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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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.
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!👍👍
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.
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… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »