JW Insider

There is no dispute. It's merely a distortion of facts. There were about 60,000 Jews living in Palestine in 1914, about the same as the year before and the year after. They weren't "released" from Palestine in 1914. The Gentile Nations were not demolished in 1914 or even within a few months of that date. 1914 did not END the time of trouble that the WTS had predicted for decades prior. World War 1 proved that Russell was wrong. None of those 7 or 8 major expectations for 1914 came true. And as you said, the gentile times "persist" even until now.

Why do I bear more responsibility than the 15 or more reference books that the Watchtower publications have quoted from as authorities with respect to the Neo-Babylonian chronology, all of which oppose the Watchtower chronology. The Watchtower has never yet pointed readers to one source that supports the Watchtower chronology. What if others were inclined to use the resources the Watchtower referenced in doing further research? Is it only because, for so many years, I agreed with the Watchtower chronology? Is the Watchtower misleading people by pointing them to Sachs and Hunger, Wiseman, Pritchard, Steele, Grayson, Walker, Hunger, Dougherty, Brown, Huber, Weidner, Parker and Dubberstein, Thiele, etc.? Even the references in the 2011 articles supporting Furuli's folly never once pointed to Furuli, but only to at least 10 sources that all, 100%, supported 587/6 BCE as the time for Jerusalem's destruction. No exceptions.

Obviously. I accept ALL of the pieces of astronomical data because they are all consistent and there are literally tens of thousands of pieces of intertwining evidence in support of the astronomical data. The Watchtower has "painted itself into a corner" and chosen to cherry-pick only a tiny piece of that data, and only from a point in time where the Watchtower happens to agree with the secular data. Other than this tiny piece, the Watchtower is an opposer of about 99% of the astronomical data. I assume you don't like the fact that I have always claimed that the 70 years must have started within a year or two of 607 BCE. So does Adam Rutherford, so does COJ, so do hundreds of Bible commentators. That's because all of them realize the same truth that was printed in the Watchtower's Isaiah's Prophecy book: that the 70 years for Babylon must have run from about 609 to 539, with reference to the 70 years of Jeremiah 25:10. 607 to 537 is only two years off, and two years doesn't make much of a difference. It's still the generally correct time period even per the astronomical evidence.

Projection again. I twisted and distorted no facts. I do rely on astronomical evidence to support my claim of what happened in 609, 607, 605, 597, 587, 562, 539, 538, etc., just as the WTS relies on astronomical evidence to support 539 BCE. There should be no confusion. All the evidence is consistent: astronomical, archaeological and Biblical. True. You and I have made that very clear, many times over. There should be no confusion at all.

Projection again. I didn't seem to imply anything of the sort. I just said that the important thing to watch is what sort of persons we ought to be seeing that the days are wicked.

Projection again. You were the one who made it an issue of grammar, by claiming it was your own punctuation mistake.

I couldn't have said it better myself: It seems clear that the "gentile times" persist as they always have. Yet they were supposed to have ended in 1914. That's the specific failure I alluded to, and now you have alluded to the same.

I’m cool with that!

Here are some of the excerpts I found most interesting: Page 119 endnotes [Rutherford is quoted extensively by this author] 13. A small adjustment to this date was proposed by Bro. Adam Rutherford, whose devoted labors in this field are familiar to many brethren. He believed there should be a two-year shift in all the dates of the Neo-Babylonian empire, so that the fall of Babylon occurred in 537 bc. By this means he was able to mark the beginning of Babylon’s 70 years at 607 bc, and thus end the Gentile Times at 1914, without disputing the historical testimony about the span of years between Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus. (For his interesting and thorough discussion see Rutherford, 25-67 .) However, these points should be noted regarding his presentation. (1) The observation that “no astronomical fixing has as yet been possible from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar to Cyrus inclusive” (526) is controverted by VAT 4956 which astronomically dates the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar to 568 bc . (2) His suggestion of a two-year stagger between Cyrus and his son Cambyses (535) is disputed by the 18-year eclipse cycle tablets which span the period from Nabopolassar through Artaxerxes, and the evidence of over 1400 commercial tablets published in list form in the late 1980s which cover the reigns of Cyrus and Cambyses . The latter was published after Rutherford’s death, and he may have been unaware of the former. ... He remarks on the Adda-Guppi Stele to support a two-year stagger in linking Assyrian history with Babylonian (540-544) . This tablet recites the long life of Adda-Guppi, who was the mother of Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon . It says she was born in the 20th year of Ashurbanipal (Assyrian king), and lived through his 42nd year, then 3 years of the reign of Ashur-etil-ilani (Assyrian king), 21 years of Nabopolassar (Babylonian king), 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar (Babylonian king), 2 years of Amel-Marduk (Babylonian king), 4 years of Neriglissar (Babylonian king), and to the ascension of her son Nabonidus to the throne of Babylon . The age given her in the tablet at that time is 95 years . Indeed, 22 + 3 + 21 + 43 + 2 + 4 = 95 years . Yet conventional history assigns to this span 93 years . The answer? Evidently Adda-Guppi moved from the jurisdiction of the Assyrian kings to the jurisdiction of the Babylonian kings when she was 25 years old, during the 3rd year of the reign of Ashur-etil-ilani . This neither requires that he died in his third year (in fact there is a tablet from his fourth year, see Jonsson 210, note 63), nor that she moved in the accession year of Nabopolassar (conventional history implies she made the move in his second year) . Page 122 has another of several examples where Adam Rutherford's scholarship sometimes contains dubious assumptions: Rutherford also holds that the Egyptian sojourn was precisely four hundred years, but his arguments involve two other conclusions: (1) Jacob took three years to journey from Padan-Aram to Canaan, (2) ten years after crossing Jordan Joshua divided the land in a fuller way than Joshua 10:14 refers to. The first is required for his argument, the second is supplementary, but both points are dubious . (Rutherford, 139-150) Page 135, another example: Rutherford also reckons Tishri years for Judah, and he also does not assign Jehoiakim an accession year, which he surmises may have been because Jehoiakim came to the throne so close to (even though after) the start of Tishri (Rutherford, 29) . His chart seems to obscure the 12th year problem, which nevertheless exists (Rutherford, 321) . Further, he concludes that Daniel 1:1 also uses the non-accession year system for Jehoiakim, and therefore adopts the unique but untenable position that the first conquest of Jerusalem preceded the battle of Carchemish . That three such thoughtful reviewers differed slightly on such details hints at the complexity of harmonizing all the data . If the Babylonian Chronicles for the year Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem from Zedekiah were extant, giving the Babylonian month and year for that event, these technicalities would be resolved immediately . But there is a resolution which brings harmony to all the details: (1) all writers used Tishri years for Judah, (2) Kings and Chronicles allow an accession year for Jehoiakim, and so correctly assign him 11 years, (3) Jeremiah uses the non-accession year system for both Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, but never stipulates the length of Jehoiakim’s reign, which would have been 12 I have not read Jonsson's (COJ's) Supplement to GTR, but note that the author treats it as a carefully documented work of scholarship that can even be used to correct the scholarship of other resources: 117. Listed in Johnson, Supplement, 56 . He cites Ben Zion Wacholder, “The Calendar of Sabbatical Cycles During the Second Temple and the Eary Rabbinic Period,” Hebrew Union College Annual, Volume XLIV, ed . Sheldon H . Blank (1973), page 184 . Evidently this article is also published in “Essays on Jewish Chronology and Chronography,” KTAV Publishing House, New York, 1976 . I have not read Wacholder’s article, but my preliminary investigation is consistent with his sabbatical list . Rutherford also gives dates, but they are one year earlier: 164 bc, 38 bc, 68 ad (Rutherford, 36-37) I get the impression that Jonsson (COJ) may have been well aware of Adam Rutherford's writings.

You say you brought up Adam Rutherford to expose falsehoods that I and COJ persistently propagate regarding the Babylonian Chronicles. This makes no sense to me, because I am in perfect agreement with what Adam Rutherford says about these Chronicles. I think COJ would also be in agreement. His understanding of the Chronicles appears just fine, and it adds nothing new to what other specialists have said about them. It's not the Chronicles, but his need to ignore the completely separate astronomy data that I have a problem with. To match his interpretation of the 70 years and his special interpretation regarding "sabbaths" etc., he finds a need to work around and even dismiss the astronomy data so that he can use dates that are two years different from all the astronomy evidence. I don't know in what other context I'm supposed to read it. I found another work that heavily references both Adam Rutherford's book on Bible Chronology and also compares the points it makes with other scholarly resources. Turns out that this author comprehended it exactly as I had, and he highlights the exact differences I made note of. I had not seen this work until AFTER I had looked through most of Adam Rutherford's Pyramidology, Volume III, when you introduced it here. I have not yet found anyone who has explained Adam Rutherford's work any differently from the way I comprehend it -- and so far that includes you, too. You have also not shown any specific places or ways where I should comprehend it differently. The other work discussing Adam Rutherford's theories is 140 pages (pdf) and it's found here: https://2043ad.com/timeandprophecy.pdf It has an extensive bibliography which includes several names you are obviously familiar with. I have skipped most of them, but these were the most recognizable and often mentined on this forum: Barbour-Russell, The Three Worlds, Harvest Gleanings I, 1877, Chic . Bible Stud . Bk . Repub . Com ., ca . 1980 BSM = Bible Study Monthly, “Darius the Mede,” September/October 1980 Edgar, John and Morton, Great Pyramid Passages, Volume 2, Glasgow, 1913 Encyclopedia Judaica, McMillan & Co ., New York, 1971 Froom, Leroy Edwin, The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers, Four Volumes, Review and Herald, 1948 edition Grayson, A . K ., Texts from Cuneiform Sources, Volume V, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, J . J . Augustin Publisher, 1975 Jewish Encyclopedia, New York, Funk & Wagnalls, 1901 Jonsson, Carl Olof, The Gentile Times Reconsidered, Commentary Press Atlanta, 1986 Jonsson, Carl Olof, Supplement (to above), Odeon Books (PO Box 2071, Danville, CA 94526), 1989 Josephus, Flavius (trans . William Whiston), Josephus Complete Works, Kregel Publications, 1978 Keil, C . F . & Delitzsch, F ., Commentary on the Old Testament, 10 Volumes, William B . Eerdmans, reprinted 1985 McClintock & Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, 1871, Baker 1969 McFall, Leslie, “Did Thiele Overlook Hezekiah’s Coregency?,” Bibliotheca Sacra, October-December 1989, 393-404 Miller, William, Evidence from Scripture and History of the Second Coming of Christ About the Year 1843, published by Joshua Himes, 1842 . Republished 1979, Leaves-of-Autumn Books, Box 440, Payson, AZ 85541 Newton, Robert R ., The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1977 Parker, R . A . and Dubberstein, W . H ., Babylonian Chronology 626 bc - 75 ad, Brown University Press, 1956 Parker, R . A ., “The Lunar Dates of Thutmose III and Ramesses II,” JNES 16, 39-43, 1957 Pritchard, James B ., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd edition, Princeton, 1969 Ptolemy, Almagest, Britannica Great Books, Volume 16, 1952 Rogers, Robert William, Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament, 2nd edition, The Abingdon Press, 1926 Russell, Charles Taze B = The Time is at Hand, 1889 C = Thy Kingdom Come, 1890 R = Zion’s Watch Tower, 1879-1916, Reprinted Rutherford, Adam, Bible Chronology, London, 1957 Sachs, A . J . and Hunger, H ., Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia, Volume 1, Diaries from 652 bc to 262 bc (Vienna, Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1988) Thiele, Edwin R ., The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, Eerdmans Publishing, revised edition, 1965 Wiseman, Donald J ., Chronicles of Chaldean Kings (626 - 556 bc) in the British Museum, published by The Trustees of the British Museum, London, 1961

Alright, I worked my way back to Monday 6/17, and references you made to COJ and Adam Rutherford. When you made two clearly false statements about COJ, I did not understand why. You explained that one part of your false statement was because you had used a period instead of a comma. But even that correction didn't change the major false statement. When I asked you about it, you acted like my understanding of your clear statement was somehow a childish game and display of arrogance and a comment on your grammar. It wasn't. Your grammar was perfect. At any rate, you couldn't explain away the second claim but it doesn't matter. I think you merely meant something different from what you said. No big deal.

On 6/18 you made the above statements, as if my claims lacked historical support and factual evidence. But you make an odd comparison to "proving the occurrence of an event in 587 BC" and "relying on the unreliable VAT 4956." As I'm sure you should already know, VAT 4956 is much more reliable than the tablet the WTS relies on for the 7th year of Cambyses in order to prove 539. But ultimately NEITHER or open to multiple interpretations. But neither one matters. Even without either of them, you still have 50 more DIRECT astronomical evidences that the entire period from Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar, Nabonidus, Cyrus and Cambyses is completely and reliably and consistently attested to. You could throw out VAT 4956 which opposers of the evidence seem to obsess over because they believe it is somehow "critical" to the astronomical evidence. It wouldn't make a bit of difference. There is still too much completely consistent factual evidence to overcome.

This "failure" is only another example of your accidental support for what I had just said. It's true that I didn't go as late as November-December. Instead, I used the October date based on archaeological evidence which the WTS also supports: *** it-1 p. 236 Babylon *** . . .until the night of October 5, 539 B.C.E. (Gregorian calendar), when Babylon fell before the invading Medo-Persian armies under the command of Cyrus the Great. Then you go on to present a piece of "evidence" that you have presented before (under a different account). I think you are trying to support the "delay" that the Watchtower needs here, but you probably don't realize that you have not provided enough of a delay to match the Watchtower adjustment: I also have many times stated that believe it was around March/April of 538 BCE. @Arauna has also insisted that it had to be March/April of 538 BCE. But the Watchtower has decided to move it to the near the end of 538, or even the beginning of 537, but without evidence. This way it would force the seventh month of Ezra 3:1,6 to be 537 (instead of 538 as even your "evidence" would allow). *** it-1 p. 568 Cyrus *** In view of the Bible record, Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E. This would allow time for the Jewish exiles to prepare to move out of Babylon and make the long trek to Judah and Jerusalem (a trip that could take about four months according to Ezr 7:9) and yet be settled “in their cities” in Judah by “the seventh month” (Tishri) of the year 537 B.C.E. (Ezr 3:1, 6) The Bible does NOT say however that the decree could not have been made in 539, shortly after he became king in his accession year, because the Bible often calls the accession year the FIRST year. So, it's a possibility, but like you I personally prefer the official FIRST year here (538), not the accession year (539). The Insight book does not try to stretch the journey beyond 4 months, based on Ezra 7:9. There are historical records that show that it COULD be done much faster, but 4 months sounds reasonable for people in groups taking along belongings, perhaps even with beasts of burden. And of course we know even from the Bible evidence along with historical records that many Jews never left Babylon, choosing to stay. Makes me think that those who wanted to leave might have left as soon as possible, but there is nothing specific either way. Only that the Bible indicates that Jews were back in their homeland in the 7th month of the FIRST year of Cyrus, and the WTS prefers the 7th month of the SECOND year of Cyrus. Your idea that the Bible might be wrong about the FIRST year just because the SECOND year can be fully substantiated based solely on historical facts sounds like something you might call "apostasy," if I had said it. And, speak of the . . . , I mean, right on cue, you say: No matter what that supposed "evidence" was, I'm sure it wasn't strong enough to counter the Bible evidence.

So, @BTK59, I'll start addressing some of the claims you have made which you might have thought were some kind of counter-evidence, but which actually support what I already presented. I'll probably start from some of the more recent things you have said and then continue to work my way back to things you said in previous days: There is no "falsehood" because I had just stated that Russell used 606 instead of 607. That was the very point I had just made about why it was partly based on the change from 606 to 607 that it was necessary for the WTS to ignore the Bible's statement that it was the first year of Cyrus, and change it to the "second year of Cyrus," as referenced by @Manuel Boyet Enicola. You say that the "major distortion here is the belief of 539 BC rather than what Pastor Russell and His own Bible Students thought the 70 years ended in 536 BC." I have pointed this very fact out many times before. You were too focused on the actual BCE year, and not the Biblical evidence I was pointing out. Russell thought that Babylon was captured in October 537 and that the decree to release the Jews was made at the beginning of the first year of Cyrus, which would have been 536. Russell had the relative chronology correct and in line with the Biblical evidence. The only thing he had wrong is being off by two years with the "absolute" date of 539 BCE. The WTS has since corrected the absolute date, but now needed TWO years instead of ONE to reach 537 so that they can count back 70 years to 607. Otherwise 1914 would still be off by one year. Then you quoted Russell with the idea of showing that I was wrong, I suppose, but it actually showed that I was right. You summarized your point after inadvertently showing that I was right by saying: So you provide no evidence that I was incorrect, only evidence that I was correct, and then you use it to attack with the long ad hominem just requoted above. Considering your typical and repeated problem with "projection," you might have been concerned that all those attacks on someone else may have reflected more correctly on yourself. I noticed something else in the actual quote you provided that gives further evidence to the point I made previously that the WTS found it necessary to change the definition of "Gentile Times" after the expectations for 1914 failed. You quoted Russell as saying: "The period ends with the overthrow of the Gentile nations, which will occur at the end of the forty year harvest period, at the close of the present Gospel Age. Gentile times began then with . . . " The 40-year harvest period ran from 1874 to 1914. Brother (Joseph) Rutherford temporarily changed to 1878 to 1918 after the failure of the Gentile nations to be overthrown in 1914.

I know that several people have considered the possibility that your many accounts represent an embittered Witness or ex-Witness who asserts himself here because he has lost privileges in the congregation. It is difficult to imagine a person so nasty, divisive, judgmental, haughty and presumptuous being allowed to represent Jehovah's Witnesses in any public capacity. However, I'm going to continue giving you the benefit of the doubt and treat you as if you are sincerely trying to defend the Watchtower's traditions with respect to chronology. I sincerely and honestly believe that the Watchtower will someday adjust their traditional chronology to align with the Biblical and archaeological evidence. If and when that happens, I'm sure you will begin fighting just as adamantly for the Biblical and archaeological evidence instead of arguing against it as you do now. Also, as a reminder: I am not asking anyone to believe as I believe. I am merely honestly and sincerely expressing my own belief with full knowledge that it differs from the traditional WTS teachings about chronology. In doing so, I will continue to honestly explain why the evidence leads me to hold these beliefs. So far, in every case where you have responded to the evidence presented, you have simply made empty attacks without addressing that evidence. This does not mean I am right in my beliefs, because someone else may come along with actual evidence to counter it. There are a few times when you have included items you apparently believe have constituted "evidence." I have most often ignored it, hoping no one is confused by it, and in the hopes that those who read your "evidence" will recognize that it has never addressed the evidence presented. Very often your supposed "counter evidence" actually provides excellent support for the evidence I have already presented. Obviously this isn't your intent, but I know that others have also noticed when this happens. Sometimes I get the feeling that you might honestly believe that when you create an empty attack on someone that you have actually said something meaningful. You might honestly believe that you have made a point. All of your posts contain attacks, but they are empty because they don't address any actual points. I'll take the above comment I just requoted as one small example out of hundreds, so far. You said my argument is flawed and riddled with inconsistencies as I desperately try to focus on 539 BC. It's true you were able to squeeze a lot of pejorative and judgmental "snarkiness" into that sentence, but it's meaningless unless you actually point out a flaw, or one of those inconsistencies. You can't even support the falsehood that I was desperately trying to focus on 539, especially since I made it clear (for the second time) that I wasn't even focused on the exact year, but rather on the Bible's evidence that the Jews returned home in the first year of Cyrus, not the second year as the Watchtower claims. Instead of addressing that Biblical point, you continued to focus on 539 BC. I'm not too concerned about that kind of response because, for any sincere persons, it actually supports what I said, because it indicates that, even for someone who tries as hard as you do to find counter-evidence, that you could find none. You have indirectly and inadvertently added support for the actual evidence presented. But there are also people -- I've seen them respond -- who don't actually care to look into the details of the evidence for themselves. Some of these ones are quite happy that you have supposedly stood up to someone who disagrees with the WTS chronology traditions. There aren't many of these persons remaining here who will support your attacks, but some have probably assumed that your responses are valid just because they seem to support the WTS. That's always been enough for most of us (myself included for many years) to at least see that there is "controversy" which leaves room for "doubt" and for which it's easiest and best to err on the side of the WTS. At least that's a somewhat honest response for those who don't care to look into the details for themselves. If I get time, I wll address some of the ideas you have presented from Adam Rutherford and other sources, and other ideas you have made about Assyrian, Egyptian and Babylonian military campaigns, and the order of various events, etc. But you should know that none of these ideas address even one bit of the Biblical and archaeological evidence. In fact, I have left them alone because they often very directly contradict the Biblical evidence itself, and I just hoped people would notice that without me pointing it out.

Neither is 587 BC, 586 BC, or 585 BC. You are right that BC dates are not given to us in the Bible, and that goes for 607 BCE and 539 BCE and 537 BCE, too. But I was focusing on the idea that "the exiles arrived in Jerusalem 2 years later." According to the Bible, it was 1 year later. The Watchtower ignores the Bible's account that it was one year later. It added the idea of two years later so that 1914 would still work. Of course, the Isaiah's Prophecy book (quoted above) says that the 70 years of Babylon's greatest domination ran from 609 to 539, referencing Jeremiah 25 -- and this follows 2 Chronicles, too. (2 Chronicles 36:20-22) . . .He carried off captive to Babylon those who escaped the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia began to reign,  to fulfill Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill 70 years. In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in order that Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah would be fulfilled, Jehovah stirred the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his kingdom, . . . So there is really nothing in the Bible about having to wait until the Jews got back to their homeland anyway. Russell had this right. The Jews got back to their homeland one year later, but the 70 years had already ended when the kingdom of Persia began to reign. That would be Cyrus' accession year (about October 539 per astronomy evidence). 538 at the latest.

True. But it's not a matter of watching for what hour a thief might be coming, because he will come at an hour you do not think to be it. Instead it's a matter of keeping watch of ourselves, of our conduct. “Watch out that no one deceives you. . . . “Watch out for yourselves. Watch what sort of persons we ought to be. (Ephesians 5:15, 16) . . .So keep strict watch that how you walk is not as unwise but as wise persons,  making the best use of your time, because the days are wicked. (2 Peter 3:11, 12) . . .Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, as you await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah,. . . (Matthew 24:43, 44) . . .But know one thing: If the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into. On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it.

Yes. It sounds simple. But it's even simpler to show how this is just an example of circular reasoning. 1. The bible is absolute truth. Yes. And ultimately it is the Bible's truth that can easily show us that 1914 is a false and contradictory way to look at what the Bible says about the last days, the last generation, the presence/parousia, the kingdom, the sign, the synteleia/conclusion, etc. 2. Pivotal date for fall of Babylon is 539 BCE. Yes. But the only way we can know that it was 539 is through astronomy. And the astronomy data comes to us as a set of data reaching from well before Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar, Amel-Merodach, Neriglissar, Nabonidus, and reaching to well after Cyrus and Cambyses. Through that period there are at least 50 good astronomical readings, without which we would not know any dates like 587, 607, 539, 537. Archaeology gives us dated inscriptions, and near-contemporary lists of kings with their order of succession and their lengths of reign. There are contemporary dated histories, dated business records, temple records, etc. But none of those dates are tied to our BCE or CE era. The only way that can be done is through astronomy and the supporting historical evidence through archaeology. Even the Watchtower publications admit that they cannot date the year 539 without astronomy. When Nabonidus fell to Cyrus in 539 you'd think the WTS would use astronomy records for Nabonidus or Cyrus, but they don't. They use a damaged and partially unreliable COPY of an older inscription that gives an astronomy observation for the 7th year of Cambyses. Then they make use of a more recent King List like the one(s) Ptolemy used to see how Cambyses is related to Cyrus on the timeline. They look at the contract tablets also to see how many years that Cambyses and Cyrus ruled and to double-check that there were no other rulers or co-rulers in the meantime. Why just focus on the one partly unreliable INDIRECT inscription when there are at least 50 reliable DIRECT inscriptions for the entire period? That's easy. Because the entire set of reliable DIRECT inscriptions shows us that you cannot accept 539 BCE as the fall of Babylon unless you also accept that the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 587. NOT 607 BCE. So it's really only through dishonest presentation of the data that one could claim we KNOW about 539 without admitting that the only way we KNOW 539 is because we also KNOW that 607 is the WRONG date for the fall of Jerusalem in the 18th/19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. So IF you are saying that 539 is pivotal, it's the same as saying that the entire reign of Nebuchadnezzar is at least 10 times MORE PIVOTAL. That's because there are about a DOZEN observations/records of astronomical events that DIRECTLY give us the entire reign of Nebuchadnezzar. If you believe 539 is correct, it's the same as saying that 607 is incorrect for ANY year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. That's because Nebuchadnezzar didn't even become a king until well AFTER 607. The exiles arrived in Jerusalem 2 years later, 537 BCE. That's not in the Bible. It's an adjustment the Watchtower had to make in order for 1914 to still work, related to fixing the old mistake claiming it was 606 to 536 BCE. The Bible says it was one year later, not two. Cyrus captured Babylon in October, about the 7th month of the Jewish and Babylonian year. Sometimes the Bible calls the first year of a king from that very point in his accession year, but since the Jews didn't arrive until the 7th month of the first year, this must be counting Cyrus' first year from Nisan (March/April). So it's the 7th month of 538 if you accept 539 as pivotal. (Ezra 1:1) . . .In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in order that Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah would be fulfilled, Jehovah stirred the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his kingdom. . .(3:1) When the seventh month arrived and the Israelites were in their cities, they gathered together with one accord in Jerusalem. (3:8) In the second year after they came to the house of the true God at Jerusalem, in the second month, Ze·rubʹba·bel the son of She·alʹti·el, Jeshʹu·a the son of Je·hozʹa·dak and the rest of their brothers, the priests and the Levites, and all those who had come to Jerusalem out of the captivity started the work; they appointed the Levites from 20 years old and up to serve as supervisors over the work of the house of Jehovah. Counting back 70 years for Judah's desolation brings us to 607 BCE. Now, this is the bone of contention, unless we accept point #1 above. This is no bone of contention for me. I believe that Judah's desolation began within a year or two of 607 BCE. Just like Adam Rutherford, and just like the Watchtower publication, Isaiah's Prophecy, I believe the 70 years were counted from the very time that Babylon became the fear-inspiring new threat and began desolating and desecrating Judea. As BTK has indicated, the effect would be on all of Judea from the moment that the new fear inspiring Empire began attacking any of the nations around it. And it did this for a 70 year period. ----jw.org---- Isaiah goes on to prophesy: “It must occur in that day that Tyre must be forgotten seventy years, the same as the days of one king.” (Isaiah 23:15a) Following the destruction of the mainland city by the Babylonians, the island-city of Tyre will “be forgotten.” True to the prophecy, for the duration of “one king”—the Babylonian Empire—the island-city of Tyre will not be an important financial power. Jehovah, through Jeremiah, includes Tyre among the nations that will be singled out to drink the wine of His rage. He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble.

What if Satan knew that Jesus said that no one would knows the day and hour of his return, that it would be at a time we would not think to be it, and that the times and seasons are in Jehovah's jurisdiction, not for us to know. And what if he knew that Paul had said "As for the times and seasons, you need nothing to be written to you -- because you very well know that the day will come as a thief." So Satan is seeking to devour people who are otherwise determined to be Jehovah's named people, but he would love to see them become disobedient to the spirit of Jesus's words and show the kind of hubris and pride that would make them think that what Jesus said doesn't really matter: that we want to claim that we can know the times and seasons anyway. So Satan finds a group of honest-hearted people looking for truth, but he needs them to have at least one major stumbling block -- disobedience to Jesus' words about realizing that the end comes as a complete surprise, just the way that Sodom was destroyed without warning. This way it's also possible to get people serving for a date, or not completely whole-souled because they think that they will be able to wait until the signs get even more specific [like a "cry" of peace and security] before they completely clear their conscience of all the things that could weigh them down in this system. They will be looking for signs, but won't be focused on what sort of persons they ought to be - and to be ready for that revelation/manifestation/parousia at any time, including 5 minutes from now. So making persons get absorbed in date-setting not only produces a lack of readiness, it always produces one more thing that most people don't realize. Everyone who sets certain expectation for certain dates is displaying presumptuousness and pride. They will also invariably fail, just as Russell failed with every single prediction and expectation for 1914, and 1915, and 1878, and 1881, and just as Rutherford failed in his published predictions for 1918 and 1925. The pride angle is obvious, because a leader like Russell or Rutherford (or Ellen G White, or Nelson Barbour, or William Miller, or Garner Ted Armstrong, or Frederick Franz, or Harold Camping, etc.) is saying in effect, "I know Jesus said that no one would know, but he is making an exception for me, and therefore for the group that listens to what I am saying. We are so special!" But that type of pride has a secondary effect when the dates fail -- and they invariably do fail. To save face, every single person who has predicted something must backtrack (with few exceptions) and try to make it look like it wasn't really a failure. Instead of admitting failure, it becomes "Well it wasn't us, it was people listening to us but getting too carried away." Or, "We were expecting the right thing, just at the wrong time - a little to early." Or, "We had the time right, we were just expecting the wrong thing." And then there is the whitewashing of history, as when the Watchtower began "bragging" about how only Jehovah's Witnesses (called Bible Students at the time) were preaching for decades in advance that Jesus' invisible presence would begin and Christ's kingdom would be born in 1914." Of course, that's a dishonest statement, yet we have heard versions of it so many times that some of us believe it's true. No one ever preached in advance that Christ's kingdom would begin in 1914. No one ever preached in advance that Jesus invisible presence would begin in 1914. There is nearly always an element of dishonesty that goes with every religion that has ever tried to set dates related to end time events. So if Satan could find a way to feed into that idea of date-setting either through a typo or through manipulation of world leaders to fool Russell into thinking one of his dates was right all along, I wouldn't doubt that Satan would try.

That sounds like some very dishonest and manipulative wordplay. Rutherford does not support "the belief" in 607 BC. He believed that the Watchtower (and Russell) was WRONG to believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 (606) BC. Rutherford believed it was 585 and that Russell was WRONG by 21 years. Rutherford believed that the current Watchtower was WRONG by 22 years. He would believe I was wrong to use the astronomy data, because he likes 537 for the year Cyrus captured Babylon. I agree with the current Watchtower that it was 539 BC. He would believe I was WRONG by 2 years. But this doesn't mean I believe the Watchtower's 539 over his fixation on 537 as if my entire existence depended on it. It's just something I believe because that's what the evidence says. The astronomy evidence says the Watchtower is right about 539 and Rutherford supports a different date. So what? Same with 587 BCE. So what? I only claim that Russell claimed that the end of the world meant the end of the "system of things." (The world: the ecclesiastical heavens and and the social earth.) The end of this world means there will be a new world, because the old heavens and the old earth will have passed away. As Russell claimed in May 1914, when his waning faith in that year was revived: There is absolutely no ground for Bible students to question that the consummation of this Gospel age is now even at the door, and that it will end as the Scriptures foretell in a great time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation. We see the participants in this great crisis banding themselves together [...] The great crisis, the great clash [...] that will consume the ecclesiastical heavens and the social earth, is very near. As he said for decades prior to 1914: We see no reason for changing the figures—nor could we change them if we would, They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of the trouble.

OK. You've explained a bit more. You clearly said that COJ was an ex-Bethelite and that he claimed to align the Babylonian Chronicles with 607 and relate this to 1914. So it's clear that's exactly what you said, but now you say I was manipulating your words and that you were referring to me as the ex-Bethelite. Just to be clear then, it's YOU manipulating your words to say they mean something else now. Fine. But you are still saying that he, COJ I assume, claimed to align the Babylonian Chronicles with 607 BC and relate this to 1914. I don't see how you can manipulate your words about COJ claiming to align these chronicles with 607, much less 1914. He wrote his entire book to show the exact opposite. He shows how the Babylonian Chronicles do NOT align with 607 and how they therefore could never align with 1914. But you knew that, because you even quoted proof from his book. There's nothing to argue here. But when you manipulate your own words, to avoid admitting a simple mistake, I assume, don't accuse me of manipulating them. That's dishonest. Again, always with the projection. You presented COJ's own words as if they supported what you said, when they said the opposite. As if you had chosen to be blind to what they were saying. And then you accuse me of turning a blind eye. The entire point wasn't even necessary to defend. I don't care what COJ thinks, just like I don't care what Adam Rutherford thinks. They both write from a perspective that has an agenda. COJ had an agenda to prove that the evidence the WTS uses, doesn't align with 607 or 1914. Adam Rutherford had an agenda to prove that the Great Pyramid was the "Bible in Stone" and "God's Witness" that prophesied about these last days, exactly what Russell had said. Both COJ and Adam Rutherford agree on the relative chronology of the period, but so what? I look to see if I can learn something in comparison to other resources, but then I can move on. Rutherford avoids astronomy evidence and COJ uses it. We can compare their results to those who don't have a pro-Russell-styled agenda or an anti-WTS-styled agenda, but don't simply rely on people who write with an agenda. What does it matter if "even Rutherford" placed it in 585 BC? He ignored the astronomical evidence. Otherwise he is stuck with 539 as the year Cyrus ended the 70 years of Babylonian domination. He needs 537 to get 607 and from there to get 1914. 100% of the current researchers, historians, archaeologists, and astronomers who have looked at the Neo-Babylonian astronomy evidence place Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year in 587 BC. I agree with all the authorities on that subject quoted in the Watchtower publications. You disagree with all those authorities quoted in the Watchtower publications. The difference here is that I have told you why I agree but you can't tell me why you are an opposer of all those authorities the Watchtower depends upon for quotations about the period.

I fail to understand why you are defending such an egregious person who is clearly a liar. It seems unnecessary for you to overlook his repugnant actions when his own words speak volumes. I have no reason to defend him. I just wanted to know where you got the information that he was a Bethelite and why you were claiming that he aligned the Babylonian Chronicles with 607 and 1914. You said: I think it's now clear from what you just admitted in your strange deflection that you know you were wrong. What you quoted next proves it. Exactly. So he does NOT align the Babylonian Chronicles with 607 and 1914. Yes, he discredits the Watchtower chronology. Wasn't that the whole point of his book? It turns out that EVERY SINGLE authority on the Babylonian Chronicles discredits the Watchtower chronology. So what else is new? Every single authority that the Watchtower publications make use of when they want to make a point about the Babylonian Chronicles also discredits the Watchtower chronology. That's why the Insight book and Aid book for example quote these authorities, but then add their own Watchtower chronology next to the quote (and sometimes INSIDE the quote) to make it look like the authorities they reference support the Watchtower chronology. I showed half a dozen cases of this in another thread. It's called academic dishonesty in an academic setting. It's deceptive. By pointing it out, I'm hoping this will stop happening in our publications. There. You even highlighted the portion that proves he did NOT align the Babylonian Chronicles with 607 BCE. Thank you. There. You found another place where COJ shows that he does not align them with 607 and 1914 as you claimed. It just occurred to me that you might not have known the definition of the word "align." That could be the only justification I can think of for persisting in your false claim. At least that isn't deceitful.

Could be. But it doesn't seem to matter much who else was into pyramidology. If what the Christian Scientists are claiming now is wrong, so be it. I didn't bring up Adam Rutherford and "Pyramidology." You did. I never claimed that all Bible Student associations were the same. I never suspected he had to have been an associate during Russell's time as a Bible Student anyway. Turned out that he might have been. I saw the volume he published as late as 1974 and noted that he was born in 1894 and died at around age 80 and he was therefore only 22 when Russell died. I made no connection to Watchtower Bible Students or Russellite Bible Students. That was you thinking I did. (Or maybe hoping that I did?) When you introduced Adam Rutherford you made no connection at all to Russellite or non-Russellite Bible Students, and yet now you claim you knew his history for 40 years. If you didn't think it mattered then, why do you think it matters now? I only spoke of how his statements aligned with Russell's and other Bible Students concerning how he fully defended the same view of the Great Pyramid as Russell, and how he quoted phrases and even entire pages from Russell's Watch Tower publications. And how a current (well-known) Bible Student site claims he had been a Bible Student. All Bible Student groups were or are distinct in some small ways, but all appear to stick fairly close and loyal to Russell's Watch Tower publications from 1879 to 1916

Hardly. I only researched what I was assigned to research. The most leeway I was given was when I had to look up and review what had been said previously about certain specific doctrines. We didn't have electronic searching of anything, or the Internet. So if Brother BS, or RL, or JN asked me to look into what we once said about house-to-house, or the literal vs the figurative heart, or a partial 70 CE fulfillment of Matthew 24, or certain medical advice, or Abaddon, or Evolution, or the Creative Days, or the Prodigal Son, then I might get a chance to read dozens of articles going all the way back through the 1930's. We would find a lot of places where the WT Publications Index needed updating, too. We didn't actually care about going back to Russell. Mostly, the brothers only cared about references going back to 1935, sometimes 1931. Then we might see if our commentary referencing Bible dictionaries and lexicons still held up with the latest versions of those references. And the Aid Book was still producing new questions to look up and double-check for accuracy. I was never assigned a research project about chronology, or parousia, or the generation, or Gentile Times, or the 70 years, or Babylonian kings. The closest to that was a double-check of how often anyone had written about a partial or minor fulfillment of Matthew 24 in the first century. And one time I had to look up if we had been consistent about saying that the "Lord's Day" of Revelation 1:10 had been the start of 1914. But obviously it was never a matter of questioning 1914. When COJ's manuscript came up, it was a total surprise to me that anyone would question 1914, although I soon learned that Sydlik, Schroeder, Chitty and Swingle were questioning certain aspects of it. And I soon learned COJ's name from Rusk and Schroeder, but I thought they were going to find someone to respond to the document. You seem to have not understood much of what Adam Rutherford was saying, then. Adam Rutherford's information is basically a confirmation of the ideas of COJ and every authority on the Babylonian Chronicles. Being only two years off from the astronomically evidenced numbers is hardly a problem unless you also want to incorporate the dozens of astronomical readings. But Adam Rutherford stuck with the relative chronology but mostly ignored the "absolute" chronology that the astronomy readings would have given. With respect to the relative chronology, Adam Rutherford, confirms COJ's understanding and that of every person currently considered an authority on the Babylonian Chronicles. Adam Rutherford agrees completely with me, too, on the relative chronology. If he was using the Babylonian Chronicles correctly then he is saying that COJ is right, and the Watchtower is wrong. His information would mostly just confirm COJ, not challenge him. COJ goes further and takes into consideration the rest of the astronomical evidence which Rutherford also nearly had right -- only two years off. Rutherford indicates that the current Watchtower is 22 years off in the absolute, and 20 years off in the relative. His information could only have been use to challenge and refute the Watchtower.

Go back and read everything I said about him and you will see that what I said was perfectly accurate. There is no false narrative here about him being a Bible Student. So it still looks like you tend to make up deceptions out of thin air. Everything I said about him was and is still true. So it still looks like you tend to make up deceptions out of thin air. Don't make up things you wish someone had said, just so you can claim they got caught in a lie. That's dishonest. Think about Proverbs 6:16-18:  There are six things that Jehovah hates; Yes, seven things that he detests: 17  Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18  A heart plotting wicked schemes, and feet that run quickly to evil, 19  A false witness who lies with every breath, And anyone sowing contentions among brothers. Read more carefully and you probably won't be as confused. I had never heard of him while I was at Bethel. All I heard about COJ at Bethel was that he had typed a manuscript that questioned our chronology about the Gentile Times. I first heard about it when speaking with someone in Writing who said that it is just sitting on the shelf over there because no one wants to touch it. It's a "hot potato."