Friday, April 27, 2012

What is a Jehovah's Witness? #2: Jesus returned invisibly in 1914 (1)

Continuing from "What is a Jehovah's Witness? #1: Jesus is not God and was not bodily resurrected" with this "What is a Jehovah's Witness? #2: Jesus returned invisibly in 1914," being my comments on an article by Daniel Ausbun, Pastor of First Baptist Moreland, Georgia. The words of the article are bold as are my headings. I am posting this initially without quotations to support the points I make, but will progressively add quotes later. I have since decided because of length to split this part #2 into two sub-parts #2(1) and #2(2). In this part #2(1) I will state the Watchtower position and in the next part #2(2) I will refute it.

"What is a Jehovah's Witness?," The Newnan Times-Herald, Daniel Ausbun, First Baptist Church, Moreland [Georgia], March 3, 2012 ... Knock knock! Two people are standing at your door, sharply dressed and very friendly, offering you The Watchtower magazine. They're Jehovah's Witnesses, and they're at your door to tell you God's good news. ... What do Jehovah's Witnesses' believe? ...

[Above (click to enlarge): Front page of the Herald of the Morning, July 1878, edited by Nelson H. Barbour (1824-1905), an Adventist, with Watchtower Bible & Tract Society founder "C. T. Russell" (1852–1916) listed as an assistant editor, and showing in the bottom right-hand corner the then Adventist teaching that the "Times of the Gentiles" would "end in 1914": Wikipedia, 18 April 2012. This proves that the foundational Watchtower Society date of 1914 was actually `borrowed' from 19th century Christian Adventist teachings, which the Watchtower effectively admits:

"In the course of their Bible studies, these searching students took up a consideration of the `times of the Gentiles,' as spoken of by Jesus at Luke 21:24 (AV), and they associated those Gentile Times with the `seven times' mentioned four times in Daniel, chapter four, verses 16, 23, 25, 32. What did those Bible students determine to be the date for those `seven times' of Gentile domination of the earth to end legally before God? Well, at that time there was a monthly magazine being published in Brooklyn, New York, by one George Storrs [an Adventist], and it was called "Bible Examiner." In the year 1876 the twenty-four-year-old Russell made a contribution on the subject to this magazine ... which was the issue of October, 1876 ... Russell's article was published under the title "Gentile Times: When Do They End?" In that article (page 27) Russell said: `The seven times will end in A.D. 1914.' In the following year (1877) Russell joined with one Nelson H. Barbour [another Adventist], of Rochester, New York, in publishing a book entitled 'Three Worlds, and the Harvest of This World." In this book it was set forth that the end of the Gentile Times in 1914 C.E. would be preceded by a period of forty years marked by the opening of a harvest of three and a half years, beginning in 1874 C.E. This harvest was understood to be under the invisible direction of the Lord Jesus Christ, whose presence or parousia began in the year 1874. " (WB&TS, "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached," 1973, pp.186-187. My words in square brackets).]

* The second "coming" of Jesus was an invisible spiritual presence that began in 1914. From 1879 to 1914 (~35 years) the Watchtower Society taught that Jesus had come invisibly in 1874, and that He would come visibly in 1914, at the end of the Times of the Gentiles:

"According to an inaccurate chronology that had been worked out from the King James Authorized Version Bible, Russell calculated that Christ's `presence' had begun in the year 1874 C.E., unseen to human eyes and seen only by the eye of faith. This was why, when he began publishing a new religious magazine in defense of the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ, Russell entitled it "Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence." (WB&TS, "Man's Salvation Out of World Distress at Hand!," 1975, pp. 287-288).

But that prophecy was proved false in 1914, and Russell died in 1916:

"From that understanding of matters, the `chaste virgin' class began going forth to meet the heavenly Bridegroom in the year 1874, as they believed him to have arrived in that year and to be from then on invisibly present ... Due to this fact, when Charles T. Russell began publishing his own religious magazine in July of 1879, he published it under the title "Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence." ... The new magazine was heralding Christ's invisible presence as having begun in 1874. This presence was to continue until the end of the Gentile Times in 1914, when the Gentile nations would be destroyed and the remnant of the `chaste virgin' class would be glorified with their bridegroom in heaven by death and resurrection to life in the spirit ... As the years passed by and the time drew closer, the remnant of the `chaste virgin' class looked ahead with intensifying interest to that critical date, October 1, 1914. ... They were endeavoring to let their light shine as they approached the time when they expected to meet their Bridegroom in the heavens. Finally the day arrived, October 1, 1914, and on the morning of that day Charles T. Russell as president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society announced to the headquarters staff of workers in Brooklyn, New York: `The Gentile Times have ended and their kings have had their day.' However, with that end of the Gentile Times there did not also come the anticipated glorification of the remnant of the church in the heavens. It was first on October 31, 1916, that Russell himself died, leaving the Society's presidency to another. Something must have been miscalculated." (WB&TS, "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached," 1973, pp.187-188).

Russell's successor `Judge' Joseph F. Rutherford (1869–1942) in 1919 declared that Jesus had come invisibly in 1914:

"The `chaste virgin' class endeavored to let their light shine as they approached the time when they expected to meet their Bridegroom in heaven. Finally, that day arrived-October 1, 1914. The Gentile Times ended, but the anticipated heavenly glorification of the church did not come about. In fact, it had not occurred by the time Russell himself died on October 31, 1916. ... As the slumbering virgins were aroused by the midnight cry that the bridegroom was coming, so in 1919 C.E. the fact of the heavenly Bridegroom's presence in the Kingdom was thrust upon all who claimed to be virgins awaiting him ... A general convention was held at Cedar Point, Ohio, on September 1-8, 1919 ... The `discreet virgin' class had the faith that the kingdom of God's Son had been established in heaven at the close of the Gentile Times in 1914 ... The `discreet virgin' class thus met the glorious Bridegroom in 1919 and have continued as part of the procession that honors him down to the end." ("No Spiritual `Energy Crisis' for Discreet Ones," The Watchtower, August 15, 1974, pp.507-508)

"When the Bible Students assembled at Cedar Point, Ohio, in 1919, J. F. Rutherford, who was then the president of the Watch Tower Society, declared: `Our vocation was and is to announce the incoming glorious kingdom of Messiah.' At the second Cedar Point convention, in 1922, Brother Rutherford highlighted the fact that at the end of the Gentile Times, in 1914, `the King of glory had taken unto himself his great power and had begun to reign.'" ("Kingdom Proclaimers Active in All the Earth," The Watchtower, May 1, 1994, pp.15-17)

thereby contradicting Russell and the Watchtower's teaching for forty years that Jesus had already come invisibly in 1874!

The date of 1914 adopted by Russell from the Adventists was worked out by them as follows:

1. The "times of the Gentiles" in Luke 21:24 must be the period from the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians to the second coming of Christ:

"`JERUSALEM shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.' - Luke 21:24. The term `Times of the Gentiles' was applied by our Lord to that interval of earth's history between the removal of the typical Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of Israel (Ezek. 21:25-27), and the introduction and establishment of its antitype, the true Kingdom of God, when Christ comes to be `glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe in that day [2Th 1:10 KJV].'" (Russell, C.T., "The Time is at Hand," WB&TS, 1889, p.73. Emphasis original).

But this is false, as we shall see in part #2(2).

2. The date of that destruction of Jerusalem must be 70 years (Jer 25:11-12; 29:10) before 536 BC, the year that the Medo-Persian conqueror of Babylon, Cyrus the Great allowed the exiled Jews in Babylon to return to Jerusalem, i.e. 536 BC + 70 = 606 BC:

"The Bible evidence is clear and strong that the `Times of the Gentiles' is a period of 2520 years, from the year B.C. 606 to and including A.D. 1914 ... The date for the beginning of the Gentile Times is ... at the time of the removal of the crown of God's typical kingdom, from Zedekiah, their last king. According to the words of the prophet (Ezek. 21:25-27), the crown was taken from Zedekiah; and Jerusalem was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar's army and laid in ruins, and so remained for seventy years-until the restoration in the first year of Cyrus. (2 Chron. 36:21-23) Though Jerusalem was then rebuilt, and the captives returned, Israel has never had another king from that to the present day ... they, as a nation, were subject successively to the Persians, Grecians and Romans ... With these facts before us, we readily find the date for the beginning of the Gentile Times of dominion; for the first year of the reign of Cyrus is a very clearly fixed date -both secular and religious histories with marked unanimity agreeing with Ptolemy's Canon, which places it B.C. 536. And if B.C. 536 was the year in which the seventy years of Jerusalem's desolation ended and the restoration of the Jews began, it follows that their kingdom was overthrown just seventy years before B.C. 536, i. e., 536 plus 70, or B.C. 606. This gives us the date of the beginning of the Times of the Gentiles-B.C. 606." (Russell, "The Time is at Hand," 1889, pp.79-80. Emphasis original).

This also is false, as we shall see in part #2(2). Also note that the original Watchtower year for the destruction of Jerusalem and the start of the Times of the Gentiles was 606 BC, not the Society's current 607 BC.

3. The "seven times" in Daniel 4:16-32, which in the context is the period of Babylon's King Nebuchadnezzar's temporary insanity (Dn 4:33-37), must mean seven years:

"We have already examined the initial, typical application of Daniel's prophecy of the `seven times' and have noted that it applied to the seven literal years of Nebuchadnezzar's madness." (WB&TS, "Let Your Kingdom Come," 1981, p.133)

"The prophetic dream recorded by Daniel mentions an immense tree that was chopped down and banded with iron and copper until `seven times' passed over it. During that time, it was said, `the heart of a beast' would be given to it. (Daniel 4:10-17) What did this mean? God caused his own prophet Daniel to explain: Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, was to be removed from his throne and driven from among men to live as a beast. After seven years the king's sanity returned, he acknowledged the superiority of God's rulership, and he himself was restored to his throne. (Daniel 4:20-37)." (WB&TS, "True Peace and Security: How Can You Find It?," 1986, p.71).

But as we shall see in part #2(2), the Watchtower's claim that these "seven times" must be seven years is false.

(a) Each of those 7 years must be of 360 days:

"According to Daniel chapter four, these `appointed times' would be `seven times.' Daniel shows that there would be `seven times' during which God's rulership, as represented by the `tree,' would not be in operation over the earth. (Daniel 4:16, 23) How long are these `seven times'? In Revelation chapter 12, verses 6 and 14, we learn that 1,260 days are equal to `a time [that is, 1 time] and times [that is, 2 times] and half a time.' That is a total of 3½ times. So `a time' would be equal to 360 days." (WB&TS, "You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth," 1989, pp.140-141. Emphasis & square brackets original)

"In prophecy, a year averages 360 days, or 12 months of 30 days each. (Compare Revelation 12:6, 14.) So the king's `seven times,' or seven years, were 360 days multiplied by 7, or 2,520 days." (WB&TS, "Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy," 1999, pp.95-96).

But as we shall see in part #2(2), there is no connection between the "seven times" of Daniel 4:16-32 and the "time and times and half a time" of Revelation 12:14 and therefore the Watchtower's claim that the "seven times" of Daniel 4 must be seven years of 360 days each is false.

(b) Each of those 360 days must be a year:

"Therefore, `seven times' would be 7 times 360, or 2,520 days. Now if we count a day for a year, according to a Bible rule, the `seven times' equal 2,520 years.-Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:6." (WB&TS, "You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth," 1989, p.141)

"The Bible shows that three and a half `times' equal 1,260 days. (Revelation 12:6, 14) Twice that period, or seven times, would be 2,520 days. But nothing noteworthy happened at the end of that short period of time. By applying `a day for a year' to Daniel's prophecy and counting 2,520 years from 607 B.C.E., however, we arrive at the year 1914 C.E.-Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:6." (WB&TS, "Knowledge That Leads to Everlasting Life," 1995, p.97)

"However, the vision served notice that this `trampling of Jerusalem' would be temporary-a period of `seven times.' How long a period is that? Revelation 12:6, 14 indicates that three and a half times equal `a thousand two hundred and sixty days.' `Seven times' would therefore last twice as long, or 2,520 days. But the Gentile nations did not stop `trampling' on God's rulership a mere 2,520 days after Jerusalem's fall. Evidently, then, this prophecy covers a much longer period of time. On the basis of Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6, which speak of `a day for a year,' the `seven times' would cover 2,520 years." (WB&TS, "What Does the Bible Really Teach?," 2005, p.217. Emphasis original).

But as we shall see in part #2(2), there is no "a day for a year" rule in the Bible, so therefore this claim by the Watchtower that each of those 360 days must be a year is also false.

(c) Hence the "times of the Gentiles" must span a period of 7 x 360 = 2520 years:

"When Nebuchadnezzar's sanity was restored by God, little did he realize that the `seven times' were to have a greater fulfillment of a year for each day of the seven prophetic years of 360 days each, a total of 2,520 (7 x 360) years. Little did he realize that it was a prophecy revealing that, from the overthrow of God's representative kingdom when Jerusalem was desolated in 607 B.C.E., there would be no king of the line of David exercising ruling authority in the affairs of mankind for 2,520 years. During this time `Jerusalem would be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations should be fulfilled'-that is, God would permit Gentile domination of the earth, with no king on the throne representing God. At the end of the 2,520-year period God's due time would arrive to set his Messiah upon the throne in the heavens. According to Bible chronology and world conditions fulfilling prophecy, these `times of the Gentiles' expired in 1914 C.E.-Luke 21:24, American Standard Version; Ezek. 21:27." ("The Best Time to Be Alive," The Watchtower, November 1, 1973, pp.644-645).

"One of these reasons is that this is the time of Christ's invisible presence in power as King. The `appointed times of the nations,' or the `times of the Gentiles,' have ended. These `times' began when God's representative kingdom on earth was overthrown in 607 B.C.E. by Babylon. How long were these `times' to run? They were to be `seven times' or seven prophetic years of 360 days each, in which a day was to count for a year. This would be 7 × 360, or 2,520 years. This brings us to the year 1914 C.E., when the Kingdom would be restored in the hands of the one `who has the legal right.'-Luke 21:24; Daniel 4:17; Ezek. 4:6; 21:27." ("Is Christianity Dying?" The Watchtower, September 15, 1974, p. 557).

"Nebuchadnezzar's case of madness, probably a condition known as lycanthropy, lasted for seven years. At his recovery he acknowledged the God who healed him, but he did not restore God's people to their homeland. Jehovah God had decreed that Jerusalem and the land of Judah should lie desolate for 70 years. So the trampling upon Jerusalem by the Gentiles continued on, even after Jerusalem was rebuilt by the repatriated Jews beginning in 537 B.C.E. How so? Because they remained subject to Gentile control, without any descendant of the royal line of David sitting on the throne at Jerusalem as independent king. So it is evident that in the case of Jehovah God, the `seven times' are symbolic, hence, longer than seven years counting from 607 B.C.E.- Daniel 4:16, 23, 25, 32. In the Bible's prophetic count of time, a lunar year is calculated as amounting to 360 days. So a symbolic year, or `time,' would amount to 360 calendar years. Seven symbolic `times,' or `years,' would therefore amount to 7 x 360, or 2,520 years. Counted from the year 607 B.C.E., when Jerusalem, `the city of the great King,' was destroyed by Jehovah's `servant,' Nebuchadnezzar, and thus the trampling on Jerusalem by the Gentiles began, those 2,520 years would end in the autumn of the year 1914 of our Common Era." ("Israel and the `Times of the Gentiles," The Watchtower, August 1, 1983, p.21).

4. Therefore Jesus' second coming at the END of the Times of the Gentiles would be in 606 BC + 2520 years = AD 1914.:

"In Leviticus xxvi, the expression `seven times' is four times repeated in reference to the duration of the rule of its enemies over Jerusalem. It has often been shown that this is the basis and key of the Times of the Gentiles (Luke xxi. 24), or the duration of Gentile rule over Jerusalem. A time is a year; a prophetic year is 360 common years and has been so fulfilled. `A time, times and a half' (i.e., 3½ times) has been fulfilled as 1260 literal years ... If three times and a half are 1260 years, seven times are 2520 years. From B.C. 606, where the desolation of Jerusalem began, 2520 years reach to A.D. 1914. According to this application of the number seven, Jerusalem will be free at that time, and thence-forward be a praise in the earth." ("Number Seven," Zion's Watch Tower, June 1880, Reprints, p.109.

"It is an accepted fact that in Bible symbolism each day represents a year; and the Jewish year had twelve months of thirty days each. Thus each year represented, symbolically, three hundred and sixty years; and the seven years of chastisement represented 7 x 360 = 2,520 years. When, therefore, we read that the kingdom would be `overturned, overturned,' [Eze 21:27] until Messiah should come, we are to understand that the period of the overturned condition, as a whole, would be 2,520 years, beginning with the time the crown was taken from Zedekiah-in 606 B.C. (70 years prior to the proclamation of Cyrus permitting the people to return-536 B.C.). ("Overturned Until He Come," The Watch Tower, August 1, 1911, Reprints, p.4867).

"SEVEN TIMES' COMMENCED JULY-AUGUST, 606 B.C. The punishment for not properly observing the jubilee was a severe one, yet in Leviticus 26:18,21,24 and 28 mention is made of `seven times' more punishment if the Jews neglected to keep their Law, as they had covenanted. By the key given in other scriptures, Bible Students have long known that the `seven times' refer to seven symbolic or prophetic years of three hundred and sixty days, each day standing for a full year of actual time. Thus seven times would be 7 x 360, or 2520 years. In Luke 21:24 Jesus stated that Jerusalem, standing for the Jewish nation, would be trodden down, or under the dominion of the Gentiles, `until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.' The nation went completely under the dominion of the Gentiles at the hand of Nebuchadnezzar July-August, 606 B.C. 2520 years from that date would be 1914 A.D." ("The Year of Jubilee," The Watch Tower, February 15, 1925, p. 54. Emphasis original).

"It is by Israel's jubilee system, detailed in the twenty-fifth chapter of Leviticus, and by the `seven times' of the twenty-sixth chapter, that the chronological system of the Bible is verified. The seven times or seven `years' (of 360 days each) of punishment are seven periods of 360 years each, or 2520 years in all, which began with the destruction of the national life of Israel at a kingdom, in 606 B.C., and which ended in 1914 A.D. with the outbreak of the World War, when Christ began to take control of earth's affairs." ("Obedience to Law," The Watch Tower, August 1, 1926, p.237).

"In Leviticus 26:14-39, God told the nation of Israel that if they failed to keep their covenant he would scatter them among the Gentile nations, where they would be a byword and a hissing for a long period called `seven times'. This foretold period of punishment began when Nebuchadnezzar carried the Israelites to Babylon, in 606 B.C., and ended in 1914, exactly 2520 years later. In Jewish reckoning, a time is a Jewish year of 360 days. Seven times would be seven times 360 days, or 2520 days; and the Lord through his prophet tells us that, in prophecy, a day counts for a year.-Ezek. 4:4-6; Num. 14:34." ("Divine Foreknowledge: Proof That Jehovah is God," The Watch Tower, July 16, 1930, p.218).

But as we shall see in in part #2(2), there is no connection between Jesus' prophecy of "the Times of the Gentiles" in Luke 21:24:

"They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."

and the "seven times" of Daniel 4:16-32, or indeed any Old Testament passage.

The Watchtower Society later admitted (what it must have known since at least 1904) that there was no year zero between 1 BC and AD 1, therefore 606 BC + 2520 years = AD 1913. But rather than admit that 1914 was wrong (which would cause the collapse of the entire Watchtower `house of cards' system - see next part #2(2) - the Watchtower changed its date for the destruction of Jerusalem from 606 BC to 607 BC!:

"How long are `seven times', the times of the nations? ... In Revelation 12:6 (NW) there is mentioned 1,260 days and then in the 14th verse this very same period is referred to as 3½ `times'. So if 3½ `times' is 1,260 days, then 7 `times' (twice 3½ `times') must be twice 1,260, or 2,520 days. ... So according to this [year-day] rule established in the wilderness the Jewish nation [Num 14:34] ... These 2,520 years ran from the desolating of Jerusalem and the land in the summer and fall of 607 B.C. up to the summer and fall of 1914, when they expired. From 607 B.C. to 1 B.C. is 606 years. From 1 B.C. to A.D. 1 is only one year, because the ancients had not discovered the zero which according to modern mathematics would have made it two years. The use of the zero is only of comparatively recent mathematical origin. From A.D. 1 to A.D. 1914 is 1,913 years. Therefore adding 606 years plus 1 year plus 1,913 years we get a total of 2,520 years." ("Determining the Year by Fact and Bible," The Watchtower, May 1, 1952, pp.270-271).

"Jehovah's witnesses from 1877 up to and including the publishing of `The Truth Shall Make You Free' of 1943 considered 536 B.C. as the year for the return of the Jews to Palestine, basing their calculations for the fall of Babylon on secular histories that were inaccurate, not up to date on archaeological evidences [This is a lie. The WB&TS was repeatedly told by Christians from at least 1904 that 606 BC was wrong, based on historical and archaeological evidence, but it claimed that that they were wrong and that it got its 606 BC date from the Bible, which itself is false because the Bible has no dates-SEJ]. This meant that Jeremiah's seventy years of desolation for Jerusalem ran back from 536 B.C. to 606 B.C., instead of more correctly as now known from 537 B.C. to 607 B.C. (2 Chron. 36:21; Jer. 25:12; Zec. 1:12) With the above Absolute date for the fall of Babylon, the date 607 B.C. is on solid ground for the fall of Jerusalem, when King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon terminated the reigning Davidic dynasty by taking Jerusalem's last ruler, King Zedekiah, captive. This leads to the important modern date of 1914, which marks the end of the `seven times' of 2,520 years of Gentile domination since the first fall of Jerusalem 607 B.C. (Dan. 4:9-16; Luke 21:24) This adjustment of one year for Jerusalem's fall to 607 B.C. was acknowledged in the book `The Kingdom Is at Hand' of 1944, footnote of page 171, and also in The Watchtower of 1952, page 271." ("Questions From Readers ," The Watchtower, February 1, 1955, p. 94).

"1914 Foreseen ... `The Bible evidence is clear and strong that the `Times of the Gentiles' is a period of 2520 years, from the year B.C. 606 to and including A.D. 1914.'-Studies in the Scriptures, Volume 2, written by C. T. Russell and published in 1889, page 79. Charles Taze Russell and his fellow Bible students realized decades earlier that 1914 would mark the end of the Gentile Times, or the appointed times of the nations. (Luke 21:24) ... Providentially, those Bible Students had not realized that there is no zero year between `B.C.' and `A.D.' Later, when research made it necessary to adjust B.C. 606 to 607 B.C.E., the zero year was also eliminated, so that the prediction held good at `A.D. 1914.'-See "The Truth Shall Make You Free", published by Jehovah's Witnesses in 1943, page 239.' (WB&TS, "Revelation: Its Grand Climax At Hand!," 1988, p.105).

This was despite the Watchtower's founder Russell claiming that 606 BC was one of "God's dates, not ours":

"We see no reason for changing the figures-nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble." (Russell, C.T., "Can It Be Delayed Until 1914?," Zion's Watch Tower, July 15, 1894, Watchtower Reprints, p.1677).

and, "To change the chronology even one year would destroy all this harmony" (my emphasis):

"Question.-If the `Times of the Gentiles' can be changed as suggested in the July TOWER, so that the anarchy will follow 1914 A. D., instead of preceding it, might not similar changes be made in respect to all the various lines of prophetic time-proof set forth in MILLENNIAL DAWN, Vols. II. and III.? Answer.-You are entirely in error. ... The harmony of the prophetic periods is one of the strongest proofs of the correctness of our Bible chronology. They fit together like the cog-wheels of a perfect machine. To change the chronology even one year would destroy all this harmony,- so accurately are the various proofs drawn together in the parallels between the Jewish and Gospel ages. It would affect the ending of the Jubilee cycles, the 1335 days, the 2300 days and the times of the Gentles, throwing out of gear all the wonderful harmonies of these in the `parallel dispensations.'" (Russell, C.T., "The Harvest and Gentile Times," Zion's Watch Tower, August 15, 1904, Watchtower Reprints, p.3415. Emphasis original).

But as we shall see in in part #2(2), the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar was in 587 BC not in 606 BC, nor in 607 BC. The Adventists' (and therefore Russell's and the Watchtower's) fundamental error was in confusing Jeremiah's prophecy about Judah and the surrounding nations serving the King of Babylon as vassals for 70 years:

Jer 25:11 KJV. "And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."

which began soon after Nebuchadnezzar defeated the Egyptians at the Battle of Carchemish in 605 BC, with the actual destruction of Jerusalem 18 years later in 587 BC.

Note that if any one of the factors in the equation: 7 (times = years) x 360 (days = years) = 2520 years is even slightly different, the answer would not be 2520. For example, if the "seven times" of Nechuchadnezzar's temporary insanity was not "seven literal years" as the Watchtower claims, but six years and nine months (which is well within the meaning of "seven times"), that would make the calculation 6.75 x 360 = 2430 years, which if then added to the Watchtower's current year for the destruction of Jerusalem of 607 BC, would yield the end of the Gentile times of 1823! And even if all the factors were exactly what the Watchtower claims they are, and the answer was 2520, then the year of the destruction of Jerusalem has to be 607 BC (which it isn't-it was twenty years later in 587 BC) for -607 + 2520 +1 (no year zero) to equal 1914. And even if each part the Watchtower's equation was correct (and as we shall see all of them are wrong, with the possible exception of the "seven times" of Nebuchadnezzar's temporary insanity being seven years), there is still no good reason to think that "times" in "times of the Gentiles" in Luke 21:24) has anything to do with the "seven times" period of Nebuchadnezzar's temporary insanity in Daniel 4:16-32.

[To be continued in part #2(2)]

Stephen E. Jones, B.Sc., Grad. Dip. Ed.
My other blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign & The Shroud of Turin

11 comments:

Nathan said...

God is God, while Humans are humans! we have birth and death while God neither has space or time. How can we equate a human to God's level?
We are all Humans failing for our senses, Jesus was God sent no doubt, but not God himself!
Are you saying that Jesus took a human birth? for what? if He was God!
Don't tell me next that he sacrificed himself to himself?
Meaning we are of human thinking that GTF accepted Jesus death as sacrifice and not punish this people, who are bent upon doing only sin, never repent and change lives and go back to our Father! then why is death more now? why are we suffering more?
The first commandment is very clear, Our father is saying in Exodus 20:5,6: “For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.”
Do you understand, why we are suffering, even in this technologically advanced world?

Stephen E. Jones said...

Nathan

>God is God, while Humans are humans! we have birth and death while God neither has space or time. How can we equate a human to God's level? [...]

As this my Jesus IS Jehovah blog's front page says, I am not posting to it anymore.

Neither am I responding to comments

Except to point those who don't accept that Jesus of the New Testament is Jehovah of the Old Testament, to read carefully through my final post, "Jesus IS Jehovah!" which sets out the Biblical evidence that the pre-incarnate Jesus was (and is) Jehovah God the Son.

If they are not willing to accept what the Bible clearly teaches, then there is nothing that I can say that would convince them, so I won't waste my time trying.

Stephen E. Jones
-------------------------------
Policies Those comments I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. As this blog is now inactive (see "my last post to this blog"), I am not debating comments under posts on it. So each individual will be allowed only one comment under each post and any response by me will be only once to that individual under that post. Further comments under that post by that individual (or if anonymous who I assume is that individual) simply won't appear.

Anonymous said...

Many Christian denominations teach that God is a Trinity. However, note what the Encyclopædia Britannica states: “Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies.”

In fact, the God of the Bible is never described as being part of a Trinity. Note these Bible passages:

“Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.”—Deuteronomy 6:4.
“You, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.”—Psalm 83:18.
“This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.”—John 17:3.
“God is only one.”—Galatians 3:20.
Why do most Christian denominations say that God is a Trinity?

What is the origin of the myth?
“The impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true . . . The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Volume 14, page 299.

“The Council of Nicaea met on May 20, 325 [C.E.]. Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, ‘of one substance with the Father.’ . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.”—Encyclopædia Britannica (1970), Volume 6, page 386.

What does the Bible say?
“Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at God’s right hand. ‘Look! I can see heaven thrown open,’ he said, ‘and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.’”—Acts 7:55, 56, The New Jerusalem Bible.

What did this vision reveal? Filled with God’s active force, Stephen saw Jesus “standing at God’s right hand.” Clearly, then, Jesus did not become God again after his resurrection to heaven but, rather, a distinct spiritual being. There is no mention of a third person next to God in this account. Despite attempts to find passages of Scripture to support the Trinity dogma, Dominican priest Marie-Émile Boismard wrote in his book À l’aube du christianisme—La naissance des dogmes (At the Dawn of Christianity—The Birth of Dogmas): “The statement that there are three persons in the one God . . . cannot be read anywhere in the New Testament.”

The dogma that Constantine championed was intended to put an end to dissensions within the fourth-century Church. However, it actually raised another issue: Was Mary, the woman who bore Jesus, “the Mother of God”?

Compare these Bible verses: Matthew 26:39; John 14:28; 1 Corinthians 15:27, 28; Colossians 1:15, 16



Stephen E. Jones said...

Anonymous

Thank you for your comment. But before you respond to this my reply, please note that it was your first and last comment under this post. My Policies state: "... As this blog is now inactive (see "my last post to this blog"), I am not debating comments under posts on it. So each individual will be allowed only one comment under each post and any response by me will be only once to that individual under that post. Further comments under that post by that individual (or if anonymous whom I assume is that individual) simply won't appear."

I am confining my blog posting these days to my The Shroud of Turin blog, as the Shroud of Turin proves beyond reasonable doubt that Christianity is true and therefore all non-Christianity (including JWism) is false.

>Many Christian denominations teach that God is a Trinity.

ALL Christian denominations teach the Bible truth that God is a Trinity, i.e. a tri-unity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, each of whom is by nature God, and together comprise the one God in three persons.

If a denomination does not teach the Bible truth that God is a tri-unity, then it is not Christian. That includes the denomination "Jehovah's Witnesses," which is not Christian because it denies that God is a tri-unity.

>However, note what the Encyclopædia Britannica states: "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies."

If you are quoting from Watchtower Bible & Tract Society (WB&TS) literature, then it is misleading you, by not fully quoting what the texts actually say. For example, I have the paper 1984 Encyclopædia Britannica, and it says in the ellipses in between "... appears in the New Testament ... The doctrine developed gradually" that:

"The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were associated in such New Testament passages as the Great Commission: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19); and in the apostolic benediction: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all" (II Cor. 13:14). Thus, THE NEW TESTAMENT ESTABLISHED THE BASIS FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY." ("Trinity," Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition, 1984, Benton, Chicago IL, Vol. x, p.126. My emphasis).

>In fact, the God of the Bible is never described as being part of a Trinity. Note these Bible passages:

Christianity does not claim that "the God of the Bible is ... PART OF a Trinity." Christianity claims that the God of the Bible IS a Trinity, i.e. a tri-unity, three-in-one.

>"Jehovah our God is one Jehovah."-Deuteronomy 6:4.

The Hebrew word translated "one" in Dt 6:4 is 'echad which can mean a COMPOUND UNITY. The same Heb. word 'echad is used of the "one flesh" of husband and wife (Gn 2:24); "one people" comprising many individuals (Gn 11:6; 34:16,22); "one voice" of "all the people" (Ex 24:3); "one cluster of grapes" comprising many individual grapes (Num 13:23); and "one stick" joined to "another stick" making a compound "one stick" (Eze 37:16-17).

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued]

So "Jehovah our God is one ['echad] Jehovah" in Dt 6:4 is FULLY consistent with Jehovah God being a compound unity, e.g. a tri-unity or Trinity.

>"You, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth."-Psalm 83:18.

This is consistent with Jehovah God being a tri-unity, three-in-ONE, and being "the Most High over all the earth." Indeed, since His ascension, Christ now IS "the Most High over all the earth":

Eph 1:20-21. 20 that he [God the Father] worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 FAR ABOVE ALL rule and authority and power and dominion, and ABOVE EVERY name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come" (my emphasis).

Php 2:8-11 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has HIGHLY EXALTED him and bestowed on him the name that is ABOVE EVERY NAME, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (my emphasis).

If the WB&TS was consistent in its NWT in replacing Gk. kyrios "Lord" with "Jehovah" where it is a quote from the Old Testament where the Hebrew is YHWH, then it should read "and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is JEHOVAH" because Paul is quoting from Isa 45:23 where Jehovah says:

"By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: `TO ME every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.'

>"This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ."-John 17:3.

That the Father, the First Person of the Trinity, is "the only true God," does not preclude the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, and the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, also being members of "the [TRI-UNE] only true God."

Any more than that there is ONE "name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit":

Mt 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the NAME of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," (my emphasis)

precludes the individual Persons of the Trinity (tri-unity) sharing that same ONE name.

If the WB&TS was consistent in this, it would have to say that Jehovah cannot be Lord, because 1Cor 8:6 states that that there is "ONE Lord, Jesus Christ":

"yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist."

>"God is only one."-Galatians 3:20.

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity, has no problem with this. It states that God IS one, a tri-UNITY, "Three in ONE." But if this is a quote from the WB&TS' New World Translation (NWT), then it is another example of how it inserts words into the Biblical text which are not there. The Greek of Gal 3:20 is: theos eis estin, "God one is," i.e. there is no "only."

>Why do most Christian denominations say that God is a Trinity?

Again, not "most" but ALL "Christian denominations say that God is a Trinity". If a denomination says that God is NOT a Trinity" then it is NOT Christian.

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued]

And the answer to the WB&TS's question is in the FULL EB quote that the WB&TS dishonestly deleted:

"Thus, the NEW TESTAMENT established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity." (my emphasis).

>What is the origin of the myth?

It is NO "myth". Again, the WB&TS's own chosen authoritative source (the EB) stated (but the WB&TS dishonestly deleted): "The NEW TESTAMENT established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity."

>"The impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true . . . The formulation `one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century."-New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Volume 14, page 299.

I am a Protestant and so I am not bound by Roman Catholic teaching. But I have no problem with the above. Note that it says "The impression COULD arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention" (my emphasis). Not that "the Trinitarian dogma IS in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention."

And again the WB&TS is misleading you by dishonestly replacing key words with ellipses. As pointed out in "Trinity deception of Jehovah's Witnesses-Catholic" after "In a sense, this is true" the Encyclopedia continued: "... but it implies an EXTREMELY STRICT INTERPRETATION of the key words Trinitarian and dogma" (my emphasis).

And that link makes it clear that the WB&TS's own chosen authoritative source (the EB) continued:

"If it is clear on one side that the dogma of the Trinity in the stricter sense of the word was a late arrival, product of 3 centuries' reflection and debate, it is just as clear on the opposite side that confession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-and hence an elemental TRINITARIANISM-WENT BACK TO THE PERIOD OF CHRISTIAN ORIGINS" (my emphasis).

>"The Council of Nicaea met on May 20, 325 [C.E.]. Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, `of one substance with the Father.' . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination."-Encyclopædia Britannica (1970), Volume 6, page 386.

My later edition 1984 Encyclopædia Britannica does not say that. Instead it says:

"Nicaea, councils of, the first and seventh ecumenical councils of the Christian Church. The first Council of Nicaea (325) was called by the emperor Constantine I, an unbaptized catechumen, or neophyte, who presided over the opening session and took part in the discussions. He hoped a general council of the church would solve the problem created in the Eastern Church by Arianism, a heresy first proposed by Arius of Alexandria that affirmed that Christ is not divine but a created being. Pope Sylvester I did not attend the council but was represented by legates. The council condemned Arius and, with reluctance on the part of some participants, incorporated the nonscriptural word homoousios ("of one substance") into a creed (the Nicene Creed) to signify the absolute equality of the Son with the Father." ("Nicaea, councils of," Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition, 1984, Benton, Chicago IL, Vol. vii, p.319).

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued]

Note that Constantine only "presided over the OPENING session". And that Constantine "HOPED" (not directed) that the council would "solve the PROBLEM CREATED ... by Arianism," which held that Jesus was not "God" but "a god" (like JWs). That is, "Arianism" was not the original Christian position. It was a recent "problem created."

>What does the Bible say?
"Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at God's right hand. `Look! I can see heaven thrown open,' he said, `and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.'"-Acts 7:55, 56, The New Jerusalem Bible.

That is not a problem for the Trinity. The "Son of man" was the One in Daniel's vision in Dn 7:13-14 who was given an "an everlasting dominion" that "all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him":

13 "I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. 14 And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed."

That is as good a description of Jesus, the Son of Man, who is also Jehovah God the Son, that one could wish for. But the WB&TS doesn't acknowledge this Son of Man's dominion, nor serve Him, and teaches JWs not to do so either.

So the WB&TS and JWs who follow it, not the Bible, will learn the hard way that Jesus, whom they claim is just a created angel, actually is Jehovah God, come in the flesh. See my final post "Jesus IS Jehovah!"

>What did this vision reveal? Filled with God's active force, Stephen saw Jesus "standing at God's right hand."

The Greek text of Acts 7:55 does not say "God's active force." It says pneumatos agiou "spirit holy". This is a classic example of how the WB&TS twists the Scriptures to their own destruction (2Pet 3:16).

The WB&TS is hypocritical in its straw man criticism of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity by pointing out that the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible (when Christianity has never claimed that it is). But then the WB&TS inserts the words "God's active force" which aren't in the original Hebrew or Greek text of the Bible either! The WB&TS does this so as to make the Bible conform to WB&TS doctrine (that the Holy Spirit is not a person), not the other way around.

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued]

>Clearly, then, Jesus did not become God again after his resurrection to heaven but, rather, a distinct spiritual being.

Christianity does not CLAIM that "Jesus did not become God again after his resurrection." Christianity claims what the Bible teaches, that "Christ Jesus," as God the Son, always was "in the form of God," i.e. possessed the "very nature" of God:

Php 2:5-7 8 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form [Gk. morphe "very nature" NIV] of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

and took upon Himself a human nature:

Jn 1:1,14. 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ... 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."

>There is no mention of a third person next to God in this account.

It is the Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, which is MEDIATING THE VISION of the Father and Son in heaven to Stephen:

Acts 7:55-56. "55 But he [Stephen], FULL OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 And he said, `Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God'" (my emphasis).

Do you REALLY think that Stephen could, with his own unaided eyes, see into Heaven?

>Despite attempts to find passages of Scripture to support the Trinity dogma, Dominican priest Marie-Émile Boismard wrote in his book À l'aube du christianisme-La naissance des dogmes (At the Dawn of Christianity-The Birth of Dogmas): "The statement that there are three persons in the one God . . . cannot be read anywhere in the New Testament."

According to a Roman Catholic Forum:

"Fr. Boismard’s book, At the Dawn of Christianity: The Birth of Dogmas, published in 1998, is not considered an authoritative book representative of Catholic theology ... for all practical purposes, he has simply abandoned the Catholic faith."

It is DISHONEST of the WB&TS to quote ONE Roman Catholic priest who has lost his faith (out of THOUSANDS who haven't) and try to make out that this is somehow evidence against the Trinity.

>The dogma that Constantine championed was intended to put an end to dissensions within the fourth-century Church.

First, it is not clear that Constantine "championed" Trinitarianism, and even if he did, that does not make Trinitarianism false. More likely Constantine sided with the MAJORITY of bishops at the Council of Nicaea, who were against, or not for, Arianism.

Also, that there were continuing "dissensions within the fourth-century Church" after the Council of Nicaea, does not thereby make Trinitarianism false and Arianism true.

Indeed it is REMARKABLE, that despite the differences between the major branches of the Christian Church: Easter/Russian Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant; they ALL are agreed on the doctrine of the Trinity and their rejection of Arianism.

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued]

>However, it actually raised another issue: Was Mary, the woman who bore Jesus, "the Mother of God"?

This is just a red herring. The claim that Mary is "the Mother of God" is not an entailment of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Indeed, although many, if not most, Roman Catholics say that, they cannot LITERALLY believe that. That Mary (who was herself born in the late 1st century BC) gave birth to God!

What they presumably mean, but deliberately confuse it by a fallacy of equivocation, is that Mary was theotokos, i.e. the "God-bearer."

That is, Mary, uniquely, conceived, bore in her womb and then gave birth to Jesus, who was the God-man.

But Mary was the mother of Jesus HUMAN nature, not of His GOD nature.

>Compare these Bible verses: Matthew 26:39; John 14:28; 1 Corinthians 15:27, 28; Colossians 1:15, 16

None of those are a problem for the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. They were all presumably appealed to by Arius at the Council of Nicaea, but the predominantly Greek-speaking bishops saw their fallaciousness and decisively rejected Arianism.

The `problem' for the Trinity doctrine is only in JW's minds because of the WB&TS's brainwashing. See my final post "Jesus IS Jehovah!" and other posts on this blog, where I have answered them.

The WB&TS has warned JWs that if they "read the Bible exclusively" they would "revert right back" to the doctrines of CHRISTIANITY:

"From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those who ... say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such `Bible reading,' they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago ..." (The Watchtower, August 15, 1981, p.29).

Which is a tacit admission by the WB&TS that the Bible teaches CHRISTIANITY, including the Trinity, not Watchtowerism.

The choice is yours (if you can still make it despite the WB&TS' brainwashing): believe the Bible OR the WB&TS.

Stephen E. Jones

Anonymous said...

Stephen,

Thanks so much for your great summary here. I always knew this, that Jesus was Yahweh, but I never saw it broken down and explained so well. Thank you and God bless you!

-Mac

Stephen E. Jones said...

Mac

>Thanks so much for your great summary here. I always knew this, that Jesus was Yahweh, but I never saw it broken down and explained so well. Thank you and God bless you!

Thanks.

I assume your comment was meant to be under my last post, "Jesus IS Jehovah!" since the post you this comment is under, "What is a Jehovah's Witness? #2: Jesus returned invisibly in 1914 (1)" does not mention "Yahweh."

I am therefore copying it to under my "Jesus IS Jehovah!" post.

Stephen E. Jones