Malum Intellectus

Wow. I get called all the cusswords under the sun ... just for calling AllenSmith[insert#here] a kumquat several pages ago? Â 

AllenSmith wrote:
You're deliberately making a false statement, even after being corrected.
Your claim is that COJ only mentions TWO exiles. But he mentions THREE, and goes into great detail about each of the three. As I posted on page 28:
<<<<
You seem to blathering that COJ and Franz failed to mention 3 instances of Jews being taken captive, but only mentioned 2. Let me disabuse you of that false notion.
On page 207 of "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" (4th edition) COJ wrote:
<< Berossus gives support to Daniel's statement that Jewish captives were brought to Babylon in the year of Nebuchadnezzar's accession. >>
Which of course is 605/604 BCE. COJ has a lot more to say about the taking of captives in 605/604.
On pages 293-294 of GTR4, COJ quotes two scholars on the capture of Jerusalem and taking of captives:
<< ... the 597 date is one of the very few secure dates in our whole chronological repertoire. >>
<< ... the capture of Jerusalem in 597 (that date is now fixed exactly). >>
COJ elsewhere mentions 597 BCE many times as the date of Jerusalem's capture and the taking of many captives.
On page 149 of GTR4, COJ states that Nebuchadnezzar's:
<< ... eighteenth year was 587/86, during which Jerusalem was destroyed. >>
And of course, COJ speaks in many other places about the Jewish captives that were taken in 587.
Franz has virtually nothing to say about this, so once again you're talking out of your nether regions.
>>>>
Still clueless.
The claim that "the Gentile times" equals 2,520 years is disproved by all manner of clear biblical exposition apart from pinning starting and ending dates on the claimed period. JW Insider has given several disproofs.
Once again: Franz did not present anything about such chronological details. You are lying.
Revisions? Of course, since Jonsson learned a great deal more as time went on. But his revisions ADDED to his earlier material -- in contrast to most Watch Tower revisions, he had no need to correct earlier false teachings made in God's name.
AlanF

No, don't look because this thread is about 607, not about chastising strangers on the internet. I think @TrueTomHarley meant that suggestion to be purely rhetorical. Plus I don't think Alan F gives two monkeys bottoms.

See how insulting this fellow is. It will be his undoing, most likely.
The fact that he worships the Dawkins-Harris-Hitchens Trinity makes it even more interesting.
Quick, someone find me a scripture of how a contemptuous person comes to ruin.

Scholar JW Pretendus Activus wrote:
:: did not say they were. I've said consistently that a Jewish remnant left Babylon in early 538 BCE. I've said consistently that the Jews as a whole were no longer captive to "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons" after Babylon was overthrown simply because the Babylonian rulers were no longer in power and therefore could hold no captives.
:: For many years, Neil, your main tactic of argumentation has been to create straw men by misrepresenting what your oponents say. You're still at it. So unchristian!
What do you mean "now", you reprehensible liar? You continue to misrepresent what both the Bible and I have said. Jeremiah prophesies only about servitude to "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons". He does not prophesy about any captivity to the Persian empire. I have always said that any captivity of the Jews to Babylon -- to "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons" -- ended with Babylon's overthrow in late 539 BCE. I have always said that the return of the Jews to Judah occurred in either 537 or 538 BCE, but have long argued that the only real evidence (Ezra and Josephus combined) makes 538 virtually certain.
Correct. Lying and deliberate misrepresentation of the truth is unchristian.
I'm not a Christian, but that is irrelevant, since my conduct on these forums far better conforms to Christian standards of honesty than yours does. And no, what I've said about you is not "rich"; it is a fact based on your reprehensible, dishonest behavior demonstrated over two decades.
     
:: 538, actually.
Sez you.
As usual, you present no evidence, no actual arguments. Just bald assertions.
:: So we agree on that. But the declaration of release was made in early (Nisan) 538 BCE, likely in conjunction with ceremonies connected with the beginning of Cyrus' first full regnal year (not his accession year, which began in late 539 shortly after his armies conquered Babylon). Since Ezra and Josephus together provide the only complete testimony (see https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/ ) on when rebuilding of the temple began (537 BCE), 537 is not possible for the return of the Jews to Judah, because temple rebuilding would have to have begun in 536 BCE, thus contradicting both Ezra and Josephus
I've told you several times now: read the link I gave you. There's a section that addresses this topic specifically.
So says a demonstrable, reprehensible liar. Someone completely incompetent to pass judgment. Someone no more a scholar than he is an astronaut. Someone who is nothing more than a biased Watch Tower drone.
LOL! You've dragged this red herring around for a decade and a half, Neil. It's one of your tactics of last resort when you know you're trapped.
Having already participated in extensive debates on this 12-14 years ago, and having been thoroughly trounced in every detail, you don't want to expose yourself to more ridicule from readers. You're so transparent!
:: Also note that Jeremiah prophesied nothing about the land paying off sabbaths, so "Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah" had nothing to do with the paying off of sabbaths. Nor does the passage say that the paying of sabbaths ended when the 70 years ended. It merely says that during the 70 years the land would be paying sabbaths. Since various sources prove that the 70 years were a time of Babylonian supremacy over the Near East, and they most likely began in 609 BCE when Babylon overthrew the last remnants of the Assyrian empire, and they most certainly ended with Babylon's overthrow in 539 BCE, and Jerusalem was overthrown in 587 BCE, the sabbaths were certainly being paid during that time of Babylonian supremacy.
There's one of those weasel words again, which you're so fond of using.
What passage in Jeremiah gives this "link"? You can cite none. Thus you've proved my point once again.
Wrong. The only vague "link" is in 2 Chronicles 36, which I and others have already shown does not prove your case.
Wrong. Carl Jonsson and many others have discussed this to death and proven that Watch Tower claims are false. You're simply too much of a Watch Tower drone to admit that Mommy is wrong.
Wrong again. It is a fact that Babylon, under Nabopolassar, defeated the last remnant of the Assyrian empire in 609 BCE. But you already know that, so you're lying yet again.
Your beliefs are irrelevant. Jack Finegan, in "Handbook of Biblical Chronology", and various other scholars, support this view. But you already know this.
It's not "fuzzy" at all. As you well know, various contemporary Babylonian documents prove that date.
Now you're switching gears. The 609 date for Babylon's overthrow of Assyria is virtually certain. The 605 date for Nebuchadnezzar's accession, and his capturing Jerusalem for the first time, is virtually certain. The only thing that is uncertain is whether the 70 years is to be viewed as an exact or an approximate period. If exact, then 609 is the only candidate. If approximate, then 605 can be argued as well. What is certain is that the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy ended in 539, when Persia overthrew Babylon.
Yet another weasel word.
Correction: many leading scholars, following Edwin Thiele's opinion, prefer 586. But as you well know, many others, such as those who wrote articles in "The Cambridge Ancient History", prefer 587. And as you well know, in a 2004 JETS article "When Did Jerusalem Fall?" Rodger C. Young proved with a careful biblical analysis that the only date consistent with all biblical passages is 587. The glacial pace of scholarship in this area has simply not caught up. Edwin Thiele, writing beginning in the 1940s, was unaware of the material that Rodger Young used.
LOL! That's like saying the earth is flat because some scientists say it's spherical while others say it's pear shaped.
:: It does more than that. In conjunction with Jer. 25 and 27, it defines the 70 years as a period defined by Babylonian supremacy over the entire Near East, not merely supremacy over Judah or the captivity of the Jews. The latter was a minor event in Babylon's history.
         
:::: Who are "these nations" that were to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years? The context of Jer. 25 is clear: the Jews and the nations round about. During what time period did they serve? From the beginning of Babylon's rule over the Near East in 609 BCE to its end in 539 when the Persian empire overthrew it.
:::: Note that servitude is not the same as captivity. Jeremiah implored the Jews not to rebel against Babylon. If they did not, Jehovah would allow them to remain on their land during the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy. -- Jer. 27:4-11 They rebelled, and so were punished with captivity  
It does that, but more importantly -- why do you continue to fail to address this? -- it defines the 70 years, not as years of Jewish captivity/exile in Babylon and desolation of Judah, but as years of Babylonian supremacy over all the nations of the Near East.
Jewish captives were taken to Babylon in 604, 597, 587 and later. They were no longer captives of "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons" after Babylon's overthrow in 539. Therefore, Jewish captivities occurred within the 70 year period between 609 and 539.
No specific nation -- not Judah, not any other -- was prophesied by Jeremiah to serve Babylon for 70 years. Rather, "these nations" as a whole would serve, by virtue of the fact that Babylon was supreme over the entire Near East. And of course, as I have repeatedly explained, servitude did not imply captivity, exile or desolation of a homeland -- Jer. 27.
Another flat out lie. Jer. 25:11: "... and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years."
More deliberate vagueness. Tyre "served" only in a limited sense, and for much less than 70 years.
Only in the sense of exactly which nations "these nations" included. Since the expression "these nations" is plural, it includes more than Judah. Thus your claim about Judah is disproved.
Correct, but that's only because the Bible and Babylonian records say nothing more than something like "these nations". But we know for certain that Jews were taken captive in 605/4, 597, 587/6, and at other times.
Very good! But not Exile for a full 70 years. Some were exiled for about 67 years, others for about 59 years, others for about 49 years. None for a full 70 years. But all of "these nations" served Babylon in a global sense from 609 to 539 BCE.
And as I have shown, the Temple was desolate for 50 years -- 587 to 537 BCE. Josephus confirms this (see below).
Wrong.
     
:: Wrong. What Daniel says is ambiguous, as I have carefully explained.
Complete gobble-de-goop that addresses none of my arguments.
     
:: does, but it mainly describes the 70 years as a period of servitude of Judah and all nations round about to Babylon. Jer. 25:8-11:
:: << . . . I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these surrounding nations . . . and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years. >>
:: Judah is not the primary focus; "all these surrounding nations" are a far bigger target.  
You continue to ignore Jer. 27, which shows that any desolation was contingent on a nation failing to bow to Babylon's power: "'the nation that brings its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon and serves him, I will allow to remain on its land,' declares Jehovah, 'to cultivate it and dwell in it.'" -- Jer. 27:11.
Again ignoring Jer. 27.
:: Why do you continue to ignore Jeremiah 27?
In other words, you will continue to ignore the parts of the Bible that you don't like, because they contradict what you've learned from Mommy Watch Tower.
     
:: Totally wrong. Keeping on repeating nonsense that was debunked 40 years ago does not make it true.
:: And of course, Josephus and Ezra prove that a return in 537 is impossible
As has been repeatedly proved by Carl Jonsson in various editions of "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" and by other scholars, Josephus' first three references to "70 years" in this context were just his repeating of current Jewish legends. In his last work he corrected himself, based on his reference to Babylonian historian Berossus, and said clearly that the Temple was devasted for 50 years -- not 70.
For a more complete discussion of Josephus, see pages 298-300 at this link:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjKpruOycbYAhVI5IMKHecSDa0QFggpMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.watchtowerlies.com%2Flinked%2Fthe-gentile-times-reconsidered.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2qcUETI_cz35sfzx9FslCp
Wrong. I've already told you several times: a brief discussion is here: https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/
That you refuse to address the material on this forum proves that you're no scholar, and dishonest to a fault.
LOL!
AlanF

You had listed your source as this, Nana: 
The Bible Dictionary was commenting on the Nabonidus Chronicle but, because the Bible Dictionary was published in the 19th century, its dating of the Persian conquest of Babylon was a year out.
The Nabonidus Chronicle only gives a damaged '17th year' of Nabonidus for Babylon's fall - it doesn't contain BCE dating. The modern scholar has to deduce the BCE date by other means. As I said, the Bible Dictionary was out a year.
Nice try, though.

Thanks @Ann O'Maly and it looks like thanks also to @AlanF for posting the pages in question. Of course, for anyone who really wanted to know, they already could have found enough of the content of those pages that had already been posted and discussed by both "AlanF" and a person calling himself "Earnest" on another forum and then again by AlanF on a separate blog at corior.blogspot.
On a major forum, AlanF had even exposed some of the content that @scholar JW has already made reference to here on this forum, under this current topic. (Referring to correspondence with WTS, COJ, Franz, etc.) A person on that same forum named "Earnest" had even quoted sufficient portions of those two paragraphs from page 208, which are still there to read for anyone who wishes. They can just search Google, for example, with phrases like the following (including the quote marks):
"john aquila brown" "Ray Franz, Carl Jonsson"
But I had also seen that AlanF had even quoted from a few other pages of Volume II, including the the near context of page 208 (pps. 68-9, 135, 152, 206). Just google:
"Part 5: Sanitizing the Past"
I also have the book "Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers" by Froom, volume 3. It contains a very good discussion of John Aquila Brown in the context of all his own proposed time periods compared with others being presented at the time. All in all, these resources have made it clear to me that Jonsson had it right from both a high-level perspective and a detail level perspective. It even reminded me that the April 2018 Watchtower (p.30,31) may have had this very type of exchange in mind when they spoke of allowing "apostates" and other critics to sow distrust through a forum that allows dialogue. The "Proclaimers" book gives the appearance that it may have actually been written in such a way as to engage in dialogue with "apostate" reasoning, on this specific point, as an attempt to offer a kind of "gotcha." Something similar had been tried in the Appendix of the "Kingdom Come" book in 1981, and two Watchtower articles in 2011. Unfortunately, I think that these particular attempts backfired on the WTS, and I'm sure they do not wish for this kind of embarrassment to show up again.  

Yikes! I run off for a day, and someone throws a party. I almost hate to interrupt, but it does look like you responded with 2 Chron 36, which I must admit, does appear to be the Biblical evidence against the claim I made when i said;  ' But nowhere does the Bible say that the full and complete desolation measured from some specific point in time, was to begin counting off the 70 year period. In fact, there is no Bible passage that says the entire 70 years of Babylonian domination was equal to be equal in length to a 70 year period of full desolation.'
It's almost ironic that a side conversation is going on about how John Aquila Brown had made a 'connection' between his 1260-year "Gentile Times" ending in 1844 and his 2,520-year period of the "Four Tyrannical Kingdoms" ending in 1917. John Aquila Brown made a connection without equating the periods. I think even "scholar JW" agrees with that much. And here we have 2 Chronicles speaking of a period of 70 years spoken by Jeremiah, and he connects them with a period when the land would pay off its sabbaths during all the days that the land would lay desolate. He appears to connect them, but does not equate them.
It seems to be similar to how a prophetic type in Jonah connects his being in the belly of a large fish for 3 days, and how the fulfillment is tied to the idea that Jesus would be in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights. There is an emphasis on the 3 day and 3 night period, even though the direct connection in the case of Jesus was more likely a reference to Jesus being in the grave all of Saturday, plus a few hours on Friday afternoon, and a few short hours on Sunday morning. Maybe 36 hours instead of 72 (3x24).
The prophetic period of "70 years" loomed large in these days and may have connected several periods in a loose way, especially since we know that the desolations that started as early as 604 ultimately resulted in more and more abandoned fields, abandoned cities, attacked cities, attacked populace, captured populace, two or three occasions of taking sacred utensils from Jerusalem, two or three sieges of Jerusalem. Finally, the desolation was effectively complete somewhere between Neb's 19th year and Neb's 24th year.
Nebuchadnezzar was a kind of abomination that caused desolations, not just a single desolation. The idea is used in the plural almost as often as it is used in the singular. Even when used in the singular it is often paired with plural places --desolate places-- so that the idea of plural desolations is still obvious. Notice how this fact is hidden in the NWT translation of Daniel 9:2:
(Daniel 9:2) 2 in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of years mentioned in the word of Jehovah to Jeremiah the prophet to fulfill the desolation of Jerusalem, namely, 70 years. But the Hebrew does not say 'desolation' חָרְבָּה of course. It says 'desolations' חָרְבֹות . As the ESV, quoted earlier says:
(Daniel 9:2, ESV) in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years. Can you see the difference?
Of course, as I've said before, I'm not a stickler for starting and ending these 70 years as of a specific certain event in the life of Neb., and I'm not so convinced that the 70 years must stop instantly with the event that freed the Jews from Babylonian captivity: i.e., the removal of Babylonian dominance by its capture in the first year of Cyrus over Babylon. Of course, this is the primary sense in Jeremiah, but I think it's clear that the 70-year period of that prophecy became a focus of several associated time periods that would find fulfillment either within that period, or because of that time period.
One of the "desolations" (In Hebrew, it's also the word for "drought") was the spiritual "drought" caused by the desolation of the Temple. That particular "drought" must have been seen as connected with the 70 years of desolation, too, even though the connected  70-year period would have run from about Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year up to the first few years of Darius. (see: Zechariah, Haggai)
At any rate, the evidence on the ground is that we can only find about 50 years between the destruction of Jerusalem in Neb's 19th year and the overthrow of Babylon in the first year of Cyrus. By evidence on the ground, I mean, literally, the tens of thousands of dated contract tablets, with or without the multiple examples of other evidence that will also mesh perfectly with these tablets. If we allow two or three extra years after the first year of Cyrus and start with the desolation in Neb's 8th year, we could get about 63 years, but still not 70. If we go all the way back to the time when the Babylonian power proved itself as the next power over Assyria (or even a combination of Assyria and Egypt), then we get a complete 70 years, and it perfectly fits Jeremiah's prophecy that the 70 years were "for Babylon" even though they would "effect'' the fulfillment of the desolations upon Judea and Jerusalem. I don't see a contradiction between 2 Chronicles 36 and Jeremiah 25, even if the focus is different. 

He tried to intervene on this forum, too, but he found he couldn't mix it up more than it already was.

I can see you have not been to meetings lately - or you have been sitting there daydreaming of your own wonderful theories regarding proof of your own infallibility regarding the non-existence of  1914.... and how you are going to try to get a following on this website so they can reflect your own perfect spirituality/wisdoms.   
On the other hand, I have been attending meetings and very few of them have been about the date of 1914.  Most have been about applying the scriptures to daily living, meekness and humility. Many have been very interesting in the light of what we can expect during Armageddon..... How to stay neutral and not get involved in this world.
Of course - if you were part of the slave (the ones who you believe like to glorify themselves) -  we would get exciting new food every week (wonderful life-giving MANNA) that would be absolutely mind boggling! So we would never hear a rehash of 1914. 
This to me is so strange because all I see here on this forum is an OCD rehash of the  1914 issue  every time I open up my computer to come to this website .......and NO new interesting thoughts I can really think about.  Is this all this band of renegades can talk about?
So please do not accuse the slave of the very thing which you are doing ALL the time!   Just thinking of ONE thing. Satan was the big rebel and was accusing Christs brothers all the time!  I see the same here with the so-called intellectuals using "innocent intellectual discussion" to pull the slave apart at every opportunity available to them - and using the word of God in the most deceiving way to say so!
Self-sacrificing love means that we should not expect anything from no-one. .. just give of ourselves with no return. Our love should not be "hypocritical".   This is the secret to true happiness.
Most of the people offering their brilliant contrary claims to the slave on this forum and who accuse the slave of making a throne for themselves in the temple of God, (if I read the intent of the scripture quoted correctly), these brilliant historians - openly DENY that Babylonian and Assyrian timelines have been synchronized with the Egyptian timeline - so they do not know themselves where these dates come from!
 I have news for you -the Hittite timelines have also been synchronized with Egyptology. This is why Dr David Rohl (and others) are on a quest to prove the timeline WRONG! And this is the reason he is receiving so much opposition in the Egyptology departments because most of the Middle East histories have been synchronized and the Egyptian timeline because of the wars that went on amongst all these different nations. This would mean that most of the PHDs done in the past 150 years are inaccurate!
So why waste your time on this myopic quest and focus on the bigger picture - the theme of the Bible and how the government which is already ruling - invisibly - according to revelation 12 is fulfilling bible prophecy.  How this heavenly government is ruling from Zion over ONE nation and teaching these people (in the last days) to forge their weapons into agricultural weapons. How they are united in the preaching work which is being accomplished in all the earth - by one organization ONLY.  They are the only ones who knows how this government is going to function..... but I guess you have problems with that too!
This is why we needed many SIGNS - to pin point when the kingdom has started ruling INVISIBLY and we also needed a timeline of the world governments - given in Daniel - to gauge the time.  Timelines of world governments and of Jehovah's government! Daniel 7 also tells how Jesus would come before the ancient of old (in heaven) to receive his Kingdom!
Jehovah provides - but many are too blind to see it..  thanklessness.....to what Jehovah has given us.
I do not 'argue' about genealogies but I do use it to show Muslims that Jesus is the only one with a proven history (genealogy) from Adam until his birth - which makes him the true "messenger" from God.   The ideology Jesus  preached is also the only ideology that can bring peace to the earth....if everyone willingly follows it. (I use this to speak to atheists as well - by comparing it to human philosophies). 
Genealogies and chronology (together with the history of israel as a nation and after this the history of the Christians) is very important to become a mature Christian - to follow the continuity of the outworking of Jehovah's purpose. 
If one knows about project management one will understand how the great "project manager" (Jehovah) has managed his affairs in heaven and on earth (without intervening too much into earthly affairs).  He only intervened when it was absolutely necessary; only when the 'final outcome' of his final purpose would be in jeopardy. He intervened with a flood for instance when his purpose could have been thwarted by Satan and his demons. He also intervened at Babylon with languages - he had very good reasons for doing so. He intervened with a dream when the parents of Jesus fled to Egypt to preserve Jesus's life - also important to preserve his purpose.  
Logic and continuity is very important in the timeline and this is why the prophecies and their fulfillment (relating to the timeline) is important. Ephesians 1:9 talks about how the purpose has been administered throughout the ages. While I will not debate over little silly things in the timeline - I have come to realize that it is highly important to understand that the bible is the ONLY reality on earth - and the only book which provides absolute reality and continuity.... every little thing fits into the predicted patterns ... and a timeline.... to the minutest detail.
This is why I see the bible as the only "reality" on earth..... and this is why I defend the timeline as presented by the slave - because it is logical and fits in with the purpose when one studies it in a logical way.  
I am studying this at present... and it is fascinating.... 

This looks like a list to me

This is the crux of the problem – that of holding onto a date, and comparing “new light” surrounding that date that must not lose its ‘significance’ -  to manna -  good for only a “day”; as if since Christ, that is the viewpoint to be held.
“What can we do to perform the works of God?” they asked.
 Jesus replied, “This is the work of God—that you believe in the one he has sent.”
 “What sign, then, are you going to do so we may see and believe you?” they asked. “What are you going to perform? John 6:28-30
 I see David Splane working through the “overlapping generation” doctrine, using a pointer and chart. 
“Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, just as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat.”
 Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, Moses didn’t give you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.  For the bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 
Then they said, “Sir, give us this bread always.”
 “I am the bread of life,” Jesus told them. “No one who comes to me will ever be hungry, and no one who believes in me will ever be thirsty again.  But as I told you, you’ve seen me, and yet you do not believe.”  John 6:31-36
The Watchtower is always chasing “new light”, since they desire a “sign” to follow.  So, they made one up, that requires “feeding”. 
“Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him: We ask you, brothers and sisters,  not to be easily upset or troubled, either by a prophecy or by a message or by a letter supposedly from us, alleging that the day of the Lord has come. 
1914
 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way. For that day will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessnessis revealed, the man doomed to destruction.  He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he sitsin God’s temple, proclaiming that he himself is God.   2 Thess 2:1-4
The elder body “representing” the anointed priesthood – the Temple of God.  1 Pet 2:5,9; 1 Cor 3:16,17; Eph 2:20-22  “Exalts”?  Yes.  God’s priesthood must obey the elder body, or they are ousted.  John 16:2
JWs are like those who chased after Jesus once he fed them with literal, perishable, bread.
“When the crowd saw that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they got into the boats and went to Capernaum looking for Jesus.  When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?”
Jesus answered, “Truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate the loaves and were filled.  Don’t work for the food that perishes but for the food that lasts for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set his seal of approval on him.”  John 6:24-27
He is speaking of perfect spiritual food, not seen with the eye but discerned as holding the promise of life. The GB cannot obtain this food, to share with JWs.  They are not connected to the source, but they make JWs “work” for it, nonetheless.
“May we be diligent in partaking of all the spiritual food we receive through Jehovah’s organization.”  Wt 13/4/13
"Jesus promised that he would sustain them with nourishing spiritual food.” Wt. 04/3/1
For the believers in Christ; yes, he did.  But not through men who continually concoct perishable “new light”. 
“The timely spiritual food we receive is proof that Jesus, the Head of the congregation, is keeping his promise to feed us.”  Wt 13/7/15
No, it is not proof; since “new light” rots.  Matt 7:18; 12:33
 “Consider what makes it possible for the faithful and discreet slave to provide timely, nutritious spiritual food. “I shall make you have insight and instruct you in the way you should go,” says Jehovah. He adds: “I will give advice with my eye upon you.” (Ps. 32:8) Yes, Jehovah provides direction to the slave. We can therefore have full confidence in the Scriptural insight, understanding, and guidance that we receive from the slave.” Wt 09/2/15
They always throw in that word, “timely”, to cover the need to make “timely” changes.  It appears God’s insight and instruction must be short-lived; as if changes at a whim. 1 Sam 15:29
Once a light bulb goes out, darkness creeps in enough to shake one’s confidence in where they are stepping, until the bulb is replaced with a new one.  Jesus’ “light” never dims and never goes out.  “I am the light of the world. Anyone who follows me will never walk in the darkness but will have the light of life.”  John 8:12 
 “Of course, Jesus did not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food.:” W 17/2
He did promise his slaves who are faithful, perfect spiritual food, that would last; but not to a “wicked slave”.  Matt 24:48-51  They are blaming Christ in their excuse; yet change “faithful slave” to “wicked slave” and it becomes a true statement. 
Deception in its ‘true’ form.
“Remain in me, and I in you. Just as a branch is unable to produce fruit by itself unless it remains on the vine, neither can you unless you remain in me. “ John 15:4
“The ax is already at the root of the trees. Therefore, every tree that doesn’t produce good fruit (that lasts) will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”  Matt 3:10
Gal 1:6-9
 
 

I would also guess that 1914 is here to stay because 
1. WW1, which is "on the ground" evidence as Arauna calls it, (even though originally it was supposed to be Armageddon).
2. Jesu's enthronement was invisible, so can't be disproved.
3. Most Witnesses don't have a clue about how we arrived at 1914 and of those who do, have no clue how we arrive at 607, and the few of those who do, have no clue as to why historians arrive at 587....and those even fewer who do, well...they are too few to make a difference...

I am talking about the interpretation of prophesy, especially about assigning specific dates to specific events.. 
I don't remember listing anything though... I think that must have been someone else

I don't think that's neither a fair nor true assumption at all.

Thanks Nana - I was a coloratura soprano....  I only sing a few of the solo pieces by Handel now that I am 65 years old.  These arias were too low for me when I was younger. Handel's  soprano pieces were written for castrati.  Men sang female parts in those days! You therefore need a long breath for the phrases - something which castrati could easily cope with!
Back to our discussion: I find it so silly that persons on this forum say that a dream by a foreign king cannot represent Jehovah's kingdom - that it will be cut off for seven periods to be ruled by "gentiles"  and then restored.  People here think they know Jehovah better than he knows himself - they think he would not use an image like that!!!   But to my mind it is perfect! 
You see - most gentile kings were often assassinated by family members or their own sons who wanted to take the rulership. Jehovah perfectly preserved Nebuchadnezzar's kingship for him for 7 years - which is really remarkable - the same as he 'guaranteed the continuity' of the Davidic line. It helps us to see Jehovah's hand in the outworking of his purposes.  For what reason would Jehovah preserve a foreigner's personal rulership?  .... if it was not to use it as a picture of something.  Nebuchadnezzar was a nasty tyrant!  His children could easily have taken his place and kept the family line going until the end of  the 70 years. (If I remember correctly Neriglissar was murdered- he only ruled for 4 years.) Jehovah had a purpose for the dream just as he had a purpose for the dreams which Joseph had for a foreign pharaoh.   
There are many examples in the bible where Jehovah used 'unsuitable' people for prophetic pictures. I recall that Jehovah told a prophet to marry a whore and then forgive her whoring ways - she would produce sons who were not his. This would be prophetic of the behavior of israel. 
According to the person's thinking above - Jehovah would never do that!  So we better throw out these bits of the bible ....  Most of Daniel is prophetic anyway..... with history interwoven between the various visions and dreams.
Any case - as I demonstrated above - these people totally disregard the realities on the ground and keep on with 'debates' about unimportant bits (which they of course feel are more important that reality!)  The reality is that there is no other alternative to explain what respected historians have called " the year the world changed - 1914".
They never seem to answer these questions - just ramble on in their own worn out path..... 
Sifting out the gnats (the small bits in their close sightedness) and swallowing all the cockroaches! 
Missing out on the bigger picture!

Exactly! 
You are not specific about what you are describing as "this spiritual food" here. But, just taking your remark generally, I cannot see a problem with any of the five items you list, as long as they are kept in their place and their relative importance understood. In other words, there is no need to "either/or" them.
I believe we will be in the postion described in scripture as needing the way of truth expounded more correctly for some considerable time to come, if not forever. Don't you?
 
 
 
 

But today becomes tomorrow and one day we may be calling this the the manna of old. So really, what you are saying is that what we have now is good enough for the present time, but it could be replaced by something else in the future. In that case, it would be more truthful to call this spiritual food speculations, ideas and conjecture rather than facts and truths. 

Yes. In my imaginary illustration, a coin that had the same date on both sides is giving the accurate minting date on both sides.
That's because I was making an illustration to match VAT 4956 which, on both sides, references the exact date on which the original observations were made. In the case of VAT 4956 it refers specifically to the same date of 568/7 for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar on both sides. The coin illustration was not really about coins, of course, it was an illustration about how honest you might consider me to be if I tried to pass off a coin that clearly said 587 as if it were a coin from 607 using the kinds of tactics I described. In real life, of course, an ancient coin cannot contain a B.C. date, and VAT 4956 is not a coin; it's a "text" or "diary" about a couple dozen astronomical observations. In fact, it's a later copy that has at least one minor error in it (which is one day off). 
VAT 4956 has a couple dozen observations on it, and all of them fit a specific year. It just so happens that all the other observations from Nebuchadnezzar's reign and the observations from all other Neo-Babylonian kings give us the same exact date. So we really don't even need VAT 4956 to see the chronology, but it's nice to know that it's further evidence and none of the evidence contradicts any of the other evidence.
You shouldn't say something like 2+1=4; and then "This" is why 2 dogs +1 dog = 4 dogs. It's true you could claim all kinds of possible alternative endings based on the premise that 2+1=4, but I mean that if your premise is unproven or false, then you should do the opposite of drawing a specific conclusion based on such a premise. Saying "this is why" or "therefore, this is true" after an unproven premise is "heavy-handed."
This can depend on the topic and the level of experience each scholar has in that particular topic area, whether it's the physics of making clay tablets, experience with hundreds of astronomical readings, Assyrian/Mesopotamian linguistics, paleography, etc. If none of the scholars have made any attempt to "discredit" scripture then this other point about finding "common ground" will be meaningless. Wiseman and Grayson have, evidently without even trying, translated documents of the Neo-Babylonian Empire that just happen to contain evidence for a Babylonian chronology that has a common ground with the scriptures. There is no contradiction between the secular chronology of Babylon and the Scriptures. In fact, it is the Watchtower chronology that creates more problems against the Biblical evidence. In effect, then it is the Watchtower chronology that, by comparison, attempts to "discredit" scripture, although I'm sure it's not on purpose. It's just that a higher priority is given to making 1914 appear to be right, than in being concerned about how the theory tends to contradict scripture. I think past posts in this thread and others on the same topic have already highlighted about 5 ways in which this has happened.
VAT 4956 pinpoints Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year to be 568/7. If you can pinpoint his 37th year then you can pinpoint his 18th to be 587/6, right? If you can pinpoint that my 37th year of life was in 1994, then you can also pinpoint that my 18th year was in 1975, right? If you don't know how to do this, you should admit this right away, and someone can always draw a chart.
So your only question is whether you believe that the destruction of Jerusalem was in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, or his 19th year, or some other year if you prefer. No matter which year you prefer, you can pinpoint it to a calendar year in the same way you can pinpoint his 37th year to be 568/7 from VAT 4956.
Outside of that, why should anyone care what Carl Jonsson says? Why should anyone care what any ex-JWs say? There are probably a MILLION ex-JWs (literally) who don't even know who this Carl Jonsson is, and could rightly care nothing about 607 or 587. What Carl Jonsson says is no different than what every other modern Neo-Babylonian scholar says about Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. It just depends on whether you choose Nebuchadnezzar's year 18 or 19 for the destruction of Jerusalem. Which year do you choose, by the way? For some reason this was a difficult question for 607 promoters when it came up the last few times.
Of course, the reason is obvious why someone should need to try to tie something to a specific person known as an "apostate" even if a million other non-religious persons and all other Neo-Babylonian scholars believe the same thing. Just for fun, everyone should look at a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Notice especially the ones under "Red Herring" and "ad hominem" including these, like, "poisoning the well":
Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument. Poisoning the well – a subtype of ad hominem presenting adverse information about a target person with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says. Abusive fallacy – a subtype of ad hominem that verbally abuses the opponent rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument. Appeal to motive – a subtype of ad hominem that dismisses an idea by questioning the motives of its proposer. Traitorous critic fallacy (ergo decedo) – a subtype of ad hominem where a critic's perceived affiliation is seen as the underlying reason for the criticism and the critic is asked to stay away from the issue altogether. Appeal to fear – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side Appeal to spite – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party. Judgmental language – insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment Good point. The FAITH of the Bible Student shouldn't depend on secular chronology. Yet, so many Witnesses think that the secular date 607 must somehow be "credited" to be true -- yet 607 is completely dependent on SECULAR chronology. To be sure, it requires that we use secular chronology and then requires that we make a mistake in the way we use it, but we can't get anywhere close to 607 without depending on secular chronology. The Watchtower even uses the premise that 539 is a kind of ABSOLUTE secular date from which we then count 70 years farther back to get the secular date for the time period starting 70 years earlier. Yet, you are right in your implication that no true Bible Student should need such secular dates like 539 and 607 for his faith.
The term "absolute" is used by archaeologists and astronomers who study historical texts like these to describe the ability to tie this entire period from Nebuchadnezzar's father, Nebuchadnezzar and down to Cyrus and beyond to specific years or ranges of years in our calendar, such as, 587, 597, 607, 617, 539, 529, etc. They do not use the term "absolute" because we need to put "faith" in it. The Watchower, on the other hand, has used the term "absolute" "reliable" and "pivotal" with respect to such secular dates like 539 with the idea that we should have "faith" in them -- that we have reason to "believe" in them.
You or Allen may have to come out of the tentative zone then and just explain clearly what it is you are trying to say. I believe I caught some of it from a set of previous posts, and Allen agreed to that part that I said I understood, but he also said he wasn't ready to present the entire theory yet. I can respect that, but it's not useful to make guesses here, because the entire thing could become a moving target until the theory is "nailed down" so to speak.
It's possible that Allen once thought of "scholar JW" as someone with the background to help validate or invalidate the theory through shared resources. If so, I can see another reason for a further delay. If asked, I'll be glad to see if I can help, as I have offered before. But otherwise I'll have no more to say on those ideas until the theory is spelled out. I should also mention again that I am offering to look up resources, test astronomical data, help look up variations in published translations, or any number of things. And as several others here can attest, I have had such conversations "on the side" completely in private, completely confidentially, without ever publicizing names or any of the content of those conversations. One such side conversation on this forum now contains 203 private posts as of today.

Sure. Would a coin that had a date on both sides give you an accurate minting date?
This is exactly why I shouldn’t mean anything that doesn’t have the possibilities of having many alternative endings. However, this statement implies a heavy-handed use of having another view forced to be accepted.
Then with more of a confirmation, scholars view shouldn’t be heightened over one another. The credibility lies with those scholars that can find common ground with scripture, not those that make every attempt to “discredit” scripture.
Let’s look at this illustration with the eyes of Carl Olof Jonsson. Where does it in VAT4956 *pinpoint* the destruction of Jerusalem in 587BC in this tablet? Remember his argument is precision. Then, it became a relying point for ex-witnesses. His message was lost when he decided to rearrange scripture to fit secular ideology.
This implies as far as secular chronology has shown, the dates implied for his reign began in 605BC. Does that in itself mean its absolute? Where should the *faith* of a BIBLE STUDENT reside?
If this view is the case, then I hope those that argue against the WT chronology will understand, the Babylonian Chronicle tablets actually “help” to confirm certain pieces of an incomplete puzzle.
Then we can agree that the only cost associated with any presentation is the errors of secular scholars that don’t understand scripture. However, what would be another reason for people to call someone King? Seeing past posts for myself. I believe ALLEN SMITH and ALL those numbering accounts, possibly due to deletion as I suspect, was raised as well.
 
 
 
 
 

Wait, what ...?
Honestly, your whole post is so muddled I don't know what you are trying to argue. 
(Thank you, @JW Insider for responding to the 'tampering' thing, etc.)

Sure. I know that I have already quoted him in a previous conversation on this topic, which I will show below. But I will also clip a picture of the paragraph I am referring to on page 333 of Furuli's book so you can see it for yourself:
Here's what Furuli says on page 333:
Conclusion
The following principal conclusions can be drawn on the basis of the discussion of
VAT 4956: The Diary may be a genuine tablet made in Seleucid times, but in modern
times someone has tampered with some of the cuneiform signs, or, the tablet was made in
modern times; the obverse side was made by the help of a mold, and the signs on the
reverse side and the edges were written by someone. Because of the excellent fit of all 13
lunar positions in 588/87, there are good reasons to believe that the lunar positions
represent observations from that year, and that the original lunar tablet that was copied in
Seleucid times was made in 588/87. Because so many of the planetary positions are
approximately correct, but not completely correct, there are good reasons to believe that
they represent backward calculations by an astrologer who believed that 568/67 was year
37 of Nebuchadnezzar II. Thus, the lunar positions seem to be original observations from
588/87 and the planetary positions seem to be backward calculations for the positions of
the planets in 568/67.

Fine, but I was making a "coin" more analogous to VAT4956 which has the date on both sides.
"This" is why? I think you should mean the opposite. It's because VAT4956 is not analogous to your undated coin, that VAT4956 holds a very high value in pinpointing an absolute date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year AND Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year. And furthermore we have no real question about the actual date that VAT4956 pinpoints for his 29th year, his 5th year, his 35th year, his 37th year, his 8th year, his 1st year, his accession year, etc., because every Babylonian text is dated consistently.
Since VAT4956 pinpoints Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year to be 568 then it is pinpointing his accession year to be 568+37=605. It is therefore pinpointing his first year to be 604. It is pinpointing all these years:
Acc  = 605 1st  = 604 2nd = 603 3rd = 602 4th = 601 5th = 600 6th = 599 7th = 598 8th = 597 9th = 596 10th = 595 11th = 594 12th = 593 13th = 592 14th = 591 15th = 590 16th = 589 17th =  588 18th = 587 19th = 586 20th = 585  . . . 27th = 578  . . . 37th = 568 So VAT4956 pinpoints every year of Nebuchadnezzar from his accession to his 37th year.
Yes. It does discredit 607, because it means that Nebuchadnezzar wasn't even a king in 607. It also means that his 18th year was 587. So it's a matter of whether you believe the Bible when it speaks of the events that took place in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. How could Nebuchadnezzar be in his 18th year two years before he started reigning?
You can't use the expression "This is why" after stating a false or unproven premise. You create a "non sequitur." It's like if you had said you found a documentary showing that World War 2 started in Europe in 1939  while Roosevelt (FDR) was in his second term as U.S. President. And from that documentary, you decide you can make an unproven or false premise that therefore WW2 might have started when Hitler invaded Poland in 1929 which was during Herbert Hoover's presidency. For evidence of this false premise, you claim that it's all a matter of scholarly opinion. In fact, historical evidence is not always a matter of scholarly opinion. You don't need to be a scholar to know that Hoover was president in 1929 and that it had to be Roosevelt who was concurrent with Hitler's rise. You can't just move FDR's presidency back to 1929. There is too much evidence against it no matter what kind of scholar makes the claim.
This makes no sense. Wiseman and Grayson are both linguistic scholars who have catalogued, translated and published hundreds of Babylonian/Mesopotamian texts from discovered tablets, bricks, temple walls, etc. Furuli, for example, never questioned their scholarship, nor did he make a coherent theory or argument based on linguistic scholarship. His argument is based on trying to denigrate some of the data on the VAT4956 tablet by saying it was tampered with, even though ALL the evidence says otherwise. The rest of his argument is to say that a portion of the lunar data on the VAT4956 tablet is a better fit for a different year, even though the data says otherwise. So he never invokes "linguistic scholarship." He invokes an astronomy program, which he uses inconsistently. He claims NOT to be a professional astronomer, and is therefore invoking AMATEUR status for his claim, not the status of a scholar on which to base his claims.
There has never been a problem on that count. The Babylonian data agrees with the chronology of Kings, Chronicles, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah. Individuals might have a specific interpretation that they might WISH had been confirmed by the Babylonian data, but there has never been a contradiction between the Babylonian account and the Bible account. The Babylonian secular data helps to corroborate the Bible account, a fact which can help more people to see the Bible as a trustworthy historical account.
This proposal is interesting and is quite similar to what has already been presented tentatively by Allen Smith and some other names associated with his accounts. But it tends to start with a date and then tries to match circumstances to that date -- which is backwards. The Bible doesn't just say it was in Nebuchadnezzar's time that Jerusalem was attacked, but it says it was in his 18th year. It says that the siege was about 10 years prior to that. The Bible account even indicates prior incursions and deportations before the siege. Of course, these other accounts associated with Allen Smith have also tentatively raised the possibility that the Bible scribe is making a mistake, having written down this evidence years after it had occurred, and that the years could belong to the father Nabopolassar. The year 607 could have therefore matched the 19th/18th year of Nabopolassar, not Nebuchadnezzar, he has indicated. Of course the entire purpose of this proposal is to save 607 even if it effectively ends the Judean king on the throne shortly after Josiah's death in 609.
It can save, 607, and therefore save 1914, but at what cost?

That’s understandable. However, what if one side of a coin only showed a face without a date, and the other side did? WouldnÂ’t we have to learn the history of that person on the coin to come to a reasonable conclusion? The United States still uses the images of the founding fathers. Can we guarantee, a 100% certainty with a currency of 1925 versus 1975 if it had no dates of usage? versus the date, it was printed by the mint.
This is why VAT4956 holds little value to the destruction of Jerusalem with the increments of 18-19 years. It works both ways. The only reasonable conclusion we can offer with this tablet is the 37th year coincides when Nebuchadnezzar rushed home to take over his fatherÂ’s kingdom in 605BC. That in itself doesnÂ’t discredit 607BC since the beginning siege of Jerusalem started by historical reckoning in 589BC. Keep in mind, I'm using terminology outside of the Lunar/Solar calendar.
This is why, as with any historical evidence, it becomes a matter of scholarly, opinion. Meaning, there shouldnÂ’t be more weight placed on the credibility, given by D.J Wiseman or A.K. Grayson by having a different perspective in scholarly chronology than that of a linguist scholar. What counts, how many of these secular observations can we use to agree with scriptures chronology if it has become that important for any one individual to know.
Remember ABC 5 puts the father and son around the Zargos Mountains around 607/8BC. Does that mean Nebuchadnezzar needed to be there for the “destruction of Jerusalem” in 607BC? Scripture tells a different story of how God SENT Judah’s neighboring kingdoms to DESTROY it. But why state “in King Nebuchadnezzar’s time”. Could it be the *scribe* wrote down this evidence years “after” it had occurred? Or is there something that prompted this person to recognize Prince Nebuchadnezzar as a King around that time. History shows, he was made “general” of his own army around 610BC. Also, what is the significance of the ancient cities Haran, and Hamah around 609/10BC? It would imply Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar were chasing after their enemies around that time with the end battle of Carchemish in 605BC. So, 605BC was a very busy year for this King. But, how could he roam freely in the Hatti land if he didn’t have *control* over all that land? Meaning, before 605BC.

I'm not attempting to respond to the points you made in response to @Ann O'Maly. Still, I'm glad you pointed out some of the things you did. I think these points are often missed. I think that it's easy for people to think that Furuli has somehow given good evidence that VAT 4956 actually points to 588 as Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year. This would be pretty much the same as saying that 607 is correct because: 588+37-18=607. But 100% of scholars who have studied the tablet believe that the majority of the astronomical dates on the calendar point to 568 as Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year. This would be pretty much the same as saying that 607 is incorrect because 568+37-18=587.
I think that a lot of people still don't know that Furuli actually claims that the MOST valuable/critical of the astronomical dates (readings/observations) on this tablet point to 587 as his 18th year, and that the tablet therefore mostly shows that 607 is incorrect. To repeat, the point that is often missed is this:
FURULI admits that the most valuable/critical readings on VAT4956 show 587 as the correct date for Jerusalem's destruction. FURULI admits that most valuable/critical readings on VAT4956 show 607 as the incorrect date for the destruction of Jerusalem. I think a lot of people are still surprised that Furuli actually admits this. This is why, even after [incorrectly] claiming that SOME the data on the tablet, the lunar data, fits the WT 607 date, he still has to overcome the MOST valuable and critical of the data, the planetary data.  So even after making a claim about the lunar data which proves to be demonstrably false, he still has to claim that the tablet might have been tampered with anyway!
How silly is that? If he still has to admit that much of the tablet's data still goes against the WTS 607 date, then why go to the trouble of making a claim that denigrates only a part of the data? If he can't get rid of ALL the data and is stuck with admitting that he still needs a second theory that the text was tampered with, then why worry about the first theory, that only covers a portion? How would anyone know that it wasn't the lunar data that had been tampered with to make them look like they might support the WTS 607 date? (Of course, neither side was actually tampered with, and both sides actually show what Furuli only admits about all the lunar data on one side: that the tablet shows that the WTS 607 date is incorrect.)
------------------------
Imagine how honest you would think I was if I had a coin that had 587 stamped on both sides. One side is clearly and unmistakably stamped 587, but the other side is a bit worn out, so I go around telling people that this coin might actually be from 607. Here's my imaginary conversation about such a coin:
YOU: Why do you say that this coin is actually from 607, when everyone who has studied it says that it reads: 587? ME: Because if you look at the worn-out side, and squint just right, you can see that a 5 looks a bit like a 6, and if you put a line through a 0 it can look like an 8, so I think date on the worn-out side of the coin is actually 607. YOU: But if you flip the coin over, it says 587 even bigger and more clearly on that other side. ME: That's because someone in modern times must have tampered with the coin. YOU: Then how do you know they didn't tamper with the worn-out side? ME: Because 1914!