On 12/12/2017 at 3:55 PM, scholar JW said:

Where matters are uncertain then the reader is advised

No, that's not true, and that's the problem. The reader is NOT advised. That's a form of academic dishonesty.

Here is one of literally HUNDREDS of examples of this in our literature:

*** 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)

You might know better, of course, but don't you think that some of the brothers will read this line in the "Insight" book under "Nebuchadnezzar" and get the impression that a well-researched resource about Babylonian texts indicates that Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year was 588 B.C.E.?

It's amazing (and shameful) that our publications still do this repeatedly. The referenced book by Pritchard is 100% aware that all the evidence consistently points to 568 for Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, and therefore 587/6 for his 19th year (not 607). There is only one reason that the Watchtower publications sneaks 588 in there without any explanation about how the book they referenced actually rejects this date. It's because 588 is the date that would allow 607 to work which would allow 1914 to work. We should not have to depend on dishonesty and slick tricks like this. If the evidence stood on its own, we would be happy to point to the evidence, instead of trying to denigrate the evidence, and then "dishonestly" forget to tell the readers that it's this same denigrated evidence that we rely on for 607.

24 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Max Hatton whom I have met in 1983 or thereabouts became a Seventh Day Adventist and was one of the earliest critics of WT Chronology on the world scene and  perhaps was influenced by a thesis written by a resident in Western Australia ,  G. Rogerson who wrote An Examination Of The Year 1914 In The Prophetic interpretation Of The Watchtower Society. I have copies  of all Hatton's correspondence to the Society and would need to compare its contents with Rogerson's treatise I should say rather than a thesis because Hatton spent his earlier days in Perth, Western Australia about that time..

I still have not read all of his story, but I find it amazing. The first letter admitted influence from a Seventh Day Adventist source. I'm surprised he became a Seventh Day Adventist himself, however. And yes I am impressed with Thiele at many points of his studies. He appears to have been able to resolve several chronological issues on the secular side, by using the Bible as a primary historical source.

21 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

I reject your claim that this book 'makes claims that are shamefully wrong'. The quotation from this book is correct both in fact and in history. Ptolemy's Canon has traditionally drawn much criticism over the centuries and even in Russell's day there was criticism of the Canon in the early WT.

That's my point about the shameful use of Ptolemy. He is relied on for 539 even though our publications tried to discredit Ptolemy in 1963 by saying his work was "exploded." It's shameful to be so certain about a chronological scheme, but not know what you are doing and at what points you are relying on the same types of sources. Not everything about the works Ptolemy passed on through his writings and collection of work is correct. I have read the criticism of Ptolemy from Russell's day. It was amazing that they thought they could just pick and choose without being careful. As I already pointed out from some older quotes, Russell also used Ptolemy's support as evidence for how accurate 536 was (even though we considered that a fuzzy date and changed it at a later point). Although I already mentioned that it was quite possible to also reach 539 through other lines of evidence -- these also support 587/6 for the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar.

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

A debate has two sides with opposing points of view, honesty is required by both parties so I call this a two-way street.

I will be honest in a debate whether any other party in a debate is honest or not. That is what I meant when I said it is not a two-way street, at least for me. Debates often end up highlighting the academic dishonesty or false foundations of another person's theory. Academic dishonesty can often be the result of giving too much weight to a certain interpretation and then using logical fallacies to bolster the false claims. So academic dishonesty is not always a "personal" dishonesty, but can come about through sloppiness in research, misuse of evidence, being fooled by someone else's mistakes, etc.

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

There is no Gap in the NB Period at this stage of our present knowledge

Thanks for admitting that.

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

but there is a difference of 19 years. when one compares WT Chronology with NB Chronology.

This is pretty much true. A lot of people make claims that turn out to be untrue, even if they make perfect sense to a lot of people. I have heard people who believe the chronology of the "Great Week" mentioned below (from http://prophecycorner.theforeverfamily.com/chron.html )

• Since it is thought that 6,000 years would go by before the sabbatical millennial Day of the Lord begins, some people have thought that the 6,000th year since Adam's creation would be about 2,000 A.D. I have heard it said that from Adam to Abraham was 2,000 years and from Abraham to Christ was 2,000 years.

Like the "Oslo" schema, it's more of a "scheme" than a chronology, but some will fight for it as if it were the only true Bible chronology, and anything different is just a secular falsehood. In the same way, some will also fight to make Cyrus' Edict begin around 460 B.C.E. so that they can make the 70 weeks of years match with their supposedly more "obvious" interpretation of Daniel. There are a lot of claims about Bible chronology, just like several of the old Watchtower claims, that have necessarily been abandoned by now for obvious reasons.

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The much earlier  Babylon the Great Has Fallen-God's Kingdom Rules , 1963, p. 138.

That book contains many claims that are shamefully wrong. Note this one on the page you quoted:

• It is because of making the mistake of dating the beginning of the seventy-year period for the desolation of Jerusalem and the land of Judah after King Jehoiakim reigned at Jerusalem but three years that the chronologers in Christendom throw their time schedule of history at least nineteen years out of order, shortening up the stream of time by that many years. They do this because of trying to harmonize the Bible records with the astronomical Canon of Claudius Ptolemy, an Alexandrian or Egyptian astronomer of the second century after Christ, but whose system of astronomy has long since been exploded. In this we do not go along with such chronologers.

For a time, the WTS had relied on the king list matching Claudius Ptolemy's to get 539. People noticed the mistake right away. In fact, one letter came in to the Watch Tower the year before the book came out. They should have known better than to print this nonsense.

For example, Max Hatton wrote the Watch Tower Society on June 10, 1962. This letter also contained information about an even earlier letter sent to the Watch Tower Society on July 9, 1959. The 1962 letter says in part:

• To date our arguments have been largely concerned with the 70 years mentioned by Jeremiah. I am confident that with the aid of the Societies [sic] publications and some private research I have and will have no real difficulties with this portion of the discussion. It seems that the next item for discussion will inevitably be whether the period of 70 years literal desolation can be accommodated by a Chronological arrangement for the period. As far as I have been able to ascertain the basis for the Chronology, popularly accepted, for the years 747 B.C., to the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C. and further on, is the Canon of Ptolemy. It therefore seems obvious that one cannot accept the record of the 70 year desolation and at the same time accept the Canon as being an accurate record. In rejecting the Canon completely, a problem seems to arise, because, as far as I am aware, the date for the destruction of Babylon in 539 B.C. per medium of the Chronological arrangement for which Ptolemy's Canon is the basis. . . . I would greatly appreciate your advice then, whether 539 B.C. can be accurately calculated by some other means entirely independent of the Canon, such as a continuous list of kings with their Accession years calculated by the length of their reign, based on some other evidence. (Either Bible or Secular.) I fully appreciate the advice in the Watchtower of 1st December, 1946 that an eclipse of the moon is not sufficient data by which to locate the year of a certain event, however the "Secretary of the Australian Institute of Archaeology" has advised me that "Ptolemy's Canon is based on a much wider range of astronomical data, the details of which are recorded in his Almagest. It is necessary to correlate the details he gives in his canon with dates he has calculated in other works. The sum result of this is that his canon appears to be accurate within all reasonable limits."  . . . Could I be advised please in what respects the Society considers the Canon to be in error and also reasonable grounds to substantiate such a claim?

That is only a small part of the letter, without the original paragraph breaks from the letter. The Watchtower wrote back to Brother Hatton on June 28, 1962. That letter gave some of the best evidence ever that the Society simply did not understand the claims they were making or that, less likely one hopes, they were willing to be very dishonest. Brother Hatton's next response naturally contained more questions, and even more research, and the Society's next letter, told him that they didn't have time to stop for such a research project with the current preparation for the 1963 "Everlasting Good News" assembly coming out (at which the Babylon book would be released). The following exchange of letters shows that the Society was now on the defensive with nowhere to turn. The Babylon book only made the matters worse because the Society was obviously "digging in its heels" on things they had no right to claim. They asked him to give less attention to chronology. The Society told him that if he didn't agree he could still point persons to the place in the Society's publications where such explanations were given, even if he had mental reservations. By July 1965, the Society had disfellowshipped both Brother Hatton and his wife for apostasy. His wife had possibly never said anything but it was suspected that she supported her husband. 

13 minutes ago, Anna said:

I have one question in the meantime, why is it that WT has no trouble accepting the 539 date but will not accept the 587 date? Besides the obvious reason, are both dates based on completely different historical sources?

In fact, both dates conform to the exact same set of sources. They are both part of the same NB chronology which is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence from all the archaeological and astronomical sources. You could use 8 sources and come up with both 539 and 587 as correct, and you use only four of those sources and still come up with both dates as correct. You could also dismiss those 4 you just used, and use the other 4 and still see that both dates are correct. You simply cannot accept the data for 539 without also accepting the data for 587.

This is a beautiful area. There are still places where you can get good land for just several hundred dollars an acre in upstate New York, but this area is gorgeous. I've stayed in the Mohonk Mountain House (resort hotel) for business conferences, and even went back up there once on my own to do research for an author at New Paltz. An elderly woman at the Historical Society up there is probably no longer alive, but was a walking, talking database of everything anyone wanted to know about genealogies of hundreds, maybe thousands of people from the 1600's through the 1800's in NY and environs. I asked her about an obscure name and she pulled out an old Bible that belonged to that family with the particular person's name in it. I was just amazed at her knowledge and her helpfulness.

8 hours ago, Kurt said:

Remember though that the Witnesses held firm in Brooklyn while the neighborhood around them was being left to decay.

Where did you get that from? From year to year, the Brooklyn Heights neighborhood has continued to be built up and get better and be made cleaner and more expensive than most other parts of Brooklyn for the last 100 years. The Watchtower Society was not the only entity that had been building up and investing in this area of Brooklyn. But the Watchtower kept its buildings and factories very clean and well-maintained, and made it a point to obtain empty lots for new buildings and to purchase buildings in need of renovation. The WTS generally had a very positive effect on the prices of Brooklyn Heights property, even though it produced a loss of tax revenue that the city would have obtained if those buildings had been owned by for-profit corporations. Then again, for profit corporations had a higher rate of failure and building abandonment during several periods economic depression and recession over the last 100 years -- so all in all, Brooklyn Heights was made much better for the time we spent there.

I have a feeling your numbers are a bit high from a true outside perspective. The real estate numbers might be correct, or they might be too high, but the value of the "commercial operations" is in an industry (primarily pre-press, printing, binding, shipping) which is not a function of the percent of the real estate owned. There is a value in non-depreciated equipment (laundry, printing presses, bindery equipment, computers, tractors, trucks). But its value must be measured on a case-by-case basis in each individual market. The range given above indicates that this portion could be anywhere from $75 to $300 billion [25% of $300B up to 50% of $600B]. My guess is that competitive valuations of these particular global assets could not total more than 1 to 2 billion, $US.

19 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Your claim that our theory is impossible is unclear to me because we accept the 43 years of Neb' s reign and have well described how this synchronizes with the reigns of the last Kings of Judah according to the biblical data.

You were claiming that our (WTS) theory was impossible when you tried to add another 20 years to the Neo-Babylonian timeline at a point during Nebuchadnezzar's reign. You suggested Zedekiah's 11th year. You create a contradiction for yourself precisely because the Bible synchronizes the reigns of the last kings of Judah in a way that fits Ptolemy's Canon, and the Babylonian Chronicles and the combined evidence from thousands of clay tablets, along with the astronomical diaries.

19 hours ago, scholar JW said:

If it does not fit certain data from the NB Chronology then that is not my problem. Just make the required adjustment based only on trusted biblical facts . If you have found a problem then why not try to solve it? DO YOU WANT ME TO SOLVE IT FOR YOU.

Actually it is your problem if you are the one interpreting an idea in a way that contradicts all the evidence. Especially since you already admitted that many lines of evidence and thousands of tablets already represent the NB chronology. It's the same as if you wanted to make World War 1 last for parts of 8 years instead of parts of 5 years. If you say that there are three years of history about WW1 missing, then you would have to be the one to figure out where these new years should be inserted.

There is nothing for me to solve here. I see that all the years are already accounted for, and that they already fit the Bible evidence very well. I am happy that the Bible account is corroborated by the historical accounts and evidence from archaeology.

19 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Already, there are other problems in connection with Jehoiakim's reign such as the 'third year of his kingship' in Dan. 1:1. and this is explained in the Insight article under 'Jehoiakim'. You will find the chart for the Reigns of Judah and Israel published in the Aid  book most helpful.

I never mentioned Jehoiakim. I only referred to Jehoiachin. (Also called Jeconiah) It's easy to confuse them.

19 hours ago, scholar JW said:

If you want me to solve your problem then present your question simply and clearly. Just present the facts, skip the references. Chronology is complex enough so simplicity works for me. You got it?  When I get a problem I usually get the solution even though it can be hard work.

I looked up several of your past discussions here and elsewhere. I have seen from these past discussions that you typically don't try to solve any of the chronological problems related to this matter. I have noticed a common pattern of trying to imply that it is the other person who has the problem to solve. You even do that in this very post I am responding to. Apparently, you also have made use of a tactic of abandoning a problem when it is clear that you have failed to address it, and then disappearing and coming back at some later point and claiming that you previously solved the problem or "won the argument" that you had abandoned. You seem to give the impression that everything must start all over "from scratch" even after the evidence against your position was already made clear in your last attempt.   

But evidently the most common tactic, and the one I am trying to understand in this current thread, too, is this tendency to offer completely illogical nonsense as if it is relevant to the questions and claims being made. There appears to be a lot of bluster and obfuscation and I can't always tell if it's on purpose. If it is, I don't know who you would be trying to bluster here.

But if you were truly looking for a simple and clear question, in a presentation of facts without references, then I could oblige that, too. But first I'd like to ask if you would address any of the very simple questions that have already been brought up.

One, for example, was:

• What is the year you get for the beginning of the 70 years of Babylonian domination assuming you agree with the Watch Tower Society's assessment about these 70 years that ended in 539 B.C.E.? (See the previous post for the references to Jeremiah 25:8-27 in chapter 19 of Isaiah's Prophecy.) If you still insist that this date is "nonsense," as you called it, then please explain why you think the Society's idea here is nonsense, and why it's still on JW.ORG?

18 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Yet you begin your diatribe with the astonishing statement that the Babylonian Empire began in 609 BCE. What nonsense for nothing of any historical significance occurred in 609 BCE.

Have you written the Watchtower Society to tell them that this claim is "nonsense"?

*** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***

• True to the prophecy, for the duration of “one king”—the Babylonian Empire—the island-city of Tyre will not be an important financial power. Jehovah, through Jeremiah, includes Tyre among the nations that will be singled out to drink the wine of His rage. He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble.

If you don't have the Watchtower Library CD/DVD installed just click the link to jw.org here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102000039 and scroll down to paragraph 21 (page 256) to see the same point.

So, are you saying you do not agree with the assessment of the Watchtower Society that the 70 years of Babylonia's greatest domination ends in 539 B.C.E.?  If Babylon's 70 years of domination ended in 539, then when did it begin? I get 539+70=609.

 Unless you can offer a different answer, I'll have to assume that you get the same thing. So why do you call this claim "nonsense"? Usually, you appear to be defending what's on JW.ORG.

18 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Carl Jonsson in the 2nd edn of his Gentile Times Reconsidered produced a Chart on p.235. This Chart presents a' fuzzy' statement that the 70 years began with the Assyria crushed with no historical data in support to support this assertion.

Yes. I see that JW.ORG also does something just like what you say Carl Jonsson did. Do you think that JW.ORG got this idea from Carl Jonsson? Jonsson wrote about 15 years before the "Isaiah's Prophecy" book was written in 2000?

18 hours ago, scholar JW said:

You only have to compare the different Chronologies for the Divided Monarchy and to examine the conflict over whether Jerusalem fell in 586 or 587 BEC.

You seem confused about the reason that there is any supposed "conflict" over whether Jerusalem fell in 586 or 587. The reason is explained on JW.ORG and it has absolutely nothing to do with different chronologies for the divided monarchy. The Bible lists both the 18th and 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar for what appears to be the same Jerusalem event. It can simply be a matter of whether the Bible is including Nebuchadnezzar's accession year when referring to the Jerusalem event.

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

• on Tammuz (June-July) 9 in the 11th year of Zedekiah’s reign (Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year if counting from his accession year or his 18th regnal year), a breach was made in Jerusalem’s wall.

The scriptures quoted are as follows:

• (Jeremiah 52:29) In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem.

• (2 Kings 25:8, 9) In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. 9 He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; . . .

I know you already knew this from a previous conversation.

20 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Honesty is a two-way street required by both sides in a debate therefore no need for any ;theocratic war strategy..

You were using the term "honesty is a two-way street" as if it were an excuse to explain why you made a false claim. In a "debate" you don't get to make false claims and then make excuses for it. You should be honest no matter what you think of the other person's evidence.

20 hours ago, scholar JW said:

If the Gap does not exist then how do you account for the 20 year difference between 586/587 BCE and 607 BCE for the same event? No need for circular reasoning here.

There is no gap in the NB evidence. You don't create a gap in another set of evidence by simply making a claim that one exists:

Let's say that I have a coin collection of all the different types of United States coins made during World War 1: a 1914 penny, nickel, dime, quarter, half-dollar, silver dollar, gold quarter-eagle, gold half-eagle, etc., etc., from each of the applicable locations where coins are officially minted. Let's say that  I have an entire set not just from 1914, but also from 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918. Now you come along and tell me that there is a three-year gap in my WW1 coin collection. But that doesn't create a gap in my collection. It does not create a gap in the evidence for when WW1 started and ended. It just creates a gap in your credibility.

If I ask you where this supposed three-year gap might be placed, you could say that the extra three years should be placed between 1916 and 1917. Again, this claim is only a gap in your own credibility and it has no effect on the evidence for what coins were made during World War 1 and it has no effect on the evidence for the actual years of World War 1. It's just a claim. Even if it came from your beloved grandfather who has never told a lie before, it still doesn't mean that the start of World War 1 must now be reset to 1911 instead of 1914.

You could insist that there must be a three-year gap because your grandfather actually told you that World War 1 started in 1911. He is so sure of it that he has also pushed back the beginning of the U.S. Civil war to 1858 instead of 1861, and the U.S. Declaration of Independence from Britain to July 4, 1773 instead of 1776. But this would only mean that you (and your grandfather) have a gap. It does not produce any gap in United States chronology or coinage.

20 hours ago, scholar JW said:

If there is no Gap then why or what are we discussing?

We are certainly not discussing any gap in the NB evidence itself, but a gap in someone else's claim about it. We are discussing the idea that you believe there is a gap somewhere in the NB, but you still don't even know exactly where that gap should be placed. We are in exactly the same type situation that would be created if you and your grandfather were claiming that World War 1 started in 1911 instead of 1914, assuming that you agreed that it ended in 1918, but that WW1 covered parts of 8 different years (1911-1918) instead of parts of 5 different years (1914-1918). But you still don't know where the current evidence for WW1 from 1914 to 1918 went wrong. Perhaps the three years of information you need to add should be inserted between the current evidence for 1916 and 1917. Or between the current evidence for 1917 and 1918. Or perhaps the three years should be added between February 3, 1915 and February 4, 1915.

20 hours ago, scholar JW said:

You talk honesty but your following comments replete with many references to earlier WT Publications finally concluding that some dates were or are fuzzy!

The history of these Watchtower dates that you are relying on is fuzzy. The reasons the Watchtower has needed them to be fuzzy becomes sharp and clear when you study the history of the Watchtower's chronology claims more closely. And you don't even need the older publications because the CURRENT "Insight" book admits that the two year difference between 539 and 537 is based on something that "is very probable." Current publications put the third year of Cyrus at 536, but the first year of Cyrus is pushed as closely as possible toward the spring of 537. Obviously, the WTS does this, even though Cyrus had the authority to release captives in 539 and 538, but we just don't want any Jews coming back in 539 or 538,  as that would throw off 1914 by throwing off 607 by a year or two. In the past, we allowed them to come back in 536 because we thought that was the first year of Cyrus (and therefore put Jerusalem's destruction in 606). If we were arguing for the same two-year-plus delay that we argue for now in the WTS publications, then the Jews might not be back home until 534 or even 533. The fuzziness has worked in favor of the WTS to keep 1914 afloat.

The WTS was always willing to re-adjust the old dates, although to be fair, the solution for a while was to change 1914 to 1915. Both Russell and Rutherford began using 1915 as the new end of the Gentile Times even until a few years after 1914.

• During the time of trouble, closing this age, they will be exalted to power, but their "reign" of righteousness over the world could not precede A.D. 1915—when the Times of the Gentiles have expired. (The Time Is At Hand, p.81.)

• the "battle of the great day of God Almighty" (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1915, with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced. (ibid, p.101)

Here's what we the WTS said when they were first learning about the "zero year" problem in the Watch Tower from December 1912. By 1914 the WTS "discerned" that there WAS a zero year, but still kept referring to October 1915 as the end of the Gentile Times when it looked like 1914 wasn't working out. Apparently, they misunderstood the quote in the Encylopedia Britannica, below, referring to a common misunderstanding that is still made today by amateur astronomers. Then in 1943, the WTS "discerned" that there was NO zero year.:

---------quote from Watch Tower, December 1912, p. 377 [new paragraphs shown as bullet points]---------------

• Whether Dionysius began his A.D. period January 1st, A.D. 1, or whether he began it January 1st, A.D. 0, we may not be sure; neither may we feel too certain whether he began the B.C. dates December 31st, B.C. 0, or December 31st, B.C. 1. For all ordinary purposes this question would be rather immaterial. But it has a very important bearing on our calculation of Gentile Times. . . .
• Coming now to a very critical examination of the date 536 B.C., there is an open question: Shall we call it 536 full years to A.D., or 434 [sic] full years? The difference in time between October 1st and January 1st would be the fourth of a year; hence our query is respecting 536-1/4 or 535-1/4 years B.C. What is the proper method of calculation, is in dispute. If we count the first year B.C. as 0, then the date 536-1/4 B.C. is the proper one for the end of the seventy years of captivity. But if we begin to reckon it by counting the first year before the Christian era as B.C. 1, then evidently the desolation ended 535-1/4 years B.C.
• As to the methods of counting, Encyclopaedia Britannica says, "Astronomers denote the year which preceded the first of our era as 0 and the year previous to that as B.C. 1--the previous year B.C. 2, and so on."
• Whichever of these ways we undertake to calculate the matter the difference between the results is one year. The seventy years of Jewish captivity ended October, 536 B.C., and if there were 536-1/4 years B.C., then to complete the 2,520 years' cycle of the Times of the Gentiles would require 1913-3/4 years of A.D., or to October, 1914. But if the other way of reckoning were used, then there were but 535-1/4 years of the period B.C., and the remainder of the 2,520 years would reach to A.D., 1914-3/4 years, otherwise October, 1915.

31 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

In other words, the Bible shows that your theory is impossible because the Bible confirms that the secular tablets are correct in giving Nebuchadnezzar only 43 years. You can't squeeze out more than 43 years in his reign, if Evil-Merodach became king in the 37th year of Jehoiachin's exile. The Bible also, therefore, agrees with "Ptolemy's Canon" and the evidence from all the astronomical tablets here, too.

Again, I will quote from a source that attempts to support the Bible, but evidently with no particular stake, one way or another, in the Watchtower's version. Below I am quoting two paragraphs from http://bibletruthsandprophecies.com/index.php?title=Jeconiah

Jeconiah is of course the same as Jehoiachin:

-------------- start of quote from website ---------------

Reign

Jeconiah reigned three months and ten days, from December 9, 598 to March 15/16, 597 BC. He succeeded Jehoiakim as king of Judah[2Ki.24:6] in December 598, after raiders from surrounding lands invaded Jerusalem[2Ki.24:2] and killed his father. It is likely that the king of Babylon was behind this effort, as a response to Jehoiakim's revolt, starting sometime after 601 BC. Three months and ten days after Jeconiah became king, the armies of Nebuchadnezzar II seized Jerusalem. The intention was to take high class Judahite captives and assimilate them into Babylonian society. On March 15/16th, 597 BC,[5]:217 Jeconiah, his entire household and three thousand Jews, were exiled to Babylon.

Release from captivity

According to 2 Kings 25:27, Jeconiah was released from prison "in the 37th year of the exile", in the year that Amel-Marduk (Evil-Merodach) came to the throne. Babylonian records show that Amel-Marduk began his reign in October 562 BC.[8] According to 2 Kings 25:27, Jeconiah was released from prison "on the 27th day of the twelfth month", during March of 561 BC. This indicates the first year of captivity to be 598/597 BC, according to Judah's Tishri-based calendar. The 37th year of captivity was thus, by Judean reckoning, the year that began in Tishri of 562, consistent with the synchronism to the accession year of Amel-Marduk given in Babylonian records.

------------- end of quote from website --------------------

17 hours ago, scholar JW said:

After I had made a post to you this morning I was sitting on the throne whereupon much inspiration and meditation can be entered into for knows how great minds have constructed ideas which have altered the course of history or civilization. . . . See, I have most dutifully corrected the problem.

Well, I'll look into how dutifully the problem has been corrected. Let's hope it's duty-free, considering where you've been.

17 hours ago, scholar JW said:

I thought of you and your need for some insertion regarding the 20 years Babylonian Gap. So, I propose that in view of the fact that NB Chronology is silent regarding Neb's 18th year when he destroyed Jerusalem and King Zedekiah's 11 th year that it should be at that time and event the 20 years could be inserted thus altering the traditional 587 or 586 BCE to 607 BCE.

So, you are saying that the 20 years can be inserted altogether in one piece starting in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, which was also the same point as King Zedekiah's 11th year. This would, of course, mean that Nebuchadnezzar did not just rule for 43 years, but for 63 years. This is where those 10,000 tablets could really help out your theory. There are plenty of tablets representing every year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign from his first to his 43rd, but you have absolutely zero for every one of these extra 20 years.

The evidence from thousands of tablets is actually definitive enough. But you would also have an  bigger problem, the Bible itself:

Notice that if your dates were correct then Jehoiachin would have surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar in 597 which you would call 617, assuming this 20-year gap theory was correct. This is admitted in the "Insight" book:

*** 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 fulfillment of Jehovah’s word through Jeremiah, he was taken into Babylonian exile. (Jer 22:24-27; 24:1; 27:19, 20; 29:1, 2) Other members of the royal household, court officials, craftsmen, and warriors were also exiled.—2Ki 24:14-16;

• (2 Kings 25:27) 27 And in the 37th year of the exile of King Je·hoi?a·chin of Judah, in the 12th month, on the 27th day of the month, King E?vil-mer?o·dach of Babylon, in the year he became king, released King Je·hoi?a·chin of Judah from prison.

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

• In the fifth year of JehoiachinÂ’s exile, Ezekiel began his prophetic work. (Eze 1:2) About 32 years later, evidently in 580 B.C.E., Jehoiachin was released from prison by NebuchadnezzarÂ’s successor Evil-merodach (Awil-Marduk) and given a position of favor above all the other captive kings. Thereafter he ate at Evil-merodachÂ’s table and received a daily allowance.—2Ki 25:27-30; Jer 52:31-34.

In other words, the Bible shows that your theory is impossible because the Bible confirms that the secular tablets are correct in giving Nebuchadnezzar only 43 years. You can't squeeze out more than 43 years in his reign, if Evil-Merodach became king in the 37th year of Jehoiachin's exile. The Bible also, therefore, agrees with "Ptolemy's Canon" and the evidence from all the astronomical tablets here, too.

On 12/10/2017 at 3:02 PM, scholar JW said:

Honesty is a two-way street.

No. Honesty is NOT a two-way street. I hope you are not thinking of "theocratic war strategy" when you consider it OK to be dishonest if you consider someone to be an enemy or not entitled to honesty.

*** w57 5/1 p. 286 Use Theocratic War Strategy ***

• So in time of spiritual warfare it is proper to misdirect the enemy by hiding the truth.

*** it-2 p. 244 Lie ***

• ". . . saying something false to a person who is entitled to know the truth . . ."

On 12/10/2017 at 3:02 PM, scholar JW said:

Thus, the NB Period is falsified by this Gap of twenty years so to ignore it is dishonest.

This is misdirection through circular reasoning.

If Bob says 20+30=70, and Jim says 20+50=70, Bob can't say Jim is dishonest because Jim is ignoring Bob's 20-integer Gap.

On 12/10/2017 at 3:02 PM, scholar JW said:

for in any event Chronology is personal,

No. Chronology is not "personal."

On 12/10/2017 at 3:02 PM, scholar JW said:

If you choose to ignore the historical reality of the 70 years then also there is no Gap

This is part of the false, circular reasoning. I find no Gap, and yet I choose NOT to ignore the historical reality of the 70 years. I find all 70 years perfectly accounted for.

On 12/10/2017 at 3:02 PM, scholar JW said:

Whitewashing history is dishonest and trivializing the period by adopting 'fuzzy' beginning, 609 BCE and a 'fuzzy' end, 539 BCE is also dishonest. Perhaps now you should make that insertion at a point of time within the NB Period!!!

I have already stated my acceptance of making the insertion point of the 70 years of Babylonian "empire" from 609 to 539. But I am not against someone accepting a "fuzzy" beginning or end to this period -- within reason. I know, for example, that the Watchtower teaches a "fuzzy end" of this period that admits that the Babylonian empire ended in 539 but also admits that we are only guessing when we say that the Jews returned to end this period in 537. I am not concerned about the 2 years of the Watchtower's "fuzziness" as you would call it. There was a time when the Watchtower accepted 536 as the first year of Cyrus - and not only the first year, but the year of the Edict itself. If there were good reasons to accept that this "70-year period" was shorter, or longer by a few years, or even symbolic, I'd have no problem with it, and I therefore have no problem with a date near 537 as the end of the period. (And I'd have no problem with a date like 607 as the beginning of the 70 years.) But you will see why I consider "honesty" to be an integral part of the discussion when we look more closely at how the Watch Tower publications have "toyed" with this time period.

*** it-1 p. 458 Chronology ***

• During Cyrus’ first year his decree releasing the Jews from exile was given. And, as considered in the article on CYRUS, it is very probable that the decree was made by the winter of 538 B.C.E. or toward the spring of 537 B.C.E. This would permit the Jews time to make necessary preparations, effect the four-month journey to Jerusalem, and still arrive there by the seventh month (Tishri, or about October 1) of 537 B.C.E.

*** w07 9/1 p. 19 par. 9 Highlights From the Book of Daniel ***

• The year is now 539 B.C.E. Babylon has fallen, and Darius the Mede has become ruler over the kingdom of the Chaldeans

*** w05 5/1 p. 12 par. 18 The Resurrection—A Teaching That Affects You ***

• he received a vision in 536 B.C.E., the third year of Cyrus, king of Persia. (Daniel 1:1; 10:1) Some time during that third year of Cyrus, Daniel received a vision of the march of world powers

So Babylon fell in 539, and Cyrus therefore had the power and authority to declare Babylon's captives to be free immediately: in 539. In fact, one Biblical meaning of "first year" as you know (and as you yourself have pointed out previously) can refer to the accession year, which in this case would be 539. But notice that the "Insight" book, in the first of the three quotes above, pushes his "first-year" decree all the way out into 537 or "toward" 537, but in the last quote his third year is 536.

Older Watchtower publications placed Cyrus first year in 536, or even his accession year when Babylon was destroyed, in 536. So in Watchtower terms, both his first year and his third year have, at times, been stated to be 536.

*** Watch Tower, 6/1/1905, p.183

• In accordance with the Edict of Cyrus (536 B.C.) many of the Israelites returned from Babylon and laid the foundations of the Temple. Ezra 4:24, however, states that the work then "ceased unto the 2nd year of the reign of Darius, king of Persia." The length of time from the Edict of Cyrus in 536 B.C. . . .

Throughout all of the earlier publications the statements were always consistent with these examples below:

• All students of chronology may be said to be agreed, that the first year of Cyrus was the year 536 before the beginning of our Anno Domini era. (Watch Tower, 5/1896, p.113)
• With these facts before us, we readily find the date for the beginning of the Gentile Times of dominion; for the first year of the reign of Cyrus is a very clearly fixed date--both secular and religious histories with marked unanimity agreeing with Ptolemy's Canon, which places it B.C. 536. (The Time Is At Hand, p.79-80)

So the THREE YEARS of "fuzziness" in the Watchtower's explanations of this date have all been necessary in order to keep 1914 afloat. At first, it could have been that the Jews began returning in the year of the Edict, 536, back when all students of chronology supposedly agreed that the first year of Cyrus was 536. Then, when all students of chronology must have supposedly realized that "Ptolemy's Canon" actually would have placed the destruction of Babylon by Cyrus in 539, that's when some scrambling began. The solution was to try to push the Edict as close to 537 as possible (see "Insight," above) nearly two years after Cyrus had destroyed Babylon.

Then we still needed an extra year for 1914 to work, so we thought there would have to be a few months of preparation time, and then about 4 more months of travel. Perfect!! We resolved the three years of fuzziness with some conjecture.

You already know that something very similar happened when it was discovered that "all students of chronology" realized that there was no ZERO year. The destruction of Jerusalem had to be moved from 606 to 607 in order for 1914 to work. So it was a "fuzzy" date anyway, and moving it just one year was not a problem.

Therefore in Watchtower chronology, BOTH ends of this period were considered very fuzzy and flexible.

@Anna ,

I think that the following explanation offers a good start for discussing the points in a well organized manner. It's well written, easy to understand, and I don't think it comes from anyone who has a biased stake in the current Watchtower explanation. It's just another person trying to grapple with the same Bible verses that we are, and trying to defend the Bible against Bible detractors. From here to the remainder of the post, it's all a quote from an article at http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/years.htm

-----------beginning of quote, through end of this post -------------

Seventy years of Babylonian rule: A detailed look at Jeremiah 25:9-12 and some objections that skeptics have

Many people have questioned the accuracy of Jeremiah's prophecy about a 70-year period during which Babylon would dominate Judah and hold Jews as captives in Babylon. These questions, in my opinion, are based on a mistaken belief that the captivity was supposed to last 70 years. My response is in three parts:

• Part 1. Summary of my understanding of the prophecy
• Part 2. My explanation of when the 70 years ended.
• Part 3. My theory on when the 70 years began.

Part 1. Summary of my understanding of the prophecy:

1. Jeremiah 25:9-12 said that Judah would serve Babylon for 70 years.

2. Jeremiah 29:10 makes it clear that Babylon's domination of Judah would include a captivity during which Jews would be taken as captives to Babylon.

3. Jeremiah 29:10 said that the captivity would end when the "70 years" ended.

4. But Jeremiah never said that the captivity itself would last 70 years. He only said that Babylonian rule would last 70 years.

5. Babylon's rule lasted 70 years, from 609 BC when the last Assyrian king, Ashur-uballit II, was defeated in Harran, until 539 BC when the Medo-Persians conquered Babylon.

Part 2. My explanation of when the 70 years ended:

The people who have questioned the accuracy of this prophecy are, as far as I have been able to determine, are correct in that the captivity Jews in Babylon did not last 70 years, if the commonly assigned dates for the captivity are taken seriously. Most historical sources that I have seen state that 539 BC was the year that Babylon was conquered by the Medo-Persians. And that would seem to be a reasonable ending date for the captivity. But when did the captivity begin? Some say it began in 597 BC, when Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem. If this date is accepted, then the captivity spanned no more than 59 years. So how does or 59 years equal 70 years? It can't and it doesn't.

Believers, including myself, often point out that the book of Daniel states that there was an earlier taking of captives from Judah to Babylon, in either 605 BC or 606 BC, depending on which source of information is used. And, the believers often point out that although Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BC, he didn't release the Jews until the following year, in 538 BC or even 537 BC. And some believers have assigned the actual year in which the Jews of Babylon did begin to return to Judah was 537 BC or 536 BC. Using the two extremes as the starting and ending points, one could arrive at a 70-year span. But, in my opinion, none of this is even necessary because Jeremiah never said that the captivity would last 70 years. He only said that Babylonian rule would last 70 years.

In Jeremiah 25:9-12, it said that Judah and the surrounding nations would serve Babylon for 70 years. But, Jeremiah does not say that the forced deportation of Jews from Judah would last 70 years. The captivity is something that grew out of Babylon's domination of Judah. The domination was supposed to span 70 years, but Jeremiah never said that the captivity itself would span 70 years. Below is the NIV translation of Jeremiah 25:9-12:

Jeremiah 25:9-12

9 I will summon all the peoples of the north and my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon," declares the LORD, "and I will bring them against this land and its inhabitants and against all the surrounding nations. I will completely destroy them and make them an object of horror and scorn, and an everlasting ruin.

10 I will banish from them the sounds of joy and gladness, the voices of bride and bridegroom, the sound of millstones and the light of the lamp.

11 This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years.

12 "But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation, the land of the Babylonians, for their guilt," declares the LORD, "and will make it desolate forever.

But, in Jeremiah 29:10, Jeremiah does clearly say that the captivity will terminate at the end of the 70-year period. Below is the NIV translation of Jeremiah 29:10:

Jeremiah 29:10

This is what the LORD says: "When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my gracious promise to bring you back to this place.

In Daniel 9:1-2, the prophet Daniel refers to the 70 years in that "the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years." But he too does not state that the captivity was supposed to last 70 years. What did he mean by "desolation?" Some might argue that he meant "captivity." But that would be an assumption, and nothing more than an assumption. And, in my opinion, given the fact that Daniel is probably referring to the Jeremiah prophecy, it would be a weak assumption to think that he meant "captivity" when he said "desolation." The desolation could simply refer to Babylonian domination, lasting from 609 BC to 539 BC. Others might claim that the "desolation" that Daniel referred to might actually be a reference to the 70 years in which the Temple had been destroyed. The Temple, and Jerusalem, were destroyed in 586 BC by the Babylonians. The Temple, which was rebuilt, was consecrated in 516 BC, 70 years after its destruction. Below is the NIV translation of Daniel 9:1-2:

Daniel 9:1-2

1 In the first year of Darius son of Xerxes (a Mede by descent), who was made ruler over the Babylonian kingdom--

2 in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the LORD given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years.

In 2 Chronicles 36:19-21, the Bible refers to a 70 year period during which the land of Judah enjoyed its Sabbath rests. This Bible passage begins with a reference to the 586 BC destruction of Jerusalem, during which the Temple was also destroyed. If it specifically meant to apply Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy to the destruction of the city, then that application could find fulfillment in that the Temple remained destroyed and non-operational for 70 years, from 586 BC to 516 BC. After the Jews rebuilt the Temple, it was consecrated in 516 BC. But regardless of how the 70 years reference is being used in this passage, it does not say that the captivity itself would last 70 years. Below is the NIV translation of 2 Chronicles 36:19-21:

2 Chronicles 36:19-21

19 They set fire to God's temple and broke down the wall of Jerusalem; they burned all the palaces and destroyed everything of value there.

20 He carried into exile to Babylon the remnant, who escaped from the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia came to power.

21 The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested, until the seventy years were completed in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah.

In Zechariah 1:12, the prophet Zechariah makes a passing reference to a 70 year period. But that passage also does not in any way contradict my contention that the 70 year prophecy of Jeremiah refers to Babylonian rule and that Jeremiah never said that the captivity would last 70 years.

Part 3. My theory on when the 70 years began:

When did Babylon begin its domination of Judah? We know that there are historical records that claim that the Assyrian Empire dominated Judah, and many other nations. And we know that the Assyrian Empire was conquered by the Babylonian Empire.

In 612 B.C. the Babylonians and the Medes conquered Nineveh, which at that time was the capital of the Assyrian Empire. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica: "…Nineveh suffered a defeat from which it never recovered. Extensive traces of ash, representing the sack of the city by Babylonians, Scythians, and Medes in 612 BC, have been found in many parts of the Acropolis. After 612 BC the city ceased to be important…"

After the defeat of Nineveh, the last of the Assyrian kings, Ashur-uballit II, fled to the west with members of his army. Most online historical references that I have been able to find state that the reign of Ashur-uballit II ended in 609 BC. My sources for this are the two Web site addresses below, the first of which is a page from the Missouri Western State College web site:

http://crain.english.mwsc.edu/Jonah/assyrians.htm

The conquest of the Assyrian Empire allowed Babylon and the Medes to divide the empire amongst themselves. The Babylonians chose a vast area of the Assyrian-controlled territories, including Judah and the surrounding countries.

Using the 609 BC date for the demise of the Assyrian Empire and for the rise of the new Babylonian Empire, and using the 539 BC date for the end of the Babylonian Empire, we end up with a 70-year span of Babylonian rule. That, for the reasons described above, is what I believe is the 70-year period referred to in Jeremiah 25:9-12 and Jeremiah 29:10.

----- end of quote from http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/years.htm

@scholar JW,

At least you have admitted that your claim was totally FALSE. Thank you.

Let's review:

• I said that we [in the WT publications] have absolutely no idea at what point between 607 and 539, for example, that we have actually added the 20 years that we needed. We just say that it's in there somewhere, and maybe someday maybe some evidence will turn up for it.
• You said, that's nonsense. More specifically you even said: "Your claim that 'we have absolutely no idea at what point between 607 and 539 for example, that we have actually added the 20 years that we needed' is simply nonsense."
• I said: there is a simple way for you to show whether you are telling the truth. If you actually do have an idea at what point between 607 and 539 you have added the 20 years, simply tell me where it is.
• Then you admit that you have still FAILED to identify the point in question. You said that you can INSERT the 20 years anywhere between 587/586 and 539 BCE.

Your last statement is so patently false. It's such an admission of failure that I'm surprised you ever bothered to call something I said "nonsense" and then so clearly showed that it was correct all along.

As I said, it's a matter of honesty.

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

During the Neo-Babylonian Period alone there is found to be a Gap of 20 years

Not true. There has never been found to be a 20 year gap. That's the problem. And it really is a problem of honesty. No one has found one, no one has seen any hint of one. No one would even know where to look for such a gap because each and every year is completely accounted for.

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

WT Chronology only uses the secular date for the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE for all other dates are based on the biblical narrative counting backwards or forwards in order to construct a scheme of Chronology

As I said, it is a matter of honesty. Although merely highlighting the word "scheme" here would be a cheap shot. The real problems were already discussed and you (scholar JW) already failed to provide any evidence for your claims, even though you gave the impression you have been looking for evidence even among scholarly circles for many years now.

It's almost like you have come into a room with 100 people to claim that 20+30=70, while 99 others are saying that 20+50=70. You can't find your evidence, but say it exists, then you go away for a time but come back saying the evidence exists, but you still can't find it.

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Your claim that 'we have absolutely no idea at what point between 607 and 539 for example, that we have actually added the 20 years that we needed' is simply nonsense.The fact of the matter is that period, the Neo-Babylonian Period parallels Biblical Period of Jewish history and contains events that are or can be synchronized between both schemes. It is proven that there is a 20 years gap which floats between the two because of the '70' years missing from the NB Period historically, therefore, any interpreter, Chronologist or scholar needs to make an adjustment or corrective in order to harmonize the two systems. This is what scholars call -METHODOLOGY!!!!! This represents sound academic practice.

As I said, it is a matter of honesty. You don't have any idea at what point between 607 and 539 where you have added the 20 years. It's as if you think it just floats somewhere between the two dates. Then you say it is proven, but you still say that you have no idea where the point is. You even admit the words that:

• "there is is a 20 years gap which floats between the two because of the '70' years missing from the NB Period historically."

What does that even mean? That you actually do know the point because it floats somewhere at some unknown point? As I said, it's a matter of honesty. What you have done here is what scholars call a lack of methodology. It's completely unsound academic practice. Sorry, but it sounds like pretentiousness in the hopes that no one will read what you just said very carefully.

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

According to at least not half a dozen as you say but there are 17 lines of evidence which would corroborate NB Chronology along with thousands of clay documents

Yes. There are even more lines of secular evidence that corroborate a timetable which is also confirmed by the Bible. And this overwhelming evidence is no challenge at all to the Bible's chronology. The Bible chronology works just fine with the secular chronology here. The 70 years of Jeremiah is a nearly perfect fit, as a matter of fact.

But there is a simple way for you to show whether you are telling the truth. If you actually do have an idea at what point between 607 and 539 you have added the 20 years, simply tell me where it is. You have the secular dates, nearly a 50 year period from 587 to 538, and you know the names and length of reigns of each of the know Neo-Babylonian kings in this period that have even been admitted by the Watchtower publications. So just tell us where the extra 20 years fits into that secular chronology. Show us at what point the secular chronology went wrong, and then we'll know if what you said was true, or nonsense.

On 12/8/2017 at 9:31 PM, Melinda Mills said:

and would have been considered a pagan practice.

Agree 100%. In fact, the Christians would probably not have considered birthdays a pagan practice as much as a "impractical" practice. It was usually only the very rich who could afford to give a feast on birthdays, so it became the purview of kings and persons of high station. Christians, like Jews, would have had no problem with excuses to enjoy a feast. Jesus participated in marriage feasts that lasted several days. He also used feasts in his illustrations. (Matt 22)

Jesus even went to a "tax collector party":

• (Luke 5:27-30) . . .Now after this, he went out and saw a tax collector named Leʹvi sitting at the tax office, and he said to him: “Be my follower.” 28 And leaving everything behind, he rose up and began to follow him. 29 Then Leʹvi spread a big reception feast for him in his house, and there was a large crowd of tax collectors and others who were dining with them. 30 At this the Pharisees and their scribes began murmuring to his disciples, saying: “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”

Jesus even gave instructions for feasts that had no specific reason behind them.

• (Luke 14:12-16) 12 Next he said also to the man who had invited him: “When you spread a dinner or an evening meal, do not call your friends or your brothers or your relatives or your rich neighbors. Otherwise, they might also invite you in return, and it would become a repayment to you. 13 But when you spread a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind; 14 and you will be happy, because they have nothing with which to repay you. For you will be repaid in the resurrection of the righteous ones.” 15 On hearing these things, one of the fellow guests said to him: “Happy is the one who dines in the Kingdom of God.” 16 Jesus said to him: “A man was spreading a grand evening meal, and he invited many.

Since feasts were expensive, it appears that Christianity itself made it easier to afford feasts as part of the meeting arrangements, probably because it no longer depended on the generosity of a single rich person, but the sharing among all of them.

• (Jude 12) 12 These are the rocks hidden below water at your love feasts while they feast with you, shepherds who feed themselves without fear; . . .

And of course, even Jesus refers positively to the feast that took place on the 25th of the winter month that usually corresponds with December. (Kislev 25) Jesus went up to Jerusalem during the Hanukkah celebration, on the 25th of the month, even though Hanukkah was a feast that was not commanded in the Bible but was initiated during Maccabean times. (See John 10:22 in the NWT Reference Bible)

9 hours ago, Anna said:

To get the 609 and 605 dates for the two battles what source was used? I calculated it comes to those dates using VAT 4956, but were there any other sources for dating those two battles? How come  WT dates it earlier by 20 years? 

It's pretty simple. The Watchtower merely relies on secular dating to get all dates during this period.

To get any date up to and prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, they merely take the secular date and add 20 years:

• 587+20=607
• 605+20=625
• 609+20=629
• In effect, this would have to have gone all the way back to Adam, if there had been an unambiguous timeline going all the way back.

In fact, it averages out to something similar when comparing to Bishop Ussher's numbers which put Adam's creation at 4004 BCE and we effectively add 22 years to that (4004+22=4026).

For any date after and including the destruction of Babylon in 539, the Watchtower relies completely on this secular date. They merely take the secular date and add 0 years:

• 539+0=539

There is an exception made for the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus, but only so that we can make the 70 weeks of years fit an interpretation that is easier to explain.

*** it-1 p. 182 Artaxerxes ***

• Artaxerxes Longimanus, the son of Xerxes I, is the king referred to at Ezra 7:1-28 and Nehemiah 2:1-18; 13:6. Whereas most reference works give his accession year as 465 B.C.E., there is sound reason for placing it in 475 B.C.E.—See PERSIA, PERSIANS (The Reigns of Xerxes and of Artaxerxes).

At this point, with Artaxerxes, we are moving back from the secular dating by 10 years, not 20, but that was after accepting the secular dating as exactly correct in 539. The reason is always to make our interpretations work.

The embarrassing part of all of this is that we have absolutely no idea at what point between 607 and 539, for example, that we have actually added the 20 years that we needed. We just say that it's in there somewhere, and maybe someday maybe some evidence will turn up for it.

Remember that the WT had to add 20 years to the Neo-Babylonian calendar to push the destruction of Jerusalem far enough back so that 2,520 years would end in 1914. In effect, then, the WT must add 20 years to every secular date. The WT is forced to break not just one line of evidence for 587, but at least half-a-dozen lines of evidence, plus the evidence derived from LITERALLY!! ALL of more than 10,000 clay tablets and literally ALL the evidence from Babylonian, Assyrian and Persian sources in the relevant time period.

if you look too closely at this, be prepared to become ashamed or become [academically] dishonest. It's just my opinion, but I see no other choices.

5 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

staring at me now

Send it to paradise!

As a follow-up on my last post, it's important that this speculation was considered appropriate for SERIOUS Bible students.

• WHAT about all this talk concerning the year 1975? Lively discussions, some based on speculation, have burst into flame during recent months among serious students of the Bible. Their interest has been kindled by the belief that 1975 will mark the end of 6,000 years of human history since Adam’s creation. The nearness of such an important date indeed fires the imagination and presents unlimited possibilities for discussion.

My father was counseled by a District Overseer in front of the Circuit Overseer for "toying" with Jesus' words at Matthew 24:36 when he added the verse to an assembly talk along with a sentence about not getting too carried away. The counsel was based on this same article quoted above:

*** w68 8/15 pp. 500-501 par. 35 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***

• This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end.

1 hour ago, DefenderOTT said:

The evidence just isn’t there that the watchtower coerced anyone to speculate. But, everyone is entitled to their opinion…

Thanks for providing what you did. You left a few relevant things out, which would give the fuller picture, but what you included was especially interesting in the change from 1962/3 to 1968. Suddenly in 1968, speculation was encouraged as a sign that a Bible student was serious. And that approved speculation was expected to spread like wildfire among serious Bible students because it about something so important.

1 hour ago, DefenderOTT said:

Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975?

WHAT about all this talk concerning the year 1975? Lively discussions, some based on speculation, have burst into flame during recent months among serious students of the Bible. Their interest has been kindled by the belief that 1975 will mark the end of 6,000 years of human history since Adam’s creation. The nearness of such an important date indeed fires the imagination and presents unlimited possibilities for discussion.

² But wait! How do we know their calculations are correct? What basis is there for saying Adam was created nearly 5,993 years ago? Does the one Book that can be implicitly trusted for its truthful historical accuracy, namely, the Inspired Word of Jehovah, the Holy Bible, give support and credence to such a conclusion?

The answer to those questions from paragraph two became the conclusion of the article:

*** w68 8/15 p. 499 par. 28 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***

• Thus, through a careful independent study by dedicated Bible scholars who have pursued the subject for a number of years, and who have not blindly followed some traditional chronological calculations of Christendom, we have arrived at a date for Adam’s creation that is 22 years more distant in the past than Ussher’s figure. This means time is running out two decades sooner than traditional chronology anticipates. . . .

  That means, in the fall of the year 1975, a little over seven years from now (and not in 1997 as would be the case if Ussher’s figures were correct), it will be 6,000 years since the creation of Adam, the father of all mankind!
  ADAM CREATED AT CLOSE OF “SIXTH DAY”
  30 Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man’s existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ. If these two periods run parallel with each other as to the calendar year, it will not be by mere chance or accident but will be according to Jehovah’s loving and timely purposes. Our chronology, however, which is reasonably accurate (but admittedly not infallible), at the best only points to the autumn of 1975 as the end of 6,000 years of man’s existence on earth. It does not necessarily mean that 1975 marks the end of the first 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh creative “day.” Why not? Because after his creation Adam lived some time during the “sixth day,” which unknown amount of time would need to be subtracted from Adam’s 930 years, to determine when the sixth seven-thousand-year period or “day” ended, and how long Adam lived into the “seventh day.” And yet the end of that sixth creative “day” could end within the same Gregorian calendar year of Adam’s creation. It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years.

It's the textbook definition of a call for speculation. No one was "coerced" to speculate. But they were told that it was the appropriate thing to be doing if you were among "serious Bible students" This very material was admitted to be "fuel" for the imagination that produced speculation like a wildfire.

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

Let us be perfectly clear. The 70 years of Jeremiah cannot refer to Babylonish domination alone as . . .

At least we should be able to agree that the 70 years that Jeremiah mentions is always about the length of time of Babylonian domination though, right?

Jeremiah mentions the 70 years in three different places and ALWAYS with reference to Babylon's time of domination:

• (Jeremiah 25:11, 12) 11 And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’ 12 “‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,’ declares Jehovah, ‘and I will make the land of the Chal·deʹans a desolate wasteland for all time.
• ^{(jw.org Byington,Living Bible)}  (Jeremiah 29:10, from JW.ORG) For Jehovah says, As soon as Babylon has had a full seventy years, I will look after you and keep my good word for you, bringing you back to this place.
• ^{(jw.org American Standard Bible)}  (Jeremiah 29:10, from JW.ORG) For thus saith Jehovah, After seventy years are accomplished for Babylon, I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place.

Clearly, those involved in developing the Watchtower's doctrine were not too pleased with the fact that the Hebrew says "for Babylon" here, so without any authority from the Hebrew language manuscripts or Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. The NWT decided to translate this as "at Babylon" which gives a slight different idea, as if it might refer to 70 years of Judea's affliction in Babylonian captivity, which of course doesn't even make sense, since people were taken both before and after the time of Jerusalem's destruction.

• (Jeremiah 29:10) . . .For this is what Jehovah says, ‘When 70 years at Babylon are fulfilled, . . .

The other two translations available on the JW.ORG website, Byington and American Standard, both match the Hebrew by translating the equivalent of "for Babylon." I think the best translation is actually this one:

GOD'S WORD® Translation

• (Jeremiah 29:10) This is what the LORD [Jehovah] says: When Babylon's 70 years are over, I will come to you. I will keep my promise to you and bring you back to this place.

For a time, when a couple of the NWT Bibles in other languages began to translate from the Hebrew instead of the English, they actually began using the term "for Babylon" instead of "at Babylon." Currently, with the 2013 NWT, I believe we are back to translating the other languages from the English rather than the the Bible manuscripts.

So I hope you can at least agree about what these 70 years refer to. Do you agree with the Isaiah book where it references Jeremiah's 70 years with respect to Tyre?

*** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***

• “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) . . . Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble.

33 minutes ago, Noble Berean said:

Good point. "Rank and file" has bee a common expression within Bethel for the publishers outside the Bethel headquarters.

• Sometimes F.Franz used the term "rank and file" and sometimes just "the publishers" as in "the publishers don't always know what they need until they see it."
• Assembly talk in 2014 spoke of how the faithful slave is producing material and that "You, the rank and file take it from door to door." (He was a circuit overseer, so I remember wondering if he should have said "We, the rank and file . . .")
• A member of the Governing Body speaks of the "rank and file" witnesses in the 2011 video "Jehovah's Witnesses -- Faith in Acti0on."
• Also the Watchtower has used it a couple of times:

*** w86 9/1 p. 28 Must You Be in the Limelight? ***

• A similar situation exists in the Christian congregation. Some individuals are used quite prominently, but others play rather inconspicuous roles as rank-and-file publishers of the Kingdom message. Should these ones feel, however, that they are somehow less important because they are not in the limelight?

But it's true isn't it, that each of these "prominent ones" should also be considering themselves to to be the "rank and file" at least on weekends.

6 minutes ago, Noble Berean said:

It's dishonest for the organization to suggest that 1975 enthusiasm was generated by some rank & file JWs.

Just because something is not true does not strictly mean it is dishonest. I have honestly seen perhaps dozens of people who knew all about the publications drumming up speculation about the 1970's but who were then very quick to blame themselves or decide that they weren't at all affected when they were. What I think I have seen is that blaming individual Witnesses instead of the publications for the speculation became a mental rite of passage for all those who lived through it but didn't exactly know what to say afterward. In 1976 we got the message that it was our own fault, and I think this came at the peak time to settle any confusion about what just happened. I remember thinking that this was easier if all of us just saw it as our own weakness because we don't have to worry about the reputation of Jehovah's organization, and we are all humble enough to take the blame. It seemed to me that whole congregations were breathing a sigh of relief that this was the solution. I think that most of us (I'm guessing 66%) were thoroughly convinced that it really was our own fault. Those who didn't fall for it were given a chance to judge themselves as slightly superior to those who did.

And the reason it worked is that it was partly true. While the WTS had requested that we speculate about 1975, and it drove the parameters of that speculation so that we would see a high probability of end-time events taking place that year, we were never told specifically that Armageddon would come that year. Yet this was exactly what people were thinking. That was improper, individual speculation. The closest the Watchtower had said was that the 1970's would see end time events. The events would begin, not years, but only months from 1975. This is really the equivalent of saying, before October 1977, (because that would be "years" not just "months"). But there was enough looseness to the language and the tie in with expectations for the 1970's so that we should not have been surprised if the end took until 1979. But it was almost surely going to happen prior to 1979.

In 1976 we really had been speculating about a specific year (1975) and we were never told to do that, per se. Yes, we were told to speculate, but there really were unwarranted conclusions being drawn from the speculation. It seems curious how even the internal speculation at the Society's headquarters was not going to wait until 1977 to see if it really would be only months, not years from 1975. They understood that when 1975 was only a few months behind us, that the whole speculation had to be put to bed. In fact, they put the brakes on the speculation beginning in the summer of 1974, as I recall.

So all the initial enthusiasm had been generated by the WTS publications, but only up through 1973, and even then the most important enthusiasm had been at assemblies between 1968 and 1971. I think that HQ knew that there was something wrong with the 1975 thing in late 1973 and early 1974. They probably felt that after the counsel beginning in the summer of 1974, any individuals who still pushed 1975 with the same enthusiasm were on their own.

18 minutes ago, Anna said:

So is it wrong to say that the dominance given to Babylon started with the destruction of Jerusalem?

I think so. The dominance given to Babylon would have been when Babylon became the obvious ascendant heir to the Assyrian Empire. Egypt had dominance when they were the "world empire" then Assyria had dominance when they were the "world empire." Therefore, it would start around 609 BCE and end in 539 BCE, when Babylon was the "world empire." It's the exact same time period given to the 70 years of Babylon over Tyre.