ComfortMyPeople

CC, You keep dragging me (and @Arauna ) into this. Arauna is right. We should be able to explain complex things with simple words and simple sentences. So here goes:
Ann O'maly commented on a paper written by Gerard Gertoux. In her comments, O'maly happened to make mention of a mistake that might have just been a typo. Gertoux's "typo" indicated that 360/12=15, instead of 360/12=30. No big deal. Chavez (CC) sarys Gertoux is right about 15 degrees, and O'maly must be stupid. For evidence CC posts content saying that 360/12=30 and that 360/24=15 and that 30/2=15. CC apparently doesn't realize that all CC has done is prove that O'maly was right. That's the whole story: CC has tried to prove O'maly wrong, but all his evidence directly shows she was right. His evidence blew up in his face. That's the whole story, except that Arauna has sided with the idea that 360/12=15, without even knowing, probably, that this was the entire argument. It's EXACTLY as if:
O'maly said 2+2=4 CC told her she was stupid, because 2+2=5 CC "proves" it by loading up a lot of Googled sites that prove that 2+2=4 CC claims his superiority and O'maly's stupidity, by misreading his evidence that "proved" to him that 2+2=5 Arauna places her bets on the side of 2+2=5 and criticizes O'maly for believing that 2+2=4. But why go to so much trouble to defend a typo in the first place? Why the need to pretend O'maly is stupid and wrong and incompetent just because she caught a simple mistake? That was not even the point of O'maly's comments. 
I think it only goes to prove a more general point we have seen on this thread. Hatred of people interferes with good judgment. And conversely, if people think someone else (like a Furuli, a Gertoux) is on the side of 1914, then it doesn't matter if they are making ludicrous claims. 99.9% of Witnesses apparently aren't really going to test them anyway. It's easier to just say they must be right, and Witnesses should defend them. For people who do not wish to look into the facts, it becomes an 'us versus them' proposition.
But there's another way I can tell that it doesn't matter what the evidence shows, and this is only about assumptions, and not real study or research:
It's because Gerard Gertoux has agreed with  the same date that Carl Olof Jonsson gives for the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. I have even communicated with Gerard Gertoux to find out why.
 

Since love doesn't keep account of the injury and covers a multitude of sins, I will not go back and show you what you have actually said. Besides, I've never wanted to make this into a contest of who is smart or not. I've never claimed to be smarter than you or anyone else here. This just happens to be one of my strong interests -- and of course it's an interest that is recommended in the Watchtower itself. It's easy to make mistakes in this area of study. I've made quite a few while learning and might still be making some. I'm hoping to be corrected where I am making mistakes. But it gets easier, and makes more sense every time I read another book and compare it with the evidence and the appropriate Bible passages.
But I'm sure you'll agree that there's nothing wrong with taking an interest in this topic:
*** w11 10/1 p. 26 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One ***
But why be interested in the actual date when Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II razed the city of Jerusalem? First, because the event marked an important turning point in the history of God’s people. . . .
Second, because knowing the actual year when this “ultimate catastrophe” began and understanding how the restoration of true worship in Jerusalem fulfilled a precise Bible prophecy will build your confidence in the reliability of God’s Word. So why do Jehovah’s Witnesses hold to a date that differs from widely accepted chronology by 20 years? In short, because of evidence within the Bible itself.
The problem, of course, is not just taking an interest, but discovering that the Watchtower's solution produces too many contradictions and cannot be supported without manipulation or rejection of the Biblical and archaeological evidence.
Of course the only right thing to do when one discovers that the evidence leads to a different conclusion is to be quiet and wait on Jehovah. At least that's what I was told even by the persons who first showed me a few pieces of this evidence in 1977 and 1978. If you speak up, you could be disfellowshipped, I was warned. So I stayed pretty quiet about it for more than a third of a century (i.e., 33 years) but I have kept studying about these things off and on.
But my conscience bothered me a bit, because Jehovah is the "God of Truth." (Psalm 31:5) If we see our brother take a false step we shouldn't just ignore it. When I asked about these things with responsible persons in the organization, who I respected, I realized that the only defense was "empty speeches." (Non-answers, avoidance, evasion, misquotes, and very weak or completely unrelated evidence.) Mostly you begin to see that no one really has looked at the evidence. Or, if they are like Furuli, they try to exploit a weakness in one or two tiny pieces of evidence, and won't even admit that their theory is already demolished by 1,000 other bits of independent evidence.
So for me, I must follow my conscience.
(2 Timothy 2:14-18) . . .. 15 Do your utmost to present yourself approved to God, a workman with nothing to be ashamed of, handling the word of the truth aright. 16 But reject empty speeches that violate what is holy, for they will lead to more and more ungodliness, 17 and their word will spread like gangrene. Hy·me·naeʹus and Phi·leʹtus are among them. 18 These men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred, and they are subverting the faith of some.
Hmmmm. Thanks? Well, that should convince her!  I think she trusts your judgment pretty much the way she judges mine.

That's fine. It wasn't fully clear to me until now that you also reject the WTS interpretation of when Babylon became the new world power replacing Assyria (per INSIGHT). I also believe it was around 607, which was just a couple of years prior to the battle of Carchemish. INSIGHT uses Carchemish as one of the primary events marking the start of the Babylonian world power although, to make 1914 work, the Watchtower dates it to 625 instead of 605 BCE.
You are apparently using the much narrower definition of world power in the Bible when world power often refers to how Jehovah's people were affected. In this case I was asking about Jeremiah 25, which mentions "these nations" in addition to Judea.
No. The prophecy against Tyre came shortly after the fall of Jerusalem in 587/6, but that specific prophecy began fulfillment years later. (This is one of the ways we know that the nations served Babylon for 70 years, but the specific length of any one nation's complete servitude could have been much shorter, less than 40 years for Tyre.) But you already indicated, above, that you rejected the Society's interpretation of this in the "Isaiah's Prophecy" book
(Ezekiel 26:1-9) . . .In the 11th year, on the first day of the moth, the word of Jehovah came to me, saying: 2 “Son of man, because Tyre has said against Jerusalem, . . . 7 “For this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says: ‘Here I am bringing King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon against Tyre from the north; he is a king of kings, with horses, war chariots, cavalrymen, and an army of many soldiers. 8 He will destroy your settlements in the countryside with the sword, and he will build a siege wall and throw up a siege rampart against you and raise up a great shield against you. 9 He will pound your walls with his battering ram, and with his axes he will pull down your towers.
A siege wall is an indication that this did not happen overnight, but may have taken years, and may not have started until years after 587/6.  This is what INSIGHT says, too:
*** INSIGHT-2 p. 531 Tyre ***
Nebuchadnezzar II besieged the city. From a military standpoint, after many years it might have seemed futile to continue. But he persevered until Tyre fell at the end of 13 years, thus fulfilling the Bible prophecy that had named him as its conqueror.—Eze 26:7-12.
According to INSIGHT, the prophecy was fulfilled at least 13 years after Jerusalem fell. But the power of Babylonian domination on the whole region, including Tyre, would have been felt from at least the time of the battle of Carchemish. 
 

Why the difference? Did those other nations not have exiles to be released from Babylon?
(Jeremiah 46:13-19) . . .This is the word that Jehovah spoke to Jeremiah the prophet regarding the coming of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon to strike down the land of Egypt: . . . 19 Prepare your baggage for exile, O daughter inhabiting Egypt. For Noph will become an object of horror; It will be set afire and left without an inhabitant.
(Jeremiah 46:24-26) . . .The daughter of Egypt will be put to shame. She will be handed over to the people of the north.’ 25 “Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, says: ‘Now I am turning my attention to Aʹmon from No, to Pharʹaoh, to Egypt, to her gods, and to her kings—yes, to Pharʹaoh and all those trusting in him.’ 26 “‘And I will hand them over to those seeking to take their life, to King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon and his servants. But afterward she will be inhabited as in times past,’ declares Jehovah.
Can you give the years when Egypt was without an inhabitant?
(Jeremiah 48:4-7) . . .Moʹab has been broken down. Her little ones cry out.  5 On the ascent of Luʹhith they weep continually as they climb. And on the way down from Hor·o·naʹim they hear cries of distress over the catastrophe.  6 Flee, escape for your lives! You must become like a juniper tree in the wilderness.  7 Because you trust in your works and in your treasures, You will also be captured. And Cheʹmosh will go into exile, Together with his priests and his princes. . .
Can you give the years when Moab/Chemosh went into exile?
How can anyone say that a part of the answer is "No" to whether Jeremiah 25 mentions "these nations"? That sounds very evasive when you consider the rest of Jeremiah:
(Jeremiah 48:46-49:6) . . .Woe to you, O Moʹab! The people of Cheʹmosh have perished. For your sons have been taken captive, And your daughters have gone into exile. 47 But I will gather the captives of Moʹab in the final part of the days,’ declares Jehovah. ‘Down to this point is the judgment on Moʹab.’” 49 For the Amʹmon·ites, this is what Jehovah says: “Does Israel have no sons? Does he have no heir? Why has Malʹcam taken possession of Gad? And why are his people living in Israel’s cities?”  2 “‘Therefore look! the days are coming,’ declares Jehovah, ‘When I will cause the alarm signal of war to be heard against Rabʹbah of the Amʹmon·ites. She will become a desolate mound, And her dependent towns will be set on fire.’ ‘And Israel will take possession of those who dispossessed him,’ says Jehovah.  3 ‘Wail, O Heshʹbon, for Aʹi has been destroyed! Cry out, O dependent towns of Rabʹbah. Put on sackcloth. Wail and rove about among the stone pens, For Malʹcam will go into exile, Together with his priests and his princes.  4 Why do you brag about the valleys, About your flowing plain, O unfaithful daughter, Who trusts in her treasures And who says: “Who will come against me?”’”  5 “‘Here I am bringing something dreadful on you,’ declares the Sovereign Lord, Jehovah of armies, ‘From all those around you. You will be dispersed in every direction, And no one will gather those who flee.’”  6 “‘But afterward I will gather the captives of the Amʹmon·ites,’ declares Jehovah.”
 

Okeydokey.
 
Hey, I've been keeping this issue to the fore. You have been ducking and diving away from the obvious conclusion. 😂

Good. Three questions.
Maybe now we are getting somewhere. I have so far proposed a couple of dozen questions about the differences between the Watchtower chronology and the Bible chronology. Several of them were directed to you personally and you have either not seen them or ignored all but two of them. So let's start in order. Answer three of the chronology issues I have presented, and I will answer yours, the best I can.
Your several counter-questions were in response to the idea that I wrote as follows:
So let's start from there and see if you will attempt to answer these questions:
Does Jeremiah 25 say that only Judea will serve Babylon for 70 years, or does it say "these nations"?
For reference, I'll quote the verse:
(Jeremiah 25:11, 12) . . .And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’ 12 “‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,’ declares Jehovah, ‘and I will make the land of the Chal·deʹans a desolate wasteland for all time.
And, if you can see that the answer is "these nations" and not just Judea, then the next question would be:
From what year did Babylon's dominance over these nations start? (or, When did these nations begin their servitude to Babylon?)
and
From what year did Babylon's dominance over these nations end? (or, When did these nations end their servitude to Babylon?)

At least I have been fully and completely honest. I'll try a little harder to be more unpleasant. 😉 But even when you say I am blatantly lying and lyingly say every sort of untruth and insult about me, I realize where it comes from. It's not really you personally. It's a zeal for God, just not according to accurate knowledge. We must always be learning.

You appear to have the same problem with "projection" as CC. (By the way, I think AlanF really is arrogant, too.) I, too, may have shown some arrogance, but I don't think it has been anything compared to the arrogance you and AlanF and Cesar Chavez and "Scholar JW" have shown. I think that you call "arrogance" anything that shows up the Watchtower chronology as inconsistent.
I have not deviated from the Bible chronology. What apparently bothers you is the fact that the INSIGHT book reveals the inconsistencies through direct quotations, without rephrasing. What you are referring to, of course, is the fact that INSIGHT uses the phrase:
*** it-1 p. 453 Chronology ***
A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology.
You take that to mean that there other pieces of evidence that could do this, but which were not related to astronomy. It is true that this tablet is helpful, but there are other tablets, and king lists, and Babylonian chronicles, and inscriptions and contract tablets that are also helpful. It's when the entire chronology and calendar is pieced together that Babylonian chronology is connected with Biblical chronology.
I've already pointed out the problems with your claim about the Olympiads. I might repeat them again if I get a chance.

The Biblical chronology has no problem at all here. The 70 years actually fits the 70 years from around 609 to 539. The Watchtower chronology has a big problem in that it tries to fit 90 years for Babylonian dominance, claiming that Babylon began to dominate between 629 and 625, according to the INSIGHT book, as already quoted several times.
Through increasing lives lost, exiles, taking of treasures from the temple, burning down the Temple, and continuing to take exiles even five years after the Temple was destroyed, it is obvious that Judea suffered through the entire 70 year period.
"Scholar JW" claims that the interpretation is wrong about Jeremiah 25 in the Watchtower publications here:
*** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***
Isaiah goes on to prophesy: “It must occur in that day that Tyre must be forgotten seventy years, the same as the days of one king.” (Isaiah 23:15a) Following the destruction of the mainland city by the Babylonians, the island-city of Tyre will “be forgotten.” True to the prophecy, for the duration of “one king”—the Babylonian Empire—the island-city of Tyre will not be an important financial power. Jehovah, through Jeremiah, includes Tyre among the nations that will be singled out to drink the wine of His rage. He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble.
Finally, "scholar JW" has admitted that he disagrees with the Watchtower's interpretation here. It sounds like you disagree with the Watchtower's interpretation, too.
See the quote from the WTS publication above. No individual nation had to spend 70 years in exile.
Also, how many years was it from the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar until the resumption of the foundation-laying for the rebuilding of the temple?
(Zechariah 7:5-7) . . .‘When you fasted and wailed in the fifth month and in the seventh month for 70 years, did you really fast for me? 6 And when you would eat and drink, were you not eating for yourselves and drinking for yourselves? 7 Should you not obey the words that Jehovah proclaimed through the former prophets, while Jerusalem and her surrounding cities were inhabited and at peace, and while the Negʹeb and the She·pheʹlah were inhabited?’”
The Watchtower chronology would make this period, too, around 90 years, and yet the Bible says it was 70. Who are you going to believe here, the Bible chronology or the Watchtower chronology?
*** pm chap. 14 pp. 234-236 pars. 1-6 Fasting over God’s Executed Judgments Improper ***
IS A TIME of prosperity the proper time for fasting? . . .
2 The time that the above questions came up was in the fourth year of the reign of King Darius I of the Persian Empire, or in the year 518 B.C.E. . . .
3 Now, when the question of fasting and mourning is raised, this time Jehovah answers by his prophet Zechariah. The prophet tells us: “Furthermore, it came about that in the fourth year of Darius the king the word of Jehovah occurred to Zechariah, on the fourth day of the ninth month, that is, in Chislev. . . .Zechariah 8:19.
6 The things commemorated by fasting down to the year 519 B.C.E., namely, the start of the siege of Jerusalem, the breaching of the walls of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, and the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the armies of Babylon, were all the execution of the judgments of Jehovah.
The Watchtower says those 70 years Zechariah spoke of would run from 607 to about 519/518 BCE, which would include parts of 90 sequential years. Yet the Biblical chronology (and the standard archaeological chronology) would make that parts of 70 different years from 587 to 518 BCE.

There may have been seeds sown by Dispensationalists before him, but it can pretty much be traced back to John A. Brown's 2-volume work from 1823, Even-tide. There, he applied Dan. 4's 'seven times' to a period of 2,520 years where the Jews would be under the domination of 'four tyrannical monarchies' until their kingdom was restored in 1917. It's also important to note that Brown put the beginning of the time period to Nebuchadnezzar's first regnal year in 604 BCE.
Link to relevant chapter.

Or, why not advance from several mistakes to less mistakes? We are not supposed to look for "True Anointed" because this would make us followers of men. Do you assume that Paul and Peter were "True Anointed"? If so, remember that persons in the Christian congregation were NOT supposed to follow them. Peter and Paul and others made serious mistakes. This is why the only "True Anointed" we follow is Jesus Christ.

That was the point: that Daniel does NOT allow room for both views here. How could Jehovah be bringing a king low for his haughtiness and braggadocio, and it still makes sense that Jehovah was also bringing him low for his humble attitude and his being lowly in heart and disposition? There was not room for both views.

And I'm sure you had in mind, too, that Jesus said:
(Luke 21:24) 24 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.
It's another bit of language manipulation, imo, to say that although Jesus said it would be in the future, that he actually meant it "will" start in the past.

I was harsh, because the more I study it, the more I believe that one MUST use deception to keep any kind of "prophetic chronology" going. I see the way that F.W.Franz toyed with language to keep people hyped up about 1975. I see the way that Rutherford was using deceptive language to keep people hyped up about 1925. And then looking back at Miller and Barbour I see the same thing. I just read some of Harold Camping's predictions for May 21, 2011 and I see the same exact style. And, as I started to write up what I saw in the Jon & Cameron conversation, I saw some of the same.
This doesn't mean the deception is on purpose. We "inherit" our beliefs about chronology, just as Russell "inherited" them from Nelson Barbour. Just as I expect that you personally believed this material about 1914 when you were a Witness because you "inherited" it from your teachers, a combination of the person who studied with you, and the Watchtower publications, and from the platform, as it were. You weren't being purposely deceptive when you shared this with others. But you were using the same deceptive language, highlighting innuendos and skipping inconsistencies. It's just one of those traditions, in my opinion, that makes the word of God invalid. (I say this because this particular tradition does indeed invalidate the very counsel of the Scriptures.)
But that inherited tradition about chronology doesn't invalidate all the other teachings. It just means that we have to prove to ourselves and make sure of all things. It was the same principle Jesus taught his audience:
(Matthew 23:1-3) . . .Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying: 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses. 3 Therefore, all the things they tell you, do and observe,. . .
The Scribes and Pharisees were incorrect about several things, and yet Jesus could tell his audience to do and observe all the things they tell you. Jehovah reads hearts and judges us individually before the judgment seat.
 

Just wanted to add a consideration of a very odd (to me) use of Daniel 4:17 as a way, not to prove that Jesus was humble, but as if Daniel 4:17 was a reference to the way Jesus' enemies viewed Jesus. The exact logic of this Watchtower article still escapes me:
*** w05 10/15 p. 27 par. 6 Cultivate Genuine Humility ***
That was the greatest example of humility and love ever set by one of God’s creatures. Not all appreciated Jesus’ humility, his enemies even considering him to be “the lowliest one of mankind.” (Daniel 4:17)
And yet here, it was humility:
*** w90 10/15 p. 18 par. 15 Be Thankful—Jehovah’s Messianic Kingdom Rules ***
Only one person came to be qualified in all respects to be called “the lowliest one of mankind.” The only-begotten Son of God proved himself to be such by willingly leaving his heavenly glory to be born as a human, as Jesus, who suffered the most humiliating and cruel death at Satan’s hand. (Philippians 2:3, 5-11)
 

The glitch I am speaking of is the following:
(But first some doctrinal history because I know how much certain people here just love doctrinal history.)
Russell left the "1914" doctrine in disarray by predicting so many things for it that failed. And even changing the "End of the Gentile Times" to 1915, and at least once also implying that the "Jewish Year 1915" could run from October 1915 to October 1916. But even Rutherford had continued to create a mess around the 1914 problem by waffling on 1914 for a while, pushing for 1918, then 1925, and only very slowly giving up on the the idea that the "End of the Gentile Times" was still going to be a Jewish mitzvah in Palestine.
It took Rutherford a while to give up on the great pyramid, and the seven or so other evidences for reaching 1914 by using 'divine proofs for 1874' plus the 40-year harvest. Including "parallel dispensations" in Old Testament Israel as the proof of divine origin of our chronology. Although even this last 1914 proof, he had "messed with," by adjusting "1874+40=1914" to 1878 plus a 40-year harvest to reach 1918. (1878+40=1918)The old emphasis on Elijah passing the mantle to Elisha would give Rutherford a more personal sense of scriptural authority, when he moved the date out of Russell's time slot and into the start of his own presidency in 1918. The same idea carried over into the "ns" book when that entire Russell/Rutherford transition was moved from 1918 to 1942 to represent the Rutherford/Knorr-Franz transition where "Elijah" was now the time under Rutherford's presidency and "Elisha" became the transition to the time of the Knorr/[Franz] presidency).
[edited to add: No one should get the idea that 1914 had been downplayed as a doctrine. The war broke out in 1914, and by mid-1915 the doctrine was being explained pretty much as it is now, but still with Zionist overtones, and with the background chronological reasons in question or in flux. By 1916 the "parousia" signs were being added to it. But that old consistent stable basis for 1914 was being shaken a bit. And Daniel 4 had not been utilized very much, even for the 2,520 years. Articles mentioning the 2,520 years did NOT include Daniel 4. I might add an explanation of what I mean here under another topic.]
So when Rutherford died (1942), it was up to F.W.Franz to push hard for the tree dream prophecy again because all those other methods now needed to be dropped completely. Officially Christ's presence was still 1874 right up until about 1943:
*** ka chap. 11 pp. 209-210 par. 55 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” ***
In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published the book “The Truth Shall Make You Free.” In its chapter 11, entitled “The Count of Time,” . . .  Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning of his invisible presence or parousia.
The book just mentioned, "The Truth Shall Make You Free," was the first big push on the chronology of 1914 in quite a while. But this was back before the NWT was available, and we often used the American Standard Version, and Rotherham's translation. This is where and when the first glitch was much more visible, and had to be overcome. Note page 240 of the book:
To whom does Jehovah give the heavenly overlordship over all men of good-will in A.D. 1914? Daniel4: 17 answers: "To the intent that the living may know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men." "One low among men he setteth up over it." (Roth.)
Humiliating Nebuchadnezzar with insanity and making him eat with the beasts was a way of showing just how low and beastly these kingdoms of men really were, but that Jehovah was still so far above them, that almost "on a whim" Jehovah could prove just how "base" these rulers were that he allowed to rule in the kingdom of men.
So this entire parable was not about the Kingdom of God, but about how "base" and "beastly" were these relatively weak and transient humans who thought they were so great in the kingdom of men.
So the first thing to do is get rid of that phrase the "basest of men." Rotherham helped here. If it can apply to Jesus, we could get away with "lowest" instead of "basest" because then we could use Jesus' humility, or his perceived stature by those who were not of honest hearts. Even this is a problem, because Jesus wasn't really "low." It's just that people were mistaken when they considered him "low." (Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Isn't he the carpenter's son? How can he say he existed before Abraham? etc.)
So page 241 of the same 1943 book goes on:
God has not given the 'kingdom of men" to totalitarian and religious dictators, who are wicked demonized men. Jehovah God has given the heavenly kingdom of the new world to the one whom politicians, commercial traffickers and religious clergy despjse as the "basest of men", namely, Christ Jesus, who was nailed to a tree between two thieves.
Note the deceptive twisting of the Bible's words here. With a kind of sleight of hand, and taking advantage of the negative opening in the sentence, Franz makes the "kingdom of men" represent "the heavenly kingdom." And while Daniel 4 was about a truly vicious beast who needed to be humiliated for his haughtiness, "the basest of men," Jesus is only falsely accused of being the basest of men. There is no need to humiliate Jesus for his haughtiness. Jesus is not a vicious beast. Jesus does not need to be taught a lesson by making him go insane.
So over the years, there has been a near disappearance of this explanation about how Jesus is like the "basest of men." And tricks of language are still being used to try to make the parallel between the return of wicked, pagan, gentile Nebuchadnezzar after 7 years to refer to the return of the Jewish Messianic Kingdom through the enthronement of Jesus Christ, who was not wicked, pagan, or gentile -- after 7 "times."

Leaven can be bad or good? Enduring suffering? Cyrus as Jehovah's "servant" for releasing the Jews from Babylon? Nebuchadnezzar as Jehovah's "servant" for punishing wicked Jerusalem? The angel of death? Blood on a doorpost? Birth pangs? The sword of the superior authorities? Jehovah's discipline? The goat of Azazel? The vicious she-bears that apparently did Elisha's bidding in mauling some children to death for making fun of his bald head?
I don't think that you would have that much trouble finding various and sundry things in the Bible that could be rationalized as "bad" but ultimately represent something "good." More to the point, Cyrus and Nebuchadnezzar were both "tools" in Jehovah's hand as he allowed them to advance their beastly rule for their own motives, but their beastly motives served Jehovah's purpose at the time.
But this particular dream about a tree had created a special problem for Witnesses because of the difficulties in making Nebuchadnezzar picture Jesus. For a few years Nebuchadnezzar was allowed to be a type of the antitype Jesus, and then that was changed so that Nebuchadnezzar was explicitly no longer considered a type or picture of Jesus.
Now, as of 2015, we even have a more general "rule" that we should never apply types and antitypes to Biblical narratives, and parables, unless the Bible tells us explicitly to do so.
The tree dream is most definitely a "parable" but we make an exception to the rule for it, and of course, we must make an exception for the rule about the parable of the "faithful and discreet slave and the wicked slave."
 
But there are some special glitches in this parable that have caused trouble for the WTS publications. Most of the glitches have been discussed on this forum. But there is one serious one that has barely been touched upon. And it pretty much ruins the whole use of this parable as a prophecy about the Messianic Kingdom.
And it's the . . . . . (next post)

These are so much better than the early dramas. Maxwell Friend would do a great Shakespearean, sentorian voice of God, which was always amazing. Daniel Sydlik would do a voice of God, too, but people detected the Brooklyn accent sometimes, and our CO would make fun of it with "Hey youze guys down there!." When the actors prepared, we were given instructions to exaggerate the gestures so that people up in the baseball stadium's highest bleachers could see them.
One of the brothers I worked with did a routine where he would exaggerate a groveling servant leaning nearly to the ground, while repeating this huge rolling gesture that looked like he was using both hands to wrap invisible ropes around an imaginary barrel in front of him, and he would say things like:  MAY YOUR BEARD GROW EVER LONGER, GEHAZI!!

I can accept that possiblity. But why does the Watchtower chronology need to claim that Daniel is wrong when mentioning Jehoiakim so that Insight claims it was really Jehoiachin?
*** it-1 p. 1269 Jehoiakim ***
Following the siege of Jerusalem during Jehoiakim’s “third year” (as vassal king), Daniel and other Judeans, including nobles and members of the royal family, were taken as exiles to Babylon. There being no record of an earlier Babylonian exile, this appears to place the event in the short reign of Jehoiachin, Jehoiakim’s successor.—2Ki 24:12-16; Jer 52:28.
Don't you think something must be wrong with a chronology that tells us to reject the Bible?

Jeremiah's 70 years fits perfectly within the 66 to 73 year period of Babylon's domination. Remember even the Watchtower is forced to explain it this way when they have to:
*** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***
“These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble.
It's the WT Chronology that gives Babylon 86 to 93 years. 70 does NOT fit within that range. So it's only the NB timeline that fits the Bible here, not the WT timeline.
Nebuchadnezzar's missing years, you claim are not there, and yet I just showed you how the Bible's timeline gives Nebuchadnezzar only the same 43 years that the NB timeline gives. So if you can't find the 7 years in Nebuchadnezzar's 43 years, and want another 7 to 20, that's just you kicking against the Bible's goads here.
And the 20 year gap in the timeline? There is no 20 year gap in the Bible's timeline, or in the NB timeline. The gap is only in the Watchtower's timeline.

The Insight book mentions two events at the beginning of the time when Babylon's domination of the region began. The subjugation of Assyria in 612 BCE (Standard timeline) and the battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE (Standard timeline). Just add the missing 20 years that the Watchtower can't find to get the Watchtower chronology:
*** it-1 p. 238 Babylon ***
In 632 B.C.E. Assyria was subdued by this new Chaldean dynasty, with the assistance of Median and Scythian allies. In 625 B.C.E., Nabopolassar’s eldest son, Nebuchadnezzar (II), defeated Pharaoh Necho of Egypt at the battle of Carchemish, and in the same year he assumed the helm of government.
The Babylonian Chronicles mark these battles at 73 years before 539 and 66 years before 539, respectively. Obviously the subjugation wasn't 100% complete 73 years before, but it was solidly proven by 66 years before. So a reasonable person would say that you could begin the count of domination somewhere between these two points. 70 is between 66 and 73. In fact, if you average the timeline between those two events you get the year 608.5 BCE. That represents 70.5 years of Babylonian domination using just those two primary events that INSIGHT speaks of as the events that handed the domination from the 2nd Empire (Assyria) to the 3rd Empire (Babylon). And, yes, the Babylonian Chronicles do record these events, that bring the "world empire" to Babylon.
What do you think a deportation is? If this twisting of scriptures is supposed to be required to accept the WT chronology, then I would rather choose the Bible's chronology which speaks of multiple exiles. Judah went into exile through multiple exiles
(Jeremiah 1:3) . . .It came also in the days of Je·hoiʹa·kim the son of Jo·siʹah, the king of Judah, until the completion of the 11th year of Zed·e·kiʹah the son of Jo·siʹah, the king of Judah, until Jerusalem went into exile in the fifth month.
(Jeremiah 52:15, 16) . . .Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took into exile some of the lowly people and the rest of the people who were left in the city. He also took the deserters who had defected to the king of Babylon as well as the rest of the master craftsmen. 16 But Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard left some of the poorest people of the land to serve as vinedressers and as compulsory laborers.
(Jeremiah 52:27-30) . . .Thus Judah went into exile from its land. 28 These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile: in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews. 29 In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem. 30 In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people. In all, 4,600 people were taken into exile.
In Jeremiah 52, three different events from 3 different years were called "exiles." Why is it so important to you to dismiss the Bible to support the Watchtower chronology? It makes just as little sense to say these these were three exiles and only one deportation, which is also not true.
I hadn't responded to this in the post on that topic.
(Jeremiah 44:14) 14 And the remnant of Judah who have gone to reside in the land of Egypt will not escape or survive to return to the land of Judah. They will long to return and dwell there, but they will not return, except for a few escapees.’”
This does not say when those exceptions will return. And you have had to guess about when. It's a possibility, but there is no mention that the 745 refer to those who fled from Egypt. The point is that it was terrible, people fled for their lives, people came back, and it was a terrible desolation for all. Other exceptions were obviously the people put to work on the land who didn't really "count" among the persons exiled. Archaeology of various settlements shows evidence for continuous working of the land year after year. But nowhere does the Bible say that the land had to be without an inhabitant for the full 70 years. Only that Babylon's 70 years would result in a complete desolation of the land.

Since we have begun looking at the Bible's chronology versus the Watchtower chronology, we should look at how easily the Bible chronology fits into the standard Babylonian timeline.
(2 Kings 25:27) . . .And in the 37th year of the exile of King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah, in the 12th month, on the 27th day of the month, King Eʹvil-merʹo·dach of Babylon, in the year he became king,. . .
For example, look how well that question is answered about the date of Jehoiachin's 37th year of exile.

625 624 623 622 621 620 619 618 617 616 615 614 613 612 611 610 609 608 607 606 605 604 603 602 601 600 599 598 597 596 595 594 593 592 591 590 589 588 587 586 585 584 583 582 581 580 579 578 577 576 575 574 573 572 571 570 569 568 567 566 565 564 563 562 561 560 559 558 557 556 555 554 553 552 551 550 549 548 547 546 545 544 543 542 541 540 539 538 537 536 535 534 533 532 531 530 N A B O P O L A S S A R (21 years) N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S (17) C Y R U S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 591 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Just start in E-M1 which is 561 and go back 37 years on the timeline and you get 598. And this is exactly Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year. Now the Bible never says that Nebuchadnezzar reigned exactly 43 years, but notice how this perfectly matches the Babylonian standard timeline. The Bible gets another confirmation from the Babylonian timeline. Even the fact that it was the 7th year is confirmed not only in the Bible but in the Babylonian Chronicles, as you can see from the first quote from Insight in the previous post.
But the WT chronology now has only a 25-year period into which to somehow squeeze 45 years worth of kings' reigns between the first year of E-M and the last year of Nabonidus (17). But it gets worse. You'll recall that the Watchtower publications use the Nabonidus Chronicle to confirm that Cyrus conquered Babylon in the 17th year of Nabonidus. This means that Nabonidus also reigned only 17 years and ended that reign in 539. The INSIGHT book admits this evidence.
So we have all of the 43 years of Nebuchandnezzar, at least 1 year of Evil Merodach's 2 years, and all 17 of the years of Nabonidus. That's 63 of the 70 years the NB timeline from NEB1 to CYRUS1. This means that the WTS chronology must now fit 25 years of kings' reigns into the 5 years between 560 BCE and 556 BCE in the standard timeline. That's the only place left where the Watchtower's missing 20 years can be made to fit. 20 year of a broken cable of chronology.

Just as I thought, this is not applied to NEB23.
In fact, it was in the 7th month of Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year (NEB18, per INSIGHT).
(2 Kings 25:8-26) . . .In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, . . .  25 And in the seventh month, Ishʹma·el son of Neth·a·niʹah son of E·lishʹa·ma, who was of the royal line, came with ten other men, and they struck down Ged·a·liʹah and he died, along with the Jews and the Chal·deʹans who were with him in Mizʹpah [Egypt]. 26 After that all the people, from small to great, including the army chiefs, rose up and went to Egypt, for they were afraid of the Chal·deʹans.
The very next words here are about NEB43 and NEB being followed by Evil-Merodach (E-M) in the 37th year of the exile of King Jehoiachin.
(2 Kings 25:27) . . .And in the 37th year of the exile of King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah, in the 12th month, on the 27th day of the month, King Eʹvil-merʹo·dach of Babylon, in the year he became king,. . .
When was King Jehoiachin exlied? Read the JEHOIACHIN article in Insight, and you will see again that this is a jumbled up broken cable. Just a few disconnected points here and there, that the WTS publications cannot string together without making a lot of assumptions. Even assuming that the WTS is right and that Daniel is wrong.
*** it-1 pp. 452-453 Chronology ***
Jeremiah 52:28 says that in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar (or Nebuchadrezzar) the first group of Jewish exiles was taken to Babylon. In harmony with this, a cuneiform inscription of the Babylonian Chronicle (British Museum 21946) states: “The seventh year: In the month Kislev the king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Hattu. He encamped against the city of Judah and on the second day of the month Adar he captured the city (and) seized (its) king [Jehoiachin]. A king of his own choice [Zedekiah] he appointed in the city (and) taking the vast tribute he brought it into Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 102; compare 2Ki 24:1-17; 2Ch 36:5-10.) (PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 326)
*** it-1 p. 576 Daniel ***
Early in 617 B.C.E., Jehoiachin and other “foremost men,” also young Daniel (2Ki 24:15), were taken into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar.
*** it-1 p. 1269 Jehoiakim ***
Following the siege of Jerusalem during Jehoiakim’s “third year” (as vassal king), Daniel and other Judeans, including nobles and members of the royal family, were taken as exiles to Babylon. There being no record of an earlier Babylonian exile, this appears to place the event in the short reign of Jehoiachin, Jehoiakim’s successor.—2Ki 24:12-16; Jer 52:28.
So when Daniel speaks of the third year of Jehoiakim . . . INSIGHT changes this to an event in the short reign of Jehoiachin! What chutzpah to claim that our own WTS chronology is better than the Bible's.
 

You are relying on Josephus who apparently couldn't make up his mind whether it was 50 years or 70 years of desolation after Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year? Where did Jeremiah say there would be 70 years of complete desolation. These desolations/exiles/deportations/desecrations were obviously happening all throughout the 70 years, until Cyrus.
If the Bible doesn't say there was exactly 70 years of "land completely desolate" then why do you need to add that to the Bible? The Bible associates the fact of these 70 years of desolations, etc., with the fact that Babylon would be given 70 years of dominance/hegemony.
(Jeremiah 25:11, 12) . . .And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’ 12 “‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,’ declares Jehovah, ‘and I will make the land of the Chal·deʹans a desolate wasteland for all time.
In what way did "these nations" serve the king of Babylon for 70 years if you claim that Babylon dominated these nations for 86 to 90 years? 
*** w88 2/1 p. 27 Part 1—Ancient Egypt—First of the Great World Powers ***
Pharaoh Necho marched northward about 629 B.C.E. to intercept the armies of the upcoming third world power, Babylon. The Bible says that Josiah of Jerusalem unwisely tried to stop the Egyptian forces at Megiddo and was defeated and killed. (2 Chronicles 35:20-24) About four years later, in 625 B.C.E., Pharaoh Necho himself was defeated by the Babylonians at Carchemish. Both the Bible and the Babylonian Chronicles refer to this event, which gave the Babylonians mastery over western Asia.
The difference between 629 BCE and 539 BCE is 90 years, not 70.
The Watchtower chronology rejects the Bible's 70-year limit on Babylonian hegemony. I prefer the Bible chronology here, not the Watchtower's chronology. Besides the Watchtower's chronology is a broken cable. They have a series of disconnected events but they can't say at all who were the kings, nor the lengths of their reigns from this made up date of 607 for NEB18 on up to CYRUS' first year. It's clear that the WTS just made it up without evidence.
Also the WTS publications cannot create this pseudo-chronology without contradicting themselves:
*** INSIGHT-1 p. 463 Chronology ***
The Bible prophecy does not allow for the application of the 70-year period to any time other than that between the desolation of Judah, accompanying Jerusalem’s destruction, and the return of the Jewish exiles to their homeland as a result of Cyrus’ decree. It clearly specifies that the 70 years would be years of devastation of the land of Judah.
Turns out that this idea that it could only apply to the land of Judah, turns out to be false, of course, by the WTS's own admission!! When Jeremiah 25 is considered more closely, the writer recognized that the above statement was false, that "these nations" must have included ALL the nations around who were under the domination of Babylon for their 70 years:
*** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***
He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble.
And why are you so sure that you can impose a specific meaning on the words "desolate" when the same prophecies say that Babylon itself would become a desolate wasteland for all time. Has that happened yet? I'll repeat the quote form Jeremiah, but this time pay attention to the last sentence:
(Jeremiah 25:11, 12) . . .And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’ 12 “‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,’ declares Jehovah, ‘and I will make the land of the Chal·deʹans a desolate wasteland for all time.

The fact that there was a great war in 1914 is evidence that the nations were still active. Once ANY ONE of those nations remained after 1915 (according to the final version of the readjusted prediction) it was proof that the times of these nations had not ended. Once a Jewish nation in Israel was not the ONLY nation still standing in the entire world as of the end of 1915, this became further proof that the Gentile Times had not ended.
The Great War ended up proving that the Gentile Times had not ended in 1914!