What was expected to happen in 1914?

*** w89 4/15 pp. 6-7 par. 8 The Infamous Harlot—Her Fall ***

⁸ For some 40 years the Bible Students boldly proclaimed that the year 1914 would mark the end of the Gentile Times. As expected, that year brought world-shaking events, not the least of these being the first world war. 

One has to wonder how the Watchtower can portray their own history in this light.  But then again, many JW's and non-JW's reading the literature may be unaware of its history of failed predictions.  Therefore, such ones would see no reason to question these commendations.

However, when one considers the nature of the actual predictions made pre-1914, it would be difficult to deny that such words are not an accurate portrayal.  Some may even conclude that such a misrepresentation of pre-1914 predictions are nothing short of dishonest.

Compare the above quotation to what was really said about 1914:

“The date of the close of that ‘battle’ is definitely marked in Scripture as October, 1914.  It is already in progress, its beginning dating from October, 1874.” –Zion’s Watch Tower Jan. 15, 1892 p. 22 

“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.  We see no reason for changing from our opinion expressed in the View presented in the Watch Tower of Jan. 15, ’92.  We advise that it be read again.” –Zion’s Watch Tower, July 15, 1894 p. 226 

“True, it is expecting great things to claim, as we do, that within the coming twenty-six years all present governments will be overthrown and dissolved…In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished at the end of A.D. 1914.” –The Time is at Hand (1908 ed.) p. 99 

“Be not surprised, then, when in subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in A.D. 1878, and that due ‘battle of the great day of God Almighty’ (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth’s present rulership, is already commenced.” –Time is at Hand (1911 ed.) p. 101

It should be readily obvious to anyone that there was more going on than predictions merely about "world shaking events" and the "end of the gentile times."  Thus, what happened in 1914 was not expected, contrary to what the Watchtower would have us believe according to the above quotation.  On the contrary, what was expected was "the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership." 

A picture is worth a thousand words...but added interpretations can be helpful

For those unfamiliar with the significance of this, allow me to briefly summarize.  The prediction made by the Watchtower was this:

*** w84 5/15 pp. 6-7 1914—The Generation That Will Not Pass Away ***

From a purely human viewpoint, it could appear that these developments could hardly take place before the generation of 1914 disappears from the scene. But fulfillment of all the foretold events affecting the generation of 1914 does not depend on comparatively slow human action. Jehovah’s prophetic word through Christ Jesus is: “This generation [of 1914] will by no means pass away until all things occur.” (Luke 21:32) And Jehovah, who is the source of inspired and unfailing prophecy, will bring about the fulfillment of his Son’s words in a relatively short time.—Isaiah 46:9, 10; 55:10, 11.

 Are these just words of men; mere opinions or interpretations of Scripture? Are we obliged to believe them?

***w31 11/1 p.  327 Taught of God***

The Watchtower recognizes the truth as belonging to Jehovah, and not to any creature. The Watchtower is not the instrument of any man or set of men, nor is it published according to the whims of men. No man’s opinion is expressed in The Watchtower.

*** w10 9/15 p. 13 par. 8 Unity Identifies True Worship ***

⁸ Similarly today, a Governing Body composed of spirit-anointed Christians contributes to the unity of the worldwide congregation. The Governing Body publishes spiritually encouraging literature in many languages. This spiritual food is based on God’s Word. Thus, what is taught is not from men but from Jehovah.—Isa. 54:13.

*** w10 9/15 p. 23 par. 8 “Your Leader Is One, the Christ” ***

In this time of the end, Christ has committed “all his belongings”—all the earthly interests of the Kingdom—to his “faithful and discreet slave” and its representative Governing Body, a group of anointed Christian men. (Matt. 24:45-47) The anointed and their other sheep companions recognize that by following the lead of the modern-day Governing Body, they are in fact following their Leader, Christ.

Did the prediction come to pass? To see for yourself, read the column on the right side of the magazine cover.  If you claim to be a follower of Christ, would you view the organization responsible for publishing this magazine worthy of the above claims?  Or should they be regarded as follows;

(Matthew 7:15) ¹⁵ “Be on the watch for the false prophets that come to YOU in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. 

(ht: FREE MINDS)

Did Jesus Return invisibly in 1914?

The following is a paper I wrote that is based on the Watchtower publication, WHAT DOES THE BIBLE REALLY TEACH; specifically, the APPENDIX where 1914 is discussed. This paper is short in length in hopes that it will provide a simple understanding of the problems related to 1914. This date is a key issue for any Jehovah's Witnesses. It is recommended not only for Jehovah's Witnesses themselves to read, but especially for those who are studying to become a witness or seeking to reach them.

This paper can be downloaded and distributed freely. Click HERE to download.

Also, I made a 3 part video series which presents the same material:

PART 1

PART 2

PART 3

How does the Watchtower view Matthew 28:18 in light of 1914?

"All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." -Matthew 28:18

Jesus' words are clear and unmistakably with reference to his rule and reign at the time in which these words were spoken. In fact, His words speak to his having "all authority" as something he already possessed. How then, could the Watchtower view this authority as not having been bestowed for another 2,000 years in the future? Read these quotes very carefully and see how the Watchtower will cite Matthew 28:18, but completely disagree with the words of the Lord Jesus in defending a flawed, man-made doctrine. Notice the consistent application of "All authority has been given me in heaven and on earth...since 1914":

*** cf chap. 9 pp. 94-95 par. 15 “Go . . . and Make Disciples” ***

Before giving the commission, Jesus says: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.” (Verse 18) Does Jesus really have such vast authority? Yes, indeed! He is the archangel, commanding myriads of myriads of angels. (1 Thessalonians 4:16; Revelation 12:7) As “head of the congregation,” he has authority over his followers on earth. (Ephesians 5:23) Since 1914, he has been ruling as Messianic King in heaven. (Revelation 11:15) His authority reaches even into the grave, for he has the power to resurrect the dead. (John 5:26-28) By first declaring his extensive authority, Jesus indicates that the words that follow are not a suggestion but a command. We are wise to obey, for his authority is not self-assumed but divinely bestowed.—1 Corinthians 15:27.

*** w04 7/1 p. 8 pars. 3-4 ‘Go and Make Disciples’ ***

First, why should we obey the command to make disciples? Jesus stated: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. Go therefore and make disciples.” The word “therefore” points to a major reason why we should obey this command. It is because Jesus, the one who issued the command, has “all authority.” How extensive is his authority?
4 Jesus has authority over his congregation, and since 1914 he has had authority over God’s newly established Kingdom. (Colossians 1:13; Revelation 11:15)

*** w61 9/1 p. 524 par. 10 Hold Your Position ***

As part of the composite sign earlier referred to, Jesus said: “And then they will see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.” This would be in fulfillment of the vision given to the prophet Daniel, where he saw coming “with the clouds of the heavens” a “son of man,” who is given “rulership and dignity and kingdom” by Jehovah, the enthroned “Ancient of Days.” As has often been shown from the Scriptures in these columns, this was fulfilled A.D. 1914, at the expiration of the “appointed times of the nations,” when Christ began to rule as king. It is in this way and through this kingdom under Christ that Jehovah can be said to assume kingly power, and it is by this means that he will assert his authority in no uncertain terms. When on earth Jesus said: “For the Father judges no one at all, but he has committed all the judging to the Son,” and shortly after his resurrection he said: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.” But he knew he would first have to sit and wait at his Father’s right hand until the due time to receive the rulership and kingdom before exercising that authority and executing that judgment.—Luke 21:27; Dan. 7:13, 14; John 5:22; Matt. 28:18; Ps. 110:1.

*** w87 7/1 p. 18 par. 11 Michael the Great Prince Stands Up ***

After his resurrection in 33 C.E., Jesus told his followers: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.” (Matthew 28:18) Jesus has long exercised such authority over his anointed servants on earth. (Colossians 1:13) However, the time had not yet come for Jesus to exercise authority as King of God’s Kingdom. Rather, after his ascension he ‘sat at God’s right hand in heaven’ until the time for the establishment of that Kingdom. (Psalm 110:1, 2; Acts 2:34, 35) That time came in 1914, “the time appointed.” (Daniel 11:29) In that year, Jesus was enthroned as reigning King of God’s Kingdom and immediately, as Michael the archangel, he cast Satan out of heaven. (Revelation 11:15; 12:5-9) So since 1914 Jesus has been “standing” as King.—Psalm 2:6.

*** w83 10/1 p. 22 Do You Respect the Name of Christ? ***

Finally, Isaiah said that Jesus’ name would be “Prince of Peace.” He would be a King, bringing peace to his subjects. (Psalm 72:6, 7) After his resurrection Jesus showed the extent of his authority when he said: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.” (Matthew 28:18) This great authority included ruling as King over his own congregation since 33 C.E. and over God’s Kingdom since 1914. (Colossians 1:13; Revelation 11:15)

*** re chap. 4 pp. 18-19 par. 4 Jesus Comes With Encouragement ***

Now in Jehovah’s presence, he is exalted high above all earthly kings, being invested with “all authority . . . in heaven and on the earth.” (Matthew 28:18; Psalm 89:27; 1 Timothy 6:15) In 1914 he was installed as King to rule among the earthly nations.—Psalm 2:6-9.

Questioning 1914

THIS POST by THEOCRATIC JOKER posed some excellent questions for Jehovah's Witnesses to consider regarding the central doctrine of their faith, 1914 (the date when Christ's rule in heaven was established). These would be great questions to write down and ask if you are involved in a study with the JW's. And I can assure you, they will search long and hard in their WT CD libraries, but will return empty-handed:

1:) No encyclopedia, no history book, and no archaeology book that I have ever seen have EVER said that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in the year 607 BCE. All of the encyclopedias, history books, and archaeological books that I have ever seen say that it happened in 586/587 BCE. What evidence or proof do you have that it happened in 607 BCE?

2:) If ALL of the historians and archaeologists are WRONG about 607 BCE, then how do we know that they are right about ANY other date that the Watchtower Society makes use of in their Publications, such as the year that Cyrus rescued the Jews?

3:) WHY should we START counting when Jerusalem was destroyed? Where does Daniel Chapter 4 say that the prophecy of the Great Tree begins when Jerusalem was destroyed?

4:) WHY should we interpret each "day" as being a "year" ONLY IN THIS CHAPTER OF DANIEL? If the "Day for a Year" is truly a Bible Prophecy Rule, then why shouldn't we apply it to ALL of the prophecies of Daniel? Or ALL of the prophecies in the entire Bible?

5:) Do Jehovah's Witenesses apply the "Day for a Year" Rule to the "42 months", the "1,335 days", or to any other prophecies in the Bible?

6:) Daniel Chapter 4 is about King Nebuchadnezzar (The Great Tree) being "chopped down" (going insane) for 7 LITERAL YEARS. Then being restored as King. That is the ONLY fulfillment that the Bible speaks of. Can you show me using the Scriptures what the evidence or proof is that there was ANOTHER fulfillment?

7:) Where does the Bible say that Jerusalem in Luke 21:24 represents the "typical kingdom of God through its theocratic rulership on earth"? Why couldn't Jerusalem in Luke 21:24 simply mean the city of Jerusalem, the actual CITY?

8:) How do Jehovah's Witnesses jump from Nebuchadnezzar being insane for 7 years to Jesus becoming King in 1914? That is the biggest question of all for all Jehovah's Witnesses. Their entire religious organization and its teachings are based on this!

9:) Where does the Bible say that Jesus would have the legal right to rule ONLY when the appointed times of the nations were fulfilled?

10:) How did Jesus NOT have the legal right already, since He was the Legal and Rightful Heir to King David?

11:) Also, after His Death, Resurrection, and Ascension, the New Testament describes Jesus as already being KING and Jesus Himself said "ALL AUTHORITY in Heaven and on Earth HAS BEEN GIVEN TO ME." So, if ALL AUTHORITY had already been given to Jesus in the year 33 CE, then how could MORE authority be given to him in 1914 CE?

12:) Also, are you aware that Charles Taze Russell used the Pyramids in Egypt to help calculate and confirm the year 1914?

13:) And are you aware that in the 1800's Russell and his associates were preaching that they were all going to be raptured to Heaven in 1914 and that Armageddon would probably happen right after that?

14:) Are you aware that n the 1800's Russell and his associates were teaching that Jesus had ALREADY invisibly returned in 1874!

Did the 70 years end in 539 B.C.E. or 537?

According to the Watchtower, correctly understanding the 70 year prophecy, as mentioned in several places in Scripture, is crucial to understand the date for when Jerusalem was destroyed. And according to them, Jerusalem fell in 607. And if Jerusalem didn’t fall in 607, then the chronology falls apart and 1914 is no longer true. So, if we were to investigate such an important issue, we should not find any holes or inconsistencies for such an important doctrine. And so what I’m going to do in this video is test the Watchtower’s chronology and see if it holds up to scrutiny.

*** si p. 84 par. 35 Bible Book Number 14—2 Chronicles ***

The closing verses of Second Chronicles (36:17-23) give conclusive proof of the fulfillment of Jeremiah 25:12 and, in addition, show that a full 70 years must be counted from the complete desolation of the land to the restoration of Jehovah’s worship at Jerusalem in 537 B.C.E. This desolation therefore begins in 607 B.C.E.—Jer. 29:10; 2 Ki. 25:1-26; Ezra 3:1-6.

According to the Watchtower, the seventy years ended in 537. And the only way to arrive at the correct date for the destruction of Jerusalem is to count backwards 70 years, which would end up in 607.

*** gm chap. 9 p. 123 par. 16 Prophecies That Came True ***

In 539 B.C.E., the time of Babylon’s rule as the preeminent world power came to an end when the vigorous Persian ruler Cyrus, accompanied by the army of Media, marched against the city.

Here we have 539 not as the date for the end of the 70 years, but for the end of Babylon’s rule, which was then taken over by Cyrus.

*** kc p. 189 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***

Daniel relied on that word, trusting that the 70 years were not a ‘round number’ but an exact figure that could be counted on.

In this reference, we have an explicit and clear declaration by the Watchtower that the 70 years has to be 70 years, not 68, 69, or 71, but 70.

Let’s review what we have so far:

According to the Watchtower,

1. The seventy years ended in 537 (si p. 84 par. 35)

2. Babylon’s rule came to an end in 539 (gm chap. 9 p. 123 par. 16)

3. The 70 years cannot be a round number (kc p. 189)

Now, let’s test these three points against what the Scriptures teach.

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

Here we have a mention of the seventy years, which the Watchtower believes started with the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 and ended in 537.

“And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation.” (Jeremiah 25:12, NWT)

With this verse, there is one very important detail that we need to notice: Babylon falls after the 70 years are fulfilled. And according to the Watchtower, when did the 70 years end? Didn’t they say 537? But didn’t they also say that Babylon fell in 539? This is a very noteworthy discrepancy. So, just to make sure I’ve got all of this right, let’s review the facts.

1. Jeremiah 25:12 says that the King of Babylon will be punished after the 70 years have been fulfilled.

2. The Watchtower says that Babylon’s rule came to an end in 539 (gm chap. 9 p. 123 par. 16)

3. Therefore, the seventy years must have ended in 539, not in 537.

We have a choice to make. Either the Bible is right in the 70 years ending with Babylon’s fall in 539, or the Bible is wrong, since the Watchtower claims the 70 years had to of ended in 537.

A few words of clarification from the April 1, 2010 post

Please see the April 1, 2010 post for context.

Just to clarify, it was not my intention to show that the Watchtower is in agreement with the fact that 587 is the date for the destruction of Jerusalem. It is simply to show that by counting back from 539 in using the lengths of each King's reign as provided by the Watchtower, one comes to the date of 587 for the destruction of Jerusalem.

Though it is no secret that the Watchtower believes that secular chronologies are largely unreliable (please see, w69 2/1 p. 88 Babylonian Chronology—How Reliable?), they nonetheless have provided the lengths of each of these kings reigns. Thus, it would be safe to assume that unless there are specific qualifications made, the rank-and-file will naturally read the pages of their Watchtower without questioning its details. For instance, when a JW reads:

*** w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived ***

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

Would not the JW read this quote in assuming that these dates as provided by the Watchtower are the correct dates? If one reads the entire article, there are many dates and years provided without any qualifications. Thus, the JW who is fully entrusting the Watchtower in doing good research will read the length of Neriglissar's reign with the same level of assurance that he reads the date of 607 when it is mentioned in the same article.

But what of Evil-merodach's reign? Is two years correct?

*** it-1 p. 773 Evil-merodach ***

There is also archaeological testimony concerning Evil-merodach (Awil-Marduk, Amil-Marduk). For example, an inscription on a vase found near Susa reads: “Palace of Amil-Marduk, King of Babylon, son of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon.” (Mémoires de la mission archéologique de Susiane, by V. Scheil, Paris, 1913, Vol. XIV) Berossus, quoted by Josephus, attributes to him a reign of two years. Josephus himself assigns him 18 years. Supposedly slain as the result of a plot, Evil-merodach was replaced by Neriglissar (Nergal-sharezer). Reliable confirmation of these details is lacking.

Also,

*** g72 5/8 p. 28 When Did Babylon Desolate Jerusalem? ***

There is no way to be sure that Ptolemy was correct in assigning a certain number of years to various kings. For example, while Ptolemy credits Evil-merodach with only two years of rule, Polyhistor assigns him twelve years. Then, too, one cannot be certain that just five kings ruled during this period.

As we can see, there is controversy as to whether it was two years, 12 years, or 18 years. Furthermore, the Watchtower asserts that "reliable confirmation of these details is lacking," and, "one cannot be certain that just five kings ruled during this period. If such is the case, then why did w65 1/1 p. 29 mention two years for Evil-merodach's reign instead of 18? Or why wasn't there a footnote? Could it be that, though "reliable confirmation" is lacking, the two years is the best estimate in light of the available evidence? It would seem to be so. Furthermore, in w60 6/15 p. 377 Part 40, does not the Watchtower list the Kings as well as dates? One can do a search in their Watchtower CD Library for any of the King's lengths of reign. It would seem that according to Watchtower standards, there can be confusion among historians on the length of the king's reign, which means that secular chronologies are no longer reliable. This creates the allusion that the Watchtower "just goes with what the Bible says." What is really the case, is that if a secular document lists a particular length of reign that agrees with Watchtower chronology, then that date is accepted. Just as an example, if there were discrepancies amongst secular records that Nebuchadnezzar's reign wasn't 43 years, would the Watchtower then say, "well, I guess we can't know for sure?" Of course not. The Watchtower tries to do what any historian does: look into the evidence and come up with the best conclusion.

The fact of the matter is, the two years length is extremely well testified. That is, the Neo-Babylonian Chronicles, the Uruk King List, and the Royal Inscriptions all unanimously agree that Evil-merodach's reign was two years. And though one might carry the attitude of "I favor the Bible over secular chronology," this doesn't address the fact that our best available evidence shows that the reign was two years. As far as whether or not this agrees with the Bible, that is another issue.

Was Jesus ruler and king in 33 C.E. or 1914?

The Watchtower has long argued that Jesus' kingship began in 1914, almost two thousand years after he had ascended into heaven.

*** w08 2/15 p. 21 par. 3 Christ’s Presence—What Does It Mean to You? ***

What of the “presence” that the apostles asked about? This is the translation of the Greek word pa·rou·si′a. Christ’s pa·rou·si′a, or presence, started with Jesus’ installation as King in heaven in 1914

But the text of Scripture has some interesting things to say with regard to the time-frame of Jesus' exaltation as heavenly king:

*** Bible Citations ***

(Ephesians 1:20) with which he has operated in the case of the Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places,

When did Ephesians 1:20 occur? The Watchtower explains.

*** w64 8/1 p. 478 Why Two Covenants for Kingdom Power? ***

So after Jesus had faithfully finished his earthly ministry, God “raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name named, not only in this system of things, but also in that to come.” (Eph. 1:20, 21) At that time, in the year 33 C.E., Psalm 110:1 applied, which says: “The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is: ‘Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.’”

If verse 20 occurred in 33, then it would naturally follow that the rest of the passage occurred then as well,

*** Bible Citations ***

(Ephesians 1:21-23) far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name named, not only in this system of things, but also in that to come. 22 He also subjected all things under his feet, and made him head over all things to the congregation, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills up all things in all.

If the Watchtower is correct that Jesus' exaltation as King didn't occur until 1914, then they would have to, by implication, deny that this passage in Ephesians is not referring to Jesus' exaltation as king since they have already established that it is in reference to 33 C.E. The following quote should provide some interesting insights into this dilemma:

*** w73 2/15 p. 103 Why Does “Faith in the Name” of Jesus Christ Bring Life? ***

This helps us to understand why it is that, at Ephesians 1:21, the apostle Paul links ‘names’ with ‘governments, authorities, powers and lordships.’ We can also see that it is because God has put his Son at the head of the Kingdom government and given him all authority to carry out the divine will that Philippians 2:9-11 says that God exalted Jesus to “a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.”

Other than being described as "King of the Jews," nowhere in the Christian Scriptures is Jesus explicitly identified as "King."* So, when we declare that "Jesus was exalted as King," whether it be in 33 C.E. or 1914, it is by implication. And what does the Watchtower quote above declare? "God has put his Son at the head of the Kingdom government and given him all authority to carry out the divine will." This sounds a lot like one who is exalted as king. But how can this be when the Watchtower has declared that his exaltation as king didn't happen until 1914? Here is the stated dilemma:

1. According to the Watchtower, Jesus was exalted as King in 1914 (w08 2/15 p. 21 par. 3)

2. " " Ephesians 1:20-22 took place in 33 C.E. (w64 8/1 p. 478)

3. " " Ephesians 1:20-22 refers to Christ's exaltation as King (w73 2/15 p. 103)

4. Therefore, either the Watchtower is wrong in that Jesus was exalted as king in 1914, or the Bible is wrong in Ephesians 1:20-22.

*This may, in fact, not be the case as there are several arguable places where Jesus is identified as King. But my question is, in what sense? When "King" is explicitly used in reference to Jesus, is it in the sense that he is the sovereign ruler of the Universe? Yes, Jesus is the King as the sovereign ruler of the Universe, but this is more based on the clear reading of Scripture more than it is from an explicit reading of Scripture. For instance, "Jesus is our Savior" is an explicit statement in Scripture (Titus 2:13) and not merely something that is implied from a text. "Jesus is King of the Universe" is something that is clearly implied from texts like Ephesians 1:20-22 but not necessarily an explicit word-for-word derivation.

According to the Watchtower CD Library, did Jerusalem fall in 607 B.C.E. or 587?

I. 539 is absolute

*** w68 8/15 p. 490 The Book of Truthful Historical Dates ***

THE ABSOLUTE DATE OF 539 B.C.E.
12 One such fixed or absolute date is in connection with the events recorded in the fifth chapter of Daniel, verses one to thirty-one. That was concerning the time when the Medes and Persians under Cyrus the Great broke up Belshazzar’s notorious carousal, captured the city of Babylon, and overthrew the Third World Empire. The year was 539 B.C.E. on the Gregorian calendar, four years after the Buddhist Era began in India.

*** w55 2/1 p. 95 Questions From Readers ***

It is well to understand that all Bible chronology dates for events prior to 539 B.C. must be figured backward from the Absolute date of 539 B.C. In the sure date of 607 B.C. for the fall of Jerusalem we have an anchor for the chronology establishment of the important year of 1914. By an overwhelming number of physical facts occurring since 1914, this great turning-point year in man’s history, 1914, has been abundantly confirmed.

II. Nabonidus reigned 17 years, beginning in 556-539

*** it-2 p. 457 Nabonidus ***

On the basis of cuneiform texts he is believed to have ruled some 17 years (556-539 B.C.E.).

III. Labashi-Marduk reigned 9 months in 556

*** w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived ***

Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months.

IV. Neriglissar reigned 4 years from 560-556

*** w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived ***

Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years.

V. Evil-merodach reigned 2 years from 562-560

*** w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived ***

Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years.

*** it-1 p. 773 Evil-merodach ***

The Babylonian king who succeeded Nebuchadnezzar to the throne

VI. Nebuchadnezzar ruled 43 years from 605-562

>*** dp chap. 4 p. 50 par. 9 The Rise and Fall of an Immense Image ***

Nebuchadnezzar, who reigned for 43 years, headed a dynasty that ruled over the Babylonian Empire. It included his son-in-law Nabonidus and his oldest son, Evil-merodach.

V. Jerusalem destroyed on Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year.

*** it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***

in the 11th year of Zedekiah’s reign (Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year if counting from his accession year or his 18th regnal year), a breach was made in Jerusalem’s wall.

*** w60 6/15 p. 377 Part 40—“Your Will Be Done on Earth” ***

Nebuchadnezzar
Evil-merodach,
582 B.C.
Neriglissar
Labashi-Marduk
Nabonidus
Belshazzar,
died 539 B.C.

VI. When was Jerusalem Destroyed?

605-18 = 587

***UPDATE***

Just to clarify, it was not my intention to show that the Watchtower is in agreement with the fact that 587 is the date for the destruction of Jerusalem. It is simply to show that by counting back from 539 in using the lengths of each King's reign as provided by the Watchtower, one comes to the date of 587 for the destruction of Jerusalem.

Though it is no secret that the Watchtower believes that secular chronologies are largely unreliable (please see, w69 2/1 p. 88 Babylonian Chronology—How Reliable?), they nonetheless have provided the lengths of each of these kings reigns. Thus, it would be safe to assume that unless there are specific qualifications made, the rank-and-file will naturally read the pages of their Watchtower without questioning its details. For instance, when a JW reads:

*** w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived ***

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

Would not the JW read this quote in assuming that these dates as provided by the Watchtower are the correct dates? If one reads the entire article, there are many dates and years provided without any qualifications. Thus, the JW who is fully entrusting the Watchtower in doing good research will read the length of Neriglissar's reign with the same level of assurance that he reads the date of 607 when it is mentioned in the same article.

But what of Evil-merodach's reign? Is two years correct?

*** it-1 p. 773 Evil-merodach ***

There is also archaeological testimony concerning Evil-merodach (Awil-Marduk, Amil-Marduk). For example, an inscription on a vase found near Susa reads: “Palace of Amil-Marduk, King of Babylon, son of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon.” (Mémoires de la mission archéologique de Susiane, by V. Scheil, Paris, 1913, Vol. XIV) Berossus, quoted by Josephus, attributes to him a reign of two years. Josephus himself assigns him 18 years. Supposedly slain as the result of a plot, Evil-merodach was replaced by Neriglissar (Nergal-sharezer). Reliable confirmation of these details is lacking.

As we can see, there is controversy as to whether it was two years, 12 years, or 18 years. Furthermore, the Watchtower asserts that "reliable confirmation of these details is lacking," and, "one cannot be certain that just five kings ruled during this period. If such is the case, then why did w65 1/1 p. 29 mention two years for Evil-merodach's reign instead of 18? Or why wasn't there a footnote? Could it be that, though "reliable confirmation" is lacking, the two years is the best estimate in light of the available evidence? It would seem to be so. Furthermore, in w60 6/15 p. 377 Part 40, does not the Watchtower list the Kings as well as dates? One can do a search in their Watchtower CD Library for any of the King's lengths of reign. It would seem that according to Watchtower standards, there can be confusion among historians on the length of the king's reign, which means that secular chronologies are no longer reliable. This creates the allusion that the Watchtower "just goes with what the Bible says." What is really the case, is that if a secular document lists a particular length of reign that agrees with Watchtower chronology, then that date is accepted. Just as an example, if there were discrepancies amongst secular records that Nebuchadnezzar's reign wasn't 43 years, would the Watchtower then say, "well, I guess we can't know for sure?" Of course not. The Watchtower tries to do what any historian does: look into the evidence and come up with the best conclusion.

The fact of the matter is, the two years length is extremely well testified. That is, the Neo-Babylonian Chronicles, the Uruk King List, and the Royal Inscriptions all unanimously agree that Evil-merodach's reign was two years. And though one might carry the attitude of "I favor the Bible over secular chronology," this doesn't address the fact that our best available evidence shows that the reign was two years. As far as whether or not this agrees with the Bible, that is another issue.

What does the Bible really teach about 1914? (Part 2 of 2)

“When would that grand event occur? Jesus showed that the Gentiles would rule for a fixed period of time. The account in Daniel chapter 4 holds the key to knowing how long that period would last. It relates a prophetic dream experienced by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. He saw an immense tree that was chopped down. Its stump could not grow because it was banded with iron and copper. An angel declared: ‘Let seven times pass over it.’ –Daniel 4:10-16”

Immediately, we see an assumption on the Watchtower’s without warrant. That is, they connect the “gentile times” spoken of in Luke 21:24 to the “seven times” of Daniel 4:10, 16. As spoken of earlier, it would seem that for such a dogmatic doctrine, one would expect more solid evidence and less unsubstantiated assumptions.

“In the Bible, trees are sometimes used to represent rulership. (Ezekiel 17:22-24; 31:2-5) So the chopping down of the symbolic tree represents how God’s rulership, as expressed through the kings at Jerusalem, would be interrupted.”

Though it is true that trees are sometimes used (as the Watchtower admits) to represent rulership, is the Watchtower justified in applying this to the tree in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream? When we see that the text identifies the tree as something else, this creates a very difficult problem for the Watchtower’s interpretation; namely, that they are insisting on an interpretation contrary to what is stated in the text:

“This was the dream that I myself, King Neb-u-chad-nez’are, beheld; and you yourself, O Bel-te-shaz’zar [or, Daniel], say what the interpretation is…the tree that you beheld…it is you, O king, because you have grown great and become strong…”
Daniel 4:18, 20, 22, New World Translation

If the meaning of the tree is provided by Daniel, why would we look beyond the interpretation given? In addition, if there is another interpretation or application, where would we look to verify this? Are there other Scriptures which provide additional insights? Is there anything in the Bible that would give us some sort of basis by which we could apply some sort of dual-fulfillment to the dream beyond what is given in Daniel? If so, then why doesn’t the Watchtower tell us?

Even if we consider the possibility that the “tree” represents “how God’s rulership, as expressed through the kings at Jerusalem would be interrupted,” the text itself seems to give a contrary perspective:

“This is the interpretation, O king, and the decree of the Most High is that which must befall my lord the king. And you they will be driving away from men, and with the beasts of the field your dwelling will come to be, and the vegetation is what they will give even to you to eat just like the bulls; and with the dew of the heavens you yourself will be getting wet, and seven times themselves will pass over you, until you know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind, and that to the one whom he wants to he gives it.”
-Daniel 4:24-25, New World Translation

If the interpretation is what the Watchtower says, then it is contradictory to the interpretation given by Daniel himself under inspiration. That is, Daniel informs the king that the “cutting down of the tree” represents how he will be driven away from human society to act like a beast in the wild. And once again, for a doctrine that is mandatory for all Christians to believe, would we not expect a more solid biblical basis than what the Watchtower has offered us?

“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 after Jerusalem’s fall.”

Like the connections made between Luke 21:24 and Daniel 4, we are not given a basis for which we should connect Revelation 12:6, 14 to the “seven times” of Daniel 4. But even if we assume such a connection, the Watchtower still has to make the case that the “cutting of the tree” represents “God’s rulership” when, in fact, the text says something different.

Even if this leaves open the question of what the “seven times” means in Daniel 4, we are limited with what the text says, for Daniel 4:28 states that, “All this happened to Nebuchadnezzar the king.” In addition, verse 33 articulates, “The word concerning Nebuchadnezzar was fulfilled.” Therefore, whatever the “seven times” are, the interpretation tells us that they were fulfilled in Nebuchadnezzar.

“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.”

This is yet another place where connections are made without a basis. Though interpretive formulas are helpful in explaining some texts, we are not warranted in creating connections where the Scriptures are silent. That is, what basis does the Watchtower have in connecting the “formulas” in Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 to the “seven times” of Daniel 4? If none are given, should the Watchtower be this dogmatic about the doctrine?

Furthermore, are we warranted in applying 2,520 years to the “seven times” when Daniel 4 specifically tells us that this time period was fulfilled in Nebuchadnezzar? Was the king really dethroned for that long? As for Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6, is there anything in these texts which give us a basis for making “interpretive formulas” and imposing them on other texts? If so, where do we draw the line? Should the “a day for a year” formula be applied to any place where the word “day” occurs? If not, then on what Scriptural basis does the Watchtower have for making this connection with Daniel 4?

“The 2,520 years began in October 607 B.C.E., when Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians and the Davidic king was taken off his throne. The period ended in October 1914. At that time, the ‘appointed times of the nations’ ended, and Jesus Christ was installed as God’s heavenly king. –Psalm 2:1-6; Daniel 7:13, 14”

Since a) 2,520 years as well as the 607 date have been shown to be speculative at best, b) the connections between Luke 21:24 and Daniel 4 are made without basis and c) Scripture supports the idea of Christ’s enthronement occurring at the ascension in the first century, then this paragraph made by the Watchtower has no merit.

“Just as Jesus predicted, his ‘presence’ as heavenly King has been marked by dramatic world developments—war, famine, earthquakes, pestilences. (Matthew 24:3-8; Luke 21:11) Such developments bear powerful testimony to the fact that 1914 indeed marked the birth of God’s heavenly Kingdom and the beginning of ‘the last days’ of this present wicked system of things. –2 Timothy 3:1-5.”

It is interesting to note that many Bible students that are not Jehovah’s Witnesses hold that we are living in “the last days” without having any knowledge of the 1914 doctrine. There is no disputing the fact that significant events occurred in 1914. But without a Scriptural basis, what warrant is there for believing that Christ was enthroned in 1914? In addition, what Scriptural basis does the Watchtower have in insisting that one cannot be a true Christian unless they hold to this complex doctrine?

In conclusion, I’d like to encourage any Jehovah’s Witness who reads this to not take my word for it or the Society’s. Instead, I would challenge you to do your own research and come to your own conclusions. And if it turns out that the Watchtower’s basis for 1914 falls short of its claims for themselves in being “God’s sole channel of communication,” then what will this mean for you as a Christian? Will you remain in the organization, or will you look for something else? For many Jehovah’s Witnesses, this information will not sway them one way or another, since they have determined in their minds that there is nowhere else to go, even if the doctrine proves to be incorrect. But for others, they will feel lost and abandoned due to the Society’s strict policies on doctrinal descent.

However discouraging this may be, I would like offer a few words of encouragement. Thousands of Jehovah’s Witnesses have found happiness and contentment after leaving the Watchtower; not because they found something else, but someone else. This was the message of the early Christians. When confronted with the gospel, many Jews were probably confused in figuring out where to go when “God’s organization” (i.e. the Jewish community) was shown to be inadequate for their salvation. But the early Christians didn’t point them to just another organization. Instead, they pointed them to the person of Jesus Christ for salvation. This is the alternative I have to the Watchtower, which is something I believe to be far more satisfying. And it is the alternative I have for who are becoming doubtful of the Watchtower’s claims:

“Most truly I say to YOU, He that hears my word and believes him that sent me has everlasting life, and he does not come into judgment but has passed over from death to life.”
-John 5:24, New World Translation

Christ’s invitation is for all who are willing to place their faith in Him and “the one who sent Him.” And until one does this, they cannot be saved, no matter how much one submits to “God’s organization.’

What does the Bible really teach about 1914? (Part 1 of 2)

To say that the 1914 doctrine is important to Jehovah’s Witnesses is an understatement. To stress how important this doctrine is to them, it would suffice to use the Watchtower Society’s own words:

*** w86 4/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***

Approved association with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses. What do such beliefs include?…That 1914 marked the end of the Gentile Times and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the heavens, as well as the time for Christ’s foretold presence. (Luke 21:7-24; Revelation 11:15–12:10)

*** w83 1/1 p. 12 par. 5 The Kingdom Issue to the Fore! ***

Properly, then, the ending of the Gentile Times in the latter half of 1914 still stands on a historical basis as one of the fundamental Kingdom truths to which we must hold today.

*** w85 9/1 p. 25 par. 15 God’s Ministers Prove Their Qualification ***

So Christendom’s clergy refuse to take a stand for Jehovah’s Kingdom by Jesus Christ. For failing to support it, they will be destroyed in the “great tribulation” just ahead. But unlike them, Jehovah’s Witnesses have abandoned Babylon the Great, the world empire of false religion, and are preaching the Kingdom message in 203 lands. This unparalleled work is an outstanding feature of “the sign” proving that in 1914 Jesus was installed as heavenly King, to rule amid his enemies.—Matthew 24:3, 14, 21; Psalm 110:1, 2; Revelation 18:1-5.

In light of these quotes, it is no stretch to say that according to the Watchtower, your very salvation depends on the acceptance of 1914 in addition to their “entire range” of teachings. Because of such statements, would we not expect the doctrine of 1914 to be based on the most solid biblical reasons? Would we expect our salvation to be based on something that is doubtful or speculative?

Therefore, let’s investigate 1914 and see if it is based on the best possible reasons. And I would encourage all Jehovah’s Witnesses watching this to do their own homework and “examine the Scriptures to see whether these things are so.” (Acts 17:11) That is, don’t take anyone’s word for it. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

With that said, I’d like to use the Watchtower publication, “What does the Bible Really Teach” in our investigation. Though more detailed explanations are given elsewhere, I think most Jehovah’s Witnesses would agree that this publication contains one of the best and most concise explanations of the doctrine.

Beginning on page 215 in What does the Bible Really Teach:

“DECADES in advance, Bible students proclaimed that there would be significant developments in 1914. What were these and what evidence points to 1914 as such an important year?

There are a few things to note about this statement. First, it is misleading. It is quite an understatement to suggest that the early proclamations of 1914 were of “significant developments.” Though it is true that 1914 brought about World War I, this was not something that was foretold by Russell or the “Bible Students.” Instead, the facts clearly reveal that the “Bible Students” were predicting something much more significant: the “Battle of Armageddon” and the end of the world. Unfortunate as it was, they credited the teaching that we now know to be false to God Himself:

“There is no reason for changing the figures; they are God’s dates, not ours; 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but the end!”
-The Watch Tower, July 15, 1894, p. 1677

Second, in addition to understating the facts pertaining to the early proclamations of 1914, the What does the Bible Really Teach book seems to give the impression that the Bible Students were doing something commendable in their proclamation. The question I would ask is, is it commendable for the “Bible Students” to be proclaiming a false doctrine and attributing it to God?

Last, given that the Society has had a poor track record of falsely pointing to dates that were supposed to have specific fulfillments (1874, 1878, 1881, 1914, 1918, 1925, 1935, 1975), do you not find it to be at least questionable that the Society teaches that you must accept what they are now teaching about 1914 to be a true Christian?

“As recorded at Luke 21:24, Jesus said: ‘Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations [“the times of the Gentiles,” King James Version] are fulfilled.’ Jerusalem had been the capital city of the Jewish nation—the seat of rulership of the line of kings from the house of King David. (Psalm 48:1, 2) However, these kings were unique among national leaders. They sat on ‘Jehovah’s throne’ as representatives of God himself. (1 Chronicles 29:23) Jerusalem was thus a symbol of Jehovah’s rulership.

How and when, though, did God’s rulership begin to be ‘trampled on by the nations’? This happened in 607 B.C.E. when Jerusalem was conquered by the Babylonians. ‘Jehovah’s throne’ became vacant, and the line of kings who descended from David was interrupted. (2 Kings 25:1-26)

The first obstacle we have to deal with is the 607 date. This is one very important link in the 1914 chronology to which, if proven false, then the doctrine of 1914 is false. In light of the Watchtower’s declaration that your status as a true Christian depends on 1914, should we expect to find a link in the chain that is made out of very thin rope instead of steel? The truth is, the 607 date is at worse, completely false; and at best, questionable. It is not my intention to go into all the details surrounding this date. But it must be emphasized that the vast majority of historians, both biblical and secular, date the destruction of Jerusalem at 586/587 B.C.E. as opposed to 607. Much has been written and debated from both sides of the issue, which is too complex for our purposes here. I would only ask that you do your own research on the subject from both sides of the issue and come to your own conclusions on the matter.

But leaving aside the date, there are other questionable issues at hand; namely, the “trampling of the nations” that is spoken of by Jesus. The publication states that this “trampling” occurred in 607. But notice the time-tense that Jesus places on the statement: “Jerusalem will be trampled.” That is, Jesus is speaking in the future tense. How could Jesus be speaking of something in the future that, according to the publication, happened hundreds of years before he came to earth? The publication does not tell us. In addition, there are other clues in the context of Jesus’ statement that gives us even more reason to believe that He is speaking of something future:

“Woe to the pregnant women and the ones suckling a baby in those days! For there will be a great necessity upon the land and wrath on this people; and they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.”
-Luke 21:23-24, New World Translation

Given all the future-tense phrases that are found in this passage, is there any good reason to view the “trampling” as the exception in referring to the past event? In light of this, have we observed any solid evidence thus far in the publication’s summary? Or have we seen statements that are questionable, if not false? What would the Scriptures teach about such things?

“Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.”
-1 Thessalonians 5:21, New World Translation

In other words, should we not, as Bible Students, examine the Watchtower’s claims and “make sure” it aligns with Scripture? And if it doesn’t, or we find the reasons given to be questionable, should we not be more hesitant to join with an organization that claims our salvation to be dependent on this doctrine?

“Would this ‘trampling’ go on forever? No, for the prophecy of Ezekiel said regarding Jerusalem’s last king, Zedekiah: ‘Remove the turban, and life off the crown…It will certainly become no one’s until he comes who has the legal right, and I must give it to him.’ (Ezekiel 21:26, 27) The one who has ‘the legal right’ to the Davidic crown is Christ Jesus (Luke 1:32, 33) So the ‘trampling’ would end when Jesus became King.”

Though no explicit statement in Scripture says such, the Watchtower insists that Jesus “became King” in 1914. The problem is, the Scriptures indicate that Jesus became King in the first century.

“All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.”
-Matthew 28:18, New World Translation

“He has operated in the case of the Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name named, not only in this system of things, but also in that to come.”
-Ephesians 1:20-21, New World Translation

The question is, how could Christ be further exalted or any more “King” when it is clear that He has been given “all authority” and “seated at the right hand” of God Almighty in the first century?

What does the Bible really teach about 1914? (Part 3 of 3)

What does the Bible really teach about 1914? (Part 2 of 3)

What does the Bible really teach about 1914? (Part 1 of 3)

A great testimony of a Jehovah's Witness who left the organization because of 1914.

Book Review: "The Gentiles Times Reconsidered" by Carl O. Jonnson

I can honestly say that Carl Olof Jonsson deserves a Ph.D for this incredible work. "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" is an exhaustive investigation of the historical, archaeological, and biblical evidence used in support of the Watchtower's date of 1914 for Christ's second coming. Needless to say, Jonsson completely obliterated, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Watchtower is incorrect in their chronology.

For those uninformed on the issue, the Watchtower maintains that Christ returned invisibly in 1914 to establish His kingdom. Allow me to sum this up as succinctly as I can. Luke 21:14, according to the Watchtower, supports the contention that the "Times of the Gentiles" began in 607 with the destruction of Jerusalem and will continue until "that time comes to an end." This is connected with Daniel 4, whereby Nebuchadnezzar describes a dream in which a large tree gets cut down. The Watchtower claims, on what authority I have no idea, that this represents God's rulership. The dream mentions "seven times," which corresponds to 2,520 years in accordance with their "year-day principle" in comparing Revelation 12:6,14 with Numbers 14:34. In other words, Revelation 12:6,14 claims that "3 1/2 times" equals 1260 days. Therefore, 7 times would equal 2,520 days. In order to fit this with their timeline, the Watchtower interprets these days as years. So when you add 2,520 years to 607 B.C., you get 1914.

Of course, this is littered with problems. About half of the book deals with archaeology and history; the other half with theology. I was thankful to find an emphasis on Jonsson's part to harmonize the secular evidence with the Biblical. It is no secret that most of today's archaeologists are no friend to the Bible. Therefore, when scholars attempt to find conflict with the Bible and archaeology, Jonsson was quick to refute. At any rate, the Jonsson reasoned, beyond any doubt, that the Watchtower's chronology is incorrect.

Basically, the chronology fails in their attempt to defend 607 B.C. as the date when Jerusalem fell. If the Watchtower is correct, then the witness of thousands of independent sources from various locations and times are wrong. But how can this be? Was there a conspiracy amongst the ancient Babylonians to throw the Watchtower's chronology off by 20 years? The Watchtower would never suggest this, but attempts to override these irrefutable evidences by attacking them with unsubstantiated claims and assumptions.

Fortunately, Jonnson's work spends a great deal of time rebutting the Watchtower's attempt to deal with the evidence. Anyone who has studied Watchtower literature knows that they are experts at misrepresenting scholars. The quoting of scholars in this case is no exception. Let me share an example. In the Watchtower publication, "Let your kingdom come," p. 187 they try to present the picture that Babylonian history might be in error, and that yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology:

"Professor Edward F. Cambell, Jr., introduced a chart, which included Neo-Babylonian chronology, with the caution: 'It goes without saying that these lists are provisional. The more one studies the intricacies of the chronological problems in the ancient Near East, the less he is inclined to think of any presentation as final. For this reason, the term "circa" [about] could be used even more liberally than it is.'"

As Jonnson points out, the Watchtower did not mention that the chart referred to

"covers the chronologies of Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, Assyria and Babylon from c. 3800 to the death of Alexander the Great in 323 B.C., and although the term "circa" is placed before many of the reigns given in the lists for this long period, no circas are placed before any of the reigns given for the kings of the Neo-Babylonian period!" (p. 292)

So much for doubting the accuracy of the Neo-Babylonian sources!

The theological treatment of the chronology in this work was outstanding. It is the temptation of many Jehovah's Witnesses, when bombarded with this information, to say things to the affect of, "well even if the history doesn't match up, we're sticking to the Bible!" The problem is, you cannot establish an absolute date in this period of ancient history without appealing to the evidences mentioned in this work. Therefore, the Jehovah's Witness has two options, 1) abandon the 1914 date since we apparently can't accurately establish an ancient date, or 2) abandon the 1914 date because it conflicts with the evidence. The Watchtower can't have their cake and eat it too. Their standards are inconsistent and it is about time that they accept the reality.

But what about the Watchtower's claim that 1914 is supported Biblically? Nothing could be further from the truth. The Babylonian chronologies are in strong agreement with the Bible. The Watchtower would have us believe that the 70 years prophecy of Jeremiah 25:11 began in 607 B.C. with the fall of Jerusalem. There are two errors here. First, the destruction of Jerusalem didn't begin in 607 B.C., as pointed out earlier. But second, the 70 years did not begin with the destruction of Jerusalem. Instead, it began with the vassalage and servitude given to Nebuchadnezzar.

Jeremiah 25:11 says, "This whole land will be a desolation and a horror, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years." Even a cursory reading of this verse shows that the seventy years isn't referring to the destruction of Jerusalem; it is referring to the servitude to the king of Babylon. In other words, the nations will serve Babylon for seventy years. Yes, the desolation is part of the prophecy. But the text simply says "this whole land WILL BE a desolation," not "for seventy years this land will be a desolation." But there are more problems. The Watchtower would, in fact, agree that Jerusalem would live in servitude to Babylon. And it cannot be denied from the text that this servitude would last 70 years. But think about this. If the servitude to Nebuchadnezzar began in 607 with the desolation, when did it end? 70 years would lead us to 537. But did Jerusalem stop serving Babylon in 539 or 537? Exactly. 539 B.C. In fact, according to Jeremiah 25:12, the seventy years would end when the king of Babylon is punished. When did that happen? 539 or 537? (the answer is 539) It sounds to me like the Watchtower chronology isn't that "biblical" after all! What's more is what Jeremiah 25:9 says:

"and I will send to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, My servant, and will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these nations round about; and I will utterly destroy them and make them a horror and a hissing, and an everlasting desolation."

Who are "all these nations round about?" Surely this is not simply referring to Jerusalem alone? Jeremiah 25:17-26 make this clear. But were these nations all destroyed in the same year? I think we're beginning to see that the Watchtower has a few things on their plate that they overlooked.

But why does this issue really matter? This issue matters because of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Jehovah's Witnesses are under the control of the Watchtower. They do not think for themselves; they think what the Watchtower tells them to think. I've been involved in personal Bible studies with Jehovah's Witnesses for practically the entire year of 2007 and i've seen this firsthand. The gospel is completely repelled because these people refuse to look at it because of their blindness. Few realize how important 1914 is to the Jehovah's Witness:

"Let the honest-hearted person compare the kind of preaching of the gospel of the Kingdom done by the religious systems of Christendom during all the centuries with that done by Jehovah's Witnesses since the end of World War I in 1918. They are not one and the same kind. That of Jehovah's Witnesses is really 'gospel,' or 'good news,' as of God's heavenly kingdom that was established by the enthronement of his Son Jesus Christ at the end of the Gentile Times in 1914." (Watchtower, May 1, 1981)

It is clear from the above quote that 1914 is, to the Jehovah's Witnesses, "gospel." This is why the Watchtower has been able to survive, given all the false prophecies they've given in the past; they cannot deny the "reality" of 1914 and Christ's heavenly kingdom established. The organization stands or falls on this fact. That is why this is so important. Your everyday Jehovah's Witness, unless he is a scholar of the organization, has no idea that there is controversy and reason to doubt the chronology (which encompasses the vast majority of Jehovah's Witnesses that would come to your door). One only hopes that, when shown this information, the Jehovah's Witness will begin the process of thinking for himself. And, by God's Grace, this will lead him to accepting Jesus Christ as his God and Savior (Titus 2:13).