JW Insider

Officially, I think Christian Scientists were not into pyramidology. https://www.marybakereddylibrary.org/research/was-there-ever-a-pyramid-at-mary-baker-eddys-birthplace/ Some independent Christian Scientists evidently supported it, but the "mother church" did not. The only known references to Mary Baker Eddy mentioning "pyramidology" is a reference to "The Great Pyramid" and how it had been called "a miracle in stone." Eddy herself seemed like it was only good for a comparison and she said nothing much about the Great Pyramid itself outside of that reference to the public's view of it. I would compare this to the definite "pyramidology" of Charles Taze Russell, who spoke of that one pyramid, Giza, and only that one as Jehovah's Witness in stone, and as God's Prophet. By divining the entrails of the pyramid, he tried to derive truths about the times and seasons for the last days. He tried to derive truths that supported his pre-conceived beliefs about "Israel's double" and 1874, and 187, and 1881, 1910, 1911, 1914 and 1915. As opposed to just a sentence or two from the leader and primary author of Christian Scientist material, Russell published pages and pages about it. Chapters, sermons and articles. He defended it in all the ways that Seiss did in the book, Miracle in Stone. He published Smyth's endorsement of his main treatise on the pyramid, mentioning that this endorsement was by the person he said knew more about it than any living person on earth. Russell had pictures of the Pyramid and its entrails embossed onto the cover of hundreds of thousands of Studies in the Scriptures. He used pyramid illustrations in his "Chart of the Ages" and in various simpler illustrations to make points about pyramids in general. But mostly it was all about defending the supposed knowledge found in the Great Pyramid of Giza and which was hidden for many ages until it was providentially revealed during the great restoration period he believed he was in. Here is one of his pyramid illustrations that has nothing to do with the Great Pyramid of Giza, as found in the first volume, Divine Plan of the Ages: Our oneness with the Lord Jesus, as members of the Christ, the anointed company, is well illustrated by the figure of the pyramid. The top-stone is a perfect pyramid of itself. Other stones may be built up under it, and, if in harmony with all the characteristic lines of the top-stone, the whole mass will be a perfect pyramid. How beautifully this illustrates our position as members of "the Seed"—"the Christ." Joined to and perfectly in harmony with our Head, we, as living stones, are perfect; separated from him, we are nothing. [A83] Jesus, the perfect one, has been highly exalted, and now we present ourselves to him that we may be formed and shaped according to his example, and that we may be built up as a building of God. In an ordinary building there is no chief corner-stone; but in our building there is one chief corner-stone, the "top-stone," as it is written: "Behold, I lay in Zion a chief corner-stone, elect, precious"—"to whom coming as unto a living stone...ye also as lively [living] stones are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up *sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. 2:4-6) And very soon, we trust, the union between Jesus, the "Head," and "the Church, which is his body," will be complete. Bible Students who were close to Russell and loyal to Russell defended Russell's beliefs about the Great Pyramid. Russell wasn't a spiritist, or into spiritualism, or anything related to the occult. But he supported pyramidology in exactly the sense of the term that Adam Rutherford used the term when he wrote the series of volumes he called "Pyramidology."

You appear to be creating deceptions out of thin air. Why? Russell was not a spiritualist. Why act like someone said he was? I don't think COJ was ever a Bethelite. And he didn't align the Babylonian Chronicles with 607 and 1914. You appear to be creating deceptions out of thin air. More apparent deceptions. I am merely accepting the astronomical evidence for the BCE years. I should have a right to accept that evidence if I wish. I'm merely doing the same thing as 100% of the authorities that the Insight book quotes from in all their discussions of the astronomical evidence. I am doing the same thing the Watchtower does for for dates after 562 BCE. The difference is that I consistently accept that same evidence for dates prior to 562 BCE, especially where that evidence is at least 10 times better than the particular astronomical evidence the WTS has focused on. But I accept the WTS astronomical evidence, too, in spite of it's problems. Do you now have a date for Nebuchadnezzar that is NOT based on astronomical evidence? Or do you have other evidence for any of Nebuchadnezzar's years? You haven't been able to produce any for 10 years. I'll have to repeat again: Instead of excuses, why not try to offer even just one piece of evidence that is specifically about Nebuchadnezzar that indicates a particular BCE year during his reign? If you don't, then it seems obvious that you can't. You've had over 10 years here to try.

The "People's Pulpit" association was the original name that was then changed to "The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc."

I'm not sure why anyone would say it is crucial to emphasize that the WTS generally accepts Bishop Ussher's chronology by adding either 19, 20, 21 or 22 years to everything prior to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple and generally accepts everything (without an adjustment) from about the time of the Jews returning to their homeland after Cyrus' decree freed them from Babylon. Naturally, this means that Bishop Ussher used 609 for the death of Josiah, and 588 for the destruction of the Temple, and the the WTS adds 20 and 19 years to those dates. The Watchtower, of course, uses 629 for the death of Josiah and continues to use 607 for the destruction of the Temple in order to make 1914 still work. But this is about as "crucial" as saying that Bishop Ussher agrees within a year or so of COJ, or me, or perhaps 100 Bible commentators. Basically, it merely admits that the WTS generally accepts Ussher's relative chronology. Bishop Ussher turned his relative Bible chronology into an absolute chronology by using Babylonian Greek and Roman sources to fix the BC date of Evil Merodach, the successoor of Nebuchadnezzar at 562 BC. Per Wikipedia's source: The Watchtower Society adds about 20 years that date, so that our "Ussher" date for every year prior to Evil-Merodach adds about 20, 21 or 22 years. So Ussher uses the dates evidenced by astronomy for the period of the destruction and Exile. COJ does too. Adam Rutherford does too. As does Wiseman, and as do all the resources the WTS quotes from when discussing the period. This should not be surprising. Ussher stays within a year or two of all the astronomically evidenced dates. The only way Adam Rutherford found a way to stay within two years of the astronomically evidenced dates (and still keep 1914) is to reject 607 as the 18th/19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, and to reject Russell's and the Watchtower's date for the destruction of Jerusalem. He starts the counting of the 70 years and the 2,520 years (the 7 times) with the fall of Assyria instead of the fall of Jerusalem. That way he can continue to use 607. In this I would agree with him about 607 (within a year or two). I also agree with his date for the destruction of Jerusalem (within a year or two).

There were big differences between the Bible Students and the Christian Science religion. The pyramid that was built near Mary Baker Eddy's birthplace was built in December 1918, by the same person who designed her cemetery memorial, but not officially sanctioned by the religion itself. The pyramid built near Russell's gravesite was built in 1921. Both have since been destroyed. Both had a metal box buried deep within to contain the writers' artifacts, and both had plaques on the 4 sides. One of “Eddy’s” plaques had “The new order of the ages” in Latin. Anything that Mary Baker Eddy had said about the Great Pyramid has been downplayed, and in fact, no one has found more than a sentence or two that she ever said about it. But there have been claims by those outside her religion that she supported pyramidology. In 1921, some Christian Scientists recommended pilgrimages to the site, but the church discouraged it, reminding people that Eddy didn't want people celebrating her birthday, and she had spoken out against mystic cults and "spiritualism" and "theosophy" that the pyramid apparently represented to some.

Here is the context and the letter from Smyth that Russell published in Volume 3 (Thy Kingdom Come), praising Russell's "originality" and "magnificently" worded passages. It also praised Russell's accuracy to within an inch, even though Russell later rescinded a couple of these measurements and changed them by up to 41 inches. Notice that Russell calls the Pyramid, not just Jehovah's Witness, but also Jehovah's PROPHET: THE CORROBORATIVE TESTIMONY OF GOD'S STONE WITNESS AND PROPHET THE GREAT PYRAMID IN EGYPT A KINDLY COMMENT ON THIS CHAPTER WHEN IN MANUSCRIPT, FROM THE PEN OF THE ESTEEMED PROF. C. PIAZZI SMYTH, F.R.S.E., F.R.A.S. EX-ASTRONOMER ROYAL FOR SCOTLAND Brother William M. Wright, on learning that this chapter on the Great Pyramid was written, requested that he might have the reading of it before it would be put into type, as he had already considerable knowledge of the Pyramid. This we gladly granted, assuring him of our desire for all the criticism possible. After reading the MS., Bro. Wright concluded that, as we desired criticism, the higher the standing of the critic the better. Accordingly he made a typewriter copy of the MS., and by permission mailed it to Prof. C. Piazzi Smyth, who is generally accorded a greater knowledge of the Great Pyramid's construction and measurements than any other man in the world, requesting that he examine the MS. carefully and note upon it any criticism he might have to offer in the interest of the truth. The Professor's answer to that letter, together with the MS. copy sent him, which bore his marks of criticism, when received were sent to the author. We thank Bro. Wright and Prof. Smyth for their kindness, and have followed the corrections indicated; which, however, only three in all, we were pleased to note were not of special importance. Only one of the criticisms was upon measurements, and it showed a variance of only one inch, which we gladly corrected. Thinking it might be interesting to our readers we give below Prof. C. Piazzi Smyth's Letter Clova, Ripon, England, Dec. 21, 1890 Wm. M. Wright, Esq., Dear Sir: I have been rather longer than I could have wished in looking over the MS. of your friend, C. T. Russell of Allegheny, Pa., but I have now completed a pretty careful examination, word by word. And that was the least I could do, when you so kindly took the pains to send it with such care between boards by registered parcel, with every page flat, and indited by the typewriter in place of the hand. At first I could only find slips of the said typewriter, but as I progressed through the pages, the powers, the specialties and the originalities of the Author came out magnificently; and there were not a few passages I should have been glad to take a copy of for quotation, with name, in the next possible edition of my own Pyramid book. But of course I did nothing of that sort, and shall wait with perfect patience and in most thankful mood of mind for when the author of Scripture Studies shall choose his own time for publishing. So I merely remark here that he is both good and new in much that he says on the chronology of various parts of the Pyramid, especially the First Ascending Passage and its granite plug; on the Grand Gallery, as illustrating the Lord's life; on the parallelisms between the King's Chamber and its granite, against the Tabernacle and its gold; and generally on the confirmations or close agreements between Scripture and the Great Pyramid, well commented on. In the meanwhile, it seems that I am indebted to you for your kind gift of long ago of the first two volumes of Scripture Studies. I did not at the time get further than the first half of the first volume, finding the matter, as I thought, not quite so new as I had expected. But after having profited, as I hope, so much by a thorough reading of this advanced pyramid chapter of the third volume, I must take up the first two volumes again, de novo. The parcel will go back between its boards, registered. I remain, with many thanks, Yours respectfully, C. Piazzi Smyth

Calling assertions unfounded when you know they are true is dishonest. You are probably aware that Russell got most of his initial pyramid information through persons he never credited, and made it look like he came up with this himself. He paraphrased and nearly plagiarized parts of Joseph Seiss' book "Miracle in Stone" but never credited Seiss. He did reference Smyth's "Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid" and used Smyth's endorsement of what Russell published. Smyth gave it a glowing review and Russell published that letter in Studies in the Scriptures, Vol 3. Not always. He had no other source for his predictions about 1910 and 1911 other than the Pyramid itself. This "enlightenment" he sought did not come from the Bible, but from "divining the entrails" of the Great Pyramid. Watchtower Reprints page 5249 : page 167, 1913: We did in discussing the Great Pyramid—STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES Series—suggest that possibly a certain measurement of the step at the upper end of the Grand Gallery might signify something important by the end of 1910. But we hope that we made it clear that we built nothing on that suggestion—that it was merely a suggestion, a guess only, but a pointer that the year 1911 might be looked to with interest.

You should be aware by now that I have only one account and I am not at all worried about your multiple accounts. Pointing out just a few of your active ones can merely help others here understand you a bit better. In the meantime, I will repeat that you have always been anxious to focus on distractions. You have had so many chances to provide even one bit of evidence, but you have never come through. You have always ignored and deflected or blustered or merely resorted to anger and ad hominem responses whenever any evidence is provided to you. You are making it pretty obvious that the only reason for your decade of failure to respond to evidence is because you don't have any evidence for a response. And the obfuscations you choose instead are an indication that you are are fully aware of this and that you think it's important to hide this truth from others. As I've said already: Instead of excuses, why not try to offer even just one piece of evidence that is specifically about Nebuchadnezzar that indicates a particular BCE year during his reign? If you don't, then it seems obvious that you can't. You've had over 10 years here to try.

I remember once enumerating 10 things predicted for 1914, all of which had to be dropped. I just noticed that Wikipedia had the list of 7 that come from "The Time is At Hand." It's curious that Russell admitted, not a typo per se, but that he had taken his pyramid measurements from the pages of Charles Piazzi Smyth's book, which he didn't realize was not to scale. The fix turned out to be a perfect change of 41 "inches" to move a date from from 1874 to 1915. ---------------from Wikipedia------------- Based on measurements from the Great Pyramid of Giza, this "passing beyond the vail" or rapture was expected "before the close of A.D. 1910."[95][96] Russell enumerated seven expectations for 1914 in The Time is at Hand: God's kingdom would take full control of earth "on the ruins of present institutions"; Christ would be present as earth's new ruler; The last of the "royal priesthood, the body of Christ" would be glorified with Christ; Jerusalem would no longer "be trodden down by the Gentiles"; "Israel's blindness will begin to be turned away"; The great "time of trouble" would reach its culmination of worldwide anarchy; God's Kingdom would "smite and crush the Gentile image—and fully consume the power of these kings".[97] In 1911, Russell wrote that October 1914 would witness the "full end" of Babylon, or nominal Christianity, "utterly destroyed as a system".

LOL. I can hardly believe anyone else read this far into the thread. At this point I thought I was just teasing BTK/nkboswell/Alphonse with a little dose of his own medicine. It's an interesting thought. Some people have come at this from angles I never thought of. I saw one online source wondering whether Satan made sure that WW1 would start during the same year that Barbour and Russell had predicted would be the end [of the time of troubles]. If a major world event could happen in 1914 it could have the effect of tricking Jehovah's people into hanging on to a false tradition for many more years. It is amazing that Barbour had pinpointed a year for the end so many years in advance. And even though every prediction for 1914 failed, no one can deny that it was still a major historical turning point. Of course, Barbour came out of an era where almost every year from 1843 to 1890 was being prophesied as the end by someone. Even the Watchtower was also expecting prophetic fulfillments that had been predicted for the time periods surrounding 1878, 1881, 1904, 1910, 1912, 1914, 1915, 1917, 1918, 1925 etc. If WW1 had broken out in any of those other years the shift of emphasis and definitions would have been just as quick for highlighting how we had been correct about any of those years, too. No doubt we would always be able to point out that we got something right, and then just change the definition of what we had predicted so that we could better explain that it was Jehovah's guidance. Since so much emphasis had been on "the end of the Gentile Times" all we really had to do was drop the half-dozen "predictions" for 1914 and shift emphasis to the "Gentile Times." Then we only had to change the definition of what was meant by "Gentile Times" and we'd look like geniuses. (By "we" I mean the brothers representing the Watchtower Society in those times.)

LOL! None of ABC4 is difficult to comprehend. So why don't you stop pretending you have evidence of some kind and stop making excuses. As I said above: Instead of excuses, why not try to offer even just one piece of evidence that is specifically about Nebuchadnezzar that indicates a particular BCE year during his reign? If you don't, then it seems obvious that you can't. You've had over 10 years here to try.

I have already posted many examples of evidence specifically about Nebuchadnezzar. Up to this point you have always ignored them. You have never posted anything more than vague "teasers" that imply you might know about some evidence that you are not willing to share. Besides, I will never delete you or anyone else, even if I could, and I will save your evidence and/or responses in case you do get yourself deleted by an owner or moderator. This way your "evidence" isn't going to be lost and you can continue to defend it if you wish under another account if necessary. So again, not for me, but just to show anyone who reads this that you aren't a fake: Instead of excuses, why not try to offer even just one piece of evidence that is specifically about Nebuchadnezzar that indicates a particular BCE year during his reign? If you don't, then it seems obvious that you can't. You've had over 10 years here to try.

Instead of excuses, why not try to offer even just one piece of evidence that is specifically about Nebuchadnezzar that indicates a particular BCE year during his reign? If you don't, then it seems obvious that you can't. You've had over 10 years here to try.

I have read and acknowledged all the evidence surrounding 607, 587, etc, that has ever been presented on this forum. You act like I can claim that 2+2=4, but that if you can ramble on for long enough about how 2+2=1,440 then I need to agree or else you will claim I have somehow not "acknowledged" your so-called "compelling evidence." You have never provided a shred of evidence, not under any account you have ever used here. If you think that rambling incoherently about various false claims is the same as "compelling evidence" then it's no wonder you have made some of the false claims you have made. If you disagree with this then go ahead and try out just ONE piece of your so-called compelling evidence, and see how it stands up against actual evidence. It's not that you have ever refrained from engaging in pointless arguments, it's that you refuse to present evidence.

You always appear to have a very convoluted and inconsistent grasp on the details you argue about. I believe Nebuchadnezzar became king in 605 because 12 different and independent pieces of evidence tell us that he became king in 605. So far, after 10 years you haven't attempted to show even one bit of evidence that shows he was NOT. You make a vague reference to the non-canonical book of Judith now and then, as if it might override Jeremiah. You make a vague and unsubstantiated claim that there may have been a King Nebuchadnezzar during the time when Nebuchadnezzar's father, Nabopolassar, was king. You make vague references to 18 and 19-year cycles as if they might somehow override the actual evidence. You pretend that these vague hints produce insurmountable problems to the chronology, but you won't even say what they might lead to. Except that they might somehow support the Watchtower's traditional chronology. Now you begin quoting the works of a self-proclaimed Russell-supporting-Bible-Student-turned-Pyramidologist who rejects what Russell said about the "606 event" and puts that event in 585, 21 years later than Russell, and 22 years later than the current Watchtower. You begin calling him "Brother Adam Rutherford" and praising his methods. Yet you forget that he is in almost exact agreement (within 2 years) of your obsessed-over nemesis, Carl Olof Jonsson. Adam Rutherford understands Ptolemy the same way COJ does; he understands the Babylonian Chronicles the same way COJ does; he understands the contract tablets the same way COJ does. Adam Rutherford agrees with my own view of 607, but because he merely mentions 607 and continues to keep Russell's 1914 as the end of the Gentile Times, you apparently think he's doing something right. Do you agree with one-time Governing Body member Joseph Rutherford in seeing Pyramidology as Satanic? I have rarely seen a more confused and inconsistent argument from you.

I don't oppose all of it. Only where it is inconsistent and produces potential Bible contradictions. Because it is the only year supported by the overwhelming astronomical evidence, I support the historical view that 587 BCE was the 18th year of King Nebuchadnezzar. If any apostates wish to accept that view, too, that's up to them. It is also the view of EVERY ONE of the authors, experts and authorities that the Watch Tower Society quotes when they refer to Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Persian chronology. If the WTS chooses NOT to accept the view of the same persons they deem to be experts on the matter, that's up to them. If that's true, then you were pretending that you didn't because you kept implying that my position had shifted. A person who speaks the truth need not be overly concerned about whether simple truth will cause division or distress among others. If those visitors are seeking truth they will not be stumbled by truth. Besides I am telling people the truth about what I personally believe. No one is telling other people that they must believe what I believe. The only people who would get overly concerned about what I believe are people who understand that there may be no adequate response to the evidence presented. If you are angry about what I say that I believe, then I can only guess that you also do not believe there is an adequate response to the evidence. For that, I appreciate your responses because they certainly add more credibility and strength to the evidence. If anyone has any actual evidence that counters the evidence presented in the past on this forum, I'm still happy to consider that evidence, too. I don't think it's typical that a group of Witnesses would pay much attention to evidence that goes against our traditional beliefs about chronology. But I see evidence that a good percentage of people here have actually listened, asked questions about it, have contacted me privately for more information, and in some cases will publicly admit to agreeing with that evidence in spite of the danger to their standing and positions of responsibility in their congregations. I don't recommend that anyone speak of these things in their congregations, but if they have concerns about how our traditions hold up in this regard, I'm happy to try to help address their concerns. I think you have been a large part of the positive reception that the Biblical and historical evidence gets on this forum. Your confused and convoluted methods attempting to promote the Watchtower tradition have helped several people see more clearly that the evidence for the Watchtower's tradition really is confused, convoluted and contradictory. Bible doctrines need not be that way, but you have helped to show that this particular doctrine really is that way.

I personally think that you know better, and you cannot actually claim that you have misunderstood my position on this matter that I have repeated many times. You can't just claim that you don't understood what I've said while everyone else here understands what I've said. But just in case you have confused anyone, I'll say it again. I think the Bible opposes the idea that we can know the times and seasons in relation to the end times. I have no problem agreeing with 100% of the current authorities that the Watchtower has referenced about the Babylonian Chronicles and the various astronomical diaries and other tablets and inscriptions of the period. ALL of those quoted authorities agree that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year would be about 586 BCE. ALL of those quoted authorities agree that Nebuchadnezzar was not even a king in 607 BCE. All of them would agree that it was within a couple of years of 607 BCE when one could finally say that the Assyrian Empire had lost its ascendancy and the Babylonian Empire was now the newly recognized Empire of the region. All of them would agree that Babylon was defeated by Cyrus in 539 BCE. Therefore the 70 year period of Babylonian domination falls between those years, plus or minus one or two years. Therefore Bible prophecy (Jeremiah 25) is proven to be correct again. I have therefore never disagreed with 607 (plus or minus a year or two) as the beginning of the 70 years. I do disagree with taking a dream about a wicked Gentile named Nebuchadnezzar and claiming that his anti-Messianic rulership represents Christ's Messianic rulership. So any attempts to try to turn his 7 times of insanity, humiliation and restoration into a picture of the Messianic kingdom's restoration is unscriptural, in my opinion.

Yes. You are right. Numerous reputable individuals realize that Nebuchadnezzar was not even a king in 607 BCE. Adam Rutherford also realized this. In fact, 100% of the reputable historians, archaeologists, Assyriologists, and commentators that the Watchtower Society has referenced as authorities on the matter have realized this. So how could Nebuchadnezzar have been in his 19th year as King when Jerusalem was destroyed in 607, if he was not even a king yet in 607? Yes. "Bro. Adam Rutherford" agrees with me, and disagrees with you on this fact. So why are you including this vague and convoluted admission by you that you are wrong? Yes, I agree that he has properly used the Babylonian Chronicles. This is how he was able to understand the relative chronology of the period correct. I believe he is correct in his relative chronology but the astronomy data says he is off by two years in his absolute chronology, which is why he generally ignores the astronomy data and sticks with the Babylonian Chronicles, which are relative. I agree with his relative chronology of the period, he has the correct lengths for the reigns of the kings. But in one post you indicate agreement and in another you admit that you disagree with his conclusions, including both the relative and the absolute chronology he has utilized. Try to be more consistent.

I know the feeling. For me that scripture is sometimes: (Zephaniah 2:3) . . .Seek Jehovah, all you meek ones of the earth, Who observe his righteous decrees. Seek righteousness, seek meekness. Probably you will be concealed on the day of Jehovah’s anger. How often has that word "probably" been emphasized to us so that we always feel like maybe we will be doing all we can and trying so hard to be the right kind of person and then it's still "probably" we might survive Armageddon. It's a bit like last Sunday's Watchtower lesson which said that, like the sister named Amanda, "I tend to equate giving Jehovah my best with the constant need to do more." The best counterbalance to that Scripture in Zeph above is to read the context and see that a more specific great day of Jehovah's anger is being spoken of, not necessarily related to Armageddon. The very next line is: (Zephaniah 2:4) For Gazʹa will be an abandoned It includes the desolation of Gaza, and we know that this is not about our own day but something specific in the long past. Oh wait! Gaza? Just got scared again. LOL. For me, that leaves the best counterbalancing Scripture, here: (Matthew 11:28-30) 28  Come to me, all you who are toiling and loaded down, and I will refresh you. 29  Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am mild-tempered and lowly in heart, and you will find refreshment for yourselves. 30  For my yoke is kindly, and my load is light.”

I hope no one else is confused. I haven't changed my stance in 15 years, 10 of them here on a public forum. I have always agreed that 607, plus or minus a year or two, is an excellent time with which to start the 70 years of Babylon's desolations against the nations per Jeremiah 25:10. And I have also believed that the "these 70 years" of Zechariah's reference to the destruction of the temple is a good fit (plus or minus a year or two) based on the Watchtower's own date for the timing of Zechariah's prophecy (about 518/517 BCE as the 4th year of Darius). "These 70 years" of the Temple's destruction would therefore run from about 587 to 517 using the Watchower's own year for the 4th year of Darius. *** it-2 p. 1225 Zechariah, Book of *** The last time indicator found in the book of Zechariah is the fourth day of Chislev in the fourth year of Darius’ reign (about December 1, 518 B.C.E.) Turns out that Adam Rutherford used the same scriptures and evidence I have used to reach the same Biblical conclusion, but he "adjusts" it by two years, for his own reasons. I added the same image from his Vol 3 as above, but this time to highlight the dates 585 to 515 on the right under the destruction (and rebuilding) of the Temple.

Still traveling. Sunday's talk was "Acquiring a Heart of Wisdom" by Brother West from East Shelby Congregation, which is just a couple of towns over from @Pudgy. Made me wonder how he is doing. Anyone heard from him? I have never followed @Pudgy on the forums, but from his Profile it looks like he has still shown no activity here since May 6th. Back to the topic. I have no idea about apostates relying on the Babylonian Chronicles, but I see that Adam Rutherford relies on them in exactly the same way that COJ does. No difference. What COJ does a bit differently, is to ALSO rely on 100% of the astronomy readings . A.Rutherford can only rely on a few of them because he has chosen to disregard all evidence that gets in the way of his two-year adjustment of the entire Neo-Babylonian period. This means he can rely completely on the accuracy of the regnal lengths found in Ptolemy's writings, and all the contract tablets, and ALL the different segments of the Babylonian Chronicles. That's because they don't include the actual BCE years, just the relative chronology. Rutherford uses Ptolemy's regnal lengths, but does not incorporate the actual astronomical dates that Ptolemy associated with those years. That would have given him 538 for the first year of Cyrus not 536 -- and would have given him 604 for the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, not the year 602 that Adam Rutherford uses. Rutherford takes what the Watchtower has called the supposed "absolute" and "pivotal" date of 539, and changes that date to 537 for the year Cyrus captured Babylon. So much for absolute dates!! COJ exactly agrees with the Watchtower for this date (539) because both sources (COJ and WTS) use the astronomy evidence for all the years from Nabonidus down through most of the Persian period. That includes Nabonidus, Cyrus and Cambyses. So although Adam Rutherford rejects the Watchtower Chronology, to keep 1914, he still ends up supporting Russell (and Barbour's) chronology as far as he can. It's easy to see why: Barbour and Russell derived 1914 primarily through calculations related to Israel's "double" and not through counting 2,520 years from 606. The use of the “7 times” was a secondary method for calculating 1914, and it wasn't even based on Nebuchadnezzar's tree dream prophecy of Daniel 4. The primary method was based on counting 40 years from 1874 to get 1914. When the "7 gentile times" of Leviticus was used as a further support, Barbour knew he had to find a major event from 606 BCE. A quick check of Rev. Bowen's chronology in Rev. Elliott's famous book looked like it had dated the destruction of the Temple in 606. Perfect! But Adam Rutherford knew that counting back from 1914 actually leads to 607. And he had easily seen that Nebuchadnezzar wasn't even a king until 605, which was two years later. So his 18th year would have been 587 per the received evidence. For his own reasons, Adam Rutherford made that even worse by changing that period another two years so that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year would have been 585 BCE, not 587 BCE. So. Adam Rutherford had a new problem trying to support Russell's 1914 because he now had to find a DIFFERENT event for 607 BCE. For this event he did exactly what many Bible commentators have done. He did what COJ would also later do. He knew that 607 was BEFORE Nebuchadnezzar's kingship, and went with Jeremiah 25:10-12 and made it the "Fall of Assyria" using the date between 609 (Harran) and 605 (Carchemish). 607. Perfect! All you need is a major Biblical event for 606 or 607 and let interpretation do the rest. So that 1914 can still work for you as the culmination of 2,520 years before that 1914 date.

Anyone who embraced COJ's book was misguided when there was so much evidence to look at without being biased one way or another by what one man had to say. The question is an archaeological and astronomical one. COJ never claimed to be an expert in either one of those things. But he quoted persons who were. It was better to go directly to the archaeological evidence and astronomical evidence, and forget the claims of people like you, who kept obsessing over COJ's book. That said, I doubt there is much of anything wrong with COJ's book. So far everything you or George88 or others claimed to be wrong in the book turned out to be correct, so based on things you have said, I have a lot of respect for COJ's book. But it's still not the right kind of resource for me. It's just not the right kind of source for someone who wants to make sure of all things.

Adam Rutherford rejects the current Watchtower chronology. He places the destruction of Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year at about 585 BCE. Also he uses the Harran inscription to show that the lengths of all these kings' reigns are exactly in accord with Ptolemy's regnal lengths. Therefore he also accepts that the number of years between Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year and Cyrus' first year is about 49 years. Same as me. Same as Wiseman. Same as Gadd. Same as Jonsson. Same as 99.99% of all people who have run the astronomy programs for themselves. He agrees with Carl Olof Jonsson in this regard and in the idea of beginning the 70 years of desolation with the fall of Assyria and rise of Babylon. I also agree with him on those points. The fact that he must ignore most of the astronomy to keep his chronology 2 years off doesn't bother me. I've always said that one or two years one way or another doesn't make enough difference to the understanding of the Bible's record of that time period. The WTS claims that we need some pivotal of absolute secular dates for this period. I'd say that we don't need ANY secular chronology to understand the Bible's record of this period. (2 Tim 3:16,17)

Yes. He confidently says that the received date, 539 BCE for the fall of Babylon to Cyrus must be lowered by 2 years Unfortunately for him, the Watchtower chronology is exactly correct through this period and matches the tablets and the secular scholars readings, too. True. A lot of people don't want to think for themselves. Taking Carl Olof Jonsson's word for something that is so simple to check out for oneself is a stupid mistake. A person should "make sure of all things," not just take man's word for it. The exact date of the siege and fall of Jerusalem around the 18th and 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar isn't important to me. The claim that a false chronology must be correct just because we've used most of it to hang onto a date that Barbour and Russell once published is a false premise. If we stand for truth, then we can't just make claims without evidence and tell the world that we are right and the astronomy is wrong. It would be one thing if we said that we know the chronology is wrong and have rejected it, but we hypocritically claim that the chronology is correct when it gives us 539 BCE, which we can use. But then we claim it is incorrect when it gives us 587 BCE for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. Both of those dates are backed consistently by all the astronomical evidence. And even if we didn't trust any of the astronomical evidence, we have all the archaeological evidence telling us that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year is exactly 49 years from the first year of Cyrus over Babylon. So it's a matter of presenting ourselves as upright and honest to the public that concerns me. We can believe whatever we want, but we can't be dishonest and pretend we have scholarly evidence for it, or that we are superior somehow because we can base our chronology on a lack of evidence. We look haughty when we present these alternatives to anyone who has looked into the matter for themselves, as everyone should. And just to make the point even clearer, recall that you have never and probably will never answer simple questions: What astronomical evidence do you use to get the date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign? What year did it give you? You have never been able to give a straightforward answer to such simple questions under any of your accounts. That's correct. Thank you. A discussion talks about the merits of the evidence. A fight is when both sides look to attack the person, and call names. What often happens here is that one person is willing to discuss the merits of the evidence, and the other person gets angry and starts calling him an apostate, or a liar, or a deceiver. It seems like that person wants a fight, but can't really get one because the other person still wants to discuss the merits of the evidence. At least, that's been my experience here for many years.

I can't imagine why anyone interested in astronomy-backed chronology would find any good reason to quote him. He adds nothing to what the available research already says about them. He is a secondary source who relies on the same scholars and scientists and archaeologists and linguists and astronomers who continue to extensively study and research and re-check those tablets. When I say he "adds" nothing, I should add that he does subtract a couple of years so that he can be in agreement with Russell's use of 536 BCE as the first year of Cyrus, and 537 BCE as the fall of Babylon. There is no good reason to do this and it requires conjecturing about a two year co-reign without good evidence. [And he also keeps the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology off by a year or two as a result.] Watchtower chronology has already corrected Russell's 2 year mistake and placed the fall of Babylon "absolutely" in 539 BCE, not 537 BCE. The WTS derives the 2 extra years (to reach 537) by ending the 70 years, not at the first opportunity for the edict of Cyrus, but after a conjectured delay for the edict and then another delay for the Jews to get back to their homeland. At least he understands that he has to accept the "no zero year" between AD and BC (CE and BCE). Per a WT article, Russell wouldn't really accept it even after it was pointed out to him.