The Watchtower, August 15, 1968
Download: PDF — The Watchtower, August 15, 1968
The Watchtower — August 15, 1968
Source: jw.org
Contents
What the Clergy Are Doing
The Book of Truthful Historical Dates
Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975?
How 1st-Century Events Are Dated in the 20th Century
What Can I Do?
Questions From Readers
Announcements
What the Clergy Are Doing
What the Clergy Are Doing
A LITTLE boy picked up a dust-covered Bible in his home and asked his mother: “Is this God’s Book?”
“Yes,” replied his mother.
Then the boy said: “Well, hadn’t we better take it back, because we don’t ever use it?”
A headline in This Week magazine of February 25, 1968, asked: “What’s Happening to Religion?” It noted: “Protestants accuse their religion of ‘being run like a business.’ Catholics say birth control is a private matter and reject the Pope’s infallibility. Nuns abandon convents to live in downtown apartments. Priests leave the church in unprecedented numbers to marry. One of the nation’s best known Episcopal Bishops is accused of heresy. Teachers of religion announce that ‘God is dead.’ . . . Today, chaos, acrimony and confusion are apparently the order of the day.”
Why all this chaos? Why, in the great majority of homes claiming to be Christian, does the Bible gather dust? Why are the laws of God so often ignored and belittled? And why is there such a growing lack of respect for clergymen today?
BELITTLING THE BIBLE
Jesus Christ, his apostles and the first-century Christians all had deep respect for God’s word as found in the Bible. Jesus said in prayer to God: “Your word is truth.” (John 17:17) The apostle Paul said to Christians in his day: “When you received God’s word, which you heard from us, you accepted it, not as the word of men, but, just as it truthfully is, as the word of God.”—1 Thess. 2:13.
Yet, in the Providence Journal of September 30, 1967, the following item appeared:
“Washington—(RNS)—After analyzing, clause by clause, the Lord’s Prayer as recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, the Rev. Duncan Howlett, of All Saints’ Unitarian Church, said it would no longer be used in his church.
“The minister told the congregation that the prayer lacks real meaning, . . . As an example of his reasoning, Mr. Howlett said the clause ‘Hallowed be Thy name’ is a ‘joke’ in an age when the name of God is ‘no longer as sacred as that of Washington, Lincoln or Kennedy.’”
Nor is this an isolated case. More and more clergymen belittle the Bible. A New York newspaper carried the headline: “Cleric Is Critical of Bible Teaching.” It noted that clergyman H. Smith of London said that Bible teaching for youngsters “is a waste of time and can be harmful.” Yet the apostle Paul told Christian fathers regarding their children: “Go on bringing them up in the discipline and authoritative advice of Jehovah.”—Eph. 6:4.
In the Toronto Star Weekly, the front cover showed clergyman G. Goth stating: “The Ten Commandments are Dead.” The impression his article gave was that God requires persons to obey the Mosaic law today, that it is irrelevant, and that the entire Hebrew Scriptures are valueless. Nowhere did he explain, as the Bible so clearly does, that the Mosaic law is not binding upon Christians, but that it is filled with principles and prophetic patterns that are of vital importance to them.—Rom. 6:14; Heb. 10:1.
So completely have most clergymen downgraded the dynamic, inspiring message of the Bible that the religious editor of the Oakland Tribune said: “A recent study reveals that . . . the day of the 30 to 40 minute sermon is past. The study suggested that ministers confine their remarks to 10 minutes and not more than 15.” Indeed, some even suggest a more radical confining. P. Berton of Canada, in his book The Comfortable Pew, stated: “The lukewarm pulpit makes hypocrites of its occupants . . . the whole problem of the Sunday sermon and its lack of conviction is one that profoundly worries men of conviction. No wonder that some, in desperation, have seriously suggested a moratorium on all preaching . . . for a period of at least a year and probably longer.”
The blame for this lack of interest in God and his Word must rest largely with the clergy. They have so confused people that they no longer know what to believe. Notice how this is shown in the book A Church Without God, written by clergyman E. Harrison:
“Werner Pelz, who entitled a book God Is No More, is a Church of England vicar; William H. Dubay, who asserts that Christ ‘did away with religion,’ is a Roman Catholic priest . . . Father Jackson, who says, ‘If there is a God, we can’t speak of him as a supreme being,’ is a university chaplain; Thomas Altizer [God is dead], who wrote The Gospel of Christian Atheism, is an Associate Professor of Bible Studies at an American university; I am on the staff of an Anglican parish in Toronto. I claim to be a Christian and an Anglican; yet I can say, in all seriousness, that there is no God.”
Observing how far Christendom’s clergymen have strayed away from Christian standards, author Berton, a former member of the Anglican Church in Canada, stated:
“It has all but been forgotten that Christianity began as a revolutionary religion whose followers embraced an entirely different set of values from those held by other members of society. Those original values are still in conflict with the values of contemporary society; yet religion today has become as conservative a force as the force the original Christians were in conflict with.”
Yes, the clergy of Christendom have abandoned true Christian teaching and practice. They have become the very thing that Jesus and the first-century Christians exposed as working contrary to God’s will. They are like the ones to whom Jesus said: “You have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition. You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you, when he said, ‘This people honors me with their lips, yet their heart is far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.’”—Matt. 15:6-9.
SOCIAL DUTIES TAKE PRECEDENCE
Much of the clergy’s time today is devoted, not to Bible teaching and study, but to social affairs. The Saturday Evening Post said of the average clergyman today:
“He is, instead, . . . an organizer of committees, a club chairman, and a settler of petty squabbles among good ladies of the altar guild. He is a fund raiser, a builder, a luncheon speaker, a participant in and contributor to every worthy community project, so incessantly tugged and hauled at that he must literally hide himself away if he is to find the time to let the springs of the spirit fill up through meditation, prayer and the study of the Scriptures.
Similarly, the book The Comfortable Pew notes: “The chains of parish life make it difficult for him to break out and be anything else, since so much of his time is devoted to tea-cup balancing and inoffensive palaver with the natives. . . . The dominance of parish life, with its social club atmosphere, means that the church is tightly tied to the secular social hierarchy of the community.”
POLITICAL INVOLVEMENT
One of the main reasons for the decline in esteem that the clergy are suffering is their involvement in the politics and wars of this world. More and more persons are coming to see how inconsistent it is for clergymen to support both sides, especially in military struggles. In this regard the New York World-Telegram and Sun reported on March 11, 1966:
“Representatives of three religious faiths sought yesterday to convince a group of Brooklyn students that the Biblical injunction against killing did not apply to the war in Viet Nam.
“In general, the attempt was unsuccessful. The audience . . . left with the feeling, as one student put it, that the speakers were ‘putting us on.’”
The clergymen involved were Catholic, Jewish and Protestant. In attempting to justify involvement in war, one of them said: “Killing must be done with a pure heart.”
In a poll taken of clergymen serving as military chaplains, it was discovered that their views in no way differed from those of other military men as to the morality of modern warfare. As author Berton notes: “None felt that the individual soldier had any more responsibility in the matter except to serve his country. This outlook is very similar to the one that formed the core of Adolph Eichmann’s defence during his trial in Israel.”
Bertrand Russell said that in England “the Anglican Church has upheld every Government view including those concerning war and killing.” He noted that the church actually had become a force for establishing “resistance to conscientious protest.”
Of the Catholic church, the New York Times of December 29, 1966, reported:
“Traditionally Catholics support the nation’s war efforts and leave moral responsibilities for the wars’ conduct to the political authorities. . . .
“In the past local Catholic hierarchies almost always supported the wars of their nations, blessing troops and offering prayers for victory, while another group of bishops on the other side publicly prayed for the opposite outcome. And while this took place, the Vatican usually maintained a careful neutrality and advocated an early end to hostilities. . . .
“The contradiction between the Christian spirit and the conduct of the war, which was often obscured by theological subtleties, seems increasingly clear to many, as weapons grow more brutal.”
At the funeral of a soldier killed in action, the pastor of a Lutheran Church in Des Moines, Iowa, performed the service. The Register of February 10, 1968, related: “The Rev. Martin Haerther, church pastor, said . . . he knew it was God’s will.” The clergyman added: “When a soldier dies in line of duty in a just war, not only is it a glorious death in the service of country but it is a blessed end for him . . . I am sure the angels were on hand to carry his soul into heaven and he is now enjoying peace.”
This clergyman mentioned a “just” war. A booklet, The Church and War, published by the National Council of Catholic Men in the United States, comments on this. In reviewing the booklet, United Press International writer Louis Cassels observed that “the mainstream of Christian tradition is represented by the doctrine of the ‘just war,’ spelled out in the 5th century A.D. by the great St. Augustine.” What were Augustine’s rules for a “just” war? (1) It should be waged only as a necessity; (2) its only legitimate objective is to achieve a just and stable peace as quickly as possible; (3) it should be fought with mercy, avoiding all needless brutality and restricting use of violence to the minimum.
When reporting on this booklet’s publication, Cassels pointed out: “In World War II, however, both sides abandoned any pretense of ‘minimum’ force in favor of all-out, ‘total’ war. Each side rained bombs on the other’s cities, and millions of civilians, including women, children and the aged, were killed, maimed or rendered homeless.”
Yet all the time the clergy of both sides regarded the war as a “just” war. Clergymen of the same religion prayed for victory on each of the opposing sides!
CHRISTIAN VIEW
Is a war that pits “brothers” of the same “Christian” religion against one another really a “just” war? By whose definition? Augustine’s? But is Augustine a greater authority on Christian conduct and doctrine than Jesus Christ, or the apostles, or God’s written Word, the Bible?
Jesus said to those who would claim to be Christian: “By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.” (John 13:35) The apostle Paul said to Christians: “You should all speak in agreement, and . . . there should not be divisions among you, . . . Does the Christ exist divided?” (1 Cor. 1:10, 13) Could there be any division greater than that which results in members of the same religion killing one another?
Some clergymen do admit that there is no basis whatsoever in early Christianity for the support they have given to this world’s wars. Clergyman I. Evans, former editor of Blackfriars, a British journal, acknowledged that such shedding of blood was incompatible with the “inherent Christian tradition of turning the other cheek.” The Eugene Register-Guard of January 22, 1967, reported: “Until 313 A.D., Evans said, Christians took no part in the wars of the Roman Empire. With the Edict of Milan in 313 A.D. the Emperor Constantine gave the minority group of Christians full rights and obligations as Roman citizens. This, Evans said, was the beginning of the just war theory.” Later, Augustine elaborated on it.
Note the sources of the “just” war theory. It comes, not from God, not from Jesus Christ, not from the apostles, not from the first-century Christians. Instead, it originated with politicians and with clergymen who had already turned apostate by the fourth century of our Common Era.
During World War II the vast majority of the clergy of all major religions in Germany accepted Constantine’s and Augustine’s unscriptural views. They supported Hitler’s war machine. Yet after World War II the Nuremberg trials of Nazi political and military leaders found them guilty of carrying out Hitler’s murderous orders. The clergy, however, were just as guilty, since they encouraged their followers to obey Hitler’s orders for mass murder. On the other hand, Jehovah’s witnesses upheld the true Christian view and unitedly refused to carry out the murderous designs of the Nazis. They went to concentration camps rather than violate the Christian standard of neutrality in war, knowing that “we must obey God as ruler rather than men.”—Acts 5:29.
Though Hitler has long since been discredited, and the support given him by clergymen exposed, some clergy today still uphold his memory! In the May 12, 1968, issue of La Vanguardia Española in Barcelona, Spain, a headline declared: “Funeral Rites for Hitler’s Eternal Rest.” The accompanying article said:
“In the Church of San Martín in Desengaño Street, a mass for the eternal rest of Hitler’s soul was held yesterday. In the memorial cards distributed during the service it was precisely declared that the mass was offered ‘for the eternal rest of Adolf Hitler and of all the fallen in defense of Christendom and of Western Civilization.’”
PART OF THE WORLD
By their involvement in the politics and wars of this world the clergy have become part of it. Added to this is their justifying the “new morality” and their attempts to reshape doctrine and practice to conform to what is popular rather than what is right.
When a Barnard College sophomore was recently threatened with expulsion from school for breaking regulations by living with her boyfriend in an off-campus apartment, two clergymen testified in her behalf. The New York Daily News declared in a front-page headline: “Clerics Back Linda in Love Trial. The paper said:
“A minister, a rabbi, and a philosophy professor spoke in her behalf . . . claiming that the college has no legal right to regulate students’ private affairs. . . . The Rev. William Starr, Protestant counselor of Columbia University, cited the housing rules as ‘ridiculous.’ . . .
“Starr was followed on the stand by Rabbi A. Bruce Goldman, Jewish counselor of Columbia University. Praising Linda for what he said was her courage and conviction, Goldman said the hearing was a ‘test of civil and individual rights.’”
Similarly, Time magazine of May 10, 1968, reported: “Should Christianity permit polygamy? Under certain conditions, yes, argues a Roman Catholic missionary in Africa. . . . His recommendation: ‘If polygamy is the established custom of a place, take the lot into the church—kids and all.’”
But does true Christianity condone fornication and adultery? No, it upholds high moral standards. (1 Cor. 6:9, 10) So how can clergymen call themselves Christian and yet promote ideas so contrary to Christianity? What they promote cannot be true religion approved by God.
Truly the clergy are a part of this world. They apply its methods, tactics, doctrines and morals. Yet God’s Word warns: “Do you not know that the friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is constituting himself an enemy of God.”—Jas. 4:4.
Does the Bible urge sincere persons to try to reform the religions and clergymen that refuse to abide by God’s standards? No. Instead, God’s Word urges: “Get out from among them, and separate yourselves.”—2 Cor. 6:17.
Why is such separation urgent? Because, very shortly, God will execute his judgments against all religions and religious leaders that break his laws and lead others to do the same. All will come to their end soon, as well as those who adhere to them. That is why God’s Word warns concerning false religion: “Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues. For her sins have massed together clear up to heaven, and God has called her acts of injustice to mind.”—Rev. 18:4.
The Book of Truthful Historical Dates
The Book of Truthful Historical Dates
1. With what events of history are we personally acquainted?
THERE is no question in our minds as to where we are as of this moment, and we, of course, know how we got here. We are also quite conscious of time in relation to events we have personally experienced. We know, for instance, where we were and what we did an hour ago, a day ago, a week ago. Most of us know how old we are, and we can relate with a good deal of accuracy some of the great events in our lifetime.
2, 3. What are some important questions concerning past historical events?
2 But what about the distant past before our time? What do we know about dates and events that were no part of our personal experience? For example, do we know what year Jesus was born or, more important, the date of his death? After all, he was the greatest man ever to walk this earth. Do we know what year Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians? That particular date is highly important if we are to understand why certain events have occurred in our lifetime. Where are we today on the stream of time? Do we know that the seventh year from now will conclude the 6,000th year since Adam was created? And if we live to that year 1975, what should we expect to happen?
3 These are certainly interesting and important questions, but where can we find truthful answers to them? Since events that occurred long before we were born have a great bearing on these matters, how may we obtain the facts? What written records of the past can we rely upon as factual and true?
4. What encouragement do we have to aid in finding answers to our questions?
4 The honest seeker of the truth should not be stymied in his search for answers to these questions, thinking it is a hopeless undertaking. In reality he has at his disposal the most ancient book of history and, more important, one that can be trusted and depended upon as the supreme authority, one by which all other testimony can be measured and judged. Fortunately, this historical document is now translated in the language the inquirer can read. This book is the Holy Bible, the inspired and sacred Word of Jehovah God. Jehovah alone knows both the end and the beginning.—Isa. 46:10.
5. Of what value is the Bible as a book of history?
5 Secular historians who reach back in time to tell us of the distant past, but who scornfully ignore the Bible’s record, are compelled to fill in the gaps between their meager fragmentary archaeological findings with unreliable traditions, fancy calculations and outright guesswork. On the other hand, honest investigators, and there are many, recognize the truly genuine worth of the Bible as unimpeachable testimony, confirmed by all the discoveries that have been unearthed. When put to the test, the Bible indeed has proved its worth as the most complete record of ancient happenings and as a book of sterling accuracy. We are therefore equipped, with this book of truthful historical dates in hand, to count all the way back to Adam’s creation with little difficulty, filling in the gaps of secular history with dependable data. What is more, we can do so quickly and with little effort.
CHANGES IN THE CALENDARS
6. When was our present calendar adopted, and how accurate is it?
6 Today we measure time on the Gregorian calendar, but this yardstick is less than 400 years old. It was Pope Gregory XIII, who, in 1582, did away with the Julian calendar, which by that year was some ten days out of time with the sun. To correct the discrepancy the pope ordered ten days dropped out of the month of October. So October 5 was made October 15, 1582. This present calendar is so accurate that there is only about 26.3 seconds difference between it and the true solar year, and this difference increases at the very small rate of 0.53 seconds every century. That is a difference of less than nine minutes every hundred thousand years, less than a day every sixteen million years.
7. When was the Julian calendar put into use, and what discrepancy did it correct?
7 The Julian calendar, which the Gregorian calendar superceded, was instituted by Julius Caesar in 46 B.C.E., known as “the year of confusion.” This was because at that time the older calendars were some three months ahead of the suns schedule, making it necessary for the year 46 B.C.E. to have 445 days so the sun could catch up with the calendar, so to speak.
8. How were events in the Bible dated, and what problem does this present in terms of our present-day calendar?
8 If events recorded in the Bible were dated according to the Julian or other preceding calendars, it would be a rather simple matter to convert such dates to the Gregorian calendar. But not so. The Bible tells of particular and often detached periods and events, and these are dated in their own special ways, independent of one another. Sometimes they are dated according to the beginning of a certain king’s reign (Neh. 2:1; Esther 1:1-3; Dan. 9:1, 2; Luke 3:1), or by a military victory or the destruction of a great nation (1 Ki. 6:1; Ezek. 1:1, 2; 8:1; 20:1; 40:1), or they are dated in relation to an unusual event such as the flood of Noah’s day. (Gen. 9:28, 29) The difficult task, then, is to determine when these Bible events occurred if measured by our present-day calendar.
9, 10. (a) How may the problem be illustrated? (b) What is the first thing our traveler should do to solve his problem?
9 The problem may be illustrated by the following story. An English traveler, visiting a historic place on the continent of Europe, left his hotel one morning and slowly walked through the woods, stopping briefly at the scenic spots and the refreshing pools along the way. Sometime during the afternoon he crossed a stream and followed the path over the mountain. Toward the close of the day the question of how far he had traveled came to mind. He remembered that earlier during the day the distances between the places where he stopped were clearly marked in meters on the signposts, but after crossing the bridge the signposts were discontinued.
10 To learn how far he had come, it was not enough for our traveler to go back and translate from meters to feet the recorded distances on the early part of his journey. He must first of all measure back from his present position, over the mountain and across the bridge, to the last-recorded marker. Once this distance was determined, the rest would be comparatively easy, if he would but trust the figures on the signposts.
11. (a) What, then, is the first thing to do in learning where we are on the pathway of time? (b) What is meant by an “absolute date,” and of what value is such a date?
11 So too in determining where mankind is on the pathway of time, it will not solve the problem simply to translate ancient calendars into present-day systems. One must first measure back in time across the gulf that separates the present from the ancient Biblical record of the past, to a stationary point in history, to a fixed date of the past, to an absolute date, if you please. Such a date must be one where sacred and secular historical events coincide and are linked in perfect agreement with current methods of measuring time distances. With such a date fixed in terms of the Gregorian yardstick we will know how far we have come from that point and where we are at present. Then from that pivot point we can also measure either forward or backward in dating other events of Bible history even though originally they were dated according to a different system.
THE ABSOLUTE DATE OF 539 B.C.E.
12. What absolute date do we have in connection with the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus?
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.
13, 14. The determining of 539 B.C.E. as the year of Babylon’s fall is based upon what important find?
13 The fixing of 539 B.C.E. as the year when this historical event occurred is based on a stone document known as the Nabonidus (Nabunaid) Chronicle. This important find was discovered in ruins near the city of Baghdad in 1879, and it is now preserved in the British Museum. A translation of this finding was published by Sidney Smith in Babylonian Historical Texts Relating to the Capture and Downfall of Babylon, London, 1924, and reads in part:
14 “In the month of Tashritu [Tishri, Hebrew 7th month], when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he (Nabonidus) massacred the confused inhabitants. The 14th day, Sippar was seized without battle. Nabonidus fled. The 16th day [October 11-12, 539 B.C.E., Julian, or October 5-6, Gregorian] Gobryas (Ugbaru), the governor of Gutium and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle. Afterwards Nabonidus was arrested in Babylon when he returned (there). . . . In the month of Arahshamnu [Heshvan, Hebrew 8th month], the 3rd day [October 28-29, Julian], Cyrus entered Babylon, green twigs were spread in front of him—the state of ‘Peace’ (Sulmu) was imposed upon the city.”—Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton; 1955), James B. Pritchard, p. 306.
15, 16. What accounts for the fact that the Nabonidus Chronicle makes no mention of Belshazzar in connection with the fall of Babylon?
15 Please note, the Nabonidus Chronicle gives precise details as to the time when these events took place. This, in turn, enables modern scholars, with their knowledge of astronomy, to translate these dates into terms of the Julian or Gregorian calendars. Explaining why this Chronicle makes no particular reference to Belshazzar in connection with the capture of Babylon by Cyrus, and also confirming the date of 539, note what professor Jack Finegan says in Light from the Ancient Past (1959), pages 227-229:
16 “Nabunaid (Nabonidus) shared the kingship with his own oldest son Belshazzar. Belshazzar is named as the crown prince in Babylonian inscriptions. . . . Since, therefore, Belshazzar actually exercised the coregency at Babylon and may well have continued to do so unto the end, the book of Daniel (5:30) is not wrong in representing him as the last king of Babylon. In the seventeenth year of King Nabunaid, Babylon fell to Cyrus the Persian. The Nabunaid chronicle gives exact dates. In the month of Tashritu on the fourteenth day, October 10, 539 B.C., the Persian forces took Sippar; on the sixteenth day, October 12, ‘the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle’; and in the month of Arahsamnu, on the third day, October 29, Cyrus himself came into the city.”
17. What other authorities confirm the day, month and year of Babylon’s fall?
17 Other investigators say this: “The Nabunaid Chronicle . . . states that Sippar fell to Persian forces VII/14/17a (Oct. 10, 539),b that Babylon fell VII/16/17 (Oct. 12), and that Cyrus entered Babylon VIII/3/17c (Oct. 29). This fixes the end of Nabunaid’s reign and the beginning of the reign of Cyrus. Interestingly enough, the last tablet dated to Nabunaid from Uruk is dated the day after Babylon fell to Cyrus. News of its capture had not yet reached the southern city some 125 miles distant.”—Brown University Studies, Vol. XIX, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.—A.D. 75, Parker and Dubberstein, 1956, p. 13.
18. (a) On what date do some twenty historians and commentators agree? (b) Has this agreement only recently been reached?
18 Recognized authorities of today accept 539 B.C.E. without any question as the year Babylon was overthrown by Cyrus the Great. In addition to the above quotations the following gives a small sampling from books of history representing a cross section of both general reference works and elementary textbooks.d These brief quotations also show that this is not a date recently suggested, but one thoroughly investigated and generally accepted for the past sixty years.
“Cyrus entered Babylon in 539 B.C.” (Encyclopœdia Britannica, 1946, Vol. 2, p. 852) “When Cyrus defeated the army of Nabonidus, Babylon itself surrendered, in Oct. 539, to the Persian general Gobryas.”—Ibid., Vol. 6, p. 930.
“In 539 B.C. Babylon fell without a struggle to the Achaemenid Persian, Cyrus the Great.”—The Encyclopedia Americana, 1956, Vol. III, p. 9.
“Babylon was captured by Cyrus in 539 B.C.”—Yale Oriental Series · Researches · Vol. XV, 1929, Nabonidus and Belshazzar, Dougherty, p. 46.
“The Persians took the city in 539 B.C.” (The World Book Encyclopedia, 1966, Vol. 2, p. 10) “In 539 B.C., the Persians conquered Babylonia.” (Ibid., p. 13) “Nabonidus, the last king of Chaldean Babylonia, who reigned from 555 to 539 B.C.”—Ibid, p. 193.
“The downfall of Lydia prepared the way for a Persian attack on Babylonia. The conquest of that country proved unexpectedly easy. In 539 B.C. the great city of Babylon opened its gates to the Persian hosts.”—Ancient History, Hutton Webster, 1913, p. 64.
“In 539 B.C. Babylon, too, was captured by Cyrus.”—The Story of the Ancient Nations, W. L. Westermann, 1912, p. 73.
“In 539 B.C., however, Cyrus advanced for the conquest of Babylonia. . . . Sippar was taken without a blow and, two days later, the van of the army of Cyrus entered Babylon.”—History of the Hebrews, F. K. Sanders, 1914, p. 230.
“It is not likely that there was a long interval between his [Nebuchadnezzar’s] death and the fall of the Chaldean Empire before the onslaught of Cyrus in 539.”—The Biblical Period, W. F. Albright, Reprinted from The Jews; Their History, Culture and Religion, edited by Louis Finkelstein, 1955, p. 49.
“Cyrus entered Babylon on October 29, 539 B.C. and presented himself in the role of the liberator of the people.”—The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, 1965, p. 193; see also pages 93, 104, 198, 569.
“Nebuchadnezzar had surrounded Babylon with huge walls, but after the defeat of Belshazzar’s army the city surrendered with slight resistance in 539 B.C.”—World History at a Glance, Reither, 1942, pp. 28, 29.
“When the Neo-Babylonian Empire fell to the Persians, Babylon opened its gates to Cyrus in 539 B.C. without opposition.”—The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1962, p. 335.
“In the seventeenth year of Nabonidus (B. C. 539), Cyrus captured Babylon.”—The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopœdia and Scriptural Dictionary, Fallows, 1913, Vol. 1, p. 207.
“Cyrus the Great, in 539 B.C., added the Babylonian to the other empires which he had acquired and consolidated with magical ease and celerity.”—A New Standard Bible Dictionary, 1926, p. 91.
“The city [Babylon] was taken by surprise B. C. 539.”—The Universal Bible Dictionary Peloubet, 1912, p. 69.
“539 B.C. marked the collapse of Semitic hegemony in the ancient Orient, and the introduction of Aryan leadership which continued for at least a thousand years. This conquest of Babylon by Cyrus laid the foundation for all the later developments under Greek and Roman rule.”—Darius the Mede, Whitcomb, 1959, Introduction, p. 2.
“It was Cyrus, also, who conquered Babylon in the year 539 B.C. and thus became master of Mesopotamia and Syria.”—Ancient and Medieval History, Hayes and Moon, 1930, p. 92.
“Nabonidus (Nabunaid) . . . was the last King of Babylon (555-539 B.C.).”—The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1907, Vol. 2, p. 184.
“In 539 the kingdom of Babylon fell to Cyrus.”—The New Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia, 1952, Vol. 10, p. 3397.
“The Chaldean Empire, with its capital at Babylon (Second Babylonian Empire), lasted, . . . until 539 B.C., when it collapsed before the attack of Cyrus.”—The Outline of History, H. G. Wells, 1921, p. 140.
“Cyrus conquered Babylonia in 539 B. C.”—The International Standard Bible Encyclopœdia, 1960, Vol. 1, p. 367.
“In the year 539 Cyrus conquers the city Babylon, Babylonia becomes a province of the Persian Empire.”—Translated from the German Bibel-Lexikon, edited by Herbert Haag together with associates, printed in Switzerland, in 1951. See page 150 under Babylonia.
19. So, then, how long ago has it been since the fall of Babylon to the Persians?
19 With the date 539 B.C.E. so firmly fixed and agreed to by so many scholars, we are quite confident where we stand today in relation to the fall of Babylon twenty-five centuries ago. October 6, 1968, will mark 2,506 years since the fall of that third world empire.e Other important events which occurred prior to 539 may now be quite accurately dated. If one will accept the dates posted in the Bible, this becomes a rather easy matter, and some of the erroneous pitfalls into which traditional chronologers of Christendom have fallen will be avoided.
JERUSALEM DESTROYED, 607 B.C.E.
20. (a) Does the name “Darius” occur in cuneiform inscriptions? (b) But of what are we sure?
20 Believers in Daniel’s God Jehovah know that the historical accuracy of the Bible does not rest upon undiscovered, incomplete, imperfect, uninspired worldly documents. So just because in the pagan cuneiform inscriptions so far discovered the name “Darius” is nowhere found, that does not alter in any way the truthfulness of the Bible’s testimony. The historical facts written under divine inspiration are clear: “In that very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was killed, and Darius the Mede himself received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.” (Dan. 5:30, 31) Some investigators believe, and the argument is strong, that Darius was the same as Gubaru, Cyrus’ governor, who entered Babylon with him and who appointed governors in the city.f However, Daniel repeatedly speaks of Darius the Mede, not as Governor, but as King, even personally addressing him as such.—Dan. 6:1, 6-9, 12-25.
21. In the first year of Darius’ reign what exciting discovery did Daniel make?
21 During the few months that Darius was on the throne Daniel made a startling chronological discovery: “In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus of the seed of the Medes, who had been made king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans; in the first year of his reigning I myself, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years.” (Dan. 9:1, 2) Without a doubt the question as to when this time limit of seventy years would expire was one that pressed hard upon Daniel’s mind. Fortunately, he did not have to wait long for the answer.
22. How long did Darius I reign, and who succeeded him as king of Babylon?
22 The reign of Darius I was brief; mention of “the first year” of his reign infers he was king for at least a full year. (Dan. 9:1; 11:1) Cyrus followed him on the throne by late 538 and Jehovah’s prophet Daniel continued in his high office. “As for this Daniel, he prospered in the kingdom of Darius and in the kingdom of Cyrus the Persian.” (Dan. 6:2, 28) That there was a very close association between these two kings and their kingdoms is indicated by the repeated expression, “the law of the Medes and the Persians.”—Dan. 6:8, 12, 15.
23. (a) What grand prophecy was about to be fulfilled? (b) By what date were the Jews back in their homeland? Due to what speedy developments?
23 Two centuries earlier Jehovah by the mouth of his prophet Isaiah had declared: “[I am] the One saying of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, and all that I delight in he will completely carry out’; even in my saying of Jerusalem, ‘She will be rebuilt,’ and of the temple, ‘You will have your foundation laid.’” (Isa. 44:28) Without further delay this two-hundred-year-old prophecy was about to be fulfilled. Cyrus acceded to the throne and “in the first year” of his reign, at least before the spring of 537, “Jehovah roused the spirit of Cyrus.” He issued the famous edict permitting the Jews to return and rebuild Jehovah’s temple, copies of which were written and circulated throughout the realm. This allowed sufficient time for the Jews to resettle in their homeland, ‘establish the altar firmly upon its own site,’ and “from the first day of the seventh month” start offering up burnt sacrifices to Jehovah. This date, the “first day of the seventh month,” according to the best astronomical tables available,g is calculated to be October 5 (Julian) or September 29 (Gregorian) 537 B.C.E.—Ezra 1:1-4; 3:1-6.
24. So when did the seventy years of desolation begin, and when did they end?
24 Here, then, very definitely established, is another milestone—the time when the seventy years of desolation of the land of Judah came to an end—about October 1, 537. (Jer. 25:11, 12; 29:10) It is now a simple formula to determine when the seventy years began. One has only to add 70 to 537 to get 607. So about October 1, 607 B.C.E., the desolating of the land of Judah and the complete emptying out of its inhabitants was fully accomplished.
25. The answer to what question is related to the year 607 B.C.E.?
25 The importance of the year 607 B.C.E. in this Biblical chronology will become more apparent in the following article, as we seek an answer to the provocative question, When was Adam created?
[Footnotes]
“VII/14/17”: The 7th Hebrew month Tishri, 14th day, 17th year of Nabonidus’ reign.
Julian calendar.
The 8th Hebrew month Heshvan.
To extend the list would be an easy matter, but it would only serve to further confirm a date not in question.
In adding 539 and 1968 subtract 1 because of no zero year between B.C.E. and C.E.
See Darius the Mede (1959 American Edition), J. C. Whitcomb, Jr., chap. 7; and Babylonian Problems (1923 Edition), W. H. Lane, p. 201.
Brown University Studies, Vol. XIX, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.—A.D. 75, (1956) Parker and Dubberstein, p. 29
[Picture on page 491]
Mighty Babylon, apparently impregnable, fell in 539 B.C.E.
Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975?
Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975?
1, 2. (a) What has sparked special interest in the year 1975, and with what results? (b) But what questions are raised?
WHAT about all this talk concerning the year 1975? Lively discussions, some based on speculation, have burst into flame during recent months among serious students of the Bible. Their interest has been kindled by the belief that 1975 will mark the end of 6,000 years of human history since Adam’s creation. The nearness of such an important date indeed fires the imagination and presents unlimited possibilities for discussion.
2 But wait! How do we know their calculations are correct? What basis is there for saying Adam was created nearly 5,993 years ago? Does the one Book that can be implicitly trusted for its truthful historical accuracy, namely, the Inspired Word of Jehovah, the Holy Bible, give support and credence to such a conclusion?
3. Is the date for Adam’s creation as found in many copies of the Bible part of the inspired Scriptures, and do all agree on the date?
3 In the marginal references of the Protestant Authorized or King James Version, and in the footnotes of certain editions of the Catholic Douay version, the date of man’s creation is said to be 4004 B.C.E. This marginal date, however, is no part of the inspired text of the Holy Scriptures, since it was first suggested more than fifteen centuries after the last Bible writer died, and was not added to any edition of the Bible until 1701 C.E. It is an insertion based upon the conclusions of an Irish prelate, the Anglican Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656). Ussher’s chronology was only one of the many sincere efforts made during the past centuries to determine the time of Adam’s creation. A hundred years ago when a count was taken, no less than 140 different timetables had been published by serious scholars. In such chronologies the calculations as to when Adam was created vary all the way from 3616 B.C.E. to 6174 B.C.E., with one wild guess set at 20,000 B.C.E. Such conflicting answers contained in the voluminous libraries around the world certainly tend to compound the confusion when seeking an answer to the above questions.
4. What have we learned in our previous study, and, hence, what are we now prepared to do?
4 In the previous article we learned from the Inspired Writings themselves, independent of the uninspired marginal notes of some Bibles, that the seventy years of desolation of the land of Judah began to count about October 1, 607 B.C.E. The beginning of this seventy-year period was obviously tied to its ending, that is, with the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C.E. So with 607 B.C.E. as dependably fixed on our Gregorian calendar as the absolute date of 539 B.C.E. we are prepared to move farther back in the count of time, to the dating of other important events in Bible history. For instance, the years when Saul, David and Solomon reigned successively over God’s chosen people can now be dated in terms of the present-day calendar.
5. What history-making events took place in 997 B.C.E.?
5 At the death of Solomon his kingdom was split into two parts. The southern two-tribe part, composed of Judah and Benjamin, continued to be ruled by Solomon’s descendants, and was known as the kingdom of Judah. The northern ten tribes made up the kingdom of Israel, sometimes called “Samaria” after the name of its later capital city, and were ruled over by Jeroboam and his successors. By our applying the prophetic time period of 390 years found in Ezekiel 4:1-9 with regard to Jerusalem’s destruction the death of Solomon is found to be in the year 997 B.C.E. This was 390 years before the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E.
ISRAEL’S ERRORS CARRIED 390 YEARS
6, 7. What time periods are referred to in Ezekiel 4:1-9?
6 Notice what is said on this matter by the prophet Ezekiel:
7 “And you, O son of man, take for yourself a brick, and you must put it before you, and engrave upon it a city, even Jerusalem. And you must lay siege against it . . . It is a sign to the house of Israel. And as for you, lie upon your left side, and you must lay the error of the house of Israel upon it. For the number of the days that you will lie upon it you will carry their error. And I myself must give to you the years of their error to the number of three hundred and ninety days, and you must carry the error of the house of Israel. And you must complete them. And you must lie upon your right side in the second case, and you must carry the error of the house of Judah forty days. A day for a year, a day for a year, is what I have given you. . . . And as for you, take for yourself wheat and barley and broad beans and lentils and millet and spelt, and you must put them in one utensil and make them into bread for you, for the number of the days that you are lying upon your side; three hundred and ninety days you will eat it.”—Ezek. 4:1-9.
8. When did the carrying of the “error” of the southern kingdom end?
8 This chapter 4 of Ezekiel, was not recounting past historical events but was prophecy of future events. It was telling of the time in the future when the glorious city of Jerusalem would be besieged and its inhabitants taken captive, all of which occurred in 607 B.C.E. So the forty years spoken of in the case of Judah ended in that year. The “error” of the northern kingdom, said to be carried for 390 years, was nearly tenfold greater when compared with the error of Judah carried for 40 years. When, then, did these 390 years end?
9. What indicates the “error” of the northern kingdom also ended in 607 B.C.E.?
9 They were not terminated in 740 B.C.E., when Samaria was destroyed, for the simple fact that Ezekiel enacted this prophetic drama sometime after “the fifth year of the exile of King Jehoiachin,” which would make the termination not earlier than 613 B.C.E., that is, 127 years after the destruction of Samaria by Assyria. (Ezek. 1:2) Since this whole prophetic drama plainly pointed forward to the destruction of Jerusalem, and since both the house of Israel and the house of Judah were in reality one inseparable covenant-bound people, the remnant of whom would not be a divided people upon their return from exile, there is only one reasonable conclusion, namely, the errors of both houses ran concurrently and terminated at the same time in 607 B.C.E. In this way the 70 years of desolation of the land of Judah ended 70 years after the termination of carrying the error of both houses, so that thus a remnant of both houses could return to the site of Jerusalem.
10. So when did the “error” of Israel begin?
10 If the “error of the house of Israel” ended in 607, its beginning, 390 years prior thereto, was in 997 B.C.E. It began the year that King Solomon died and Jeroboam committed error, yes, great error, in that Jeroboam, whose domain was ripped off from the house of David, “proceeded to part Israel from following Jehovah,” causing them “to sin with a great sin.”—2 Ki. 17:21.
DATE OF EXODUS, 1513 B.C.E.
11, 12. What other event in man’s history are we now prepared to date, and with the aid of what key text?
11 Looking back into the distant past we see another milestone in man’s history, the never-to-be-forgotten exodus of the Israelites from Egyptian slavery, under the leadership of Moses. Were it not for Jehovah’s faithful Word the Bible, it would be impossible to locate this great event accurately on the calendar, for Egyptian hieroglyphics are conspicuously silent concerning the humiliating defeat handed that first world power by Jehovah. But with the Bible’s chronology, how relatively simple it is to date that memorable event!
12 At 1 Kings 6:1 we read: “And it came about in the four hundred and eightieth year after the sons of Israel came out from the land of Egypt, in the fourth year, in the month of Ziv, that is, the second month, after Solomon became king over Israel, that he proceeded to build the house to Jehovah.”
13, 14. (a) On the Gregorian calendar, in what year did Solomon begin to reign? (b) In what year did he begin the building of the temple?
13 With this information one has only to determine what calendar year Solomon began building the temple, and it is then an easy matter to figure when Pharaoh’s army was destroyed in the Red Sea.
14 “And the days that Solomon had reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel were forty years.” (1 Ki. 11:42) This means that his last full regnal year ended in the spring of 997 B.C.E.a Adding 40 to 997 gives 1037 B.C.E., the year that Solomon began his peaceful reign. He did not begin the temple building, as the account says, until the second month of the fourth year of his reign, which means he had ruled a full three years and one month. Thus subtracting 3 years from 1037 one gets 1034 B.C.E., the year that the building work began. The time of the year was the second month Ziv, that is, April-May. This, the Bible says, was “in the four hundred and eightieth year” after the Israelites left Egypt.
15. (a) Explain the difference between a cardinal and an ordinal number. (b) So when did the Israelites leave Egypt?
15 Anytime we put a “th” on the end of a number, for instance on the number 10, saying 10th, the number is changed from a cardinal to an ordinal number. When one speaks about playing baseball in the tenth inning of the game, it means that nine full innings have already been played, but only part of the tenth; ten innings are not yet completed. Likewise, when the Bible uses an ordinal number, saying that the building of the temple began in the 480th year after the Israelites left Egypt, and when that particular year on the calendar is known to be 1034 B.C.E., then we add 479 full years (not 480) to 1034 and arrive at the date 1513 B.C.E., the year of the Exodus. It too was springtime, Passover time, the 14th day of the month Nisan.
HOW LONG SINCE THE FLOOD?
16. How far back in history have we now penetrated, and what are the prospects of probing even deeper?
16 Already with the help supplied by the Bible we have accurately measured back from the spring of this year 1968 C.E. to the spring of 1513 B.C.E., a total of 3,480 years. With the continued faithful memory and accurate historical record of Jehovah’s Holy Word we can penetrate even deeper into the past, back to the flood of Noah’s day.
17. In recounting Israel’s experiences, to what events and to what time period does Stephen refer?
17 Stephen, the first martyred footstep follower of Jesus Christ, referred to what Jehovah said would befall Abraham’s offspring. “Moreover, God spoke to this effect, that his seed would be alien residents in a foreign land and the people would enslave them and afflict them for four hundred years.” (Acts 7:6; Gen. 15:13) Stephen here mentions three of Israel’s past experiences: As alien residents in a foreign land, as people in slavery, and as people afflicted for four hundred years.
18. What argues against the conclusion that these events were separate experiences following one another in consecutive order?
18 It would be a mistake to assume that all three of these experiences were of equal duration, or that they were separate individual experiences that followed one another in consecutive order. It was long after their entrance into Egypt as aliens that they were enslaved, more than 70 years later, and sometime after the death of Joseph. Rather, Stephen was saying that within the same 400-year period in which they were afflicted, they were also enslaved and were also alien residents.
19. How do we know the Israelites were “aliens” before entering Egypt?
19 Please note that, when Stephen said they were “alien residents in a foreign land . . . for four hundred years,” he did not say and he did not mean to imply that they were not alien residents before entering Egypt. So it is a mistake to insist that this text proves the Israelites were in Egypt for four hundred years. It is true that, upon entering Egypt and being presented before Pharaoh for the first time, Joseph’s brothers said: “We have come to reside as aliens in the land.” But they did not say nor did they mean that up until then they had not been alien residents, for on the same occasion their father Jacob, when asked by Pharaoh how old he was, declared: “The days of the years of my alien residences are a hundred and thirty years.” And not only had Jacob spent his whole lifetime as an alien resident before coming to Egypt, but he told Pharaoh that his forefathers before him also had been alien residents.—Gen. 47:4-9.
20. When did these 400 years end, and when did they begin?
20 Since the affliction of Israel ended in 1513 B.C.E., it must have begun in 1913, 400 years earlier. That year would correspond to the time that Isaac was afflicted by Ishmael “poking fun” at him on the day that Isaac was weaned. At the time, Isaac was five years old, and this was long before the Israelites entered Egypt.—Gen. 21:8, 9.
21, 22. Were the Israelites 430 years in Egypt exclusively, and how do certain ancient manuscripts shed light on this point?
21 Well, then, how long were the Israelites down in Egypt as alien residents? Exodus 12:40, 41 says: “And the dwelling of the sons of Israel, who had dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. And it came about at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, it even came about on this very day that all the armies of Jehovah went out of the land of Egypt.”
22 Here Ex 12 verse 40 in the Septuagint reads: “But the dwelling of the sons of Israel which they [and their fathers, Alexandrine MS] dwelt in the land of Egypt AND IN THE LAND OF CANAAN [was] four hundred and thirty years long.” The Samaritan Pentateuch reads: “IN THE LAND OF CANAAN and in the land of Egypt.” Thus both of these versions, which are based on Hebrew texts older than the Masoretic, include the words “in the land of Canaan” together with the word “Egypt.”
23. (a) So how long were the Israelites actually in Egypt, and how does Paul confirm this? (b) Explain the difference between the 400 and the 430 years mentioned in the Scriptures.
23 From the time that Abraham entered Canaan until Isaac’s birth was 25 years;b from that time until Jacob’s birth, 60 more years; and after that it was another 130 years before Jacob entered Egypt. All together this makes a total of 215 years, exactly half of the 430 years, spent in Canaan before moving in to Egypt. (Gen. 12:4; 21:5; 25:26; 47:9) The apostle Paul, under inspiration, also confirms that from the making of the Abrahamic covenant at the time the patriarch moved into Canaan, it was 430 years down to the institution of the Law covenant.—Gal. 3:17.
24, 25. The Flood began in what calendar year, and how long was this before Abraham entered Canaan?
24 By adding this 430 years to the 1513 it puts us back to 1943 B.C.E., the time when Abraham first entered Canaan following the death of his father Terah in Haran, Mesopotamia. It is now only a matter of adding up the years of a few generations to date the Flood correctly. The figures are given in Genesis, chapters 11 and 12, and may be summarized as follows:
From start of Flood
To Arpachshad’s birth (Gen. 11:10) 2 years
To birth of Shelah (11:12) 35 “
To birth of Eber (11:14) 30 “
To birth of Peleg (11:26) 34 “
To birth of Reu (11:18) 30 “
To birth of Serug (11:20) 32 “
To birth of Nahor (11:22) 30 “
To birth of Terah (11:24) 29 “
To death of Terah in Haran, and
Abram’s departure to Canaan
at age of 75 (11:32; 12:4) 205 “
Total 427 years
25 Adding these 427 years to the year 1943 B.C.E. dates the beginning of the Deluge at 2370 B.C.E., 4,337 years ago.
6,000 YEARS FROM ADAM’S CREATION
26, 27. (a) How long before the Flood was Adam created? In what year? (b) What indicates that Adam was created in the fall of the year?
26 In a similar manner it is only necessary to add up the following years involving ten pre-Flood generations to get the date of Adam’s creation, namely:
From Adam’s creation
To birth of Seth (Gen. 5:3) 130 years
To birth of Enosh (5:6) 105 “
To birth of Kenan (5:9) 90 “
To birth of Mahalalel (5:12) 70 “
To birth of Jared (5:15) 65 “
To birth of Enoch (5:18) 162 “
To birth of Methuselah (5:21) 65 “
To birth of Lamech (5:25) 187 “
To birth of Noah (5:28, 29) 182 “
To beginning of Flood (7:6) 600 “
Total 1,656 years
27 Adding this figure 1,656 to 2,370 gives 4026 B.C.E., the Gregorian calendar year in which Adam was created. Since man naturally began to count time with his own beginning, and since man’s most ancient calendars started each year in the autumn, it is reasonable to assume that the first man Adam was created in the fall of the year.
28. How does this chronology differ from Ussher’s in regard to Adam’s creation?
28 Thus, through a careful independent study by dedicated Bible scholars who have pursued the subject for a number of years, and who have not blindly followed some traditional chronological calculations of Christendom, we have arrived at a date for Adam’s creation that is 22 years more distant in the past than Ussher’s figure. This means time is running out two decades sooner than traditional chronology anticipates.
29. Why be concerned with the date of Adam’s creation?
29 After much of the mathematics and genealogies, really, of what benefit is this information to us today? Is it not all dead history, as uninteresting and profitless as walking through a cemetery copying old dates off tombstones? After all, why should we be any more interested in the date of Adam’s creation than in the birth of King Tut? Well, for one thing, if 4,026 is added to 1,968 (allowing for the lack of a zero year between C.E. and B.C.E.) one gets a total of 5,993 years, come this autumn, since Adam’s creation. That means, in the fall of the year 1975, a little over seven years from now (and not in 1997 as would be the case if Ussher’s figures were correct), it will be 6,000 years since the creation of Adam, the father of all mankind!
ADAM CREATED AT CLOSE OF “SIXTH DAY”
30. What may occur before 1975, but what attitude should we take?
30 Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man’s existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ. If these two periods run parallel with each other as to the calendar year, it will not be by mere chance or accident but will be according to Jehovah’s loving and timely purposes. Our chronology, however, which is reasonably accurate (but admittedly not infallible), at the best only points to the autumn of 1975 as the end of 6,000 years of man’s existence on earth. It does not necessarily mean that 1975 marks the end of the first 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh creative “day.” Why not? Because after his creation Adam lived some time during the “sixth day,” which unknown amount of time would need to be subtracted from Adam’s 930 years, to determine when the sixth seven-thousand-year period or “day” ended, and how long Adam lived into the “seventh day.” And yet the end of that sixth creative “day” could end within the same Gregorian calendar year of Adam’s creation. It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years.
31. What do the first two chapters of Genesis disclose?
31 In regard to Adam’s creation it is good to read carefully what the Bible says. Moses in compiling the book of Genesis referred to written records or “histories” that predated the Flood. The first of these begins with Genesis 1:1 and ends at Genesis 2:4 with the words, “This is the history of the heavens and the earth . . . ” The second historical document begins with Genesis 2:5 and ends with Ge verse two of chapter five. Hence we have two separate accounts of creation from slightly different points of view. In the second of these accounts, in Genesis 2:19, the original Hebrew verb translated “was forming” is in the progressive imperfect form. This does not mean that the animals and birds were created after Adam was created. Genesis 1:20-28 shows it does not mean that. So, in order to avoid contradiction between Ge chapter one and chapter two, Genesis 2:19, 20 must be only a parenthetical remark thrown in to explain the need for creating a “helper” for man. So the progressive Hebrew verb form could also be rendered as “had been forming.”—See Rotherham’s translation (Ro), also Leeser’s (Le).
32. What indicates the sixth creative day did not end immediately with Adam’s creation?
32 These two creation accounts in the book of Genesis, though differing slightly in the treatment of the material, are in perfect agreement with each other on all points, including the fact that Eve was created after Adam. So not until after this event did the sixth creative day come to an end. Exactly how soon after Adam’s creation is not disclosed. “After that [Adam and Eve’s creation] God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a sixth day.” (Gen. 1:31) After the sixth creative day ends, the seventh one begins.
33. (a) How do we know the end of the sixth creative day came very soon after Adam’s creation? (b) How does Genesis 1:31 prove the sixth day ended before Adam and Eve sinned?
…