JW Insider

There will probably be people reading this who believe that you are claiming that Albertz equates 70 years of Jewish exile beginning with the Fall and ending with the return under Cyrus. Obviously, Albertz does NOT believe the 70 years of Jewish exile begin with the Fall and end with the return under Cyrus. And since it's not true, you are being deceptive if you imply that it is. For example, in one sense Albertz says that Israel is still in the exilic period, "extending down to the present:" Then notice that Albertz does not consider a "simple" demarcation at the Fall of Jerusalem in 587/6, and most definitely does not end it at the usual demarcation of Cyrus in 539/8: Read it carefully. He prefers to consider the exilic period from 587/6 but says there was already a golah -- an EXILE -- in 598/7. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/golah History and Etymology for golah Hebrew gōlāh exile That's the same exile the Watchtower dates, not to 607 (or 597), but to 617, because the WTS simply adds 20 years to the date supported by archaeology and NeoBabylonian chronology. 617-20=597. Note that the INSIGHT book also calls this an exile: *** it-1 p. 795 Ezekiel, Book of *** In the 25th year of his exile (593 B.C.E.) Ezekiel had a remarkable vision 593 + 25 = 618; and, 618 - 20= 598 *** it-1 p. 1269 Jehoiakim *** Following the siege of Jerusalem during Jehoiakim’s “third year” (as vassal king), Daniel and other Judeans, including nobles and members of the royal family, were taken as exiles to Babylon And the INSIGHT book also calls the exile of 582 "an exile" (Although the WTS adds 20 to 582 to make it about 602 or 603 BCE): *** it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar *** Later Exiles of Jews. About three years later, in the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, more Jews were taken into exile. (Jer 52:30) This exile probably involved Jews who had fled to lands that were later conquered by the Babylonians. And INSIGHT even agrees with Albertz, that in one sense, large numbers were still in exile around 20 years after Cyrus, during the time of Zerubbabel's work which INSIGHT gives as 522 to 515 BCE: *** it-2 p. 489 Nehemiah, Book of *** Both the book of Ezra (2:1-67) and the book of Nehemiah (7:6-69) list the number of exiles from various families or houses who returned from Babylonian exile with Zerubbabel. I expect that Ann O'maly and AlanF probably already covered this for you, but you had addressed me with the claim on a previous page where I pointed out that your claim about Bryan and Albertz was wrong. You included this false statement. The "facts" proved you wrong. But why did you think it necessary to make a big deal out of the fact that COJ doesn't use the term "historiography." And why would you go out on a limb just to be wrong again? I take it you have never read COJ? Here are some quotes from COJ from GTR4. The main theme of the whole book is about historiography. Since you obviously need to learn some skills about how to search words to avoid spreading untrue statements, I'll leave it to you to find the page numbers: In his discussions of historiography, he quotes from several different sources about it: The Watch Tower Society, in its Bible dictionary Insight on the Scriptures (Vol. I, p. 453), devotes only one paragraph to Berossus. Almost the whole paragraph consists of a quotation from A. T. Olmstead’s Assyrian Historiography in which he deplores the tortuous survival history of Berossus’ fragments via Eusebius’ Chronicle (cf. note 6 above). Although this is true, it is, as noted, essentially irrelevant for our discussion Inscriptions from Assyria and Babylonia show that, in order to break the power and morale of a rebel quickly, the imperial army would try to ruin the economic potential “by destroying unfortified settlements, cutting down plantations and devastating fields” — Israel Eph’al, “On Warfare and Military Control in the Ancient Near Eastern Empires,” in H. Tadmor & M. Weinfield (eds.), History, Historiography and 1nterpretatian (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1984), p. 97. Gregory E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition (Leiden, New York, Köln: E. J. Brill, 1992), pp. 106, 260, 261. In fact he correctly uses the term historiography in a discussion of the Watchtower's misuse of historiography and misrepresentation of authorities on historiography here: It has been amply demonstrated above that the Watch Tower Society in its “Appendix” to “Let your Kingdom Come” does not give a fair presentation of the evidence against their 607 B.C.E. date: (1) Its writers misrepresent historical evidence by omitting from their discussion nearly half of the evidence presented in the first edition of this work (the Hillah stele, the diary BM 32312, and contemporary Egyptian documents) and by giving some of the other lines of evidence only a biased and distorted presentation. They erroneously indicate that priests and kings might have altered historical documents (chronicles, royal inscriptions, etc.) from the Neo-Babylonian era, in spite of the fact that all available evidence shows the opposite to be true. (2)They misrepresent authorities on ancient historiography by quoting them out of context and attributing to them views and doubts they do not have. (3)They misrepresent ancient writers by concealing the fact that Berossus is supported by the most direct reading of Daniel 1:1–6, by quoting Josephus when he talks of seventy years of desolation without mentioning that in his last work he changed the length of the period to fifty years, and by referring to the opinion of the second century bishop, Theophilus, without mentioning that he ends the seventy years, not only in the second year of Cyrus, but also in the second year of Darius Hystaspes (as did his contemporary Clement of Alexandria and others), thus confusing the two kings. I can give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you are not purposely deceiving anyone, and that these mistakes are just evidence of incompetence as a reader. But then, of course, you must be deceitful about your "scholarly" abilities. But perhaps you did lie about reading the book, or lie about how clear it was to you, because if you really had, then your mistakes should have been obvious. Also, why are you spending so much time on a particular scholar or two who seem to have views that are exceptions to most other scholars? If scholars are so all-important to you in this discussion, you should explain why you have dismissed the supposed authority of the majority of scholars. You cherry-pick one or two scholars, claiming they say a certain thing, and then you misrepresent even these very scholars you wish to rely on. But why so much attention to scholars in the first place? With a little effort you could learn a lot of this same information without even relying on all these secular scholars. This doesn't mean I didn't find the Albertz book interesting. I had seen that the WTS had quoted from him before, but I had not ever read (about 70 pages of) his book until now. Somehow, I must doubt this. I can see that if you really did read it then you are telling untruths about what it says. Whether these are "lies" or not depends on your competence to understand what you claimed to have read. But you are definitely telling things that are not true, saying they are found in his book, and they aren't there.

Your "case" was that there was only one Exile and that "That Exile was of a duration of 70 years ending with the return under Cyrus. " So if you rest your case it's the same as admitting that your case was defeated. I'll leave it up to you to figure out why. I don't trust you to admit it, but I'm sure you will at least see it if you read the same book where, as you say, he makes his position perfectly clear. For me, deception means obfuscation and lying. To you, as you admit here, "deception" is your word for rejecting "our sacred Bible Chronology."

I know that comment was not to me but to AlanF. I think it reveals your goal. You have pretty well established the fact that you are here to try to provoke chaotic arguments. And as answers are resolved, you will pretend they were not resolved by simply repeating the weaknesses of your argument as if they were strengths. The resulting chaos works. It produces 60 pages of confusion which was obviously the goal all along. It works because it plays on the prejudices of those who were never going to look things up for themselves anyway. I've seen how this same method works in other areas of ideology and propaganda, both online and to a large extent in the media. I've seen revealed documents that show that it is a preferred covert method of government agencies, too. (I.e., when all else fails, create chaos.) From chaos, people will pick up from where they started, and will often dig in their heels even a little deeper to the ideas they held before the chaos. And it's not that people never change their views. But, unfortunately, there have even been several studies that show that the "side" with the least facts and least evidence tends to win more adherents after a lengthy argument is observed. So, we could go on and on. I notice that you often throw out some "bait" which must be intended to keep an argument going. Sometimes you appear to give in and agree when it's too tough to hold your ground. But then a few pages later you'll pretend you hadn't learned a thing, after all. Even when you "walk it back" as you did with your "two exilic scholars" you moved the goalposts and gave two new reasons why you had recommended them. It turns out that it is easy to show that even these new criteria are wrong. You claim they have stated: But even this is wrong. Fortunately, the first 70 or more pages of Rainer Albertz book "Israel in Exile" is available here for free: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Israel_in_Exile/Xx9YzJq2B9wC?hl=en&gbpv=1 I wrote up a summary, but rather than lengthen the conversation here, I'll leave it to you to figure out where you went wrong. I think that honest-hearted Witnesses will see through these attempts to cloud the issue. Not everyone will, of course. You might even be some kind of hero to the ones who won't look up things for themselves. There are people here who wish to be right at all costs, and to protect their ideology they project their issues onto anyone else with strong evidence they don't want to deal with. But as bad as it sounds, being right at all costs is still a bit better than being wrong at all costs.

Seeing it all together like that, I feel shamed for responding so directly to his nonsense. But it was the same nonsense that was already answered several times. He simply can't be trusted on this topic.

I think you meant "True" not false, since you are agreeing with me that Bryan would say that the 70 years had already ended with the return from Babylon (even though Bryan recognizes that some scholars start it in 587/6 with the "2nd [major] deportation," and end it around 516 BCE. Wright, he says, effectively doesn't end the 70 years at all (p.108), and Michael Fishbane is an example of one who supports 587/6 to 516/5 (p.112): Some have suggested that, unlike the Chronicler, Zechariah regarded the seventy years as complete with the reconstruction of the temple in 516/515. Thus, Michael Fishbane dates the oracle of 1:12 to 520/519 and thinks it “conceivable that the anticipated fulfilment of a seventy-year oracle believed to have been effective from the second Judaean exile (in 587/6) may have actually fuelled national energies towards the restoration of the Temple.”13 Bryan does not think the 70 years is that period of time from the destruction of Jerusalem to the return to Babylon, if that's what you think he is implying. Note how he treats Jeremiah's prophecy about it (p.110-111): Jeremiah 25 places the original prophecy in the fourth year of Jehoiakim and the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, that is, just prior to the exile in 605. If false prophets in Judea had dismissed Jeremiah’s warning of punishment prior to the exile, false prophets in Babylon following the exile scorned the idea that it would last anything like seventy years. As a result, Jeremiah reaffirms the original prediction of seventy years of service in the form of a letter preserved in chapter 29: only when the seventy years were complete would the exile come to an end. . . . Those who have stayed behind in Judah will not be exempt from punishment. Although they have not been sent into exile for seventy years (29:16), they will nevertheless suffer a full measure of covenantal curses: “I am going to let loose on them sword, famine, and pestilence, and I will make them like rotten figs that are so bad they cannot be eaten” This matches his comments about Daniel's use of the 70 years (p.114): In 9:2, Daniel understands from his reading of Jeremiah’s scroll that the exile was to last seventy years. This prompts Daniel’s prayer of repentance. The prayer is set in the first year of Darius, that is, at the passing of imperial power from the Babylonians to the MedoPersians. In the narrative, the collapse of Babylonian hegemony is the sign that points to the impending fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prediction that Jerusalem would be desolate for seventy years. It's curious that he seems to believe that Daniel is reinterpreting the 70 years as 70 x 7=490, but significantly counts it as 49x10=490, possibly referring to the fact that the first answer to exile with reference to Jerusalem itself was only 49 years (until the first 49-year Jubilee via Cyrus), but that there would a full 10 Jubilees before the final week of years and full restoration. Bryan won't go along completely with this interpretation but refers to it as significant. If that count is from 587 to 538, this is exactly 49 years. Further, the significance of the first forty-nine years in the 490-year scheme goes beyond the fact that it is the first of ten jubilees. The author seems also to see the completion of the first jubilee as corresponding to the end of the first of seven seventy-year periods.20 This is indicated by the fact that the seventy years begins with the desolation of Jerusalem according to the word of the Lord (9:2) but that the first jubilee begins with the word of the Lord concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem (9:25).21(p.115) [footnote] 21The referent of the “word” concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem in Dan 9:25 is disputed but is best understood as a designation of Jeremiah’s prophecy regarding the restoration of Jerusalem in Jer 30–31, which follows the prophecy in chapter 29 of the city’s desolation. So, e.g., Ernest Lucas, Daniel, ApOTC (Nottingham: Apollos, 2002), 243. Lucas dates the oracles of desolation to 605 BCE (Jer 25:12) and 597 BCE (Jer 29:10), preceding the oracles of restoration, which date to 587 (Jer 30:18–22, 31:38–40). Bergsma defends the view that the “word” refers to the edict of Cyrus that permitted the return of the exiles (“Persian Period as Penitential Era,” 58–60). So even if Bryan doesn't fully accept this interpretation, he realizes that if one were to count from the destruction of Jerusalem to the edict of Cyrus, this would only be about 49 years, and would in fact match the first 49 year period of the 10. Curious. When I think of a clown I think of those dressed up at a rodeo or circus who create diversions so that the audience doesn't realize the seriousness of a blunder or potential disaster. I have noticed that most of your posts are clownish in this sense of trying to create a diversion. But they are also laughably immature and unscholarly, which I guess would also qualify as clownish. But you are being dishonest again, or at least manipulative with your language. Here's why: I asked you very clearly. I asked if you could find any Exilic scholar who supports the WTS chronology, even within 2 years of it. And, I also asked if you could find any Exilic scholar who deviates from the standard archaeological evidence, even by as much as two years.: Outside of the Watchtower publications, JWs or Adventists who defend an inherited chronology, can you give me a reference for any "Exilic scholar" who thinks it was more than 50 years between Jerusalem's destruction and Babylon's downfall by Cyrus? Can you show any "exilic scholar" who thinks that Jerusalem was destroyed within 2 years of 607? Can you show any "exilic scholar" who thinks that Jerusalem was NOT destroyed within 2 years of 587? I asked for any one scholar. You answered very clearly that you will give me two: And now you call me a clown because you were devious and were caught? Do you think that all WItnesses are so stupid that we can't look things up and read for ourselves?

I find your words to be dishonest and manipulative. You pretend that there are "respective chronologies" represented here. There is only one chronology represented here. All the referenced sources, dozens of them, give mostly consistent opinions about a single chronology. It's a single chronology that all of them consider definitive enough to pinpoint the various deportation, destruction, and construction events. They understand the meaning of a "definitive" or "Absolute NB Chronology" or else there would be no structure for all of them to agree upon the dates of those events, within a year or two. Opinions about which of those fixed dates should be interpreted as important to the 70 years prophecy doesn't change the archaeological evidence for a fixed chronology, that all of them accept. If after all these years, you do not yet understand why scholars might consider either or both of these two dates, then you are being dishonest in associating yourself with the word scholar. I note that several persons have explained it to you over the years, but you still claim to be vexed and troubled over why this 12 month difference is possible. And it's such a simple explanation, too. The scholars who state a preference for either 586 or 587 are not confused, why are you? Making such a ludicrous statement is just evidence that you are hoping to play to a stupid audience. Is there a margin of error in the archaeological evidence over which year was Nebuchadnezzar's 18th regnal year? You are trying to fool people. Personally, I couldn't care less if the NB Chronology is "absolute" or not, but you still need to go back to your books if you still don't know what the term "absolute" means with respect to a chronological timeline. I'm sure that the reason you will never give the historian's definition or archaeologist's definition is because you know that the term can be used to manipulate prejudice among those who won't look it up for themselves. But this has already been looked up for you in this very topic, and the last time you brought it up under a different topic, and another time before that. So it's hard for me to believe that this is merely incompetence. What else could it be, but another example of dishonesty and manipulation? Again, you are playing to the prejudices of people you must think are too stupid to look up information for themselves. You admit the 20 year gap between the archaeological evidence and an interpretation, and call that twenty year gap "no 'margin of error.'" Yet the Watchtower admits this gap in evidence and claims that such evidence might still show up someday in the future. *** kc p. 187 Appendix to Chapter 14 *** Or, even if the discovered evidence is accurate, it might be misinterpreted by modern scholars or be incomplete so that yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology of the period. After admitting that the evidence is strong, and consistent, the only hope is that it's being misinterpreted or that "yet undiscovered material" could drastically alter the chronology. And yet, there are thousands of pieces of material that consistently fix the NB chronology, and new material has been published since the time that statement was made. Unfortunately, it just keeps supporting and bolstering the exact same timeline -- no exceptions. After 10,000 pieces of evidence, is there really any hope that new material will produce the drastic changes the WTS needs? Even the WTS interpretation of the 70 years is not set in stone. The same book says: *** kc p. 189 Appendix to Chapter 14 *** It seems evident that the easiest and most direct understanding of the various Biblical statements is that the 70 years began with the complete desolation of Judah after Jerusalem was destroyed. And, of course, if you really study the various Bible statements, most people (according to your sources) see that this is NOT the most direct understanding of the various Bible statements. And even if it were, that last quoted statement is meaningless unless the WTS wanted to use the 70 year reference of Zechariah which most likely refers to about 586 to 516, plus or minus a couple years. There was a common thread among those last 8, the ones who differed from the usual 609/605 start and a 539 end. It was a rejection of the authority of the Bible. They often interpreted the 70 years as a prophecy that might not have even come from Jeremiah or the Chronicler, but which was supposedly imposed on the text from a much later date. Funny how those few exceptions you count on the most to promote uncertainty and doubt, actually got to those interpretations by rejecting the originality and authority of the Biblical text.

OK. It's 2021 now, I will move on to the second part of your answer, which is even more incorrect. I asked: Outside of the Watchtower publications, JWs or Adventists who defend an inherited chronology, can you give me a reference for any "Exilic scholar" who thinks it was more than 50 years between Jerusalem's destruction and Babylon's downfall by Cyrus? Can you show any "exilic scholar" who thinks that Jerusalem was destroyed within 2 years of 607? Can you show any "exilic scholar" who thinks that Jerusalem was NOT destroyed within 2 years of 587? You answered: JSTOR gives me a couple of references that show you are wrong. The first is : https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15699/jbl.1371.2018.222705 The End of Exile: The Reception of Jeremiah's Prediction of a Seventy-Year Exile Author(s): Steven M. Bryan Source: Journal of Biblical Literature , Vol. 137, No. 1 (Spring 2018), pp. 107-126 I quote from page 108, where Bryan shows no problem with the following date for the destruction of Jerusalem: ". . . the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/86" (p.108) He is also aware that some scholars have made a point about the 70 year period from the (second exile and) destruction of the temple by Babylon (587/6) to the reconstruction in 516/515 since this also is a 70-year period (which he does not accept as the period referenced by Jeremiah, which he says had already been recognized as fulfilled.) [Note that C.F.Whitley, another example from Niles' "Appendix C" is a proponent of 586 BCE to 516 BCE, with full knowledge that 586 BCE refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and 516 to the reconstruction under Haggai/Zerubbabel.] So your reference to Steven M Bryan is a failure. Now to Rainer Albertz. Without looking, I have already come to trust that this was also just an empty claim. So, here it is. Not surprisingly, you failed at this one too. Here is his chronology from the book: Israel in Exile --The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E. by Rainer Albertz · 2003 Note: "conquest of Jerusalem, 2d deportation (July / August 587)." He sees that the Bible chronology fits the standard archaeological foundation for the chronology. These dates are also 20 years off from the ones promoted by the Watchtower publications. Of course, I'm sure you already knew both of these attempts were failures before you even provided them.

Niles, himself gives an overview of many past scholars, and he is not confused at all by the scholarship. First, of course, here are the dates he accepts, as seen in Appendix C. This applies to the second question, of course, as he is also an "Exilic" scholar, too. He apparently understands exactly how the standard dates align with the Bible chronology. Now you mentioned Appendix A, where Nles gives an idea of the broad range of views from scholars and Bible commentators, past and present. I don't see any of them confused about the chronology of those 70 years of Babylonian domination between about 609 to 539 (plus or minus a couple of years). Most of them chose that very chronology as the interpretation of Jeremiah's 70 years. Apparently every single one of them understood that chronology to be able to place the destruction of Jerusalem in 587-586 BCE, or the larger exile (e.g. Ezekiel, et al) from 598-597 BCE. Everyone has a right to their set of Biblical interpretations for the varying uses of the term "70 years" whether literal, close, symbolic, an approximation, or even believing (as Niles himself does) that various Bible writers may have used it to refer to multiple periods. But this does not imply any confusion about the chronology. Every one of them understood the chronology of the time of Babylonian domination, or they could not have all consistently put dates like the ones pictured above, on all the Judean events. I will repeat again: Apparently 100% of them used the date 587 or 586 for the destruction of Jerusalem. No confusion about the chronology, just different interpretations of which start and end dates to use within that fixed chronology. For those who don't know, I'll reproduce the columns from the first 3 pages: Did I mention this? Every one of the above accepts a chronology within a couple years of the standard chronology, and every one of the above accepts a chronology that is about 20 years different from the "special chronology" that the WTS promotes. (I add that last part about the 20-years difference, because there are people who think that 605 BCE, above, is only 2 years different from the WTS chronology of 607. It's actually 18 years different. Because the WTS publications present the above 605 date as 625 BCE.) The last 8 listed scholars from the final two pages (not included above) discuss variations of Biblical interpretation about the 70 years, but they are not at all confused about the chronology of the period of Babylonian years of domination in the region. I'll just pick any one of them to see what they say about the period of Babylonian domination: The first one, Anneli Aejmelaeus, we don't have to look up, because Niles already tells us she understands the significance of 587 BCE (Jeremiah 25) and 597 BCE. So I'll pick another and then look up whether Bryan and Albertz fit the criteria of dating the destruction of Jerusalem more than two years different than 587 BCE. Maybe next year, though. This should be my last post of 2020.

Someone named RR(?) was selling a book on eBay while making a claim it came from Tom Cabeen, implying it might have been printed on WT materials. I thought it was nearly impossible, having been there from 76 to 82. I got Cabeen's number through contact with his son (who went to college with my son). Cabeen was sure he had never seen the book before. Anyway, I asked Cabeen if he knew how COJ was doing healthwise. Cabeen didn't know for sure, but told me how sad it was that COJ only tried to do the right thing when one of his Bible Study "RV's" asked him about why the WTS uses this special chronology. COJ was sure it could be defended and did his best, but, of course, discovered what anyone would discover if they were being honest and thorough. I told Cabeen that when I was tagging along with Brother Schroeder's "entourage" for an International Convention tour in 1978 that I had to stay in Athens for some extra time while Bert Schroeder went to Wiesbaden. When I was supposed to catch up with him in Wiesbaden, I was told he had alread gone to Hamburg/Copenhagen/Stockholm for some meetings (no conventions) and without any of his small entourage. The rumor was that this was about the COJ manuscript, although I couldn't know absolutely for sure. We caught up again when he came back to Hamburg then on back to London and Brooklyn. I told Cabeen this, and he already knew about part of it. I understand Cabeen might be biased, but he said that Schroeder had already determined to get COJ disfellowshiped several months before that convention trip. So I can believe that something like this happened with Gerard Gertoux. Gertoux seemed willing to discuss anything except 587 BCE, which made him suddenly clam up.

I'll look for an older post. I think it was in another topic, but I recall AlanF seemed to have brought this up out of nowhere somewhere else recently. If that's older than yours, the problem is resolved. AlanF deserves this one anyway. I don't think he can go 20 posts without changing to one of these subjects, even if it's just as simple/banal as: "You're as moronic as a flat earth creationist." [Edited to add: Looks like your off the hook. Arauna appears to have the oldest post here, but I'll still be on the lookout for one from AlanF that pins this whole offshoot on him.]

I don't believe any true scholars are confused about the 70 years of Babylonian domination. The evidence is too clear and overwhelming to leave any room for such confusion by any true scholar. You apparently think they are confused but that's a reflection on you, not them. You make haughty claims without evidence, but you haven't been able to honestly deal with any of the evidence so far. Outside of the Watchtower publications, JWs or Adventists who defend an inherited chronology, can you give me a reference for any "Exilic scholar" who thinks it was more than 50 years between Jerusalem's destruction and Babylon's downfall by Cyrus? Can you show any "exilic scholar" who thinks that Jerusalem was destroyed within 2 years of 607? Can you show any "exilic scholar" who thinks that Jerusalem was NOT destroyed within 2 years of 587? If you can't, then this is just another empty claim.

I couldn't delete them either, so I redid them for another post.

Gerard Gertoux would love to side with the Watchtower's chronology wherever possible, and has looked at some of the potentially "weaker" evidence here and there and claimed that there might be room for agreement with the Watchtower's dates. Although he is a WItness, he has studied the Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian chronology and has realized that the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar cannot be placed in 607. As you can see here, he puts it in 587 BCE. https://www.academia.edu/26080694/Absolute_Chronology_of_the_Ancient_World_from_1533_BCE_to_140_CE ... (The only mistake he makes here is using the "astronomical dating" format to represent "BCE" format. But he acknowledges this. It makes the spreadsheet easier for most people to understand.)

Apparently, neither do you and your sidekick JWinsider CC, You keep dragging me (and @Arauna ) into this. Arauna is right. We should be able to explain complex things with simple words and simple sentences. So here goes: Ann O'maly commented on a paper written by Gerard Gertoux. In her comments, O'maly happened to make mention of a mistake that might have just been a typo. Gertoux's "typo" indicated that 360/12=15, instead of 360/12=30. No big deal. Chavez (CC) sarys Gertoux is right about 15 degrees, and O'maly must be stupid. For evidence CC posts content saying that 360/12=30 and that 360/24=15 and that 30/2=15. CC apparently doesn't realize that all CC has done is prove that O'maly was right. That's the whole story: CC has tried to prove O'maly wrong, but all his evidence directly shows she was right. His evidence blew up in his face. That's the whole story, except that Arauna has sided with the idea that 360/12=15, without even knowing, probably, that this was the entire argument. It's EXACTLY as if: O'maly said 2+2=4 CC told her she was stupid, because 2+2=5 CC "proves" it by loading up a lot of Googled sites that prove that 2+2=4 CC claims his superiority and O'maly's stupidity, by misreading his evidence that "proved" to him that 2+2=5 Arauna places her bets on the side of 2+2=5 and criticizes O'maly for believing that 2+2=4. But why go to so much trouble to defend a typo in the first place? Why the need to pretend O'maly is stupid and wrong and incompetent just because she caught a simple mistake? That was not even the point of O'maly's comments. I think it only goes to prove a more general point we have seen on this thread. Hatred of people interferes with good judgment. And conversely, if people think someone else (like a Furuli, a Gertoux) is on the side of 1914, then it doesn't matter if they are making ludicrous claims. 99.9% of Witnesses apparently aren't really going to test them anyway. It's easier to just say they must be right, and Witnesses should defend them. For people who do not wish to look into the facts, it becomes an 'us versus them' proposition. But there's another way I can tell that it doesn't matter what the evidence shows, and this is only about assumptions, and not real study or research: It's because Gerard Gertoux has agreed with the same date that Carl Olof Jonsson gives for the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. I have even communicated with Gerard Gertoux to find out why.

I'm making a catch-all place for the discussions on these topics that were currently under different topics/subjects. As I move old posts into this new topic, the oldest ones will appear to identify the starter/owner of this topic, even though that person didn't create this topic.

This is completely false. Non-WT models accept the 70 years. They fit the Biblical view that the 70 years was given to Babylon as the length of time that Babylon would dominate these nations all around. The Bible says this period would be 70 years, and THOUSANDS of stone tablets support the Bible's view that this was 70 years. The Watchtower has turned this 70 year period into a 90 year period, completely unsupported in the Bible. Not only that but the Bible gives some evidence AGAINST this being a 90 year period. I have come to believe that this was why you have so far completely avoided the Bible questions I asked.

Since love doesn't keep account of the injury and covers a multitude of sins, I will not go back and show you what you have actually said. Besides, I've never wanted to make this into a contest of who is smart or not. I've never claimed to be smarter than you or anyone else here. This just happens to be one of my strong interests -- and of course it's an interest that is recommended in the Watchtower itself. It's easy to make mistakes in this area of study. I've made quite a few while learning and might still be making some. I'm hoping to be corrected where I am making mistakes. But it gets easier, and makes more sense every time I read another book and compare it with the evidence and the appropriate Bible passages. But I'm sure you'll agree that there's nothing wrong with taking an interest in this topic: *** w11 10/1 p. 26 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One *** But why be interested in the actual date when Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II razed the city of Jerusalem? First, because the event marked an important turning point in the history of God’s people. . . . Second, because knowing the actual year when this “ultimate catastrophe” began and understanding how the restoration of true worship in Jerusalem fulfilled a precise Bible prophecy will build your confidence in the reliability of God’s Word. So why do Jehovah’s Witnesses hold to a date that differs from widely accepted chronology by 20 years? In short, because of evidence within the Bible itself. The problem, of course, is not just taking an interest, but discovering that the Watchtower's solution produces too many contradictions and cannot be supported without manipulation or rejection of the Biblical and archaeological evidence. Of course the only right thing to do when one discovers that the evidence leads to a different conclusion is to be quiet and wait on Jehovah. At least that's what I was told even by the persons who first showed me a few pieces of this evidence in 1977 and 1978. If you speak up, you could be disfellowshipped, I was warned. So I stayed pretty quiet about it for more than a third of a century (i.e., 33 years) but I have kept studying about these things off and on. But my conscience bothered me a bit, because Jehovah is the "God of Truth." (Psalm 31:5) If we see our brother take a false step we shouldn't just ignore it. When I asked about these things with responsible persons in the organization, who I respected, I realized that the only defense was "empty speeches." (Non-answers, avoidance, evasion, misquotes, and very weak or completely unrelated evidence.) Mostly you begin to see that no one really has looked at the evidence. Or, if they are like Furuli, they try to exploit a weakness in one or two tiny pieces of evidence, and won't even admit that their theory is already demolished by 1,000 other bits of independent evidence. So for me, I must follow my conscience. (2 Timothy 2:14-18) . . .. 15 Do your utmost to present yourself approved to God, a workman with nothing to be ashamed of, handling the word of the truth aright. 16 But reject empty speeches that violate what is holy, for they will lead to more and more ungodliness, 17 and their word will spread like gangrene. Hy·me·naeʹus and Phi·leʹtus are among them. 18 These men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred, and they are subverting the faith of some. Hmmmm. Thanks? Well, that should convince her! I think she trusts your judgment pretty much the way she judges mine.

That's fine. It wasn't fully clear to me until now that you also reject the WTS interpretation of when Babylon became the new world power replacing Assyria (per INSIGHT). I also believe it was around 607, which was just a couple of years prior to the battle of Carchemish. INSIGHT uses Carchemish as one of the primary events marking the start of the Babylonian world power although, to make 1914 work, the Watchtower dates it to 625 instead of 605 BCE. You are apparently using the much narrower definition of world power in the Bible when world power often refers to how Jehovah's people were affected. In this case I was asking about Jeremiah 25, which mentions "these nations" in addition to Judea. No. The prophecy against Tyre came shortly after the fall of Jerusalem in 587/6, but that specific prophecy began fulfillment years later. (This is one of the ways we know that the nations served Babylon for 70 years, but the specific length of any one nation's complete servitude could have been much shorter, less than 40 years for Tyre.) But you already indicated, above, that you rejected the Society's interpretation of this in the "Isaiah's Prophecy" book (Ezekiel 26:1-9) . . .In the 11th year, on the first day of the moth, the word of Jehovah came to me, saying: 2 “Son of man, because Tyre has said against Jerusalem, . . . 7 “For this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says: ‘Here I am bringing King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon against Tyre from the north; he is a king of kings, with horses, war chariots, cavalrymen, and an army of many soldiers. 8 He will destroy your settlements in the countryside with the sword, and he will build a siege wall and throw up a siege rampart against you and raise up a great shield against you. 9 He will pound your walls with his battering ram, and with his axes he will pull down your towers. A siege wall is an indication that this did not happen overnight, but may have taken years, and may not have started until years after 587/6. This is what INSIGHT says, too: *** INSIGHT-2 p. 531 Tyre *** Nebuchadnezzar II besieged the city. From a military standpoint, after many years it might have seemed futile to continue. But he persevered until Tyre fell at the end of 13 years, thus fulfilling the Bible prophecy that had named him as its conqueror.—Eze 26:7-12. According to INSIGHT, the prophecy was fulfilled at least 13 years after Jerusalem fell. But the power of Babylonian domination on the whole region, including Tyre, would have been felt from at least the time of the battle of Carchemish.

Why the difference? Did those other nations not have exiles to be released from Babylon? (Jeremiah 46:13-19) . . .This is the word that Jehovah spoke to Jeremiah the prophet regarding the coming of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon to strike down the land of Egypt: . . . 19 Prepare your baggage for exile, O daughter inhabiting Egypt. For Noph will become an object of horror; It will be set afire and left without an inhabitant. (Jeremiah 46:24-26) . . .The daughter of Egypt will be put to shame. She will be handed over to the people of the north.’ 25 “Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, says: ‘Now I am turning my attention to Aʹmon from No, to Pharʹaoh, to Egypt, to her gods, and to her kings—yes, to Pharʹaoh and all those trusting in him.’ 26 “‘And I will hand them over to those seeking to take their life, to King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon and his servants. But afterward she will be inhabited as in times past,’ declares Jehovah. Can you give the years when Egypt was without an inhabitant? (Jeremiah 48:4-7) . . .Moʹab has been broken down. Her little ones cry out. 5 On the ascent of Luʹhith they weep continually as they climb. And on the way down from Hor·o·naʹim they hear cries of distress over the catastrophe. 6 Flee, escape for your lives! You must become like a juniper tree in the wilderness. 7 Because you trust in your works and in your treasures, You will also be captured. And Cheʹmosh will go into exile, Together with his priests and his princes. . . Can you give the years when Moab/Chemosh went into exile? How can anyone say that a part of the answer is "No" to whether Jeremiah 25 mentions "these nations"? That sounds very evasive when you consider the rest of Jeremiah: (Jeremiah 48:46-49:6) . . .Woe to you, O Moʹab! The people of Cheʹmosh have perished. For your sons have been taken captive, And your daughters have gone into exile. 47 But I will gather the captives of Moʹab in the final part of the days,’ declares Jehovah. ‘Down to this point is the judgment on Moʹab.’” 49 For the Amʹmon·ites, this is what Jehovah says: “Does Israel have no sons? Does he have no heir? Why has Malʹcam taken possession of Gad? And why are his people living in Israel’s cities?” 2 “‘Therefore look! the days are coming,’ declares Jehovah, ‘When I will cause the alarm signal of war to be heard against Rabʹbah of the Amʹmon·ites. She will become a desolate mound, And her dependent towns will be set on fire.’ ‘And Israel will take possession of those who dispossessed him,’ says Jehovah. 3 ‘Wail, O Heshʹbon, for Aʹi has been destroyed! Cry out, O dependent towns of Rabʹbah. Put on sackcloth. Wail and rove about among the stone pens, For Malʹcam will go into exile, Together with his priests and his princes. 4 Why do you brag about the valleys, About your flowing plain, O unfaithful daughter, Who trusts in her treasures And who says: “Who will come against me?”’” 5 “‘Here I am bringing something dreadful on you,’ declares the Sovereign Lord, Jehovah of armies, ‘From all those around you. You will be dispersed in every direction, And no one will gather those who flee.’” 6 “‘But afterward I will gather the captives of the Amʹmon·ites,’ declares Jehovah.”

Can you explain how, for example, Tyre, Assyria, Egypt, and the Medes, and the Persians began their servitude to Babylon in 607? I'll make it even easier. Just tell me how Tyre began their servitude in 607 BCE? Yes and No, depending on interpretation of this passage. Does it say "these nations" or not? How do you interpret the passage? Through an interpretation of the LXX?

Good. Three questions. Maybe now we are getting somewhere. I have so far proposed a couple of dozen questions about the differences between the Watchtower chronology and the Bible chronology. Several of them were directed to you personally and you have either not seen them or ignored all but two of them. So let's start in order. Answer three of the chronology issues I have presented, and I will answer yours, the best I can. Your several counter-questions were in response to the idea that I wrote as follows: So let's start from there and see if you will attempt to answer these questions: Does Jeremiah 25 say that only Judea will serve Babylon for 70 years, or does it say "these nations"? For reference, I'll quote the verse: (Jeremiah 25:11, 12) . . .And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’ 12 “‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,’ declares Jehovah, ‘and I will make the land of the Chal·deʹans a desolate wasteland for all time. And, if you can see that the answer is "these nations" and not just Judea, then the next question would be: From what year did Babylon's dominance over these nations start? (or, When did these nations begin their servitude to Babylon?) and From what year did Babylon's dominance over these nations end? (or, When did these nations end their servitude to Babylon?)

At least I have been fully and completely honest. I'll try a little harder to be more unpleasant. 😉 But even when you say I am blatantly lying and lyingly say every sort of untruth and insult about me, I realize where it comes from. It's not really you personally. It's a zeal for God, just not according to accurate knowledge. We must always be learning.

You appear to have the same problem with "projection" as CC. (By the way, I think AlanF really is arrogant, too.) I, too, may have shown some arrogance, but I don't think it has been anything compared to the arrogance you and AlanF and Cesar Chavez and "Scholar JW" have shown. I think that you call "arrogance" anything that shows up the Watchtower chronology as inconsistent. I have not deviated from the Bible chronology. What apparently bothers you is the fact that the INSIGHT book reveals the inconsistencies through direct quotations, without rephrasing. What you are referring to, of course, is the fact that INSIGHT uses the phrase: *** it-1 p. 453 Chronology *** A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. You take that to mean that there other pieces of evidence that could do this, but which were not related to astronomy. It is true that this tablet is helpful, but there are other tablets, and king lists, and Babylonian chronicles, and inscriptions and contract tablets that are also helpful. It's when the entire chronology and calendar is pieced together that Babylonian chronology is connected with Biblical chronology. I've already pointed out the problems with your claim about the Olympiads. I might repeat them again if I get a chance.

The Biblical chronology has no problem at all here. The 70 years actually fits the 70 years from around 609 to 539. The Watchtower chronology has a big problem in that it tries to fit 90 years for Babylonian dominance, claiming that Babylon began to dominate between 629 and 625, according to the INSIGHT book, as already quoted several times. Through increasing lives lost, exiles, taking of treasures from the temple, burning down the Temple, and continuing to take exiles even five years after the Temple was destroyed, it is obvious that Judea suffered through the entire 70 year period. "Scholar JW" claims that the interpretation is wrong about Jeremiah 25 in the Watchtower publications here: *** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre *** 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. Finally, "scholar JW" has admitted that he disagrees with the Watchtower's interpretation here. It sounds like you disagree with the Watchtower's interpretation, too. See the quote from the WTS publication above. No individual nation had to spend 70 years in exile. Also, how many years was it from the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar until the resumption of the foundation-laying for the rebuilding of the temple? (Zechariah 7:5-7) . . .‘When you fasted and wailed in the fifth month and in the seventh month for 70 years, did you really fast for me? 6 And when you would eat and drink, were you not eating for yourselves and drinking for yourselves? 7 Should you not obey the words that Jehovah proclaimed through the former prophets, while Jerusalem and her surrounding cities were inhabited and at peace, and while the Negʹeb and the She·pheʹlah were inhabited?’” The Watchtower chronology would make this period, too, around 90 years, and yet the Bible says it was 70. Who are you going to believe here, the Bible chronology or the Watchtower chronology? *** pm chap. 14 pp. 234-236 pars. 1-6 Fasting over God’s Executed Judgments Improper *** IS A TIME of prosperity the proper time for fasting? . . . 2 The time that the above questions came up was in the fourth year of the reign of King Darius I of the Persian Empire, or in the year 518 B.C.E. . . . 3 Now, when the question of fasting and mourning is raised, this time Jehovah answers by his prophet Zechariah. The prophet tells us: “Furthermore, it came about that in the fourth year of Darius the king the word of Jehovah occurred to Zechariah, on the fourth day of the ninth month, that is, in Chislev. . . .Zechariah 8:19. 6 The things commemorated by fasting down to the year 519 B.C.E., namely, the start of the siege of Jerusalem, the breaching of the walls of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, and the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the armies of Babylon, were all the execution of the judgments of Jehovah. The Watchtower says those 70 years Zechariah spoke of would run from 607 to about 519/518 BCE, which would include parts of 90 sequential years. Yet the Biblical chronology (and the standard archaeological chronology) would make that parts of 70 different years from 587 to 518 BCE.

How? If you can't answer I assume you just made this up. You seem to have this idea that you must be right at all costs, and you won't let facts get in the way. My father always jokes: "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts!"