JW Insider

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 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.

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.

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.

Cameron and Jon would be crushed.

And Ezekiel 33:21-29 shows that in the December/January following Jerusalem's destruction there were inhabitants living in Jerusalem's ruins. God instructed Ezekiel to tell them a message.

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)
 

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)
 

No. Those dates were published by the WT in the 1960's. All the WT had to do was copy the dates straight out of Parker & Dubberstein, a book from 1942, that was already in the Bethel Library when I got there in the 1970's.

You can also find it here:
https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/saoc24.pdf
It was also here in 1938:
Waldo H. Dubberstein, "The chronology of Cyrus and Cambyses," AJSL LV (1938) 417-19.
Also, the WTS admits that this does not give a precise dating for the Return of the Jews.
*** it-1 p. 568 Cyrus ***
In view of the Bible record, Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E.
You constantly point out that secular works cannot choose between 586 and 587 for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th years. You point out that they can't be trusted since they can't get this precisely. It would be very hypocritical of you to not give the same measure of criticism for the fact that the Watchtower publications cannot choose between late in 538 or early in 537 for the decree.

No. Those dates were published by the WT in the 1960's. All the WT had to do was copy the dates straight out of Parker & Dubberstein, a book from 1942, that was already in the Bethel Library when I got there in the 1970's.

You can also find it here:
https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/saoc24.pdf
It was also here in 1938:
Waldo H. Dubberstein, "The chronology of Cyrus and Cambyses," AJSL LV (1938) 417-19.
Also, the WTS admits that this does not give a precise dating for the Return of the Jews.
*** it-1 p. 568 Cyrus ***
In view of the Bible record, Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E.
You constantly point out that secular works cannot choose between 586 and 587 for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th years. You point out that they can't be trusted since they can't get this precisely. It would be very hypocritical of you to not give the same measure of criticism for the fact that the Watchtower publications cannot choose between late in 538 or early in 537 for the decree.

I only briefly scanned this PDF before commenting on it previously. But it has been brought to my attention again, so I am reading it more carefully, and maybe a bit more critically this time.
First of all, I still assume that Michael Gilmour had only made a "sloppy" mistake in comparing the "footnote" rendering in the 1984 NWT and comparing it to the "main rendering" in the revised 2013 NWT. Then he claimed that the 1984 rendering was changed in 2013 to be less susceptible to a Trinitarian understanding. The entire page containing Gilmour's comments was avaliable on Google Books, but the second time I visited that page, it is no longer available in preview mode.
I assumed the reason for the sloppy scholarship was due to a strong prejudicial leaning toward the Trinity doctrine and therefore being a bit too anxious to grasp at straws to prove the NWT wrong. The comments about Gilmour in the PDF indicate that this might have been a mistake or might even have been deceptive on Gilmour's part. That's possible, but it is not such an important point to be deceptive about. He gains very little ground toward his theory that the new NWT is any more non-Trinitarian than the old one. (Which, of course, had actually rendered this verse the same way in both versions, notwithstanding a footnote that disappeared in the 2013 NWT.)
In effect, the NWT didn't "allow for" the translation as an alternative because the footnote disappeared. But when the complete NWT Study Bible is available, there will probably be a comment, again, to the same effect as the 1984 rendering.
Here is the verse in question:
(1 Peter 1:11) 11 They [the prophets] kept on investigating what particular time or what season the spirit within them was indicating concerning Christ as it testified beforehand about the sufferings meant for Christ and about the glory that would follow.
The underlined phrase in Greek is pretty much just a simple "Spirit of Christ" so that most translations just say:
Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. (KJV)
The NWT translates "Spirit of Christ" as "the spirit concerning Christ." The possible reasons are defended in the PDF that comments on the verse. And the reasons are "fair" but not definitive. The author of the PDF agrees with "spirit of Christ" as a better translation, but agrees with the idea that this is not a scripture intended to replace the "spirit of God" with "spirit of Christ" as if Christ was personally inspiring the prophets instead of Jehovah.
I agree with this too. The scripture does not support the Trinity or equal deity with Jehovah. It does refer to the "spirit of God about Christ (or concerning Christ)" The NWT gives the sense, instead of giving a pure literal translation, but a translation always has the prerogative of giving the meaning in the context, not just the literal meaning of the words by themselves.
Of course, the PDF tries to show that the words my themselves MIGHT have already "literally" held the same meaning that includes "about" or "concerning" even within the literal word. That's because the word for Christ is in the genitive case, which usually involves ownership, and can often take an "apostrophe s" in English (i.e., Christ's spirit). But the genitive case is sometimes used, especially in classical Greek, to include a meaning more like "concerning." (i.e., "the Christ-concerning spirit.").
But even most of the examples did not stand on their own because there was often an additional word in the sentence that made the "concerning" or "about" more explicit. In fact, examples included the Greek word for "about." (περί) The exception was Acts 19:40 , but the article itself is not able to make a strong case. here. (There are plenty of περί's in this verse, and one of them could easily be applied to the "notion" of the genitive meaning "concerning."
There are several examples in 1 Peter alone, showing that this was not a common construction for him. It would have made 1 Peter 4:14 mean that God's spirit was a spirit concerning glory, instead of a spirit of glory. Not technically incorrect, but how far do you take this. Is the spirit of God, really just a spirit "concerning" God:
(1 Peter 4:14) 14 If you are being reproached for the name of Christ, you are happy, because the spirit of glory, yes, the spirit of God, is resting upon you.
The non-Trinitarian Unitarians have addressed both verses well at this site:
https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/1-peter-1-11
The most relevant part is here:
The spirit that God places upon people takes on different names as it refers to different functions.  This can be abundantly proven.  Nevertheless, the spirit is the same.  God always gives His spirit, and then it is named as it functions.  When it is associated with wisdom, it is called the “spirit of wisdom” (Ex. 28:3; Deut. 34:9; Eph. 1:17).  When it is associated with grace, it is called the “spirit of grace” (Zech.12:10; Heb. 10:29).  When it is related to glory, it is called the “spirit of glory” (1 Pet. 4:14).  It is called the “spirit of adoption” when it is associated with our everlasting life (Rom. 8:15, which is translated as “spirit of sonship” in some versions).  It is called “the spirit of truth” when it is associated with the truth we learn by revelation (John 14:17; 16:13).  When it came with the same power as it brought to Elijah, it was called “the spirit of Elijah” (2 Kings 2:15).  These are not different spirits.  All the names refer to the one gift of holy spirit that God gives.  Ephesians 4:4 states clearly that there is “one spirit,” and that spirit is God’s gift of holy spirit given to some people in the Old Testament and to all believers today.
When Peter mentions that “the spirit of Christ” was upon prophets as they “predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glory that would follow,” it is easy to see that the spirit is called the “spirit of Christ” because it is associated with Christ and foretold of Christ,

I literally only added that, not for your benefit of course, but because I assumed that persons like CC or "scholar JW" would accuse me of trying to change the subject. Looks like CC took the bait anyway. So predictable.
But I'll go ahead and start the new topic right now. And we might even discuss hidden text below the surface.
And it's also predictable that CC will now create a post in which he accuses me of being predictable. So predictable

Under another recent topic, still actively ongoing, Anna brought up how most Witnesses don't study the issue for themselves and rely on articles such as the following one she mentioned.
I'll give it a try. Here's part one (in my next post). Anyone really interested should check the link on JW.ORG, because I will be skipping some of the less interesting dialogue between Cameron [JW Bible study conductor] and Jon [the person being studied with].

You made a mistake when quoting this section of the book, which can be found here: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Coal_Age/ONc-AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1
30 degrees is not 1 signs, as you mistakenly presented it, but it is 1 sign as you can see by the snapshot of that portion of the page below yours:

In other words, you have done it again. And the addition of the "s" to make it "signs" instead of "sign" can even give the impression that it could a set of multiple signs to make 30 degrees. That would be devious and dishonest if you did this on purpose. At any rate, you tried to find evidence that that the correct idea was wrong, but instead you found a source that says the correct idea was right.

You are right that this would best be done in another topic. This one was originally intended for just a discussion of the accuracy of the secular evidence, and 1914 becomes a discussion of Biblical interpretation mixed up with secular evidence. But, of course, 1914 is the subtext of 607, 539, the seventy years, etc. To most Witnesses it is the only reason to look trust secular chronology at all, just so we can get to 539 -> 537 -> 607 -> 1914.  And, of course, reject all other points of the same secular chronology -- even the parts that got us to 539 in the first place.
I'll be happy to start a new topic. But it doesn't mean this one is finished. There are still several pieces of evidence to test the accuracy of the Neo-Babylonian chronology.

It was already answered, by AlanF, and I will go ahead and answer it again in my next post. But you need to understand why "scholar JW" will always claim that it wasn't really answered. This type of question is a kind of game with "scholar JW." He has about 4 of these types of questions from what I can see.
If you have looked up his former behavior on all forums where he brings such things up, you'll see that "scholar JW" believes this must be a trick question. It's easy to answer correctly, and it's easy to answer in perfect agreement with the INSIGHT book. But "scholar JW" thinks he can be sneaky (slippery) by taking advantage of the fact that the INSIGHT book "waffles" on this point. The INSIGHT book is not as definitive as it could be, and "scholar JW" will use the indecision in the INSIGHT book against the person who answers.
Of course, if a person tries to answer in the same way the INSIGHT book answers it, "scholar JW" can point out that the person answering is being INDECISIVE, and is therefore weak and wrong. If you answer decisively according to the best choice offered in the INSIGHT book, "scholar JW" will simply point out that you did not take the other possible choice into account.
This game played by "scholar JW" works only because he counts on the idea that he thinks almost all JWs who watch these discussions are stupid. But JWs are not so stupid as "scholar JW" thinks. What really happens is that most JWs just won't look into it themselves out of their "fear for their comfort:" that they will have to deal with something they weren't prepared for. Another reason, seen in some Witnesses, is the preferred haughtiness of "knowing" they are always right and anyone who challenges that haughtiness, even another one of Jehovah's Witnesses, can be considered automatically wrong. But most JWs aren't stupid about these matters, they just have their reasons for not wanting to look into it.
In the congregation the reason not to look into such questions is "fear for their comfort." But discussion forums tend to attract people who want to show off their knowledge or their discoveries, along with a lot more people who think that they can feel superior by dismissing knowledge and discoveries, usually with something as simple as "That doesn't fit my religion or my ideology. Therefore, you are wrong, I am right, and I am therefore smarter and superior -- without even trying!"
This must be a great trick to feed someone's ego. And on a forum like this, "scholar JW" (and CC, too, for that matter) will have discovered a great secret. No matter what they say, no matter how stupid or how wrong, it will always be considered correct (and "smart") in front of several other forum-visiting Witnesses. On this topic, other Witnesses only have to think about whether it supports the 1914 doctrine (e.g. 607 for NEB18). If anyone can point out that what "scholar JW" claims happens to be inconsistent with the evidence or even with the WTS publications, it won't ever matter. Automatically, someone like "scholar JW" can be right, even though "scholar JW" doesn't even have to be familiar with the evidence. What could be simpler? One can "win" all arguments without even knowing anything. They can run away from evidence, simply deny it, create a diversion, make completely false counter-claims, and yet, even when they tell lies, they can still be considered almost like little "gods" at least to themselves.
And this now becomes a vicarious ego boost to all Witnesses who do not want to look up the information for themselves. The "smarter" that the person with evidence appears to a person like "scholar JW," the better the "win" against them by the "scholar JW's" of the world." (To this end "scholar JW" will make sure that the person with the most evidence is not just called "supposedly intelligent" but is also called an actual "expert" or "the one with the most information" or "the one who should be able to answer this question." After all, "they" (Witness discussion observers) have just vicariously "stood up" against people who thought they could explain supposedly "complex" secular evidence. The more familiar one seems with the secular evidence, the more the ego boost to the Witness who thinks they are siding with the Bible chronology versus secular chronology. The more complex and unexplainable the secular evidence seems, the better and smarter and haughtier they feel for being able to "win" over "complex" evidence without even needing to bother to look into it. 
That's because the Witness can now think: "Aha! We who support 1914 in the face of "complex" evidence are supporting the Watchtower Society, and therefore the Bible, and therefore Jehovah. And look how the Bible evidence that we Witnesses support is so much better and stronger than the evidence of so the called worldly intellectual. This makes us smarter than people with PhD's, smarter than all secular experts."
Later, when I come back, I'll go ahead and answer that question from "scholar JW."

Is all of this supposed to be proving something about 1914 ? 
If so what exactly please ? 
We already know that the Kingdom existed whilst Jesus Christ was here on earth and we already know that HE had been given all Authority after His resurrection in 33 C .E. 
So what exactly is the point of this  43 page discussion ? 

180 / 360° =0,5 * 30 =  15°
:)) Right?
Don't ask me why 0,5*30 is necessary formula to get 15!! :))

It was already answered, by AlanF, and I will go ahead and answer it again in my next post. But you need to understand why "scholar JW" will always claim that it wasn't really answered. This type of question is a kind of game with "scholar JW." He has about 4 of these types of questions from what I can see.
If you have looked up his former behavior on all forums where he brings such things up, you'll see that "scholar JW" believes this must be a trick question. It's easy to answer correctly, and it's easy to answer in perfect agreement with the INSIGHT book. But "scholar JW" thinks he can be sneaky (slippery) by taking advantage of the fact that the INSIGHT book "waffles" on this point. The INSIGHT book is not as definitive as it could be, and "scholar JW" will use the indecision in the INSIGHT book against the person who answers.
Of course, if a person tries to answer in the same way the INSIGHT book answers it, "scholar JW" can point out that the person answering is being INDECISIVE, and is therefore weak and wrong. If you answer decisively according to the best choice offered in the INSIGHT book, "scholar JW" will simply point out that you did not take the other possible choice into account.
This game played by "scholar JW" works only because he counts on the idea that he thinks almost all JWs who watch these discussions are stupid. But JWs are not so stupid as "scholar JW" thinks. What really happens is that most JWs just won't look into it themselves out of their "fear for their comfort:" that they will have to deal with something they weren't prepared for. Another reason, seen in some Witnesses, is the preferred haughtiness of "knowing" they are always right and anyone who challenges that haughtiness, even another one of Jehovah's Witnesses, can be considered automatically wrong. But most JWs aren't stupid about these matters, they just have their reasons for not wanting to look into it.
In the congregation the reason not to look into such questions is "fear for their comfort." But discussion forums tend to attract people who want to show off their knowledge or their discoveries, along with a lot more people who think that they can feel superior by dismissing knowledge and discoveries, usually with something as simple as "That doesn't fit my religion or my ideology. Therefore, you are wrong, I am right, and I am therefore smarter and superior -- without even trying!"
This must be a great trick to feed someone's ego. And on a forum like this, "scholar JW" (and CC, too, for that matter) will have discovered a great secret. No matter what they say, no matter how stupid or how wrong, it will always be considered correct (and "smart") in front of several other forum-visiting Witnesses. On this topic, other Witnesses only have to think about whether it supports the 1914 doctrine (e.g. 607 for NEB18). If anyone can point out that what "scholar JW" claims happens to be inconsistent with the evidence or even with the WTS publications, it won't ever matter. Automatically, someone like "scholar JW" can be right, even though "scholar JW" doesn't even have to be familiar with the evidence. What could be simpler? One can "win" all arguments without even knowing anything. They can run away from evidence, simply deny it, create a diversion, make completely false counter-claims, and yet, even when they tell lies, they can still be considered almost like little "gods" at least to themselves.
And this now becomes a vicarious ego boost to all Witnesses who do not want to look up the information for themselves. The "smarter" that the person with evidence appears to a person like "scholar JW," the better the "win" against them by the "scholar JW's" of the world." (To this end "scholar JW" will make sure that the person with the most evidence is not just called "supposedly intelligent" but is also called an actual "expert" or "the one with the most information" or "the one who should be able to answer this question." After all, "they" (Witness discussion observers) have just vicariously "stood up" against people who thought they could explain supposedly "complex" secular evidence. The more familiar one seems with the secular evidence, the more the ego boost to the Witness who thinks they are siding with the Bible chronology versus secular chronology. The more complex and unexplainable the secular evidence seems, the better and smarter and haughtier they feel for being able to "win" over "complex" evidence without even needing to bother to look into it. 
That's because the Witness can now think: "Aha! We who support 1914 in the face of "complex" evidence are supporting the Watchtower Society, and therefore the Bible, and therefore Jehovah. And look how the Bible evidence that we Witnesses support is so much better and stronger than the evidence of so the called worldly intellectual. This makes us smarter than people with PhD's, smarter than all secular experts."
Later, when I come back, I'll go ahead and answer that question from "scholar JW."

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4828-cyrus
On the first day of the year, Nisan 1 (March 20), 538, in conformity with Babylonian custom, he grasped the hands of the golden statue of Bel-Marduk, and thus became consecrated as monarch. From this ceremony dates the first year of his reign as "King of Babylon, King of all the Lands."
In fact, the Watchtower quotes this very point:
*** w65 9/15 p. 567 A Pivotal Date in History ***
On page 404 of Volume 4, The Jewish Encyclopedia says: “Cyrus always conformed to the traditions of the thrones he usurped, and, together with his son Cambyses, rendered homage to the native deities. On the first day of the year, Nisan 1 (March 20), 538, in conformity with Babylonian custom, he grasped the hands of the golden statue of Bel-Marduk, and thus became consecrated as monarch. From this ceremony dates the first year of his reign as ‘King of Babylon, King of all the Lands.’”
This makes perfect sense according to Babylonian custom, especially considering the Akitu festival which would have been Nisan (March-April) of 538. In other words, as early as possible in 538:
http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat55/sub389/entry-5708.html
Gerald A. Larue wrote in “Old Testament Life and Literature”: “The most important religious celebration of Babylon and one that provides a background for understanding II Isaiah was the Akitu festival1 observed annually from the first to twelfth of Nisanu (Hebrew Nisan: March-April). The festal origins may lie in Sumerian times; the rites continued to be observed into the Persian-Greek period. The chief figure in the cult during the Neo-Babylonian era was Marduk, god of Babylon and supreme deity in the empire. His temple, called Esagila ("House of the Uplifted Head"), stood near the great ziggurat. [Source: Gerald A. Larue, “Old Testament Life and Literature," 1968, infidels.org <=>]
The Watchtower that quoted the Jewish Encyclopedia above made use of those same dates to include the following:
*** w65 9/15 p. 567 A Pivotal Date in History ***
If we proceed according to the cuneiform inscriptions, rather than the Bible, we have to take the position that Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian reigned concurrently for a time. According to this, the accession year (an incomplete lunar year) of Cyrus as king of Babylon began on October 23 of 539 B.C.E., when he entered the city (by day) after its capture by his troops. Hence his first regnal year (a full lunar year) began on Nisan 1 of 538 B.C.E., or on March 17/18 of 538 B.C.E., Gregorian time.
The cuneiform tablet entitled “Strassmaier, Cyrus No. 11” mentions Cyrus’ first regnal year. By this tablet it is calculated that this year began March 17/18, 538 B.C.E., and it ended on March 4/5 of 537 B.C.E., Gregorian time. So Cyrus’ second regnal year began the next day, on March 5/6, 537 B.C.E. In this case Cyrus’ decree must have been made before this latter date that is, late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E. See pages 14, 29 of Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75, edition of 1956, by Parker and Dubberstein.
These are the same dates given in P&D as referenced in the Watchtower. I agree with them:
Start of 1st year, Nisan 1, 538 BCE = March 17/18, 538 BCE Gregorian = March 23/24, 538 BCE Julian End of 1st year, 1 day before Nisan 1, 537 = March 4/5, 537 BCE Gregorian = March 10/11, 538 BCE Julian

The INSIGHT book gives two choices:
*** it-1 p. 568 Cyrus ***
Cyrus’ Decree for the Return of the Exiles. By his decreeing the end of the Jewish exile, Cyrus fulfilled his commission as Jehovah’s ‘anointed shepherd’ for Israel. (2Ch 36:22, 23; Ezr 1:1-4) The proclamation was made “in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia,” meaning his first year as ruler toward conquered Babylon. The Bible record at Daniel 9:1 refers to “the first year of Darius,” and this may have intervened between the fall of Babylon and “the first year of Cyrus” over Babylon. If it did, this would mean that the writer was perhaps viewing Cyrus’ first year as having begun late in the year 538 B.C.E. However, if Darius’ rule over Babylon were to be viewed as that of a viceroy, so that his reign ran concurrent with that of Cyrus, Babylonian custom would place Cyrus’ first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E.
So the first choice is that the first year of Cyrus as conqueror of Babylon would be the year when Cyrus made the proclamation decreeing the end of the Jewish exile. But since Daniel 9:1 refers to a first year of DARIUS in this same time period, "the may have intervened between the fall of Babylon and the 'first year of Cyrus' over Babylon." Then the INSIGHT book is even more "iffy" by adding: "If it did, then it would mean that the writer was perhaps viewing Cyrus' first year from late in 538 BCE.
But then INSIGHT offers a slightly more conclusive solution, which is the one that I accept: "However, if Darius' rule . . . ran concurrent with that of Cyrus, Babylonian custom would place Cyrus’ first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E."
There are several ways in which a first year of Darius the Mede could have fit into this timeline between 539 BCE and 538 BCE that would not have interfered with the fact that the Neo-Babylonian calendar places Cyrus accession year over Babylon in 539, and his first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537. Although I could offer the several conjectural reasons why the mention of Darius doesn't need to concern us, I already know that giving these possible reasons will be made to look as if the whole calendar is conjecture, and it isn't.
In addition to the above statement, I also agree with the much more definitive statement about the first year of Cyrus that the INSIGHT book offers:
*** it-1 p. 453 Chronology ***
Since the seventh year of Cambyses II began in spring of 523 B.C.E., his first year of rule was 529 B.C.E. and his accession year, and the last year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon, was 530 B.C.E. The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E.
So, again, we have Cyrus' first year as 538 BCE, which is effectively from Nisan 1, 538 to (technically) the last day of Addaru, which is one day prior to Nisan 1, 537. The expression in the first INSIGHT quote indicates [the start of] Nisan of 538 to [the start of] Nisan of 537. So Nisan 1, 538 to Nisan 1, 537 is just as good for all practical purposes, unless you are doing this to quibble over a single day.
The Jewish calendar will be easy to surmise, because the Jewish calendar would have effectively become the Babylonian calendar at this time. Especially, since we are taught that all Jews to speak of were already exiled/deported into Babylonian dominated lands at this point. Of course, we must acknowledge, just as INSIGHT acknowledges, that we don't know for sure how well the Jewish and Babylonian calendars matched up until nearly 200 years later, when the Jews adopted the same Metonic cycle that the Babylonians had been using for centuries (including the year from Nisan 538 to Nisan 537):
*** it-1 p. 390 Calendar ***
We do not find record of a definitely fixed or standardized form of Jewish calendar until the fourth century of our Common Era (c. 359 C.E.), when Hillel II specified that the leap years of 13 months should be the 3rd, 6th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, and 19th of each 19 years. Such a 19-year cycle is commonly called the Metonic cycle, after the Greek mathematician Meton (of the fifth century B.C.E.), although there is also evidence that such a cycle was perfected before him by the Babylonians. (See Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein, 1971, pp. 1, 3, 6.) This cycle takes into account that every 19 years the new and the full moons fall again on the same days of the solar year.
But we do have Biblical evidence that the Jews were already adopting the features of the Babylonian calendar, while exiled in Babylon and after coming back to their own cities in Judea. Some of that evidence is in the form of post-exilic contract tablets from Jewish settlements in Babylon. But it's the Biblical evidence that is more important here. Even more evidence of this trend already seen in the Bible, is also found in the Talmud
*** it-1 p. 392 Calendar ***
In postexilic times the names of the months used in Babylon were employed by the Israelites, and seven of these are mentioned: Nisan, the 1st month, replacing Abib (Es 3:7); Sivan, the 3rd month (Es 8:9); Elul, the 6th (Ne 6:15); Chislev, the 9th (Zec 7:1); Tebeth, the 10th (Es 2:16); Shebat, the 11th (Zec 1:7); and Adar, the 12th (Ezr 6:15).
The postexilic names of the remaining five months appear in the Jewish Talmud and other works. They are Iyyar, the 2nd month; Tammuz, the 4th; Ab, the 5th; Tishri, the 7th; and Heshvan, the 8th. The 13th month, which was intercalated periodically, was named Veadar, or the second Adar.
Imagine that! The Jewish calendar went so far as to name one of their months "Tammuz." That's like Christians using names like Thursday for Thor, Wednesday for Woden, Augustus [Ceasar] for August, etc. In fact, when we say that the Memorial of Jesus' Death is Nisan 14, instead of Abib 14, we are using the Babylonian influenced name for the first month, not the original Hebrew name for the same month, Abib.
So we can assume, fairly safely, that Nisanu 1, 538 and Nisanu 1, 537 would coincide with what the Jewish calendar called Nisan 1, 538 and Nisan 1, 537. (and we can subtract a day from Nisan 1, 537 if we think this gives us more "technical" accuracy.
In translating to Julian and Gregorian calendars we would need to have an idea of when any recent intercalary months had been added. If Addaru 29 or 30, 538 was the last day of Cyrus' accession year then we would need to know if it was actually an intercalary or "second" Addaru (Hebrew "second Adar" or "Ve-Adar"). In fact if either 539 or 538 had fallen into the 17th year of the 19 year Metonic cycle, the Babylonian calendar would have added an additional 6th month (Ululu [Elul] 2) instead of an additional 12th month (Addaru 2).
The INSIGHT book references P&D (Parker & Dubberstein) as an authority for the way in which it represents the Babylonian calendar. This is because there are literally hundreds of tablets, astronomical and otherwise, that make a reference to when the intercalary months have been added to which years in the Babylonian calendar. So it is possible to fix every one of these with a high level of certainty. Even though a couple of these had remained "unproven" or "unsure" up until several years ago, the gaps have now been filled in for every single year. (Some people probably don't realize that this alone provides an additional line of evidence that helps us double-check the accuracy of the Babylonian chronology as presented by many other independent witnesses.)
At any rate, the intercalary months that would effect the Julian & Gregorian reading have easily been identified by P&D for 539 through 537. Therefore we can have a very high level of confidence that the answer is:
[next post, for easier reference]
 

It was already answered, by AlanF, and I will go ahead and answer it again in my next post. But you need to understand why "scholar JW" will always claim that it wasn't really answered. This type of question is a kind of game with "scholar JW." He has about 4 of these types of questions from what I can see.
If you have looked up his former behavior on all forums where he brings such things up, you'll see that "scholar JW" believes this must be a trick question. It's easy to answer correctly, and it's easy to answer in perfect agreement with the INSIGHT book. But "scholar JW" thinks he can be sneaky (slippery) by taking advantage of the fact that the INSIGHT book "waffles" on this point. The INSIGHT book is not as definitive as it could be, and "scholar JW" will use the indecision in the INSIGHT book against the person who answers.
Of course, if a person tries to answer in the same way the INSIGHT book answers it, "scholar JW" can point out that the person answering is being INDECISIVE, and is therefore weak and wrong. If you answer decisively according to the best choice offered in the INSIGHT book, "scholar JW" will simply point out that you did not take the other possible choice into account.
This game played by "scholar JW" works only because he counts on the idea that he thinks almost all JWs who watch these discussions are stupid. But JWs are not so stupid as "scholar JW" thinks. What really happens is that most JWs just won't look into it themselves out of their "fear for their comfort:" that they will have to deal with something they weren't prepared for. Another reason, seen in some Witnesses, is the preferred haughtiness of "knowing" they are always right and anyone who challenges that haughtiness, even another one of Jehovah's Witnesses, can be considered automatically wrong. But most JWs aren't stupid about these matters, they just have their reasons for not wanting to look into it.
In the congregation the reason not to look into such questions is "fear for their comfort." But discussion forums tend to attract people who want to show off their knowledge or their discoveries, along with a lot more people who think that they can feel superior by dismissing knowledge and discoveries, usually with something as simple as "That doesn't fit my religion or my ideology. Therefore, you are wrong, I am right, and I am therefore smarter and superior -- without even trying!"
This must be a great trick to feed someone's ego. And on a forum like this, "scholar JW" (and CC, too, for that matter) will have discovered a great secret. No matter what they say, no matter how stupid or how wrong, it will always be considered correct (and "smart") in front of several other forum-visiting Witnesses. On this topic, other Witnesses only have to think about whether it supports the 1914 doctrine (e.g. 607 for NEB18). If anyone can point out that what "scholar JW" claims happens to be inconsistent with the evidence or even with the WTS publications, it won't ever matter. Automatically, someone like "scholar JW" can be right, even though "scholar JW" doesn't even have to be familiar with the evidence. What could be simpler? One can "win" all arguments without even knowing anything. They can run away from evidence, simply deny it, create a diversion, make completely false counter-claims, and yet, even when they tell lies, they can still be considered almost like little "gods" at least to themselves.
And this now becomes a vicarious ego boost to all Witnesses who do not want to look up the information for themselves. The "smarter" that the person with evidence appears to a person like "scholar JW," the better the "win" against them by the "scholar JW's" of the world." (To this end "scholar JW" will make sure that the person with the most evidence is not just called "supposedly intelligent" but is also called an actual "expert" or "the one with the most information" or "the one who should be able to answer this question." After all, "they" (Witness discussion observers) have just vicariously "stood up" against people who thought they could explain supposedly "complex" secular evidence. The more familiar one seems with the secular evidence, the more the ego boost to the Witness who thinks they are siding with the Bible chronology versus secular chronology. The more complex and unexplainable the secular evidence seems, the better and smarter and haughtier they feel for being able to "win" over "complex" evidence without even needing to bother to look into it. 
That's because the Witness can now think: "Aha! We who support 1914 in the face of "complex" evidence are supporting the Watchtower Society, and therefore the Bible, and therefore Jehovah. And look how the Bible evidence that we Witnesses support is so much better and stronger than the evidence of so the called worldly intellectual. This makes us smarter than people with PhD's, smarter than all secular experts."
Later, when I come back, I'll go ahead and answer that question from "scholar JW."