# Response to AF: Part Five

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Greg Stafford [GregStafford] on November 02, 1999 at 11:41:24 {.c1iAaocfM/CPYT8orz2XxZ4XktaQ.}:

SECOND RESPONSE TO AF, PART FIVE

ALAN_2
::Posted by AF [AF] on October 18, 1999 at 00:01:38 {VmAHMooXmo1EwaxRomAMdaOt1gg/Zk}:
Start of Part 5
After some discussion about preaching only what one understands, Russell continued:

After God favors us in this time with an understanding of Present Truth, he has given us a knowledge of more truth than we could have gained in a thousand years if we had read and studied unaided; and now we can attempt to present it to others. Why has he given us a knowledge of this Truth? He wishes us to be "thoroughly furnished unto every good word and work."
Who aided Russell to gain his "understanding of Present Truth?" It certainly was not the Second Adventists, as regards much of the doctrine he taught in 1910. What he implied was that God -- somehow -- mysteriously revealed truth to him. Once again, for all practical purposes Russell claimed inspiration.

GREG_2
No, as I have explained several times already, no such claim can be derived from comments of his, like those quoted above. I believe the same things in relation to those things I believe I have rightly discerned from God’s Word! Again, since I have already explained where you are wrong on this point, and why there is absolutely no double-talk at all in making such claims, all the while denying inspiration, I will delete anything further you have to say in this vein. Of course, while what you next say does qualify as deletable material, I cannot resist commenting on the one-sidedness of your words, just once more:

ALAN_2
::Russell was as incapable of seeing the possibility that he could be wrongright now as most Jehovah's Witnesses are today.

GREG_2
Let us view your claim in the light of what Russell was quite capable of seeing:

“Someone may ask, Do you, then, claim infallibility and that every sentence appearing in ‘The Watch Tower’ publications is stated with absolute correctness? Assuredly we make no such claim and have never made such a claim. What motive can our opponents have in so charging against us? Are they not seeking to set up a falsehood to give themselves excuse for making attacks and to endeavor to pervert the judgments of others?” --- "Nocturnal Hallucinations—‘Wake Up!’" Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, 15 September 1909, reprint, 4473.

GREG_2
If every sentence appearing in the WT is not said to be “stated with absolute correctness,” then Russell most certainly did see the possibility that he could be wrong RIGHT NOW (at his time). There is more, of course:

“We do not object to changing our opinions on any subject, or discarding former applications of prophecy, or any other scripture, when we see a good reason for the change,—in fact, it is important that we should be willing to unlearn errors and mere traditions, as to learn truth. . . . It is our duty to ‘prove all things.’—by the unerring Word,—‘and hold fast to that which is good.’ --- "The Ten Virgins," Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, October 1879, reprint, 38.

GREG_2
I do not believe a person who, as you say, was “incapable of seeing the possibility that he could be wrong right now” would publish the above. But that is hardly the end of those quote that demonstrate your misunderstanding of this point:

“We are not prophesying; we are merely giving our surmises, the Scriptural basis for which is already in the hands of our readers in the six volumes of SCRIPTURE STUDIES. We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophesy and our calculations of chronology. We have merely laid these before you, leaving it for each to exercise his own faith or doubt in respect to them.” --- "Views From the Watch Tower," Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, 1 January 1908, reprint, 4110.

GREG_2
So, if you ask Alan, Russell was “incapable of seeing the possibility that he could be wrong right now.” When we consult the writings of Russell himself, however, we find that precisely the opposite is true. But, when you consider that Alan is one who relies on sources who tell him lies about my relationship with Albert Schroeder, I guess he’ll believe just about anything. But that does not mean that YOU, the reader, have to follow his example.

The question is, Alan, do YOU see the possibility that YOU could be wrong RIGHT NOW? I sure hope so...

ALAN_2
::In view of the above demonstration of C. T. Russell's doubletalk, let's resume our discussion:

GREG_2
I will resume it indeed, but without any fanciful thoughts about you having proved any such thing. But I will note that what you have to say from here on, is based on assumptions you not demonstrated, and issues that you have misunderstood and mishandled.

: GREG
: I mean, sure, Russell was very confident of his findings, and he definitely did express that confidence, but the way you speak it is almost as if he allowed no room for error, which is certainly not true:
"We do not object to changing our opinions on any subject, or discarding former applications of prophecy, or any other scripture, when we see a good reason for the change,-in fact, it is important that we should be willing to unlearn errors and mere traditions, as to learn truth. . . . It is our duty to 'prove all things.'-by the unerring Word,-'and hold fast to that which is good.'--- "The Ten Virgins," Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, October 1879, reprint, 38.

ALAN_2
::[MANY (GREG_2 of my) QUOTES DELETED]

: GREG
: Why your claim of "extremely dogmatic statements" was not balanced by these very open and frank admissions is not clear, but I am sure you will explain the reason for your one-sided characterization.

ALAN_2
::There were two reasons: (1) I wanted to draw out your response and I knew that you were capable of pulling up the necessary research material; (2) I wanted to prove to you that Russell's "open and frank admissions" were nothing but doubletalk, just as are those of the Society today.

GREG_2
I am afraid that is not going to fly. You were shown to be in gross error and now you are trying to slide away. Sorry, retroactive arguments are not accepted. When you make claims, you cannot go back and say, “Well, I knew you show how pathetic my statement was, and then I would show you how that is all double-talk, etc.”

ALAN’S CLAIM WAS: “Prior to 1914 Russell made many extremely dogmatic statements about how sure he was
of his teachings.”

THE FACTS THAT HE DELETED ARE:

“We do not object to changing our opinions on any subject, or discarding former applications of prophecy, or any other scripture, when we see a good reason for the change,—in fact, it is important that we should be willing to unlearn errors and mere traditions, as to learn truth. . . . It is our duty to ‘prove all things.’—by the unerring Word,—‘and hold fast to that which is good.’--- "The Ten Virgins," Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, October 1879, reprint, 38.

And:

“And we still urge, as in the past, that each reader study the subjects we present in the light of the Scriptures, proving all things by the Scriptures, accepting what they see to be thus approved, and rejecting all else. It is to this end, to enable the student to trace the subject in the divinely inspired Record, that we so freely intersperse both quotations and citations of the Scriptures upon which to build.”--- "Worship the Lord in the Beauty of Holiness," No. 2, Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, 15 December 1896, reprint, 2080.

And:

“We are not prophesying; we are merely giving our surmises, the Scriptural basis for which is already in the hands of our readers in the six volumes of SCRIPTURE STUDIES. We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophesy and our calculations of chronology. We have merely laid these before you, leaving it for each to exercise his own faith or doubt in respect to them.”--- "Views From the Watch Tower," Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, 1 January 1908, reprint, 4110.

And:

“However, we should not denounce those who in a proper spirit express their dissent in respect to the date mentioned [1914] and what may there be expected . . . We must admit that there are possibilities of our having made a mistake in respect to the chronology, even though we do not see where any mistake has been made in calculating the seven times of the Gentiles as expiring about October 1, 1914. . . The general facts are much more valuable and important than merely the day or the year respecting these facts . . . Be specially careful on this point when the subject of discussion is one respecting which we have no positive knowledge. The rupture of fellowship may sometimes be necessary, when we "contend earnestly for the faith once delivered unto the saints" [Jude 4]—faith in the divine plan, in the Redeemer, in the efficacy of his death, etc. These matters are positively stated in the Bible—not left to deduction, as in the case of chronology and all matters based upon chronology.”--- "What Course Should We Take?" The Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, 15 November 1913, repr. 5348.

And, finally:

"The date 1914 is not an arbitrary date; it is merely what the chronology of the Scriptures seems to teach. . . . So if the church is here in 1915, we shall think that we have made some mistake. . . . We do not know positively that the month of October, 1914, will see the church all glorified, and the time of trouble ushered in. We merely say, Here are the evidences. Here are the proofs. Look at them for yourself and see what you then think. It is for each to accept or reject the facts. So far as we can reason, this chronology is reasonably correct—a good basis for faith. ‘We walk by faith, and not by sight.’ God did not tell us that we should know the exact hour. But we have certain valuable information, and events seem to be fulfilling our expectations more and more as the days go by."--- "Resume of the Ending of the Times of the Gentiles," The Watchtower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, 15 October 1913, reprint 5328.

GREG_2
Now, ask yourself, does this, “Prior to 1914 Russell made many extremely dogmatic statements about how sure he was of his teachings,” really look like this, “(1) I wanted to draw out your response and I knew that you were capable of pulling up the necessary research material; (2) I wanted to prove to you that Russell's ‘open and frank admissions’ were nothing but doubletalk, just as are those of the Society today.”

We are dealing with someone who cannot take correction, even on matters in which he so obviously wrong.

ALAN_2
::Note that the quotations I provided above sometimes contain both an admission of potential error and some kind of statement that influences the reader to ignore the admission. This is again absolutely typical of the Society since Russell's day.

GREG_2
There is no such thing. You simply conjure up these “influences” and add them to your reading of the material, the same way your “sources” conjured up false information about my connections with Bethel, which you so gladly shared to others without having checked out matters for yourself. You are assuming you have proved things, which you have not, and on the basis of those things which you have not proved, you try to prove other things, and ultimately you are stuck with one big mess. Of course, a little dose of denial and you’ll be okay.

:: AF
:: It's my opinion that when people write euphemisms like this, which result in misdirecting most readers, they do it with intent to deceive.

:GREG
: Here you are making a subjective judgment based on why you think certain people use "euphemisms."

ALAN_2
::Quite so: I did say I was giving my opinion.

GREG_2
But elsewhere you state you opinions as fact, when they are, as you here admit, just your opinions. Of course, your opinions have been shown to be in error, or at least extremely one-sided, repeatedly.

: GREG
: Is that supposed to be considered convincing evidence showing that the Governing Body 'intended to deceive' people, when, in fact, they were quite frank about many of the misgivings Russell and his associates had, and simply chose, as they often do, on a wide variety of subjects, not to give every single possible detail, especially when the key point has already been established, namely, that the Bible Students were on to something when it came to the significance of 1914, but that they did not "fully understand" the implications of this date?

ALAN_2
::No, my opinion alone is not supposed to be convincing evidence of that. The convincing evidence is contained in the above material, which shows that the presentation given in the Revelation Climax book about the things I complained of is deceptive. It is deceptive because it gives a false picture of Russell's beliefs, since it gives a naive reader the impression that Russell was right about many things, and certainly was right about the significant things. In truth he was wrong about every observable event.

GREG_2
You have given no such evidence. And, please note, it is not I who said “it gives a naive reader the impression that Russell was right about many things, and certainly was right about the significant things.” I am inclined to agree with what you say here, for reasons I have elsewhere given. I do not know how else anyone could conclude as you do.

ALAN_2
::It's really quite easy to paraphrase the material on page 105 of that book into something that is more truthful:

4 From the mid-1870's, C. T. Russell and his followers had been anticipating that the final end of the kingdoms of this world and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God would be accomplished by the end of 1914, and would mark the end of the Gentile Times. This is the period of "seven times" (2,520 years) running from the overthrow of the Davidic kingdom in Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. to Jesus' enthronement in heavenly Jerusalem in 1914 C.E.-Daniel 4:24, 25; Luke 21:24, King James Version.
5 Thus, when C. T. Russell, first president of the Watch Tower Society, appeared for morning worship with the Brooklyn, New York, Bethel family on the morning of October 2, 1914, he made the dramatic announcement: "The Gentile Times have ended; their kings have had their day." Indeed, the worldwide upheaval that began in 1914 was so far-reaching that many long-standing monarchies disappeared.
But whoops! The careful reader will now note that critical phrases in paragraphs 4 and 5 no longer track. It is simply not true that "the final end of the kingdoms of this world and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God" were "accomplished by the end of 1914", and therefore it does not match up with "the worldwide upheaval that began in 1914".

GREG_2
Again, what they say in par. 4 and at the start of par. 5 is not meant to imply that he correctly foresaw “"the worldwide upheaval that began in 1914,” which they go on to discuss in the remainder of par. 5 and those that follow. It is rather clear, since that is what they say (!), that “From the mid-1870s Jehovah’s people had been anticipating that catastrophic events would start in 1914 and would mark the end of the Gentile Times.” This, together with the clear implications of what is said about Russell in the box on page 105, refute your claims. There is no intent here to imply that Russell correctly foresaw anything other than that events in 1914 would mark the end of the Gentile Times.

[DELETED (material along the same lines as that just discussed [and discussed elsewhere in this series of replies], about page 105 of the Revelation book)]

:: AF
:: Thus I claim that the above-discussed material is a lie on the part of Watchtower writers. In particular it's a lie on the part of the Governing Body since the material was published under their direct supervision and certainly with their approval. The fact that Watchtower writers know full well what Russell taught is proved by the manipulations in the Proclaimers book. The fact that they do not want to correct the errors in the Revelation Climax book is proved by the fact that they have not done so in the six years since the Proclaimers book was published.

: GREG
: I disagree. There is nothing in your quotations of these two publications that can reasonably be construed as an attempt to deceive anyone. Frankly, I am surprised that you chose to build a case against them on such a weak foundation, based partly, if not primarily, on how YOU often construe a person's use of "euphemisms." You have also, at least partly, mischaracterized Russell's disposition concerning his chronology, and you left out key admissions in both the Revelation and the Proclaimers books.

ALAN_2
::I think you need to revisit your arguments. I've dealt thoroughly with each of your objections.

GREG_2
I think you need to revisit what you think is a thorough treatment of my objections. You have done no such thing. Of course, what else should we expect you to say? I doubt anyone reading this believes you are actually going to admit your errors publicly. No, it would take someone of Russell’s character to stand up and admit they were wrong. Given the way you view Russell, I doubt you have gleaned that much from his writings. But, as I said, “There is nothing in your quotations of these two publications that can reasonably be construed as an attempt to deceive anyone. Frankly, I am surprised that you chose to build a case against them on such a weak foundation, based partly, if not primarily, on how YOU often construe a person's use of "euphemisms." You have also, at least partly, mischaracterized Russell's disposition concerning his chronology, and you left out key admissions in both the Revelation and the Proclaimers books.”

:: AF
:: Example 2:
:: The box on page 105 of the Revelation Climax book contains the following statements:
"It was in B.C. 606, that God's kingdom ended, the diadem was removed, and all the earth given up to the Gentiles. 2520 years from B.C. 606, will end in A.D. 1914."-The Three Worlds, published in 1877, page 83.
:: . . .
:: [Footnotes]
:: 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 the Watch Tower Society in 1943, page 239.
:: There are some oddities with the way this is phrased. No hint is given of just what "research made it necessary" to change a date by exactly one year. How could the Society have gotten two crucial pieces of chronological data or reasoning wrong for more than 60 years? Could that really have been "providential"? What exactly does it mean to "adjust B.C. 606 to 607 B.C.E."?

: GREG
: Yes, they probably should have further explained the basis for their change of the date, but, again, they often leave out information from one publication that they put in another, or that they are not in a position to discuss, yet.

ALAN_2
::Sorry, that excuse doesn't cut it.

GREG_2
I appreciate your opinion, Alan. After all, that is all that it is. But, what is somewhat odd, is that you seem not to have noticed that I gave TWO reasons why they were not specific. You said, “that excuse,” when it should be “those excuses.” Of course, you are here stating opinion as fact again, and do not even seem to realize it.

ALAN_2
::This material is discussed nowhere else in Watchtower literature after about 1955, and even then those discussions don't tell the reader the truth. If you want full references I'll be glad to supply them, and even an easily downloaded discussion called "The Evolution of 606 to 607 B.C. in Watchtower Chronology". Furthermore, I wrote directly to the Writing Department in 1992 about this point, and received no response. I've also discussed this point with other JWs, and those who stuck with it enough to understand the material all agreed that the Society has never provided a good explanation. I don't you're going to succeed either. Finally, why would they not be in a position to discuss material that was supposedly put to rest some 56 years ago? Simple: those who look at the problem quickly find that the 1943/44 "explanations" are nonsense. You can't explain nonsense, and you certainly can't justify it when it has been published as "spiritual food in due season from Jehovah". The best you can do is ignore it, and that's what the Society has done.

GREG_2
Again, I said, “they probably should have further explained the basis for their change of the date.” I do not believe anyone is saying there was no error made. I quite clearly stated as much in my first reply. BUT, remember, Alan, YOU are supposed to be showing where they DELIBERATELY attempted to deceive people, not just where they made errors. Obviously the errors made in the Truth book were embarrassing, and they did what they thought was best at the time, dealing with a new publication. Who says the writer of page 105 of the Revelation book, about 40 years after the fact, is going to realize that there was an error in the Truth book? See below for more on this point. However, could you please send me a PDF of the letter you wrote to the Society in 1992? I would very much like to see it.

: GREG
: Scholars have struggled for years with a variety of dates in the Bible, from the birth of Jesus to the day of his death. Bible chronology can be very elusive, and so it is no surprise that some group might cling to some date(s) as reliable, thinking that it has been resolved, only to later discover that it has not. You do not seem to be one who allows room for much error in this regard, but that is your own personal decision.

: ALAN_2
::In general I allow much room for error. However, I've come to the point of allowing little room for those who disfellowship people for questioning the fallible interpretations of men who are no more or less qualified than many other sincere, intelligent people.

GREG_2
Can you give an example? I am not aware of anyone who was disfellowshipped simply for questioning, “in the proper spirit,” the “fallible interpretations of men”?

: GREG
: It hardly proves a point regarding someone's alleged attempt to deceive, as we will further discuss below.

ALAN_2
:: That's right. The attempt to deceive is proved by showing a deliberate inclusion of gobble-de-gook.

GREG_2
So, every time someone gives an argument in an attempt to avoid problems that might result from an error in a certain, new publication, that is deception? I don’t think so. But that is just my opinion, which is no better than yours, and which proves just the same: nothing! You have not “proven” anything; you have only asserted your opinion regarding their intent, as fact, when it is just your opinion. It is just as possible that they were trying to work around an error they made so they could continue to use their new publications, and keep from drawing too much attention to it. That is hardly as devious as you make it out to be, and just as likely a possibility, but one that you, for obvious reasons, will not accept.

: GREG
: As for being "providential," naturally, being Bible students and relying on God through prayer and supplication tends to make one think that he or she is indeed being cared for by God, both in what they teach and in other matters.

ALAN_2
::This is a good euphemism for "we think that God is specially guiding us by holy spirit to our unique understandings". It's illustrative of my complaint about fuzzy euphemisms.

GREG_2
There is nothing “fuzzy” about it, since such claims are made in the context of their repeated denials of inspiration. Only a particularly naive person, or one utterly unfamiliar with our writings, could misunderstand the meaning of such terminology. See parts three and four of my reply for more on this subject.

:: AF
:: A careful look at the given reference, along with other material, turns up some major problems. It turns out that the 1943 book only changed the date for the end of "the Gentile times". It left the date for the destruction of Jerusalem alone, which resulted in the odd situation that for about a year the Society officially taught that the end of "the Gentile times" occurred about October 1, 607 B.C., whereas Jerusalem was destroyed almost ten months later in August, 606 B.C.

: GREG
: I believe you mean the BEGINNING of the Gentile Times, not the END.

ALAN_2
::Right. Sorry for the confusion.

GREG_2
No problem. It not something about which I would accuse you of being deliberately deceptive. Although, I could claim that you are deliberately trying to make the Society look bad by giving a non-sensical portrayal of their understanding of when the end of the Gentile Times. But how could I prove you were really being deceptive? I can’t, so why try. I can look at the context of what you say, and your overall presentation and see that you simply made a mistake. Of course, this is much different than what we have in the Truth book, since the material there can be used in support of two different views, and thus their attempt to correct matters and still make use of the book is a bit different than a situation such as the above, where an admission of error is all that you wish to say, since there is nothing you wish to salvage from what you wrote on this point. But the Society had a lot more invested in the Truth book, and there was a way to make it work, from their point of view. Try to understand that...

: GREG
: Yes, that was the situation, which they predicated on the their view that the "year had its beginning in the fall of 607 B.C.," as we see in your quote below.

ALAN_2
::Ok.

:: AF
:: The biggest problem, though, is that the explanation for the change, given on page 239 of The Truth Shall Make You Free, is completely nonsensical and deliberately so. The Society had always taught that "the Gentile times" began about October 1, 606 B.C. However, the explanation gives the impression that the date was being changed back by only a fraction of a year, from sometime in 606 B.C. to about October 1, 607 B.C. But the change of date was really one full year! Thus, the writer lied to his audience. Note how he does it:
Beginning in 606 B.C., and being seven in number, when would these `times' end and the righteous overlordship of God's kingdom be established?. . . In Nebuchadnezzar's time the year began counting from the fall of the year, or about October 1, our time. Since he destroyed Jerusalem in the summer of 606 B.C., that year had its beginning in the fall of 607 B.C. and its ending in the fall of 606 B.C. Inasmuch as the count of the Gentile "seven times" began its first year at the fall of 607 B.C., it is simple to calculate when they end.
:: Note that the explanation also gives the impression that for the first time the Society's chronology was accounting for the fact that the Jewish year began counting in the fall. But Russell knew that quite well, as far back as 1877 when he and N. H. Barbour published The Three Worlds. Also note that the book made no mention of any correction of the "no zero year between B.C. and A.D." problem.

: GREG
: There is nothing anywhere in the information to which you refer that necessarily "gives the impression that for the first time the Society's chronology was accounting for the fact that the Jewish year began counting in the fall." I am sorry, but I believe you are reading your view into what they wrote, and then proceeding to make judgments on what they "deliberately" did.

ALAN_2
:: The fact that the writer used it to change the date gives that impression. If the knowledge that "the Jewish year began counting in the fall" was already accounted for in the chronology, then there would be no need to introduce it as if it were new material justifying the change.

GREG_2
Again, there is nothing anywhere in the information to which you refer that necessarily "gives the impression that for the first time the Society's chronology was accounting for the fact that the Jewish year began counting in the fall." The impression that IS given is that they are using the START of the Jewish year, in 607, for their count of the Gentile Times. That is all. Where did Russell use this reasoning for his counting of the Gentile Times? I am not saying never considered this, but you have not documented your point, which you must first do.

Russell may have known about when the Jewish year began, but he did not use the start of that year as the start of the count towards the end of the Gentile Times, at least not in the majority of his writings, which likely influenced the writer of the particular section of the Truth book under discussion. Indeed, in the book you mention (for which you give no page number), Barbour and Russell wrote: “The seventy years captivity ended in the first year of Cyrus, which was B. C. 536. They therefore commenced seventy years before, or B. C. 606. Hence it was in B. C. 606, that God’s kingdom ended, the diadem was removed, and all the earth given up to the Gentiles.” (Three Worlds: Or Plan of Redemption, 1877, page 83) So what is stated in the Truth book is indeed a new way of counting down the Times for the one who apparently knew only of the 606 counting, whose identity we do NOT know. No doubt the nature of this error is what gave rise to the swift correction of the material, and the redirection to the 607 date.

ALAN_2
:If you still disagree, then by all mean tell me what the point of talking about the Jewish new year was.

GREG_2
See above.

: GREG
: True, there is no correction of the zero year problem in the Truth book, and this is one area where I agree that the Revelation book did not give an accurate reference in the box footnote, which does seem to give the impression that the research concerning the zero year problem is to be found in the Truth book.

ALAN_2
::Ok, we agree on this point.

: GREG
: As for whether or not "the writer lied to his audience,"

ALAN_2
::For the record, we're talking about the writer of The Truth Shall Make You Free.

: GREG
: it seems to me that the writer simply did not have a firm grasp of all the issues, and mistakenly attempted to piece things together, claiming that while the destruction occurred in the summer of 606, the actual year in which that destruction took place began in 607, and, hence, the count should begin from 607, not 606, though even on this issue the Truth book is unclear (see below).

ALAN_2
:: Keep in mind that the writer here is almost certainly Fred Franz, who can hardly be accused of not having a firm grasp on all of the issues. Well, I suppose he could, but then we have the problem that an incompetent writer is setting forth what is supposed to be "spiritual food in due season from Jehovah".

GREG_2
Well, first you say he could not be accused of having a firm grasp of the issues, then you flip-flop in the very next sentence and say that he could! Well, Alan, which is it? Also, to suggest that anyone, including members of the Governing Body, regardless of how intelligent they may be, are not capable of moments of incompetence, or sloppy handling of technical issues, is a non sequitur. It just does not follow. So to use it as an absolute in your argument is highly revealing.

ALAN_2
::Also keep in mind that it was around this time that Franz testified under oath in the Olin Moyle court case that no man is the editor of The Watchtower magazine, but "Jehovah God" is.

GREG_2
Yes, so? The meaning of such language is quite transparent to those even remotely familiar with our teachings and literature. For example, as I discuss in my book:

10 The following year, 1932, the congregations of Jehovah’s witnesses throughout the world brought themselves under theocratic procedure, with the manifest blessing of Jehovah, until today we find the earth-wide New World society operating as did the early Christian congregation, noncommercially, nonpolitically, voluntarily on the part of each individual in it. There now is, therefore, the proper theocratic control over the Christian congregation, which control had not existed since the captivity of which Paul warned.

11 Who controls the organization, who directs it? Who is at the head? A man? A group of men? A clergy class? A pope? A hierarchy? A council? No, none of these. How is that possible? In any organization is it not necessary that there be a directing head or policy-making part that controls or guides the organization? Yes. Is the living God, Jehovah, the Director of the theocratic Christian organization? Yes!

12 Because of the vital fact that the law that governs the operation of the theocratic New World society is the Word of Jehovah God, and because of the fact that the heaven-enthroned Christ Jesus is Jehovah’s Executive Officer carrying on his work in the earth, and because of the further fact that the spirit of God by Christ Jesus is operating through his Word and upon the hearts and minds of his dedicated servants, the New World society is theocratic, meaning "God-ruled.” --- "Turn to the New World Society," The Watchtower, 1 November 1956, 665-666.

END OF QUOTE

GREG_2
The point is, the Society is "guided" or "directed" by God because they are theocratic, or governed by what God has had written in His inspired Word! They are not "guided" or "directed" in the same manner as the inspired writers of the Bible, which have always denied. They do, of course, like all who profess to be Christian, ask for and believe they do in fact receive God’s active guidance, by mean of His holy spirit, as I have elsewhere explained, several times.

: GREG
: Basically, since the Society accepts 1914 as the end of the seven times of Daniel, partly in view of the events that took place in that year, and in those which followed, they are simply trying to fit that year with the Danielic chronology, which has resulted in some difficulties concerning the start of those seven times.

ALAN_2
::It's not that simple, Greg.

GREG_2
Yes, Alan, it is that simple.

ALAN_2
::Russell knew in 1914 that 606 was the wrong date. Do did many of his close associates. In the 1917 Finished Mystery book 607 appears instead of 606. A 1935 Golden Age also shows 607, not 606. Solid secular historical material available at least as early as 1900 (actually much earlier) proved that the old "pivotal date" 536 B.C. needed to be changed to 539. So by the time 1943 rolled around, Freddie had few excuses not to change the date. Why they didn't do it earlier is not clear, except that perhaps they didn't want to deal with Rutherford.

GREG_2
This first thing you need to do, Alan, is give specifics for your references. You give no page numbers for the three items you reference above. Also, if a 1935 Golden Age shows 607, then why would they choose not to change the date because of Rutherford? When, exactly, Alan, did they cease making use of 606, prior to 1943? Also, as I have shown quite clearly, they made a mistake in reference to the 606 date, which they did change within a year or so. Obviously whoever worked on the section of the Truth book that leans on 606 was confused by some of the previous dates used by Russell and the Society. As for the Kingdom book’s reference to the Truth book on the dating of the fall of Jerusalem, I think the writer just made a terrible mistake, or worded himself very poorly.

: GREG
: But to say that they "deliberately" attempted to deceive people in the Truth book by 'implying' that only a fraction of a year was being changed is not a fair claim.

ALAN_2
:: It is not that point alone that is the basis of my claim. There are many other related things that together form a pattern of deception.

GREG_2
No such pattern can be found, and you have certainly not identified one.

ALAN_2
:: In any case, the fact is that that is what the writer did imply, since it is immediately obvious that what little "explanation" is given falls apart if the reader notes that the change was actually from October 606 to October 607 B.C. Keep in mind the timelines here. I've found that most people can't understand the changes that were made without a chart, so I'm presenting several charts to help you out. I hope the HTML works out ok.

[DELETED]

GREG_2
Thanks for the help, but it is not necessary. I understand precisely what they changed, and I see nothing that in any way indicates deception on their part. As I said,

: GREG
: What we have, rather, are errors used in the calculation that might be construed as innocent or deliberate,

ALAN_2
::I've shown clearly that the errors are deliberate by proving that the writer's claim on page 171 of The Kingdom Is At Hand is false, i.e., that The Truth Shall Make You Free does not indicate or justify in any way the change of date for Jerusalem's fall from 606 to 607 B.C. Once this lie is acknowledged, the rest are clearly seen.
If you think that my statements here are wrong, then by all means show me how the statement in the 1944 book is truthful.

GREG_2
I did explain this to you, in reference to the dual claim that is made in the Truth book, and the use The Kingdom Is At Hand makes of part of the material, so that the relatively new Truth book could continue to be used. Your answer to this will be discussed below. As for the fall of Jerusalem, the writer of the Kingdom book made a mistake, misunderstood the material in the Truth book, or worded himself improperly. It may even have been a combination of these three.

: GREG
: but since they, as even you acknowledge below, corrected these calculations within a year or so,

ALAN_2
::No, they did not correct them. They swept the problem under the rug and only pretended to give an explanation.

GREG_2
They did correct part of the problem, by building on the 607 date given in the Truth book, and not 606, in the discussion in The Kingdom Is At Hand. If you do not want to recognize the legitimate possibilities for the problems that were created in the Truth book and the Society’s attempt to get out of the problem, and still make use of a brand new book, then that is your problem.

: GREG
: how would it have been to their advantage to make the claim in the first place? It would seem that the different claims would, if anything, cause more problems (as we can see) than it would have solved.

ALAN_2
::There is quite a difference between the worlds of JWs of 1943 and 1999. No one would have dared question Franz on this, in my opinion.

GREG_2
Let’s try to deal with facts, not opinions. I think you have made far too much out of your opinions, as it is.

ALAN_2
::No one would have even been able to understand the "logic" enough to question him intelligently.

GREG_2
More opinions. Do you know every JW who as alive at that time? If not, then how can you make an unqualified, dogmatic statement like this?

ALAN_2
::I don't think that you can follow the "logic" either.

GREG_2
You have created your own reality as far as what they did and why. You are the one who advances your own view of their “logic” when you don’t have anything to support your wild claims of deception. In view of the NUMEROUS logical errors you have presented in your response, you are not one who is in a position to say whether someone else can or cannot rightly follow a logical pattern of thought. You have enough to work on, in correcting your own illogical thinking, on a number of issues previously discussed. But, still, you have more opinions to offer:

ALAN_2
::To me this is a case of the Society's having to do something to bring a wrong teaching in line with reality (turn 536 to 539 B.C. for the date of Babylon's fall), and having no good way to do it logically. So they pretended to give an explanation, knowing that most JW wouldn't care, and rest would keep quiet.

GREG_2
What they did was realize they made a mistake and they took the steps they deemed best to correct the mistake, and still make use of the publications. Did they state their point in the best way? I don’t think so. Could they have been more specific? Certainly. Could they have handled this whole thing differently? Indeed. But to suggest that deception is the only motivation for what they wrote is not justifiable. It is your opinion, and one that is based on a number of assumptions, which I have highlighted above. As I said previously:

: GREG
: The corrections in this instance seem to have stemmed from their apparently dual claim that the Gentile Times began in 606 AND in 607. Page 238 of the Truth book does state, as you quoted, that the "times" 'began in 606 B.C.," but on page 239 it plainly says that "the count of the Gentile 'seven times' BEGAN its first year at the fall of 607 B.C."

ALAN_2
:: No, this is not a "dual claim" - it's a matter of changing horses in midstream.

GREG_2
And here you claim to KNOW once again what cannot be KNOWN with any more certainty that what I suggested! You further stated:

ALAN_2
::Before page 239, 606 was used. After page 239, 607 was used. A similar change occurred somewhat spasmodically in other literature of the time period. I'll provide references if you like. The change was justified on page 239 and that's why the new date was used in the rest of the book.

GREG_2
By all means, provide references. That is usually how arguments are substantiated. As I said, they made a dual claim, and in the Kingdom book they chose one date over the other, so as to continue to make use of the material in the Truth book, apart from the 606 date.

: GREG
: The main correction that came a year later (see below) had to do with the destruction of Jerusalem. But they, even in the Truth book, seemed confused about whether the Gentile Times began in 606 or 607.

ALAN_2
::Not at all. On pages 236-7 the Truth book states:
This makes it clear that the "seven times" began with Nebuchadnezzar's overturning of Jehovah's typical Theocracy at Jerusalem, in 606 B.C.
The "typical Theocracy" was overturned when Jerusalem fell about August 606 B.C., according to all statements in that book. According to all Russell/Society literature, going all the way back to 1876, Russell dated the start of the Gentile Times to October because that was the start of the Jewish year (they also mistakenly thought that it was the start of the Babylonian year, but the latter started in the spring). This is proved by the fact that he and N. H. Barbour explicitly dated the beginning of the Gentile Times to the fall of 606 B.C.E. in Three Worlds (pp. 76-7, 83, 189). That's why they dated the end of the Gentile Times to October 1914. All Watchtower writers up through 1943 were certainly aware of these facts.

Therefore, the only leeway one has in determining precisely where the Truth book might have placed the start of the Gentile times, before page 239, is from about August 1 to October 1, 606 B.C. This is the chronological framework in which the statement on page 238 must be understood:
Beginning in 606 B.C., and being seven in number, when would these "times" end and the righteous overlordship of God's kingdom be established?
Note that this question is not about the beginning of the Gentile times, but about the end. The very next reference to 606 B.C. is in the offending statement on page 239:
In Nebuchadnezzar's time the year began counting from the fall of the year, or about October 1, our time. Since he destroyed Jerusalem in the summer of 606 B.C., that year had its beginning in the fall of 607 B.C. and its ending in the fall of 606 B.C. Inasmuch as the count of the Gentile "seven times" began its first year at the fall of 607 B.C., it is simple to calculate when they end.
Note that this statement completely ignores the statement on pages 236-7, along with all Watchtower teaching going back some 67 years. That teaching was that the Jewish year began in October. The fact that "in Nebuchadnezzar's time the year began counting from the fall of the year, or about October 1" is therefore irrelevant to changing the date for the start of the Gentile Times since it had already been taught for nearly 7 decades that the Gentile Times had begun when the year 606 "began counting".

GREG_2
As I said, “The main correction that came a year later (see below) had to do with the destruction of Jerusalem. But they, even in the Truth book, seemed confused about whether the Gentile Times began in 606 or 607.”

ALAN_2
::Note also that the offending statement does not actually contain any justification for changing the month when the Gentile Times started. What it says is "inasmuch as ...", which is a declaration, not an argument or reason, that the start of the Gentile times was now to be counted from the fall of 607 B.C. In other words, as I've said, the book pretended to give a reason for the change.
End of Part 5
AF

GREG_2
What are you talking about? They most certainly did give a “reason” for using the 607 date. It is found in the two sentences preceding the one beginning with “Inasmuch as” on page 239 of the Truth book. You may not agree with their reasoning, and they may have stated matters better, but they certainly did give some reason for the 607 date, as being the start of the count of the Gentile Times. This whole matter is much simpler than what you believe, Alan, and your assumptions are likely the cause of your complications. As I said, the corrections in this instance seem to have stemmed from their apparently dual claim that the Gentile Times began in 606 AND in 607. Page 238 of the Truth book does state, as you quoted, that the "times" 'began in 606 B.C.," but on page 239 it plainly says that "the count of the Gentile 'seven times' BEGAN its first year at the fall of 607 B.C."

You may not agree with the way they handled the situation, and you may believe that the way they handled it is ver confusing and problematic, but that does not necessarily equate to a deliberate deception on their part.

END OF PART FIVE

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: *Response to AF: Part Five

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]