JW's doctrine of 1914 proved wrong by WT literature

Wolvo · Alley Cat Joined: 06 Jul 2008 Posts: 181

For those unfamiliar with this doctrine. One of JW's fundamental beliefs is that Jesus' 2nd coming has already happened invisibly in heaven since 1914. This is one of their core beliefs. Since then they say we live in the last days.

They calculate this by a prophecy in Daniel counting 2520 years from the fall of Jerusalem in 607BCE to 1914AD. If anyone would like a detailed explanation how they calculate this i can provide another post on it.

Now a newcomer would be dazzled by the maths as to how they work it out. But what anyone fails to question is the date for the fall of Jerusalem. JW's are the only ones who say it happened in 607BCE! The reality is Jerusalem fell in 587/6 BCE. All chronology points to this date.

Now mention this to a JW and he will come back at you with Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539BCE, he released the Jews from captivity in 537BCE, we count 70years of captivity back to 607BCE, therefore Jerusalem must have been destroyed in 607BCE.

However the following shows extracts from WT own literature that shows they have the 607BCE date wrong.

The names and regnal lengths of the Neo-Babylonian kings are known.

If you start at 539 BCE for the fall of Babylon, a date which is accepted by the WTS and secular historians, and list the years of the kings in reverse order, it is very easy to see that Jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 BCE.

There are only 5 Babylonian kings to deal with. It isn't hard. Just go by the actual kings, whose names and regnal lengths are known from tens of thousands of cuneiform tablets from many different towns and villages all over southern Mesopotamia. It is so simple a child could do it.

Note: Perhaps you are thinking, "But does the WTS agree with the list of the kings and the lengths of their reigns?" The surprising answer is YES! The fact remains that in their own literature at various times they have agreed with the length of each king's reign.

Just start with Nabonidus, the last Babylonian king, and work backward.

Babylon falls to Cyrus the Persia -- 539 BCE
Nabonidus -- 17 years
Labashi-Marduk -- 3 months (WT says less than 9 months)
Neriglissar -- 4 years
Evil-Merodach -- 2 years
Nebuchadnezzar -- 43 years

Nabonidus -- 17 years

Year 17 = 539 BCE
16 = 540
15 = 541
14 = 542
13 = 543
12 = 544
11 = 545
10 = 546
9 = 547
8 = 548
7 = 549
6 = 550
5 = 551
4 = 552
3 = 553
2 = 554
1 = 555
0 = accession year = 556

Labashi-Marduk -- less than a year
3 months in 556

Neriglissar -- 4 years
4 = 556
3 = 557
2 = 558
1 = 559
0 = accession year = 560

Evil-Merodach -- 2 years
2 = 560
1 = 561
0 = accession year = 562

Nebuchadnezzar -- 43 years
43 = 562 BCE
42 = 563
41 = 564
40 = 565
39 = 566
38 = 567
37 = 568
36 = 569
35 = 570
34 = 571
33 = 572
32 = 573
31 = 574
30 = 575
29 = 576
28 = 577
27 = 578
26 = 579
25 = 580
24 = 581
23 = 582
22 = 583
21 = 584
20 = 585
19 = 586 BCE
18 = 587 BCE

In Nebuchadnezzars 19th year Jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 BCE.

From WT literature, we have the kings of Babylon and the length of their reigns:
Nebuchadnezzar -- 43 years Evil-Merodach -- 2 years Neriglissar -- 4 years Labashi-Marduk -- assassinated within 9 months Nabonidus -- 17 years

This agrees with the thousands of cuneiform tablets which show:
Nebuchadnezzar -- 43 years Evil-Merodach -- 2 years Neriglissar -- 4 years Labashi-Marduk -- 3 months Nabonidus -- 17 years

Here are quotations from WT literature showing the lengths of each king's reign:

Nebuchadnezzar -- 43 years

*** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***
Nebuchadnezzar ruled as king for 43 years

*** w00 5/15 p. 12 Pay Attention to God’s Prophetic Word for Our Day ***
Learning that his father, Nabopolassar, had died, this young man named Nebuchadnezzar took the throne in 624 B.C.E. During his 43-year reign...

*** w86 11/1 p. 5 A Dream Reveals How Late It Is ***
Since Nebuchadnezzar reigned for 43 years (624-581 B.C.E.), this is a reasonable conclusion.

*** dp chap. 7 p. 99 Four Words That Changed the World ***
Proud King Nebuchadnezzar’s 43-year reign in Babylon ended with his death in 582 B.C.E.

*** dp chap. 4 pp. 50-51 The Rise and Fall of an Immense Image ***
9 Nebuchadnezzar, who reigned for 43 years, headed a dynasty that ruled over the Babylonian Empire. It included his son-in-law Nabonidus and his oldest son, Evil-merodach. That dynasty continued for 43 more years, until the death of Nabonidus’ son Belshazzar, in 539 B.C.E

*** it-1 pp. 238-239 Babylon ***
Finally, after a 43-year reign, which included both conquest of many nations and a grand building program in Babylonia itself, Nebuchadnezzar II died in October of 582 B.C.E. and was succeeded by Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach). This new ruler showed kindness to captive King Jehoiachin. (2Ki 25:27-30) Little is known about the reigns of Neriglissar, evidently the successor of Evil-merodach, and of Labashi-Marduk.

Evil-Merodach --- 2 years

*** w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived ***
Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months. Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar’s favorite son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.

*** it-1 p. 453 Chronology ***
For Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach, 2Ki 25:27, 28), tablets dated up to his second year of rule have been found. For Neriglissar, considered to be the successor of Awil-Marduk, contract tablets are known dated to his fourth year

*** kc p. 186 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
Nabonidus Harran Stele (NABON H 1, B): This contemporary stele, or pillar with an inscription, was discovered in 1956. It mentions the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar. The figures given for these three agree with those from Ptolemy’s Canon.

Neriglissar -- 4 years

*** w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived ***Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law
Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months. Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar’s favorite son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.

Labashi-Marduk -- less than a year

***dx30-85 Labashi-Marduk ***
LABASHI-MARDUK
king of Babylon: w65 29; bf 183-4

*** w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived ***
Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months. Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar’s favorite son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.

Nabonidus -- 17 years

*** it-2 p. 457 Nabonidus ***
NABONIDUS
(Nab·o·ni´dus) [from Babylonian meaning "Nebo [a Babylonian god] Is Exalted"].
Last supreme monarch of the Babylonian Empire; father of Belshazzar. On the basis of cuneiform texts he is believed to have ruled some 17 years (556-539 B.C.E.).

*** w68 8/15 p. 491 The Book of Truthful Historical Dates ***
17 Other investigators say this: "The Nabunaid Chronicle . . . states that Sippar fell to Persian forces VII/14/17* (Oct. 10, 539), that Babylon fell VII/16/17 (Oct. 12), and that Cyrus entered Babylon VIII/3/17 (Oct. 29). This fixes the end of Nabunaid’s reign and the beginning of the reign of Cyrus. Interestingly enough, the last tablet dated to Nabunaid from Uruk is dated the day after Babylon fell to Cyrus. News of its capture had not yet reached the southern city some 125 miles distant."—Brown University Studies, Vol. XIX, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.—A.D. 75, Parker and Dubberstein, 1956, p. 13.

Footnote
"VII/14/17": The 7th Hebrew month Tishri, 14th day, 17th year of Nabonidus’ reign.

So there you have it.

If you start with the WTS's own date of 539 for the fall of Babylon and count backwards through the Kings of Babylon for each year of their reigns, you arrive at 586/587 for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th/19th year, when he destroyed Jerusalem.

I think the key quotation is the one from WT 1965 1/1 p. 29 , which shows Evil-merodach reigned two years, followed by Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, followed by Labashi-Marduk, who reigned less than 9 months, followed by Nabonidus.

This is an important quotation because it shows the succession of the kings, with no room for an extra king in between, and it also agrees with the conventional chronology's regnal lengths.

Using the WTS's own data for the neo-Babylonian kings and the lengths of their reigns, there is NO ROOM for an extra king or for an extra 20 years.

If you start at 539, the WTS's own date, and count backward according to their own data regarding each king and his reign, you will arrive at 586/587 for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th/19th year, when he destroyed Jerusalem.

If 607BCE is incorrect for the fall of Jerusalem, how can they insist that 1914 is the time for christs presence?

TBax · King Kong Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 2126

Wolvo,

Excuse me for my short attention span. It isn't as complicated as you are making it.
If you accept 539 as the date Bablylon was taken, and 537 as the date the Jews were allowed to return to Jerusalem, then according to God's 70 years of Jerusalems desolation prophesy that takes you to 607.

Wolvo · Alley Cat Joined: 06 Jul 2008 Posts: 181

My post is merely showing how from WT literature the lengths of the Babylonian kings do not add up to 70 years. Therefore placing the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzars reign at 587/6BCE, hence the destruction of Jerusalem.

But as you ask about the 70 year desolation, i will answer you.

(Jeremiah 25:11) 11 And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years."

The 1st time the Bible mentions the 70 years period it mentions that Babylon would dominate other nations for 70 years. It does not say here that the Jews would be in Babylon for 70 years, although this is an idea in Jeremriah 29:10 (NWT):

(Jeremiah 29:10) 10 "For this is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to YOU people, and I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place.’

However, all other Bible translations that I know of translate use the word "for" instead of "at"...

i.e.:NIV: 10 This is what the LORD says: "When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my gracious promise to bring you back to this place.

This translation harmonizes with Jer 25:11 with the idea that 70 years refers to Babylon's time, not the Jews exile.

Babylon's domination ended in 539BCE, a date agreed upon by the WTS. This would mean that the 70 years period would have to start in 609BCE. What happened in that year? Babylon attacked Assyria in 609 BCE and became the dominant empire of the region.

This would harmonize with both secular history and the Bible. Josephus also mentions that the Jews were in Babylon for 50 years, not 70. So it all coincides.

Evidently Jews we're being taken captive prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 587/6BCE. When you see this seventy years of Jewish desolation in the context of a 70 year Babylonian Empire rule it all harmonises.

No need to think that the WTS knows it all...

[/quote]

Wolvo · Alley Cat Joined: 06 Jul 2008 Posts: 181

Another argument put forward is that the rebuilding of Jerusalems temple was completed in 516BCE.

This some argue means the prophecy in Daniel of the 70 years is not the same 70 years as those mentioned in Jeremiah.

This is yet another explanation as to how the 70 year desolation of Jerusalem can be argued.

For me though placing the desolation within the context of a 70 year Babylonian rule has more credibility.

Either way a person decides to go, there is a choice. The bible and secular evidence can harmonise with either of these two reasonings.

The WT stance however is that its secular v the bible, but this is only because to accept 587/6 as the real date for Jerusalems destruction would mean a complete change in doctrine.

For me, i don't claim to know it all, i can just put forward the arguments, 12 men in Brooklyn however do claim to know it all and 7 million believe this. It's a dangerous stance to take to put your faith in the intellect of 12 men.

TBax · King Kong Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 2126

Wolvo,

Jer 25:1 The word that occurred to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah in the fourth year of Je·hoi′a·kim

...
4 “This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said to all the exiled people, whom I have caused to go into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon,

...

. 11 And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”’

Who are all this land talking about??? The inhabitance of Judah? Cool

Jer 29:10 “For this is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to YOU people, and I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place.’

God's prophesy was clearly about God's people being in exile for 70 years.

Wolvo · Alley Cat Joined: 06 Jul 2008 Posts: 181

T,Bax wrote,

TBax · King Kong Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 2126

Wolvo,

It is clear you do not care about Biblical truth, just in proving JW's as wrong. You are willing to present an alternate explanation, even though you say it is not as credibile. Rolling Eyes

Wolvo · Alley Cat Joined: 06 Jul 2008 Posts: 181

I am interested in biblical truth, however the meaning of scripture is debatable. I do not believe anyone knows all of the truth of the bible.

I have provided an alternative explanation to your question because you asked about the 70 years. Just because i don't feel it's credible doesn't mean that the argument is not there.

In coming to a conclusion on any debate all of the arguments have to be heard and looked at. It would be unwise just to blindly accept one line of reasoning without first researching counter arguments don't you think? Which is why i present alternate arguments too.

Jer 25:4 “This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said to all the exiled people, whom I have caused to go into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon"

My point is that this was being addressed to those Jews. This does not however detract in any way from the argument that the 70 years can apply to Babylonian rule, rather than a 70year Jerusalem desolation.[/quote]

Wolvo · Alley Cat Joined: 06 Jul 2008 Posts: 181

This thread seems to have been detracted from my original post that the WTS own literature seems to contradict there own doctrine that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607BCE. The contradiction of WT literature has not been answered.

From what i can see on this site Tbax is the only JW apologist here, it's a shame there isn't more. As TBax pointed out he had a short attention span for my original thread so i thought i would simplify what i have posted.

The next quote is from the Insight to the Scriptures, volume 1, taken from WT cd 2007.

Under the heading Chaldea it writes,

TBax · King Kong Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 2126

Wolvo,

Wolvo · Alley Cat Joined: 06 Jul 2008 Posts: 181

TBax,

I still see your trying to change the line of this thread away from the contradiction in WT literature to my thoughts on the 70 year period.

The WT contradictions i have posted have not been addressed at all, instead you shift the thread to the fact i present alternate argument on the 70years.

My point in doing this is to show that there are competing lines of thought. A person does not have to blindly accept 607 as the date, without at first researching competing argument. If after looking at all the evidence a person decides to accept 607bce as the date, that is up to the reader. But on a central doctrine such as 1914, surely all the evidence has to be looked at, does it not?

I am quite happy to defend what i believe and will present opponents argument too. I am not asking anyone to agree with me so if i get asked a question, as you did, i am more than happy to discuss alternative explanations.

I find it interesting though when presented with WT contradictions you fail to address them.

Wolvo · Alley Cat Joined: 06 Jul 2008 Posts: 181

TBax wrote,

TBax · King Kong Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 2126

Wolvo,

Wolvo · Alley Cat Joined: 06 Jul 2008 Posts: 181

TBax wrote,

TBax · King Kong Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 2126

Wolvo,