Is the Governing Body Knowingly Deceiving Us over 607 B.C.E.? (Part 1)

Comment by Adam on 2019-12-02 19:25:00

When I wondered why certain verses of Matthew 24 were made to say something other than what they actually said, I looked back at the origin of 1914 doctrine, therefore 607, therefore daniel 4; that's when i the wheels fell off for me with the jw's.
The lesson of humility vs pride that was taught to king Nebuchadnezzar is somehow constructed into 2520 years from the fall of Jerusalem to;1914.
It's just not taught in the Bible like that and jw's promised not to continue with type / antitype understandings that are not expressly taught in the Bible anymore, but they continue doing it with this one at least.
The lesson against pride that king Nebuchadnezzar was forced into learning is included in Daniel chapter 4 for good reason because we all have pride in us and it is a thing to keep it on the control for any imperfect human. (I'm not talking about reasonable self esteem) Rom 12:3 "For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but think of yourself with sober judgment, according to the measure of faith God has given you."

Comment by Chet on 2019-12-02 23:39:13

This one issue has been a huge factor in the decline of the Watchtower. When these discrepancies were first pointed out, in the seventies, the organization took on the defensive posture of a cornered wolverine and lashed out with all its might. Carl Olaf Jonsson was sincere and I’m certain that he wS shocked that the Society treated his research the way they did.

While I’m certain that Jonsson only expected that the Watchtower would make some adjustments when they saw his information, the fact is he has played a major role in what I believe will be the ultimate demise of this organization. This information exposed the facade which covered over the fact that the Watchtower’s teaching on chronology was little more than reheated Adventist theories which date back, at least, to William Miller. Just as Miller’s predictions led to a Great Disappointment, the Watchtower recycle of Miller’s notions has proven a massive disappointment to untold numbers of adherents. Many of us, myself included, made poor choices, because of the things we were being taught.

But truth always seeks to be unleashed, and the information circulating these days seems to be putting a dent in the Watchtower’s growth. When you consider all of the lives they have negatively affected, if they simply dwindle in number to total irrelevance, they are getting off easy. Beware roaches, someone has switched on the light.

Comment by new englander on 2019-12-03 06:37:31

An old fella that I used to work with told me one time that figures don't lie but liars can figure.

Comment by LaRhonda T. on 2019-12-03 08:16:21

I personally think that WTBTS realizes they are losing their hold on all but the diehard Witnesses, and even among that group, a lot of them are looking side-eyed at the Society. They are losing their grip and control over the hearts and minds of the rank & file and are trying to do everything they possibly can to maintain control. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Watchtower doesn't go the way of the "Shakers" and become an obscure group of religious curiosities briefly mentioned in history books or used as psychological studies to show what happens to people who are pulled into. high-control groups.

Comment by Leonardo Josephus on 2019-12-03 10:37:09

Hi Eric. I do hope I am not going ahead of you. May I say thanks for the work you have clearly put in, and the interesting account you have referred us to, the adad-guppi text.

If what I am including clashes with what you are covering in part 2, let me know and I will undo it and remove my comment. It is just that it was a fine opportunity to bring in part of my little bit of research :

FROM THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAH

There are two references in the book of Zechariah, both of which mention 70 years and both of which point to 587/6 BCE as the date for the fall of Jerusalem.

For reasons unknown, few commentators, and certainly not the Watchtower, take these verses into account. Yet for evidence from the Bible itself, there is little better.

1:12 " Oh Jehovah of armies how long will you withhold your mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with whom you have been indignant these 70 years".

These words (See verse 20) were written in the 2nd year of Darius, who began to rule in 520 BCE, which means they were written in 519 BCE. So 70 years back points to 589 BCE, which marks the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Jerusalem.

7:5 "When you fasted and wailed in the fifth month and the seventh month for 70 years, did you really fast for me ".

These words were written in the fourth year of King Darius, which means they were written in 517 BCE, So 70 years back takes us to 587 BCE. What happened in the fifth month ? That was the destruction of Jerusalem. (see 2 Kings 25:8) What happened in the seventh month ? Gedaliah, appointed to look after the Jews, was assassinated. (see 2 Kings 25:25).
What does the Organisation have to say about these two verses.

From the Awake (1972 5/8 page27)
21 Furthermore, the land of Judah was to keep a “sabbath, to fulfill seventy years.” (2 Chronicles 36:21) How? By lying as a “desolate waste without man and domestic animal,” it having been “given into the hand of the Chaldeans.” (Jeremiah 32:43; 33:10-12) Both the prophet Zechariah and the angels knew that those seventy years of utter desolation of the land of Judah and Jerusalem without man and domestic animal had ended in the year 537 B.C.E. when the Jewish remnant returned from Babylon and reoccupied the land, they being reported back in their cities in the seventh month (Tishri) of that year. (Ezra 3:1, 2) Instead of its lying as a desolate waste any longer, crops began to be raised in the land, as the prophet Haggai reports seventeen years later. (Haggai 1:6-11; 2:16, 17) So those seventy years were long past!
22 If, at the time of Zechariah’s first vision, those seventy years were still continuing or were just now over, why would the angel, knowing what he did, speak as he did? Since he knew that the time period was definitely seventy years long, why would he say: “O Jehovah of armies, how long?” (Zechariah 1:12) Why, away back in the first year of Darius the Mede after the overthrow of Babylon in 539 B.C.E., the prophet Daniel “discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years.” (Daniel 9:1, 2) And certainly Daniel verified the number of years, not seventeen long years before they were due to end, but immediately before the end of the seventy years in the first year of the reign of King Cyrus the Persian. Thus the aged prophet Daniel, who lived at least into “the third year of Cyrus the king of Persia,” could know that he had calculated the length of the time period correctly. (Daniel 10:1) Hence those “seventy years” did not extend to the time when Zechariah got his first vision, in 519 B.C.E.

And from the Aid book (p 567)
Additional evidence is provided in the book of Zechariah. We read: “When you fasted and there was a wailing in the fifth month and in the seventh month, and this for seventy years, did you really fast to me, even me?” (Zech. 7:5; 1:12) The way this question is framed, with reference to specific months, certainly indicates that a period of seventy literal years was involved.
That the Jews in ancient times understood the seventy years as being literal and involving a total devastation of the land is apparent from the works of Josephus, a Jewish historian. In his Antiquities of the Jews, Book X, chap. 9, par. 7, he tells that “all Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years.”

The quote from Josephus is not the only quotation from his writings, but others are not commented on. His writings in Against Apion I,19, 21 state :-

19. When it so happened that our city was desolate, during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus, King of Persia.”
21. These accounts agree with the true histories in our books. For in them it is written, that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, (16) laid our temple desolate; and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years. But that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus, its foundations were laid; and it was finished again in the second year of Darius.

Thus, evidence is available, but ignored. The evidence from Zechariah is downgraded and then ignored. Why ? Because 1914 is a sacred cow that cannot be disturbed. 1914 goes back to Nelson Barbour's writings, which Russell accepted . Nowhere does Barbour explain his interpretations of Jeremiah's words and those of Zechariah. He brings in 70 years from Daniel, puts it on the table and basically says there is nothing else.

It is a shame WW1 started in 1914.

Love to all, and happy picketing, or rather just keep up the excellent research

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-12-03 13:23:46

  Thank you for including those facts into our discussion. You're quite right to call the 1914 doctrine a sacred cow of the organization.

• Reply by Theextremebiblicist on 2019-12-04 01:27:54

  Interesting note. But the "Darius" in reference by Zechariah 1 and 7 is not Daritu I, but Darius the Mede. The Jews, as you noted are still in exile!!
  
  The 70-year exile per Josephus and the Bible, begins with the last deportation of the remnant of those who had run down to Egypt. (Jer. 44:14,28) Thus the 70 years began in year 23, 4 years after the fall of Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year. So when 70 years expired following the "denunciation of the cities," meaning the destruction of Jerusalem, it was the 2nd year of Darius the Mede. Gedeliah didn't die until year 20 and the Jews began to mourn over him in the seventh month the following year. Thus there is a 2-year gap from the fall of Jerusalem and the mourning in the fifth and seventh months. The Jews thought perhaps the 70 years would end at this time based on their mourning. But that was not the case. They were still in exile. Even so, they were not supposed to come out of exile until 2 years later in year 6th of Darius the Mede.
  
  That means the exile and thus the end of the Neo-Babylonian Period did not end when Darius the Mede conquered Babylon and became king. It would end six years later when Cyrus became king over Persia. When Darius the Mede conquered Babylon, Nabonidus was still at-large at Borsippa. Nabonidus was the official king of Babylon. Furthermore, Darius the Mede was the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar II!!! So technically, he was a legitimate Babylonian king.
  
  That's why 2 Chronicles 36 is very specific when the Neo-Babylonian Period would end when the "royalty of PERSIA" begins to reign. The royalty of Persia began to reign six years after the royalty of the Medes. That's why the Bible calls Darius, "Darius the MEDE" and Cyrus, "Cyrus the PERSIAN."
  
  2 Chron. 36:20 "He carried off captive to Babylon those who escaped the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the royalty of PERSIA began to reign..."
  
  The royalty of "Persia" is not the same as the royalty of the "Medes." So the Neo-Babylonian kingdom continued under the sons of Nebuchadnezzar II, including Darius the Mede! This lasted for six years, then Cyrus came to the throne. This context does not fit 70-year references during the reign of Darius I. The Jews were still in exile in the 4th year of Darius the Mede and would continue in exile until his sixth year.
  
  When the Neo-Babylonian Period was revised, the entire six-year rule of Darius the Mede was removed since he and Cyrus conquered Babylon together.

Comment by rudytokarz on 2019-12-03 11:53:04

Thanks for this article as it is one of the main cogs in the WT wheel; just look over this week's study article. Some other simple scriptures to note is Jeremiah 29:1-10 where Jeremiah writes to the exiles as their 70 years had already started! I asked an elder about this and he said that he would research it and get back to me but no response after months have passed.
It seems that these (and many other) teachings will be held on to which is no different than any other religion's and their doctrinal teachings. As Ray Franz said: 'Followers of followers'. And because of that, I have no particular harsh feelings towards any of those who continue to promote WT and their doctrines.
As a PIMO, 3rd generation, 10+year ex-elder, I am going to have to make some tough decisions...

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2019-12-03 13:35:13

  That pretty much sums it up, doesn't it? I've said before that if they had just accepted the 587 B.C.E. date, they could have strengthened the hold on the flock. (I'm speaking with the voice of a false prophet looking to increase his flock.) 587 would have given them 1934 as a starting point. By then they had accepted the name, Jehovah's Witnesses. By then they had identified the Other Sheep. By then, they had dropped Christmas celebrations and the cross was no longer on the magazine cover. So they had a stronger claim to having freed themselves from Babylonish contamination. (I'm speaking as a die-hard witness.) Additionally, Hitler had just come to power, so they could point to their erroneous belief that Satan was thrown out of heaven in 1934 and had great anger so he worked to cause the second world war. (That doesn't work with 1914 since he was thrown down in October and the war was already underway by then.) Oh, and on top of all that, they could start the generation count from 1934 meaning that they could still be pushing the old interpretation even now. But of course, they couldn't do anything that practical because they have to fulfill the words of Proverbs 4:19: "The road of the wicked, however, is dark as night. They fall, but cannot see what they have stumbled over." (Good News Bible)

  • Reply by Theextremebiblicist on 2019-12-04 02:15:06

    Question? How long did Nebuchadnezzar II rule? The business documents say he ruled for 43 years. But the Bible says he ruled for 45 years. How so?
    
    Because Jehoichin was deported on the very last day of the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar II. (2 Kings 24:12) That means the 1st year of Zedekiah began on the 1st day of the 9th year of Nebuchadnezzar. Thus there was an 8-year difference in their reigns. This is confirmed later when the fall of Jerusalem occurs in the 11th year of Zedekiah and the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar II.
    
    But this also means the exile of Jehoiachin had the same ratio. That is, his exile technically began on the 1st day of the 9th year of Nebuchadnezzar II. In that case, when he was released when Evil-Merodach became king in his 37th year of exile, it would have been the 45th rather than the 43rd year of Nebuchadnezzar II. So there is a 2-year discrepancy between the bible and the current secular timeline.
    
    Question? How long did Darius the Mede rule? The 70-year exile began in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II (Jer. 52:30). That is 4 years after the fall of Jerusalem. Zechariah 1 indicates that 70 years after the fall of Jerusalem occurred in year 2 of Darius. Zechariah 7 indicates that 70 years after the mourning over Gedeliah expired in the 4th year of Dariuis. This means that Gedeliah was killed in the 7th month of year 20, a year after the fall of Jerusalem, unlike what JWs claim that he died that same year. Then he began to be mourned the following year. Thus there is a 2-year gap between the mourning in the seventh month over Gedaliah and the destruction of Jerusalem. Even so, the 70 years were not to expire until 74 years after the fall of Jerusalem. So the Jews were still in exile until the sixth year of Darius. Thus this is a reference to Darius the Mede and not Darius I, as some get confused.
    
    Of course, this means Darius the Mede ruled for six full years before Cyrus came to the throne. But this is no problem with when the Jews come out of exile per 2 Chronicles 36, since it indicates that it was not until the "royalty of PERSIA" would come to the throne that the Jews would be released. When Darius the Mede took over Babylon he did so as a legitimate Babylonian king since he was the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar II! Besides, Nabonidus had not been captured yet. So the Jews were still in exile for another six years after the fall of Babylon. Then Darius the Mede abdicated to Cyrus after his sixth year and Cyrus then released the peoples to go back to their homelands and start rebuilding.
    
    The 6-year rule of Darius the Mede is not reflected in the current revised Neo-Babylonian timeline. As I mentioned earlier, Josephus claims that Evil-Merodach ruled for 18 years and not just 2 years.
    
    Meaning what? Meaning Josephus understood the timeline was revised and he is giving us hints about how long Evil-Merodach actually ruled. Note if we add 2 years for Nebuchadnezzar II, 6 years for Darius the Mede and 16 years for Evil-Merodach, we will have restored 24 out of the 25 years the Neo-Babylonian Period was clearly reduced.
    
    I appreciate your commentary and your research, but you must understand that the Neo-Babylonian timeline is completely bogus. The 1st of Cyrus actually occurred in 455 BCE. There is now critical archaeological evidence supporting this. Case in point, radiocarbon-14 dating from Rehov City IV.
    
    Archaeologists have gotten good at dating things using radiocarbon-14 dating. If they find some stored grains at a destructive level, they can date that event to within a year. That is what happened with Rehov City IV. They found some stored grains that they dated to 871 BCE. Other archaeology dates the end of the Philistine pottery period to 950 BCE. If we date David's rule from 950-910 BCE and Solomon's rule from 910-870 BCE, then the fall of Rehov would occur in year 39 of Solomon. That would be the year Shishak invaded Israel.
    
    Based on that alone, year 4 of Solomon would fall in 906 BCE and the Exodus would have an "absolute date" of 1386 BCE (906 + 480 = 1386 BCE). In that case, the return from Babylon, which occurs 19 jubilees later (19 x 49 = 931) should be dated to 455 BCE. 19 jubilees is 931 years; 1386 minus 931 is 455 BCE. Is that a coincidence?
    
    Furthermore, Kathleen Kenyon in her "Digging Up Jericho" clearly states that the fall of Jericho by the Israelites should be dated to 1350-1325 BCE.
    
    Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up Jericho, Jericho and the Coming of the
    Israelites, page 262:
    
    "As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all
    that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my
    view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a
    date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry
    of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which
    prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."
    
    Based on this, the Exodus should happen 40 years earlier between 1390-1365 BCE; which it does if it occurred in 1386 BCE. Meaning that ALL the archaeology from the LBA and Iron age completely set the Exodus date to 1386 BCE and thus the return from Babylon must be dated to 455 BCE. At least that's the premise for dating the return to 455 BCE.
    
    Once we get here, we are faced with closely looking at the Persian Period. Martin Anstey in his "Romance of Bible Chronology" (1913)dated the return from Babylon to 455 BCE since it was clear to him that the "70 weeks" prophecy could only begin when the Jews first began to rebuild Jerusalem. He then asserted that the Persian period was 82 years too long, pushing the 1st of Cyrus back from 455 BCE to 537 BCE.
    
    But having arrived here facing the artificial expansion of the Persian Period, once we actually look at the archaeology of the Persian Period, it confirms the expansion quite quickly.
    
    For instance, PERSEPOLIS. Darius I began that city in his 4th year, confirmed by business documents. But he could only finish his palace. A palace at Babylon was completed in 2 years. He didn't finish any other buildings at Persepolis, forcing his son Xerxes to finish the compound. Secular history claims Darius I ruled for 36 years. So why didn't he finish the city. On the other hand, the Bible at Ezra 6:14,15 claims that he died in his sixth year, the same year the temple was completed by his son, "Artaxerxes"/Xerxes. So the archaeology at Persepolis confirms Darius I died early in his rule in his sixth year.
    
    This, of course, brings up another critical issue. Trusting archaeologists. We can't, obviously. Not that an archaeologist feels obligated to correct history. They don't. They are the first to claim "We are not historians." So if they see something in conflict and it is not popular for them to correct or it will open up a can of worms, they don't say anything. It's not that they don't notice.
    
    So now we have every reason not to trust either the WTS or secular historians who are corrupt and dishonest. in the meantime, archaeologists have painted themselves into a corner as far as dating the Exodus, which also means they have painted themselves into a corner as far as the date of the return.
    
    So it now boils down to this. If anyone doesn't date the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE, they are misrepresenting true Biblical and secular history.
    
    I suggest you critically look at the problems of "Bible vs secular" in regards to the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE.
    
    Ask all the questions you want. "Make sure of all things." Otherwise, you wouldn't want to be labeled as a "false prophet" and not representing the Bible, right? The BIBLE is what is important, not secular history.
    
    You made a statement about how the Bible requires us to use secular sources and that there are no dates in the Bible. Well, every single event in the Bible is dated together, from the creation of Adam to the Exodus to the baptism of Christ. Lots of revisionism took place prior to the 1st Century. So you can use the baptism of Christ in 29 CE to establish the entire timeline back to Adam. But that includes dating the 1st of Cyrus correctly to 455 BCE.
    
    On a positive note, of course, if the 1st of Cyrus did occur in 455 BCE and not 538 BCE, then 607 BCE is such a total farce! But so is 586 BCE!

  • Reply by Theextremebiblicist on 2019-12-04 02:29:39

    The strength of the 587 BCE chronology is in all the business documents and the astronomical text called the VAT4956.
    
    But as I noted before, those documents don't contradict an expansion of the Neo-Babylonian Period by 20 years. They would contradict a reduction in the period, but not an expansion. In other words, there are some 26 years of missing texts. That is, there must be a 70-year period of complete desolation of the land and exile of the people beginning in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II (Jer. 52:30). When the return is dated to 537 BCE, the Neo-Babylonian Period is 26 years too short. So if suddenly 26 years of missing Babylonian texts showed up, we would just add them to the current documents we already still have. So those documents don't really contradict anything. Yet they are seen as a strong piece of evidence against the expanded timeline, when it really isn't once you begin to look at revisionism.
    
    The VAT4956 is a text from the Seleucid Period with over 100 references to 568 BCE for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II. But in reality, it was a text that was created to hide references to the original dating of 511 BCE. Once the timeline was revised, during the time of Berossus, all the astronomical texts from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II came into focus. These texts contradicted the revised timeline. So they had to be destroyed. That panic over losing these original references to the original timeline likely caused some Jewish astronomers to find a way to preserve some reference to the original timeline. They came up with the idea of a "diary" wherein there would be over 100 references to the revised timeline. But this also gave them a safe place to "hide in plain sight" references from the original timeline.
    
    So the VAT4956 has two errors in it, each a day off, which makes the errors suspicious of being intentional. The first error is in Line 3 where the Moon is 1 cubit in front of the Rear Foot of the Lion (GIR ar sa UR-A) on the 9th of Nisan. Noted already to be a day too early, an "error for the 8th." But in Line 14 another one-day error was noted where the Moon was 1 cubit in front of the Bright Star Behind the Lion's Foot (MUL KUR sa TIL GIR UR-A). Two "scribal errors" exactly a day too early and in the same place in the zodiac. We have no choice but to presume these are not errors but intention.
    
    When we check further, we find these positions belong to the same lunar cycle in 511 BCE. So are the creators of the VAT4956 trying to say that 568 BCE is a fake date and that 511 BCE is the original date for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II? Is 511 BCE a relevant date to any other chronology? Well when you date year 37 to 511 BCE, then year 23 falls in 525 BCE. That's the year the Jews were supposed to begin their 70-year exile, which would mean the exile should end in 455 BCE. Now is that a coincidence? or a confirmation? So it's over.
    
    Once you know the VAT4956 was created to hide references from the original timeline, then we have no choice but to date year 37 back to 511 BCE. When we do, it harmonizes with the 1st of Cyrus occurring in 455 BCE.
    
    Of course, as noted, once you date the return in 455 BCE, then you get a confirmation from the archaeology from Jericho and the archaeology out of Israel, including radiocarbon-14 dating confirming this specific timeline and proving the Bible's history and timeline are extremely accurate with science.
    
    I hope this has been helpful. Please let me know if you need further references. Thanks for discussing this important topic.

Comment by Jerome on 2019-12-03 13:33:25

In May of 2017 I composed a letter to the society’s writing department requesting guidance. I raised a number of questions about the validity of the society’s teaching that Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon in 607 BCE. Thorough research done in the society’s publications raised even more questions in my mind along with the possibility that this date, which not only is not supported by any historian, was not even in harmony with the scriptures. Since then, although no response has been received from the society, I have been encouraged by the local elders to wait “silently” upon Jehovah.
It would be one thing if I were the first person to bring this matter to the attention of the governing body. In that case, we are only talking of waiting two and a half years or so for them to come to grips with a very difficult and sensitive issue. Yet I am not the first.
In April 1963, an elder in Victoria Australia by the name of Max Hatton raised questions similar to mine. He writes:
“I know that it [the society] knows of the problems associated with its chronology for I sought their help on these matters from as far back as 1962. In a letter addressed to their Brooklyn headquarters in USA dated June 10, 1962 I sought help on many questions including:
Why 539 B.C. is an absolute date and 587 B.C. (or 586 B.C.) is not. Also, why not date the
desolation from 587 B.C. to 517 B.C. (or 586-516 B.C.) in lieu of 607 B.C.-537 B.C.? The very disappointing reply only endeavoured to confirm the 539 B.C., date and sought to confirm the Watch Tower chronology by the signs which are said to exist from 1914 A.D. On April 12, 1963 I wrote a rather detailed letter drawing attention to, among other things, the Astronomical tablet dated to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar and to the fact that there is no evidence from the Babylonian cuneiform tablets to support the extra 20 years the Society injects into Babylonian history.” (Max Hatton “Jehovah’s Witnesses and Their Mythical 1914 pg. 13-14)
One month later he received a reply assuring him that the society will have more to say on matters of chronology in future publications. Brother Hatton states:
“My confidence in the Watch Tower Society being God’s Channel of Communication was
greatly shaken to say the least. Some of my friends and associates tried to assure me that if
the Society didn’t have the answers to my questions now, they would one day be revealed in
Jehovah’s due time. It was evident to me that if you accept this delusive reasoning, which
was fostered by the Society, it could never be wrong - Jehovah will sort it out for you one
day.” (1914 The Touchstone of the Watchtower pg. 3)

In December 1977, questions similar to these were sent to the governing body by an elder in Sweden by the name of Carl Olof Jonsson in a treatise entitled: “The Gentile Times”. Although one month later he received acknowledgment that it had been received and that his views would be examined by responsible brothers, that treatise went unanswered by the society and later became the basis for Jonsson’s book entitled: “The Gentile Times Reconsidered”.
This footnote appears on page 283 of his book:
Several years before the treatise was sent to the Brooklyn headquarters, some
members on the writing staff had begun to see the weakness of the prophetic
interpretations attached to the 1914 date. These included Edward Dunlap, former
Registrar of Gilead School, and Governing Body member Raymond Franz. These
researchers, therefore, could agree with the conclusion that the 607 B.C.E. date
for the destruction of Jerusalem is chronologically insupportable. Some others on
the writing staff, too, who read the treatise, came to realize that the 607 B.C.E.
date lacked support in history and began to feel serious doubts about the date.
(The writing staff at that time included about 18 members.) Even Governing Body
member Lyman Swingle expressed himself before the other Body members to the
effect that the Watch Tower organization got their 1914 date (which depends on
the 607 B.C.E. date) from the Second Adventists “lock, stock and barrel.” However,
the attempts by Raymond Franz and Lyman Swingle to bring up the evidence for
discussion on the Governing Body met unfavorable response. The other members
on the Body did not see fit to discuss the subject, but decided to continue to
advocate the 1914 date.—See Raymond Franz, Crisis of Conscience (Atlanta:
Commentary Press, 1983 and later editions), pp. 140–143, 214–216.
(The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chapter 7 “Attempts of Overcome the Evidence” pg. 283)

Would you consider 50 years enough time for the society to provide evidence in support of its claims?

However, to fully appreciate the gravity of the situation, we have to go all the way back to the founder of the Watch Tower Society.

This question was published in Zion’s Watchtower 1904:

Author of Millennial Dawn and Editor of Zion’s WatchTower :—
Dear Sir,— Since you have changed your views respecting Gentile Times let me suggest the possibility of still another error. You count the seventy years Babylonian captivity of the Jews as beginning with the overthrow of Zedekiah, Judah’s last king, but I notice that “ Bishop Usher’s Chronology,” given in the margins of our Common Version Bibles and based on “ Ptolemy’s Canon,” begins that seventy-year period nineteen years earlier—namely, in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, when he took captive Daniel and other prominent Jews and laid the Jews’ country under tribute. Now if this, the common reckoning, be correct, it would make the Times of the Gentiles to begin nineteen years later than you estimate, namely, in B. C. 587, instead of B. C. 606;— and this in turn would make those times end nineteen years later than you have reckoned,—in October, A. D. 1933, instead of October, 1914. What do you say
to this? Are you humble enough to acknowledge that I have struck some new light, and that you and all Dawn readers have been “ all wrong,” walking in darkness ?

Quoting from Millenial Dawn, Vol II C. T. Russell replied:

“On page 52 of the same volume we said: “ Usher dates the seventy years’ desolation eighteen years earlier than is shown above— that is, before the dethronement of Zedekiah, Judah’s last king—because the king of Babylon took many of the people captive at that time. (2 Chron. 36:9, 10, 21; 2 Kings 24:8-16) He evidently makes the not uncommon mistake of regarding those seventy years as the period of captivity, whereas the Lord expressly declares them to be seventy years of desolation of the land, that the land should lie ‘desolate, without an inhabitant.’ (Dan. 9:2, Jer. 26:9) Such was not the case prior to Zedekiah’s dethronement. (2 Kings 24:14) But the desolation which followed Zedekiah’s overthrow was complete; for, though some of the poor of the land were left to be vine-dressers and husbandmen (2 Kings 25:12), shortly even these— ‘all people, both small and great’—fled to Egypt for fear of the Chaldees. (Verse 26) There can be no doubt here; and therefore in reckoning the time to the desolation of the land, all periods up to the close of Zedekiah’s reign should be counted in, as we have done.”
From the foregoing it is evident that at the time of writing Dawn II. we were fully aware that “ Ptolemy’s Canon” and “ Usher’s Chronology” cut short the “ seventy years” “ desolation of the land,” and counted them as but fifty-one years, Usher endeavoring to make the Bible account agree with “ Ptolemy’s Canon.” We, however, have followed the Bible record exactly and persistently, and took secular history only where Bible history ended. We cannot make seventy years’ desolation of the land into fifty-one years’ desolation for the sake of harmony with Ptolemy. (Dan. 9 :2; 2 Chron. 36:21) Indeed we reject all of Ptolemy’s Canon back of the first year of Cyrus, 536 A. D.—the farther back it goes, the greater its errors. (Zion’s Watchtower October 1, 1904 pgs. 295-296)

Although it took me a long time to arrive at the conclusion, because of learning these things, I now have to say Eric, that I believe the answer to your question is yes, the governing body is knowingly deceiving millions over 607 BCE.

Comment by Theextremebiblicist on 2019-12-04 01:16:13

I hope you don't mind a couple of quick observations about this information.

1. First, emphasizing how many clay tablets there are supposing a 50-year period from 587-537 BCE vs a 70-year period from 607-537 BCE is irrelevant. It would be different if JWs were saying that this period was only 30 years rather than 50 years. In that case, the documents would clearly contradict the evidence. But as it stands, all those documents will still be part of an expanded 70-year period. So what we're looking at is a lot of missing documents being destroyed. So did the Neo-Babylonians or some later empire like the Persians try to reduce the Neo-Babylonian Period is the question. Thousands of documents from the remaining years support the reduced timeline, but don't contradict it. Does that make sense? So our question is, "Where are the missing documents?" Is there any evidence of revisionism?

2. Adding to the problem is Josephus. Josephus claims that Evil-Merodach ruled for 18 years rather than just 2 years. Antiquities 10.11.2 says: " When Evil-Mcrodach was dead, after a reign of eighteen years, Niglissar his son took the government,..."

3. Another problem with Josephus is when he is claiming the 70 years were to begin. He claims the 70 years began in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II. This fits the Bible's reference for the last deportation occurring in year 23 at Jeremiah 52:30. JWs quote from Josephus about these 70 years, but ignore the fact that Josephus begins the 70 years in year 23 and not year 18 or 19. Antiquities 10.9.7 "[In] 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... by which means all Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years."

So you have a "secular" source claiming the 70-year exile began in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II, ending the 1st of Cyrus. But JWs quoting Jospheus about these 70 years but claiming the 70 years should be counted from year 18. Josephus confirms this again in Antiquities 11:1:1:

"1. IN the first year of the reign of Cyrus which was the seventieth from the day that our people were removed out of their own land into Babylon, God commiserated the captivity and calamity of these poor people, according as he had foretold to them by Jeremiah the prophet, before the destruction of the city, that after they had served Nebuchadnezzar and his posterity, and after they had undergone that servitude seventy years, he would restore them again to the land of their fathers, and they should build their temple, and enjoy their ancient prosperity. "

This brings up two issues:

1) Josephus is contradicting the current popular timeline by claiming a period of 70 years from year 23 down to the 1st of Cyrus. How do we resolve this? and

2) How does Josephus compare to the Bible with this claim?

First, Jeremiah 44:14 and 28 clearly state that the remnant of the Jews who ran down to Egypt would return to Jerusalem.

44:14 "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.’”

44:28 "Only a few will escape the sword and return from the land of Egypt to the land of Judah.g 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!”’”

So per the Bible, a small remnant out of Egypt who "escaped the sword" would return to Jerusalem. Thus there were people in Jerusalem in year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II. Per Babylonian custom, those captured would winter in the land and then be deported on the very last day of the year. So there is nothing contradicting Josephus' claim that those deported in year 23 were the remnant who had returned from Egypt. This is by no means what the WTS teaches! They teach the land was completely desolated after year 18 and the fall of Jerusalem that year.

But the Bible directly supports Josephus at 2 Chronicles 36:20 where it says, specifically:

"He carried off captive to Babylon those WHO ESCAPED THE SWORD, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia began to reign, 21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill 70 years."

So per the Bible, it was indeed those who "escaped the sword" out of Egypt who were to spend 70 years in exile beginning year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II. That being the case, if we date the 19th year in 586 BCE, then year 23 would fall in 582 BCE. 70 years later would fall in 512 BCE, not 537 BCE. That's a difference of 25 years!

So the Bible and Josephus have one take on when these 70 years occurred and the current secular dating has another. Now the question is, are we going to follow the Bible and Josephus? Or apparently revised secular history?

What has to be addressed is the Biblical contradiction of the reduced Neo-Babylonian Period as well as the history of Josephus. Why is the Bible and Josephus claiming there were 70 years from year 23 down to the 1st of Cyrus?

• Reply by Leonardo Josephus on 2019-12-05 04:42:17

  HI Ex,
  
  You have put a lot of stuff out there, but it did not seem like a discussion, as there were too many parts built on others. Josephus was a historian, but he is only as reliable as the information and ideas available to him.
  Some of your thoughts need to be considered one at a time, and I do not think there is one I would want to pick on to start with. I will leave that to Eric, if he wishes to do so, but it is too much for me.
  Throwing Cyrus out to 455 BCE, means ignoring Ptolemy completely. That is an interesting line, but it means we would have to review everything again. If we did, the only thing that would change is the date for the destruction of Jerusalem and 1914. I have no problem if that is the case, but I really did not get to grips with your evidence.
  As bible students here, we are attempting to harmonise the Bible . We have to rely often on experts in other fields. But whatever actual date we have for the events connected with the fall of Jerusalem, they can be harmonised with scripture, partly because we are using the pivotal date of 539 BCE, right or wrong does not matter. If we move that date , we have to move the lot. No lack of harmony with the scriptures follows. Only 1914 goes even further out, as would, then, 587 and 607.

Comment by Gogetter on 2019-12-05 06:23:28

Greetings to All,
Wow this is some very deep information and from the looks of it we have some very scholarly people here. Thank you for this, but I respectfully ask for those of us who are having a difficult time following this, this someone please attempt to do the following,

1-Please give a brief summary of what all this research means other than disproving the JW 1914 doctrine ( which Eric has pretty much already accomplished in this article) I think it is apparent to most that the 1914 doctrine due to the fact of where we are in the stream of time ( and a myriad of other facts) has been debunked by default.

2- Tell us why this should be important to Christians today and did Jehovah expect all sincere Bible students to be able to figure this out on their own, or only reveal it to those who are the learned scholarly ones that will then instruct the rest of us.
The problem is with the latter, There are so many pieces to this historical puzzle
and even with this small group here it’s impossible to put this together, at least for me.

Thank you in advance, if you could help with this.

• Reply by Leonardo Josephus on 2019-12-05 08:54:52

  Hi Gogetter
  I have no intention of answering for anyone else, but I will summarise my bits, if you happen to be referring to any of these. Some of the other comments are too wild.
  1. Zechariah's two references to 70 years at 1:12 and 7:5 calculate back to the start of the seige of Jerusalem in 589 BCE and the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE, with some reference to Gedaliah's assassination. Whatever date we make Darius' 2nd and 4th year does not change the fact that the siege and fall were 70 years before those dates.
  2. I believe the length of time up to the Jubilee (50th year), is what is meant at 2 Chronicles 36:21.
  (Jeremiah 25:11 refers to servitude to Babylon, and not the destruction).
  
  3. If 539 BCE is not correct as a pivotal date for the end of fall of Babylon and the start of Cyrus reign, then all the dates calculated by historians will probably be wrong,
  
  Therefore the Bible is consistent with known history and the date scholars have already come up with for the fall of Jerusalem.
  Not sure if that is what you want. It struck me as a a bit of a repetition.

• Reply by Tadua on 2019-12-07 10:44:11

  Hi Gogetter
  I totally agree with you that it is heavy going for most.
  Rest assured there is a short pointed summary of the main points to come.

Comment by Stille Getuigen on 2019-12-06 15:56:15

I just want to thank Eric and all the others making meaningful observations and articles like this one. Me and my wive haven't been to any meeting or other activity for about a half year now. I suppose they soon will be knocking on our door........
Greetings from Belgium to you all!

Comment by Atromitos on 2019-12-07 06:03:33

I'm so grateful for the work this group does. The process of waking up to the lies is traumatic and so many are propelled towards atheism and complete loss of faith. Thanks to you, I've been able to keep my faith in God, Christ and the scriptures. Trust is difficult, but your generous and open sharing of research, and entreaty to check, check, check, creates a study environment that's reassuring and genuinely refreshing.

Comment by Tadua on 2019-12-07 10:50:01

Hi Just asking
Thank you very much for this comment. I agree with all of your points. They are also nicely and clearly presented, and are a very good summary of how the Organization has misapplied scripture to their own ends and what they deserve as a result for misleading millions of Witnesses over the years, including myself.
Once again, many thanks, this is sure to benefit many readers.

Comment by Frankie on 2019-12-07 16:21:35

Thank you Eric for excellent reasoning as to pharisaic hypocrisy of WTS. But I'd like to share my views on reasoning about the 607 and 1914.

Battle of 1914
-------------------
I agree that in case that the year 1914 calculation is incorrect, the entire credibility of Org would fall because it is based on that year. Therefore, WTS is so convulsive on this date and uses, among other things, questionable secular information (archaeological and historical) to confirm it - but it is wrong, because the Bible explains itself.

Some brothers show us that the WTS calculation for 1914 is incorrect. They use remarkable knowledge of the Bible, archeology and history in a sophisticated way. At the same time, they point to Organisation's misinterpretation of 1914, which is disprovable by the Bible itself (and that is crucial). It is hard work, enriching the research types of brothers / sisters who can effectively use such arguments. I am grateful for that to you Eric, to Tadua and to others.

However, many brothers and sisters may "drown" in the presented reasoning. It would be difficult for them to use it in a conversation, if someone starts to claim that the Bible has determined the date of an event (this is not just about Org, but also about other, predominantly protestant denominations).

How to face such calculations in this case?
---------------------------------------------------
It is then most effective to use the Bible itself, regardless of whether the 1914 calculation is incorrect or correct. Jesus clearly tells us not to deal with various time calculations and forecasts of events or periods as to when they should occur. This is not our business at all and therefore it is not important for us:

"He said to them, "IT IS NOT FOR YOU to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority." (Acts 1:7).

What is really important is what our Lord said in the following verse (as opposed to the previous verse):
"BUT you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and YOU WLL BE MY WITNESSES in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." (Acts 1:8)

And elsewhere our Lord reminds us:
"But concerning that day and hour NO ONE KNOWS, not even the angels of heaven, NOR THE SON, but the Father only." (Matt 24:36)

Thus, trying to calculate exactly when Jesus will come a second time, from when there will be a period of great tribulation, how long the events of the fall of the Great Babylon will last, whether this or that will last longer or "it's just around the corner" - all of this is:
- evident violation of Jesus' command (Acts 1: 7)
- shameless and futile effort to know more than our Lord (Matthew 24:36).

If someone comes to me with such "times" or the length of a "seasons", I just tell them:
"Neither you nor I know anything about it. Please, read the Acts 1: 7 and Mat. 24:36. It's not our business to deal with it. But there are far more important things that our Lord expects from us". And I can continue to talk about important topic of my choice.

Love to all picketers. Frankie

Comment by Frankie on 2019-12-07 16:49:19

Hello Just Asking
I appreciate your comment very much. This is very good summary of main Org's misinterpretations. I copied it to my laptop and I'm going to use it as brief manual in my "battles” of 1914. Thank you again.
Frankie

Comment by Frankie on 2019-12-08 06:52:40

Hi Just Asking

My view of Daniel 4: 16,23,25,32 (based on interlinear translations, Biblehub, and my own understanding of context) are as follows.

The word "times" - "Iddanun", Strong's Hebrew 5732 - is found only in the above verses meaning "a set time, technically, a year" (according to Strong). Various translations of the Bible translate it differently: seven periods of time, seven seasons of time, seven years, but mostly as seven times.

I understand that seven times, apparently "revolved over" Nebuchadnezzar continuously, without interruption, like the “stump of the roots” was “banded of iron and brass”, without interruption (Dan. 4:20).

According to several commentators, the meaning of this word is UNCLEAR.
Pulpit Commentary: >> The word 'iddanun, "times," is a matter of some difficulty; it means really "seasons" or "points" of time, as in Ecclesiastes 3:2, Targum, and Genesis 38:1, Targum Onkelos, "It came to pass at this time." It is purely ARBITRARY to fix the meaning here as "years," as is done by the Septuagint and by many commentators. <<

If the “times” were a specific length, then it would probably be more than 1 day or 1 week, depending on the context. But it is also possible to interpret it that the numeral seven means completeness of time and that it is not seven equal periods but one. See also 1 Chronicles 29:30.
In contrast, Barnes' Notes states: „While the Chaldee word is indeterminate in respect to the length of time, the most natural and obvious construction here and elsewhere, in the use of the word, is to refer it to years.”
We can choose :o) .

When I read first time in the Bible that Nebuchadnezzar was at the animal level for seven years, I immediately thought the same thing as you. It is unlikely that such a long time wouldn’t be used by someone to throw him off the throne, because the enormous Babylonian empire required a sovereign who would constantly deciding on the strategic things of the empire. Ruled a regent instead of him? Was his authority so great that he was not murdered? Did important personalities of the Empire stand by him (under God's influence) despite his condition? Possible, impossible?

It is always difficult to reject a theory (in this case the WTS theory) on the basis of the word "times" with unclear meaning. We could slip into the level of speculations where an opponent could argue with a number of counterarguments. Endless debates.

Conclusion: I DON’T KNOW.

Clear and simple method, using only the Bible, I offered in my comment above:
https://beroeans.net/2019/12/02/is-the-governing-body-knowingly-deceiving-us-over-607-b-c-e-part-1/#comment-22823.

I wish you much patience in examining the deep God’s things.
Love to you. Frankie

P.S. I fully agree with what you wrote in your previous comment:
“I would like to offer two thoughts on this subject. First, Jerusalem most likely fell in 587 BC. Second, it doesn't really matter.” That is also my opinion.

Comment by Helanren on 2019-12-14 13:45:27

Yesterday I was thinking about this topic and suddenly realised something I once read. I grabbed my Bible and went looking for Ezra. And indeed, there it was!

"Many of the priests, the Levites, and the heads of the paternal houses - the old men who had seen the former house - wept with a loud voice when they saw the foundation of this house being laid, while many others shouted joyfully at the top of their voice." (Ezra 3:12)

If the exile would have lasted 70 years, then those "old men" must have been at least 75 years old. Although 80 would be more realistic. I don't think a five year old has such a good memory. 50 years of captivity makes way more sense. Then those men would have been 60 years old. As usual, the Bible explains itself!

• Reply by Leonardo Josephus on 2019-12-15 04:15:39

  Good point Helenren, and JA below. Easily forgotten because you cannot prove to most JWs that something reasonable is still evidence, But it is, and I appreciate your reminding us .
  Thanks again.

  • Reply by Helanren on 2019-12-15 13:50:40

    My pleasure, I'm happy to chip in. :) It is indeed sad that you can give a great explanation, but then the other says something like "it makes sense, but I'll just stick to what the organisation says. If it's true, they will eventually adjust it". I'm looking forward to the day that Jesus will reveal the truth to everyone.

• Reply by Helanren on 2019-12-15 13:39:36

  Thanks for your comment! I checked it and yes, it's from Tadua's "A journey of Discovery through Time - Part 6". So many articles have been published this month! It's nice to see how everything fits together perfectly. :)

Comment by Is the Governing Body Knowingly Deceiving Us over 607 BCE? (Part 2) - Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer on 2020-02-09 09:14:26

[…] our first article, we examined the Adad-Guppi Stele, an historical document which quickly demolishes […]

Comment by Oliver on 2021-03-02 19:04:23

Although I agree that the whole 1914 doctrine is based on venturesome assumptions, there is one thing about the 70 years that does not quite fit. Your argument based on Jer. 25, saying that "serving the king of Babylon" does not necessarily mean exile for the whole people is plausible.

But what about Daniels own statement in Daniel 9:2
"I, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of years mentioned in the word of Jehovah to Jeremiah the prophet to fulfill the desolation of Jerusalem, namely, 70 years"
And in Chronicles 36:21 we find the following account:
"All the days it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill 70 years"

The question is, what exactly is meant by "desolation"? When the Babylonians started to exile the nobles, I think that didn´t mean the land and the city had been devastated completely. So "serving the king" is one thing, but what about "laying desolate for 70 years"?

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-03-02 19:18:21

  I know that Carl Olof Jonsson had some sound reasoning on that in The Gentile Times Reconsidered. However, I'm not much bothered by it. I figure that it applied to a time 2,500 years in the past and Daniel was obviously content that the words had been fulfilled, so that is all good. Since it has no application past his day, it becomes an academic issue.

Comment by ctron on 2021-12-12 16:03:26

Here is a critique from Carl Olof Jonsson where he goes into details about both 2011 Watchtower articles:
https://www.jwfacts.com/pdf/carl-olof-jonsson-when-jerusalem-destroyed.pdf