 wasn’t mentioned. However without 1914, there can be no generation teaching; without 1914 the whole premise of us living in the last days goes out the window; and most important, without 1914, there can be no Governing Body because the Governing Body takes its authority from the belief that it was appointed by Jesus Christ as the faithful and discreet slave in 1919. And the reason they were appointed in 1919 is based on another anti-typical application coming from Malachi which derives from the start of Jesus’ rule—so if Jesus began to rule in 1914 as king, then certain things went on—we’ll discuss those in another video—but certain things went on which then brought him to choose Witnesses out of all the religions on earth as his chosen people and to appoint over them a faithful and discreet slave; and that occurred in 1919 based on the chronology that gets us to 1914.
So no 1914…no 1919…no 1919…no faithful and discreet slave, no Governing Body. There is no basis for the authority structure under which all Jehovah’s Witnesses today function. That’s how important this doctrine is and those who disagree with the doctrine will attack it by challenging the start date.
Now when I say start date, the doctrine is based on the premise that in 607 BCE the Israelites were taken into exile in Babylon and Jerusalem was destroyed and thus began 70 years of devastation and exile; and also began the appointed times of the nations or the appointed times of the Gentiles. This is all the understanding that you have as Witnesses, all based on the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and an antitypical application of that, because there was a typical application evidently or obviously from what we find in the Bible…but as Witnesses, we take the position that there is an anti typical application and the seven times in which Nebuchadnezzar was crazed, acting like a beast, eating the vegetation of the field. Those seven times correspond to seven years each year measuring 360 days, for a total of 2,520 days or years. So counting from 607, we get to 1914—specifically October of 1914 and that’s important—but we’ll get to that in another video, okay?
So if 607 is wrong, many reason then the application of this interpretation can be challenged. I would disagree and I’ll show you why in a minute; but basically there are three ways in which we examine this doctrine:
We examine it chronologically—we examine whether the start date is valid.
The second way is we examine it empirically—in other words, it’s all well and good to say that something happened in 1914 but if there’s no empirical evidence then it’s just conjecture. It’s like me saying that, “You know Jesus was enthroned last June.” I can say that, but I have to give some proof. So there should be empirical proof. There should be something that we can visibly witness that gives us reason to believe that something invisible happened in the heavens.
The third way is biblically.
Now of these three ways, as far as I can see, the only valid way to examine this doctrine is biblically. However, since so much time has been spent specifically on the first method of chronology, then we’re going to deal with that briefly; and I would like to explain why I don’t feel that is a valid method for examining the validity of this doctrine.
Now, there are a lot of people who spend a lot of time researching it. As a matter of fact, one brother in 1977 submitted his research to the Governing Body, which was subsequently rejected and then he published a book himself called Gentile Times Reconsidered. His name is Karl Olof Jonson. It’s a 500-page book. Very well done; scholarly; but it’s 500 pages! It’s a lot to go through. But the premise is, among other things—I’m not saying that it only deals with this, but this is one of the key points in the book—that all the scholars, all the archaeologists, all the men who devote their lives to researching these things, having looked at thousands of cuneiform tablets, have determined from those tablets (Because they cannot do it from the Bible. The Bible doesn’t give us a year when this happened. It gives us only a correlation between someone’s rule as a king and the year when he was serving and the exile) so based on what they can determine in actual years, everyone agrees that 587 is the year. You can find that on the internet very easily. It’s in all the encyclopedias. If you go to museum exhibits dealing with Jerusalem, you’ll see it there. It’s universally agreed that 587 was the year that the Israelites were exiled. It’s also widely agreed that 539 is the year that Babylon was conquered by the Medes and the Persians. Witnesses say, ‘Yes, 539 is the year.”
So, we agree with the experts on 539 because we have no other way of knowing. We have to go to the world, to the experts, to find out what year Babylon was conquered by the Medes and the Persians. But when it comes to 587, we deny the experts. Why do we do that?
Because the Bible says that they were enslaved for 70 years and that’s our interpretation of it. So the Bible can’t be wrong. So, therefore, the experts must be wrong. We pick one date, say that’s the right date, and then we just discard the other date. We could just as easily—and probably it would have been more beneficial for us as we’ll see in the next video—to have picked 587 and discarded 539, and said that’s wrong, it was 519 when the Babylonians were conquered by the Medes and Persians, but we didn’t do that. We stuck with 607, okay? So why isn’t that valid. It’s not valid because Jehovah’s Witnesses are very good at moving the goalposts.
For example, we used to believe that 1874 was a start of Christ’s presence. It wasn’t until…I think it was 1930—I’ll see if I can get a quote for you—that we changed that, and said, ‘Okay, oh, it’s not 1874 that Christ’s presence as king began invisibly in the heavens, it was 1914. We also, at that time, believed 1914 was the start of the Great Tribulation, and we didn’t stop believing that until 1969. I remember being at the district convention when that was revealed; that 1914 was not the start of the Great Tribulation. It caught me by surprise, because I never thought it was, but apparently that was our understanding and had been for…oh, that would make it about 90 years.
We also moved the goalposts with regard to the generation. In the 60s, the generation would be people who were adults in 1914; then it became teenagers; then it became children of only 10 years; finally, it became babies. We kept moving the goalposts and now we’ve moved them so far that to be part of the generation, you only have to be anointed, and had been anointed at the time of someone else who was alive at that time. So even though you didn’t live anywhere near those years, you’re part of generation. The goalposts have moved again. So we could do the same with this. It would be so easy. We could say, “You know, you’re right! 587 is when they were exiled, but that doesn’t change anything.” But we’d probably do it this way…we’d probably say, “Others thought…”, or “Some have thought….” We usually do it that way. Sometimes, we’ll just use the passive tense: “It was thought….” Again, no one’s taking blame for it. It’s just something that happened in the past, but now we’re correcting it. And we’d use the prophecy in Jeremiah, where the 70 years is mentioned. That’s from Jeremiah 25:11, 12 and it says:
“And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years. 12But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,’ declares Jehovah, ‘and I will make the land of the Chaldeans a desolate wasteland for all time.”
Okay, so you see how easy it would be? They could say it actually says that they would serve the king of Babylon. So that service began when Jehoiachin, the king of Israel, was conquered by the Babylonians and became a vassal king and had to then serve them; and of course, it was also an initial exile. The king of Babylon took the intelligencia—the best and the brightest, including Daniel and his three companions Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego—he took them to Babylon so they served the king of Babylon from 607, but they weren’t exiled in the second exile, the one that destroyed the city and took everybody, until 587, which is what all the archeologists say—so we’re good with archaeology, and we still get to keep our date, 607.
You know, the reasoning is actually quite sound, because the Bible says that the land must become a devastated place but it doesn’t tie the devastation of the place to the 70 years. It says the nations will serve the king of Babylon these seventy years, not even just Israel, the surrounding nations, because Babylon conquered all the surrounding nations at that time. So the devastation doesn’t pertain to the 70 years, they could say, but only the servitude. And they could even use the reasoning found in the very next verse which says that the king of Babylon and the nation would be called to account, and that God would make it desolate wastes. Well, they were called to account in 539 and yet more than five centuries later Babylon still existed. Peter was in Babylon at one point. In fact, Babylon continued to exist for hundreds of years after that. It was only some time after that that it finally became a desolated waste. So God’s words were fulfilled. They were called to account, and the land became desolated waste—but not at the same time. Likewise, they served the king of Babylon for 70 years and the Land of Israel became a desolated waste but the two things do not have to be exactly concurrent for the words of Jeremiah to have come true.
You see, the problem with challenging the date is even if you’re successful, they can do just what I’ve explained they could—move the date. The premise is that the doctrine is valid and the date is wrong; and that’s the whole problem with challenging the date: We have to assume the doctrine is valid.
It’s like me saying ‘I’m not exactly sure when I was baptized. I know it was 1963 and I know it was at the International Convention in New York…ah…but I can’t remember if it was the Friday or the Saturday or even the month.’ So I could look it up in the Watchtower and find out when that assembly was but then I still don’t know exactly what day of that assembly the baptism was. I might think it was the Saturday (which I think was the 13th of July) and then someone else might say ‘No, no, I think it was the Friday…I think it was Friday that that they had the baptism.’
So we could argue back and forth about the date but neither of us is disputing the fact that I was baptized. But if, during that dispute, I say, ‘By the way, I have was never baptized.’ My friend would look at me and say ‘So why are we discussing dates. That makes no sense.’
You see, if the doctrine of 1914 is a false doctrine, it doesn’t matter that we happen to stumble upon the right date for something or other. It doesn’t matter, because the doctrine isn’t valid, so that’s the problem with examining the chronology of it.
In our next video, we’ll look at the empirical evidence that gives us a little bit more meat, but still the real way would be in our third video when we look at the doctrinal basis in the Bible. For now, I’ll leave you with that thought. My name is Eric Wilson. Thank you for watching.
CRITICAL DETAIL:
Radiocarbon-14 dating has advanced to the point where you can date a destructive level where stored grains are found to a specific year. This is the case with City IV of Rehov, a city noted by Shishak to have been destroyed. RC14 dates that destructive level to 871 BCE. Shishak is noted to have invaded Israel in year 5 of Rehoboam. Rehoboam’s rule is parallel to that of Jeroboam who was appointed as king prior to the death of Solomon. So year 5 of Rehoboam is actually year 39 of Solomon. Noting that, the actual date for Solomon’s rule is from 910-870 BCE. That means his 4th year fell in 906 BCE, which dates the Exodus 480 years earlier to 1386 BCE.
Nothing is wrong with that date for the Exodus. In fact, Kathleen Kenyon in her book on “Digging Up Jericho” notes in a chapter for the “Coming of the Israelites” that Joshua destroyed LBA Jericho between 1350-1325 BCE. That means the Exodus, 40 years earlier, would fall in 1390-1365 BCE, which emcompasses 1386 BCE! So all the archaeology points to this dating.
Of note, though, the Exodus is a major jubilee event, just like the return from exile. So it so happens the Exodus is exactly 19 jubilees, 931 years (19 x 49 = 931) earlier than the return from Babylon. The background calculation relates to the years of error assigned to the kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Judah.
Note that the error for the 10 tribes was 390 years and the error for the tribe of Judah was 40 years. We know that Judah ruled longer than Israel. That works out if you assign 39 years to each of the 10 tribes, compared to 40 years for Judah. Having noted that, this is a composite time of 430 years of error for Israel and Judah. That is, 390 + 40 = 430
If you divide 430 years by the two kinds of agricultural sabbaths required by the Israelites, you get the period of 70 years for make-up sabbaths. The sabbaths required was a 7-year sabbath and the jubilee sabbath on the 50th year, which was also the 1st year of another 49-year period.
430 / 50 = 08.6
430 / 07 = 61.4
TOTAL = 70.0
So the missed sabbaths represents keeping the sabbaths half the time. So we double 430 to get 960 years. Add the 70 years of make-up to get 930 years. 930 years is just one year shy of 19 jubilees! So if we use RC14 from Rehov to date the Exodus to 1386 BCE and subtract 931 years, the return from Babylon should fall in 455 BCE!
1386 – 931 = 455 BCE
This is a “premise” that you have to resolve. Martin Anstey in his “Romance of Bible Chronology” (1913) though always claimed that 455 BCE is the Biblical date for the 1st of Cyrus and the 537 BCE date indicated that the Persian Period was 82 years too long. Following that presumption, we find it is quite easy to remove the extra 82 years from the Persian Period (30 years each for Darius I and Artaxerxes II, 21 years for Xerxes, who is Artaxerxes).
Even so, it is interesting how RC14 dating from the time of Solomon and Shishak forces us to date the return from Babylon in 455 BCE.
Of course, 455 BCE works out better than the 20th of Artaxerxes for dating the “70 weeks” prophecy, which is month specific. That is, for Christ to die in the middle of the week at the time of Passover, the count of time must begin in month 7. Nehemiah’s repair work on the walls which only took 52 days occurred during the summer. Whereas the work that was begun in the 1st of Cyrus began precisely on the 1st day of the 7th month!! (Ezra 3:1)
Point being, it is quite interesting how you consistently end up dating the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE, which must begin the “70 weeks” prophecy!! So Bible prophecy is not affected at all by dating the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE, a prophecy which begins with “when the word goes forth to rebuild Jerusalem.” Jerusalem and the temple and the wall were already rebuilt by the 20th of Artaxerxes! So to take the Bible seriously as history, you must date the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE. Once you do that and start to look closely at the pagan records, you find it is quite easy to confirm the pagan timeline was revised and correct it.
Of course, that kills 607 BCE as the year for Jerusalem’s fall and thus kills the 1914 doctrine, as it applies to the “7 times” prophecy. This seems clearly to be Jehovah’s doing, having hidden the details of the chronology until this time.
Thanks for your attention.
CRITICAL BIBLICAL DETAIL OVERLOOKED:
Ezra 6:14,15 says the following: “And the elders of the Jews continued building and making progress,t urged on by the prophesying of Hagʹgai the prophet and Zech·a·riʹah the grandson of Idʹdo; they finished building it by the order of the God of Israel and by the order of Cyrus and Da·riʹus and King Ar·ta·xerxʹes of Persia. 15 They completed the house by the third day of the month of Aʹdar, in the sixth year of the reign of King Da·riʹus.”
The Babylonians used the “accession year” system. That is, the year was named after the king who was ruling. The years were counted from spring to spring. If he died during the year, the 1st year of his successor began in the spring with his year 1. The months he ruled leading up to the 1st of spring was considered his “accession year.” The year remained numbered after the king who began the year that spring.
So what have we here from Ezra out of Babylon? We have the accession year of a king called Artaxerxes in the sixth year of Darius I. That is, Darius I died in his sixth year and Artaxerxes succeeded him. But we know that the successor to Darius I was “Xerxes.” No problem. Xerxes is calling himself Artaxerxes, that’s all.
Problem is, Greek historians claim Darius I ruled for 36 years, followed by Xerxes who ruled for 21 years, then followed by Artaxerxes I who ruled for 41 years. Who do you believe.
Daniel 11:2 further confirms that the successor to Darius I was Xerxes: ““Look! Three more kings will stand up for Persia, and the fourth one will amass greater riches than all others. And when he becomes strong by means of his riches, he will rouse up everything against the kingdom of Greece.”
It is a well established historical fact that the successor to Darius I, Xerxes, invaded Greece in a major way. No big deal if Xerxes also went by the name of Artaxerxes, but is this telling us that Xerxes and Artaxerxes I were the same king? Yes!
If we conclude that, then just by the Bible alone we know that there are 51 years of fake history in the Persian timeline. An extra 30 years for Darius I and the separate 21-year rule for Xerxes. But what does archaeology tell us?
Very interesting. The WTS, in order to move the date of the 20th of Artaxerxes back to 455 BCE so that the “70 weeks” prophecy will work in connection with the repair work done by Nehemiah, which took just 52 days, notes a co-rulership between Xerxes and Darius I. They use this to insinuate that the 21-year rule of Xerxes began 10 years earlier during the co-rulership with Darius I. Well, indeed, there was a co-rulership, currently ignored by the revised chronology.
But what we also learn is that Darius began to build at Persepolis in his 4th year. Other documents indicate a palace was built at Babylon for Xerxes which took two years. Problem is, Darius only finished one building at Persepolis, his own palace. If that palace was a two-year project then archaeology confirms that Darius I died in his sixth year, forcing his son, Xerxes, to complete the city. But that’s where another fascination occurs. The city was not finished by Xerxes, but by Artaxerxes in his seventh year. When you factor in a 3-year co-rulership, the rest of the buildings at Persepolis only took another 4 years to complete, so the compound actually took a total of 6 years of construction.
Think about that. If Darius I actually ruled for 36 years, he had another 30 years to complete Persepolis. Further, Persepolis is not a “city” but a compound of a few buildings that were not even used the year round. In addition, had Xerxes ruled for 21 years, he would have likewise finished the city. But instead, we see “Artaxerxes” finishing the city. So you have a 6-year construction project taking over 50 years to complete!! Bottom line, archaeology supports just a 2-year rule by Dariuis I, followed by the completion of Persepolis by his son, Xerxes, who decided to go by the name of Artaxerxes. It’s just that simple.
Add to that the fact that at the tombs at Naqshi-Rustam, guess who is buried between Darius I and Darius II? You guessed it: “Artaxerxes” not Xerxes. Of course, that’s because Xerxes and Artaxerxes were actually the same king. Finally, Darius I began talking effusively about what he was up to. He wrote that in three different languages on a sheer cliff at Behistun. For someone who wanted to make sure history told a true story, he only talked about the first three years of his reign and not a peep out of him after that. That’s because he died in his sixth year, not his 36th year. So whether you go to Behistun, Persepolis or the tombs at Naqshi-Rustam, you cannot confirm anything but a 6-year rule for Darius I and that his successor, Xerxes, was also known as “Artaxerxes.”
When the timeline from the Greek Period is recovered, turns out Darius I was at Marathon and died there. Two Greek references link the death of Darius to Marathon. When 30 extra years were added to his reign, likely to align the age of Darius with his new “grandson,” Artaxerxes, only 26 years could be removed from the Neo-Babylonian kings. As a result, when the timeline was laid down, Darius survived his own death at Marathon by 4 years. Thus the new timeline shows Darius’ 36 year rule from 522 BCE to 486 BCE. 486 BCE is 4 years after 490 BCE, the current year the Battle of Marathon is being dated.
Of course, there is plenty more research that recovers the true timeline so that the 1st of Cyrus must be dated to 455 BCE. Of note, when the Battle of Marathon is redated to 434 BCE, the same year the temple is completed by Artaxerxes before the end of the year in the sixth year of Darius, 21 + 434 = 455 BCE.
CONCLUSION: In no way should you believe that Jerusalem fell in 587 BCE. That’s a big lie and in no way is supported by the Bible. Researches like to get around the 70-year problem by claiming the 70-year period is a period of exile of the kingdoms conquered earlier by Babylon. They avoid the direct contradiction of the Bible’s timeline and that of the revised Babylonian records. Don’t forget, the Babylonian chronicle specifically notes it was “copied” in year 22 of Darius. So the palace documents reflecting this reduced Babylonian Period are all Persian period “copies”/revisions. That includes the Cyrus Cylinder, the Nabonidus Chronicle and the Babylonian Chronicle.
Once the timeline is corrected, of course, the fall of Jerusalem shifts from 607 BCE to 529 BCE. The dismissal of 1914 as a credible date for the “7 times” prophecy is completely destroyed.
I’m confused, LarryWilson. You write:
“Once the timeline is corrected, of course, the fall of Jerusalem shifts from 607 BCE to 529 BCE. The dismissal of 1914 as a credible date for the “7 times” prophecy is completely destroyed.”
That seems to be contradictory. If the dismissal of 1914 as a credible date is “completely destroyed”, that means that 1914 IS a credible date for the so-called “7-times prophecy”. Yet, how can it be if, as you write, the destruction of Jerusalem shifts from 607 to 529?
Ezra 6:14, 15. This confirms the “accession year” for Artaxerxes in year 6 of Darius. Thus, per the Bible, Darius I only ruled 6 years and Xerxes and Artaxerxes I are the same king. When Xerxes used his second name Artaxerxes to claim he was his own son for political reasons and got away with it, the Persians revised their timeline to cover this conspiracy.
They added a generation of 30 years to the rule of Darius I and tried to compensate for this by removing those years from Neo-Babylonian kings, but only could remove 26 years. As a result, the Bible’s Neo-Babylonian period is 26 years longer than the revised Neo-Babylonian period.
Later on, eventually a total of 82 fake years were added to the Persian period, pushing the 1st of Cyrus back from 455 BCE to 537 BCE.
During the time if Berossus astronomical texts became a problem since they exposed the revisions. The decision was made to destroy these texts. In an effort to preserve some original astronomy, diaries were created in line with the revised timeline wherein “errors” were inserted from the original timeline. Two such diaries with observations from the original timeline are the VAT 4956 and the SK400 (Strm. Kambyses 400). The VAT 4956 dates year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 511 BCE; the SK400 dates year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar to 541 BCE. These two texts, therefore, independently confirm the original timeline dates for year 7 and year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. Of course, those dates confirm year 23 to fall in 525 BCE, dating the 1st of Cyrus, 70 years later, to 455 BCE, the Bible’s date for the 1st of Cyrus.
Apparently after Ptolemy’s cannon was aligned with the revised timeline, it became too challenging to reinstate the original dating, so it was never corrected. Bible scholars have to be very aggressive to follow the Bible and not secular sources which now aggressively push the revised timeline, dating the fall of Jerusalem to the revised date of 587/586 BCE. Learn how to correct the timeline.
Meleti Wow are you Eric Wilson?
It is so nice to see your face!
One and the same. Just tired of hiding.
Wow! You inspire me! I hope one day I can come out of the shadows.
I am so glad that you are doing videos now. I am going to binge watch them today.
It is so wonderful that you are living in the full light of day 🙂
Nice to see you Meleti!
Traducción de Google:
Eric … he’s a kind man. Hopefully more brothers could see and read How without personal judgments one can speak, of the error of the teachings of the jw. But everything is personal to them. Thank you Eric for defending the Christ in your heart with gentle genius and deep respect … With Christian love to all the brotherhood
Hello Eric, you have us on tender hooks! I am thoroughly enjoying your VDOs and I think they are a great, ready, and coherent resource to refer others to who may need to consider matters from another perspective. I have read Carl Olofsons Gentile Times Re-Considered and found it very conclusive in upsetting the 1914 date. Even as you explain, this could be overcome by moving the goal posts as the Organisation is quite adept at doing while simultaneously declaring “new light” and what a blessing the new understanding is. And of course blame everyone else for the lack of spiritual insight and faith if they are upset or frustrated at all for having made painful and completely unnecessary life changing decisions due to the dogmatic teaching drummed into them! Nevertheless I am in anticipation of this “scriptural” refutation of the whole prophecy of the gentile times, 607/587-1914 etc. Keep up the good work, may our Father bless you to continue in this very important work.
Excellent Eric! And thanks for penetrating errors in such a kindly way. Whether born into Jehovah’s Witnesses or fleeing into it as I did, I now understand why so many cry ‘foul’ and others ‘apostasy’ while having little to no understanding of what apostasy means. While I remain one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I do fly under the radar as others here do while also taking the blame for the errors since I spent so many years promulgating them to everyone I talked to.
Looking back, I can only thank the more serious and thoughtful Jehovah’s Witness friends for teaching me to overlook the sins of past ignorance. How else can we show our love but patiently acknowledge error and not expect too much from those who will yet be forced face theirs? If we were fools, so should we remain fools in Christ, being willing to die for those we were commanded to love, just as he patterned and modeled for us all.
Yes I did nothing but call Christendom apostate for the first five decades of preaching and teaching, but now that I acknowledge my own apostasy and hypocrisy, I can thank all of you more stalwart ones for enduring and helping the many more who will be needing to learn the true ways of Christ! And that despite the pain and suffering all must endure. I still say to this day that Jehovah’s Witnesses were my best launch pad taking me to the outer limits of spiritual truth.
As Peter so aptly summarized the name of Jesus in our own translation of Acts 4:8-12: “Furthermore, there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.” This will yet be, of course, the biggest correction coming our way when we discover the name “Jesus” actually means “Jehovah is salvation” in more ways than one, that our worship can actually be nullified for overstating Jehovah to the neglect of Jesus’ name. After all, does not a name, from a Hebrew perspective speak more of ones “reputation” or “character” than a mere label? (Ecclesiastes 7:1) And does anything destroy the character of a person more than using that name falsely as stated at Exodus 20:7 and Deuteronomy 5:11?
Consider what Deuteronomy 18:20-22 says: “If any prophet presumptuously speaks a word in my name that I did not command him to speak or . . . speaks in the name of Jehovah and the word is not fulfilled or does not come true.” What should we do? Should we not remember the final words of that chapter? “The prophet spoke it presumptuously. You should not fear him.”
Neither should we fear any such thing more than our final judgment.
How does that refrain go from the old song? “Fear them not oh my beloved….”
Hi Eric and it was the old pink songbook replaced by the 1984 version. The chorus in that one (#27) went this way:
Fear not those who kill the body
But cannot destroy the soul,
Faithful to the end continue,
I will help you reach your goal.
🎶🎹🎺👍
That’s the one, Wick. Thanks!👍👍
Smoldering Wick , your humility gives you the strength to reach the good conclusion, as you, for 3 decades i’ve judged the Christendom to find myself in no better position, it’s like mourning, be angry, be guilty, however we learn to be loving even when our religious friend react with hostility and like Paul who fighted Christ at first we offered our body to Jesus on his own term.
One thing I noticed while considered this debate was the supposed experience of “the seven times in which Nebuchadnezzar was crazed”, which are assumed to be 7 years. One thing Daniel mentions is the length of his hair and fingernails. Only thing is, hair and fingernails, on average, grow at known rates. If he was really in this condition for 7 years, his hair (most certainly) and his nails (very likely) would have been MUCH LONGER. Since they were described as long, but not ridiculously long, the assumption of 7 times being 7 years is dubious.
Assuming that a “time” is a month won’t work either, since a man’s hair might get pretty long in 7 months but not extremely long. Suppose a “time” meant a season of 3 months. That would make 7 times equal to 21 months, or 1 3/4 years. A person’s hair could get very long if it wasn’t cut for almost 2 years.
To me, biology alone argues against Nebuchadnezzar being mad for 7 literal years. If this reasoning is correct, the whole basis on which the anti-type logic is based is out the window.
What an interesting perspective. Thank you Robert!
Just to make it explicit, if Nebuchadnezzar was mad for a period of time much shorter than 7 years, then there was no 2520 days, no year-for-a-day interpretation of this into 2520 years, no 1914, no Last Days in the 20th century, etc.
Now, your premise that it’s doctrinally wrong to begin with is a good approach, and I look forward to seeing what you do with it.
The biggest hurdle to overcome is when there is a debate of interpretations. For each of the three ways of viewing this debate, there are three ways the discussion can get sidetracked:
1. Debates about dates are vulnerable to the move-the-goalposts technique, as you mentioned. Also, the “my date research and my reviews of history and my reasoning on implied evidence is better than yours” gambit.
2. Debates about empirical evidence, likewise. “My interpretation of recent history as proof of empirical evidence is better than yours.” Example. World War I happened in 1914; that’s a fact. One side will say, “see, that’s proof we are in the last days” and the other side will say, “it was a war, what does that have to do with the Bible?”
3. Biblical proofs are fine, up to a point. Yet, Christendom has been unmoved, in general, when it comes to biblical proofs showing their traditional doctrines like hellfire, the Trinity and others are false. It remains to be seen if JWs will be moved by biblical evidence that the seven times/2520 years/1914/Last Days doctrine is false. In theory, people ought to believe sound evidence, but in practice most don’t want to change what they believe. (I know this from experience, because I have tried on several occasions to use biblical proof to convince people that no one is going to heaven, but they wouldn’t listen.)
Eric, you may face the same pushback here, no matter how well crafted your proofs are. Still, I’d love to see what you come up with.
Dear Robert 6512:
Just because you seem well informed, here are some details that get lost in the shuffle when it comes to the 607/1914 debate.
1. Joseph claims that the 70 years of “exile” began in year 23. He indicates in Antiquities 10.9.7 “….the twenty-third of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, he made an expedition against Celesyria; and when he had possessed himself of it, he made war against the Ammonites and Moabites; and when he had brought all these nations under subjection, he fell upon Egypt, in order to overthrow it; and he slew the king that then reigned and set up another; and he took those Jews that were there captives, and led them away to Babylon. And such was the end of the nation of the Hebrews…”
Jehovah’s Witnesses quote from this very reference to confirm that Joseph indicates that 70 years were literal following the fall of Jerusalem. However, notice two things:
a) Josephus says it was year 23, not year 18 that these 70 years began, and
b) It was those who remained down in Egypt that were deported.
These two details the WTS completely wants to sweep under the rug, though they quote from Josephus. In fact, they are quite deceptive in their reference to just who were deported in year 23. Jeremiah 52:30 mentions the last deportation in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II. Note what the “Insight” book says about who got deported in year 23 under “Captivity.”
Insight: “…Some two months later, after the assassination of Gedaliah, the rest of the Jews left behind in Judah fled to Egypt, taking Jeremiah and Baruch along with them. (2Ki 25:8-12, 25, 26; Jer 43:5-7) Some of the Jews also may have fled to other nations round about. Probably from among these nations were the 745 captives, as household heads, exiled five years later when Nebuchadnezzar, as Jehovah’s symbolic club, dashed to pieces the nations bordering Judah. (Jer 51:20; 52:30) Josephus says that five years after the fall of Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar overran Ammon and Moab and then went on down and took vengeance on Egypt.—Jewish Antiquities, X, 181, 182 (ix, 7).”
Note the reference to Josephus, who clearly says those deported in year 23 were from Egypt. Here the WTS deflects from any association with the exile being out of Egypt, since obviously one would presume they would re-enter the land of Judah to get to Babylon, which is precisely what they did. JWs have to emphasize the land was desolated from month 7 the same year Jerusalem fell. But this is misquoting Josephus!!
Note how they say “Probably from among these nations ….” But this backfires on the 70 years of exile since it is not simply the land of Judah that had to be desolated, but the entire land including the northern kingdom!! So even if some did scatter at the time of Gedeliah’s death, the 70-year exile would not have begun until everyone was removed out of the land, which did occur in year 23. But it gets worse!
Jeremiah 44:14 and 28:
14: “And the remnant of Judah who have gone to reside in the land of Egypt will not escape or survive to return to the land of Judah. They will long to return and dwell there, but they will not return, except for a few escapees.’”
28: “Only a few will escape the sword and return from the land of Egypt to the land of Judah. Then all the remnant of Judah who came to the land of Egypt to reside there will know whose word has come true, mine or theirs!”’”
Meaning? Meaning the Bible and Josephus are on the same page. The small remnant of Jews from down in Egypt that “escaped the sword” of Nebuchadnezzar were deported to Babylon via Judah. Usually the war campaigns happened during the summer and fall and the captives wintered in their homeland and were deported on the very last day of the year.
So how is it that someone can translate the Bible and read how a few from Egypt would return to Judea and claim the land remained desolate from year 18 of Nebuchadnezzar II? Plus it is clear that Joseph identifies the deportees in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II. How could the WTS miss this? They didn’t. Instead, they deflected any idea whatsoever that those last deported included Jeremiah and Baruch out of Egypt!!
What does this mean? It means that the last deportation begins the 70 years of exile as well as the 70 years of desolation!! So if you use 537 BCE to date the return, 607 BCE would be year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II, not year 18. Yet see how openly dishonest the WTS is!!
Of note, archaeology confirms that Ashkelon was desolated for 70-80 years following destruction by Babylon and reinhabited during the Persian era. Tyre and Ashkelon were cities that were to follow the destruction of Jerusalem. So the 70-year desolation did occur. The problem is, the revised Babylonian records show only a 44-year period from year 23 to the 1st of Cyrus, rather than a 70-year period. So right up front you have a conflict between the Bible and the secular records that is not noticed when attention is deflected from the “exile” vs “desolation” of the land. But Josephus is quite clear precisely when the 70-year exile began: year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II.
Bottom line, when all is said and done, we date year 1 of Cyrus to 455 BCE, with lots of archaeology supporting that date now, and no archaeology supporting an extended (82 years) Persian period.
Robert, according to wikipedia, human hairs grow in average 6 inches per year, for 2 to 6 years, depending on person’s genetics. Which means that for some persons the hairs don’t grow longer than about 12 inches, no matter how many years they don’t cut it. As I don’t know Nebuchadnezzar’s hair growth genetics and cannot exclude his too long fingernails breaking every now and then, I don’t see biology in any way disproving the 7 years theory.
Dear Robert 65-12:
Just some missed details about the chronology I wanted to share with you.
GEDALIAH: The WTS has Gedaliah dying in month 7, two months after the fall of Jerusalem. However, Gedaliah died the following year in month 7!! Note that he invites those scattered about to come in the harvest “summer fruits.” Jerusalem was destroyed in month 5, already the middle of summer. Did those scattered about return so suddenly after the destruction of Jerusalem? No.
Instead, we do not know when Gedaliah was appointed, but apparently he became familiar enough with the Babylonians to assure those who scattered about that they would not be deported and could come and harvest summer fruits. They gradually returned. This certainly did not happen in less than two months. After their return an assassination plot developed that Gedaliah ignored and he was eventually assassinated in month 7. So teaching that Gedaliah died the same year Jerusalem fell is false. .
The Bible also says Jerusalem fell in year 19, not year 18 of Nebuchadnezzar II. Thus Gedaliah actually died in year 20 of Nebuchadnezzar. But we have more proof Gedaliah died in year 20.
After Gedaliah died, the Jews in Babylon began to mourn and fast over him in the seventh month and also to mourn over the fall of Jerusalem in the fifth month. The the mourning in the fifth and seventh months began the year after Gedaliah died. Thus there is a two-year gap between the fall of Jerusalem and when the fasting in the seventh month began. We learn this from Zechariah 1 and 7.
Zechariah 1 indicates that 70 years after the “denunciation of the cites” occurred in year 2 of Darius the Mede. Zechariah 7 indicates that 70 years of fasting in the fifth and seventh months expired in year 4 of Darius the Mede. So there is a 2-year gap between the fall of Jerusalem and the mourning in the seventh month over Gedaliah. That is consistent with Gedaliah dying in year 20 and being fasted for the following year.
Of note, though, the Jews were still in exile even in the 4th year of Dariuis the Mede. But that’s because the 70 years of desolation and exile did not begin until year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II (Jer. 52:30), which is four years after the fall of Jerusalem! So the Jews had 2 more years of exile to fulfill before being released in the first of Cyrus. This also confirms, of course, that Darius the Mede ruled a full six years over Babylon before abdicating the throne to Cyrus. These six years are part of the years suppressed or removed from the Neo-Babylonian timeline by the Persians when they claimed that “Artaxerxes” was the son of Xerxes, when in fact, Xerxes and Artaxerxes I were the same king.
There were 26 years removed from the Babylonian kings: 2 years for Nebuchadnezzar II (who ruled 45 years vs. 43 years); 16 years for Evil-Merodach (who ruled 18 years vs. 2 years; Antiquities 11:2 “When Evil-Mcrodach was dead, after a reign of eighteen years, Niglissar his son took the government…”); 2 years for Nabonidus (who ruled 19 years vs. 17 years), and 6 years for Darius the Mede (who ruled for 6 years vs. zero years).
Again, once you realize you cannot harmonize the Bible and Josephus with the 70-year exile beginning in year 23, then you are forced to scrap the entire timeline and start over, which will result in removing the 82 fake years from the Persian Period and re-dating the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE.
Of note, though, 1 Chronicles 36 clearly indicates who would spend 70 years in exile…. 20: ” He carried off captive to Babylon those who escaped the sword,i and they became servants to himj and his sons until the kingdom* of Persia began to reign…” Note the reference to those who “escaped the sword” is a reference to the remnant that had been down in Egypt! Thus, again, Josephus and the Bible are in complete harmony with those of the last deportation in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar serving 70 years in exile while the land paid back its sabbaths.
Also note, it is not the “royalty of the Medes” that ends the Neo-Babylonian empire, but the “royalty of Persia.” The Bible makes a big deal out of noting “Darius the Mede” and “Cyrus the Persian” since it would not be when the Medes take over Babylon that the Babylonian empire would end, but when Cyrus the Persian comes to the throne after the six-year rule of Darius the Mede. Of course, we also learn and confirm that Darius the Mede was actually the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar II! So technically, he was a Babylonian king. At the time, a well, Nabonidus was still free at Borsippa and thus still the official king of Babylon. When Cyrus came to the throne, Nabonidus was put under house arrest and the Babylonian empire officially ended.
These are details that are not going to change but are glossed over in the discussion over dating the fall of Jerusalem to 587/586 BCE, which is not the Biblical date for the fall of Babylon.
Thanks for your consideration.