JW Insider

"Almost every reference to Ptolemy, especially in the Insight book, has a somewhat negative side added to it:"
Yes, however it is still claimed to be accurate in one instance and discredited in another.  That was my only point. Using it when it fits the theology and distancing themselves when they like. 
 
Back to the point. I agree with your findings here:
"It's as if the example above called: "10th Year of King So-and-So" was identified as 405 BCE and then another diary was found for the same king and it was called "15th Year of King So-and-So" and its astronomical phenomena exactly matched 400 BCE."
We can only go by what we have, and not speculation on what might have been. So, like you said, there is NO  support for 607. What resources can even come close to supporting 607? I mean we have canons, cuneiforms and astronomers from that time, and even IF those don't exactly go in hamony with each other,  what evidence is there? If we discredit all of them, then isn't any date acceptable?  So do we throw out records if they do not agree with us? Then it becomes the opinion of men and who you choose to follow. I'd hardly throw out ALL historical evidence for the sake of man's wants or ideas.

Hmmmm......I beg to differ. How about we both ask a number of friends a simple question at the KH this Sunday or in a field service group: "do you know how to explain why we believe 1914 and 607?"
In any case, it looks like you are trying to evade the question by implying that understanding how we come to 1914 (and 607) requires too much time and that one has better things to do (which actually confirms what I said, that most don't really know) and also you are detracting from the question by implying that those who do this, are really just trying to discredit the Slave and score points for themselves on a discussion forum.
I can't say anything about what was said under another heading, but I do know that the question that arose a number of times was if WT accepts 537, then why does it not accept 587, if both dates are verifiable by the same astronomical/historical l sources.
I am not here to score points either, (and if anyone is, well then they are to be pitied because what real value does collecting points from complete strangers who have no impact on your real, outside the internet, life have?). I am not trying to prove the Slave are deceivers,  but how would you explain to someone what I posted earlier but you never commented on. It was in answer to your comment:  " Faith is important - but Jehovah knew that us simple folks - we always need small steps to look forward to and he lovingly gave it to us.... and what is more.. the proof of the pudding is the eating....... world events since 1914 has proven that it is a 'reality'...... We will soon be seeing the last prophecies regarding Babylon the great, the call to peace and security...and the 8th king in action.... as a matter of fact - religions seem to be riding the beast as we speak...."  And my reply was:
"BUT that does not mean the dates and numbers and lengths of periods we simple folks put together are always correct are they? What has happened to the millions that were not supposed to die? (they did). What has happened to the generation that was not supposed to pass away? (they have, practically) What has happened to the children that were not supposed to even finish school in this system? (they did, and they have children of their own). What has happened to the world that can't get any worse? (it did, and still might)".
Religions seem to be riding the beast as we speak, but there have been many signs before that, that actually turned out NOT to be the sign
To be fair, this topic here "607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported" really does call for secular,/scholarly knowledge because it is an academic subject.  No matter how noble feelings are, they still have no impact on whether something is true or false. And I cannot somehow connect a date with love for Jehovah, especially if there is a possibility that the date could be completely erroneous.
I think those people have been paying attention to the signs on the ground. Probably since they first learned about them.
Indeed, the Amaharets.  And it is a consolation to me that even if we are totally wrong about Christ's enthronement in 1914 and it takes another 2000 years for Armageddon to come, surely Jehovah will look upon us that we, the Amaharets, did our best to follow in the footsteps of Christ, by preaching the Kingdom and by living our life in harmony with God's moral standards. Surely Jehovah will recognize that the majority of Christ's sheep are unable to verify or understand everything the Bible, or what the Slave presents, like the Beoreans were able to. I can't imagine a missionary in Peru being overly concerned about Neo Babylonian chronology. Surely it is sufficient that these ones have verified the fundamental truths. And those who desire and are able to delve deeper into the academic side of this particular issue, and in all honesty find discrepancies with 607, surely they will not be disqualified? Thankfully, Jehovah is the reader of hearts. However, if those who have taken upon themselves the responsibility to disseminate spiritual food to the Amaharets, and they feed falsehood, they will be judged severely, for obvious reasons. So really, we have nothing to be worried about. For the Amaharets and those "academics/scholars" who are pure in heart and motive it's a win win situation isn’t it?


 

Or ME I meant as well, lol. I just realized I made it sound like I was saying you can't comment on posts addressed to me. You should know me better than that 
Well then, lets blame @TrueTomHarley. Why is he even asking these questions. I think I know why, apparently we are reaching the "lets be silly and post memes and ad hominuuuuums" stage in the discussion...
It's funny reading your posts with no capitalization on the I.  I don't know if I can take you seriously. It's like trying to listen to someone delivering a somber speech with spinach stuck between their teeth.

you said you didn't think it was fair that i stated this, but it's fair because i wasn't the one to disclose it. as i said above he self-identified. note the words i highlighted in red, from his own words, just three weeks ago...
 

If you meant that you don't want my posts to get shorter, then you are very generous and long-suffering with respect to one of my greatest weaknesses -- long-windedness.
Not sure what that meant, but I would be just as happy to stay over here, although I always have a tendency to think that every prior false or misleading statement should be addressed before addressing any new statements that might be false or misleading. --this includes addressing any of my own errors, of course--
unfortunately, there are already at least 100 statements made in this thread that were false or misleading, even if the person making the statements meant well, or thought they were defending truth. addressing just one point in the middle of all those issues, is almost like a tacit acceptance of the errors around it. But so many of the errors had nothing to do, really, with the topic of whether 607 is Biblically supported. That was the reason to make a fresh start.

apologies in advance that a few keys on my keyboard are not working, including the shift and caps lock along with a few key letters. workarounds take a long time, so although i will repair a few of the problems created, some of this post might be hard to read.
 
Neil Mc Fadzen has self-identified as 'scholar' on another forum and as @scholar JW here. what he is saying above is that he might be only one of two brothers in the entire world who have demonstrated competence in chronology. you admit that you have not followed the thread that closely, but perhaps you might wish to follow it more closely on this basis alone. you are evidently privileged to be in the presence of a very rare level of competence.
since this topic has veered from its original course, and it was started by me, i'm happy to create a new version of it that deals only with the more serious issues about watchtower chronology vs. bible chronology vs. secular chronology. evidently i still have the ability to move posts from one thread to another, to keep topics organised. if i still have some of these moderator functions available to me, i can always move irrelevant and irreverent posts back over to this thread.
if i do decide to start a new thread, i will probably not be moving any posts from here, but will likely try to summarise by quoting from posts made here. this might have to wait until i add a wireless keyboard to this laptop, or perhaps i'll start using my Macbook more often, which slows down my typing by about 50wpm until i get used to it. that would likely cut down the length of my posts by more than 50 percent --and who wants that?

If this was written around 99 C.E. then I think it would just as likely (or more likely) to have referred to the fact that Christianity started among a very small group of actual eye-witnesses of Jesus, but had grown to a "great crowd" in areas far-flung from Galilee/Judea in areas where it would be common among Greek philosophical influence to allegorize the person of Jesus into a "mythological" origin -- perhaps some kind of amalgamation of brilliant rabbi/teacher, healer, wonder-worker, angel, demigod, etc. To me, it makes much more sense that this was a great danger, much more of a dangerous "apostasy" than being concerned with what sort of a body Jesus would have when he would return.

There is still time!
I thought of the prosperity gospel churches too, and large "personality" mega-churches that highlight their evangelists and "faith healers" on television along with the audiences. However, I suspect that the person who made the original meme was aiming more at the hypocrisy inherent even in more typical church situations where the pastor is a couple of tax brackets higher than the congregation. Another form of clergy/laity distinction. It must seem exacerbated in those poorer neighborhoods with a church, two pawn shops and two liquor stores on every block. The churches in such neighborhoods often grow even with all the block-by-block competition, and the pastors therefore do well.
But I also noticed that Bible Speaks wanted to make it clear that this kind of thing does not happen in her congregation. But can it? She adds "Be on the watch" as if there might be some danger even among our own. But she also added "We are not called Pastors anyhow." This means, evidently, that the idea doesn't apply to us after all.
I take it for granted that most people here know that this is not really a problem among JWs. So is it something to watch out for? Ann shows that it has happened before. Rutherford kept a few houses for his personal use in several places around the world. He had more than one of these expensive cars, simultaneously during the great depression. His own "prosperity" gospel took advantage of the economic desires of his audience, but correctly turned them toward a more spiritual perspective. He had books and booklets and talks called Riches, Prosperity, and Prohibition is from the Devil? Oh wait, that last one didn't turn toward spirituality in the same was as the others, it just went ahead and "proved" that prohibition really was from the Devil. But money was clearly not the primary thing for either Russell or Rutherford. Both of them believed for much of their lives that the end was coming in a matter of years or often, even just a few months. Russell spent the Society's funds like crazy right up until October 1914. No reason to have anything left over. Rutherford didn't turn down the amenities, but he was clearly not driven by money, either.
It's always good to look at the possibilities even if we are really nothing like most of these churches that rake in millions for a feel-good and/or prosperity message that never seems to pan out for the average member. I mentioned the 125-foot yacht for the same reason that Ann mentioned the car. It's a bit thought-provoking about how easy it is to attach ourselves to material things without noticing the effect on onlookers. Watches, jewelry, vacations, chandeliers, cruises, yachts, and such can look like a showy display of one's means, even if that's not what one means.

Thanks Ann. The reason I wasn't explaining it again is that this mistake made me realize that the last two times I explained it carefully, that Allen wasn't paying attention. It's fine not to pay attention, that's anyone's choice, but I was simultaneously being ridiculed by Allen for supposedly not understanding and not reading carefully the last two times I pointed out this exact same point.
One time was in a discussion of Charles T. Russell misunderstanding the same point, evidently thinking that astronomers were saying there was a zero year, and thinking that he was therefore probably right in using the zero year to calculate 606 to 1914 as 2520 years. But he also used the potential difference to buy himself some flexibility in case 1914 didn't pan out as the start of Armageddon and the Great Tribulation and the Jewish repatriation of Palestine. Russell thought it might "buy some time" until 1915. As Russell said in the Watch Tower, December 1912, page 376, "The Ending of the Gentile Times."
If we count the first year B.C. as 0, then the date 536-1/4 B.C. is the proper one for the end of the seventy years of captivity. But if we begin to reckon it by counting the first year before the Christian era as B.C. 1, then evidently the desolation ended 535-1/4 years B.C. As to the methods of counting, Encyclopaedia Britannica says, "Astronomers denote the year which preceded the first of our era as 0 and the year previous to that as B.C. 1--the previous year B.C. 2, and so on." Whichever of these ways we undertake to calculate the matter the difference between the results is one year. The seventy years of Jewish captivity ended October, 536 B.C., and if there were 536-1/4 years B.C., then to complete the 2,520 years' cycle of the Times of the Gentiles would require 1913-3/4 years of A.D., or to October, 1914. But if the other way of reckoning were used, then there were but 535-1/4 years of the period B.C., and the remainder of the 2,520 years would reach to A.D., 1914-3/4 years, otherwise October, 1915. The other case was when both you and I pointed out to Allen that the lavia.org site is not fully reliable. (The lavia link was also provided by @Foreigner earlier in this thread.) In another thread ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/24592-the-superiority-of-jw-chronology/?page=7&tab=comments#comment-45134 ) Allen had ignored my earlier warnings about the site and assumed I had treated the whole thing as "reliable" and therefore somehow tied his own error to proof of apostasy in others!!
At any rate, just to show you are in good company @allensmith28, it was not only C.T.Russell, but this writer quoted below who made a similar, common mistake.
------quote from http://www.lavia.org/english/archivo/vat4956en.htm
Besides, as we can see on NASAÂ’s image, the eclipse of July 4th indicated in tablet VAT 4956, did not take place in 568 BC, but in 567 BC.
 
 
 

 
 
 
Therefore the correct calculation of the year in which Jerusalem was destroyed must be as follows:
       If 567 BC was the year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, the 19th year (18 complete years) was 586 BC.
37-18 = 19, 567 +19 = 586
Therefore Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 BC.

Thanks Ann. The reason I wasn't explaining it again is that this mistake made me realize that the last two times I explained it carefully, that Allen wasn't paying attention. It's fine not to pay attention, that's anyone's choice, but I was simultaneously being ridiculed by Allen for supposedly not understanding and not reading carefully the last two times I pointed out this exact same point.
One time was in a discussion of Charles T. Russell misunderstanding the same point, evidently thinking that astronomers were saying there was a zero year, and thinking that he was therefore probably right in using the zero year to calculate 606 to 1914 as 2520 years. But he also used the potential difference to buy himself some flexibility in case 1914 didn't pan out as the start of Armageddon and the Great Tribulation and the Jewish repatriation of Palestine. Russell thought it might "buy some time" until 1915. As Russell said in the Watch Tower, December 1912, page 376, "The Ending of the Gentile Times."
If we count the first year B.C. as 0, then the date 536-1/4 B.C. is the proper one for the end of the seventy years of captivity. But if we begin to reckon it by counting the first year before the Christian era as B.C. 1, then evidently the desolation ended 535-1/4 years B.C. As to the methods of counting, Encyclopaedia Britannica says, "Astronomers denote the year which preceded the first of our era as 0 and the year previous to that as B.C. 1--the previous year B.C. 2, and so on." Whichever of these ways we undertake to calculate the matter the difference between the results is one year. The seventy years of Jewish captivity ended October, 536 B.C., and if there were 536-1/4 years B.C., then to complete the 2,520 years' cycle of the Times of the Gentiles would require 1913-3/4 years of A.D., or to October, 1914. But if the other way of reckoning were used, then there were but 535-1/4 years of the period B.C., and the remainder of the 2,520 years would reach to A.D., 1914-3/4 years, otherwise October, 1915. The other case was when both you and I pointed out to Allen that the lavia.org site is not fully reliable. (The lavia link was also provided by @Foreigner earlier in this thread.) In another thread ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/24592-the-superiority-of-jw-chronology/?page=7&tab=comments#comment-45134 ) Allen had ignored my earlier warnings about the site and assumed I had treated the whole thing as "reliable" and therefore somehow tied his own error to proof of apostasy in others!!
At any rate, just to show you are in good company @allensmith28, it was not only C.T.Russell, but this writer quoted below who made a similar, common mistake.
------quote from http://www.lavia.org/english/archivo/vat4956en.htm
Besides, as we can see on NASAÂ’s image, the eclipse of July 4th indicated in tablet VAT 4956, did not take place in 568 BC, but in 567 BC.
 
 
 

 
 
 
Therefore the correct calculation of the year in which Jerusalem was destroyed must be as follows:
       If 567 BC was the year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, the 19th year (18 complete years) was 586 BC.
37-18 = 19, 567 +19 = 586
Therefore Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 BC.

You just showed the Saros for 609 BCE and 610 BCE. Common mistake.

Nothing has changed in my view. It's just that you showed a picture of a Saros cycle for 608 BCE and referred to it as if it were a picture for 607 BCE. Common mistake.

And that one is 568 B.C.E.
Also, are you really claiming that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar is not biblical? Does the same thing hold true for the first year of Cyrus?

This image does not represent 607 B.C.E.  It's the picture for 608 B.C.E.

True. The last person at the Watch Tower Headquarters who was called Pastor, evidently never owned a car. The newspaper article starts out: Pastor Russell of the Peoples Pulpit Association today declared that he would use the yacht, Angel, presented to him by his association . . .

There is still time!
I thought of the prosperity gospel churches too, and large "personality" mega-churches that highlight their evangelists and "faith healers" on television along with the audiences. However, I suspect that the person who made the original meme was aiming more at the hypocrisy inherent even in more typical church situations where the pastor is a couple of tax brackets higher than the congregation. Another form of clergy/laity distinction. It must seem exacerbated in those poorer neighborhoods with a church, two pawn shops and two liquor stores on every block. The churches in such neighborhoods often grow even with all the block-by-block competition, and the pastors therefore do well.
But I also noticed that Bible Speaks wanted to make it clear that this kind of thing does not happen in her congregation. But can it? She adds "Be on the watch" as if there might be some danger even among our own. But she also added "We are not called Pastors anyhow." This means, evidently, that the idea doesn't apply to us after all.
I take it for granted that most people here know that this is not really a problem among JWs. So is it something to watch out for? Ann shows that it has happened before. Rutherford kept a few houses for his personal use in several places around the world. He had more than one of these expensive cars, simultaneously during the great depression. His own "prosperity" gospel took advantage of the economic desires of his audience, but correctly turned them toward a more spiritual perspective. He had books and booklets and talks called Riches, Prosperity, and Prohibition is from the Devil? Oh wait, that last one didn't turn toward spirituality in the same was as the others, it just went ahead and "proved" that prohibition really was from the Devil. But money was clearly not the primary thing for either Russell or Rutherford. Both of them believed for much of their lives that the end was coming in a matter of years or often, even just a few months. Russell spent the Society's funds like crazy right up until October 1914. No reason to have anything left over. Rutherford didn't turn down the amenities, but he was clearly not driven by money, either.
It's always good to look at the possibilities even if we are really nothing like most of these churches that rake in millions for a feel-good and/or prosperity message that never seems to pan out for the average member. I mentioned the 125-foot yacht for the same reason that Ann mentioned the car. It's a bit thought-provoking about how easy it is to attach ourselves to material things without noticing the effect on onlookers. Watches, jewelry, vacations, chandeliers, cruises, yachts, and such can look like a showy display of one's means, even if that's not what one means.

Nothing has changed in my view. It's just that you showed a picture of a Saros cycle for 608 BCE and referred to it as if it were a picture for 607 BCE. Common mistake.

You just showed the Saros for 609 BCE and 610 BCE. Common mistake.

Thanks Ann. The reason I wasn't explaining it again is that this mistake made me realize that the last two times I explained it carefully, that Allen wasn't paying attention. It's fine not to pay attention, that's anyone's choice, but I was simultaneously being ridiculed by Allen for supposedly not understanding and not reading carefully the last two times I pointed out this exact same point.
One time was in a discussion of Charles T. Russell misunderstanding the same point, evidently thinking that astronomers were saying there was a zero year, and thinking that he was therefore probably right in using the zero year to calculate 606 to 1914 as 2520 years. But he also used the potential difference to buy himself some flexibility in case 1914 didn't pan out as the start of Armageddon and the Great Tribulation and the Jewish repatriation of Palestine. Russell thought it might "buy some time" until 1915. As Russell said in the Watch Tower, December 1912, page 376, "The Ending of the Gentile Times."
If we count the first year B.C. as 0, then the date 536-1/4 B.C. is the proper one for the end of the seventy years of captivity. But if we begin to reckon it by counting the first year before the Christian era as B.C. 1, then evidently the desolation ended 535-1/4 years B.C. As to the methods of counting, Encyclopaedia Britannica says, "Astronomers denote the year which preceded the first of our era as 0 and the year previous to that as B.C. 1--the previous year B.C. 2, and so on." Whichever of these ways we undertake to calculate the matter the difference between the results is one year. The seventy years of Jewish captivity ended October, 536 B.C., and if there were 536-1/4 years B.C., then to complete the 2,520 years' cycle of the Times of the Gentiles would require 1913-3/4 years of A.D., or to October, 1914. But if the other way of reckoning were used, then there were but 535-1/4 years of the period B.C., and the remainder of the 2,520 years would reach to A.D., 1914-3/4 years, otherwise October, 1915. The other case was when both you and I pointed out to Allen that the lavia.org site is not fully reliable. (The lavia link was also provided by @Foreigner earlier in this thread.) In another thread ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/24592-the-superiority-of-jw-chronology/?page=7&tab=comments#comment-45134 ) Allen had ignored my earlier warnings about the site and assumed I had treated the whole thing as "reliable" and therefore somehow tied his own error to proof of apostasy in others!!
At any rate, just to show you are in good company @allensmith28, it was not only C.T.Russell, but this writer quoted below who made a similar, common mistake.
------quote from http://www.lavia.org/english/archivo/vat4956en.htm
Besides, as we can see on NASAÂ’s image, the eclipse of July 4th indicated in tablet VAT 4956, did not take place in 568 BC, but in 567 BC.
 
 
 

 
 
 
Therefore the correct calculation of the year in which Jerusalem was destroyed must be as follows:
       If 567 BC was the year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, the 19th year (18 complete years) was 586 BC.
37-18 = 19, 567 +19 = 586
Therefore Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 BC.

True. The last person at the Watch Tower Headquarters who was called Pastor, evidently never owned a car. The newspaper article starts out: Pastor Russell of the Peoples Pulpit Association today declared that he would use the yacht, Angel, presented to him by his association . . .

You just showed the Saros for 609 BCE and 610 BCE. Common mistake.

Nothing has changed in my view. It's just that you showed a picture of a Saros cycle for 608 BCE and referred to it as if it were a picture for 607 BCE. Common mistake.

And that one is 568 B.C.E.
Also, are you really claiming that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar is not biblical? Does the same thing hold true for the first year of Cyrus?

This image does not represent 607 B.C.E.  It's the picture for 608 B.C.E.

True. The last person at the Watch Tower Headquarters who was called Pastor, evidently never owned a car. The newspaper article starts out: Pastor Russell of the Peoples Pulpit Association today declared that he would use the yacht, Angel, presented to him by his association . . .