JW Insider

It finally appears that we are winding down and I like that @b4ucuhear has already tried to reduce this conversation to only the most important points. However, there is still a chance that someone will read what @César Chávez said, and begin to believe that there are now some new scholars that agree with the Watchtower chronology, which Cesar claims 'has been correct all along.'
Let's just make this simple in case others might look at what was written here and get confused. You are pretending that the Watchtower has been "correct all along" and your evidence is supposed to be found among these six "new" sources. From what I have found so far, the folowing is more accurate:
"New Chronology" Scholar Agrees w/ WTS for Jerusalem destruction - Nebuchadnezzar's 18th/19th year as 607-606 Agrees with COJ, Wiseman, Grayson - Nebuchadnezzar's 18th/19th year as 587-586 Jonathan Stokl Disagrees with Watchtower dates Agrees with COJ, Wiseman, etc. Caroline Waerzeggers Disagrees with Watchtower dates Agrees with COJ, Wiseman, etc. Gary Knoppers Disagrees with Watchtower dates Agrees with COJ, Wiseman, etc.  Peter Ackroyd Disagrees with Watchtower dates Agrees with COJ, Wiseman, etc. Lester Grabbe Disagrees with Watchtower dates Agrees with COJ, Wiseman, etc. Deirdre Fulton Disagrees with Watchtower dates Agrees with COJ, Wiseman, etc. Of course, now you are telling me that I am putting too much emphasis on the word destruction, as if the Watchtower doctrine doesn't emphasize the destruction of Jerusalem.
But here are just a few of the Watchtower references, using only articles from the last 10 years, and some samples from just a few of the books. Who is it, you think, who is fixated on this word destruction?
*** w18 February p. 3 par. 2 Imitate the Faith and Obedience of Noah, Daniel, and Job ***
Apostate Jerusalem was nearing its foretold destruction, which occurred in 607 B.C.E.
*** w16 June p. 16 Questions From Readers ***
apostate Jerusalem prior to its destruction in 607 B.C.E.
*** ws14 7/15 p. 18 par. 9 “You Are My Witnesses” ***
After that, Jehovah continued warning his people until the year 607 before Christ, when Jerusalem was destroyed.
*** w14 7/15 p. 25 par. 9 “You Are My Witnesses” ***
That was 125 years before Jerusalem’s destruction in 607 B.C.E.
*** w11 3/15 p. 31 par. 14 Keep Awake, as Jeremiah Did ***
Some Jews as well as non-Israelites survived Jerusalem’s destruction in 607 B.C.E.
*** w11 10/1 p. 26 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One ***
the year of Jerusalem’s destruction. Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses say that it was 607 B.C.E.?
*** w11 10/1 p. 29 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One ***
But if the evidence from the inspired Scriptures clearly points to 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction, why do many authorities hold to the date 587 B.C.E.?
*** w11 10/1 p. 31 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One ***
Counting back from that year would place Jerusalem’s destruction in 607 B.C.E
*** w11 11/1 p. 25 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
then his 18th year would be 607 B.C.E.—the very year indicated by the Bible’s chronology for the destruction of Jerusalem!
*** w11 11/1 p. 27 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
This, therefore, supports the date of 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction—just as the Bible indicates.
*** w11 11/1 p. 27 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
Those statements strongly indicate that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E. As the above evidence shows, that conclusion has some secular support.
*** w09 3/15 p. 14 par. 14 Keep Your Eyes on the Prize ***
In time, the entire nation turned apostate, resulting in its destruction in 607 B.C.E.
*** g 1/11 p. 11 A Book You Can Trust—Part 3 ***
In 607 B.C.E., Babylonian armies destroyed Jerusalem and took the survivors off to Babylon, where they were treated cruelly.
*** g 5/09 p. 11 A Receipt That Corroborates the Bible Record ***
Nebo-sarsechim was one of King Nebuchadnezzar’s commanders at the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E.,
*** rr chap. 6 p. 67 par. 13 “The End Is Now Upon You” ***
Thus, both time periods would end in 607 B.C.E., the exact year in which Jerusalem fell and was destroyed, just as Jehovah had foretold.
*** rr chap. 7 p. 74 par. 8 The Nations “Will Have to Know That I Am Jehovah” ***
from the time of the Exodus to the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E.
*** rr chap. 8 p. 89 par. 14 “I Will Raise Up One Shepherd” ***
In 607 B.C.E., with the destruction of Jerusalem, the “high” kingdom of Judah centered in Jerusalem was brought low
*** rr chap. 11 p. 126 par. 17 “I Have Appointed You as a Watchman” ***
who spoke to God’s people in the period surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E.
*** rr chap. 16 p. 175 par. 9 “Put a Mark on the Foreheads” ***
Ezekiel’s prophecy was fulfilled in 607 B.C.E. when the Babylonian army destroyed Jerusalem and its temple.
*** rr chap. 16 p. 178 par. 17 “Put a Mark on the Foreheads” ***
As we saw earlier, those who survived Jerusalem’s destruction in 607 B.C.E.
*** dp chap. 4 p. 50 par. 8 The Rise and Fall of an Immense Image ***
These words applied to Nebuchadnezzar after Jehovah had used him to destroy Jerusalem, in 607 B.C.E.
*** cl chap. 8 p. 78 par. 5 Restorative Power—Jehovah Is “Making All Things New” ***
Just imagine how faithful Jews felt in 607 B.C.E. when Jerusalem was destroyed.
*** dp chap. 6 p. 96 par. 27 Unraveling the Mystery of the Great Tree ***
If we were to count 2,520 literal days from Jerusalem’s destruction in 607 B.C.E.,
*** po chap. 2 p. 20 par. 27 The Immortal Possessor of the “Eternal Purpose” ***
God’s protection through the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the armies of Babylon in the year 607 B.C.E.
*** po chap. 14 p. 173 par. 11 Triumph for the “Eternal Purpose” ***
Before the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E.
*** jr chap. 15 p. 188 par. 13 “I Cannot Keep Silent” ***
True worshippers were affected by the appalling conditions that prevailed before Jerusalem’s destruction in 607 B.C.E
So you seem to be conflicted over this fixation the Watchtower has with the word "destruction." But you know you can't admit a conflict with the Watchtower itself, and therefore you "project" that conflictedness onto me. I'm willing to do what I can to help you work through this. I've seen it before with others on unrelated topics. What you might need to do as a start, is to spell out exactly what you think the right solution is. You might not be ready to be definitive, and that's OK, but you should start with what you think is probably correct, and how you think the Watchtower should change their wording so that they don't appear to be "fixated" on this word "destruction." How do you think they should have worded it instead?
If you try to answer that question, I'll know you are serious about researching this issue. If you won't even try, then I'll have to consider the next most likely assumption about your motives. 

We should all be concerned with what we preach as being the honest truth - that's what "truth" seekers do. But it is also fair to say that while God knows absolute truth, Bible truths have been gradually revealed from the first prophecy in Gen. 3:15 regarding the seed (and other prophecies) until now. The Patriarchs, Jews, early Christians and JW's today have always had to revise their understanding/expectation of certain things they had assumed/believed to be true as more information was forthcoming. Some see that as a bad thing - being "wrong" about certain beliefs or expectations, while I see it as a positive/progressive trait - which is what one would expect from truth "seekers." The fact that JW's have made  changes and continue to do so shows they are humble enough to admit their mistakes and correct matters. (That assumes as well that other changes will likely be made as they are confronted with more realities. Some dates have gone by the wayside and maybe even 1914 could be discarded eventually. Who knows?) Dates are of little concern to anyone who intends their dedication to God to be forever. In fact, on studies with other people, I qualify these types of things as our "present understanding" organizationally, but if a change in thinking takes place don't be too upset about it. It's part of the growing process all humble servants of God have rolled with. On other things, like war, hellfire, Trinity, Christmas...I'm certainly more definite about. 
 "Going around frightening people with an 'end is nigh' message and a 'only baptized JW's will be saved' message is not teaching truth to anyone." First of all as you should already know, our preaching work is not to go around "frightening people." If that was our purpose, we would be preaching what almost every other religion on earth you would have a choice of going to would preach: Hellfire. So we are different in that respect. What we preach is the gospel or good news. Good news about what? As everyone knows, it is the "good news of God's Kingdom" that we preach in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations before the end comes. (Matt. 24:14). Also to make disciples. (Matt. 28:19, 20; Acts 28:28, 30) We even look at Armageddon as a positive in clearing the world of Satan's system and those who aren't interested in doing God's will in favour of those who are. We are informing people they have a choice. There is nothing new there:
Deut. 11:26-28: "See, I am putting before you today a blessing and a curse 27 the blessing if you obey the commandments of Jehovah your God that I am commanding your today 28 and the curse if you do not obey the commandments of Jehovah your God and you turn aside from the way I am commanding you to follow..." There are many other Bible passages in the same vein.
  "To pretend that JW's door to door witnessing is doing God's will, well I'm sure you know it isn't." If you can't be honest then don't project that on us. Of course we believe witnessing is something Jehovah's "Witnesses" should be doing. While you may disagree with our message you can't say we don't "walk-the-walk" when it comes to witnessing/preaching about God's Kingdom and what it will accomplish. It is one of the main focuses of our organization. While we may not know the "day and hour" and can't predict the future regarding dates, the message about God's Kingdom to us, is a clear focus in the Bible. So if you don't think we are doing God's will as to our door-to-door work, then you are welcome to your opinion - but at least be honest about it. I for one, DO believe we are.
2 Tim> 4:2 "Preach the word; be at it urgently in favourable times and difficult times..." Romans 10:14 "How in turn, will they hear without someone to preach..." Matt. 10:7 As you go, preach saying: 'The Kingdom of the heavens has drawn near." Heb. 10:15 "How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent out?" Acts 10:42 " Acts 10:42 "Also, he ordered us to preach to the people and to give a thorough witness..." Luke 9:2 "And he sent them out to preach the Kingdom of God and to heal." ... 
 

I wish I could ..... I have arthritis in my hands and I am battling to highlight sentences on the pad. I have to move the wrist to copy and these movements are too large. Most of my time goes into trying to copy..... it is frustrating. This is why I now just write quickly how I speak - just correct the barest necessity.  Apologies...... I must be frustrating the lot of you.  Soon I will disappear again for a while.  I do only come on here intermittendly.

I hope you will find some help and be better.

I know the feeling .... especially since the Dry Cleaners lost my Superman suit.

I worked with someone in field service recently who was—shall we say—in over-enthused mode. The householder, accordingly, was doing all he could to ensure that the brother did not lay a glove on him. He did not want a fire and he was trying for all he was worth to hose us down. He brought up how he believes each one has his own belief, and furthermore, each one has the obligation to respect the other person’s belief, and so forth. 
Did the brother take the hint? Not a bit of it. He remained convinced that just one more point—just one more sentence from him would turn the whole situation around—and so he kept pressing, while the poor householder was practically working himself into a frenzy.
I interrupted. I rarely do. Contrary to those videos in which the two witnesses stand side-by-side in oddly choreographed behavior, or at least it seems that way to me, I usually hang well back and give the appearance that I am just barely paying attention—this is so it does not appear to be two ganging up against one. I especially do this if it is a woman that answers the door.
With the householder getting agitated—an entirely reasonable response given the brother’s full court press, I interjected: “Let me tell you how it works with Jehovah’s Witnesses.” They both paused. “We ARE going to ask you to convert,” I told him. “But it is not going to happen until the 100th call, and what are the chances anything will go that long? In the meantime, it’s just conversation.”
The tension instantly broke. The person visibly relaxed. “Oh—it is just conversation,” he reflected. Then he allowed that over the years JWs had already probably called upon him 100 times, but even so he (and the other brother’s) demeanor changed. We wrapped up without fuss and moved on. It is a method I heartily recommend, having seen it bear good fruit many times. Search for those who are interested without putting into a panic those who are not.
I probably also said something at the end about how we come without appointment—something that is almost unheard of today—so if someone is gracious to us—as he had been (for he was not at all unpleasant)—we truly appreciate it.

Maybe Jesus just wanted to give a lesson about shunning.

Maybe Jesus just wanted to give a lesson about shunning.

There is a line one does not cross when it comes to loyalty.  The line is when one looks like an opposer...... then you have gone too far.  I have seen this happen on this forum where on thinks one is speaking to an opposer because their ideas have strayed so far from the truth...... and then you find out they do still attend meetings.   
I have noticed here that some are so careful to see both sides that they get their loyalty to jehovah mixed up with secularism and all other kinds of other worldly ideas.
I knew a brother in USA who had an extremely quirky personality and his ways were sometimes unacceptable to others. He was a good man but struggled to bring his personality in line - to control his really offbeat way of looking at life.  He had grown up in an orphanage and had a lot of issues .....and it showed.
I liked him but struggled to relate to him at times.  
We all know we have to try to accept others with their warts and flaws...... but it is hard when one detects disloyalty to Jehovah and the truth.  Yes we are a very imperfect nation with all kinds if weird personality traits as individuals because we all carry baggage from our lives (before and after becoming witnesses).  
 
 
They are human - just like you.  Bring me anyone on earth who has not shot themselves in both feet on occasion

Maybe Jesus just wanted to give a lesson about shunning.

I would say this way. The year 607 is real year. The year 1914 is real year. But it seems that only thing that connecting this two subjects is, numbers. They ARE numbers. And for people who lived in those times, these years meant something. To us today, meaning lies in .... discussion only. 

Again I urge you to study a little ancient history to see what practices were prevalent in those days 3000 years ago.  We cannot compare our ideas of how society should function to those days.  One must view history in context of the period.  For instance - People underestimated the power of  radio technology which helped to program an entire nation into Nazism.
You forget that David also did not have only one wife and he was also  given"  a wife - Saul's daughter - which was a most common practice in most kingly families. For example it was practice for the pharoahs to  marry their own sisters. 
When the pharisees challenged Jesus on the divorce certificates,  Jesus replied that Jehovah made only one wife for Adam and intended it to last forever but said that " due to your hard heartedness, 'Moses' allowed this practice. Matthew 19. This is key - under moses they still were allowed more than one wife but this will soon cha ge. Israel had to be made ready for the next set of principles taught by Jesus - not laws- which liberated them as individuals.
Remember that the law wers only a "tutor" until christ. Teaching israel right from wrong....... something which other nations did not have.  For example the pagans practiced spiritism which included oracles in many forms, spells, talking to the dead, magic, marrying children and burning their own children.  
When christ came he taught his dedicated nation even  more  advanced standards such as loving an enemy, having one wife, self-sacrifice and more behaviours which gave individual responsibility coupled with more freedom. Christs disciples refused to go to war and serve in armies.  But israel before them were allowed to protect themselves and on one occasion made pre-emptive war. 
Israel fought for the promised land - but they had to fight for it and trust in God to assist them. 430 years before that God had promised abraham they will acquire this land but not before the wicked people who were living there fulfilled the requirement for being taken off the land by war. Israel carried out gods will - they did not rape women or act unjust in war as other nations did.
You forget that Israel was under terrible oppression in the time of Saul by the Philistines. Goliath was one of them.  They were in constant war. To ask David to get foreskins was basically a death sentence because the opposition was always prepared for war.  Saul was a wicked king by this time and later went to the witch of Endor to speak to the dead. 
David had to show courage similar to Samson who also harassed the oppressive philistines.  The philistines were a powerful nation who also burned their children in fire. 
David had to do battle for the foreskins against hardened soldiers.   If you read any history you will understand that mankind has been at constant warfare and slavery since Cain killed Abel. 
A few years of rest and then at war again.  Most philosophers are saying that another world war is now overdue.... .  But as you know- when the world leaders call out that they have attained " peace and security" then armageddon will be on its way.
Then injustice, oppression and war will only be a history of the past. Under Jehovahs government there will be true peace and security.
 

Joe knew dirty rotten lowlifes well, to use one of his favorite phrases. “You know that car dealer on TV?” he’d say, speaking of certain commercials. “I know him. He’s a dirty rotten lowlife. I’ve seen him at the auction. He always has a woman in one arm and he holds a drink in the other.” Joe knew dirty rotten lowlifes because he had been dirtier than any of them. When he muscled in on the mob’s territory, the mob came to pay him a visit. He emerged from his shack with a live grenade in each hand! “Now, what is it that you boys wanted?” They suddenly remembered that they really hadn’t wanted anything at all. 
Years later, after Joe had become one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, my son began to sweat when police stopped the car his friend was driving. The two had some fireworks inside—not exactly legal at the time. “Watch this,” the friend said as the policeman approached. The cop asked for his license. “Officer,” the friend asked, ‘“do you know my dad, Joe Markow?” A pause. “This doesn’t say Markow,” the cop said, examining the license. “It says Sanchez.” “Yeah, Joe married my mom. He’s the one who raised me.” This got the officer thinking, and presently he bid my son and friend a good evening and let them go with a friendly admonition to drive safely.
“See that fellow over there?” one cop said to his buddy at the coffee shop, pointing to Joe. “He used to be the meanest SOB around and he turned out better than all of us.”
At a committee meeting over an elder who turned out to be a real stinker and Joe saw it before anyone else—in fact, he spotted it instantly, mostly because he had traveled in the same circles—Joe stated what he had seen and that elder called him a liar. Joe reached across the table and half yanked him out of his chair by the lapels. It was all the other brothers could do to persuade him that “we don’t do it that way here, Joe.” 
“How can you brothers be so naive!?” he said astounded to those ones, who could not believe the evidence unfolding right before their eyes. But after the dust finally settled, one of them approached to say: “You’re right, Joe. We are naive.” Sometimes elders are naive.
He also told off a certain overbearing traveling overseer. His body of elders had worked and worked and had a huge number all pumped up excited during the month over auxiliary pioneering—people that hadn’t done it in ages or even ever. They had rearranged priorities and were all hopped up. The visitor came along and said: “Well, it’s a good start.” “Way to crush the spirit of the congregation,” Joe told him.
Besides my sympathies to the family, his death made me sit up and take notice. It didn’t shake me to the core—that would be too strong to put it that way—but it drew more attention than the deaths of most people for whom I am inclined to pass off as ‘another one bites the dust.’ Sounds callous, I know, but I really am one who believes in the resurrection—death is just the beginning of a long but temporary leave-of-absence and I know that I will not see them for a long while but in most cases I was not seeing them anyway. I have said before that “nobody wants to die—it’s inconvenient and it makes people feel bad,” but other than that—so what? The resurrection will undo it all. Joe’s death was different. 
He really wasn’t that old—maybe just two or three years more than me, I think. He might even have been younger. Your definition of what is ‘old’ increases as you get older yourself. I am of the age where I think that I have 20 good years ahead of me, plenty of time to get everything down in writing. But you never know. Maybe life will throw a me curve ball and I will be gone tomorrow. What is that verse about how we are a mist appearing for a little while and then disappearing? Ah—here it is: James 4:14. “Tell your dad you love him,” Davey-the-Kid said to me after his dad died unexpectedly, for which notice they had paged him at the Pittsburgh Special Assembly.
I have said once or twice—no more than that because I really liked the man—that Joe was the originator of 100 stories, each one of which he was the hero. Ordinarily this would be an extremely tiresome quality, but in Joe it was not—I think because I never doubted (and still don’t) that each and every story was true, unembellished, and he really did act as a hero. One can tell when something has the ring of truth and corresponds with experience and known fact in every conceivable way. Having seen it all, he had turned all his energy and empathy towards the congregation and the ones within it.
I have fond memories of our family camping with his at the campground In upstate New York. The two of us would talk for hours by the campfire and then continue while walking the grounds. Sometimes the most trivial details are the ones that survive. Joe used an expression that I had never heard before (or since). I asked him about it. I found it humorous and thus it became a running joke—“throw one over the hoop.” It means taking a leak, and I suppose it is a reference to slobs too lazy to put the toilet seat up. “I’m off to throw one over the hoop,” we would tell each other throughout the weekend.

Well said. The sooner we stop "going beyond the things written" and stick to our Christian mandates the better. The fact that we have been totally wrong about numerous other dates (every other date?) should give anyone legitimate pause for concern and to be skeptical that not only might the hallowed date of 1914 be wrong (including the fact that certain expectations regarding that date never materialized) but whether Jehovah even blesses that presumptuousness. We have lots of more important things to accomplish than to pin our hopes on the prognostications of well-meaning, but uninspired, imperfect men who sometimes go beyond what they have been authorized to do. Making predictions is not part of our mandate. Proclaiming what Jehovah and Jesus actually tell us in his Word are. Yes, I believe Jehovah is using his organization and the GB is doing an admirable job in organizing his people to accomplish many great things. But since it is (generally) forward-moving, it should not surprise us or cause us to get too excited about discarding things we may have held dear - as in the past - and may need to let go of now. Maybe 1914 is one of those things. Although we each individually may have "core" truths we adopt as proof this is the right organization, I personally don't believe 1914 should be included in those core truths - or any artificial, man-inspired date for that matter. Maybe we need to put 1914 on the "date pile" along with the others promoted as being significant. Even if per some unexpected chance the date turns out to be right, should our relationship and dedication to God be based on a date anyway - or either way? I think too much focus has been place on dates anyway. Stuff will happen when Jehovah says it should happen. We should be more concerned with whether we will be ready for it.

I guess I should respond to this point too, since you added "Some scholars have updated their chronology . . . Why haven't you updated yours?"
First of all I don't care about Wiseman and Grayson or your COJ references. I believe Jesus was right when he said chronology is in the jurisdiction of the Father, and that it does not belong to us to get to know the times and the seasons. Paul said that as for the times and seasons brothers you need nothing to be written to you.
So while I don't have any personal interest in even trying to see how a secular chronology might match the Bible, I am only concerned that we aren't getting overly concerned about certain specious claims that turn out to be untrue, and have already resulted in expectation postponed that makes the heart sick. One of our responsibilities as Christians is to encourage one another and build one another up. If false stories and genealogies are likely to end up disturbing our brothers in the long run, our obligation is to make sure of all things so that we can hold fast to what is fine.
To that end I've read some of Wiseman and Grayson and Delitzsch, etc. I've checked out several of the major books they've produced, especially to read parts on the Neo-Babylonian period. The NYPL allowed me to make hundreds of pages of photocopies of some of these books that are only allowed for reference. And, of course, these days it's easy just to take a smartphone snap every relevant page.
But I don't know why you think these particular adjustments are important. You didn't even say for sure which adjustments you were referring to. May I assume you didn't give details because it has absolutely no effect on the date for the destruction of Jerusalem. Most of the adjustments I know of in Wiseman and Grayson are about the Assyrian period: Assurnasurpal, Shalmaneser, etc. There have also been typos in Babylonian tablets, even by trained scribes of the time. And sometimes the typos might have been in an original that was not corrected when copied. And sometimes the scribes made a note when they were making a correction of a previous typo when copying. None of this surprises me.
But even a dozen corrections of the sort I've read about could never override the evidence of hundreds, even many thousands of tablets that give us the entire picture of the Neo-Babylonian period. Even if there were only 7 lines of independent evidence, you could prove that 3 of them were complete frauds, and it would still not overturn the remaining lines of independent evidence. For a long time, the Watchtower publications hinted that Ptolemy was wrong and therefore they can claim anything they want about how to cherry-pick dates for a chronology and reject others. This turned out to be a fantasy, because no one needs Ptolemy at all to understand the overwhelming evidence for the neo-Babylonian chronology.
For evidence of what I am saying, I'll just ask you to share how these supposed adjustments in Grayson and Wiseman would have any effect on the date for Nebuchadnezzar II's 18th and 19th year. If you are are anything like the predecessor accounts you have emulated, I'm sure you won't oblige.

More "projection." I enjoy puns, but you are the one playing word games to dodge questions, repeat false claims, use innuendo, avoid explanations, etc.
Actually I offered several items of evidence, which you have ignored and distracted from, so far. Calling that my bluster is "Projection 101."
Evidence of what? You didn't say, except for that one diversion (out of the blue) about Nebuchadnezzar surviving some rough travel itineraries with the help of Nebo/Nabu.
Are you going to point out where I have done this, or should I just expect more bluster?
I had a feeling you might go with bluster!
I see that defensive "echolalia" again, whenever I apparently touch a nerve. I said "sockpuppet" so you worked the word "puppet" into an attempted insult to some COJ-duped professionals. Sounds like you are all upset that actual professionals sided with COJ. Yet again, why are you so obsessed with him? COJ is completely unnecessary to this entire charade of yours.
Feel free to point out anything you wish about COJ, I really don't care. He is (or was?) just one man out of thousands who have access to the same evidence that ends up embarrassing the Watchtower Society on this topic.
No doubt, if history is prologue, you will now show me some "evidence" from a writer/scholar who will somehow show us that the Watchtower is incorrect about the dates the WT gives for the exiles and the destruction of Jerusalem in 607. You will no doubt try to imply that this evidence against the Watchtower is actually evidence that the Watchtower has been correct all along. (And "correct all along" is a very odd choice of words considering the number of times the Watchtower has changed the endpoints and milestones of the chronology.)
Thanks for providing the reference.
As usual, you found another reference that hurts the Watchtower's tradition about 607 and 1914.
First of all, Eric Meyers, the author, of this chapter (10) is expressing appreciation for the findings and work of Peter Ackroyd who wrote "Exile and Restoration" and then later wrote a followup: "Israel under Babylon and Persia." I don't believe you read what he said, or else you must have completely misunderstood it, and only copied it here because he used the familiar range "607 to 537" for the 70 year period mentioned in Jeremiah/Daniel.
Second, when Meyers says that Ackroyd was "prescient" for reflecting on the artificiality of the term exile and restoration, he is asking us to agree with them both in their view that the Bible is wrong. The Bible you might recall says that the land was totally desolate and uninhabited. Ackroyd claimed this was artificial language because "only a portion of the population was exiled." On page 167, the very paragraph following your quote says: ". . .his strong textual sensitivity allowed him to see . . . that  perhaps the text in 2 Kings was in error."
Third, the Watchtower says the exiles were primarily in the two groups taken in 617 and 607. Note that these are the only two Judean exile events mentioned in the Insight book under the article on "EXILE:"
*** it-1 p. 775 Exile ***
Judah. In 617 B.C.E., King Nebuchadnezzar took the royal court and the foremost men of Judah into exile at Babylon. (2Ki 24:11-16) About ten years later, in 607 B.C.E., at the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon, Nebuzaradan, the chief of the Babylonian bodyguard, took most of the remaining ones and deserters of the Jews with him to Babylon, from which exile only a mere remnant returned 70 years later.—2Ki 25:11; Jer 39:9; Isa 10:21, 22; see CAPTIVITY.
A third exile would have been put in 602/601 since Jeremiah indicates it was about 5 years later (23-18=5):
(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. In all, 4,600 people were taken into exile.
So if this source of yours thinks the Watchtower is right, they will include those two exiles in those years: 617 & 607.
If this source thinks that COJ and all current Neo-Babylonian scholars are right, then we'd expect to see: 597 & 587.
Your source, says that there was no simple exile and return, because the exile happened in several pieces (and using the numbers in the Bible, only amounted to a small number of exiles each time). But what are the dates of those various exiles?
He (1970:1) also noted that hardly one date could be assigned to the beginning of the exile (597,587,581 BCE, etc.) let alone a time for the return, which only began in 538–537 BCE.
So, you found a resource that agrees with COJ's dates for the destruction of Jerusalem, and the associated series of exiles. It disagrees with the Watchtower's dates for those events. As usual. In fact the primary difference between COJ and your source is that one of COJ's objectives was to show that the Bible is correct and your source preferred to see the Bible as incorrect in some of the claims about the totality of the exile.
These authors are also telling us that there was no single year that we could point to as the "Return"/"Restoration." They will say it only just started in 538/537, but plenty of evidence shows that it was a trickling of Jews coming back home to Judea over many years, and of course, this also matches some Biblical evidence that shows that many didn't want to leave Babylon at all. We already knew from many Jewish writings that were written in Babylon that healthy Jewish communities lasted for several centuries thereafter.
Your "proof" of the time period merely proves that the Watchtower's chronology is completely wrong. Since you have correctly admitted that 607 was in Nabopolassar's reign, it then follows that Nebuchadnezzar had not even begun his full first year until 604 BCE. So Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year could not be the same as Nabopolassars 18th year. How could he be in the 18th or 19th year of his kingship if he had NOT even started his first year of kingship?
As for the fact that the chapter mentions the familiar range of 70 years, I thought you might go here, which is why I already had mentioned this before your post:
As you probably remember, I have never had any problem with this same range for the 70 years of Jeremiah/Daniel. At most it's only a couple years off, and I've often said on this forum that it may even be correct. After all Jeremiah says that Babylon would be given 70 years of domination as a power over the surrounding nations, and this is a pretty good estimate of the timing of that power. Basically the idea is that the Babylonian world power could be identified as the 70 years between the Assyrian world power and the Medo-Persian world power. I can still admit that the 70 years can be identified with those same years. And if you are admitting the same, then you are also claiming that Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon about 587/586 BCE.
As I've already said, I was pretty sure you actually agreed already with COJ and thousands of other scholars for the date of Jerusalem's destruction.
I think you've now passed Projection 101, 201, 202, 203, and 301. We can now project that you will graduate with this as your major.

More "projection." I enjoy puns, but you are the one playing word games to dodge questions, repeat false claims, use innuendo, avoid explanations, etc.
Actually I offered several items of evidence, which you have ignored and distracted from, so far. Calling that my bluster is "Projection 101."
Evidence of what? You didn't say, except for that one diversion (out of the blue) about Nebuchadnezzar surviving some rough travel itineraries with the help of Nebo/Nabu.
Are you going to point out where I have done this, or should I just expect more bluster?
I had a feeling you might go with bluster!
I see that defensive "echolalia" again, whenever I apparently touch a nerve. I said "sockpuppet" so you worked the word "puppet" into an attempted insult to some COJ-duped professionals. Sounds like you are all upset that actual professionals sided with COJ. Yet again, why are you so obsessed with him? COJ is completely unnecessary to this entire charade of yours.
Feel free to point out anything you wish about COJ, I really don't care. He is (or was?) just one man out of thousands who have access to the same evidence that ends up embarrassing the Watchtower Society on this topic.
No doubt, if history is prologue, you will now show me some "evidence" from a writer/scholar who will somehow show us that the Watchtower is incorrect about the dates the WT gives for the exiles and the destruction of Jerusalem in 607. You will no doubt try to imply that this evidence against the Watchtower is actually evidence that the Watchtower has been correct all along. (And "correct all along" is a very odd choice of words considering the number of times the Watchtower has changed the endpoints and milestones of the chronology.)
Thanks for providing the reference.
As usual, you found another reference that hurts the Watchtower's tradition about 607 and 1914.
First of all, Eric Meyers, the author, of this chapter (10) is expressing appreciation for the findings and work of Peter Ackroyd who wrote "Exile and Restoration" and then later wrote a followup: "Israel under Babylon and Persia." I don't believe you read what he said, or else you must have completely misunderstood it, and only copied it here because he used the familiar range "607 to 537" for the 70 year period mentioned in Jeremiah/Daniel.
Second, when Meyers says that Ackroyd was "prescient" for reflecting on the artificiality of the term exile and restoration, he is asking us to agree with them both in their view that the Bible is wrong. The Bible you might recall says that the land was totally desolate and uninhabited. Ackroyd claimed this was artificial language because "only a portion of the population was exiled." On page 167, the very paragraph following your quote says: ". . .his strong textual sensitivity allowed him to see . . . that  perhaps the text in 2 Kings was in error."
Third, the Watchtower says the exiles were primarily in the two groups taken in 617 and 607. Note that these are the only two Judean exile events mentioned in the Insight book under the article on "EXILE:"
*** it-1 p. 775 Exile ***
Judah. In 617 B.C.E., King Nebuchadnezzar took the royal court and the foremost men of Judah into exile at Babylon. (2Ki 24:11-16) About ten years later, in 607 B.C.E., at the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon, Nebuzaradan, the chief of the Babylonian bodyguard, took most of the remaining ones and deserters of the Jews with him to Babylon, from which exile only a mere remnant returned 70 years later.—2Ki 25:11; Jer 39:9; Isa 10:21, 22; see CAPTIVITY.
A third exile would have been put in 602/601 since Jeremiah indicates it was about 5 years later (23-18=5):
(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. In all, 4,600 people were taken into exile.
So if this source of yours thinks the Watchtower is right, they will include those two exiles in those years: 617 & 607.
If this source thinks that COJ and all current Neo-Babylonian scholars are right, then we'd expect to see: 597 & 587.
Your source, says that there was no simple exile and return, because the exile happened in several pieces (and using the numbers in the Bible, only amounted to a small number of exiles each time). But what are the dates of those various exiles?
He (1970:1) also noted that hardly one date could be assigned to the beginning of the exile (597,587,581 BCE, etc.) let alone a time for the return, which only began in 538–537 BCE.
So, you found a resource that agrees with COJ's dates for the destruction of Jerusalem, and the associated series of exiles. It disagrees with the Watchtower's dates for those events. As usual. In fact the primary difference between COJ and your source is that one of COJ's objectives was to show that the Bible is correct and your source preferred to see the Bible as incorrect in some of the claims about the totality of the exile.
These authors are also telling us that there was no single year that we could point to as the "Return"/"Restoration." They will say it only just started in 538/537, but plenty of evidence shows that it was a trickling of Jews coming back home to Judea over many years, and of course, this also matches some Biblical evidence that shows that many didn't want to leave Babylon at all. We already knew from many Jewish writings that were written in Babylon that healthy Jewish communities lasted for several centuries thereafter.
Your "proof" of the time period merely proves that the Watchtower's chronology is completely wrong. Since you have correctly admitted that 607 was in Nabopolassar's reign, it then follows that Nebuchadnezzar had not even begun his full first year until 604 BCE. So Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year could not be the same as Nabopolassars 18th year. How could he be in the 18th or 19th year of his kingship if he had NOT even started his first year of kingship?
As for the fact that the chapter mentions the familiar range of 70 years, I thought you might go here, which is why I already had mentioned this before your post:
As you probably remember, I have never had any problem with this same range for the 70 years of Jeremiah/Daniel. At most it's only a couple years off, and I've often said on this forum that it may even be correct. After all Jeremiah says that Babylon would be given 70 years of domination as a power over the surrounding nations, and this is a pretty good estimate of the timing of that power. Basically the idea is that the Babylonian world power could be identified as the 70 years between the Assyrian world power and the Medo-Persian world power. I can still admit that the 70 years can be identified with those same years. And if you are admitting the same, then you are also claiming that Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon about 587/586 BCE.
As I've already said, I was pretty sure you actually agreed already with COJ and thousands of other scholars for the date of Jerusalem's destruction.
I think you've now passed Projection 101, 201, 202, 203, and 301. We can now project that you will graduate with this as your major.

Projection again. You were the one who wanted to claim the COJ book as my source. Since I know it is not, I would have never brought it up as if it was.
I'm not too concerned because I'm pretty sure he already knew that they were NOT falsehoods. I mentioned it mostly to do you the favor of reminding you that it's a lot easier to identify a "sockpuppet" account than you evidently think it is.
Also, it's a common habit seen on forums and other social media where people often know deep down that something is true, but they need to show their disapproval because they WISH it weren't true. Therefore they know that they don't really have a valid or relevant response. So what's left is to create chaos with meaningless repetitive but empty claims, create diversions, create confusion with irrelevant sources, trying to create work for the person they oppose, attack the messenger, etc. It's partly because they don't want others to see the strength of the evidence against the position they have represented. It's probably even more because they have invested themselves in representing the wrong position and their ego kicks in so that they need to "appear" right even when they know they are not. Most people won't do this if it's just a small item, but if they think it reflects on a larger ideology, then they can rationalize that they were wrong, but there is no need to admit it because they are still on the right side overall.
(Examples may include women who have been caught defending Bill Clinton's promiscuity, but denouncing Trump's. They think it's OK even though deep down they know it's wrong, because they feel they are still on the right side of the larger ideology. They seem to rationalize that admitting they are wrong would reflect poorly on an otherwise correct "democratic" ideology.)
This is actually one of the reasons I continue to bring up the 1914 problems. (The Biblical ones more often than the secular ones.) People evidently tend to think it's one of those issues about which it's OK to be deceptive, because otherwise it would reflect poorly, they think, on the entire Witness ideology. This is like one of the issues that drove coverups and deception in the world of CSA, and it ended up getting exposed at the ARC, for example. But the exposure drove the WTS to make more definitive CSA processing changes. What's more, it has now been made clear that a CSA predator does NOT bring reproach on the CCJW, WTS, or congregation (or even the victim) -- he brings reproach on himself. Using the same principle, it will be easier for the WTS to finally change the 1914 doctrine, and we can blame the doctrine, not the overall Witness ideology, the Bible, the congregation, or ourselves. It's not nearly the same thing, of course, but from the perspective of reasonableness and paying close attention to our teaching, the 1914 doctrine really does bring reproach, but not on all the other doctrines.
And, yes, I'm saying that I believe you have already given a lot of evidence that you know the details of the Watchtower chronology for 1914 must be incorrect. You have many times offered evidence that 607 was not the date for the destruction of Jerusalem. You have implied that it might be some other "Nebuchadnezzar-related" event around 607 that might still salvage the overall doctrine. But this is still an admission that the Watchtower position is weak, if not altogether wrong.
I never observed that there is no scholar to agree with 607. All scholars agree that things happened in 607, and all of them would agree that 607 is 70 years prior to 537, among other things. What I observed is that all these persons you have quoted from that you say are "established scholars and historians" would agree that 607 is a false date for the destruction of Jerusalem.
But I definitely implied it, I admit, when I said that every single scholar of Neo-Babylonian chronology, with no exceptions, is a source of evidence that hurts the Watchtower's 1914 tradition. (Since that tradition includes the idea that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607.) And of course, I am referring to living scholars, not those who were forced to make guesses in the 1800's when a lot of this information was just then coming out for the first time, Akkadian was not well understood, and misinformation was still rampant.
If you still think it's disingenuous, try to find one. And please don't try to pretend that Rolf Furuli was a Neo-Babylonian scholar. At least he admits that he is not one.
 

You put too much focus on who upvotes a person's posts. It's probably what drives you to constantly create additional accounts so that you can upvote and downvote people. When "Little Joe" made himself available to downvote my sister's experience, along with a couple of posts from others, I was pretty sure that we would soon see @Little Joe come over to this thread and start downvoting several of my posts on chronology. Sure enough, that was just about all Little Joe was good for up to that point, but quite predictable, of course. And by the way, you probably didn't mean Arauna, because she would normally side with the Watchtower on this topic, unless she's been studying it more deeply as of late.

Are you kidding? I've always discussed the possibility of a deportation in or around 605 or so. That's close enough, right? Most historians don't think this one specifically concerned Palestine or Judeans, but some believe the evidence for it is in Daniel, because it might have included Daniel. It's also possible that Daniel is using an alternate dating system to refer to the one in 597. Ezekiel uses a dating system where nearly everything is now based on 597 as a pivotal year.
You are wrong. And you probably know that it's dishonest to claim that COJ is the source of the evidence that hurts the Watchtower's 1914 tradition. You would like to pretend that it's just one person's claims. Turns out it is every single scholar of Neo-Babylonian chronology. No exceptions! And it's clear that you don't want people to see that your OWN sources hurt the Watchtower's theories and traditions.
All of these established scholars and historians of yours agree that 607 is a false date for the destruction of Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. All of them would put that year in either 587 or 586. There is no question about this any more because just as your own source "Exile and Return" says: 
"During the Neo-Babylon and Persian periods, the time of the Exile, Babylonia produced extraordinarily rich deposits of cuneiform texts, making it one of the very best documented epochs of ancient Mesopotamian history."
This is what dozens of others say about the ease with which the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology is reconstructed, year by year, king by king:
I never ever said or even implied that he did. So who is trying to muddy the waters, as usual? The "projection" is still strong with you.

I hoped you meant that "Math is a subject as e to the pi (eπi)." Which, coincidentally, as a function of the number "e" produces a sine of the times. (especially  π times i ) So we've now come full circle back to the topic, and back to square one at the same time. [Get it? "square one"? Because i is the square root of -1]
But the best part of this is that you can resolve it all to eπi = -1 which proves, in effect, that two wrongs can make a right. (Similar to a thing that F.W. "Time Parallels" Franz started to prove in 1944, when he finally accepted the proof that "1 minus -1 = 1" where two eras made an error.) More specifically, it can prove, as Euler did, that two irrationals (e and π) can make a rational (-1). But the devil is in the derivatives, as you implied in an earlier post.
And there has already been a post of unknown derivation that came close to this topic but never touched it.
I know we're just plane around in this space, but diversions are beside the point and that's where I draw the line. 🙄

This matches what the Babylonian Chronicles have said about Nebuchadnezzar tramping about in Hatti-land very early in his reign, and even near the end of his father Nabopolassar's reign. Some have wanted to say that Hatti-land included Palestine, but limiting it to Syria has always proved a better match. A parallel trip to Palestine/Judea at that same time is only a plausible assumption, and it is based partly on dates given in Daniel, which some have considered a reference to the first of FOUR Judean deportations. Historians only focus on the two deportations acknowledged by Babylonian sources.
Anyway, from what I have read, the Neirab archive is related to a Syrian settlement in Babylon. This new settlement reflected the old Syrian settlement which had been a center to the worship of the moon, "the god of Neirab."
I notice you avoided showing your source again. It was Exile and Return: The Babylonian Context edited by Jonathan Stökl, Caroline Waerzeggers. p.63.
Here, again without referencing your sources, you jump in this very next sentence to a completely different book and context: [Teach Yourself] Complete Babylonian: A Comprehensive Guide to Reading and Understanding ... by Martin Worthington.
Without saying why, you have highlighted the following by underlining it.
I love this stuff. It's pretty interesting to be able to watch language change over time. You see it in Hebrew, with the development of certain exceptions to the usual suffixes for masculine (-im) and feminine (-ot) noun plurals. And it's so interesting that the same types of changes in a language (morphology) will have parallels in many languages. (e.g., majuscule vowels in both Korean and Hebrew texts.) Although mimation and nunation technically refer to M and N case suffixes being added in Akkadian, similar things happen in Hebrew and Arabic too. You can look at old texts in Hebrew like the Dead Sea Scrolls and see the same texts from just a few hundred years later with contractions and abbreviations that reflect how language was spoken, and influences from other languages that had influenced speech. (Old English, for example, once had different case and gender endings for nouns and the accompanying adjectives. But these have been completely dropped, too.)
Wikipedia says:
In the later stages of Akkadian the mimation (word-final -m) - along with nunation (dual final "-n") - that occurs at the end of most case endings has disappeared, except in the locative. Later, the nominative and accusative singular of masculine nouns collapse to -u and in Neo-Babylonian most word-final short vowels are dropped. As a result, case differentiation disappeared from all forms except masculine plural nouns. However many texts continued the practice of writing the case endings (although often sporadically and incorrectly). As the most important contact language throughout this period was Aramaic, which itself lacks case distinctions, it is possible that Akkadian's loss of cases was an areal as well as phonological phenomenon.
The practice of Neo-Babylonians trying to use their own archaic language in a contemporary inscription to give it a more authoritative, religious or legalistic feel, sounds similar to the use of "King James" style language 400 years later. However, it's also possible that some of these might be explained by the fact that the difference in the interchange of use of the NI sign with the NIM sign, for example, could be based on various regional dialects which changed in both directions over time. It's also possible that Martin Worthington has made a mistake in picking this particular example, because masculine plurals kept their original case endings in both archaic Babylonian AND Neo-Babylonian.
Of course, what you highlighted has nothing to do with the 1914 doctrine, nor does it answer the question raised about Wiseman and Grayson, which I didn't expect you to answer.
It looks like you are diverting to a subject that Allen Smith argued with Ann Omaly several years ago. Something about how later historians spoke of a direct route over the desert ("a way of thirst"), and I I always wondered whether this would really have been any quicker than the long way around taking the "Crescent" route by the rivers. But I still haven't changed my mind on this. You don't know how long that one particular trip took, and neither do I. For me it makes no difference, because the only date that is used for the destruction of Jerusalem is called, in the Bible, Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year or his 19th year (no doubt based on the two different counting systems which we have often discussed.) A difference of a few weeks travel time way back near or before the official start of Nebuchadnezzar's reign is meaningless in the overall picture.

You put too much focus on who upvotes a person's posts. It's probably what drives you to constantly create additional accounts so that you can upvote and downvote people. When "Little Joe" made himself available to downvote my sister's experience, along with a couple of posts from others, I was pretty sure that we would soon see @Little Joe come over to this thread and start downvoting several of my posts on chronology. Sure enough, that was just about all Little Joe was good for up to that point, but quite predictable, of course. And by the way, you probably didn't mean Arauna, because she would normally side with the Watchtower on this topic, unless she's been studying it more deeply as of late.

Reminds me of when I was a teenager, still living at my parent's home, and I decided to toughen myself up, I would sleep on an Indian Fakir bed of plywood with about a thousand and fifty nails sticking up, but turning over made me wet the bed, and the nails got rusty. and the screaming kept my mother awake.
WHOAAA! .... and talk about trying to get fitted sheets!
....ever try to get twin size fitted sheets with 1,050 correctly spaced buttonholes?

No, you misunderstand. That is Hailstone Massage. It’s the latest craze in health care fads and many of the top Bethelites have gone in for it whole hog.
It is so embarrassing.