JW Insider

Or, why not advance from several mistakes to less mistakes? We are not supposed to look for "True Anointed" because this would make us followers of men. Do you assume that Paul and Peter were "True Anointed"? If so, remember that persons in the Christian congregation were NOT supposed to follow them. Peter and Paul and others made serious mistakes. This is why the only "True Anointed" we follow is Jesus Christ.

That was the point: that Daniel does NOT allow room for both views here. How could Jehovah be bringing a king low for his haughtiness and braggadocio, and it still makes sense that Jehovah was also bringing him low for his humble attitude and his being lowly in heart and disposition? There was not room for both views.

And I'm sure you had in mind, too, that Jesus said: (Luke 21:24) 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. It's another bit of language manipulation, imo, to say that although Jesus said it would be in the future, that he actually meant it "will" start in the past.

I was harsh, because the more I study it, the more I believe that one MUST use deception to keep any kind of "prophetic chronology" going. I see the way that F.W.Franz toyed with language to keep people hyped up about 1975. I see the way that Rutherford was using deceptive language to keep people hyped up about 1925. And then looking back at Miller and Barbour I see the same thing. I just read some of Harold Camping's predictions for May 21, 2011 and I see the same exact style. And, as I started to write up what I saw in the Jon & Cameron conversation, I saw some of the same. This doesn't mean the deception is on purpose. We "inherit" our beliefs about chronology, just as Russell "inherited" them from Nelson Barbour. Just as I expect that you personally believed this material about 1914 when you were a Witness because you "inherited" it from your teachers, a combination of the person who studied with you, and the Watchtower publications, and from the platform, as it were. You weren't being purposely deceptive when you shared this with others. But you were using the same deceptive language, highlighting innuendos and skipping inconsistencies. It's just one of those traditions, in my opinion, that makes the word of God invalid. (I say this because this particular tradition does indeed invalidate the very counsel of the Scriptures.) But that inherited tradition about chronology doesn't invalidate all the other teachings. It just means that we have to prove to ourselves and make sure of all things. It was the same principle Jesus taught his audience: (Matthew 23:1-3) . . .Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying: 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses. 3 Therefore, all the things they tell you, do and observe,. . . The Scribes and Pharisees were incorrect about several things, and yet Jesus could tell his audience to do and observe all the things they tell you. Jehovah reads hearts and judges us individually before the judgment seat.

PROJECTION: If we include Allen Smith##, Billy the Kid, etc., in the count, I think you just reached example number 1,000!! We should have some kind of celebration. Wikipedia: Psychological projection is a defense mechanism in which the ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves by attributing them to others.[1] . . . It incorporates blame shifting and can manifest as shame dumping.[2]

Just wanted to add a consideration of a very odd (to me) use of Daniel 4:17 as a way, not to prove that Jesus was humble, but as if Daniel 4:17 was a reference to the way Jesus' enemies viewed Jesus. The exact logic of this Watchtower article still escapes me: *** w05 10/15 p. 27 par. 6 Cultivate Genuine Humility *** That was the greatest example of humility and love ever set by one of God’s creatures. Not all appreciated Jesus’ humility, his enemies even considering him to be “the lowliest one of mankind.” (Daniel 4:17) And yet here, it was humility: *** w90 10/15 p. 18 par. 15 Be Thankful—Jehovah’s Messianic Kingdom Rules *** Only one person came to be qualified in all respects to be called “the lowliest one of mankind.” The only-begotten Son of God proved himself to be such by willingly leaving his heavenly glory to be born as a human, as Jesus, who suffered the most humiliating and cruel death at Satan’s hand. (Philippians 2:3, 5-11)

The glitch I am speaking of is the following: (But first some doctrinal history because I know how much certain people here just love doctrinal history.) Russell left the "1914" doctrine in disarray by predicting so many things for it that failed. And even changing the "End of the Gentile Times" to 1915, and at least once also implying that the "Jewish Year 1915" could run from October 1915 to October 1916. But even Rutherford had continued to create a mess around the 1914 problem by waffling on 1914 for a while, pushing for 1918, then 1925, and only very slowly giving up on the the idea that the "End of the Gentile Times" was still going to be a Jewish mitzvah in Palestine. It took Rutherford a while to give up on the great pyramid, and the seven or so other evidences for reaching 1914 by using 'divine proofs for 1874' plus the 40-year harvest. Including "parallel dispensations" in Old Testament Israel as the proof of divine origin of our chronology. Although even this last 1914 proof, he had "messed with," by adjusting "1874+40=1914" to 1878 plus a 40-year harvest to reach 1918. (1878+40=1918)The old emphasis on Elijah passing the mantle to Elisha would give Rutherford a more personal sense of scriptural authority, when he moved the date out of Russell's time slot and into the start of his own presidency in 1918. The same idea carried over into the "ns" book when that entire Russell/Rutherford transition was moved from 1918 to 1942 to represent the Rutherford/Knorr-Franz transition where "Elijah" was now the time under Rutherford's presidency and "Elisha" became the transition to the time of the Knorr/[Franz] presidency). [edited to add: No one should get the idea that 1914 had been downplayed as a doctrine. The war broke out in 1914, and by mid-1915 the doctrine was being explained pretty much as it is now, but still with Zionist overtones, and with the background chronological reasons in question or in flux. By 1916 the "parousia" signs were being added to it. But that old consistent stable basis for 1914 was being shaken a bit. And Daniel 4 had not been utilized very much, even for the 2,520 years. Articles mentioning the 2,520 years did NOT include Daniel 4. I might add an explanation of what I mean here under another topic.] So when Rutherford died (1942), it was up to F.W.Franz to push hard for the tree dream prophecy again because all those other methods now needed to be dropped completely. Officially Christ's presence was still 1874 right up until about 1943: *** ka chap. 11 pp. 209-210 par. 55 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” *** In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published the book “The Truth Shall Make You Free.” In its chapter 11, entitled “The Count of Time,” . . . Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning of his invisible presence or parousia. The book just mentioned, "The Truth Shall Make You Free," was the first big push on the chronology of 1914 in quite a while. But this was back before the NWT was available, and we often used the American Standard Version, and Rotherham's translation. This is where and when the first glitch was much more visible, and had to be overcome. Note page 240 of the book: To whom does Jehovah give the heavenly overlordship over all men of good-will in A.D. 1914? Daniel4: 17 answers: "To the intent that the living may know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men." "One low among men he setteth up over it." (Roth.) Humiliating Nebuchadnezzar with insanity and making him eat with the beasts was a way of showing just how low and beastly these kingdoms of men really were, but that Jehovah was still so far above them, that almost "on a whim" Jehovah could prove just how "base" these rulers were that he allowed to rule in the kingdom of men. So this entire parable was not about the Kingdom of God, but about how "base" and "beastly" were these relatively weak and transient humans who thought they were so great in the kingdom of men. So the first thing to do is get rid of that phrase the "basest of men." Rotherham helped here. If it can apply to Jesus, we could get away with "lowest" instead of "basest" because then we could use Jesus' humility, or his perceived stature by those who were not of honest hearts. Even this is a problem, because Jesus wasn't really "low." It's just that people were mistaken when they considered him "low." (Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Isn't he the carpenter's son? How can he say he existed before Abraham? etc.) So page 241 of the same 1943 book goes on: God has not given the 'kingdom of men" to totalitarian and religious dictators, who are wicked demonized men. Jehovah God has given the heavenly kingdom of the new world to the one whom politicians, commercial traffickers and religious clergy despjse as the "basest of men", namely, Christ Jesus, who was nailed to a tree between two thieves. Note the deceptive twisting of the Bible's words here. With a kind of sleight of hand, and taking advantage of the negative opening in the sentence, Franz makes the "kingdom of men" represent "the heavenly kingdom." And while Daniel 4 was about a truly vicious beast who needed to be humiliated for his haughtiness, "the basest of men," Jesus is only falsely accused of being the basest of men. There is no need to humiliate Jesus for his haughtiness. Jesus is not a vicious beast. Jesus does not need to be taught a lesson by making him go insane. So over the years, there has been a near disappearance of this explanation about how Jesus is like the "basest of men." And tricks of language are still being used to try to make the parallel between the return of wicked, pagan, gentile Nebuchadnezzar after 7 years to refer to the return of the Jewish Messianic Kingdom through the enthronement of Jesus Christ, who was not wicked, pagan, or gentile -- after 7 "times."

Leaven can be bad or good? Enduring suffering? Cyrus as Jehovah's "servant" for releasing the Jews from Babylon? Nebuchadnezzar as Jehovah's "servant" for punishing wicked Jerusalem? The angel of death? Blood on a doorpost? Birth pangs? The sword of the superior authorities? Jehovah's discipline? The goat of Azazel? The vicious she-bears that apparently did Elisha's bidding in mauling some children to death for making fun of his bald head? I don't think that you would have that much trouble finding various and sundry things in the Bible that could be rationalized as "bad" but ultimately represent something "good." More to the point, Cyrus and Nebuchadnezzar were both "tools" in Jehovah's hand as he allowed them to advance their beastly rule for their own motives, but their beastly motives served Jehovah's purpose at the time. But this particular dream about a tree had created a special problem for Witnesses because of the difficulties in making Nebuchadnezzar picture Jesus. For a few years Nebuchadnezzar was allowed to be a type of the antitype Jesus, and then that was changed so that Nebuchadnezzar was explicitly no longer considered a type or picture of Jesus. Now, as of 2015, we even have a more general "rule" that we should never apply types and antitypes to Biblical narratives, and parables, unless the Bible tells us explicitly to do so. The tree dream is most definitely a "parable" but we make an exception to the rule for it, and of course, we must make an exception for the rule about the parable of the "faithful and discreet slave and the wicked slave." But there are some special glitches in this parable that have caused trouble for the WTS publications. Most of the glitches have been discussed on this forum. But there is one serious one that has barely been touched upon. And it pretty much ruins the whole use of this parable as a prophecy about the Messianic Kingdom. And it's the . . . . . (next post)

These are so much better than the early dramas. Maxwell Friend would do a great Shakespearean, sentorian voice of God, which was always amazing. Daniel Sydlik would do a voice of God, too, but people detected the Brooklyn accent sometimes, and our CO would make fun of it with "Hey youze guys down there!." When the actors prepared, we were given instructions to exaggerate the gestures so that people up in the baseball stadium's highest bleachers could see them. One of the brothers I worked with did a routine where he would exaggerate a groveling servant leaning nearly to the ground, while repeating this huge rolling gesture that looked like he was using both hands to wrap invisible ropes around an imaginary barrel in front of him, and he would say things like: MAY YOUR BEARD GROW EVER LONGER, GEHAZI!!

I can accept that possiblity. But why does the Watchtower chronology need to claim that Daniel is wrong when mentioning Jehoiakim so that Insight claims it was really Jehoiachin? *** 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. There being no record of an earlier Babylonian exile, this appears to place the event in the short reign of Jehoiachin, Jehoiakim’s successor.—2Ki 24:12-16; Jer 52:28. Don't you think something must be wrong with a chronology that tells us to reject the Bible?

Jeremiah's 70 years fits perfectly within the 66 to 73 year period of Babylon's domination. Remember even the Watchtower is forced to explain it this way when they have to: *** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre *** “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) 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. It's the WT Chronology that gives Babylon 86 to 93 years. 70 does NOT fit within that range. So it's only the NB timeline that fits the Bible here, not the WT timeline. Nebuchadnezzar's missing years, you claim are not there, and yet I just showed you how the Bible's timeline gives Nebuchadnezzar only the same 43 years that the NB timeline gives. So if you can't find the 7 years in Nebuchadnezzar's 43 years, and want another 7 to 20, that's just you kicking against the Bible's goads here. And the 20 year gap in the timeline? There is no 20 year gap in the Bible's timeline, or in the NB timeline. The gap is only in the Watchtower's timeline.

The Insight book mentions two events at the beginning of the time when Babylon's domination of the region began. The subjugation of Assyria in 612 BCE (Standard timeline) and the battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE (Standard timeline). Just add the missing 20 years that the Watchtower can't find to get the Watchtower chronology: *** it-1 p. 238 Babylon *** In 632 B.C.E. Assyria was subdued by this new Chaldean dynasty, with the assistance of Median and Scythian allies. In 625 B.C.E., Nabopolassar’s eldest son, Nebuchadnezzar (II), defeated Pharaoh Necho of Egypt at the battle of Carchemish, and in the same year he assumed the helm of government. The Babylonian Chronicles mark these battles at 73 years before 539 and 66 years before 539, respectively. Obviously the subjugation wasn't 100% complete 73 years before, but it was solidly proven by 66 years before. So a reasonable person would say that you could begin the count of domination somewhere between these two points. 70 is between 66 and 73. In fact, if you average the timeline between those two events you get the year 608.5 BCE. That represents 70.5 years of Babylonian domination using just those two primary events that INSIGHT speaks of as the events that handed the domination from the 2nd Empire (Assyria) to the 3rd Empire (Babylon). And, yes, the Babylonian Chronicles do record these events, that bring the "world empire" to Babylon. What do you think a deportation is? If this twisting of scriptures is supposed to be required to accept the WT chronology, then I would rather choose the Bible's chronology which speaks of multiple exiles. Judah went into exile through multiple exiles (Jeremiah 1:3) . . .It came also in the days of Je·hoiʹa·kim the son of Jo·siʹah, the king of Judah, until the completion of the 11th year of Zed·e·kiʹah the son of Jo·siʹah, the king of Judah, until Jerusalem went into exile in the fifth month. (Jeremiah 52:15, 16) . . .Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took into exile some of the lowly people and the rest of the people who were left in the city. He also took the deserters who had defected to the king of Babylon as well as the rest of the master craftsmen. 16 But Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard left some of the poorest people of the land to serve as vinedressers and as compulsory laborers. (Jeremiah 52:27-30) . . .Thus Judah went into exile from its land. 28 These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile: in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews. 29 In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem. 30 In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people. In all, 4,600 people were taken into exile. In Jeremiah 52, three different events from 3 different years were called "exiles." Why is it so important to you to dismiss the Bible to support the Watchtower chronology? It makes just as little sense to say these these were three exiles and only one deportation, which is also not true. I hadn't responded to this in the post on that topic. (Jeremiah 44:14) 14 And the remnant of Judah who have gone to reside in the land of Egypt will not escape or survive to return to the land of Judah. They will long to return and dwell there, but they will not return, except for a few escapees.’” This does not say when those exceptions will return. And you have had to guess about when. It's a possibility, but there is no mention that the 745 refer to those who fled from Egypt. The point is that it was terrible, people fled for their lives, people came back, and it was a terrible desolation for all. Other exceptions were obviously the people put to work on the land who didn't really "count" among the persons exiled. Archaeology of various settlements shows evidence for continuous working of the land year after year. But nowhere does the Bible say that the land had to be without an inhabitant for the full 70 years. Only that Babylon's 70 years would result in a complete desolation of the land.

Since we have begun looking at the Bible's chronology versus the Watchtower chronology, we should look at how easily the Bible chronology fits into the standard Babylonian timeline. (2 Kings 25:27) . . .And in the 37th year of the exile of King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah, in the 12th month, on the 27th day of the month, King Eʹvil-merʹo·dach of Babylon, in the year he became king,. . . For example, look how well that question is answered about the date of Jehoiachin's 37th year of exile. 625 624 623 622 621 620 619 618 617 616 615 614 613 612 611 610 609 608 607 606 605 604 603 602 601 600 599 598 597 596 595 594 593 592 591 590 589 588 587 586 585 584 583 582 581 580 579 578 577 576 575 574 573 572 571 570 569 568 567 566 565 564 563 562 561 560 559 558 557 556 555 554 553 552 551 550 549 548 547 546 545 544 543 542 541 540 539 538 537 536 535 534 533 532 531 530 N A B O P O L A S S A R (21 years) N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S (17) C Y R U S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 591 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Just start in E-M1 which is 561 and go back 37 years on the timeline and you get 598. And this is exactly Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year. Now the Bible never says that Nebuchadnezzar reigned exactly 43 years, but notice how this perfectly matches the Babylonian standard timeline. The Bible gets another confirmation from the Babylonian timeline. Even the fact that it was the 7th year is confirmed not only in the Bible but in the Babylonian Chronicles, as you can see from the first quote from Insight in the previous post. But the WT chronology now has only a 25-year period into which to somehow squeeze 45 years worth of kings' reigns between the first year of E-M and the last year of Nabonidus (17). But it gets worse. You'll recall that the Watchtower publications use the Nabonidus Chronicle to confirm that Cyrus conquered Babylon in the 17th year of Nabonidus. This means that Nabonidus also reigned only 17 years and ended that reign in 539. The INSIGHT book admits this evidence. So we have all of the 43 years of Nebuchandnezzar, at least 1 year of Evil Merodach's 2 years, and all 17 of the years of Nabonidus. That's 63 of the 70 years the NB timeline from NEB1 to CYRUS1. This means that the WTS chronology must now fit 25 years of kings' reigns into the 5 years between 560 BCE and 556 BCE in the standard timeline. That's the only place left where the Watchtower's missing 20 years can be made to fit. 20 year of a broken cable of chronology.

Just as I thought, this is not applied to NEB23. In fact, it was in the 7th month of Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year (NEB18, per INSIGHT). (2 Kings 25:8-26) . . .In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, . . . 25 And in the seventh month, Ishʹma·el son of Neth·a·niʹah son of E·lishʹa·ma, who was of the royal line, came with ten other men, and they struck down Ged·a·liʹah and he died, along with the Jews and the Chal·deʹans who were with him in Mizʹpah [Egypt]. 26 After that all the people, from small to great, including the army chiefs, rose up and went to Egypt, for they were afraid of the Chal·deʹans. The very next words here are about NEB43 and NEB being followed by Evil-Merodach (E-M) in the 37th year of the exile of King Jehoiachin. (2 Kings 25:27) . . .And in the 37th year of the exile of King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah, in the 12th month, on the 27th day of the month, King Eʹvil-merʹo·dach of Babylon, in the year he became king,. . . When was King Jehoiachin exlied? Read the JEHOIACHIN article in Insight, and you will see again that this is a jumbled up broken cable. Just a few disconnected points here and there, that the WTS publications cannot string together without making a lot of assumptions. Even assuming that the WTS is right and that Daniel is wrong. *** it-1 pp. 452-453 Chronology *** Jeremiah 52:28 says that in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar (or Nebuchadrezzar) the first group of Jewish exiles was taken to Babylon. In harmony with this, a cuneiform inscription of the Babylonian Chronicle (British Museum 21946) states: “The seventh year: In the month Kislev the king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Hattu. He encamped against the city of Judah and on the second day of the month Adar he captured the city (and) seized (its) king [Jehoiachin]. A king of his own choice [Zedekiah] he appointed in the city (and) taking the vast tribute he brought it into Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 102; compare 2Ki 24:1-17; 2Ch 36:5-10.) (PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 326) *** it-1 p. 576 Daniel *** Early in 617 B.C.E., Jehoiachin and other “foremost men,” also young Daniel (2Ki 24:15), were taken into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar. *** 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. There being no record of an earlier Babylonian exile, this appears to place the event in the short reign of Jehoiachin, Jehoiakim’s successor.—2Ki 24:12-16; Jer 52:28. So when Daniel speaks of the third year of Jehoiakim . . . INSIGHT changes this to an event in the short reign of Jehoiachin! What chutzpah to claim that our own WTS chronology is better than the Bible's.

You are relying on Josephus who apparently couldn't make up his mind whether it was 50 years or 70 years of desolation after Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year? Where did Jeremiah say there would be 70 years of complete desolation. These desolations/exiles/deportations/desecrations were obviously happening all throughout the 70 years, until Cyrus. If the Bible doesn't say there was exactly 70 years of "land completely desolate" then why do you need to add that to the Bible? The Bible associates the fact of these 70 years of desolations, etc., with the fact that Babylon would be given 70 years of dominance/hegemony. (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. In what way did "these nations" serve the king of Babylon for 70 years if you claim that Babylon dominated these nations for 86 to 90 years? *** w88 2/1 p. 27 Part 1—Ancient Egypt—First of the Great World Powers *** Pharaoh Necho marched northward about 629 B.C.E. to intercept the armies of the upcoming third world power, Babylon. The Bible says that Josiah of Jerusalem unwisely tried to stop the Egyptian forces at Megiddo and was defeated and killed. (2 Chronicles 35:20-24) About four years later, in 625 B.C.E., Pharaoh Necho himself was defeated by the Babylonians at Carchemish. Both the Bible and the Babylonian Chronicles refer to this event, which gave the Babylonians mastery over western Asia. The difference between 629 BCE and 539 BCE is 90 years, not 70. The Watchtower chronology rejects the Bible's 70-year limit on Babylonian hegemony. I prefer the Bible chronology here, not the Watchtower's chronology. Besides the Watchtower's chronology is a broken cable. They have a series of disconnected events but they can't say at all who were the kings, nor the lengths of their reigns from this made up date of 607 for NEB18 on up to CYRUS' first year. It's clear that the WTS just made it up without evidence. Also the WTS publications cannot create this pseudo-chronology without contradicting themselves: *** INSIGHT-1 p. 463 Chronology *** The Bible prophecy does not allow for the application of the 70-year period to any time other than that between the desolation of Judah, accompanying Jerusalem’s destruction, and the return of the Jewish exiles to their homeland as a result of Cyrus’ decree. It clearly specifies that the 70 years would be years of devastation of the land of Judah. Turns out that this idea that it could only apply to the land of Judah, turns out to be false, of course, by the WTS's own admission!! When Jeremiah 25 is considered more closely, the writer recognized that the above statement was false, that "these nations" must have included ALL the nations around who were under the domination of Babylon for their 70 years: *** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre *** 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. And why are you so sure that you can impose a specific meaning on the words "desolate" when the same prophecies say that Babylon itself would become a desolate wasteland for all time. Has that happened yet? I'll repeat the quote form Jeremiah, but this time pay attention to the last sentence: (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.

The fact that there was a great war in 1914 is evidence that the nations were still active. Once ANY ONE of those nations remained after 1915 (according to the final version of the readjusted prediction) it was proof that the times of these nations had not ended. Once a Jewish nation in Israel was not the ONLY nation still standing in the entire world as of the end of 1915, this became further proof that the Gentile Times had not ended. The Great War ended up proving that the Gentile Times had not ended in 1914!

Once the WT relies on secular chronology it is no longer wholly Bible-based. And you can't get a date like 539 without secular chronology. And according to INSIGHT, you can't get 539 without readings from astronomy. I don't reject all of WT chronology, however. Only when it conflicts with the Bible does it matter to me.

There was a mopping up effort, I agree. But show me how we know this was in NEB23, or are you just guessing? And of course even if it was, we have Ezekiel's mention of inhabitants still in Jerusalem.

No reason to wait on my particular view of it. It's really Anna's topic. I'd like to hear anyone else's view of it, too.

As others have pointed out, if the WT chronology is strong because it works, then it must be weak because it doesn't work. The entire reason, as you keep admitting, is so that 1914 will work. But 1914 doesn't work. Recall that 1914 was predicted to be the end of the Gentile Times. What was predicted failed. The Gentile Times did not end, no matter how many times CC keeps repeating that the Jews took over Palestine in or about 1914. The End of the Gentile Times was predicted to be the total collapse within a few months, and by the end of 1915 at the latest, of all authority within all national governments, kingdoms, and human political institutions around the entire world except for one. That one government that would would not collapse in 1914 would be a Jewish kingdom in Palestine that would not collapse like all the others and would be the only remaining kingdom on earth. The Gentile's time had ended, and only a Jewish government in Palestine would be successful in 1914. So, one of the biggest failures of the 1914 "prophecy" was the claim that it would be the "end of the Gentile Times." The WTS actually had to change the definition of this phrase to make it seem like the prophecy had not failed.

You keep showing your "cards" which is why it is so easy to see the reason you keep bluffing. If it goes against 1914, it doesn't matter how strong that cable of chronology is, it's the Devil's work! That's it in a nut-shell and in a nuts-hell, isn't it? So. I'll give in and discuss the Watchtower chronology, not just the secular chronology here. (What will follow after this post however will likely show why I didn't want this to be a Biblical discussion yet.) It turns out that the NB Chronology supports the Bible's version of events very well. The Bible says that Babylon would be dominant in the region for 70 years, and the Bible was right. The Bible is saying that all these exiles (deportations) would be associated with those 70 years. And yes, there was an important exile when Jerusalem was destroyed, and another bigger one 10 years prior to that, and another one almost as big 5 years after that date, and likely another one around 20 years before that date. The last reported exile of Jews from the land was in the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar, yet the Watchtower publications are forced to make claims that ignore this one, and are therefore are not supported in the Bible: *** it-1 p. 463 Chronology *** Jerusalem came under final siege in Zedekiah’s 9th year (609 B.C.E.), and the city fell in his 11th year (607 B.C.E.), corresponding to Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year of actual rule (counting from his accession year in 625 B.C.E.). (2Ki 25:1-8) In the fifth month of that year (the month of Ab, corresponding to parts of July and August) the city was set afire, the walls were pulled down, and the majority of the people were led off into exile. However, “some of the lowly people of the land” were allowed to remain, and these did so until the assassination of Gedaliah, Nebuchadnezzar’s appointee, whereupon they fled into Egypt, finally leaving Judah completely desolate. (2Ki 25:9-12, 22-26) This was in the seventh month, Ethanim (or Tishri, corresponding to parts of September and October). Hence the count of the 70 years of desolation must have begun about October 1, 607 B.C.E., ending in 537 B.C.E. By the seventh month of this latter year the first repatriated Jews arrived back in Judah, 70 years from the start of the full desolation of the land. The idea that Judah was completely desolate when Jerusalem was destroyed is contradicted by the fact that the land could not have been fully desolated until at least the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar . Almost as many were taken in the 23rd year as the 18th year: (Jeremiah 52:28-30) . . .These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile: in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews. 29 In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem. 30 In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people. In all, 4,600 people were taken into exile. So we can either accept the Bible chronology which doesn't begin the final desolation of the land until at least NEB23, or we can accept the WT chronology which puts the full desolation of the land in NEB18 (or NEB19 if counting from accession year). Personally, it makes no difference to me which Julian or Gregorian dates that scholars and Christendom and the WTS have put on these events. For me the choice is between the Bible chronology and the Watchtower chronology here. The secular chronology just happens to fit the Bible chronology, but that isn't necessarily so important. In fact this difference of a few years doesn't matter, as long as the WT is not insistent that the mistakes that got it to this point were somehow divinely guided. There are actually very, very few areas where I find I must conscientiously choose between the Watchtower and the Bible, but this is one. Another area where I have to accept the Bible account over the WT account is the idea that Jesus was given more authority in 1914 than he had when he claimed all authority in heaven and on earth. I prefer to believe what Paul said about Jesus ruling as king from God's right hand in the first century. (1 Cor 15:25) It's a simple choice for my own conscience here again: Bible chronology or Watchtower chronology? I find that I can remain a Witness and still advocate for the Bible on these points, although not in the congregation where it would cause unnecessary divisions and contentions. But that is just my own conscience. Some might think it's important enough to advocate within the congregation, but I see this as giving too much attention to false stories and genealogies: (1 Timothy 1:4) . . .nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies. Such things end up in nothing useful but merely give rise to speculations rather than providing anything from God in connection with faith. I'm not imposing my conscience on anyone else, although I am glad to give an account of my reasons: (1 Peter 3:15) . . .always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have. . .

Yes. Just like Bible commentators all over Judaism and Christendom. But especially 19th century preachers and Second Adventists who wanted to overcome Jesus' words that no one knows the day or the hour.

It can't be that "sound" or "strong" if you are willing to move the whole decree forward by a year to insert a full year for Darius. The entire strength is built on what the INSIGHT book calls "likely" and yet INSIGHT waffles between late 538 and 537, and uses a preparation and travel schedule that would have allowed the Jews to be back in their cities in the seventh month of 538. Note the argument that Arauna makes that the decree MUST have been in the very earliest month of 538. The WTS publications cannot deny that she probably has a good point here.

I did learn a lesson: That you were not aware of something already published in the 1930's and 1940's, and thought it was first published in the WT in the 1960's. Yet it was so simple to find older scholarship on the subject that even an non-scholar like me could find out easily. Also I see that pieces of the answer could be found in various places dating back to 1911, and the late 1800's. Even the Jewish Encyclopedia in early editions had the Gregorian date within 3 days, somehow averaging the Julian and Gregorian difference of 6 days (likely related to a different conversion method, or starting the divergence between Julian/Gregorian from a different date in their own A.M. calendar. The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures Vol. 27, No. 3 (Apr., 1911), pp. 233-266 (34 pages)

Nonsense. It is precisely because this "regnal formula" does not include "King of Babylon" that you should not ignore the formula. Besides, look at how the WTS treats such "formulas" to mean something else, like "with reference to his kingship as it affected the Jewish nation." For Daniel 2:1, you have an example of this in INSIGHT: *** it-1 p. 1186 Image *** In the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship (evidently counting from the time of his conquest of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E.) You've already seen Witnesses on this very topic claiming that this would have been shortly after Daniel's exile, which could be dated to about 605 BCE in the standard chronology. That would make this verse mean 603 BCE (standard). The WT claims that this 2nd year mentioned in Daniel 2:1 is about 605 BCE, and that the "real" second year of Nebuchadnezzar is about 622 BCE (WT chronology). *** it-1 p. 190 Ashdod *** Nebuchadnezzar, whose rule began in 624 B.C.E., As you can see, INSIGHT gives Nebuchadnezzar two starting dates, 607 BCE and 624 BCE. This is similar to the several starting dates for Cyrus. (wikipedia)