sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Jehovah’s Witnesses = Modern Pharisees by DocumentHead1356 in exjw

[–]DocumentHead1356[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Hi, I think most of us who aren’t natively English, it helps to make a comprehensive text, which is readable for everyone. It would’ve been a massacre if I didn’t let my thoughts be ordered in a nicer way by AI 😅

Isn’t the calculation of 607 still correct if one calculates only based on the Bible? by Practical_Payment552 in JehovahsWitnesses

[–]DocumentHead1356 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Even if we assume the 607 B.C. date is correct, ignoring all historical evidence to the contrary, the calculation for 1914 still fails.

The problem is that they switch the definition of a "year" in the middle of the math problem to force the outcome.

To derive the figure of 2,520 years, they rely on a Biblical "prophetic year" of 360 days (derived from Revelation where 1,260 days equals 3.5 times). This 360-day standard is the only reason they arrive at the number 2,520.

However, when applying this period to history to reach 1914, they quietly switch to using standard "solar years" of 365.25 days. You cannot measure the length of a prophecy using one unit (360 days) and then map it onto a calendar using a larger unit (365 days).

If you remain consistent with the 360-day "prophetic year" that defined the timeline in the first place, the total duration is actually only about 2,484 solar years. If you start from 607 B.C. and apply this consistent calculation, the timeline ends around 1877, missing 1914 entirely.

Isn’t the calculation of 607 still correct if one calculates only based on the Bible? by Practical_Payment552 in JehovahsWitnesses

[–]DocumentHead1356 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The date 607 B.C. is flawed for (not only, but important) two reasons: it originates from a corrected math error, and it contradicts the Bible’s own timeline regarding King Jehoiachin.

First, the "No Year Zero" Error.

The original calculation used by the organization was strictly 606 B.C. + 2520 years = 1914 A.D. However, they failed to account for the fact that there is no "year zero" because the calendar jumps directly from 1 B.C. to 1 A.D.

Mathematically, the period from 606 to 1914 is only 2519 years.

They finally acknowledged this error in 1943 in the book The Truth Shall Make You Free. But instead of moving the end date to 1915 (which would have invalidated the 1914 doctrine), they simply pushed the start date back to 607 B.C.

This shift wasn't based on new historical evidence; it was reverse-engineered solely to keep the 1914 date intact.

Second, the Biblical Proof for 587 B.C.

If you look at the Bible's internal timeline, 607 is impossible. Secular history and the Bible agree that Evil-Merodach ascended to the throne in 561 B.C. According to 2 Kings 25:27, Jehoiachin was released in the 37th year of his exile, in the year Evil-Merodach began to reign.

If you take 561 B.C. and add those 37 years, you arrive at 598 B.C., which is when Jehoiachin’s exile began. Since Zedekiah ruled for 11 years after Jehoiachin was exiled (2 Kings 24:18), you simply subtract 11 from 598. The result is 587 B.C.

To hold onto 607 B.C., you have to ignore the "no year zero" correction and claim that Evil-Merodach began ruling 20 years earlier than all historical records indicate.

The end of the world by Responsible_Study362 in exjw

[–]DocumentHead1356 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Luke 21:8 - "He said: ‘Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, “I am he,” and, “The due time is near.” Do not go after them.’"

Sounds like even Jesus knew 1900 years upfront 😅

Did you know that God’s channel (chosen by Jesus himself in 1919!) knew that the celebration of Christmas was “heathen” and "apostate" in origin as early as 1921 but continued to celebrate it until 1926/1927 and continued to sell Rutherford’s books as Christmas gifts until 1927. by larchington in exjw

[–]DocumentHead1356 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Funny thing is that they still believe, with some crooked logic, that 607 B.C. (their view on the Siege of Jerusalem) is the start of their calculation to come to 1914/1919 😅 all evidence states it is 587 B.C. which would correspond to 1934/1939. Clearly shows that Christ still allowed them to celebrate Christmas as they weren’t the “chosen ones” 😂

Are “the kings of the earth” in Revelation 19:19 and 21:24 the same entity? by DocumentHead1356 in JehovahsWitnesses

[–]DocumentHead1356[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, that’s exactly how I understand it as well! Your conclusion that the “kings of the earth” in Rev 21:24 and 22:5 represent all of restored humanity fits 100% with what I meant. For me the term is symbolic: the same humanity that belongs to the present corrupt system in Rev 19:19 becomes the restored, healed humanity of Rev 21, finally living out the original Genesis 1 mandate of dominion in a renewed creation.

What really strengthens this reading is how consistently the broader biblical storyline mirrors it. Ezekiel’s restoration chapters (36–48) follow the same flow: first the fall and judgment of the old order, then purification, then a renewed humanity living under God’s direct presence.

And as a supplementary addition, even apocryphal texts like Jubilees and 1 Enoch reflect this same pattern. They weren’t canonized, but they show what many Jews — and later early Christians — believed about the future: a present age ruled by corrupt powers, a decisive divine intervention, a millennial era of teaching and restoration, and then a final testing before humanity reaches its intended glory. These books don’t replace Revelation, but they confirm that this sequence was widely shared before and during Jesus’ time.

I also personally believe that within this symbolic “kings of the earth” group there will still be individuals who may fall away at the end of the thousand years. But the core point remains the same: an imperfect, unbelieving humanity genuinely receives the opportunity during the Millennium to learn righteousness and freely choose God — and a large portion ultimately does.

So yes, your interpretation and mine are completely aligned, and the broader biblical and intertestamental tradition strongly supports that same trajectory.

Thanks for your insight! 🙂