JW Insider

On 1/1/2018 at 7:18 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

In fact, they actually empowered you. For they didn't merely ax a meeting. They replaced it with a Family Study' night over which you, as family head, preside. It is on the premise that you, as head, know specifically what your family will most benefit from, and can tailor your family study to that. There is no elder at all to monitor what you say at this meeting

Exactly! Have to say that this is something to take advantage of.

*** w11 3/15 pp. 11-12 pars. 20-21 Receive God’s Spirit, Not the World’s ***

• 20 Know the Bible well. When resisting Satan’s direct attack on his faith, Jesus quoted the Scriptures. (Luke 4:1-13) When confronting his religious opposers, Jesus used God’s Word as his authority. (Matt. 15:3-6) Jesus’ whole life revolved around knowing and fulfilling God’s law. (Matt. 5:17) We too want to keep feeding our mind with the faith-strengthening Word of God. (Phil. 4:8, 9) Finding time for personal and family study may prove to be a challenge for some of us. Rather than find time, though, we may have to make time.—Eph. 5:15-17.
• 21 “The faithful and discreet slave” has helped us to have time for personal and family study by arranging for a Family Worship evening each week. (Matt. 24:45) Are you making wise use of this arrangement? To help you gain the mind of Christ, could you include in your study session a systematic consideration of what Jesus taught on subjects of your choice? You could use the Watch Tower Publications Index to locate informative discussions of the subject you are pursuing. For example, from 2008 to 2010, the public edition of this magazine carried a series of 12 articles that had the theme “What We Learn From Jesus.” You may want to use these articles as a basis for study. Beginning in 2006, Awake! carried the feature “How Would You Answer?” This quiz was designed to help broaden and deepen your knowledge of God’s Word. Why not include material from such features in your Family Worship program from time to time?

Can't see anything wrong with these suggestions. Don't care what the original motives were. I noticed that it freed up a couple of evenings at the Hall so that a 4th congregation could immediately share the same Hall with plenty of time between meetings, when it was difficult for 3 congregations to do that previously.

9 hours ago, Arauna said:

This is not about the "earthly Jerusalem"  it was about an establishment of the kingdom in 'heaven' - which was an earthly kingdom before in the time of Israel - when Sedekia was the last king.

I agree. I don't know why, but @scholar JW and even some of the accounts tied to @AllenSmith have brought up this old idea that the 1914 Gentile Times doctrine was also proved to be correct through Zionist activities. I know that some people still believe this, but clearly you and I do not, and the Watchtower publications have provided a lot of good scriptural information to explain why it's not about earthly Jerusalem.

I'm guessing that "scholar JW" and "Allen Smith" bring it up because they are aware that this was the meaning of "Gentile Times" prior to 1914, and they realize that in order to say that we predicted it in advance, that something should have happened to earthly Israel. After all, the only prediction about 1914 that we can still claim to have gotten right from "decades in advance" of 1914 is the prediction that the Gentile Times would end that year. All the predictions that 1914 would be the end, and not the beginning of the times of distress had to finally be thrown away. All we had to do, of course, is change the meaning of "Gentile Times" so we could claim that we at least got that part right. There is a level of hubris, presumptuousness, haughtiness, ego, and pride which has always been a part of Bible prophecy predictions. They fail 99% of the time, which then results in either humility or dishonesty. You can guess what most religious leaders choose.

9 hours ago, Arauna said:

And these people will be adamant that there is no proof for 607 and will quote all the defective sources to prove their case.

Every honest person who has looked carefully at the evidence has admitted that there is no proof for 607. If you read the "Chronology" article in the Insight book more carefully, you will realize that even the WTS is admitting that they are basing their own belief about the secular date 607 on the same defective sources. It has nothing to do with a belief related to fleshly Israel in modern times.

9 hours ago, Arauna said:

Any case - referring to Russel - again and again - when this group of people were the  (Elijah) who prepared the way for the slave in 1914 - as brought out in our new publication.

Yes, Russell is being brought up again and again in the publications. A kind of resurgence especially since the 2014 centenary. I'm in favor of learning from the past so as not to repeat mistakes, to choose the good and discard the bad, and learn humility, and learn how Jehovah can accomplish his purposes through imperfect people, often in ways they don't even understand at the time. We can appreciate the blessings they enjoyed, especially as they overcame so many obstacles as a very small group which has now grown to millions. But I am not in favor of re-writing history and putting a false spin on it just so we can try to attach a measure of that success to ourselves. It's like a person who longs for the days of old, their "glory days" which is fine up to a point, but loses its good, encouraging effect when they start enhancing that history with "adjusted" stories that sound more impressive.

9 hours ago, Arauna said:

Any case - please answer:  When is the fulfillment of  Revelation 12: 7-13. No long answer needed ..... just give short answer - please. 

Revelation was written to be an encouragement in all time periods when Christians sigh and groan through the present system of things, filled with war, pestilence, famine and death, and still therefore eagerly call out "Come! Lord Jesus."

Christians were given a "taste" of the glory of Jesus' kingship during the activities and proofs of the first century, and that glimpse should be enough for us to realize that we don't need to know everything that is going on behind the scenes in order to "persevere" until Jesus is manifested again at the end, the parousia (sudden, highly visible royal visitation) the synteleia (final conclusion; end of all things), the manifestation, the revelation, the judgment. He appeared "once for all time" as King and Priest according to the manner of Melchizedek, King and Priest. Revelation provides a vision, based on the glimpses of the glory revealed in the first century, and reveals how much greater and more real that glory must be in the "behind-the-scenes" heavenly enactments of those events, both past, present and future. In this way, Revelation brings the promises even closer to us so we can keep it close in mind.

Revelation is a parallel, in vision form, to the same admonition to endure to the end that we get in many other passages of scripture which are not in vision form. For example:

• (1 Timothy 6:11-16) 11 However, you, O man of God, flee from these things. But pursue righteousness, godly devotion, faith, love, endurance, and mildness. 12 Fight the fine fight of the faith; get a firm hold on the everlasting life for which you were called and you offered the fine public declaration in front of many witnesses. 13 Before God, who preserves all things alive, and Christ Jesus, who as a witness made the fine public declaration before Pontius Pilate, I give you orders 14 to observe the commandment in a spotless and irreprehensible way until the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which the happy and only Potentate will show in its own appointed times. He is the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords, 16 the one alone having immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal might. Amen.

Note that the foundation here is that Jesus is already King of Kings [same point made in Revelation 1:5; 17:12], yet we continue to endure faithfully until a future manifestion or revelation of that same Kingship, when it can again be said that "Jehovah has become King!" based on the fulfilled promise of the Kingdom through Christ when he battles the nations, brings them to ruin [true End of Gentile Times], judging and rewarding the resurrected dead.

• (Revelation 11:17, 18) . . .“We thank you, Jehovah God, the Almighty, the one who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and begun ruling as king. 18 But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time came for the dead to be judged and to reward your slaves the prophets and the holy ones and those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”

Revelation 12 is this same history of Jesus' appointment and divine protection in vision form, using Biblical imagery from the past. It provides assurance that the promises will come no matter what obstacles arise, even death. Here is the same promise in non-vision form:

• (Romans 8:31-39) 31 What, then, are we to say about these things? If God is for us, who will be against us? 32 Since he did not even spare his own Son but handed him over for us all, will he not also, along with him, kindly give us all other things? 33 Who will file accusation against God’s chosen ones? God is the One who declares them righteous. 34 Who will condemn them? Christ Jesus is the one who died, yes, more than that the one who was raised up, who is at the right hand of God and who also pleads for us. 35 Who will separate us from the love of the Christ? Will tribulation or distress or persecution or hunger or nakedness or danger or sword? 36 Just as it is written: “For your sake we are being put to death all day long; we have been accounted as sheep for slaughtering.” 37 On the contrary, in all these things we are coming off completely victorious through the one who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life nor angels nor governments nor things now here nor things to come nor powers 39 nor height nor depth nor any other creation will be able to separate us from God’s love that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

That "short period of time" might make sense to you as a period of 100 or 200 years, depending on how long the overlapping generation is defined. But there is nothing in scripture that says it is one "generation," or that it is less than 2,000 years or even less than 1 year. Perhaps it is the same time period that is also called "one hour" as the kingdoms being brought to ruin think that they must cooperate against the Lamb if they are to have any chance of survival:

• (Revelation 17:12-14) 12 “The ten horns that you saw mean ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but they do receive authority as kings for one hour with the wild beast. 13 These have one thought, so they give their power and authority to the wild beast. 14 These will battle with the Lamb, but because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them. Also, those with him who are called and chosen and faithful will do so.”

I do not claim that this way of reading Revelation is the right way or true way, but it brings me comfort and encouragement, probably in a similar way to the way in which it brought comfort and encouragement to the first readers of Revelation in Ephesus, Pergamum, etc. I don't claim to know any more about the signs or the times and seasons than they did. If you find comfort in believing that Jesus took his full power and kingship in 1914, that's fine, too. Although I'm sure that, by comparison, you will be in even more awe of the power of that kingdom over the times of the gentile nations when that power is more fully manifested. And I'm sure you appreciate the glimpses of that power and glory that Jesus revealed in the past as recorded in scripture. So in this we are not so different, and I do not think there is any value in demeaning whatever meaning you currently give to this intermediate manifestation of that kingdom in 1914.

But with respect to honesty about the past, we do know that there is no evidence for the date 607. But, if one wishes, they can still find other reasons to look back at 1914. For many of us, I can tell it gives us a sense of superiority and self-righteousness that we, of all peoples, were able to predict 1914, decades in advance. But exactly what were we able to predict?

We were able to predict that it meant Armageddon would be completed in the surrounding months, that the great tribulation would be completed, and that it would usher in a time of peace before 1915. And, as the end of the times of power given to the nations (Gentile Times) it would also see the collapse into chaos of all nations and political institutions of all kinds except for the nation of Israel -- the Gentiles had had truly their day. It was "the end of the World" in that sense. So, in order to continue to be right and not admit a failure, we (WTS) loudly proclaimed that the "World had ended in 1914." That worked well through the war, but soon lost its value as 100% of the predictions for 1918 failed, too. We continued to say that Armageddon had actually started in 1914, because all we had to do was keep extending the meaning of Armageddon and weakening its Biblical meaning so that it was more related to the fight between "Labor and Capital." We also had a clever reason for continuing to say that the "great tribulation" had started in 1914, but that the break in the tribulation was the same one Jesus predicted saying that the days were cut short "on account of the chosen ones." This explanation was in effect when I was baptized, and didn't change until a few years later:

*** w99 5/1 p. 16 par. 11 “Let the Reader Use Discernment” ***

• However, in later years we have come to see things differently. On Thursday, July 10, 1969, at the “Peace on Earth” International Assembly in New York City, F. W. Franz, then vice president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, gave an electrifying talk. In reviewing the previous understanding of Jesus’ prophecy, Brother Franz said: “The explanation was given that the ‘great tribulation’ had begun in 1914 C.E. and that it was not allowed to run its full course then but God stopped World War I in November of 1918. From then on God was allowing an interval for the activity of his anointed remnant of elect Christians before he let the final part of the ‘great tribulation’ resume at the battle of Armageddon.”

Now, the only remaining portion of the prediction that we claim we got right was the prediction that the Gentile Times would end in 1914. We still claim that we were right about that, but had to change the definition of the term "Gentile Times" in order to keep claiming that we at least got that part right.

So, hopefully, you can see that I am only interested in the  repeated misuse of the doctrine by which we like to claim superiority because we wish to be "right at all costs." If it's at the cost of honesty and integrity, we should clean it up. I wonder how many people that we talk to in our ministry have been able to see through the false claims and hubris and this becomes the reason they give no further respect for the wonderful truths that we also could share with them.

5 hours ago, scholar JW said:

WT Chronology has been consistent with its value not only in Bible Chronology but also in terms of its significance to Bible Prophecy and Theology.for after all, it introduced the 'Gentile Times'.

It's fine to believe this, but it's false to claim that the evidence supports it. We have already gone through dozens of examples showing that the Watchtower's chronology is inconsistent. Of course, even more inconsistency is introduced through mixing up the Gentile Times into this. You may have missed previous discussions on that particular topic.

5 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The evidence for 607 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem and the beginning of the Exile is well established not only from the biblical perspective and its chronological data but also from NB Chronology with a little 'fine tuning'because of a shortfall or 'Gap' of twenty years.

The Bible chronology fits the archaeological evidence from NB chronology. There is no evidence for 607. To get anywhere near 607 you have to accept 539, which you have no right to do if you are going to reject 539 by claiming that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year was 607. If you are honest, you are forced to reject 539 if you accept 607. You can't cherry pick a range of dates that are interwoven and interlocked through tens of thousands of tablets and at least 10 other completely independent lines of evidence. You can claim whatever you want, but you'd have to show evidence if you are honest.

5 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Further, our Chronology is suitably anchored to the well established pivotal date 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon thus giving this scheme much scholarly credence whereas most other schemes are based on Absolute Dates that lie outside the NB Period.

Your chronology is not at all anchored to 539. By choosing 607 as Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year you have rejected 539. Claiming you still want it after you reject it is dishonest. This is probably a difficult concept for anyone who has not really studied the data, and I suspect now, for many reasons, that you have never studied the data. This would explain why you have failed to present or counter any evidence and have merely repeated the mistaken logic and declared it "wondrous."

5 hours ago, scholar JW said:

WT Chronology has the added strength of its simplicity and avoids much of the technical issues of Calendation that prevents many schemes from positing fixed dates for various biblical events, the best example of such confusion is the 587/86 BCE controversy which remains unresolved to this day.

Your repetition of this particular point tells me again that you have not paid attention even to the Watchtower's explanation or have decided to use the fact that the Bible gives two different counting methods as an opportunity to try to bluster those who will not look into it for themselves. Bluster in this case would be dishonest, but you have failed to give any evidence that you mean to do anything else.

5 hours ago, scholar JW said:

In contrast, our Chronology has a scheme for the Divided Monarchy that is workable and intelligible, first published in 1944 in The Kingdom Is At Hand .

That's fine. But it's meaningless with respect to the Watchtower's misuse of the NB period which is unintelligible and unworkable.

5 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The well-established date 607 BCE secures the modern date 1914 CE as the time of the birth of God's Kingdom which contextualizes the subject eschatologically in harmony with the view of prominent German Theologians in the earlier part of the 20th century who pioneered scholarship about the Kingdom.

The date 607 is not well-established until at least a tiny piece of evidence can be shown. You have failed to show evidence, but you apparently wish to continue blustering that it is "wondrous" and "well-established." Although you might have a doctrine that makes the same mistakes of prominent German theologians, it is still out of harmony with the words of Jesus. Jesus said that the parousia would come as a surprise and that the times and seasons were only in the Father's jurisdiction. Besides it is even out of harmony with the German theologians in that the Watchtower tied the predictions for 1914 with the reinstatement of the Israelite nation and the demise of all other nations and institutions in 1914. The failure of Israel to dominate in 1914 showed that the Gentile Times prediction failed. John Aquila Brown did not tie the Gentile Times to the 2,520 years having noticed that Revelation only ties the number 1,260 to Jesus words about the Gentile Times. The Bible never mentions "SEVEN Gentile Times." (The closest is Revelation's mention of THREE AND ONE-HALF Gentile Times.)

5 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The date 1914 according to historians is the most celebrated date in our modern history and providentially it marked the end of the Gentile times again a subject on which Christendom's most prominent Clergy fixated on especially with the capture of Jerusalem by Allied forces in 1917 CE.

The capture of Jerusalem by Allied forces in 1917 is a direct admission of the failure of the Gentile Times doctrine. If the Gentile Times had truly ended in 1914, there would be no Gentile forces to capture Jerusalem after 1914. Russell's fixation on the topic of the Jews repatriation to Palestine (Zionism) made him (in)famous, but all those predictions failed, and Rutherford finally dropped them all after 1926.

5 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Such recent studies in Historiography, in my opinion, undergird our interpretation of the Danielic and Lukan descriptions of the 'seven times'-'Gentile Times' beginning in 607 BCE and ending in 1914 CE.

His study doesn't support our theory at all. Also, Jesus made it clear that the Gentile Times had not started before his own day which would be necessary for the Watchtower's theory to work. More importantly, the Bible undermines the Watchtower's theory. 607 is pseudo-archaeology, but it fails on every other point, too.

5 hours ago, scholar JW said:

In short, our Chronology has no 'dead ends' it is prophetic, build faith, adds life and flesh to biblical history. It alone works whereas all other schemes fail.

Jesus said that this kind of prophecy would be wrong, so I assume that if it builds faith, it must be the wrong kind of faith. Faith in a date, perhaps. Paul said we need nothing to be written to us about dates because the parousia comes as a surprise, like a thief in the night. And the worst part has been all the dead ends that have resulted from our chronological speculations over the years. So far, all the schemes have failed. It's surely better to listen to words of Jesus. He said that if someone claims to be able to show that the end is near, not to go after him. He said that no one would know the day or the hour. He said the parousia will be as sudden as visible as lightning. Surely, we have so many more valuable doctrines to focus on rather than disrespectfully toying with these words of Jesus.

• (2 Peter 3:8-15) 8 However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 9 Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with YOU because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance. 10 Yet Jehovah’s day will come as a thief, . . . 11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought YOU to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 awaiting and keeping close in mind the presence [PAROUSIA] of the day of Jehovah, t. . . .14 Hence, beloved ones, since YOU are awaiting these things, do YOUR utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished and in peace. 15 Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul according to the wisdom given him also wrote YOU,

10 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

Here is a longer version of your second  Insight book quote just to clarify that it was the 11th year of Zedekiah's reign  and that Insight: was not referring to yet another  different regnal period for Nebuchadnezzar-

Yes, a lot of Witnesses are quick to deny this because they don't realize that the Watchtower has promoted two different regnal periods for Nebuchadnezzar. And it's completely unnecessary if you are willing to accept the Bible's timeline. The Bible's timeline is corroborated by archaeological evidence, too. But the Bible's timeline is not that helpful for pushing 1914, so it's adjusted here to put more emphasis on 607.

And it wasn't just done for Nebuchadnezzar. A lot of Witnesses are probably not aware that the timeline has been tampered with so that Jehoiakim has "yet another different regnal period" too.

Your quote from page 463 is actually one I was about to include because it very clearly shows some of the points I was making. Thanks. If the 11th year of Zedekiah marked a regnal period for Nebuchadnezzar that started in 607, then this really is "yet another different regnal period for Nebuchadnezzar" that started in 625. Don't you agree? The Insight book is numbering Nebuchadnezzar's reign from two different accession years: 625 and 607. Neither is correct, of course, from the perspective of the Biblical and historical evidence. The point is clearly to avoid the idea that Nebuchadnezzar was taking exiles from this early in his reign, which would lend support to the idea in Jeremiah (and Daniel) that the 70 years for Babylon in Jeremiah referred to the period of Babylon's greatest domination. Of course, Daniel also agrees with the Babylonian archaeological records here, too, which state that Babylon was taking things from Judea from the very earliest years of his reign, or even before, during his father's reign.

And, as I said, the Watchtower chronology also prefers to give Jehoiakim "yet another different regnal period" because this one also fits the Biblical and secular chronology, but does not fit the Watchtower "chronology" as well. (Here again, the Bible also fits the archaeological evidence in both cases, but this is not as important, evidently, as force-fitting 1914.) Compare these two references from "Insight."

*** it-1 p. 576 Daniel ***

• This was in Jehoiakim’s third year (as tributary king to Babylon), which third year started in the spring of 618 B.C.E. (Da 1:1)

*** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***

• This took place in the fourth year of Judean King Jehoiakim (625 B.C.E.)

Counting from his first year as his accession year, Jehoiakim's third year would have been about 625 B.C.E, not 618 (both Watchtower dates) based on the date range below, where his accession year would be 628, first year 627, second year 626 and third year 625. 625 is of course Watchtower-speak for 605 the same year that Babylon beat both Assyria and Egypt making a last stand together at the battle of Carchemish.

** it-1 p. 1268 Jehoiakim ***

• Jehoiakim’s bad rule of about 11 years (628-618 B.C.E.)

The reason the Watchtower doesn't like the Bible's account here is because it would have Nebuchadnezzar beginning his devastations and depredations in Judea even earlier than 625, which would mean that the 70 years that Jeremiah speaks of for Babylon's domination would clearly be closer to 90 instead of 70 years.

But both Babylonian records and the Bible shows that the devastation began even earlier, from very near the very beginning of the 70 years that the nations would begin serving Babylon. Note:

• (2 Kings 23:36-24:1) 36 Je·hoiʹa·kim was 25 years old when he became king, and he reigned for 11 years in Jerusalem. . . . In Je·hoiʹa·kim’s days King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came against him, and Je·hoiʹa·kim became his servant for three years.. . .

Biblical and secular chronology would put the start of Jehoiakim's reign in about 608 B.C.E, which would be the earliest that Judea under Jehoiakim could have suffered depredations under Nebuchadnezzar. [And no later than 600 to account for 3 years of servitude.] (That's 608+20=628 in Watchtower chronology.)

In fact it was "early in Jehoiakim's reign" that Jeremiah already had an eye on Babylon and the destruction of Jerusalem:

*** it-1 p. 1268 Jehoiakim ***

• Early in Jehoiakim’s reign Jeremiah warned that unless the people repented, Jerusalem and her temple would be destroyed.

In fact the incursions by Egypt, Assyria and Babylon could have been nearly simultaneous for a time around 609 up through about 605 as the third year of Jehoiakim would have included the battle of Carchemish, won by Babylon, after a few years of battles in 609 when Egypt's Necho killed Judah's King Josiah, and Babylon overtook Assyria's Harran. Carchemish would would have then been in the third official year of Jehoiakim's reign. The situation fits 2 Kings 24:1-7:

• (2 Kings 24:1, 2, 7) . . .In Je·hoiʹa·kim’s days King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came against him, and Je·hoiʹa·kim became his servant for three years. However, he turned against him and rebelled. 2 Then Jehovah began to send against him marauder bands of Chal·deʹans, Syrians, Moʹab·ites, and Amʹmon·ites.. . . Never again did the king of Egypt venture out of his land, for the king of Babylon had taken all that belonged to the king of Egypt, from the Wadi of Egypt up to the Eu·phraʹtes River.

In those years from 609 through 605, Egypt and Assyria are finally boxed in and Babylon is the primary, ascendant power, having toppled Assyria as the power to fear back in 609, and having been the strongest power for Judea to fear since that date.

And, as mentioned, even though the Watchtower publications cannot accept it, we have the Biblical statement in Daniel which is corroborated in the Babylonian Chronicles:

• (Daniel 1:1-4) 1 In the third year of the kingship of King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah, King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. 2 In time Jehovah gave King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah into his hand, along with some of the utensils of the house of the true God, and he brought them to the land of Shiʹnar to the house of his god. He placed the utensils in the treasury of his god. 3 Then the king ordered Ashʹpe·naz his chief court official to bring some of the Israelites, including those of royal and noble descent. 4 They were to be youths without any defect, of good appearance, endowed with wisdom, knowledge, and discernment, and capable of serving in the king’s palace.. .

Notice that this is a perfect fit for 605 B.C.E. (625 Watchtower date), even though the Watchtower dating scheme does not like the term "third year of Jehoiakim" here. So it has to be reinterpreted in the Watchtower as closer to the end, not the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign.

A portion of the archaeological evidence is mentioned in Insight, where Hattu clearly includes Judea, and 625 is "Watchtower-speak" for 605, and 624 is 604:

*** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***

• Historical notices in cuneiform inscriptions presently available about Nebuchadnezzar somewhat supplement the Bible record. They state that it was in the 19th year of Nabopolassar’s reign that he assembled his army, as did his son Nebuchadnezzar, then crown prince. Both armies evidently functioned independently, and after Nabopolassar went back to Babylon within a month’s time, Nebuchadnezzar successfully warred in mountainous territory, later returning to Babylon with much spoil. During the 21st year of Nabopolassar’s reign, Nebuchadnezzar marched with the Babylonian army to Carchemish, there to fight against the Egyptians. He led his forces to victory. This took place in the fourth year of Judean King Jehoiakim (625 B.C.E.).—Jer 46:2.

  The inscriptions further show that news of his father’s death brought Nebuchadnezzar back to Babylon, and on the first of Elul (August-September), he ascended the throne. In this his accession year he returned to Hattu, and “in the month Shebat [January-February, 624 B.C.E.] he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 100) In 624 B.C.E., in the first official year of his kingship, Nebuchadnezzar again led his forces through Hattu; he captured and sacked the Philistine city of Ashkelon. During his second, third, and fourth years as king he conducted additional campaigns in Hattu, and evidently in the fourth year he made Judean King Jehoiakim his vassal. (2Ki 24:1)

 

 

14 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I am sure JW Insider has more details than I about who wrote it, and why .... but many years later I found out that the book we studied globally, once a week, was written by a group of Brothers as an inside joke to see what they could get away with ... and the entire writing committee was several years DF'd later for apostasy.

You should read it again, and try to see what it was exactly that you didn't get. Be happy to discuss it in a new thread.

Yep. Looks like it got run over with a tank and had acid poured on it.

On 12/27/2017 at 10:04 AM, Gone Fishing said:

The year 607BCE is seen by Jehovah's Witnesses as the coincidence of 2 events: 

1. The desolation of the city of Jerusalem and the land of Judah.
2. The deposition of a king ruling as a representative of the family line of David, actually sitting on Jehovah's throne.

I am still of the opinion that this secular date of 607 doesn't matter that much. Millions of JWs believe it was when the city of Jerusalem and the land of Judea was desolated, and the year the last Davidic king was deposed. For many years now, I've known that there is overwhelming evidence against this date, and overwhelming evidence that it actually happened 20 years after the date that our publications promote. Again, I don't think anyone should make a big deal about a date, and the date is "in the same ball-park," only a couple of decades off. That's less than 1% error for an event that happened about 2,624 years ago.

Millions of Witnesses who accept it do not have any reason to look into it to make sure about it. Why should they? Witnesses should have no reason to be skeptical of the publications, and the publications state very clearly that 607 is the secular date for this Biblical event, without question. I think that it is to be expected, therefore, that most of us will merely defend the date 607 because of the way it is presented in the publications. It appears to be what we should do. It is transparent on this forum that defending 607 has become another way of defending "slave" itself, which has become part of the belief and faith that we naturally defend from a scriptural point of view:

• (1 Peter 3:15) . . ., always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have. . .

So all of us have that scriptural desire and reason to defend our beliefs, which is why I am sure that you and Arauna and others are presenting your views honestly, and with the right motive. My own reason for concern is not so much about the date itself, as explained above, but just an explanation of why I myself cannot honestly promote it. For me it's much more about honesty than the date itself. Looking very carefully and prayerfully at our own explanations in our publications I can see no Biblical reason to concern ourselves with either 607 or 587 or 539 or 537, whether the dates are correct or not. These dates are only as valuable to us as say 1513 B.C.E. or 740 B.C.E.

But I also believe I see evidence that the "slave" does not believe in 607, either. I believe the "slave" must feel trapped into this belief and have not yet found a clear way out. I base this opinion on the way in which the writers deal with evidence that reveals that the writers don't want the evidence questioned because they know what will be found. This shows a fear of the evidence. The very careful way in which they dealt with Furuli's evidence in October and November 2011 was very revealing. Even Insight shows that the writers knew more than they could say.

In fact, it is made to appear that this secular date has scholarly support. In many scholarly publications you will see a "c." for "circa" or "about" in front of a date, or else a range of dates is mentioned so that you can know that there is a measure of uncertainty. The Insight book does this too, in places -- but NEVER for 607. Here's an example:

• *** it-1 p. 192 Ashkelon ***
  In the prophecy of Amos (c. 804 B.C.E.) prediction was made of defeat for the ruler of Ashkelon. (Am 1:8) Secular history shows that in the succeeding century Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria made Asqaluna (Ashkelon) a vassal city. Jeremiah (after 647 B.C.E.) uttered two prophecies involving Ashkelon. While Jeremiah 47:2-7 could have seen some fulfillment when Nebuchadnezzar sacked the city early in his reign (c. 624 B.C.E.), the prophecy at Jeremiah 25:17-20, 28, 29 clearly indicates a fulfillment subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. Zephaniah’s prophecy (written before 648 B.C.E.) also foretold a coming desolation for Ashkelon, along with other Philistine cities, after which the remnant of Judah would eventually occupy “the houses of Ashkelon.” (Zep 2:4-7) Finally, about 518 B.C.E., Zechariah proclaimed doom for Ashkelon . . .

In fact, the 607-date chronology is inserted into quotes and references from authorities as if it were referenced from there when it was not.

*** it-1 p. 1025 Hamath ***

• According to an extant cuneiform inscription (British Museum 21946), after the battle of Carchemish in 625 B.C.E. (Jer 46:2), Nebuchadnezzar’s forces overtook and destroyed the fleeing Egyptians in the district of Hamath. (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 99) In this same area, a few years earlier, Pharaoh Nechoh had taken King Jehoahaz captive. (2Ki 23:31-33) Then in 607 B.C.E., with the fall of Jerusalem, . . .

*** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***

• The inscriptions further show that news of his father’s death brought Nebuchadnezzar back to Babylon, and on the first of Elul (August-September), he ascended the throne. In this his accession year he returned to Hattu, and “in the month Shebat [January-February, 624 B.C.E.] he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 100) In 624 B.C.E., in the first official year of his kingship, Nebuchadnezzar again led his forces through Hattu; he captured and sacked the Philistine city of Ashkelon.

*** it-1 p. 1267 Jehoiachin ***

• It appears that Jehoiakim died during this siege and Jehoiachin ascended the throne of Judah. His rule ended, however, a mere three months and ten days later, when he surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar in 617 B.C.E. (in the month of Adar, according to a Babylonian chronicle). (2Ki 24:11, 12; 2Ch 36:9; Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. Grayson, 1975, p. 102)

*** it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***

• One fragmentary Babylonian text, dated to Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year (588 B.C.E.), does, in fact, mention a campaign against Egypt. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, p. 308)

*** it-1 p. 238 Babylon ***

• That year, 607 B.C.E., when Jerusalem was laid desolate, was a significant one in the counting of time until Jehovah, the Universal Sovereign, would set up the world ruler of his choice in Kingdom power. . . . One cuneiform tablet has been found referring to a campaign against Egypt in Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year (588 B.C.E.).

Grayson and Pritchard, although referenced as authorities, actually offer contrary evidence, showing that the event marked here for 624 was actually 604, 625 was actually 605, 617 was 597, and the event marked here for 588 is actually 568 -- therefore the date marked 607 would actually be 587.

So although the Jerusalem event marked 607 was actually 587/6, according to all the referenced authorities found in Insight (these and dozens of others, including those not referenced), the Insight book chooses to refer to 607 as if it has never been questioned. Insight mentions the date 607 authoritatively, about 150 times.

To keep 607 in the limelight and evidently to avoid questions about thinking about the Biblical definition of the 70 years, the Insight book not only says 607 was Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year, but also claims it was his "1st year" by another reckoning. Compare these two claims from Insight:

*** it-1 pp. 1185-1186 Image ***

• Images in the Book of Daniel. In the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship (evidently counting from the time of his conquest of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E.), the Babylonian king had a dream . . .

*** it-1 p. 463 Chronology ***

• the city fell in his 11th year (607 B.C.E.), corresponding to Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year of actual rule (counting from his accession year in 625 B.C.E.).

So Nebuchadnezzar's accession year was both 625 and 607 according to the Insight book. Yet Grayson, Pritchard and a thousand other sources would agree that it was 605.

Also, to keep 607 in the limelight the events of 598 and 589 through 587 are sometimes tied to just 607 as the "pivotal" year. For example, note that this last siege lasted for a year and a half, and a siege prior to this was about 10 years earlier. 

*** it-2 p. 1065 Tammuz, II ***

• It was on the ninth day of this fourth month (Tammuz) that Nebuchadnezzar breached the walls of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. after an 18-month siege.

Insight often admits that the siege was dated 2 years earlier and 10/11 years earlier, but notice the shorthand sometimes preferred for referencing Jerusalem's siege:

*** it-1 p. 1242 Jackal ***

• Babylon’s siege of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. brought the stress of famine, with the result that mothers treated their own offspring cruelly. Thus Jeremiah appropriately contrasted the cruelty “of my people” with the jackals’ maternal care.—La 4:3, 10.

The point, of course, is that the one date most in question of all dates that the Society uses, is always presented as if it is the one date least in question. It is repeated 150 times in the Insight book alone. And dates that fall within the period, including 625, 624, 617, 609, 607, 539 and 537 (more likely, the actual dates 605, 604, 598, 589, 587, 539 and 538) -- these dates make up the majority, by far, of all the dates ever mentioned in the entire Insight book, including all mentions of 29 C.E. and 33 C.E. put together.

Compare the case of 607 carefully with how we deal with evidence or "no evidence" in other doctrinal matters. I thought it was very revealing. In matters like "stauros" and several others, for example, the publications don't show the same fear and avoidance of the evidence.

1 minute ago, Melinda Mills said:

How do you keep the 2006 one from updating?

The 2006 Watchtower Library CD does not have the ability to update. It was not part of the program code.

 

21 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I think it is no more than going the extra mile.

It might not seem right or fair, but when one quotes an academic, it is actually important to get the context.

(In this case it would have meant reading and understanding the point made here: http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/full/10.1139/g11-046#.WkfFXN-nFPa

and then recognizing that the quote could still have been used but with an explanation that Singh himself was trying to show just how poorly people understand the theory of evolution and how poorly even biologists have explained it. For this reason, he says, not only lay people, but even a lot of academics don't believe it.

The quote, if used correctly, could still have had some impact for the point the Awake! was making, especially since the opening graphic/survey question was based upon that quote. After removing it, the opening was much weaker, relying mostly on just 'Gerard the entomologist.' And if you have read enough of our publications you know that whenever a possible expert is only given a first name, or given just a generic title without a name, that he is probably a Witness, and we don't want that fact made too obvious, out of fear that it makes the argument seem weaker. Some countries, especially in Europe, have begun to look down upon this type of quote as "yellow" so that European language Watchtowers and Awakes will often contain the last name. (And, in Europe, the likelihood of someone knowing him or trying to contact 'Gerard the entomologist' is much lower.)

5 minutes ago, Nana Fofana said:

He was quoted accurately. He was not entitled to have the quote removed, much less anything further.

Just found that on topix.com by "pcloadletter", thanks.

Then why do you think the Watchtower Society gave in, and did what he wanted?. Fear of men?

57 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Equally, just because a publication appears on the jw. org website, there is no guarantee that the content has not been tampered with - whether it is due to a scientist's complaint about how his work was used, or due to new understandings in doctrine. Website content is so easy to edit now.

Most would consider this a good thing that updates can be made so easily. But for research purposes it would be useful to know which "editions" contained which updates. For example, if this particular Awake! magazine had been on the Watchtower Library CD in its original form, it could still have been overwritten with later updates.

I noticed that doctrinal changes were being inserted into the "Insight" book for a year or more before a notice was added that the online versions may contain different content from the printed version. I still use the printed version of the Insight Book for some of the pictures and charts that don't show up very well in the online edition. I keep only two versions of the Watchtower Library CD on my computer, one from 2006, but the latest one is regularly updated online. I still have about 12 other years of CD's around, but I've never seen a reason to install more than a couple at a time. 

Of course, there is always this:

 

4 hours ago, Queen Esther said:

It is interesting that all send, from where they came, not to new countries.

Learning a new language used to be a major component of Gilead assignments. Just a few years ago, this was determined to be a big waste of time because there are places with need in countries where the missionaries already came from. No language to learn, no ex-pat papers, no visas, no suspicion that JWs promote only Western values, etc.

55 minutes ago, Nana Fofana said:

a difference of a year or so would not be of consequence.

I think a difference of 10,000 years should not be of much consequence either. After all a day with Jehovah is 1,000 years, so in His eyes, it's only 10 days. A lot of this interest is built up because of the idea that the 7th day of creation, the day of rest from creating everything in 6 days, must take 7,000 years. Therefore, there would be 6,000 years of human existence (after Eve) and a 1,000 year reign all fitting into the 7th - 7,000 year day.

But none of that stuff about a 7,000 year day is in the Bible. When we realize that this is all conjecture and speculation, we should realize that we are trying to tread in an area that Jehovah said was only in his own jurisdiction: the times and the seasons. Even angels didn't delve into this topic, and angels know exactly when the first 6,000 years of the 7th creative day begin and end. Knowing that 90% of chronology in the Bible is determined through genealogies, we might also realize that Paul was right:

• (1 Timothy 1:4-7) . . .nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies. Such things end up in nothing useful but merely give rise to speculations rather than providing anything from God in connection with faith. 5 Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on so strongly.

Verse 5, by the way, is a perfect alternative but positive statement about the objective of Christianity.

2 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

If the suggestion here is that the unity experienced by Jehovah's Witnesses today is based on conformity to a "false teaching", then any of Jehovah's Witnesses who support such a view are standing on a very thin ice veneer over an abyss of apostasy.

Let's not take this too far out of context. The suggestion was not generally about "the unity experienced by Jehovah's Witnesses today" but about historical value of the unity of belief we have held with respect to chronology. What I actually said was:

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I understand that it makes for better "unity" if we all just go along and gullibly agree with all things, but was it really better for all of us that we kept 1874 as a Biblical teaching up until 1943 and even kept 1878 as part of a Biblical teaching up until the 1960's? The problems that such chronological teachings caused in 1918, 1919, 1925, and 1975 were caused primarily through "unity" but was this really "unity" in the cause of "truth" or of mere conformity to a false teaching?

From the very start --from the first few issues of the Watchtower in 1879-- the idea has been that true Christians fell into two camps:

• "Wise virgins" who understood that a "Midnight Cry!" had gone out somewhere around 1859 (halfway between 1844 and 1874). 
• "Foolish virgins" who do not prepare based on the content of the call that began going out before 1874, and who therefore do not understand that the door to the marriage feast is closing, and the need to believe in this chronology as it is the specific thing that separates the wise from the foolish virgins. They need to believe in the chronology to get their lamps in order by 1878  . . . then by 1881.

The person responsible for bringing the news of this "midnight cry" "herald of the morning" or "herald of Christ's presence in 1874" would be the individual identified as the "faithful and wise servant." This belief that Jesus' presence had begun in 1874 was the basis for the name "Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence" since 1874. The belief that his presence had begun in 1874 remained with us until 1943/1944. 70 years of a false teaching. In those 70 years, how many spoke up against this false teaching? 

Due to the significance given to the year 1874 and a 40 year harvest timed from 1878 to 1918, the 1878 date remained with us from about 1922 until about 1961 as the beginning of the "Elijah" work, after which they were finally considered "false" doctrines. Although tying Russell to Elijah is evidently making a comeback.

*** w13 7/15 p. 11 par. 6 “Look! I Am With You All the Days” ***

• 6 What is the larger fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy? During the decades leading up to 1914, C. T. Russell and his close associates did a work like that of John the Baptizer.

• *** kr chap. 2 p. 14 par. 6 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven ***
  Those taking the lead among them—Charles T. Russell and his close associates—did, indeed, act as the foretold “messenger,”

But, still, the emphasis on dates was admitted to be the reason for the predictions that did not come true for 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925 the 1970's and then for the remainder of the twentieth century. All the predictions from the 1950's through the 1990's about how the generation that was old enough to witness and understand the sign in 1914 would not die out before Armageddon also turned out to be false predictions. The prediction that young persons ready to graduate high school in the late 1960's would never grow old in this system turned out to be false. The predictions from 1919 through 1925 that "millions now living will never die" turned out to be a false prediction.

Wisdom is proved righteous by its works. So I was talking about the practical aspect of our preaching work. Some of it has been tainted with the attraction of false predictions. The distraction of dates. The fact that Jesus said not to go after those who declare that they know the time is at hand. And we know that making false predictions in the name of Jehovah is a form of uncleanness. If we are truly concerned with keeping the congregation clean we should all do our part to help root out all forms of uncleanness.

2 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

no one has yet come up with a simple alternative statement of belief that makes any real sense. Is this too much to ask?

Jesus did; Peter did; Paul did. But it's no wonder so many missed it, with all this emphasis on dates.

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I am hoping that we no longer mix the message with a murky secular chronology that makes a wicked violent idol-worshiping Gentile king represent the glorious Messianic Kingdom of Christ.

1 hour ago, Nana Fofana said:

He wasn't a gentile?

Nebuchadnezzar was a Gentile (as was Cyrus). Both were used to mete out a measure of Jehovah's punishment, from the beginning of the greatest punishment they had seen up until that time (Neb) and the means to an end of that punishment by freeing them from exile in Babylon (Cyrus).

The problem is the loose manner in which the prophecy about Nebuchadnezzar is treated. When haughty Nebuchadnezzar has been taught a lesson and recognizes his guilt, only then is he returned to his throne. Wicked Nebuchadnezzar's return to the throne represents the fact that the most righteous person ever, Jesus, can now sit on the throne of God's Messianic Kingdom in 1914. Did Jesus learn a lesson about haughtiness? Did he recognize his guilt so as to be placed on the throne? And how is it that we say that the times of Gentile kings ENDED in 1914, when it was represented by a CONTINUATION of Nebuchadnezzar's Gentile kingdom. For decades prior to 1914 (and another decade beyond 1914) we said that the Jewish nation in Palestine would be the only remaining kingdom on earth after 1914. Did God's Kingdom really crush and put an end to all the Gentile kingdoms in 1914. Is this what we want people to believe is meant by Jesus taking his great power and ruling as king?

When Greece (Antiochus Epiphanes) and Rome (under Titus/Vespasian) stood against Jehovah's center of worship in Jerusalem they were referred to as "the disgusting thing." Nebuchadnezzar starves and kills thousands of Jehovah's people, executes officials, burns Jehovah's temple to the ground and yet, somehow, this Gentile represents the non-Gentile Messianic Kingdom.

6 hours ago, Arauna said:

I am not going to count all the red  'scribal errors' in the above presentation because these are all flimsy reasonings - and what is more - you know it.

Every one of those exact quotes were copied from our own Insight book to show that we appreciate the work of scholars, even those who deal with potential errors. It could easily have gone on to twice that length from the Insight book alone, or 100 times that length if we were to look at all the corrections to the Bible text that the NWT accepts from textual critics and scholars. I was addressing a false prejudice that we should dismiss the work of all scholars who have pointed out potential errors in the text.

6 hours ago, Arauna said:

As I said above -  it is a rehash of old rehashes - which frankly - are myopic because they do not take the OVERALL timeline into account.

We can look at the evidence and call it a "rehash of old rehashes" or we can look at the flimsy lack of evidence in our repeated attempts to dismiss the evidence and see that as a "rehash of old rehashes." But it's pretty clear to me that we have barely even scratched the surface of the evidence against the Scripturalness of the 1914 theory, and yet it's always the same old flimsy ideas that get put forward as a defense, as if Ptolemy's Canon, VAT4956 were all-important, and as if Neo-Babylonian evidence is always tainted and untrustworthy -- except when we need it to cherry-pick data for a theory.

6 hours ago, Arauna said:

Since 1914 the 'signs ' have been undeniable and your  reasonings have been unscholarly (like a pining old maid longing for the days that were when she had her glory - now gone.)

Yes. It always comes back to whether we can claim we were right about 1914, and how, decades in advance, we predicted this particular change of an epoch, and that this is proof that Jehovah's spirit must have been backing this particular theory of Bible chronology. And this idea about our own history, untrue as it is, keeps getting repeated as if repetition is going to make it true.

I'm as convinced as you are that 1914 was an important historical date. And I'm also convinced that it is both dishonest and unscriptural to pretend that we were able to delve into Jehovah's jurisdiction over the times and seasons and predict this era decades in advance. It's true that I hope that our honesty will tear down these pretensions of secular scholarship that supposedly underpin the false doctrine. But I make no claims of being a scholar. My point is about honesty and the cleanliness of the congregation. If we see someone taking a false step, we should speak up to that person, and if they don't listen, we should take it to the congregation.

6 hours ago, Arauna said:

Do you really think Jehovah will let the nation he is using, who have to preach about the Kingdom in the last days - misunderstand the main theme and its unseen arrival - the kingdom?

We have a wonderful and powerful Bible message that has an appeal based on common sense and a desire for truth. We don't participate in divisive politics and murderous wars. We worship a God that is knowable, and we don't turn him into a mysterious multi-personalitied entity. We don't teach that he literally punishes with torture, and we can therefore properly focus on his justice, mercy, patience and love. We use the Bible's principles, examples and motivations as the highest moral guide.

And, of course, there is much more that is wonderful and appealing and valuable about our doctrines and practices. But this doesn't mean that we have ever been right about chronology, just as we were never right about the hundreds of doctrines based on turning any and all Bible narratives and Bible parables into prophecies that were (more often than not) supposedly predicting events around 1918 and 1919, and adjusted as needed to refer to events in 1922, 1931, 1935, even as late as 1942.

It's human nature to want to get accolades, be presumptuous, be prideful, and want to bask in our own egos. It's also human nature to want to enhance our resume especially if we think it will make more people follow our lead. There is evidence that this is what we have been doing with chronology since the very first Watch Tower publications, and we could become complicit in the dishonesty if we find ourselves trying to ignore it at all costs.

6 hours ago, Arauna said:

Ah yes - but I recall you do not believe we need "signs" because you think Jesus is going to come back in the flesh?

You don't actually recall that from me. You did claim that this is what I thought on a couple of occasions, but I always corrected you. No I don't think that Jesus is going to come back in the flesh. I believe he returns as a powerful spirit creature and the entire world will get a glimpse of the glory of unapproachable light, during the revelation of his glory, the manifestation of his parousia.

• (1 Timothy 6:14-16) . . . until the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . .He is the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords, 16 the one alone having immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. . . .
• (1 Peter 3:18-4:13) . . .He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit. . . .  through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He is at God’s right hand, for he went to heaven, and angels and authorities and powers were made subject to him. . . .   But the end of all things has drawn close. Therefore, be sound in mind, and be vigilant with a view to prayers.  Above all things, have intense love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins. 9 Be hospitable to one another without grumbling. . . .  On the contrary, go on rejoicing over the extent to which you are sharers in the sufferings of the Christ, so that you may rejoice and be overjoyed also during the revelation of his glory.

The Bible does speak of an invisible presence, wherever two or three are gathered in his name, and that this situation would last until the "synteleia." (Matthew 28:20) But the Bible never speaks of an invisible "parousia." In fact the Bible says that the "parousia" is like lightning that shines brightly from one end of the horizon all the way to the other. That is hardly an illustration meant to convey invisibility. I don't doubt that we are seeing signs that indicate we are in the last days, and just as Timothy and Peter say, as quoted above, that Jesus has been in kingly power since his resurrection, so we know he rules as king and will continue to rule as king of his kingdom until the last enemy death is brought to nothing.

• (1 Corinthians 15:25, 26) 25 For he must rule as king [sit at God's right hand] until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing.

Our basic message that we preach is still therefore intact. I am only hoping that we no longer mix the message with murky secular chronology that associates Christ's return in Kingdom power with a generation of increased wickedness and bloodshed. I am hoping that we no longer mix the message with a murky secular chronology that makes a wicked violent idol-worshiping Gentile king represent the glorious Messianic Kingdom of Christ.

• (2 Corinthians 6:14-16) . . .For what fellowship do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what sharing does light have with darkness? 15 Further, what harmony is there between Christ and Beʹli·al? Or what does a believer share in common with an unbeliever? 16 And what agreement does God’s temple have with idols?. . .

 

1 hour ago, Foreigner said:

No confusion. But it does appear we are looking at the same thing differently. While you disagree with my view, I will disagree with yours. fair enough?

I never claim that anything I say is more than an opinion even if it comes across that way when presentation of strong evidence is assumed to be a statement that the opinion must be correct. One person's point of view can literally have a thousand times more evidence behind it than another's, but it doesn't absolutely mean that the person with better or more evidence is always right. We should all be willing to learn new things all the time, and I am always on the lookout to be able to find new and interesting evidence that can change my perspective. Jehovah doesn't change, but my personal views and opinions are always subject to correction. As I've said before, it's one of the primary reasons I like to share on the forum. It's an opportunity to accept correction and discover new and better evidence. It becomes another way to "make sure of all things" and to "hold fast to what is fine." So, of course it's fair enough that we both have a right to our opinions and both have a right to agree with or disagree with views expressed.

1 hour ago, Foreigner said:

We all wish for many things. I wish I wasn't compared to a person I don't know. That in itself is the embodiment of superfluous. I also wish other peoples opinions weren't "forced" upon me, as this has become at least, 4 times.

What's "this" that has been "forced" upon you. Again, opinions aren't forced upon anyone. Opinions remain opinions. Only when we feel that the weight of evidence changes against our current view, would we in any way feel "forced" to change an opinion. But the statement of an opinion forces nothing. Even a preponderance of evidence forces nothing. If we feel "forced" it says more about our response to evidence; it says something good about own proper thinking abilities.

1 hour ago, Foreigner said:

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Of course you do. And if you can point out any evidence of your claim anywhere, I'm always happy to change my opinion in favor of better evidence.

I wish my above statement wasn't true, but here we have evidence of number 5.

I get it. You are saying that my opinion is being "forced" on you for a fifth time now, because when you called my post irrelevant and contradictory above without even trying to show any evidence of that claim, I responded that I would happily change my opinion if you actually presented evidence that was better. Just so you know it's a true and honest offer. As you might have already seen, I have changed my opinion on several topics in just the last couple years since I began posting. It's one of the reasons I enjoy the forum.

Also, I can still enjoy learning about your personal opinions even if I don't hear evidence in favor of your opinion.

1 hour ago, Foreigner said:

Therefore, the *FALSE* premise becomes that VAT4956 covers 37 years of Nebuchadnezzar ‘s reign with NO MENTION of a catastrophic event being mentioned, that scripture describes.

Even after all this time you still appear confused about what VAT4956 is. It's a diary of some astronomical events that were observed in YEAR 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. When scholars of all kinds check these events against the year in which they must have happened they see that the year these observations were made can only match 568. Even Furuli admits that most of the readings on the tablet can only match 568.

Any amateur can also look up in an astronomy program to see what year is matched by these observations.

Now if you had a diary that observed the positions of the moon and planets for your 37th year you would also be able to look up what calendar year this must have been by using an astronomy program. But let's say you also:

• got married in your 18th year and
• got divorced in your 28th year and
• your house burned down in your 30th year and
• your father got sick in your 35th year

According to you, these other events in your life evidently didn't happen because you didn't mention them in that diary you kept in your 37th year.

1 hour ago, Foreigner said:

Therefore, as far as this tablet is concerned, Jerusalem was destroyed in 605BC, 3 years after King Jeroiakim, upset Nebuchadnezzar, and then after being upset, even more, he had God’s House Destroyed in 587BC.

You must be confused about this tablet. Almost as if you are conflating it with some portions of the Babylonian Chronicles. "As far as this tablet is concerned" Jerusalem might have never existed and Jehoiakim might have been the Pharaoh of Egypt. Neither are mentioned at all. We know nothing of Jerusalem or Jehoiakim from the diary. We only know that it provides evidence to know in what year Nebuchadnezzar must have reigned from his accession year and every year after that up to his 37th year.

1 hour ago, Foreigner said:

If other tablets have those types of observations? Then what does that tell us about this record keeping tablet, that can be speculated in, both ways? This tablet doesn’t have the value that ex-witnesses (faders) wish it to have.

I wish you didn't use superfluous question marks, partial sentences as full sentences, and superfluous commas in exactly the same way that Allen Smith does. It makes your writing just as hard to understand as his. But I agree that this tablet doesn't have the value that people give it. Furuli, for example, seems to pretend that it is the most important document in the evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year was 587. He apparently thinks that if you can damage its reputation that this would change a thing with respect to the date of Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year. Darren Thompson admits to thinking about it in the same way. Scholars know that VAT4956 adds to the overwhelming evidence for the Neo-Babylonian chronology, but that we can take it or leave it and we would still have the same overwhelming evidence for the same Neo-Babylonian chronology. As you say, it's not that important.

1 hour ago, Foreigner said:

I believe the rest of your post has become irrelevant, and contradictory.

Of course you do. And if you can point out any evidence of your claim anywhere, I'm always happy to change my opinion in favor of better evidence.

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

I have pointed it out before that JWs  establishment of 537BCE is NOT based on the Babylonian chronicles but mostly on Persian sources.

But you were wrong. Humility and sincerity require that we look at our mistakes and try not to repeat them.

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

Persian dates are verified by Greek sources and also with Babylonian chronicles.

And Babylonian dates are verified by Greek sources, Persian sources, tens of thousands of clay tablets, and also with Babylonian chronicles. The Babylonian sources are verified in the same way as Persian sources. The weaknesses in these sources affect the Persian rulers in the same way as they affect the Neo-Babylonian rulers. The strengths in these sources do the same.

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

Persian dates are counted in Olympiads and since the games were held every 4 years they are very reliable.

This is only one of the ways in which Persian dates have been counted. Olympiads is also one of the ways in which we can "reliably" learn that the date for Jerusalem's fall is not the date that the Watchtower has promoted. The Olympiad dating is further evidence to confirm the interlocking dates of the entire period.

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

The organization give several good reasons why they do not use the Babylonian chronicles.

The organization uses the Babylonian chronicles, astronomical diaries and king's lists. The organization relies upon copies of copies of secular sources in order to use secular dates like 539 and 537.

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

Astronomical calculations can also be misleading because the most reliable information is only a 'total' eclipse ... because many eclipses occur in a 50 year period and many are not  properly described

The Watchtower Society relies upon astronomical calculations to get the secular dates that the organization promotes. The problem with the description of eclipses is not related to the dating of the Neo-Babylonian period.

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

I fear there are some people here who think that the organization spends their entire time thinking up plots on how to cover up the "mistake of 1914" so they can be important

It's usually true that humility and sincerity are necessary to avoid repeating the same mistakes. If one of the mistakes that is commonly made is to brag about having correctly predicted something decades in advance, but anyone can look up and see that what was predicted decades in advance was something else entirely, then we should look at the motive. I am sure that the "straw man" idea of an organization that "spends their entire time thinking up plots on how to cover up the 'mistake of 1914'" is ridiculous. I would guess that as little time as possible is spent thinking about the mistake of 1914. But if we find dishonesty in 100% of the instances where the topic did come up, we have a right to be suspicious of the motives for bringing it up. Just as you and I have a right to be suspicious of the motives of ex-JWs and apostates who bring up the subject when and if they make false claims about it.

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

There are people here who think they are smarter than Jehovah's spirit and smarter than the available written information on the middle east and persian dynasties.

I agree that this could be the crux of the problem. I think it should bother us when we see the 607 theory and the 1914 theory produce contradictions in our literature, purposeful mistranslations of the Hebrew and Greek in our own Bibles, and a string of interpretations of related doctrines that rely on the least likely meanings of the Bible text.

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

They keep bringing up the same old rehash of these Babylonian dates

Hopefully, we will stop using these Babylonian dates in our literature. Our repeated rehash of these Babylonian dates implies that the Bible is not sufficient, not enough for us to be fully equipped for every good work. The more one looks into the evidence it appears that it is based on a presumptuous and unscriptural agenda. Not of everything, of course, but just a portion of our teachings, that most of us probably no longer consider "core teachings," anyway. We should be humble enough to look at the Bible and the secular evidence we have imposed upon it with an open mind.

I understand that it makes for better "unity" if we all just go along and gullibly agree with all things, but was it really better for all of us that we kept 1874 as a Biblical teaching up until 1943 and even kept 1878 as part of a Biblical teaching up until the 1960's? The problems that such chronological teachings caused in 1918, 1919, 1925, and 1975 were caused primarily through "unity" but was this really "unity" in the cause of "truth" or of mere conformity to a false teaching?

19 hours ago, Foreigner said:

That would be the point, wouldn’t it? VAT4956 doesn’t “illustrate” which direction one needs to go with the 18-19 years. It works both ways. Unless, as you stated, one side is only looked at.

VAT4956 illustrates exactly what direction one needs to go to get to exactly the 18th and to get to exactly to the 19th year. That's the thing about an astronomical diary that tells you what year aligns to Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year. From there you know what direction you need to go to reach the 18th and 19th years or any other prior year in his reign. And it does this from the front side. It does this from the back side. And it does this from both sides.

19 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Ironically, I don’t use 4+1=6. You are the one using such supposition to illustrate a formula not indicated by scholars or scripture. My comments are based on scholarly findings and scripture, not conjecture.

If you go back to the post you made here on Saturday, 12/23, the one with the Map of the Ancient Near East, you can see that you went from a mistaken or unproven premise and then said that this [false premise] was why VAT4956 tells us nothing about the 18-19 years, and that VAT4956 can only be used to show what his first (accession) year was. As you said:

On 12/23/2017 at 10:18 PM, Foreigner said:

The only reasonable conclusion we can offer with this tablet is the 37^th year coincides when Nebuchadnezzar rushed home to take over his father’s kingdom in 605BC.

While it's true that knowing his 37th year was 568 will also tell you that his accession year was 605, it ALSO tells you that:

• his first year was 604 and
• his 18th year was 587 and
• his 19th year was 586 and
• his 36th year was 569 and
• his 35th year was 570.

It pinpoints which year matches every regnal year from 605 to 568. Claiming otherwise is a math mistake just as false as claiming that 4+1=6, or worse, really. It is the same as saying: If 568+37 = 605, then 568+36=0 [nothing] and 568+1=0[nothing] and 568+19=0[nothing]. You made an incorrect conjecture, rather than basing what you said on scholarly findings or scripture or simple math.

19 hours ago, Foreigner said:

If Furuli expertise lies only with language, then it should be no surprise when he honestly doesn’t descend on an archaeological find. This is where “Theology” comes in. It receives the “best” of ALL expertise within knowledge. But, the BEST expertise comes from bible knowledge. Something, Fred Franz was great at. This would be the “BEST” for a Bible Student to learn.

This is "word salad" with non-sequiturious dressing. 

19 hours ago, Foreigner said:

22 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The term "absolute" is used by archaeologists and astronomers who study historical texts like these to describe the ability to tie this entire period

Of course. Then we would have to check how much of Bible understanding a scholar has to give an expert opinion on that subject matter.

We can if it will help. But for nearly half its existence the Watchtower, along with educated people like Fred Franz, believed and promoted a "Bible" chronology that we now admit is false. Franz, Russell, Rutherford all had plenty of Bible understanding, yet two of them taught a Bible chronology until they died, that the Watchtower now considers to be false. They used the term "absolute" and "God's dates, not ours" incorrectly. An archaeologist can correctly make use of the term "absolute" even if they are talking about a style of canoe made in New Guinea. They need absolutely no Bible understanding to use the term with its correct scholarly meaning.

19 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Once again, wouldn't this be an attempt to justify how contradictory it would be to place the 18-19 year squarely where secular chronology would wish for it to be. Then we would also have to be satisfied by applying those years in the beginning reign of Nebuchadnezzar. 605-18=587BC, 605-19=586. Where does it indicate in VAT4956 where one should start to view 587BC specifically? VAT4956 605-37=568BC.

Quite the opposite of justifying how contradictory it would be. You are veering off into bad math again. VAT4956 tells you to start . . .

• his 17th year in 588,
• his 18th year in 587
• his 19th year in 586
• his 20th year in 585
• his 27th year in 578
• his 37th year in 568

If you really can't see where it does "indicate in VAT4956 where one should start to view 587 BC specifically," then you shouldn't be  talking about contradictory evidence or what VAT4956 does and does not indicate. Secular chronology does not place the 18th and 19th year where it "wishes."

19 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Then, does it really matter, who understands what? If secular chronology itself cannot justify its own findings that many people have gone to great lengths by rearranging scripture to meet their understanding and to discredit the WT Chronology? Then you are correct, why should it matter.

More word salad.

19 hours ago, Foreigner said:

And since, D.J Wiseman sought to look at the book of Daniel with errors? Then we can’t claim scholars are unbiased and look at scripture in a biased way.

This is irrelevant to the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. Would you say that the Watchtower publications are biased because they look at the books of Kings and Chronicles with errors? Note, how the Insight book inserts the bracketed words "actually, the fifteenth" instead of "the thirty-fifth" year of Asa. If you read "Insight" you will see that it suggests that the Bible contains scribal errors in several other books, too.

*** it-1 p. 184 Asa ***

• So, too, the apparent difference between the statement at 2 Chronicles 15:19 to the effect that, as for “war, it did not occur down to the thirty-fifth [actually, the fifteenth] year of Asa’s reign,”

It is not necessary to read the rest of this post, but it covers not even half of the potential scribal errors that the Watchtower publications have made reference to in the attempt to correct errors in the Bible text. I'm sure you are aware that there is even a chronology "glitch" in the book of Daniel that the Watchtower publications have discussed at length so that the meaning we give this verse is quite different from the actual statements in Daniel.

*** it-1 p. 412 Capital ***

• (1Ki 7:15, 16) In view of the passages indicating that the capitals were five cubits high, a number of scholars have concluded that the reference to “three cubits” in 2 Kings 25:17 is a scribal error. That is why some Bible translations (for example, JB, NAB) have replaced “three cubits” with “five cubits.”

*** it-1 p. 570 Daleth ***

• The fourth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. There is considerable similarity between the letters daʹleth [ד] and rehsh [ר], allowing for possible scribal errors in copying. This may account for various differences in spelling, such as that of the “Rodanim” at 1 Chronicles 1:7 and the “Dodanim” at Genesis 10:4.

*** it-1 p. 619 Deuel ***

• In the Masoretic text and the Syriac Peshitta, he is called “Reuel” at Numbers 2:14. This may be due to a scribal error, since the Hebrew letters for “D” and “R” are very similar and the name “Deuel” does, in fact, appear at Numbers 2:14 in the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Latin Vulgate, and over a hundred Hebrew manuscripts.

*** it-1 pp. 626-627 Dimon ***

• . . . Dibon did not stand by any large “waters,” it being a considerable distance from the nearest wadi, the Arnon. They suggest, therefore, that Dimon may be a scribal alteration of Madmen, mentioned in Jeremiah’s condemnation of Moab (Jer 48:2), and usually identified with Dimna, about 4 km (2.5 mi) WNW of Rabbath-Moab, on a height dominating the waters of the ʽAin el-Megheisil to the SE.  Both views are conjectural, the latter having in its favor identification with a site associated with waters, which the context seems to require.

*** it-1 p. 706 Elhanan ***

• In 2 Samuel 21:19 Elhanan is identified as “the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite,” and it is said that he struck down Goliath. However, many scholars think that the original reading of 2 Samuel 21:19 corresponded to 1 Chronicles 20:5, the differences in the two texts having arisen through scribal error.

*** it-1 p. 718 Elishama ***

• This Elishama is listed as Elishua in 2 Samuel 5:15, in 1 Chronicles 14:5, and in two Hebrew manuscripts at 1 Chronicles 3:6. Elishua is generally considered to be the correct name, as the name Elishama appears again in 1 Chronicles 3:8 and therefore could easily have crept into verse 6 through a scribal error.

*** it-1 p. 929 Gibeah ***

• The Hebrew spellings of Geba (masculine form of the word meaning “Hill”) and Gibeah (feminine form of the term meaning “Hill”) are almost identical. Many believe that this has resulted in scribal errors in the Masoretic text and therefore recommend changing certain scriptures to read “Geba” instead of “Gibeah,” and vice versa.

*** it-1 p. 1015 Hadadezer ***

• This could account for their being called “horsemen” at 2 Samuel 10:18 and “men on foot” at 1 Chronicles 19:18. The difference in the number of Syrian charioteers killed in battle is usually attributed to scribal error, the lower figure of 700 charioteers being considered the correct one.

*** it-1 p. 1015 Hadadezer ***

• The variation in the enumeration of these at 2 Samuel 8:4 and 1 Chronicles 18:4 may have arisen through scribal error. In the Greek Septuagint both passages indicate that 1,000 chariots and 7,000 horsemen were captured, and therefore 1 Chronicles 18:4 perhaps preserves the original reading.

*** it-1 p. 1145 Horse ***

• However, David’s son and successor, Solomon, began to accumulate thousands of horses. (1Ki 4:26 [here “forty thousand stalls of horses” is generally believed to be a scribal error for “four thousand”]; compare 2Ch 9:25.)

*** it-1 p. 1166 Ibleam ***

• . . . (Jos 21:25) reads “Gath-rimmon” instead of “Bileam” or “Ibleam.” Generally this is attributed to scribal error, “Gath-rimmon,” the name of a city in Dan, probably having been inadvertently repeated from verse 24.

*** it-1 p. 1239 Jaare-oregim ***

• A name appearing only at 2 Samuel 21:19. It is generally believed that scribal error has given rise to this name and that the correct reading is preserved in the parallel text at 1 Chronicles 20:5. “Jaare” is considered to be an alteration of “Jair,” and “oregim” (ʼo·reghimʹ, “weavers” or “loom workers”) is thought to have been copied inadvertently from a line below in the same verse.

*** it-2 p. 87 Johanan ***

• Grandson of Eliashib, the high priest contemporary with Nehemiah. His being called Jonathan in Nehemiah 12:11 is probably due to a scribal error, as the names “Johanan” and “Jonathan” are very similar in Hebrew.

*** it-2 p. 113 Josheb-basshebeth ***

• There are other scribal difficulties with the text in 2 Samuel 23:8, making it necessary for the obscure Hebrew in the Masoretic text (which appears to read, “He was Adino the Eznite”) to be corrected to read “He was brandishing his spear.” (NW) Other modern translations read similarly. (AT; RS; Mo; Ro, ftn; JB) Thus Samuel is made to agree with the book of Chronicles and with the construction pattern in this section of material. It is “the three” that are being discussed, but to introduce another name, Adino, makes four.

*** it-2 p. 177 Kite ***

• The Deuteronomy list contains ra·ʼahʹ in place of da·ʼahʹ, as in Leviticus, but this is considered to be probably due to a scribal substitution of the Hebrew equivalent of “r” (ר) for “d” (ד), the letters being very similar in appearance.

And then there are more complicated errors to deal with when the text that is preferred for the NWT Hebrew Scriptures is based on the Masoretic text which makes changes from phrases like "Jehovah cursed" to "Jehovah blessed," and even makes changes like the following one:

*** it-2 p. 307 Manasseh ***

• . A name appearing in the Masoretic text at Judges 18:30, because of scribal modification. The account concerns Danite apostasy, and the New World Translation says that “Jonathan the son of Gershom, Moses’ son, he and his sons became priests to the tribe of the Danites.” (See also AT; Mo; Ro; RS.) Jewish scribes inserted a suspended letter (nun = n) between the first two letters in the original Hebrew name so as to give the reading “Manasseh’s” instead of “Moses’,” doing so out of regard for Moses. The scribes thus sought to hide the reproach or disgrace that might be brought upon the name of Moses because of Jonathan’s action. In addition to the altered Masoretic text, “Manasseh’s” appears in the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209 of the Greek Septuagint and in the Syriac Peshitta. However, “Moses’” is found in the Alexandrine Manuscript of the Greek Septuagint and in the Latin Vulgate at Judges 18:30.

*** it-2 p. 349 Mash ***

• At 1 Chronicles 1:17 the Masoretic text reads “Meshech” instead of “Mash.” But this is probably a scribal error since Meshech is listed as a “son” of Japheth.—Ge 10:2; 1Ch 1:5.

*** it-2 p. 396 Michmas(h) ***

• According to 1 Samuel 13:5, the Philistine forces at Michmash included 30,000 war chariots. This number is far greater than that involved in several other military expeditions (compare Jg 4:13; 2Ch 12:2, 3; 14:9), and it is hard to imagine how so many war chariots could have been used in mountainous terrain. For this reason 30,000 is generally viewed as a scribal error. The Syriac Peshitta and the Lagardian edition of the Greek Septuagint read 3,000, and numerous Bible translations follow this rendering. (AT, JB, Mo) However, even lower figures have been suggested.

*** it-2 p. 398 Mijamin ***

• He may have founded the paternal house of Miniamin mentioned at Nehemiah 12:17 (where the name of the head of that house appears to have been an inadvertent scribal omission in the Hebrew text).

 

*** it-2 p. 938 Shuppim ***

• Since the last three characters of his name in Hebrew (Shup·pimʹ) are identical to the last three characters of the previous term (behth ha·ʼasup·pimʹ), scholars suspect that it is a dittograph (an unintentional scribal repetition), therefore, in this verse, not the name of a person.—Compare 1Ch 26:10, 11.

*** it-2 p. 1112 Tob-adonijah ***

• (2Ch 17:7-9) Reference to Adonijah and Tobijah in the same verse leads some scholars to believe this name is a scribal dittograph, that is, an inadvertent repetition.

And of course there are other issues with the variations in manuscripts. The NWT shows "18 years" for both of the following, but several major texts actually show 8 years in 2 Chronicles 36:9 and 18 in 2 Kings 24:8.

• (2 Kings 24:8) 8 Je·hoiʹa·chin was 18 years old when he became king, and he reigned for three months in Jerusalem. . . .
• (2 Chronicles 36:9) 9 Je·hoiʹa·chin was 8 years old when he became king, and he reigned for three months and ten days in Jerusalem.

So the Watchtower publications speak very appreciatively of the critical textual studies by scholars that have helped to identify some of these scribal errors and correct them.

*** it-2 p. 313 Manuscripts of the Bible ***

• Despite the care exercised by copyists of Bible manuscripts, a number of small scribal errors and alterations crept into the text. On the whole, these are insignificant and have no bearing on the Bible’s general integrity. They have been detected and corrected by means of careful scholastic collation or critical comparison of the many extant manuscripts and ancient versions. Critical study of the Hebrew text of the Scriptures commenced toward the end of the 18th century.

Where possible, the Watchtower publications seek to avoid admitting scribal errors even if we have no better explanation currently:

*** it-2 p. 489 Nehemiah, Book of ***

• However, there are differences in the numbers given for each family or house, and the individual figures in both listings yield a total of far less than 42,360. Many scholars would attribute these variations to scribal errors. While this aspect cannot be completely ignored, there are other possible explanations for the differences. It may be that Ezra and Nehemiah based their listings on different sources.

-----------NOTE------------

For anyone just scanning quickly across this  post and wondering why there is so much about scribal errors here, it's because I'm responding to Foreigner's assertion that if one looks at Scripture as if it might have error in it, then their scholarship cannot be trusted. Yet, there are literally more than a thousand places where the Watchtower believes that errors have crept into the Biblical texts that are relied upon to translate the NWT or any other Bible translation. This is one of the reasons the persons who have worked on scholarly Bible dictionaries and Bible translation itself have expressed appreciation for scholars who have looked into errors and potential errors. The assertion is therefore not true that just because a scholar might look into potential errors that this makes their scholarship automatically unstrustworthy.

 

5 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Sure. Would a coin that had a date on both sides give you an accurate minting date?

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.

5 hours ago, Foreigner said:

On 12/24/2017 at 5:48 AM, JW Insider said:

This" is why? I think you should mean the opposite.

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.

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."

5 hours ago, Foreigner said:

On 12/24/2017 at 5:48 AM, JW Insider said:

This makes no sense. Wiseman and Grayson are both linguistic scholars

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.

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.

5 hours ago, Foreigner said:

On 12/24/2017 at 5:48 AM, JW Insider said:

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:

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.

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

5 hours ago, Foreigner said:

On 12/24/2017 at 5:48 AM, JW Insider said:

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.

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?

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.

5 hours ago, Foreigner said:

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?

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.

9 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

Have you or someone else linked to  something showing Furuli saying this?

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:

On 4/5/2017 at 2:57 AM, JW Insider said:

 . . . Furuli does not say the planetary data is too ambiguous to understand or from which to draw a conclusion. He says they seem to be "calculations for the positions of the planets in 568/67"  (p.333). So, they match 568/67 by Furuli's own admission. He has no choice but to dismiss the planetary data, not because it is ambiguous, but because it is NOT ambiguous. It fits the same year that Furuli (and the Watchtower) have been fighting against for years.

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.

9 hours ago, Foreigner said:

However, what if one side of a coin only showed a face without a date, and the other side did?

Fine, but I was making a "coin" more analogous to VAT4956 which has the date on both sides.

9 hours ago, Foreigner said:

This is why VAT4956 holds little value to the destruction of Jerusalem with the increments of 18-19 years.

"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.

9 hours ago, Foreigner said:

The only reasonable conclusion we can offer with this tablet is the 37^th year coincides when Nebuchadnezzar rushed home to take over his father’s kingdom in 605BC.

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.

9 hours ago, Foreigner said:

That in itself doesn’t discredit 607BC since the beginning siege of Jerusalem started by historical reckoning in 589BC.

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?

9 hours ago, Foreigner said:

This is why, as with any historical evidence, it becomes a matter of scholarly, opinion.

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.

9 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Meaning, there shouldn’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.

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.

9 hours ago, Foreigner said:

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.

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.

9 hours ago, Foreigner said:

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?

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?

3 minutes ago, tromboneck said:

you are a regular Sherlock Holmes

I suppose that's better than being an irregular Sherlock Holmes.

1 hour ago, Foreigner said:

Aside from Furuli, perhaps suggesting the clay tablet has been tampered with in modern times?

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!