From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Real issues for Antti
Date: 3 Oct 92 00:43:17 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Oct1.133637.23744@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher) writes:
>>How about answering just one simple question about the book?  It requires
>>no looking up of references.  All you have to do is think clearly about
>>the book's argument.
>
>>On page 35 _Life_ states:
>
>>    From what we have considered, the Genesis creation account emerges
>>    as a scientifically sound document....
>
>>Can you explain *what* the book has considered up to this point that
>>allows the author to conclude that Genesis is scientifically sound?
>
>	Quite many. For instance the order life was created on earth. 

You haven't read the book carefully.  As far as I can see, the only
things that have been covered are descriptions of Genesis' creative
days and certain obvious facts, i.e., light exists, night and day
exist, there is dry land, the sun and moon can be seen in the sky,
there are seasons and there are many forms of life.  Can you tell
me specifically (page and paragraph) what the book considered that
shows statements from science about the order of creation?  Since
you said `quite many', please enlighten me.  Also, remember that
we are not here considering whether what science says is true, but
only the question of whether science agrees with Genesis, since
that is what _Life_ stated.  I assume you agree that when we talk
about `science' we mean the `scientific establishment', not some
indefinite `true science'.

> [....]

The following should really be in talk.religion.misc, but since
Antii put it in t.o, here's my response.  This came from the
thread "Re: jws: false prophets?"

>	By the way, your reference to "Kingdom is at Hand!" was false - there
>	were no such things as you claimed. (Did you think I don't have that
>	old book to look references from ?)

Are you referring to where I said "the 1981 book _The Kingdom Is At
Hand_"?  If so, thank you for pointing this out.  I should have said
"the 1981 book _Let Your Kingdom Come_."  That's what I get for doing
it from memory.

If you are referring to where I mention (2 places) something about the
"1944 book _The Kingdom Is At Hand_", then please explain to me why
my reference was false, based on the following material and anything
else you want to add.

It's nice to see that you actually looked up the references.  Please
note -- I am not posting false information.  To show this, here is
what the 1944 book _The Kingdom Is At Hand_ said.  Since you have
access to the old books you can easily confirm that these quotations
are correct and are not taken out of context.

A chart was printed on pp. 172-5 showing significant dates of events in 
the Jewish kingdom and events related to it.  The chart has the fall
of Jerusalem occurring in 607 B.C., with the captions:

    Jerusalem destroyed in fifth month (Ab)

    Land of Judah abandoned and left desolate in seventh month (Ethanim)

On p. 171 a footnote concerning the chart says:

    The following chronology shows the date of Jerusalem's destruction
    as in the year 607 before Christ.  This recognizes the fact that
    the ancient reckoning of the vulgar year began in the fall.  In
    other words, the vulgar year 606 B.C. really began in the fall of
    607 B.C.  As stated on page 239 ([para.] 1) of _The Truth Shall
    Make You Free_:  "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....  Hence from the fall of B.C. 1
    to the fall of A.D. 1914 is 1,914 years."

Here is what _The Truth Shall Make You Free_ said on pp. 238-9:

    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 *only* thing that was adjusted was the starting year
for the Gentile Times, to take into account the claim that the
year began counting in the fall in ancient times.  The summer of
606 B.C. was explicitly retained as the date for the fall of
Jerusalem, and 536 B.C. was retained as Cyrus' first year and as
the year in which the Jews returned to their homeland.
See pp. 229, 231, 237, 299 and 308 for examples where 606 B.C. is
still used for Jerusalem's fall.

In my t.r.m post I said:

"The incorrect date of 606 B.C. for the start of the Gentile times and
for the fall of Jerusalem was carried along until 1943, when the book
_The Truth Shall Make You Free_, on page 239, changed the start of the
Gentile times to 607 B.C., the currently accepted date.  It explicitly
retained 606 B.C. for Jerusalem's fall, stating that Nebuchadnezzar
`destroyed Jerusalem in the summer of 606 B.C.'  The adjustment for
Jerusalem's fall to the summer of *607* B.C. was actually made in
the 1944 book _The Kingdom Is At Hand,_ in a footnote on page 171.
However, the change is not explained, but is merely stated as a given
in such a manner that the reader is led to believe that the change
*had* been explained in the earlier book."

After referring to other publications which mentioned the change
of the 606 B.C. date to 607 B.C., I wrote:

"The WTS is obviously dishonest with its readers in these publications
and clearly tries to avoid explaining what was being changed and why.
The above mentioned 1955 _Watchtower_ said that _The Kingdom Is At Hand_
`acknowledged' the change for the date of Jerusalem's fall.  But _The
Kingdom Is At Hand_ made no such acknowledgement, explicitly stating
that _The Truth Shall Make You Free_ made the adjustment.  But _The
Truth Shall Make You Free_ made no such adjustment at all.  Its
`explanation' of why it changed the `Gentile times' date from 606 to
607 B.C. is nothing but a whitewash."

Please show me explicitly where I made false statements.
Alternatively, explain to me exactly which statements in the WTS
books form the logical sequence showing *why* the date was changed.

Alan Feuerbacher
alanf@atlas.pen.tek.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins