JW Insider

3 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

'Providentially' for it shows that the Lord's people truly listen to their God Jehovah and humbly follow the leadings of the Spirit

LOL. It sounds like your purpose here is beginning to show too clearly.

There can be only one reason you would try to support the claim that it was providential that the leadings of the Spirit led God's people to make a mistake. Trying to blame a mistake on Jehovah and the leading of the Spirit is hopefully just a matter of you trying to provoke the way an "Internet troll" would, and not your real feelings about Jehovah and the Spirit.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

I've probably seen this, but can you supply the reference?

December 1, 1912. Page 377-8. Reprints page 5141.

I'll put the first page on, but if it's hard to read I've expanded the paragraphs about the question:

Instead of defending the fact that there was NO zero year, the answer is a bit wishy-washy. He appears to use the fact that astronomers use the zero year, but he doesn't clarify (or doesn't know) that this for a different reason and that astronomers did this with full knowledge that the actual transition from CE to AD (BCE/CE) did not have it. But the wishy-washiness served the purpose of allowing Russell to be off by one year, as had been hinted at earlier. Later Watchtowers said that Russell had announced the end of the Gentile Times in 1914, but because no one had been able to discern 1914, the Watchtower in January 1916 shows Russell claiming that the Gentile Times ended in 1915.

4 minutes ago, AlanF said:

no arguments were given for the change. In fact, a footnote mentioning the change falsely claimed that the 1943 book had changed the date from 606 to 607 -- a flat-out lie.

I had wondered about that too. And I've seen what you've written about it. At Bethel, I was involved in re-proofreading the ka book because it was to be printed again for a second round of "Book Study" usage, right after the COJ news broke. It had several odd passages that seemed to try to simply smooth over some complicated details. Like this one:

*** 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,” . . . This moved forward the end of six thousand years of man’s existence into the decade of the 1970’s. Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ. . . .

It was 1980, and I remember that my primary concern at the time was that this passage appeared to have been a subtle cue from back in 1973, that Christ's return was "now" to be expected in the 1970's, no longer the 1870's.

But I also looked up 1943 book and saw that the picture of Nebuchadnezzar eating grass was sandwiched between this sentence:

But that, a few pages later in chapter 11, the date 607 was used.

(As an aside, the Writing Dept and proofreaders in the 1970's and 1980's didn't like splitting up the name Jehovah into syllables, as was done here in 1943. Typographers had syllabification rules, and also had "widows and orphans" rules related to things like this.)

Of course, that passage wasn't specifically about the zero year anyway, but if you looked up the chapter you would find it, and notice that 606 was still being used but in a way still a bit different than we now use it. And even though as you said, 607 was also acknowledged sporadically in some earlier publications.

Here was the 1943 version of how 606 could mean 607:

I've heard other Witnesses echo the claim that it was two slight errors that canceled themselves out, based on this:

*** w52 5/1 p. 271 par. 21 Determining the Year by Fact and Bible ***
At this point some will inquire why Charles T. Russell in 1877 used the date 606 B.C. for the fall of Jerusalem whereas The Watchtower of late years has been using 607 B.C. This is because, in the light of modern scholarship, two slight errors were discovered to have been made which cancel each other out and make for the same result, namely, 1914. Concerning the first error, Russell and others considered 1 B.C. to A.D. 1 as being two years whereas in fact this is only one year because, as has been said above, there is no “zero” year in the B.C.-A.D. system for counting years. “The Christian era began, not with no year, but with a 1st year.”—The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, p. 102.

Russell himself had published a defense, albeit a weak one, of using the zero year when a "question from the readers" was addressed in the Watch Tower.

12 hours ago, scholar JW said:

If you want to play with figres which seems to be your want then if you subtract 70 years from 607 then you get 537 so that in itself speaks volumes.

Yes it does. I agree. That's why I accept 607 as a good date for the beginning of the 70 years, too. And I also agree with you that Cyrus began his reign over Babylon in 539. That's because I see plenty of evidence for the Neo-Babylonian timeline that puts Nebuchadnezzar's first year in 604, and therefore his 18th year in 587, and therefore Nabonidus' first year in 555, and Cyrus' first year in 539, etc.

12 hours ago, scholar JW said:

[When "the kingdom of Persia began to reign"] That year was 537 BCE generally accepted by most historians and scholars.

But I'm sure you know it's not true that "Cyrus began to reign" in 537. And that most scholars actually believe he started his reign in 539, the year of his "accession to the throne" of Babylon, and that 538 was therefore his first "regnal" year. If Cyrus had really begun his accession year in 537, then the Jews, according to the Insight book, could have been back home as late as 1 year and 6 months later, around October 535.

The Watchtower, as you know, likes 537 instead of 538 because of their methodology. And we know the methodology:

For 70 years, the WTS counted back from 1914 and got 606. Then they subtracted 70 from 606 and got 536. Back then some scholars were still saying Cyrus captured Babylon in 537, not 539. So the WTS used  536 as Cyrus' first regnal year, even though that has proven to be two years off (from the date we use now).That means that Cyrus captured Babylon in 537 (also two years off) and would have surely made the proclamation in 536. But that was the old view. 

Then there was a change around 1943/44, when the Watchtower finally saw that they had made a mistake in their previously published claims about the zero year. So, per the methodology, they now subtracted 2520 from 1914 correctly and got 607.  They subtracted 70 years from 607, and now got 537 as the new date for what had been Cyrus proclamation.

But by then (1943), there was a new problem. The Watchtower had realized that there was no getting around the secular data that Cyrus actually captured Babylon in 539, not 537. So they needed a longer delay to fill in these two years. That's why, for the first time, the WTS began promoting a delay of up to two years after the fall of Babylon before the Jews could return home. Not just when they "could return home," but even adding another few months for preparation and travel, so that the new end date would be after they were back in their own land. When the Jews got back from the Exile wasn't important to the WTS before, only the time of the Proclamation.

That delay was easy to claim, of course: just make sure that we don't think Cyrus announce the proclamation early in 538. (as @Arauna has insisted) The Insight book, for example, speculates that this announcement happened "later in 538" or even "early in 537," so that the Jews wouldn't get back home until around October 537 -- two full years after Cyrus overtook Babylon.

12 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Josephus many times refers to a 70 year period and not 50 which most likely refers to temple in obscurity within the 70 year period or a copyist error or most likely was simply quoting Berossus ' history.

Yes, we can all make excuses or speculations about why Josephus finally called it a 50 year period instead of 70, which was always the more common reference to the troubles with Babylon during this period. Yet, 50 perfectly fits the standard NB Chronology, so it's not just a coincidence. "70 years" was the common reference to the period of trouble that had included the loss of the temple. But when one would focus chronologically on just on the actual time when the Temple finally went into obscurity, chronologically it was closer to a 50 year period. (about 587 to 538/7).

12 hours ago, scholar JW said:

or most likely was simply quoting Berossus ' history. Are you an apostate?

No. Of course not! Following the instructions of the Watchtower and the Bible does not make one apostate. Learning and even sharing what we've learned by following those instructions doesn't either. Our Christian obligation is to make sure of all things, to test, to prove to ourselves, and pay close attention to our teaching. In fact, the Watchtower has recommended an interest in these things.

*** 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.

Of course, we know not to create contentions in the congregation over it. But we should try to make sure we remain honest, and hopefully influence more honesty about these matters even from those who are not yet aware. When discussing Berossus and Ptolemy specifically, the Watchtower once said:

*** w69 2/1 p. 92 Babylonian Chronology—How Reliable? ***
The reader can judge for himself whether the reckonings and conjectures of modern historians have produced a dependable Babylonian chronology. Probably it can be said that they have a system that brings some semblance of order out of the relative chaos of ancient secular records.

From what the Watchtower writers might have known at the time, this seemed accurate. But we were told we could judge for ourselves. But the article went on with more negative comments which we now know are not true as we can now understand the overall picture a bit better. Even the Insight book has admitted to additional evidence. The article, for example said.

We have noted that neither Ptolemy’s purpose in setting down his record nor the nature of his source material were such as might inspire confidence in its historical accuracy.

Now we understand that these figures never came from Ptolemy anyway, but had been handed down for the purpose of producing much more accurate understandings of the movement of the moon and planets against the background of the stars. If these were accurate enough, many such phenomena could even be predicted. In other words, this material was meaningless to anyone unless it inspired confidence in its historical accuracy. The article also added:

Both the lack of contemporary historical records from Babylon and the ease with which secular data could be altered definitely allow for the possibility that one or more of the Neo-Babylonian rulers had a longer reign than the Ptolemaic canon shows.

Yet, now we know that there is no lack of contemporary historical records. The entire Neo-Babylonian history could now be determined from contemporary historical records alone.

And we now know it's the opposite. It would have been more accurate to say "and the difficulty with which secular data could be altered --for it would require altering thousands of items-- indicates that it is nearly impossible that one of more of the Neo-Babylonian rulers could have had a longer reign than the "Ptolemaic canon" shows.

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

I have never seen the figure '88 years' in any of our publications in relation to this matter and does not discuss the specifics of the NB Period for it has no relevance for Bible Chronology.

And I'm sure you won't see it. But all you have to do is take the date that the Insight book gives for the first year of Nebuchadnezzar (625) and subtract it from the last year of "Babylonian domination" which is considered to be the same as the first two years of Persian domination (537 BCE). Do the math: 625 minus 537 equals 88 years. Yet those Insight articles on Carchemish, Josiah, Necho(h), Nebuchadnezzar, Jehoiakim, etc., all showed that Babylonian domination began early in Nebuchadnezzar's reign (and obviously lasted until Cyrus). Here's another

*** it-1 p. 1186 Image ***
The image obviously relates to domination of the earth and Jehovah God’s purpose regarding such domination. This is made clear in Daniel’s inspired interpretation. The golden head represented Nebuchadnezzar, the one who, by divine permission, had gained power as the dominant world ruler . . .Since the other body parts represented kingdoms, the head evidently represented the dynasty of Babylonian kings from Nebuchadnezzar down till Babylon’s fall in the time of King Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar.

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

Two historians at least are at one with the ending of the 70 years namely Ezra and Josephus.

I think most all historians are in agreement about the ending of a fulfillment of 70 years. Ezra says it ended when the sons of Persia began to reign. But the devastations and desolations began as soon as Babylon became dominant. Starting in the third year of Jehoiakim.

(2 Chronicles 36:20) . . .He carried off captive to Babylon those who escaped the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia began to reign,

Ezra contradicts the Watchtower by saying that it was when the kingdom of Persia began to reign. Not a year and a half or two later, as the Watchtower claims.

Also, Jeremiah's 70 years were fulfilled by some who were taken in the third year of Jehoiakim and some who were taken 5 years after Jerusalem was destroyed, with the major exile taking place about 10 years before Jerusalem was destroyed. The Insight book says that the third year of Jehoiakim was 626 [i.e., 4th year 625]. That's almost 20 years before Jerusalem was destroyed.

*** it-1 p. 1268 Jehoiakim ***
The fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim (625 B.C.E.) saw Nebuchadnezzar defeat Pharaoh Necho in a battle over the domination of Syria-Palestine. The battle took place at Carchemish . . .

If you accept 539 as the time of Cyrus' domination then you are accepting evidence that this battle was actually 605, not 625. Which of course gives you nearly 70 years to 539/537 right there.

And of course, if you accept 539 as the time of Cyrus' domination, then you are accepting evidence that the temple was destroyed about 50 years earlier than 539, not 70 years. So you have this same problem repeated that you are putting a 88 to 90 year domination for Babylon, when Jeremiah gave it 70 years.

And your claim that Josephus definitively and explicitly gave "Cyrus" 70 years since the full destruction of Jerusalem is also wrong, as has been pointed out already. Even Furuli admitted that the final word of Josephus on this was not "seventy" but "fifty" which is in line with the standard chronology. Even the JW defending site, "Setting the Record Straight" admits that the final word of Josephus was 50 not 70 which means that the first desolations upon Jerusalem/Judea perhaps even some temple tribute (Daniel 1:1-2) started 20 years prior, as Daniel and Berossus indicate:

In Against Apion however, Josephus first wrote "seventy" in Book I, Chapter 19 §132,^ftn5 but just two chapters later in the same book he wrote "fifty" (Book I, Chapter 21 §154^ftn6)! . . .Perhaps he was aware of secular chronology leaving only fifty years for the desolation, and was pandering to both biblical and secular chronology. As to the reliability of this "fifty years" anomaly, on page 71 of Rolf Furuli's book Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews^ftn7 we find: "Some manuscripts of Josephus give a different number than 50 years here [in Against Apion I, 21 §154], but both Eusebius and Syncellus in their quotes from Josephus use 50."

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

The said scholar has on the previous forum has made three contributions to the scholarship of Chronology:

1. The first scholar to introduce the role of 'Methodology' as a tool for Chronology as later advocated by Rodger Young

But neither you nor Rodger Young were the first to introduce the role of Methodology. Besides, you reject most of what Rodger Young says, and you especially reject his chronology.  In fact, the very 1922 Watchtower you referenced before showed clearly that the Watchtower used a methodology that proved that Watchtower chronology had "Proof of Divine Origin." That methodology was the 1,845 year parallel dispensations. And the second methodology was to count 2,520 years backward from 1914 and then attach an assumed "nearby" event to whatever date was derived. (In 1943/1944 a similar exercise had to be repeated when the zero year "controversy" was settled. Counting backwards from 1914 gave a new and different date for the same assumed "nearby" event. It was accepted as if it had been the same date all along because the methodology didn't actually care what the date was, only that it could be subtracted from 1914.)

But if you look up "methodology"+"chronology"+"Babylon" on Google Books you get several books from the 1800's with articles on the methodology for studying Babylonian, Assyrian and Bible chronology.

Even the papers by Steele show the sophisticated use of methodology by Babylonian mathematician/astrologers.

Besides, you don't even accept Young's methodology which is really just a binary 2² decision "tree" that helped him choose the optimum date for the fall of Jerusalem between 587 or 586 based on testing two criteria at a time. You reject both those dates anyway. This kind of binary decision tree has been used for centuries. It's basically a matter of looking at the outcome if two criteria are any combination of true or false. It's very common in math, logic, and computer science:

It's the same as counting from 0 to 3 in binary: 00, 01, 10, 11 which expands to testing the outcome if we accept these same combinations of true and false:

• What is the outcome if CRITERIA 1 = FALSE and CRITERIA 2 = FALSE?
• What is the outcome if CRITERIA 1 = FALSE and CRITERIA 2 =  TRUE?
• What is the outcome if CRITERIA 1 =  TRUE and CRITERIA 2 =  FALSE?
• What is the outcome if CRITERIA 1 =  TRUE and CRITERIA 2 =  TRUE?

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

2. The first scholar to introduce into scholarship the three cardinal concepts of the 70 years of Jeremiah-SERVITUDE-EXILE-DESOLATION now observed by Niles in his Thesis.

And just like with Rodger Young, you reject both of these people's conclusions anyway. You promoted exactly the opposite of what Niles promotes. You say that these are all the same concept combined in the same time period. He says they are all completely different concepts that must be placed in three separate time periods.

It really does look like we are approaching that point when you merely repeat what has already been proven wrong.

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

3. The first scholar in company with Leonard Tolhurst to have the first translation of the German original into English of the VAT 4956 paper by Ernst Weidner

That's great. Sprichts du? Ausgezeichnet! One of those old books from the 1890's on historical and chronological methodology was by Revere F. Weidner, but I don't have time to see if he was related to Ernst F. Weidner. But again, you don't accept the astronomical analysis found in that same paper anyway:

44 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Gibberish or special pleading. Why not just accept the basic historical fact of the 70 years and do not make it so complicated for a complex chronology is a bogus chronology- the Devil's work!!

I didn't make it complicated. I merely showed how the Watchtower has made it complicated by using an 88 year period of Babylonian domination. The NB and Bible chronology makes it simple: 70 years easily fits in a period of about 70 to 73 years. No complications!

51 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

The 70 years was defined period of servitude/domination. exile/captivity. desolation of the land between two clearly defined historical events marked in Bible History to wit: Fall of Jerusalem

"Defined?" By whom? Can you find a scripture that indicates that the fall of Jerusalem was the beginning of a period of exile? Does this mean no one was made captive or exiled before or after? Was no one made to serve or be dominated before or after? Why does Ezekiel not count time from this same event, then, but counts time from a clearly defined event a decade earlier?

22 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

and the Return whereupon on has exactly 70 years between two major historical events. pure and simple.

And for that matter, even if true, you also can't find a scripture that says it was the "Return" which was the "defined" historical event that ended the 70 years. The Bible says it was the conquering of Babylon by Cyrus, or perhaps the proclamation that they could return. Yet, you say it has "exactly" 70 years. And the same methodology and evidence by which you accept the dates for Cyrus are the same ones you reject. You can't use the words "exactly" when you have arbitrarily adjusted the same Cyrus evidence by 20 years. You claim the Cyrus evidence is exact but then reject that same Cyrus evidence when you want it to be 20 years off for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar.

40 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

do you accept the timeline for the Divide monarchy in recent WT publications and if not what chronology for the Divided Monarchy do you accept?

I have no problem with the Watchtower's presentation of the monarchies in its relative chronology. Also, as I've said before, I have no axe to grind for any particular BCE date anyway. I have no belief system riding on any ideologies connected. I think the Insight book puts it best:

*** it-1 pp. 462-463 Chronology ***
From 997 B.C.E. to desolation of Jerusalem. ... Whereas some Biblical chronologers endeavor to synchronize the data concerning the kings by means of numerous coregencies and “interregnums” on the Judean side, it appears necessary to show only one coregency. ...
The chart is not intended to be viewed as an absolute chronology but, rather, as a suggested presentation of the reigns of the two kingdoms. . . .and hence we may be satisfied with simply setting out an arrangement that harmonizes reasonably with the Biblical record.

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

a gap of 20 years so that is Ok for need only have to adjust the NB period by 20 years

Odd. You say you don't see a problem because, after all, it's only a gap of 20 years. Yet you reject a set of dates for the 70 years because it might be off by as many as 3 or 4 years. Also, your claim that it is only off by 20 years is meaningless, because you no longer have any anchor date to start with. You can't reject the methodology and evidence that gives you Cyrus in 539 and still say you accept 539. You reject 539 the second you reject 587 as the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar.

This is why I don't think you would ever dare answer those questions I asked, even though the answer is mostly right there in the Watchtower publications. Right there in the "Insight" book. That's because if you answered them, you would realize that the evidence for 539 is the same evidence for the entire NB chronology. If you reject any part of the NB chronology, you just rejected 539. Those questions in case you forgot, were:

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Do you know what king list the WTS relies upon to know where Cyrus fits in the timeline? Do we know which royal chronicles the WTS relies upon to identify when Cyrus ruled? Do we know which astronomical positions in ancient diaries that the WTS relies upon to put a BCE date on the accession year of Cyrus?

16 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Seeing that you are so clever and an expert on Chronology would you answer the question I put to Alan F about the precise modern day calendrical datings for the the 'first year of Cyrus' in terms of the Jewish, Julian and Gregorian calender?

I have never claimed to be clever or expert on Chronology. In fact, I have probably made a lot of mistakes on this very thread/topic. I keep catching my own typos.  I don't have much interest in whatever this was you are talking about with AlanF.

I noticed something when I went back and read some of your own postings on forums going back for nearly 20 years. You get involved in many of them, and very quickly just start repeating the same things over and over, like: "NB Chronology can't be trusted because it doesn't account for the 70 years."  After that's been shown not to be the case, you don't respond to the argument but simply fall back on repeating the phrase like that over and over.

But the tactic I see that I'm wondering about is one I see you've tried about 20 times, at least. Near the end of your time of involvement on a thread, you start to make jobs for other people. You ask them to go look up something for you. Or you ask them to answer a specific question, often not much related to the issue. And then you often just declare yourself the winner and bow out.

So, no, I don't care about an unrelated question right now. But I do hope that doesn't mean you are leaving soon. We're just getting started.

On 12/16/2020 at 7:26 PM, scholar JW said:

NB Chronology does not account for the 70 years in any way, shape or form.

But it obviously does. It doesn't give 88 years like the WTS wants, and it doesn't give just 50 years (as Josephus finally corrected the period from the fall of Jerusalem to Cyrus). As you indicate, the standard NB Chronology gives a period that scholars and Bible students can begin from about 612, 609, or 605 at the latest, with 609 between them. The Bible ends that period with Cyrus, and that date is admitted, by the WTS to be 539, relying on the same secular chronology. The first is 73 years and the last is 66 years. 609 as a solution would be exactly 70 years. If you see a problem with being able to fulfill "70 years" in a period of about 66, 70, or 73 years then there is no reason to discuss this "70 years." It seems very specious and disingenuous to say that 70 years cannot be 70 years.

On 12/16/2020 at 7:26 PM, scholar JW said:

WT Chronology has no such problem dating the beginning of the Period in Neb's 18th year and Zedekiah's 11 th year as properly calculated as 607 BCE

Wait! You were worried about a range of dates from 66 to 73 making a huge problem for secular chronology? That's only 3 or 4 years off at most. And they average about 70 years. Yet you claim the WT chronology has no problem by creating a date that contradicts their own sources for BCE dates by about 20 years!

17 hours ago, scholar JW said:

WT Chronology is likened to a strong cable with its many inter-connecting features unlike the secular chronologies which are simply a chain of connected links or a string of beads. (Refer WT, 15th July, 1922, p.217)

Uh-oh! If she's consistent, you should be hearing from @Arauna soon about using an old publication to pretend that current belief is still based on this same old false idea about WT chronology.

What that article actually says, anyway, is that even WT chronology really is just a string of connected links like a string of beads, but with one additional feature that makes it like a strong interconnected cable. And that one feature is "parallel dispensations."

In other words the only thing that sets our chronology apart from secular chronology, and made it proven to be of "divine origin" was an idea that the WT has since completely rejected:

What does the WT chronology add that makes if of divine origin?

Those proofs are parallelisms:

The primary parallelism, the only real one, was the 1,845 year parallelism. Although 2520 was mentioned, it can be seen that this was not a parallelism, but just a stretch of supposedly prophesied time, and completely dependent on all the ideas that had just been rejected as too secular.

Who'd have guessed that 1914 was considered accurate because it was 1845 years after 70 AD? This is why the end of the Jewish kingdom had to be dated back to 606, because the methodology was simple: count backwards from 1914.

2 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The so-called evidence for NB Chronology is illusory as it is easily falsified by the simple fact that the NB Period of history makes no account of the 70 years of the Jewish Captivity and Servitude to Babylon

It would be falsified from the standpoint of accepting the Biblical evidence if it showed that the period of Babylonian domination was shorter than 70 years and therefore could not accommodate 70 years of Babylonian domination of all these nations around them:

(Jeremiah 25:11) . . .and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’

Fortunately, the NB Chronology allows for the right amount of years, 70 years of domination from the time of finally overtaking Assyria right up to the time of Babylon being overtaken by Persia.

Of course, Jeremiah's word would be falsified from the standpoint of accepting Watchtower evidence if that period of 70 years of domination was extended to add another 15 to 20 years of domination. In other words, if Nebuchadnezzar was already 20 years into the period of Babylonian domination of all these nations, and then got another 70 years after his 19th year (as the Watchtower claims) then that would be closer to 88 years of Babylonian domination. In other words, the Watchtower counts Babylonian domination from supposedly 625 BCE to 537 BCE, or 88 years. Claiming 88 years of Babylonian domination makes Jeremiah out to be a liar when he said that "these nations" will have to serve the king of Babylon for only 70 years.

Fortunately, Jeremiah's words are not falsified from the standpoint of accepting the NB Chronology. 

3 hours ago, scholar JW said:

made worse when in fact that the Babylonian Power had domination over Palestine for such a lengthy period of time within the entire NB period.

Yes. Since it is supposed to be only 70 years, it would indeed be made worse if in fact the Babylonian Power had domination over Palestine for nearly a 90 year period as the Watchtower claims.

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

New chronology using solar eclipses Historian aputieteet

By Pekka Mansikka 2019

I notice that his goal is to add twenty years to the timeline, and he decided it is best to add it to the reign of Nabonidus. This of course, pushes back the beginning of the reign of Nabonidus, (and Nebuchadnezzar, and Naboplassar, etc.) rather than push forward the reign of Cyrus. And this means that eclipses specifically recorded in the last 15 years of Nebuchadnezzar, should have been marked for Nabonidus. And therefore he is also speculating that some eclipses from Nabopolassar should have been marked for Nebuchadnezzar. And he is speculating that VAT 4956 should have been marked for about Nabonidus' 7th year, not what was put on the tablet: Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year. In other words, it's no end of speculation. Yet look what he says here about speculation:

Very sloppily, he also reverts to what is a common belief among Witnesses: that the date "539" is somehow specified in the Bible, saying, "the same person the Bible mentions to have become King of Babylon in 539 BC."

28 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Yes, that is correct but we need o be judicious and selective when using such data outside the Bible only using that data that has unanimity with scholarship

Exactly. This is why, if the date is so important to us, that we should all know the answers to the questions posed earlier:

41 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Do you know what king list the WTS relies upon to know where Cyrus fits in the timeline? Do we know which royal chronicles the WTS relies upon to identify when Cyrus ruled? Do we know which astronomical positions in ancient diaries that the WTS relies upon to put a BCE date on the accession year of Cyrus?

31 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Isn't he a Finnish elder?

I have the book. His chapter on VAT 4956 is clearly derived from Furuli.

His solution for adding the Watchtower's requirement of 20 years to the NB timeline is to claim that Nabonidus ruled for 37 years instead of 17. This way he can save 607 BCE, and keep 539 BCE.

The argument boils down to the idea that since he can't make recorded solar eclipses from centuries earlier fit the Egyptian dynasties, or Esarhaddon, then we can ignore the lunar eclipse information that the Babylonians observed. The key points in his theories are based on logic like this below, where he ends the section on VAT 4956, treating the interspersed planetary positions as an afterthought:

Then, completely and dishonestly ignoring the facts, and never admitting that these positions do point to the standard chronology, but not the Watchtower's required chronology (586/5). He immediately starts the next section with:

At least Furuli admitted that the planetary positions contradicted the Watchtower chronology, and supported the standard NB chronology.

51 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

These examples are meant to show the inconsistency of secular evidence if they can’t come to a simple solution as to the birthdate of Nebuchadnezzar. Or can they?

We also don't know if Nebuchadnezzar had older or younger sisters, or whether he had any pets. Or even at what age he learned to read (if he ever did) or ride a horse. However, I think the only real concern most of us have really had about Nebuchadnezzar is the BCE year when he was in his 18th and/or 19th year of his reign.

The Biblical genealogies provide an excellent solution for a relative chronology by actually providing a relative birth year and age at the birth of their descendant, and we usually get the age when each person died.

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Who used astronomical positions to arrive to an event, past or future, and who used ongoing events to describe those events?

Apparently, the Bible used ongoing events along with a relative chronology. In Ezekiel, Daniel, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Isaiah, etc., we see that the Bible used a system similar to the Babylonians by telling us which king was reigning and in what year of his reign it was. Ezekiel also used the year of his exile as a point of reference. The Babylonians, too, wrote down the regnal year of the king (plus the month and day) when writing about events, or even when recording astronomical positions.

But we need to go outside the Bible, to rely on secular evidence, in order to pinpoint the "BCE" year get dates for kings  like Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus?

Do you know what king list the WTS relies upon to know where Cyrus fits in the timeline? Do we know which royal chronicles the WTS relies upon to identify when Cyrus ruled? Do we know which astronomical positions in ancient diaries that the WTS relies upon to put a BCE date on the accession year of Cyrus?

A day or so ago, I linked to some articles (Steele and Huber) that are useful for understanding the LBAT documents.

https://www.academia.edu/2360681/Eclipse_Prediction_and_the_Length_of_the_Saros_in_Babylonian_Astronomy

https://www.academia.edu/44516375/Babylonian_Eclipse_Observations_from_750_BC_to_1_BC

The more I look at the LBATs, the more I am amazed at what they can tell us. @Arauna has provided a very appropriate quote from Steele who is one of the specialists who appears to know these documents as well as anyone, and who is very careful with the data we can obtain from them.

There is another document from Steele that provides not only the background of the LBATs, but also provides a comprehensive reference to the eclipses known to the Babylonians over several centuries, taking into account several of the LBATs, not just the one I have already begun testing against astronomy programs:

http://www.caeno.org/_Nabonassar/pdf/Steele_Eclipse predictions_Lunar eclipse table_747 to 314.pdf

There are four pages of eclipse references that occurred from 747 BCE to 314 BCE as they would have been known to the astronomer/priests looking out for them from Babylon -- as we can calculate them today. I will reproduce just one of those 4 pages below because it is a comprehensive reference to show which ones of these were actually mentioned in discovered LBAT documents, which ones were predicted as viewable, as unviewable, and which ones were actually reported as viewed. Steele also describes the reason for putting some in bold and some underlined, or both:

In this table, dates of eclipses which were (at least partly) visible in Babylon are indicated in bold.41 There is no distinction between dates of eclipses not visible because they occurred during the daytime, and those dates when there was no umbral eclipse. Dates of eclipse possibilities for which we have a record in an NMAT source are underlined, and those where we have an explicit statement of the five month interval are in italics.

The idea of being able to calculate back to know when all the Babylonian eclipses occurred, and then know which ones were actually visible or invisible, and then see how many of these were actually mentioned in Babylonian documents is quite interesting. But I was concerned about mistakes, too. What about any predicted visible eclipses that didn't come true? And what about any eclipses predicted to be invisible, but which we might now know were wrong predictions based on current software? If there were a lot of inexplicable mistakes then we would have to reconsider the value of these sightings and predictions.

So were there a lot of mistakes in the Babylonian documents?

About this idea Steele adds the following information, about the mathematical scheme the Babylonians must have settled on to get this kind of accuracy. (Out of HUNDREDS of eclipse possibilities, there were only a couple of eclipses that occurred but would not have been predicted by the math they were using.)  Note the last sentence especially [all emphasis mine, as usual]:

Interestingly, there are no eclipse records between−746 and −314 that contradict this distribution of eclipse possibilities. Indeed, between −746 and −340 the scheme correctly predicts every eclipse that was visible in Babylon. On −339 September 29 and again on −321 October 20 a lunar eclipse occurred which was not predicted by this scheme. . . . Both eclipses, however, had only very small magnitudes (0.10 and 0.13 respectively), and may not have been noticed by the Babylonian astronomers.43 It would therefore seem that this scheme was used throughout the period from−746 to−314. Furthermore, extending the scheme for a further three cycles down to at least −278, there is still no disagreement between this scheme and the records of observed and predicted eclipses on the NMAT

On 12/16/2020 at 1:30 PM, César Chávez said:

This is your spin off.

The problem with your claim is that anyone can go back and see exactly what you wrote. Then they will know it is not my spin off.

9 hours ago, Arauna said:

You do not definitely know for sure if the seven years accounts for madness or if it includes the years that nebuchadnezzar did duties for his father as regent.

Exactly! I don't know. You don't know.

The point was that if we want a scenario that fits a preconceived notion (such as the idea that these seven times represent seven literal years) then we will end up speculating. Just as you apparently speculated that these 7 years (or some of them) could have happened when his father was still alive, pushing Daniel's exile back several more years. And those speculations can get pretty wild. We can even pull in other Bible verses from here and there, and some might even believe that this turns their speculation into the right solution, even if still highly improbable.

But, as fun as it is to speculate, and assume, and interpret, we can't know, and there is probably a reason that the Bible account gives us no hints here beyond the fact the book of Daniel places the dream's fulfillment well after Daniel and his companions were exiled, had finished their three years of training, and then promoted.

Of course, it's great fun to speculate about things as we are learning about (I'm thinking of chemistry, physics, medicine, discovering software bugs, guessing your opponent's next chess move, etc.) because often those speculations turn out to have merit, and we get a sense if our learning is on the right track when speculations prove true. But when our speculations turn out to be impossible based on things we hadn't thought of, then we realize we didn't have the whole picture.

That's the case with secular chronology. We don't have the whole picture, so the best we can do is to keep on looking for whatever evidence is available.

9 hours ago, Arauna said:

Astronomical dating can be a powerful tool for establishing absolute chronologies, but...it can easily produce precise and impressive looking results based on invalid assumptions – results so precise and impressive they may not be questioned by scholars in other fields. —John Steele, "The Use and Abuse of Astronomy in Establishing Absolute Chronologies."

He's right of course, and this can apply to the 539 date the WT uses, as well as the 587 date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. John Steele has done some amazing work, and he appears very trustworthy. I wrote up a post a couple nights ago based on his explanations of the LBAT documents. Several of his documents are on academia.edu. His understanding of the mathematics is amazing. But I wanted to share his overall studies that show how the eclipse calculations were made, and how this had already become standardized probably in the 8th century BCE or prior. Well before the 6th century BCE documents from NB.

On 12/14/2020 at 5:40 PM, scholar JW said:

Absolute rubbish and complete nonsense.

I've seen people react like this when they realize the evidence is rubbish, and exactly the same way when they realize the evidence is too strong. You've probably experienced the same.

On 12/14/2020 at 5:40 PM, scholar JW said:

Talk about circular reasoning for you maintain that there are five witnesses and thousands upon thousands to prove your timeline but how do these facts account for the insertion of the biblical 70 years

The thousands of witnesses support the Biblical account very well.

The Biblical "70 years" period fits perfectly well. I'm willing to stipulate 607 to 537 as one of the four strongest candidates. I believe you still accept those dates, too. Besides, the 70 years is from another relative timeline, not an absolute one. The Bible gives no BCE/CE dates, and doesn't attempt to describe eclipses and astronomical observations so that one may turn the Bible's relative chronology into an absolute chronology. So you have nothing to worry about unless you intend to rely on secular dating to prove a specifically interpreted Biblical timeline.

On 12/14/2020 at 5:40 PM, scholar JW said:

how do these facts account for ... the missing seven years of Neb's kingship

Are you so reliant on the Babylonian evidence that you can't believe that 7 of those 43 years could have been spent in madness? Did you expect a record of this madness in their Chronicles? Perhaps CC gave you the answer when he noted that Nebuchadnezzar didn't actually have to be at every battle fought in his name. Or perhaps, if you are not willing to propose that it was any of the 43 years credited to his reign, you could propose where the additional 7 years might fit. Or perhaps you could stop insisting that the Aramaic "iddan" refers only to literal "YEARS." Even its usage in the Bible is not always a reference to literal years. For Bible commentators it might be noteworthy that Daniel 4 speaks in terms of literal months from the time of the dream to it's fulfillment, but reverts to this more nebulous word "iddan" which can refer to different time periods for the fulfillment. What if it means "seasons" here? What if it means "weeks"? Besides, the Chronicles do contain long gaps without crediting anything specific to Nebuchadnezzar. Perhaps it's mostly allegorical, and therefore about the complete term of his reign from the time of the dream at which time he recognized some of his own madness and beastliness. After all, that's the way the Watchtower mostly treats it anyway, as an allegory of some other time period unrelated to Nebuchadnezzar.

But here's another possible (but highly improbable) solution. Take it for what it's worth because it's my "personal" solution, purely speculative, and I've never seen it supported anywhere. But at least it gives you a full seven literal years:

The Bible doesn't say that Nebuchadnezzar died at this point when Evil-merodach became king:

(Jeremiah 52:31) . . .Then in the 37th year of the exile of King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah, in the 12th month, on the 25th day of the month, King Eʹvil-merʹo·dach of Babylon, in the year he became king, . . .

So let's say that very near the end of Nebuchadnezzar's official reign, that would be his 42nd or 43rd year that he was struck with madness for a year. (The secular record shows that he never completed his 43rd year.) Not that it matters, but the standard dating would put this in in 563 or 562. Because of the year of madness, others would try to take his place, so that Evil Merodach begins ruling in 562 (standard dating) and then serves for two more years, per standard dating. Then Neriglissar serves for 4 more years, per standard dating. But in 556/555 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar returns to the throne, and out of appreciation for the dream and explanation, authorizes Nabonidus to rule the empire he created. That's SEVEN years from 555 back to 562, or even 556 back to 563. This could explain why Nabonidus was probably not even related to Nebuchadnezzar and yet is described as if adopted, and called his "grandson." He is called the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar in the Nabonidus Chronicle. Also, the same is implied here:

(Jeremiah 27:4-7) . . .‘“This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, says; this is what you should say to your masters, 5 ‘It is I who made the earth, mankind, and the beasts that are on the surface of the earth by my great power and by my outstretched arm; and I have given it to whomever I please. 6 And now I have given all these lands into the hand of my servant King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon; even the wild beasts of the field I have given him to serve him. 7 All the nations will serve him and his son and his grandson until the time for his own land comes, when many nations and great kings will make him their slave.’

Note that Jeremiah actually declares a kind of reversal of the Daniel 4 dream, here. It was a kind of restoration of Nebuchadnezzar through his dynasty, his son and grandson, that was a part of proving that Jehovah made the beasts, but even gave the beasts to Nebuchadnezzar. So Jehovah could also show that he gave power to whomever He pleased, just as Daniel 4 states.

On 12/15/2020 at 10:46 PM, César Chávez said:

Once again, you're the author of these false claims.

Slippery! I quoted your claim directly and asked questions about what you might have meant, and instead of trying to answer the questions, you tell me I was the author.

On 12/15/2020 at 10:46 PM, César Chávez said:

The evidence is in front of your nose. But, this tells me, you didn't read O'Maly's latest paper.

True. I didn't read it, but I plan to.

On 12/15/2020 at 10:46 PM, César Chávez said:

Maybe she can teach you how to view ancient history, if she has the skill to understand most of it, herself.

Slippery again! So, does O'maly's paper really provide plain evidence in front of my nose, as you say? Or is that she might not even have the skills to understand most of what she was writing herself? (As you also said.) I assume that you have a reason for not sharing what you think she got right. If past is prologue, I would expect that you think people will just have to guess what you mean so that you can them the "author of false claims."

9 hours ago, Arauna said:

You will see that biblical chronology is NOT the same as the secular chronology - no matter how hard you try to converge them.

Biblical chronology may not be the same as most secular chronology. But at least we don't have to try hard to converge them for the NB period. Through the NB period we have an excellent convergence of the Biblical data with the NB data. From what we've seen so far, the Bible never contradicts the data from the NB evidence.

9 hours ago, Arauna said:

What chronology would you say is more reliable? Biblical or secular.

The Bible does not give dates like 607, 539, 625, 629. These are secular dates. Anyone who says 539 is the true date for the fall of Babylon is putting their trust in the reliability of a secular date -- not a Biblical date.

And since the Bible gives only relative dating, not absolute dating (tied to eclipses and planetary patterns), then we can accept the Biblical evidence and not even be concerned if secular chronology contradicts it.

Jesus was not born in 1 A.D., for example. Does that concern me? Not at all. The secular evidence could have shown that Cyrus first year was 3,000 BCE. That wouldn't concern me either. I would merely completely reject that secular date. But here we have evidence that historical, secular records support the Bible -- and might even provide a detail here and there that enhances our understanding of the Bible record. Like finding an archaeological artifact with the name Pilate, Nebuzaradan, or Baruch. We don't depend on any of these objects for our faith, and we don't idolize artifacts. But they can help us understand the time period in history when the Bible was written, and enhance our appreciation that the Bible is a historically grounded book. For some, that fact might even help them appreciate that it is a trustworthy source for spiritual guidance, too.

8 hours ago, Arauna said:

all the middle eastern civilizations and their important dates - how all of them have been synchronized with the Egyptian dates so that they all make sense when put into one time-line.

Isn't it wonderful how all the problems with these attempts disappear during the Neo-Babylonian period (NB). There are older chronology claims that people have had trouble synchronizing, even impossible claims in their own records from Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon. But it's amazing how all these issues clear up by the time of Nabopolassar and his son Nebuchadnezzar because the synchronisms with Egypt actually work well at that point. The more widespread use of recording eclipses, planet and star configurations, even though it was originally related to astrology for the most part, ended up giving us a chronology that could be tested against itself and other relative timelines.

8 hours ago, Arauna said:

Every time on this forum I have brought attention to this you have outrightly rejected the thought.... but anyone who has studied some Egyptology knows about the controversies surrounding this egyptian chronology.

Correct. But you can throw out the Egyptian chronology if you wish. If it's problematic to you then ignore it. But if you look into it carefully you are going to realize that it helps to support the standard NB chronology, but that the NB chronology obviously doesn't depend on it. What I have rejected before, and still do reject, is the idea that much older problems of different time periods need concern us in a discussion of NB chronology. The other point I have made before, although it shouldn't have been germane to this thread, is that the standard NB chronology synchronizes extremely well with the BCE/CE era, and also synchronizes extremely well with the relative chronology of the Bible. If Egyptian chronology is so troublesome, then why be so concerned that someone has trouble synchronizing with Egyptian chronology? That's exactly what you should expect if it's so troublesome.

At least they don't have much trouble synchronizing it with the NB period. Which I plan to discuss anyway. So hopefully we can all get a better idea of what is going on here with Egypt. Myself included.

7 hours ago, Arauna said:

You say many things without giving dates.

You specified that this complaint referred to the following post that I copied below. You can see the context that CC had just claimed Nabopolassar was king in 611, so I reminded him that the WT publications say he had already been dead for about 14 years by then. I didn't want to add 625 to the mix yet (611+14=625) because the focus of the WT quote was still about 611, and CC's quote was also still focused on 611. The exact date of Nabopolassar's death wasn't really so important, only that it was many years earlier. I remember at first writing, "more than a decade earlier" but since that wasn't as accurate as it could have been, I scratched it and just put in the number of years that the WT says he had been dead.

7 hours ago, Arauna said:

Nabopolassar was getting old and his son was already presented as king (very important event) and married to the median princess. I speak from memory when I allege that nebuchadnezzar fought several battles in the name of his father when his father was alive.

Yes, this makes sense and fits the Biblical accounts, too.

7 hours ago, Arauna said:

If I remember from the studies I did years ago he received the news of his father's death when he was at carchemish. (This according to secular history).

Absolutely. And the battle itself is referenced in the Biblical record.

*** it-1 p. 418 Carchemish ***
Then, after the fall of Nineveh, the Assyrian capital, Pharaoh Necho led his army northward to the aid of the Assyrians. King Josiah of Judah unwisely tried to turn the Egyptian forces back at Megiddo and was killed in the attempt (c. 629 B.C.E.). (2Ch 35:20-24) In 625 B.C.E. a decisive battle was fought at Carchemish between the Egyptian and Babylonian armies. Nebuchadnezzar led the Babylonians to a smashing victory over Pharaoh Necho’s forces and swept over Syria and Canaan. This battle marked the end of Egyptian imperial strength in these regions. The Bible account at Jeremiah 46:2 is paralleled by that of the Babylonian Chronicles (B.M. 21946), both describing the defeat of the Egyptian army.

(Isaiah 10:9-11) . . .Is not Calʹno just like Carʹche·mish? Is not Haʹmath like Arʹpad? Is not Sa·marʹi·a like Damascus? 10 My hand has seized the kingdoms of the worthless gods, Whose graven images were more than those of Jerusalem and Sa·marʹi·a! 11 Will I not also do to Jerusalem and her idols Just as I have done to Sa·marʹi·a and to her worthless gods?’

(Jeremiah 46:1-13) . . .This is the word of Jehovah to Jeremiah the prophet concerning the nations: 2 For Egypt, concerning the army of Pharʹaoh Neʹcho the king of Egypt, who was along the Eu·phraʹtes River and was defeated at Carʹche·mish by King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon in the fourth year of Je·hoiʹa·kim son of Jo·siʹah, the king of Judah:  3 “Prepare your bucklers and large shields, And advance to the battle.  4 Harness the horses and mount, you horsemen. Take your positions and put on your helmets. Polish the lances and put on your coats of mail.  5 ‘Why do I see them terror-stricken? They are retreating, their warriors are crushed. They have fled in panic, their warriors have not turned around. There is terror all around,’ declares Jehovah.  6 ‘The swift cannot flee, and the warriors cannot escape. In the north, by the bank of the Eu·phraʹtes River, They have stumbled and fallen.’  . . .  And the sword will devour and satisfy itself and take its fill of their blood, for the Sovereign Lord, Jehovah of armies, has a sacrifice in the land of the north by the Eu·phraʹtes River. . . .12 The nations have heard your dishonor, And your outcry has filled the land. For warrior stumbles against warrior, And they both fall down together.” 13 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:

The significance given here to the King of the North (Babylon) and it's defeat of the King of the South (Egypt) is one of the reasons that so many Bible scholars believe that this battle (605 BCE/625 WTS BCE) is included in the "70 years" Jeremiah prophesied about the subjugation of all these nations to Babylon. It's one of the main reasons I agree that the 70 years probably ran from about 607 to 537 (plus or minus a year or two). Note that the Insight book even added "and Canaan" to its evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's had begun devastating the previous powers in the land around Israel, and this could even relate to why the Bible says:

(Daniel 1:1-2:1) 1 In the third year of the kingship of King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah, King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. . . . .5 Furthermore, the king assigned to them a daily ration from the king’s delicacies and from the wine he drank. They were to be trained for three years, and at the end of that time they were to enter the king’s service. 6 Now among them were some from the tribe of Judah: Daniel, Han·a·niʹah, Mishʹa·el, and Az·a·riʹah. . . . 2 In the second year of his kingship, Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar had a number of dreams. . .

Of course, the Insight book does not agree that this was really the third year of the kingship of King Jehoiakim as stated in Daniel 1:1. Insight says it probably means the event under Jehoiachin, not Jehoiakim.

*** it-1 p. 1269 Jehoiakim ***
There being no record of an earlier Babylonian exile, this appears to place the event in the short reign of Jehoiachin, Jehoiakim’s successor.

But if the Bible is right, and Daniel was not mistaken here as Insight indicates, then the statements in the Babylonian evidence about Nebuchadnezzar taking heavy tribute from the area around 605 (including "Canaan") would support the Bible record, especially if you changed the 625 BCE WTS date to the standard date of 605 BCE.

*** it-1 p. 1268 Jehoiakim ***
The fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim (625 B.C.E.) saw Nebuchadnezzar defeat Pharaoh Necho in a battle over the domination of Syria-Palestine. The battle took place at Carchemish

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

You said it was Nabopolassar ruling

??? 

Thanks for asking. I'll start with this question. First the context:

• I mentioned in a post on "LBAT 1419 eclipses" that the Watchtower places 611 BCE as Nebuchadnezzar's 14th year, and the evidence of LBAT 1419 doesn't allow for that, because it supports the standard chronology.
• To this:  @César Chávez (CC) responded that it was Nabopolassar ruling in 611 BCE, saying: "611 BC Nabopolassar was surrounding the Assyrian forces in "Haran".
• So I reminded CC that the Watchtower publications like "Insight" say Nabopolassar had died 14 years earlier [625] and that the Watchtower said 611 was the 7th year of Ezekiel's exile under Nebuchadnezzar, and that it was Nebuchadnezzar, not Nabopolassar who was about to begin besieging Jerusalem a few months later in 609.
• So CC immediately responded that the Dallas Theological Seminary understands the structure of the ancient timeline, quoting them saying: "Nabopalassar, the king of Babylon, moved in 611 B.C. against the Assyrian forces in Haran." and that "In 609 ... Josiah, the king of Judah. . . was killed."
• To that I responded that CC was contradicting the Watchtower again., which says Josiah died in 629 BCE, not 609 BCE. I quoted the Insight book:

  *** it-2 p. 118 Josiah ***
  Toward the close of Josiah’s 31-year reign (659-629 B.C.E.), Pharaoh Necho led his army northward to the aid of the Assyrians. For a reason not revealed in the Bible, King Josiah disregarded “the words of Necho from the mouth of God” and tried to turn the Egyptian forces back at Megiddo, but he was mortally wounded in the attempt.

So that was pretty much the whole story up to that point. CC kept claiming that Nabopolassar was ruling in 611 even though the WTS says it was Nebuchadnezzar ruling in 611. CC says he can do this without contradicting the Watchtower because as CC keeps claiming: "because there are two distinct methodologies that have the same conclusion. . . . Therefore, people need to see the other side of a methodology that in the end syncs with the Watchtower."

So if you look back on the previous page, especially, you'll see that this is exactly why I questioned his reason for repeatedly saying it was Nabopolassar ruling in 611, when this contradicts the Watchtower's dates as shown in the Insight book.

38 minutes ago, Arauna said:

In actual fact the problems in Africa have always been UNDER REPORTED.......... the suffering, wars, genocides, predatory loans by China and UN...... 

I agree with the under-reporting. And the only thing I disagree with in that whole sentence is "China." (My blind spot.)

39 minutes ago, Arauna said:

I have LIVED 45 years in Africa and still have many friends and relatives there. So why would I argue with a smartypants? 

And I have several acquaintances in and from China. We studied China for quite a while at work to evaluate opening a branch of a multibillion-dollar French company there. My son has about a dozen current friends in China, and has mostly learned the language for networking purposes to discuss ongoing physics research. (He started but abandoned [Covid] a small solar energy company, with a patent pending.)

But I've always appreciated our arguments together, Arauna. You can always be counted on for the counter-arguments. I recognized the strongly held disagreements, but didn't think our arguments were all that contentious. I'll definitely try to do much better in this regard.