JW Insider

Learning a new language used to be a major component of Gilead assignments. Just a few years ago, this was determined to be a big waste of time because there are places with need in countries where the missionaries already came from. No language to learn, no ex-pat papers, no visas, no suspicion that JWs promote only Western values, etc.

And the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar is not in dispute, either, for it is a date universally recognized as 605 BCE.

Learning a new language used to be a major component of Gilead assignments. Just a few years ago, this was determined to be a big waste of time because there are places with need in countries where the missionaries already came from. No language to learn, no ex-pat papers, no visas, no suspicion that JWs promote only Western values, etc.

Learning a new language used to be a major component of Gilead assignments. Just a few years ago, this was determined to be a big waste of time because there are places with need in countries where the missionaries already came from. No language to learn, no ex-pat papers, no visas, no suspicion that JWs promote only Western values, etc.

https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/LatestVideos/pub-jwb_201712_4_VIDEO

Home
143rd Gilead Graduation—Concluding Talk and Assignments  -   Length 37:43  -  Enjoy !
1. First we have brother and sister Akmatov, who return to Kyrgyzstan.
2. and now we have brother and sister Arencibia returning to the United States.
3. Brother and Sister Bois return to Benin.
4. Then we have brother Boseovski, who will return to Canada.
5th and we have sister Galashina, who will return to Eastern Europe.
6th and that is our singer. Brother Habab returns to the Philippines.
7. Brother and sister Jacob will return to Germany.
8. Brother and sister katalinic will return to Croatia.
9. Then we have sister Khang, who will return to the United States.
10th and now we have brother and sister Komáromi, who will return to Serbia.
11. Brother and sister kumagai will return to Japan.
12. and now we have Brother and Sister Maganha returning to Brazil.
13. Brother and sister Mapfumo return to Zimbabwe.
14. Brother and sister Marynovych return to Ukraine.
15th and then we have brother and sister Mhlongo returning to South Africa.
16. And now we have the brother and the sister who return to Kenya.
17. Brother and sister nishikura will return to Asia.
18th and we have brother Ogele, who will return to Nigeria.
19. Brother and sister ouatchome will return to Cameroon.
20. Brother and Sister Perera will return to Sri Lanka.
21st and we have sister Prangishvili, who will return to Georgia.
22. Sister Prayogo returns to Indonesia.
23. Brother Reabow returns to South Africa.
24. Brother Savolainen returns to Finland.
25th and brother and sister Scherrer will return to France.
26. Brother and sister Sztankovits will return to Hungary.
27. Brother Thollie returns to Sierra Leone.
28. Brother and sister Vasilev will return to Eastern Europe.
29. And finally brother and sister return white to the Congo (Kinshasa).
I count 4 unmarried sisters, 6 unmarried brothers and 19 couples for a total of 48 students.
I think every person in the class photo (26 minutes and 12 seconds) was named by name this time. Usually, some are removed when they return to banned countries.
It is interesting that all send, from where they came, not to new countries.

I like this. Never tell someone he is wrong. Redirect his remarks to acknowledge that he makes a good point.

It has a kind of tragic fascination about it. Amazing to think that it happened about 80 years ago! And that Lina is still alive.
She suffered from a condition known as "precocious puberty" 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precocious_puberty
Although the youngest documented case, she is by no means alone: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers
Inerestingly, I spent a number years witnessing in an area with a high Afro-Carribean population. Many older people would cite a prophecy to say we were in the "last days" because the Bible said that then there would be "children having children". No-one could give a Bible verse for this, and of course I have never seen such a phrase in the Scripture. Usually I would respond with 2 Tim.3:3 where the "critical times" are charcterised by men  "having no natural affection"  as this would often be an element in the occurence of "children having children". But I have never found out where the idea orginated.

Except for the times I fell asleep reading this and other threads on this subject, I think ( ... because I know you care so very deeply about whats Ah thinks...) Anna's explanation is the best and most succinct that has real practical value.
Especially item No. 2.
When I teach the Bible, I do not need to teach anything about that ... as some people believe that touching frogs will give you warts ... and some people do not .... and it may be true with some frogs, but not others ... and I will not live long enough to test the supposition ... assuming I cared at all, which I do not.....
It took the Australian Royal Commission to trap Bro. Jackson into a year or more later forcing the GB to admit what is common sense ... that they are neither inspired, or infallible, which is an understatement.
One real reason I have for faith in Jehovah's Witnesses as a collection of people is what we do right, DESPITE being so totally clueless about many, many things.  It's like when a circus clown car wins the Indianapolis 500 race .... the only explanation is divine providence.
I get headaches from watching the "new lights" flash on and off, on and off, on and off ....and it does bother me a great deal when, while swimming through an ocean of Jello, to see others drowning in it, and falling away ... but such is the way of reality when you are dealing with pesky humans ... and I need to stop being so sensitive a snowflake and letting the heat get to me.
So, is the Society's explanation of 1914 accurate or not?    Of course it's not ... it's PROBABLY a constructed fantasy ..... like an air-raid siren that short circuits, and periodically gives false alarms ... and for a hundred years nobody knows how to fix it.
Or, for some strange reason ... it may be completely true. 
Does that mean we get rid of the air raid sirens?
No ....  I have 10 smoke alarms in my house ... and when I boil water in the kitchen or light a candle, some of them  go off, and sometimes I have to disconnect the battery, to keep the noise down
Does that mean I should get rid of the smoke alarms?
No..... it just means I have to know the difference between theory and reality, (coffee water steam, or raging house fire ...) or live life in a continuous fantasy induced panic state.
Same thing.
.....
Oh ... and expect NOTHING from humans.
You will never be disappointed.
Everybody ..... has an agenda.
 

I would also guess that 1914 is here to stay because 
1. WW1, which is "on the ground" evidence as Arauna calls it, (even though originally it was supposed to be Armageddon).
2. Jesu's enthronement was invisible, so can't be disproved.
3. Most Witnesses don't have a clue about how we arrived at 1914 and of those who do, have no clue how we arrive at 607, and the few of those who do, have no clue as to why historians arrive at 587....and those even fewer who do, well...they are too few to make a difference...

VAT4956 illustrates exactly what direction one needs to go to get to exactly the 18th and to get to exactly to the 19th year. That's the thing about an astronomical diary that tells you what year aligns to Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year. From there you know what direction you need to go to reach the 18th and 19th years or any other prior year in his reign. And it does this from the front side. It does this from the back side. And it does this from both sides.
If you go back to the post you made here on Saturday, 12/23, the one with the Map of the Ancient Near East, you can see that you went from a mistaken or unproven premise and then said that this [false premise] was why VAT4956 tells us nothing about the 18-19 years, and that VAT4956 can only be used to show what his first (accession) year was. As you said:
While it's true that knowing his 37th year was 568 will also tell you that his accession year was 605, it ALSO tells you that:
his first year was 604 and his 18th year was 587 and his 19th year was 586 and his 36th year was 569 and his 35th year was 570. It pinpoints which year matches every regnal year from 605 to 568. Claiming otherwise is a math mistake just as false as claiming that 4+1=6, or worse, really. It is the same as saying: If 568+37 = 605, then 568+36=0 [nothing] and 568+1=0[nothing] and 568+19=0[nothing]. You made an incorrect conjecture, rather than basing what you said on scholarly findings or scripture or simple math.
This is "word salad" with non-sequiturious dressing. 
We can if it will help. But for nearly half its existence the Watchtower, along with educated people like Fred Franz, believed and promoted a "Bible" chronology that we now admit is false. Franz, Russell, Rutherford all had plenty of Bible understanding, yet two of them taught a Bible chronology until they died, that the Watchtower now considers to be false. They used the term "absolute" and "God's dates, not ours" incorrectly. An archaeologist can correctly make use of the term "absolute" even if they are talking about a style of canoe made in New Guinea. They need absolutely no Bible understanding to use the term with its correct scholarly meaning.
Quite the opposite of justifying how contradictory it would be. You are veering off into bad math again. VAT4956 tells you to start . . .
his 17th year in 588, his 18th year in 587 his 19th year in 586 his 20th year in 585 his 27th year in 578 his 37th year in 568 If you really can't see where it does "indicate in VAT4956 where one should start to view 587 BC specifically," then you shouldn't be  talking about contradictory evidence or what VAT4956 does and does not indicate. Secular chronology does not place the 18th and 19th year where it "wishes."
More word salad.
This is irrelevant to the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. Would you say that the Watchtower publications are biased because they look at the books of Kings and Chronicles with errors? Note, how the Insight book inserts the bracketed words "actually, the fifteenth" instead of "the thirty-fifth" year of Asa. If you read "Insight" you will see that it suggests that the Bible contains scribal errors in several other books, too.
*** it-1 p. 184 Asa ***
So, too, the apparent difference between the statement at 2 Chronicles 15:19 to the effect that, as for “war, it did not occur down to the thirty-fifth [actually, the fifteenth] year of Asa’s reign,” It is not necessary to read the rest of this post, but it covers not even half of the potential scribal errors that the Watchtower publications have made reference to in the attempt to correct errors in the Bible text. I'm sure you are aware that there is even a chronology "glitch" in the book of Daniel that the Watchtower publications have discussed at length so that the meaning we give this verse is quite different from the actual statements in Daniel.
*** it-1 p. 412 Capital ***
(1Ki 7:15, 16) In view of the passages indicating that the capitals were five cubits high, a number of scholars have concluded that the reference to “three cubits” in 2 Kings 25:17 is a scribal error. That is why some Bible translations (for example, JB, NAB) have replaced “three cubits” with “five cubits.” *** it-1 p. 570 Daleth ***
The fourth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. There is considerable similarity between the letters daʹleth [ד] and rehsh [ר], allowing for possible scribal errors in copying. This may account for various differences in spelling, such as that of the “Rodanim” at 1 Chronicles 1:7 and the “Dodanim” at Genesis 10:4. *** it-1 p. 619 Deuel ***
In the Masoretic text and the Syriac Peshitta, he is called “Reuel” at Numbers 2:14. This may be due to a scribal error, since the Hebrew letters for “D” and “R” are very similar and the name “Deuel” does, in fact, appear at Numbers 2:14 in the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Latin Vulgate, and over a hundred Hebrew manuscripts. *** it-1 pp. 626-627 Dimon ***
. . . Dibon did not stand by any large “waters,” it being a considerable distance from the nearest wadi, the Arnon. They suggest, therefore, that Dimon may be a scribal alteration of Madmen, mentioned in Jeremiah’s condemnation of Moab (Jer 48:2), and usually identified with Dimna, about 4 km (2.5 mi) WNW of Rabbath-Moab, on a height dominating the waters of the ʽAin el-Megheisil to the SE.  Both views are conjectural, the latter having in its favor identification with a site associated with waters, which the context seems to require. *** it-1 p. 706 Elhanan ***
In 2 Samuel 21:19 Elhanan is identified as “the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite,” and it is said that he struck down Goliath. However, many scholars think that the original reading of 2 Samuel 21:19 corresponded to 1 Chronicles 20:5, the differences in the two texts having arisen through scribal error. *** it-1 p. 718 Elishama ***
This Elishama is listed as Elishua in 2 Samuel 5:15, in 1 Chronicles 14:5, and in two Hebrew manuscripts at 1 Chronicles 3:6. Elishua is generally considered to be the correct name, as the name Elishama appears again in 1 Chronicles 3:8 and therefore could easily have crept into verse 6 through a scribal error. *** it-1 p. 929 Gibeah ***
The Hebrew spellings of Geba (masculine form of the word meaning “Hill”) and Gibeah (feminine form of the term meaning “Hill”) are almost identical. Many believe that this has resulted in scribal errors in the Masoretic text and therefore recommend changing certain scriptures to read “Geba” instead of “Gibeah,” and vice versa. *** it-1 p. 1015 Hadadezer ***
This could account for their being called “horsemen” at 2 Samuel 10:18 and “men on foot” at 1 Chronicles 19:18. The difference in the number of Syrian charioteers killed in battle is usually attributed to scribal error, the lower figure of 700 charioteers being considered the correct one. *** it-1 p. 1015 Hadadezer ***
The variation in the enumeration of these at 2 Samuel 8:4 and 1 Chronicles 18:4 may have arisen through scribal error. In the Greek Septuagint both passages indicate that 1,000 chariots and 7,000 horsemen were captured, and therefore 1 Chronicles 18:4 perhaps preserves the original reading. *** it-1 p. 1145 Horse ***
However, David’s son and successor, Solomon, began to accumulate thousands of horses. (1Ki 4:26 [here “forty thousand stalls of horses” is generally believed to be a scribal error for “four thousand”]; compare 2Ch 9:25.) *** it-1 p. 1166 Ibleam ***
. . . (Jos 21:25) reads “Gath-rimmon” instead of “Bileam” or “Ibleam.” Generally this is attributed to scribal error, “Gath-rimmon,” the name of a city in Dan, probably having been inadvertently repeated from verse 24. *** it-1 p. 1239 Jaare-oregim ***
A name appearing only at 2 Samuel 21:19. It is generally believed that scribal error has given rise to this name and that the correct reading is preserved in the parallel text at 1 Chronicles 20:5. “Jaare” is considered to be an alteration of “Jair,” and “oregim” (ʼo·reghimʹ, “weavers” or “loom workers”) is thought to have been copied inadvertently from a line below in the same verse. *** it-2 p. 87 Johanan ***
Grandson of Eliashib, the high priest contemporary with Nehemiah. His being called Jonathan in Nehemiah 12:11 is probably due to a scribal error, as the names “Johanan” and “Jonathan” are very similar in Hebrew. *** it-2 p. 113 Josheb-basshebeth ***
There are other scribal difficulties with the text in 2 Samuel 23:8, making it necessary for the obscure Hebrew in the Masoretic text (which appears to read, “He was Adino the Eznite”) to be corrected to read “He was brandishing his spear.” (NW) Other modern translations read similarly. (AT; RS; Mo; Ro, ftn; JB) Thus Samuel is made to agree with the book of Chronicles and with the construction pattern in this section of material. It is “the three” that are being discussed, but to introduce another name, Adino, makes four. *** it-2 p. 177 Kite ***
The Deuteronomy list contains ra·ʼahʹ in place of da·ʼahʹ, as in Leviticus, but this is considered to be probably due to a scribal substitution of the Hebrew equivalent of “r” (ר) for “d” (ד), the letters being very similar in appearance. And then there are more complicated errors to deal with when the text that is preferred for the NWT Hebrew Scriptures is based on the Masoretic text which makes changes from phrases like "Jehovah cursed" to "Jehovah blessed," and even makes changes like the following one:
*** it-2 p. 307 Manasseh ***
. A name appearing in the Masoretic text at Judges 18:30, because of scribal modification. The account concerns Danite apostasy, and the New World Translation says that “Jonathan the son of Gershom, Moses’ son, he and his sons became priests to the tribe of the Danites.” (See also AT; Mo; Ro; RS.) Jewish scribes inserted a suspended letter (nun = n) between the first two letters in the original Hebrew name so as to give the reading “Manasseh’s” instead of “Moses’,” doing so out of regard for Moses. The scribes thus sought to hide the reproach or disgrace that might be brought upon the name of Moses because of Jonathan’s action. In addition to the altered Masoretic text, “Manasseh’s” appears in the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209 of the Greek Septuagint and in the Syriac Peshitta. However, “Moses’” is found in the Alexandrine Manuscript of the Greek Septuagint and in the Latin Vulgate at Judges 18:30. *** it-2 p. 349 Mash ***
At 1 Chronicles 1:17 the Masoretic text reads “Meshech” instead of “Mash.” But this is probably a scribal error since Meshech is listed as a “son” of Japheth.—Ge 10:2; 1Ch 1:5. *** it-2 p. 396 Michmas(h) ***
According to 1 Samuel 13:5, the Philistine forces at Michmash included 30,000 war chariots. This number is far greater than that involved in several other military expeditions (compare Jg 4:13; 2Ch 12:2, 3; 14:9), and it is hard to imagine how so many war chariots could have been used in mountainous terrain. For this reason 30,000 is generally viewed as a scribal error. The Syriac Peshitta and the Lagardian edition of the Greek Septuagint read 3,000, and numerous Bible translations follow this rendering. (AT, JB, Mo) However, even lower figures have been suggested. *** it-2 p. 398 Mijamin ***
He may have founded the paternal house of Miniamin mentioned at Nehemiah 12:17 (where the name of the head of that house appears to have been an inadvertent scribal omission in the Hebrew text).  
*** it-2 p. 938 Shuppim ***
Since the last three characters of his name in Hebrew (Shup·pimʹ) are identical to the last three characters of the previous term (behth ha·ʼasup·pimʹ), scholars suspect that it is a dittograph (an unintentional scribal repetition), therefore, in this verse, not the name of a person.—Compare 1Ch 26:10, 11. *** it-2 p. 1112 Tob-adonijah ***
(2Ch 17:7-9) Reference to Adonijah and Tobijah in the same verse leads some scholars to believe this name is a scribal dittograph, that is, an inadvertent repetition. And of course there are other issues with the variations in manuscripts. The NWT shows "18 years" for both of the following, but several major texts actually show 8 years in 2 Chronicles 36:9 and 18 in 2 Kings 24:8.
(2 Kings 24:8) 8 Je·hoiʹa·chin was 18 years old when he became king, and he reigned for three months in Jerusalem. . . . (2 Chronicles 36:9) 9 Je·hoiʹa·chin was 8 years old when he became king, and he reigned for three months and ten days in Jerusalem. So the Watchtower publications speak very appreciatively of the critical textual studies by scholars that have helped to identify some of these scribal errors and correct them.
*** it-2 p. 313 Manuscripts of the Bible ***
Despite the care exercised by copyists of Bible manuscripts, a number of small scribal errors and alterations crept into the text. On the whole, these are insignificant and have no bearing on the Bible’s general integrity. They have been detected and corrected by means of careful scholastic collation or critical comparison of the many extant manuscripts and ancient versions. Critical study of the Hebrew text of the Scriptures commenced toward the end of the 18th century. Where possible, the Watchtower publications seek to avoid admitting scribal errors even if we have no better explanation currently:
*** it-2 p. 489 Nehemiah, Book of ***
However, there are differences in the numbers given for each family or house, and the individual figures in both listings yield a total of far less than 42,360. Many scholars would attribute these variations to scribal errors. While this aspect cannot be completely ignored, there are other possible explanations for the differences. It may be that Ezra and Nehemiah based their listings on different sources. -----------NOTE------------
For anyone just scanning quickly across this  post and wondering why there is so much about scribal errors here, it's because I'm responding to Foreigner's assertion that if one looks at Scripture as if it might have error in it, then their scholarship cannot be trusted. Yet, there are literally more than a thousand places where the Watchtower believes that errors have crept into the Biblical texts that are relied upon to translate the NWT or any other Bible translation. This is one of the reasons the persons who have worked on scholarly Bible dictionaries and Bible translation itself have expressed appreciation for scholars who have looked into errors and potential errors. The assertion is therefore not true that just because a scholar might look into potential errors that this makes their scholarship automatically unstrustworthy.
 

I think a difference of 10,000 years should not be of much consequence either. After all a day with Jehovah is 1,000 years, so in His eyes, it's only 10 days. A lot of this interest is built up because of the idea that the 7th day of creation, the day of rest from creating everything in 6 days, must take 7,000 years. Therefore, there would be 6,000 years of human existence (after Eve) and a 1,000 year reign all fitting into the 7th - 7,000 year day.
But none of that stuff about a 7,000 year day is in the Bible. When we realize that this is all conjecture and speculation, we should realize that we are trying to tread in an area that Jehovah said was only in his own jurisdiction: the times and the seasons. Even angels didn't delve into this topic, and angels know exactly when the first 6,000 years of the 7th creative day begin and end. Knowing that 90% of chronology in the Bible is determined through genealogies, we might also realize that Paul was right:
(1 Timothy 1:4-7) . . .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. 5 Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on so strongly. Verse 5, by the way, is a perfect alternative but positive statement about the objective of Christianity.

Let's not take this too far out of context. The suggestion was not generally about "the unity experienced by Jehovah's Witnesses today" but about historical value of the unity of belief we have held with respect to chronology. What I actually said was:
From the very start --from the first few issues of the Watchtower in 1879-- the idea has been that true Christians fell into two camps:
"Wise virgins" who understood that a "Midnight Cry!" had gone out somewhere around 1859 (halfway between 1844 and 1874).  "Foolish virgins" who do not prepare based on the content of the call that began going out before 1874, and who therefore do not understand that the door to the marriage feast is closing, and the need to believe in this chronology as it is the specific thing that separates the wise from the foolish virgins. They need to believe in the chronology to get their lamps in order by 1878  . . . then by 1881. The person responsible for bringing the news of this "midnight cry" "herald of the morning" or "herald of Christ's presence in 1874" would be the individual identified as the "faithful and wise servant." This belief that Jesus' presence had begun in 1874 was the basis for the name "Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence" since 1874. The belief that his presence had begun in 1874 remained with us until 1943/1944. 70 years of a false teaching. In those 70 years, how many spoke up against this false teaching? 
Due to the significance given to the year 1874 and a 40 year harvest timed from 1878 to 1918, the 1878 date remained with us from about 1922 until about 1961 as the beginning of the "Elijah" work, after which they were finally considered "false" doctrines. Although tying Russell to Elijah is evidently making a comeback.
*** w13 7/15 p. 11 par. 6 “Look! I Am With You All the Days” ***
6 What is the larger fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy? During the decades leading up to 1914, C. T. Russell and his close associates did a work like that of John the Baptizer. *** kr chap. 2 p. 14 par. 6 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven ***
Those taking the lead among them—Charles T. Russell and his close associates—did, indeed, act as the foretold “messenger,”
But, still, the emphasis on dates was admitted to be the reason for the predictions that did not come true for 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925 the 1970's and then for the remainder of the twentieth century. All the predictions from the 1950's through the 1990's about how the generation that was old enough to witness and understand the sign in 1914 would not die out before Armageddon also turned out to be false predictions. The prediction that young persons ready to graduate high school in the late 1960's would never grow old in this system turned out to be false. The predictions from 1919 through 1925 that "millions now living will never die" turned out to be a false prediction.
Wisdom is proved righteous by its works. So I was talking about the practical aspect of our preaching work. Some of it has been tainted with the attraction of false predictions. The distraction of dates. The fact that Jesus said not to go after those who declare that they know the time is at hand. And we know that making false predictions in the name of Jehovah is a form of uncleanness. If we are truly concerned with keeping the congregation clean we should all do our part to help root out all forms of uncleanness.
Jesus did; Peter did; Paul did. But it's no wonder so many missed it, with all this emphasis on dates.

Every one of those exact quotes were copied from our own Insight book to show that we appreciate the work of scholars, even those who deal with potential errors. It could easily have gone on to twice that length from the Insight book alone, or 100 times that length if we were to look at all the corrections to the Bible text that the NWT accepts from textual critics and scholars. I was addressing a false prejudice that we should dismiss the work of all scholars who have pointed out potential errors in the text.
We can look at the evidence and call it a "rehash of old rehashes" or we can look at the flimsy lack of evidence in our repeated attempts to dismiss the evidence and see that as a "rehash of old rehashes." But it's pretty clear to me that we have barely even scratched the surface of the evidence against the Scripturalness of the 1914 theory, and yet it's always the same old flimsy ideas that get put forward as a defense, as if Ptolemy's Canon, VAT4956 were all-important, and as if Neo-Babylonian evidence is always tainted and untrustworthy -- except when we need it to cherry-pick data for a theory.
Yes. It always comes back to whether we can claim we were right about 1914, and how, decades in advance, we predicted this particular change of an epoch, and that this is proof that Jehovah's spirit must have been backing this particular theory of Bible chronology. And this idea about our own history, untrue as it is, keeps getting repeated as if repetition is going to make it true.
I'm as convinced as you are that 1914 was an important historical date. And I'm also convinced that it is both dishonest and unscriptural to pretend that we were able to delve into Jehovah's jurisdiction over the times and seasons and predict this era decades in advance. It's true that I hope that our honesty will tear down these pretensions of secular scholarship that supposedly underpin the false doctrine. But I make no claims of being a scholar. My point is about honesty and the cleanliness of the congregation. If we see someone taking a false step, we should speak up to that person, and if they don't listen, we should take it to the congregation.
We have a wonderful and powerful Bible message that has an appeal based on common sense and a desire for truth. We don't participate in divisive politics and murderous wars. We worship a God that is knowable, and we don't turn him into a mysterious multi-personalitied entity. We don't teach that he literally punishes with torture, and we can therefore properly focus on his justice, mercy, patience and love. We use the Bible's principles, examples and motivations as the highest moral guide.
And, of course, there is much more that is wonderful and appealing and valuable about our doctrines and practices. But this doesn't mean that we have ever been right about chronology, just as we were never right about the hundreds of doctrines based on turning any and all Bible narratives and Bible parables into prophecies that were (more often than not) supposedly predicting events around 1918 and 1919, and adjusted as needed to refer to events in 1922, 1931, 1935, even as late as 1942.
It's human nature to want to get accolades, be presumptuous, be prideful, and want to bask in our own egos. It's also human nature to want to enhance our resume especially if we think it will make more people follow our lead. There is evidence that this is what we have been doing with chronology since the very first Watch Tower publications, and we could become complicit in the dishonesty if we find ourselves trying to ignore it at all costs.
You don't actually recall that from me. You did claim that this is what I thought on a couple of occasions, but I always corrected you. No I don't think that Jesus is going to come back in the flesh. I believe he returns as a powerful spirit creature and the entire world will get a glimpse of the glory of unapproachable light, during the revelation of his glory, the manifestation of his parousia.
(1 Timothy 6:14-16) . . . until the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . .He is the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords, 16 the one alone having immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. . . . (1 Peter 3:18-4:13) . . .He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit. . . .  through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He is at God’s right hand, for he went to heaven, and angels and authorities and powers were made subject to him. . . .   But the end of all things has drawn close. Therefore, be sound in mind, and be vigilant with a view to prayers.  Above all things, have intense love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins. 9 Be hospitable to one another without grumbling. . . .  On the contrary, go on rejoicing over the extent to which you are sharers in the sufferings of the Christ, so that you may rejoice and be overjoyed also during the revelation of his glory. The Bible does speak of an invisible presence, wherever two or three are gathered in his name, and that this situation would last until the "synteleia." (Matthew 28:20) But the Bible never speaks of an invisible "parousia." In fact the Bible says that the "parousia" is like lightning that shines brightly from one end of the horizon all the way to the other. That is hardly an illustration meant to convey invisibility. I don't doubt that we are seeing signs that indicate we are in the last days, and just as Timothy and Peter say, as quoted above, that Jesus has been in kingly power since his resurrection, so we know he rules as king and will continue to rule as king of his kingdom until the last enemy death is brought to nothing.
(1 Corinthians 15:25, 26) 25 For he must rule as king [sit at God's right hand] until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing. Our basic message that we preach is still therefore intact. I am only hoping that we no longer mix the message with murky secular chronology that associates Christ's return in Kingdom power with a generation of increased wickedness and bloodshed. I am hoping that we no longer mix the message with a murky secular chronology that makes a wicked violent idol-worshiping Gentile king represent the glorious Messianic Kingdom of Christ.
(2 Corinthians 6:14-16) . . .For what fellowship do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what sharing does light have with darkness? 15 Further, what harmony is there between Christ and Beʹli·al? Or what does a believer share in common with an unbeliever? 16 And what agreement does God’s temple have with idols?. . .  

Even after all this time you still appear confused about what VAT4956 is. It's a diary of some astronomical events that were observed in YEAR 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. When scholars of all kinds check these events against the year in which they must have happened they see that the year these observations were made can only match 568. Even Furuli admits that most of the readings on the tablet can only match 568.
Any amateur can also look up in an astronomy program to see what year is matched by these observations.
Now if you had a diary that observed the positions of the moon and planets for your 37th year you would also be able to look up what calendar year this must have been by using an astronomy program. But let's say you also:
got married in your 18th year and got divorced in your 28th year and your house burned down in your 30th year and your father got sick in your 35th year According to you, these other events in your life evidently didn't happen because you didn't mention them in that diary you kept in your 37th year.
You must be confused about this tablet. Almost as if you are conflating it with some portions of the Babylonian Chronicles. "As far as this tablet is concerned" Jerusalem might have never existed and Jehoiakim might have been the Pharaoh of Egypt. Neither are mentioned at all. We know nothing of Jerusalem or Jehoiakim from the diary. We only know that it provides evidence to know in what year Nebuchadnezzar must have reigned from his accession year and every year after that up to his 37th year.
I wish you didn't use superfluous question marks, partial sentences as full sentences, and superfluous commas in exactly the same way that Allen Smith does. It makes your writing just as hard to understand as his. But I agree that this tablet doesn't have the value that people give it. Furuli, for example, seems to pretend that it is the most important document in the evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year was 587. He apparently thinks that if you can damage its reputation that this would change a thing with respect to the date of Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year. Darren Thompson admits to thinking about it in the same way. Scholars know that VAT4956 adds to the overwhelming evidence for the Neo-Babylonian chronology, but that we can take it or leave it and we would still have the same overwhelming evidence for the same Neo-Babylonian chronology. As you say, it's not that important.
Of course you do. And if you can point out any evidence of your claim anywhere, I'm always happy to change my opinion in favor of better evidence.

But you were wrong. Humility and sincerity require that we look at our mistakes and try not to repeat them.
And Babylonian dates are verified by Greek sources, Persian sources, tens of thousands of clay tablets, and also with Babylonian chronicles. The Babylonian sources are verified in the same way as Persian sources. The weaknesses in these sources affect the Persian rulers in the same way as they affect the Neo-Babylonian rulers. The strengths in these sources do the same.
This is only one of the ways in which Persian dates have been counted. Olympiads is also one of the ways in which we can "reliably" learn that the date for Jerusalem's fall is not the date that the Watchtower has promoted. The Olympiad dating is further evidence to confirm the interlocking dates of the entire period.
The organization uses the Babylonian chronicles, astronomical diaries and king's lists. The organization relies upon copies of copies of secular sources in order to use secular dates like 539 and 537.
Quote this The Watchtower Society relies upon astronomical calculations to get the secular dates that the organization promotes. The problem with the description of eclipses is not related to the dating of the Neo-Babylonian period.
It's usually true that humility and sincerity are necessary to avoid repeating the same mistakes. If one of the mistakes that is commonly made is to brag about having correctly predicted something decades in advance, but anyone can look up and see that what was predicted decades in advance was something else entirely, then we should look at the motive. I am sure that the "straw man" idea of an organization that "spends their entire time thinking up plots on how to cover up the 'mistake of 1914'" is ridiculous. I would guess that as little time as possible is spent thinking about the mistake of 1914. But if we find dishonesty in 100% of the instances where the topic did come up, we have a right to be suspicious of the motives for bringing it up. Just as you and I have a right to be suspicious of the motives of ex-JWs and apostates who bring up the subject when and if they make false claims about it.
I agree that this could be the crux of the problem. I think it should bother us when we see the 607 theory and the 1914 theory produce contradictions in our literature, purposeful mistranslations of the Hebrew and Greek in our own Bibles, and a string of interpretations of related doctrines that rely on the least likely meanings of the Bible text.
Hopefully, we will stop using these Babylonian dates in our literature. Our repeated rehash of these Babylonian dates implies that the Bible is not sufficient, not enough for us to be fully equipped for every good work. The more one looks into the evidence it appears that it is based on a presumptuous and unscriptural agenda. Not of everything, of course, but just a portion of our teachings, that most of us probably no longer consider "core teachings," anyway. We should be humble enough to look at the Bible and the secular evidence we have imposed upon it with an open mind.
I understand that it makes for better "unity" if we all just go along and gullibly agree with all things, but was it really better for all of us that we kept 1874 as a Biblical teaching up until 1943 and even kept 1878 as part of a Biblical teaching up until the 1960's? The problems that such chronological teachings caused in 1918, 1919, 1925, and 1975 were caused primarily through "unity" but was this really "unity" in the cause of "truth" or of mere conformity to a false teaching?

VAT4956 illustrates exactly what direction one needs to go to get to exactly the 18th and to get to exactly to the 19th year. That's the thing about an astronomical diary that tells you what year aligns to Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year. From there you know what direction you need to go to reach the 18th and 19th years or any other prior year in his reign. And it does this from the front side. It does this from the back side. And it does this from both sides.
If you go back to the post you made here on Saturday, 12/23, the one with the Map of the Ancient Near East, you can see that you went from a mistaken or unproven premise and then said that this [false premise] was why VAT4956 tells us nothing about the 18-19 years, and that VAT4956 can only be used to show what his first (accession) year was. As you said:
While it's true that knowing his 37th year was 568 will also tell you that his accession year was 605, it ALSO tells you that:
his first year was 604 and his 18th year was 587 and his 19th year was 586 and his 36th year was 569 and his 35th year was 570. It pinpoints which year matches every regnal year from 605 to 568. Claiming otherwise is a math mistake just as false as claiming that 4+1=6, or worse, really. It is the same as saying: If 568+37 = 605, then 568+36=0 [nothing] and 568+1=0[nothing] and 568+19=0[nothing]. You made an incorrect conjecture, rather than basing what you said on scholarly findings or scripture or simple math.
This is "word salad" with non-sequiturious dressing. 
We can if it will help. But for nearly half its existence the Watchtower, along with educated people like Fred Franz, believed and promoted a "Bible" chronology that we now admit is false. Franz, Russell, Rutherford all had plenty of Bible understanding, yet two of them taught a Bible chronology until they died, that the Watchtower now considers to be false. They used the term "absolute" and "God's dates, not ours" incorrectly. An archaeologist can correctly make use of the term "absolute" even if they are talking about a style of canoe made in New Guinea. They need absolutely no Bible understanding to use the term with its correct scholarly meaning.
Quite the opposite of justifying how contradictory it would be. You are veering off into bad math again. VAT4956 tells you to start . . .
his 17th year in 588, his 18th year in 587 his 19th year in 586 his 20th year in 585 his 27th year in 578 his 37th year in 568 If you really can't see where it does "indicate in VAT4956 where one should start to view 587 BC specifically," then you shouldn't be  talking about contradictory evidence or what VAT4956 does and does not indicate. Secular chronology does not place the 18th and 19th year where it "wishes."
More word salad.
This is irrelevant to the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. Would you say that the Watchtower publications are biased because they look at the books of Kings and Chronicles with errors? Note, how the Insight book inserts the bracketed words "actually, the fifteenth" instead of "the thirty-fifth" year of Asa. If you read "Insight" you will see that it suggests that the Bible contains scribal errors in several other books, too.
*** it-1 p. 184 Asa ***
So, too, the apparent difference between the statement at 2 Chronicles 15:19 to the effect that, as for “war, it did not occur down to the thirty-fifth [actually, the fifteenth] year of Asa’s reign,” It is not necessary to read the rest of this post, but it covers not even half of the potential scribal errors that the Watchtower publications have made reference to in the attempt to correct errors in the Bible text. I'm sure you are aware that there is even a chronology "glitch" in the book of Daniel that the Watchtower publications have discussed at length so that the meaning we give this verse is quite different from the actual statements in Daniel.
*** it-1 p. 412 Capital ***
(1Ki 7:15, 16) In view of the passages indicating that the capitals were five cubits high, a number of scholars have concluded that the reference to “three cubits” in 2 Kings 25:17 is a scribal error. That is why some Bible translations (for example, JB, NAB) have replaced “three cubits” with “five cubits.” *** it-1 p. 570 Daleth ***
The fourth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. There is considerable similarity between the letters daʹleth [ד] and rehsh [ר], allowing for possible scribal errors in copying. This may account for various differences in spelling, such as that of the “Rodanim” at 1 Chronicles 1:7 and the “Dodanim” at Genesis 10:4. *** it-1 p. 619 Deuel ***
In the Masoretic text and the Syriac Peshitta, he is called “Reuel” at Numbers 2:14. This may be due to a scribal error, since the Hebrew letters for “D” and “R” are very similar and the name “Deuel” does, in fact, appear at Numbers 2:14 in the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Latin Vulgate, and over a hundred Hebrew manuscripts. *** it-1 pp. 626-627 Dimon ***
. . . Dibon did not stand by any large “waters,” it being a considerable distance from the nearest wadi, the Arnon. They suggest, therefore, that Dimon may be a scribal alteration of Madmen, mentioned in Jeremiah’s condemnation of Moab (Jer 48:2), and usually identified with Dimna, about 4 km (2.5 mi) WNW of Rabbath-Moab, on a height dominating the waters of the ʽAin el-Megheisil to the SE.  Both views are conjectural, the latter having in its favor identification with a site associated with waters, which the context seems to require. *** it-1 p. 706 Elhanan ***
In 2 Samuel 21:19 Elhanan is identified as “the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite,” and it is said that he struck down Goliath. However, many scholars think that the original reading of 2 Samuel 21:19 corresponded to 1 Chronicles 20:5, the differences in the two texts having arisen through scribal error. *** it-1 p. 718 Elishama ***
This Elishama is listed as Elishua in 2 Samuel 5:15, in 1 Chronicles 14:5, and in two Hebrew manuscripts at 1 Chronicles 3:6. Elishua is generally considered to be the correct name, as the name Elishama appears again in 1 Chronicles 3:8 and therefore could easily have crept into verse 6 through a scribal error. *** it-1 p. 929 Gibeah ***
The Hebrew spellings of Geba (masculine form of the word meaning “Hill”) and Gibeah (feminine form of the term meaning “Hill”) are almost identical. Many believe that this has resulted in scribal errors in the Masoretic text and therefore recommend changing certain scriptures to read “Geba” instead of “Gibeah,” and vice versa. *** it-1 p. 1015 Hadadezer ***
This could account for their being called “horsemen” at 2 Samuel 10:18 and “men on foot” at 1 Chronicles 19:18. The difference in the number of Syrian charioteers killed in battle is usually attributed to scribal error, the lower figure of 700 charioteers being considered the correct one. *** it-1 p. 1015 Hadadezer ***
The variation in the enumeration of these at 2 Samuel 8:4 and 1 Chronicles 18:4 may have arisen through scribal error. In the Greek Septuagint both passages indicate that 1,000 chariots and 7,000 horsemen were captured, and therefore 1 Chronicles 18:4 perhaps preserves the original reading. *** it-1 p. 1145 Horse ***
However, David’s son and successor, Solomon, began to accumulate thousands of horses. (1Ki 4:26 [here “forty thousand stalls of horses” is generally believed to be a scribal error for “four thousand”]; compare 2Ch 9:25.) *** it-1 p. 1166 Ibleam ***
. . . (Jos 21:25) reads “Gath-rimmon” instead of “Bileam” or “Ibleam.” Generally this is attributed to scribal error, “Gath-rimmon,” the name of a city in Dan, probably having been inadvertently repeated from verse 24. *** it-1 p. 1239 Jaare-oregim ***
A name appearing only at 2 Samuel 21:19. It is generally believed that scribal error has given rise to this name and that the correct reading is preserved in the parallel text at 1 Chronicles 20:5. “Jaare” is considered to be an alteration of “Jair,” and “oregim” (ʼo·reghimʹ, “weavers” or “loom workers”) is thought to have been copied inadvertently from a line below in the same verse. *** it-2 p. 87 Johanan ***
Grandson of Eliashib, the high priest contemporary with Nehemiah. His being called Jonathan in Nehemiah 12:11 is probably due to a scribal error, as the names “Johanan” and “Jonathan” are very similar in Hebrew. *** it-2 p. 113 Josheb-basshebeth ***
There are other scribal difficulties with the text in 2 Samuel 23:8, making it necessary for the obscure Hebrew in the Masoretic text (which appears to read, “He was Adino the Eznite”) to be corrected to read “He was brandishing his spear.” (NW) Other modern translations read similarly. (AT; RS; Mo; Ro, ftn; JB) Thus Samuel is made to agree with the book of Chronicles and with the construction pattern in this section of material. It is “the three” that are being discussed, but to introduce another name, Adino, makes four. *** it-2 p. 177 Kite ***
The Deuteronomy list contains ra·ʼahʹ in place of da·ʼahʹ, as in Leviticus, but this is considered to be probably due to a scribal substitution of the Hebrew equivalent of “r” (ר) for “d” (ד), the letters being very similar in appearance. And then there are more complicated errors to deal with when the text that is preferred for the NWT Hebrew Scriptures is based on the Masoretic text which makes changes from phrases like "Jehovah cursed" to "Jehovah blessed," and even makes changes like the following one:
*** it-2 p. 307 Manasseh ***
. A name appearing in the Masoretic text at Judges 18:30, because of scribal modification. The account concerns Danite apostasy, and the New World Translation says that “Jonathan the son of Gershom, Moses’ son, he and his sons became priests to the tribe of the Danites.” (See also AT; Mo; Ro; RS.) Jewish scribes inserted a suspended letter (nun = n) between the first two letters in the original Hebrew name so as to give the reading “Manasseh’s” instead of “Moses’,” doing so out of regard for Moses. The scribes thus sought to hide the reproach or disgrace that might be brought upon the name of Moses because of Jonathan’s action. In addition to the altered Masoretic text, “Manasseh’s” appears in the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209 of the Greek Septuagint and in the Syriac Peshitta. However, “Moses’” is found in the Alexandrine Manuscript of the Greek Septuagint and in the Latin Vulgate at Judges 18:30. *** it-2 p. 349 Mash ***
At 1 Chronicles 1:17 the Masoretic text reads “Meshech” instead of “Mash.” But this is probably a scribal error since Meshech is listed as a “son” of Japheth.—Ge 10:2; 1Ch 1:5. *** it-2 p. 396 Michmas(h) ***
According to 1 Samuel 13:5, the Philistine forces at Michmash included 30,000 war chariots. This number is far greater than that involved in several other military expeditions (compare Jg 4:13; 2Ch 12:2, 3; 14:9), and it is hard to imagine how so many war chariots could have been used in mountainous terrain. For this reason 30,000 is generally viewed as a scribal error. The Syriac Peshitta and the Lagardian edition of the Greek Septuagint read 3,000, and numerous Bible translations follow this rendering. (AT, JB, Mo) However, even lower figures have been suggested. *** it-2 p. 398 Mijamin ***
He may have founded the paternal house of Miniamin mentioned at Nehemiah 12:17 (where the name of the head of that house appears to have been an inadvertent scribal omission in the Hebrew text).  
*** it-2 p. 938 Shuppim ***
Since the last three characters of his name in Hebrew (Shup·pimʹ) are identical to the last three characters of the previous term (behth ha·ʼasup·pimʹ), scholars suspect that it is a dittograph (an unintentional scribal repetition), therefore, in this verse, not the name of a person.—Compare 1Ch 26:10, 11. *** it-2 p. 1112 Tob-adonijah ***
(2Ch 17:7-9) Reference to Adonijah and Tobijah in the same verse leads some scholars to believe this name is a scribal dittograph, that is, an inadvertent repetition. And of course there are other issues with the variations in manuscripts. The NWT shows "18 years" for both of the following, but several major texts actually show 8 years in 2 Chronicles 36:9 and 18 in 2 Kings 24:8.
(2 Kings 24:8) 8 Je·hoiʹa·chin was 18 years old when he became king, and he reigned for three months in Jerusalem. . . . (2 Chronicles 36:9) 9 Je·hoiʹa·chin was 8 years old when he became king, and he reigned for three months and ten days in Jerusalem. So the Watchtower publications speak very appreciatively of the critical textual studies by scholars that have helped to identify some of these scribal errors and correct them.
*** it-2 p. 313 Manuscripts of the Bible ***
Despite the care exercised by copyists of Bible manuscripts, a number of small scribal errors and alterations crept into the text. On the whole, these are insignificant and have no bearing on the Bible’s general integrity. They have been detected and corrected by means of careful scholastic collation or critical comparison of the many extant manuscripts and ancient versions. Critical study of the Hebrew text of the Scriptures commenced toward the end of the 18th century. Where possible, the Watchtower publications seek to avoid admitting scribal errors even if we have no better explanation currently:
*** it-2 p. 489 Nehemiah, Book of ***
However, there are differences in the numbers given for each family or house, and the individual figures in both listings yield a total of far less than 42,360. Many scholars would attribute these variations to scribal errors. While this aspect cannot be completely ignored, there are other possible explanations for the differences. It may be that Ezra and Nehemiah based their listings on different sources. -----------NOTE------------
For anyone just scanning quickly across this  post and wondering why there is so much about scribal errors here, it's because I'm responding to Foreigner's assertion that if one looks at Scripture as if it might have error in it, then their scholarship cannot be trusted. Yet, there are literally more than a thousand places where the Watchtower believes that errors have crept into the Biblical texts that are relied upon to translate the NWT or any other Bible translation. This is one of the reasons the persons who have worked on scholarly Bible dictionaries and Bible translation itself have expressed appreciation for scholars who have looked into errors and potential errors. The assertion is therefore not true that just because a scholar might look into potential errors that this makes their scholarship automatically unstrustworthy.
 

I think a difference of 10,000 years should not be of much consequence either. After all a day with Jehovah is 1,000 years, so in His eyes, it's only 10 days. A lot of this interest is built up because of the idea that the 7th day of creation, the day of rest from creating everything in 6 days, must take 7,000 years. Therefore, there would be 6,000 years of human existence (after Eve) and a 1,000 year reign all fitting into the 7th - 7,000 year day.
But none of that stuff about a 7,000 year day is in the Bible. When we realize that this is all conjecture and speculation, we should realize that we are trying to tread in an area that Jehovah said was only in his own jurisdiction: the times and the seasons. Even angels didn't delve into this topic, and angels know exactly when the first 6,000 years of the 7th creative day begin and end. Knowing that 90% of chronology in the Bible is determined through genealogies, we might also realize that Paul was right:
(1 Timothy 1:4-7) . . .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. 5 Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on so strongly. Verse 5, by the way, is a perfect alternative but positive statement about the objective of Christianity.

Nebuchadnezzar was a Gentile (as was Cyrus). Both were used to mete out a measure of Jehovah's punishment, from the beginning of the greatest punishment they had seen up until that time (Neb) and the means to an end of that punishment by freeing them from exile in Babylon (Cyrus).
The problem is the loose manner in which the prophecy about Nebuchadnezzar is treated. When haughty Nebuchadnezzar has been taught a lesson and recognizes his guilt, only then is he returned to his throne. Wicked Nebuchadnezzar's return to the throne represents the fact that the most righteous person ever, Jesus, can now sit on the throne of God's Messianic Kingdom in 1914. Did Jesus learn a lesson about haughtiness? Did he recognize his guilt so as to be placed on the throne? And how is it that we say that the times of Gentile kings ENDED in 1914, when it was represented by a CONTINUATION of Nebuchadnezzar's Gentile kingdom. For decades prior to 1914 (and another decade beyond 1914) we said that the Jewish nation in Palestine would be the only remaining kingdom on earth after 1914. Did God's Kingdom really crush and put an end to all the Gentile kingdoms in 1914. Is this what we want people to believe is meant by Jesus taking his great power and ruling as king?
When Greece (Antiochus Epiphanes) and Rome (under Titus/Vespasian) stood against Jehovah's center of worship in Jerusalem they were referred to as "the disgusting thing." Nebuchadnezzar starves and kills thousands of Jehovah's people, executes officials, burns Jehovah's temple to the ground and yet, somehow, this Gentile represents the non-Gentile Messianic Kingdom.

Every one of those exact quotes were copied from our own Insight book to show that we appreciate the work of scholars, even those who deal with potential errors. It could easily have gone on to twice that length from the Insight book alone, or 100 times that length if we were to look at all the corrections to the Bible text that the NWT accepts from textual critics and scholars. I was addressing a false prejudice that we should dismiss the work of all scholars who have pointed out potential errors in the text.
We can look at the evidence and call it a "rehash of old rehashes" or we can look at the flimsy lack of evidence in our repeated attempts to dismiss the evidence and see that as a "rehash of old rehashes." But it's pretty clear to me that we have barely even scratched the surface of the evidence against the Scripturalness of the 1914 theory, and yet it's always the same old flimsy ideas that get put forward as a defense, as if Ptolemy's Canon, VAT4956 were all-important, and as if Neo-Babylonian evidence is always tainted and untrustworthy -- except when we need it to cherry-pick data for a theory.
Yes. It always comes back to whether we can claim we were right about 1914, and how, decades in advance, we predicted this particular change of an epoch, and that this is proof that Jehovah's spirit must have been backing this particular theory of Bible chronology. And this idea about our own history, untrue as it is, keeps getting repeated as if repetition is going to make it true.
I'm as convinced as you are that 1914 was an important historical date. And I'm also convinced that it is both dishonest and unscriptural to pretend that we were able to delve into Jehovah's jurisdiction over the times and seasons and predict this era decades in advance. It's true that I hope that our honesty will tear down these pretensions of secular scholarship that supposedly underpin the false doctrine. But I make no claims of being a scholar. My point is about honesty and the cleanliness of the congregation. If we see someone taking a false step, we should speak up to that person, and if they don't listen, we should take it to the congregation.
We have a wonderful and powerful Bible message that has an appeal based on common sense and a desire for truth. We don't participate in divisive politics and murderous wars. We worship a God that is knowable, and we don't turn him into a mysterious multi-personalitied entity. We don't teach that he literally punishes with torture, and we can therefore properly focus on his justice, mercy, patience and love. We use the Bible's principles, examples and motivations as the highest moral guide.
And, of course, there is much more that is wonderful and appealing and valuable about our doctrines and practices. But this doesn't mean that we have ever been right about chronology, just as we were never right about the hundreds of doctrines based on turning any and all Bible narratives and Bible parables into prophecies that were (more often than not) supposedly predicting events around 1918 and 1919, and adjusted as needed to refer to events in 1922, 1931, 1935, even as late as 1942.
It's human nature to want to get accolades, be presumptuous, be prideful, and want to bask in our own egos. It's also human nature to want to enhance our resume especially if we think it will make more people follow our lead. There is evidence that this is what we have been doing with chronology since the very first Watch Tower publications, and we could become complicit in the dishonesty if we find ourselves trying to ignore it at all costs.
You don't actually recall that from me. You did claim that this is what I thought on a couple of occasions, but I always corrected you. No I don't think that Jesus is going to come back in the flesh. I believe he returns as a powerful spirit creature and the entire world will get a glimpse of the glory of unapproachable light, during the revelation of his glory, the manifestation of his parousia.
(1 Timothy 6:14-16) . . . until the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . .He is the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords, 16 the one alone having immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. . . . (1 Peter 3:18-4:13) . . .He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit. . . .  through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He is at God’s right hand, for he went to heaven, and angels and authorities and powers were made subject to him. . . .   But the end of all things has drawn close. Therefore, be sound in mind, and be vigilant with a view to prayers.  Above all things, have intense love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins. 9 Be hospitable to one another without grumbling. . . .  On the contrary, go on rejoicing over the extent to which you are sharers in the sufferings of the Christ, so that you may rejoice and be overjoyed also during the revelation of his glory. The Bible does speak of an invisible presence, wherever two or three are gathered in his name, and that this situation would last until the "synteleia." (Matthew 28:20) But the Bible never speaks of an invisible "parousia." In fact the Bible says that the "parousia" is like lightning that shines brightly from one end of the horizon all the way to the other. That is hardly an illustration meant to convey invisibility. I don't doubt that we are seeing signs that indicate we are in the last days, and just as Timothy and Peter say, as quoted above, that Jesus has been in kingly power since his resurrection, so we know he rules as king and will continue to rule as king of his kingdom until the last enemy death is brought to nothing.
(1 Corinthians 15:25, 26) 25 For he must rule as king [sit at God's right hand] until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing. Our basic message that we preach is still therefore intact. I am only hoping that we no longer mix the message with murky secular chronology that associates Christ's return in Kingdom power with a generation of increased wickedness and bloodshed. I am hoping that we no longer mix the message with a murky secular chronology that makes a wicked violent idol-worshiping Gentile king represent the glorious Messianic Kingdom of Christ.
(2 Corinthians 6:14-16) . . .For what fellowship do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what sharing does light have with darkness? 15 Further, what harmony is there between Christ and Beʹli·al? Or what does a believer share in common with an unbeliever? 16 And what agreement does God’s temple have with idols?. . .  

Even after all this time you still appear confused about what VAT4956 is. It's a diary of some astronomical events that were observed in YEAR 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. When scholars of all kinds check these events against the year in which they must have happened they see that the year these observations were made can only match 568. Even Furuli admits that most of the readings on the tablet can only match 568.
Any amateur can also look up in an astronomy program to see what year is matched by these observations.
Now if you had a diary that observed the positions of the moon and planets for your 37th year you would also be able to look up what calendar year this must have been by using an astronomy program. But let's say you also:
got married in your 18th year and got divorced in your 28th year and your house burned down in your 30th year and your father got sick in your 35th year According to you, these other events in your life evidently didn't happen because you didn't mention them in that diary you kept in your 37th year.
You must be confused about this tablet. Almost as if you are conflating it with some portions of the Babylonian Chronicles. "As far as this tablet is concerned" Jerusalem might have never existed and Jehoiakim might have been the Pharaoh of Egypt. Neither are mentioned at all. We know nothing of Jerusalem or Jehoiakim from the diary. We only know that it provides evidence to know in what year Nebuchadnezzar must have reigned from his accession year and every year after that up to his 37th year.
I wish you didn't use superfluous question marks, partial sentences as full sentences, and superfluous commas in exactly the same way that Allen Smith does. It makes your writing just as hard to understand as his. But I agree that this tablet doesn't have the value that people give it. Furuli, for example, seems to pretend that it is the most important document in the evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year was 587. He apparently thinks that if you can damage its reputation that this would change a thing with respect to the date of Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year. Darren Thompson admits to thinking about it in the same way. Scholars know that VAT4956 adds to the overwhelming evidence for the Neo-Babylonian chronology, but that we can take it or leave it and we would still have the same overwhelming evidence for the same Neo-Babylonian chronology. As you say, it's not that important.
Of course you do. And if you can point out any evidence of your claim anywhere, I'm always happy to change my opinion in favor of better evidence.

But you were wrong. Humility and sincerity require that we look at our mistakes and try not to repeat them.
And Babylonian dates are verified by Greek sources, Persian sources, tens of thousands of clay tablets, and also with Babylonian chronicles. The Babylonian sources are verified in the same way as Persian sources. The weaknesses in these sources affect the Persian rulers in the same way as they affect the Neo-Babylonian rulers. The strengths in these sources do the same.
This is only one of the ways in which Persian dates have been counted. Olympiads is also one of the ways in which we can "reliably" learn that the date for Jerusalem's fall is not the date that the Watchtower has promoted. The Olympiad dating is further evidence to confirm the interlocking dates of the entire period.
The organization uses the Babylonian chronicles, astronomical diaries and king's lists. The organization relies upon copies of copies of secular sources in order to use secular dates like 539 and 537.
Quote this The Watchtower Society relies upon astronomical calculations to get the secular dates that the organization promotes. The problem with the description of eclipses is not related to the dating of the Neo-Babylonian period.
It's usually true that humility and sincerity are necessary to avoid repeating the same mistakes. If one of the mistakes that is commonly made is to brag about having correctly predicted something decades in advance, but anyone can look up and see that what was predicted decades in advance was something else entirely, then we should look at the motive. I am sure that the "straw man" idea of an organization that "spends their entire time thinking up plots on how to cover up the 'mistake of 1914'" is ridiculous. I would guess that as little time as possible is spent thinking about the mistake of 1914. But if we find dishonesty in 100% of the instances where the topic did come up, we have a right to be suspicious of the motives for bringing it up. Just as you and I have a right to be suspicious of the motives of ex-JWs and apostates who bring up the subject when and if they make false claims about it.
I agree that this could be the crux of the problem. I think it should bother us when we see the 607 theory and the 1914 theory produce contradictions in our literature, purposeful mistranslations of the Hebrew and Greek in our own Bibles, and a string of interpretations of related doctrines that rely on the least likely meanings of the Bible text.
Hopefully, we will stop using these Babylonian dates in our literature. Our repeated rehash of these Babylonian dates implies that the Bible is not sufficient, not enough for us to be fully equipped for every good work. The more one looks into the evidence it appears that it is based on a presumptuous and unscriptural agenda. Not of everything, of course, but just a portion of our teachings, that most of us probably no longer consider "core teachings," anyway. We should be humble enough to look at the Bible and the secular evidence we have imposed upon it with an open mind.
I understand that it makes for better "unity" if we all just go along and gullibly agree with all things, but was it really better for all of us that we kept 1874 as a Biblical teaching up until 1943 and even kept 1878 as part of a Biblical teaching up until the 1960's? The problems that such chronological teachings caused in 1918, 1919, 1925, and 1975 were caused primarily through "unity" but was this really "unity" in the cause of "truth" or of mere conformity to a false teaching?

VAT4956 illustrates exactly what direction one needs to go to get to exactly the 18th and to get to exactly to the 19th year. That's the thing about an astronomical diary that tells you what year aligns to Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year. From there you know what direction you need to go to reach the 18th and 19th years or any other prior year in his reign. And it does this from the front side. It does this from the back side. And it does this from both sides.
If you go back to the post you made here on Saturday, 12/23, the one with the Map of the Ancient Near East, you can see that you went from a mistaken or unproven premise and then said that this [false premise] was why VAT4956 tells us nothing about the 18-19 years, and that VAT4956 can only be used to show what his first (accession) year was. As you said:
While it's true that knowing his 37th year was 568 will also tell you that his accession year was 605, it ALSO tells you that:
his first year was 604 and his 18th year was 587 and his 19th year was 586 and his 36th year was 569 and his 35th year was 570. It pinpoints which year matches every regnal year from 605 to 568. Claiming otherwise is a math mistake just as false as claiming that 4+1=6, or worse, really. It is the same as saying: If 568+37 = 605, then 568+36=0 [nothing] and 568+1=0[nothing] and 568+19=0[nothing]. You made an incorrect conjecture, rather than basing what you said on scholarly findings or scripture or simple math.
This is "word salad" with non-sequiturious dressing. 
We can if it will help. But for nearly half its existence the Watchtower, along with educated people like Fred Franz, believed and promoted a "Bible" chronology that we now admit is false. Franz, Russell, Rutherford all had plenty of Bible understanding, yet two of them taught a Bible chronology until they died, that the Watchtower now considers to be false. They used the term "absolute" and "God's dates, not ours" incorrectly. An archaeologist can correctly make use of the term "absolute" even if they are talking about a style of canoe made in New Guinea. They need absolutely no Bible understanding to use the term with its correct scholarly meaning.
Quite the opposite of justifying how contradictory it would be. You are veering off into bad math again. VAT4956 tells you to start . . .
his 17th year in 588, his 18th year in 587 his 19th year in 586 his 20th year in 585 his 27th year in 578 his 37th year in 568 If you really can't see where it does "indicate in VAT4956 where one should start to view 587 BC specifically," then you shouldn't be  talking about contradictory evidence or what VAT4956 does and does not indicate. Secular chronology does not place the 18th and 19th year where it "wishes."
More word salad.
This is irrelevant to the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. Would you say that the Watchtower publications are biased because they look at the books of Kings and Chronicles with errors? Note, how the Insight book inserts the bracketed words "actually, the fifteenth" instead of "the thirty-fifth" year of Asa. If you read "Insight" you will see that it suggests that the Bible contains scribal errors in several other books, too.
*** it-1 p. 184 Asa ***
So, too, the apparent difference between the statement at 2 Chronicles 15:19 to the effect that, as for “war, it did not occur down to the thirty-fifth [actually, the fifteenth] year of Asa’s reign,” It is not necessary to read the rest of this post, but it covers not even half of the potential scribal errors that the Watchtower publications have made reference to in the attempt to correct errors in the Bible text. I'm sure you are aware that there is even a chronology "glitch" in the book of Daniel that the Watchtower publications have discussed at length so that the meaning we give this verse is quite different from the actual statements in Daniel.
*** it-1 p. 412 Capital ***
(1Ki 7:15, 16) In view of the passages indicating that the capitals were five cubits high, a number of scholars have concluded that the reference to “three cubits” in 2 Kings 25:17 is a scribal error. That is why some Bible translations (for example, JB, NAB) have replaced “three cubits” with “five cubits.” *** it-1 p. 570 Daleth ***
The fourth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. There is considerable similarity between the letters daʹleth [ד] and rehsh [ר], allowing for possible scribal errors in copying. This may account for various differences in spelling, such as that of the “Rodanim” at 1 Chronicles 1:7 and the “Dodanim” at Genesis 10:4. *** it-1 p. 619 Deuel ***
In the Masoretic text and the Syriac Peshitta, he is called “Reuel” at Numbers 2:14. This may be due to a scribal error, since the Hebrew letters for “D” and “R” are very similar and the name “Deuel” does, in fact, appear at Numbers 2:14 in the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Latin Vulgate, and over a hundred Hebrew manuscripts. *** it-1 pp. 626-627 Dimon ***
. . . Dibon did not stand by any large “waters,” it being a considerable distance from the nearest wadi, the Arnon. They suggest, therefore, that Dimon may be a scribal alteration of Madmen, mentioned in Jeremiah’s condemnation of Moab (Jer 48:2), and usually identified with Dimna, about 4 km (2.5 mi) WNW of Rabbath-Moab, on a height dominating the waters of the ʽAin el-Megheisil to the SE.  Both views are conjectural, the latter having in its favor identification with a site associated with waters, which the context seems to require. *** it-1 p. 706 Elhanan ***
In 2 Samuel 21:19 Elhanan is identified as “the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite,” and it is said that he struck down Goliath. However, many scholars think that the original reading of 2 Samuel 21:19 corresponded to 1 Chronicles 20:5, the differences in the two texts having arisen through scribal error. *** it-1 p. 718 Elishama ***
This Elishama is listed as Elishua in 2 Samuel 5:15, in 1 Chronicles 14:5, and in two Hebrew manuscripts at 1 Chronicles 3:6. Elishua is generally considered to be the correct name, as the name Elishama appears again in 1 Chronicles 3:8 and therefore could easily have crept into verse 6 through a scribal error. *** it-1 p. 929 Gibeah ***
The Hebrew spellings of Geba (masculine form of the word meaning “Hill”) and Gibeah (feminine form of the term meaning “Hill”) are almost identical. Many believe that this has resulted in scribal errors in the Masoretic text and therefore recommend changing certain scriptures to read “Geba” instead of “Gibeah,” and vice versa. *** it-1 p. 1015 Hadadezer ***
This could account for their being called “horsemen” at 2 Samuel 10:18 and “men on foot” at 1 Chronicles 19:18. The difference in the number of Syrian charioteers killed in battle is usually attributed to scribal error, the lower figure of 700 charioteers being considered the correct one. *** it-1 p. 1015 Hadadezer ***
The variation in the enumeration of these at 2 Samuel 8:4 and 1 Chronicles 18:4 may have arisen through scribal error. In the Greek Septuagint both passages indicate that 1,000 chariots and 7,000 horsemen were captured, and therefore 1 Chronicles 18:4 perhaps preserves the original reading. *** it-1 p. 1145 Horse ***
However, David’s son and successor, Solomon, began to accumulate thousands of horses. (1Ki 4:26 [here “forty thousand stalls of horses” is generally believed to be a scribal error for “four thousand”]; compare 2Ch 9:25.) *** it-1 p. 1166 Ibleam ***
. . . (Jos 21:25) reads “Gath-rimmon” instead of “Bileam” or “Ibleam.” Generally this is attributed to scribal error, “Gath-rimmon,” the name of a city in Dan, probably having been inadvertently repeated from verse 24. *** it-1 p. 1239 Jaare-oregim ***
A name appearing only at 2 Samuel 21:19. It is generally believed that scribal error has given rise to this name and that the correct reading is preserved in the parallel text at 1 Chronicles 20:5. “Jaare” is considered to be an alteration of “Jair,” and “oregim” (ʼo·reghimʹ, “weavers” or “loom workers”) is thought to have been copied inadvertently from a line below in the same verse. *** it-2 p. 87 Johanan ***
Grandson of Eliashib, the high priest contemporary with Nehemiah. His being called Jonathan in Nehemiah 12:11 is probably due to a scribal error, as the names “Johanan” and “Jonathan” are very similar in Hebrew. *** it-2 p. 113 Josheb-basshebeth ***
There are other scribal difficulties with the text in 2 Samuel 23:8, making it necessary for the obscure Hebrew in the Masoretic text (which appears to read, “He was Adino the Eznite”) to be corrected to read “He was brandishing his spear.” (NW) Other modern translations read similarly. (AT; RS; Mo; Ro, ftn; JB) Thus Samuel is made to agree with the book of Chronicles and with the construction pattern in this section of material. It is “the three” that are being discussed, but to introduce another name, Adino, makes four. *** it-2 p. 177 Kite ***
The Deuteronomy list contains ra·ʼahʹ in place of da·ʼahʹ, as in Leviticus, but this is considered to be probably due to a scribal substitution of the Hebrew equivalent of “r” (ר) for “d” (ד), the letters being very similar in appearance. And then there are more complicated errors to deal with when the text that is preferred for the NWT Hebrew Scriptures is based on the Masoretic text which makes changes from phrases like "Jehovah cursed" to "Jehovah blessed," and even makes changes like the following one:
*** it-2 p. 307 Manasseh ***
. A name appearing in the Masoretic text at Judges 18:30, because of scribal modification. The account concerns Danite apostasy, and the New World Translation says that “Jonathan the son of Gershom, Moses’ son, he and his sons became priests to the tribe of the Danites.” (See also AT; Mo; Ro; RS.) Jewish scribes inserted a suspended letter (nun = n) between the first two letters in the original Hebrew name so as to give the reading “Manasseh’s” instead of “Moses’,” doing so out of regard for Moses. The scribes thus sought to hide the reproach or disgrace that might be brought upon the name of Moses because of Jonathan’s action. In addition to the altered Masoretic text, “Manasseh’s” appears in the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209 of the Greek Septuagint and in the Syriac Peshitta. However, “Moses’” is found in the Alexandrine Manuscript of the Greek Septuagint and in the Latin Vulgate at Judges 18:30. *** it-2 p. 349 Mash ***
At 1 Chronicles 1:17 the Masoretic text reads “Meshech” instead of “Mash.” But this is probably a scribal error since Meshech is listed as a “son” of Japheth.—Ge 10:2; 1Ch 1:5. *** it-2 p. 396 Michmas(h) ***
According to 1 Samuel 13:5, the Philistine forces at Michmash included 30,000 war chariots. This number is far greater than that involved in several other military expeditions (compare Jg 4:13; 2Ch 12:2, 3; 14:9), and it is hard to imagine how so many war chariots could have been used in mountainous terrain. For this reason 30,000 is generally viewed as a scribal error. The Syriac Peshitta and the Lagardian edition of the Greek Septuagint read 3,000, and numerous Bible translations follow this rendering. (AT, JB, Mo) However, even lower figures have been suggested. *** it-2 p. 398 Mijamin ***
He may have founded the paternal house of Miniamin mentioned at Nehemiah 12:17 (where the name of the head of that house appears to have been an inadvertent scribal omission in the Hebrew text).  
*** it-2 p. 938 Shuppim ***
Since the last three characters of his name in Hebrew (Shup·pimʹ) are identical to the last three characters of the previous term (behth ha·ʼasup·pimʹ), scholars suspect that it is a dittograph (an unintentional scribal repetition), therefore, in this verse, not the name of a person.—Compare 1Ch 26:10, 11. *** it-2 p. 1112 Tob-adonijah ***
(2Ch 17:7-9) Reference to Adonijah and Tobijah in the same verse leads some scholars to believe this name is a scribal dittograph, that is, an inadvertent repetition. And of course there are other issues with the variations in manuscripts. The NWT shows "18 years" for both of the following, but several major texts actually show 8 years in 2 Chronicles 36:9 and 18 in 2 Kings 24:8.
(2 Kings 24:8) 8 Je·hoiʹa·chin was 18 years old when he became king, and he reigned for three months in Jerusalem. . . . (2 Chronicles 36:9) 9 Je·hoiʹa·chin was 8 years old when he became king, and he reigned for three months and ten days in Jerusalem. So the Watchtower publications speak very appreciatively of the critical textual studies by scholars that have helped to identify some of these scribal errors and correct them.
*** it-2 p. 313 Manuscripts of the Bible ***
Despite the care exercised by copyists of Bible manuscripts, a number of small scribal errors and alterations crept into the text. On the whole, these are insignificant and have no bearing on the Bible’s general integrity. They have been detected and corrected by means of careful scholastic collation or critical comparison of the many extant manuscripts and ancient versions. Critical study of the Hebrew text of the Scriptures commenced toward the end of the 18th century. Where possible, the Watchtower publications seek to avoid admitting scribal errors even if we have no better explanation currently:
*** it-2 p. 489 Nehemiah, Book of ***
However, there are differences in the numbers given for each family or house, and the individual figures in both listings yield a total of far less than 42,360. Many scholars would attribute these variations to scribal errors. While this aspect cannot be completely ignored, there are other possible explanations for the differences. It may be that Ezra and Nehemiah based their listings on different sources. -----------NOTE------------
For anyone just scanning quickly across this  post and wondering why there is so much about scribal errors here, it's because I'm responding to Foreigner's assertion that if one looks at Scripture as if it might have error in it, then their scholarship cannot be trusted. Yet, there are literally more than a thousand places where the Watchtower believes that errors have crept into the Biblical texts that are relied upon to translate the NWT or any other Bible translation. This is one of the reasons the persons who have worked on scholarly Bible dictionaries and Bible translation itself have expressed appreciation for scholars who have looked into errors and potential errors. The assertion is therefore not true that just because a scholar might look into potential errors that this makes their scholarship automatically unstrustworthy.
 

Establishment of 537 BCE for what exactly? The 539 BCE year for the overthrow of Babylon by the Persians is established using Babylonian sources - the Babylonian chronicles, the Babylonian kings list, and the Babylonian astronomical tablets.
The exodus occurred many hundreds of years before our period under discussion so the alleged discrepancy is irrelevant. Egyptian chronology synchronizes with neo-Babylonian dates very well. Rohl does not have an issue with NB dates and agrees with its established timeline. I think this has been pointed out to you before.
The primary Babylonian sources are contemporaneous with the events under discussion so have more evidential weight than histories written by other nations hundreds of years later. 
This is a non-argument. The Bible manuscripts are copies written long after the events they describe. So?
The Insight book uses the Babylonian chronicles to verify Bible events all the time. The organization needs the Babylonian chronicles. I don't know why you imagine otherwise. 
Except that Watchtower takes issue with dates of Artaxerxes I's reign, but that's a whole 'nother topic. Cuneiform tablets give Cyrus a reign of 8 years [Correction: Arauna was right - it was 9 years - my faulty memory]. Both neo-Babylonian and Persian dates of succession are reliable.
False. The most reliable information is NOT 'only a total eclipse.' Planetary and lunar configurations measured relative to fixed stars are reliable information also, and can be useful for dating purposes. Babylonians did properly describe some lunar eclipses so that they can be dated accurately, thereby helping to fix the NB timeline.
I see you've utilized @JW Insider's list of ad hominem's and lobbed one out.

But you were wrong. Humility and sincerity require that we look at our mistakes and try not to repeat them.
And Babylonian dates are verified by Greek sources, Persian sources, tens of thousands of clay tablets, and also with Babylonian chronicles. The Babylonian sources are verified in the same way as Persian sources. The weaknesses in these sources affect the Persian rulers in the same way as they affect the Neo-Babylonian rulers. The strengths in these sources do the same.
This is only one of the ways in which Persian dates have been counted. Olympiads is also one of the ways in which we can "reliably" learn that the date for Jerusalem's fall is not the date that the Watchtower has promoted. The Olympiad dating is further evidence to confirm the interlocking dates of the entire period.
The organization uses the Babylonian chronicles, astronomical diaries and king's lists. The organization relies upon copies of copies of secular sources in order to use secular dates like 539 and 537.
Quote this The Watchtower Society relies upon astronomical calculations to get the secular dates that the organization promotes. The problem with the description of eclipses is not related to the dating of the Neo-Babylonian period.
It's usually true that humility and sincerity are necessary to avoid repeating the same mistakes. If one of the mistakes that is commonly made is to brag about having correctly predicted something decades in advance, but anyone can look up and see that what was predicted decades in advance was something else entirely, then we should look at the motive. I am sure that the "straw man" idea of an organization that "spends their entire time thinking up plots on how to cover up the 'mistake of 1914'" is ridiculous. I would guess that as little time as possible is spent thinking about the mistake of 1914. But if we find dishonesty in 100% of the instances where the topic did come up, we have a right to be suspicious of the motives for bringing it up. Just as you and I have a right to be suspicious of the motives of ex-JWs and apostates who bring up the subject when and if they make false claims about it.
I agree that this could be the crux of the problem. I think it should bother us when we see the 607 theory and the 1914 theory produce contradictions in our literature, purposeful mistranslations of the Hebrew and Greek in our own Bibles, and a string of interpretations of related doctrines that rely on the least likely meanings of the Bible text.
Hopefully, we will stop using these Babylonian dates in our literature. Our repeated rehash of these Babylonian dates implies that the Bible is not sufficient, not enough for us to be fully equipped for every good work. The more one looks into the evidence it appears that it is based on a presumptuous and unscriptural agenda. Not of everything, of course, but just a portion of our teachings, that most of us probably no longer consider "core teachings," anyway. We should be humble enough to look at the Bible and the secular evidence we have imposed upon it with an open mind.
I understand that it makes for better "unity" if we all just go along and gullibly agree with all things, but was it really better for all of us that we kept 1874 as a Biblical teaching up until 1943 and even kept 1878 as part of a Biblical teaching up until the 1960's? The problems that such chronological teachings caused in 1918, 1919, 1925, and 1975 were caused primarily through "unity" but was this really "unity" in the cause of "truth" or of mere conformity to a false teaching?

But you were wrong. Humility and sincerity require that we look at our mistakes and try not to repeat them.
And Babylonian dates are verified by Greek sources, Persian sources, tens of thousands of clay tablets, and also with Babylonian chronicles. The Babylonian sources are verified in the same way as Persian sources. The weaknesses in these sources affect the Persian rulers in the same way as they affect the Neo-Babylonian rulers. The strengths in these sources do the same.
This is only one of the ways in which Persian dates have been counted. Olympiads is also one of the ways in which we can "reliably" learn that the date for Jerusalem's fall is not the date that the Watchtower has promoted. The Olympiad dating is further evidence to confirm the interlocking dates of the entire period.
The organization uses the Babylonian chronicles, astronomical diaries and king's lists. The organization relies upon copies of copies of secular sources in order to use secular dates like 539 and 537.
Quote this The Watchtower Society relies upon astronomical calculations to get the secular dates that the organization promotes. The problem with the description of eclipses is not related to the dating of the Neo-Babylonian period.
It's usually true that humility and sincerity are necessary to avoid repeating the same mistakes. If one of the mistakes that is commonly made is to brag about having correctly predicted something decades in advance, but anyone can look up and see that what was predicted decades in advance was something else entirely, then we should look at the motive. I am sure that the "straw man" idea of an organization that "spends their entire time thinking up plots on how to cover up the 'mistake of 1914'" is ridiculous. I would guess that as little time as possible is spent thinking about the mistake of 1914. But if we find dishonesty in 100% of the instances where the topic did come up, we have a right to be suspicious of the motives for bringing it up. Just as you and I have a right to be suspicious of the motives of ex-JWs and apostates who bring up the subject when and if they make false claims about it.
I agree that this could be the crux of the problem. I think it should bother us when we see the 607 theory and the 1914 theory produce contradictions in our literature, purposeful mistranslations of the Hebrew and Greek in our own Bibles, and a string of interpretations of related doctrines that rely on the least likely meanings of the Bible text.
Hopefully, we will stop using these Babylonian dates in our literature. Our repeated rehash of these Babylonian dates implies that the Bible is not sufficient, not enough for us to be fully equipped for every good work. The more one looks into the evidence it appears that it is based on a presumptuous and unscriptural agenda. Not of everything, of course, but just a portion of our teachings, that most of us probably no longer consider "core teachings," anyway. We should be humble enough to look at the Bible and the secular evidence we have imposed upon it with an open mind.
I understand that it makes for better "unity" if we all just go along and gullibly agree with all things, but was it really better for all of us that we kept 1874 as a Biblical teaching up until 1943 and even kept 1878 as part of a Biblical teaching up until the 1960's? The problems that such chronological teachings caused in 1918, 1919, 1925, and 1975 were caused primarily through "unity" but was this really "unity" in the cause of "truth" or of mere conformity to a false teaching?