# ***AP and AF

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

Posted by AF [AF] on November 17, 1999 at 20:36:25 {xx2d.1sWpQ1EwaxRomAMdaOt1gg/Zk}:

In Reply to: **AP and AF posted by Friend on November 17, 1999 at 15:29:09:

> : You might start by dealing with the issue of the non-English translations of The Truth Shall Make You Free as I explained above.

: I am not sure I follow your reasoning on that issue. It appears that because dates were changed in non-English versions that that somehow evidences dishonesty. Considering that I always found the relevant material a confused bungled up mess my explanation for decades has been that the change added just one more dimension to the nonsense that was already there. It demonstrated incompetence, extreme incompetence. Until the Society accepts their 1914 chronology as nonsense all they have done on the issue at hand is show ineptitude, in more ways than one too. In my opinion the deepest ineptitude is that the Society expects thinking people to accept its notions on chronology when they cannot. I believe this is a case of blind incompetence fueled by conviction that I mentioned. Whether it is dishonesty is for individuals to decide, which is what you have done and I certainly respect your view.

I certainly agree with many of your comments here. But I also am certain that the Society has engaged in deliberate deception. I'm certain because over the years various WTS officials have lied to my face. Let me try to explain as simply as possible why this is a case of deliberate deception, in terms of the English versus non-English versions of the book.

The material on page 239 of The Truth Shall Make You Free is certainly an attempt to explain why the 606 date was being changed to 607 for the start of the Gentile times. The English edition gave this reason for changing the date:

> 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.

However, the German, Norwegian, Arabic and Spanish versions gave a different reason (see below for the text of the German and Norwegian versions; the Arabic cannot be typed into an English-oriented computer and I only verified the Spanish in a phone conversation some time ago):

> 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 607 B.C., that year had its beginning in the fall of 608 B.C. and its ending in the fall of 607 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.

At least one of these purported reasons cannot be correct. Do you see why? Since about 1877 C. T. Russell, and subsequently the Society, had taught that the Gentile times began about October 1, 606 B.C. If the English version's reason for changing the beginning of the Gentile times from some unspecified time in 606 B.C. to the fall of 607 B.C. is that "the year began counting in the fall" (or "the vulgar year began in the fall"; see The Kingdom Is At Hand p. 171, ftn.), then the reason for changing the date cannot also be that the "vulgar year" 607 had its beginning in the fall of 608.

As I explained in my previous post, in order to get these different "explanations" into print, both the translators and someone in authority in Brooklyn had to be involved, the latter almost certainly the original author Fred Franz. All of them must have understood that at most one of the "explanations" could be correct. To claim that they had no idea what they were doing is ludicrous - they produced book after book after book, often containing detailed discussions of history and chronology. Do you really think that these men were completely incompetent on this one point? I agree that they were incompetent, but they then compounded that into a deliberate lie by failing to clear up what they had done and why they had done it.

What I think actually happened is this: for some reason Fred Franz realized, smack in the middle of writing the 1943 book, that the 606 date was irretrievably wrong, and so he decided to change it right then and there. However, the Society had been using the 606 date for some 60 years, and it would not do for "God's spokesmen" to just up and change such a fundamental date. So Freddie just issued a bit of gobble-de-gook to cover his butt, and then issued more when the 1944 book came along, and again when the non-English editions of the book came out. Not wanting to rock the boat too much in one shot is why he didn't change the date for Jerusalem's destruction to 607 B.C. in the 1943 book, but waited until the next book came along, and then played a shell game with "explanations", claiming that the earlier book gave one when it did no such thing. In all of Watchtower literature you will not find a single explanation of why the date of Jerusalem's destruction was moved back one year - but the 1944 book pretended that one was given in the 1943 book.

Now, you may balk at my claim that Fred Franz could be deliberately deceptive, but those who knew him were well aware of it. Ray Franz gives several examples in his books, at one point noting, if I recall right, that one of the Society's officials once remarked that "Freddie can rationalize anything". And that's exactly what we find in these 1943 and 1944 books - pure rationalization. You also know perfectly well that Fred Franz was the prime mover behind the 1975 push. He pushed because it turned out to be a good way to motivate JWs to work for an increase in numbers. The other day I received the following comments from a former WTS official:

> I recall asking Freddie how he could honestly say that "the Society" never made certain outrageous 1975 claims, particularly in the KM. He smiled and opined that he was absolutely correct, for the Watch Tower Society had not done so, but rather the Watchtower Society -- the former being the Pennsylvania corporation, the latter the New York corporation and the publisher of record of Kingdom Ministry! (When he spoke about "the Society" he meant the Pa. corporation and its board of directors, with which the then governing body was "closely associated.") If Harley Miller wrote it -- and some of the KM quotations are his -- it was not a product of "the Society." The word disingenuous is pale in description of FWF.

I think you're familiar enough with old Freddie to know that what has been said here is true.

In earlier posts I've discussed a number of other reasons why it is stretching credulity to think that the many errors committed in these 1943 and 1944 books concerning the changes of dates were due purely to incompetence. For example, the 1944 book claimed explicitly that justification could be found in the 1943 book for the change of date of Jerusalem's destruction from the summer of 606 to the summer of 607 B.C. But the 1943 book nowhere made such a change, explicitly stating throughout that the date was 606. Since Fred Franz wrote both books, do you honestly think that he didn't know what he was doing when he used his weasel words to describe what he claimed was done? See p. 171 of the 1944 book.

: As for whether you accept or reject my views of what you had to say regarding TravisJ45-II, it makes no never mind to me. As you have, I have expressed my opinion on what I saw with my own eyes.

Are you saying that you think I'm lying when I said I couldn't remember the 2nd post? What basis do you have for that? You don't know me from Adam. You don't even have a shred of evidence except that you seem to think I'm too smart to forget stuff. Well I have news for you: I forget a lot of stuff.

: Considering that I did not hold back my views concerning GS, honesty bound me to express myself on your own actions, as I saw them. Your consideration that I perhaps did not read all the applicable posts was generous of you but unnecessary. By now you should know that I tend to investigate before I open my mouth and this instance is no exception. I still feel you owe an apology, but that makes no difference one way or another.

Having been accused of lying by GS and now you, on no more evidence than that you don't think I could forget something that I explained why I thought it was trivial, I don't owe anyone any apologies.

: As for whether your arguments established preponderance of evidence specifically to exclude incompetence and/or mistake, again that is for individuals to decide themselves. Saying that your conclusions are acceptable to reasonable people is circular because all you are saying is that those agreeing with you are reasonable.

You're distorting what I've said. "Reasonable people" are those who demonstrate this quality often and in a variety of ways. They offer clear, straightforward explanations. To date, I have seen nothing approaching anything like that from any JW apologist on this board on this 606/607 issue. All we see are floods weasel words.

If you want to discuss issues and not people, then the material I've provided in this post is a good start for you to try to show why my arguments are wrong - if you really think they're wrong.

: If reasonable or preponderance were that clear then judicial systems would not leave that question to be resolved by jurors. In that setting there is de facto admission that reasonable or preponderance is for individuals to decide, it is subjective.

Precisely my point about the inapplicability of "absolute proof" in real-life situations. But people make all kinds of decisions based on this preponderance of evidence - sometimes life-or-death decisions. So too can we decide if the Society was lying in this matter of date changes.

: Of greater importance is the exercise of discussing issues and information. Doing so enables that individuals can make more informed and thought out decisions. Whether any of us agree is an aside.

Then let's discuss this issue.

# Quotations from various editions of The Truth Shall Make You Free

English:

> [p. 231]
> At the overturning of Israel's typical Theocracy in the year 606 B.C. by King Nebuchadnezzar Babylon became the third world power noted in Bible history . . .

> [pp. 236-8]
> This makes it clear that the "seven times" began with Nebuchadnezzar's overturning of Jehovah's typical Theocracy at Jerusalem, in 606 B.C. . . . 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?

> [p. 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. From the fall of 607 B.C. to the fall of B.C. 1 is exactly 606 years. From the fall of B.C. 1 to the fall of A.D. 1 is one year, do not forget. Hence from the fall of B.C. 1 to the fall of A.D. 1914 is 1,914 years. Add now 606 years and 1,914 years, and the sum total is 2,520 years, ending in the fall of A.D. 1914. By this method Jehovah, who is an accurate Timekeeper as to his purposes, symbolically fortold that the "times of the Gentiles", that is the "seven times", would continue and extend to the fall of A.D. 1914.

Other languages translated into English:

> [German: p. 232; Norwegian: p. 211; Arabic: p. 233]
> At the overturning of Israel's typical Theocracy in the year 607 B.C. by King Nebuchadnezzar Babylon became the third world power noted in Bible history . . .

> [German: pp. 238-9; Norwegian: pp. 216-7.; Arabic: pp. 240-2]
> This makes it clear that the "seven times" began with Nebuchadnezzar's overturning of Jehovah's typical Theocracy at Jerusalem, in 607 B.C. . . . Beginning in 607 B.C., and being seven in number, when would these `times' end and the righteous overlordship of God's kingdom be established?

> [German: p. 240; Norwegian: p. 218; Arabic: pp. 242-3]
> 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 607 B.C., that year had its beginning in the fall of 608 B.C. and its ending in the fall of 607 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. From the fall of 607 B.C. to the fall of B.C. 1 is exactly 606 years. From the fall of B.C. 1 to the fall of A.D. 1 is one year, do not forget. Hence from the fall of B.C. 1 to the fall of A.D. 1914 is 1,914 years. Add now 606 years and 1,914 years, and the sum total is 2,520 years, ending in the fall of A.D. 1914. By this method Jehovah, who is an accurate Timekeeper as to his purposes, symbolically fortold that the "times of the Gentiles", that is the "seven times", would continue and extend to the fall of A.D. 1914.

German:

> [p. 232]
> Als die Vorbild-Theokratie Israel im Jahre 607 v. Chr. durch Konig Nebukadnezar gesturzt worden war, wurde Babylon die dritte Weltmacht, von der die biblische Geschichte berichtet . . .

> [pp. 238-9]
> Dadurch wird verstandlich, dass die "sieben Zeiten" begannen, als Nebukadnezar im Jahre 607 v. Chr. die Vorbild-Theokratie Jehovas in Jerusalem umsturzte. . . . Wann sollte nun das Ende dieser "Zeiten", die 607 v. Chr. begannen und sieben Zeiten betragen, herbeikommen und die gerechted Oberherrschaft des Konigreiches Gottes errichtet werden? . . .

> [p. 240]
> Zur Zeit Nebukadnezars wurde das Jahr vom Herbst an gerechnet, ungefahr vom 1. Oktober unserer Zeit an. Da er Jerusalem im Sommer 607 v. Chr. zerstorte, fiel der Beginn jenes Jahres auf den Herbst 608 v. Chr. und endete im Herbst 607 v. Chr.

> Es ist einfach zu berechnen, wann die heidnischen "sieben Zeiten" endeten, weil ihr erstes Jahr im Herbst 607 v. Chr. begann. Vom Herbst 607 v. Chr. bis zum Herbst 1 V. Chr. sind es genau 606 Jahre. Man ubersehe nicht, dass auch vom Herbst 1 v. Chr. bis Herbst 1 n. Chr. ein Jahr verfloss. Deshalb sind es vom Herbst 1 v. Chr. bis zum Herbst 1914 n. Chr. 1914 Jahre. Zahlt man 606 Jahre und 1914 Jahre zusammen, so erhalt man insgesamt 2520 Jahre, die im Herbst 1914 n. Chr. endeten. Auf dies Weise sagte Jehova, der bei seinem Vorhaben die Zeit genau einhalt, symbolisch voraus, dass die "Zeiten der Nationen", das heisst die "sieben Zeiten", fortdauern und sich bis zum Herbst des Jahres 1914 n. Chr. erstrecken werden.

Norwegian:

> [p. 211]
> Da Israels forbilledlige Teokrati ble omstyrtet i aret 607 f. Kr. av kong Nebukadnesar, ble Babylon det tredje verdensrike, som omtales i den bibleske historie . . .

> [pp. 216-17]
> Dette klargjor for oss at de "syv tider" begynte med Nebukadnesars omstyrtelse av Jehovas forbilledlige Teokrati i Jerusalem i aret 607 f. Kr. . . . Etter som disse "tider" begynte ar 607 f. Kr. og var syv i tallet, nar skulle de da utlope og Guds rikes rettferdige overherredomme bli opprettet?

> [p. 218]
> Pa Nebukadnesars tid regnet man arets begynnelse fra hosten eller omkring den 1. oktober etter var tidsregning. Da han odela Jerusalem om sommeren 607 f. Kr., hadde dette ar sin begynnelse om hosten i 608 f. Kr. og endte hosten i aret 607 f. Kr.

> Nar den periode som utgjor hedningenes "syv tider" begynte sitt forste ar om hosten i aret 607 f. Kr., er det enkelt a regne ut nar den sluttet. Fra hosten 607 f. Kr. til hosten aret 1 f. Kr. er det noyaktig 606 ar. Fra hosten aret 1. f. Kr. til hosten aret 1 e. Kr. er det ett ar, ikke a forglemme. Folgelig er det fra hosten aret 1 f. Kr. til hosten 1914 e. Kr. 1914 ar. Legg na sammen 606 ar og 1914 ar, sa blir sulttsummen 2520 ar, som slutter hosten i aret 1914 e. Kr. Ved denne metode forutsa Jehova, som med hensyn til sine hensikter holder tiden med absolutt presisjon, pa symbolsk mate at "hedningenes tider", dvs. de "syv tider", skulle fortsett og strekke seg til hosten aret 1914 e. Kr.

AF

Follow Ups:

- ****AP and AF Friend 21:38:39 11/17/99 (2)
  - *****AP and AF AF 07:52:42 11/18/99 (1)
    - ******AP and AF Friend 09:30:06 11/18/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: ****AP and AF

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

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