AllenSmith

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

Yeah, yeah. Produce it, then.
 
@allensmith28 ...
@JW Insider is trying to tell you that there is a difference between astronomical year numbering and AD/BC or CE/BCE year numbering.
Common mistake.
 

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

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

You're offended by being called the name of a small, orange fruit.
COJ never thought NBC 4897 an astronomical text, you donut. 
('Donut' - you can tell the gloves are coming off now!)

You're not making sense. Again.
VAT 4956 meets Saros cycle 59. None of your pictures display anything from Saros 59 and are thereby irrelevant to the lunar eclipse predicted on VAT 4956.
Um. NBC 4897 isn't an astronomical text, you kumquat. 

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.

The word salad is the only one aggressively being, served. Therefore, the *FALSE* premise becomes that VAT4956 covers 37 years of Nebuchadnezzar ‘s reign with NO MENTION of a catastrophic event being mentioned, that scripture describes. Therefore, as far as this tablet is concerned, Jerusalem was destroyed in 605BC, 3 years after King Jeroiakim, upset Nebuchadnezzar, and then after being upset, even more, he had God’s House Destroyed in 587BC.  If other tablets have those types of observations? Then what does that tell us about this record keeping tablet, that can be speculated in, both ways? This tablet doesn’t have the value that ex-witnesses (faders) wish it to have.
 
 
 
 
A conjecture is only relevant to those that oppose the WT chronology by misleading hypothesis.
I believe the rest of your post has become irrelevant, and contradictory. Perhaps you feel better debating someone else since your tone has become "ad hominem" as you indicated on the last page, and I have no need for it. Thank you for your opinion.
 

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 would have to say, you and I are looking at the same historical "evidence" with an open mind, NOT a closed one that is determined to support inaccurate knowledge of history and scripture.

 

I have pointed it out before that JWs  establishment of 537BCE is NOT based on the Babylonian chronicles but mostly on Persian sources.  Middle east chronology is synchronized with Egyptology dates - and Egyptology dates are out with 300 years - with less as we get to the Greek Ptolemaic kings. Recently watched an interesting lecture by David Rohl.... fascinating evidence that the exodus did take place ...... if one looks in the right period.
Persian dates are verified by Greek sources and also with Babylonian chronicles.  Persian dates are counted in Olympiads and since the games were held every 4 years they are very reliable. But people on this forum keep on hashing up these Babylonian chronicles of very old king lists as though they were inspired by God! But these ex-witnesses  have an agenda.... this is why they keep rehashing these unreliable old Babylonian king lists.  While these lists are helpful they are not to be trusted as the only source of information. 
Please read the insight book to see where the organization get their dates.  Some of the Babylonian chronicles were copies of copies and written 250 years after Cyrus died. The organization give several good reasons why they do not use the Babylonian chronicles.
The death of Cyrus  is given in Olympiads as 62, year 2. (531/530 B.C.E)  Cuneiform tablets give Cyrus a reign of 9 years which substantiates his year of conquest as 539 BCE. (handbook of biblical chronology by Jack Finegan 1964. ) The kings which come AFTER Cyrus are also dated by these same methods and therefore the persian dates of succession are much more reliable. 
Astronomical calculations can also be misleading because the most reliable information is only a 'total' eclipse ... because many eclipses occur in a 50 year period and many are not  properly described - which can be misleading such as in the case with king Ahab.....  Please read this information in the insight as well.  
I fear there are some people here who think that the organization spends their entire time thinking up plots on how to cover up the "mistake of 1914" so they can be important..... but I think the shoe is on the other foot.  There are people here who think they are smarter than Jehovah's spirit and smarter than the available written information on the middle east and persian dynasties.  They keep bringing up the same old rehash of these Babylonian dates which I call the typical OCD of those who have lost Jehovah's spirit.
 

It wouldn't, Allen. The astronomer scribes knew the difference between addition and subtraction, having already learned those basic mathematical skills when they were children.
If you are having difficulty with these math concepts, I recommend this website. Then hopefully you'll eventually figure out whether 18 is more or less than 37 and, if you become more advanced with how BCE dating works, which way we should count to get from 568 BCE to 587 BCE.
You're welcome  

That would be the point, wouldn’t it? VAT4956 doesnÂ’t “illustrate” which direction one needs to go with the 18-19 years. It works both ways. Unless, as you stated, one side is only looked at.
Ironically, I donÂ’t use 4+1=6. You are the one using such supposition to illustrate a formula not indicated by scholars or scripture. My comments are based on scholarly findings and scripture, not conjecture.
If Furuli expertise lies only with language, then it should be no surprise when he honestly doesn’t descend on an archaeological find. This is where “Theology” comes in. It receives the “best” of ALL expertise within knowledge. But, the BEST expertise comes from bible knowledge. Something, Fred Franz was great at. This would be the “BEST” for a Bible Student to learn.
I agree Disseminations give no value to bible understanding.
 
Of course. Then we would have to check how much of Bible understanding a scholar has to give an expert opinion on that subject matter.
Once again, wouldn't this be an attempt to justify how contradictory it would be to place the 18-19 year squarely where secular chronology would wish for it to be. Then we would also have to be satisfied by applying those years in the beginning reign of Nebuchadnezzar. 605-18=587BC, 605-19=586. Where does it indicate in VAT4956 where one should start to view 587BC specifically? VAT4956 605-37=568BC.
 
Then, does it really matter, who understands what? If secular chronology itself cannot justify its own findings that many people have gone to great lengths by rearranging scripture to meet their understanding and to discredit the WT Chronology? Then you are correct, why should it matter.
I will give you a personal view.
 
Theology works with the Babylonian Chronicle Series as a whole, not just beneficial parts.
T.G. Pinches
L.W. King
C.J. Gadd
S. Smith, probably an ancestor of ALLEN Sorry Allen, just joking!!
D.J. Wiseman
A.K. Grayson.
And since, D.J Wiseman sought to look at the book of Daniel with errors? Then we canÂ’t claim scholars are unbiased and look at scripture in a biased way.
If I mentioned that Abraham Lincoln “in his days” he was opposed, to slavery? Would this be true when he became President in 1861, or the proclamation in 1862-1863, or his ideology in 1854? So, “in his days” it becomes a general supposition, NOT indicative of a *specific* time. Therefore, Scripture would NOT be in error, 2 Kings 24:1, but rather the error would be in the interpretation of the READER.
Babylon Controls Jehoiakim
1: In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant for three years; then he turned and rebelled against him. 2The LORD sent against him bands of Chaldeans, bands of Arameans, bands of Moabites, and bands of Ammonites. So He sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the LORD which He had spoken through His servants the prophets.
At what point do you see King Jeroiakim being *PRESENT* if the destruction of Jerusalem, supposedly when it happened at the point where secular chronology and ex-witnesses imply in 587BC? This is the “pivotal” point in Carl Olof Jonsson’s argument. Why wait 18-19 years to punish the land and people of Judah for the sins of Manasseh. So, let’s continue to use his “pinpoint” ideology on this since King Zedekiah would have been on the throne on 587BC. Secular Chronology uses this text to corroborate the destruction of Jerusalem.
Can we use, this text to prove 598BC when King Jehoiachin was on the throne? According to secular chronology, as BEST we would have to conclude this happening in 605BC, three years later would be 605BC, 604BC, 603BC, or 603/2BC if you prefer.
Now verse two, stipulates God sent Bands of Chaldeans, and bands of Neighboring Kingdom’s to DESTROY the land of JUDAH. Jerusalem would be included. So, if that is the case. The “destruction of Judah (Jerusalem)” would have happened around the time of Nebuchadnezzar’s official reign 605BC, by God’s hand. Then what “destruction of Jerusalem” are scholars referring to in 587BC. Destruction on top of destruction? The land would have already been devastated by God’s judgment. So, 587BC might have included a specific destruction in Jerusalem, just NOT a “Complete” destruction that had already occurred. 2 Kings 25:10, 2 Chronicles 36:19
So, I place my *faith* in scripture, rather than secular chronology. Since secular chronology cannot use scripture to properly align and understand, Bible times.
 
 
 

That’s understandable. However, what if one side of a coin only showed a face without a date, and the other side did? WouldnÂ’t we have to learn the history of that person on the coin to come to a reasonable conclusion? The United States still uses the images of the founding fathers. Can we guarantee, a 100% certainty with a currency of 1925 versus 1975 if it had no dates of usage? versus the date, it was printed by the mint.
This is why VAT4956 holds little value to the destruction of Jerusalem with the increments of 18-19 years. It works both ways. The only reasonable conclusion we can offer with this tablet is the 37th year coincides when Nebuchadnezzar rushed home to take over his fatherÂ’s kingdom in 605BC. That in itself doesnÂ’t discredit 607BC since the beginning siege of Jerusalem started by historical reckoning in 589BC. Keep in mind, I'm using terminology outside of the Lunar/Solar calendar.
This is why, as with any historical evidence, it becomes a matter of scholarly, opinion. Meaning, there shouldnÂ’t be more weight placed on the credibility, given by D.J Wiseman or A.K. Grayson by having a different perspective in scholarly chronology than that of a linguist scholar. What counts, how many of these secular observations can we use to agree with scriptures chronology if it has become that important for any one individual to know.
Remember ABC 5 puts the father and son around the Zargos Mountains around 607/8BC. Does that mean Nebuchadnezzar needed to be there for the “destruction of Jerusalem” in 607BC? Scripture tells a different story of how God SENT Judah’s neighboring kingdoms to DESTROY it. But why state “in King Nebuchadnezzar’s time”. Could it be the *scribe* wrote down this evidence years “after” it had occurred? Or is there something that prompted this person to recognize Prince Nebuchadnezzar as a King around that time. History shows, he was made “general” of his own army around 610BC. Also, what is the significance of the ancient cities Haran, and Hamah around 609/10BC? It would imply Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar were chasing after their enemies around that time with the end battle of Carchemish in 605BC. So, 605BC was a very busy year for this King. But, how could he roam freely in the Hatti land if he didn’t have *control* over all that land? Meaning, before 605BC.

In a discussion board. Any input is of value. That determines the individuality of society. It appears Allen’s enumeration, could be attributed to the many time HE/SHE has been deleted. Critical historical documentation is of GREAT VALUE. No one has the right to minimize that value, just because of his/her, bias.
If that were the case, there would be no historical value to anything related to antiquity. (I.e. Babylonian Chronicles, VAT4956, etc.) Documentation that we in modern times thrive on, has been exhaustively documented for historical value. So, it should be counterproductive to censor one over another that has possibly continued, unimpeded in this forum for the same circumstance.

Aside from Furuli, perhaps suggesting the clay tablet has been tampered with in modern times? I don’t need VAT4956 to know the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar since the last 18 years of the King were documented as an uneventful time for the king from Herodotus, and Berosos for the entire land of Judah. VAT 4956 at “best” confirms the chronicled “besieged of Jerusalem” in an around the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. At best by secular chronology, they have proven that in the final point of that siege, Nebuchadnezzar ordered the temple destroyed. Why? Who knows, perhaps out of frustration of having to deal with disloyal Judean Kings, and having no further “fear” of the Hebrew God that gave him that Kingdom to begin with? Does that in itself “PROVE” King Nebuchadnezzar was PRESENT at each engagement? NO! It does NOT!! You can’t claim that either with the Babylonian Chronicles. VAT4956 doesn’t have any importance to relate to the substance in the destruction of Jerusalem as Carl Olof Jonsson might imply, or from, ANY ex-witnesses that embellish on a *false” premise for that tablet. Does it mention the 37th year of King Jeconiah captivity? History does.

http://www.lavia.org/english/archivo/vat4956en.htm
Am I attempting to discredit the tablet? not at all. ItÂ’s just another piece of a puzzle. Does it in anyway mention the destruction of Jerusalem BEFORE the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar? Show me where it claims this extraordinary insight in the tablet!!

the same way that the brothers owned a branch complex and the russians were not fooled.

Other than a certain dead horse involving an entire thread that I have beaten until the flesh has fallen off the bone and should certainly desist from by now and will unless I see an advantage in bringing it up again, I am not aware of this happening. Has it?
There was something odd about Allen, but I gave up trying to figure what was what. The Librarian said he had been booted for rudeness, but I thought that was long ago. Now he apparently cloned himself and I see several manifestations of himself. Let no one say  @AllenSmith is not an enigma. 
Has he ever been rude? Probably. But there are no end of people here who have been nearly as rude, and countless ones who are deliberately offensive, attributing evil motive to Witness headship when they have no basis whatsoever for doing so. Besides, as long as we are quoting Greek on this thread, let us quote Aristotle: No great mind has ever existed without a touch of madness. Cut him slack. He brings legal decisions to the table that nobody else thinks of.
Or maybe there are other examples I do not know about. It's is hard to keep up, especially when the Librarian redirects comments into new threads like some great anti-typical shell game.

Correct. Free speech should NOT BE CENSORED just because someone doesn’t like the outcome. Political correctness should not be part of a religious forum.

As an agnostic? Censoring everyone that opposes a view by demonstrating facts from fiction shouldn’t be used against anyone that expresses “free will”, with their opinion. I have seen enough, to see it doesn’t matter to imply rudeness if everyone here has done that in some fashion.

Simple opinions without malice have also been removed. This is an “open” forum to be expressed by all…

AL,
Saw this in "The Atlantic." You made it hard to read, however:
The following (down below) is taken from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/two-concepts-of-freedom-of-speech/546791/
I have quoted too much of it, but this is the whole of the first few paragraphs. I understand your point, and I assume that you are referring to methods of trying to disrupt speech on this forum that have backfired, thus the dozens of alternate names that continue the disruption. But I also know that the person or persons behind all this recent disruption likely feel that an injustice has been done, and without taking sides on this, I understand that too. Unfortunately, it's difficult to police a forum without some injustices and biases, and those who feel over-policed will typically lash out.
I bring this up because it's more on-topic than most people think. The question arose earlier about why we tend to hear so much from those ex-JWs who are boisterous and vindictive and yet so many others just go on their way and "live and let live." I think that "censored speech" is one of those injustices that I should have included more explicitly on the list I made earlier. More to the topic, I think that the reason the Watchtower Society brought up 1975 again this year, after having dropped it, is directly because of the noise being made online by ex-JWs. The WTS is, in effect, now involved in a social media dispute with ex-JWs. This makes me curious about how people will understand the discussion of Social Media and the dangers of addressing concerns of "apostates" online, if it is observed that the WTS is now doing the same thing, obliquely, through videos and presentations that also end up online (via jw.org, tv.jw.org, etc).
---------- quote from The Atlantic --------------
Socrates (right) teaches Alcibiades. The Two Clashing Meanings of 'Free Speech'
Today’s campus controversies reflect a battle between two distinct conceptions of the term—what the Greeks called isegoria and parrhesia.
Little distinguishes democracy in America more sharply from Europe than the primacy—and permissiveness—of our commitment to free speech. Yet ongoing controversies at American universities suggest that free speech is becoming a partisan issue. While conservative students defend the importance of inviting controversial speakers to campus and giving offense, many self-identified liberals are engaged in increasingly disruptive, even violent, efforts to shut them down. Free speech for some, they argue, serves only to silence and exclude others. Denying hateful or historically “privileged” voices a platform is thus necessary to make equality effective, so that the marginalized and vulnerable can finally speak up—and be heard.
The reason that appeals to the First Amendment cannot decide these campus controversies is because there is a more fundamental conflict between two, very different concepts of free speech at stake. The conflict between what the ancient Greeks called isegoria, on the one hand, and parrhesia, on the other, is as old as democracy itself. Today, both terms are often translated as “freedom of speech,” but their meanings were and are importantly distinct. In ancient Athens, isegoria described the equal right of citizens to participate in public debate in the democratic assembly; parrhesia, the license to say what one pleased, how and when one pleased, and to whom.
When it comes to private universities, businesses, or social media, the would-be censors are our fellow-citizens, not the state. Private entities like Facebook or Twitter, not to mention Yale or Middlebury, have broad rights to regulate and exclude the speech of their members. Likewise, online mobs are made up of outraged individuals exercising their own right to speak freely. To invoke the First Amendment in such cases is not a knock-down argument, itÂ’s a non sequitur.

I don't say mine is better.

I thought it would be a good idea to look into the ways in which we defend ourselves against the claims about 1975, and the way in which we answer questions about it. As a good example I will start with the way in which a person answered a 1975 challenge on YAHOO ANSWERS. The person signed their name as BAR-ANERGES. I'll assume the person is male. He is evidently not a member of this forum, and may no longer be alive, for all I know. But if anyone knows him, or his whereabouts, I hope he gets a chance to respond himself.
I'll just make some short comments to state my own opinion of what he said. I'll mark his words in a different color, like red.
It is an absolute lie to claim that the Witnesses said that Armageddon would come in 1975. He's right that it is incorrect to claim that "the Witnesses said that Armageddon would come in 1975." For a couple of reasons.
The most important reason is that this supposed claim is a kind of "straw man" that is worded in such a way that it diverts attention from the main point. It's true that no Witnesses should have been saying that Armageddon would come in 1975, in the sense that it must definitely come in 1975. The real question should be whether the claim is true that Jehovah's Witnesses promoted the idea that the Bible had marked the year 1975 in such a way that we could confidently claim that Armageddon should be expected within just a few years, or even just a few months, from the year 1975. Did Jehovah's Witnesses make use of this particular time period that focused on the year 1975 to justify the claim that people should decide quickly to convert and join the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses for safety from imminent destruction at Armageddon? Also, the term "the Witnesses" can refer to a wide range of people and opinions. If we accept that the views of the Witnesses are represented in Watchtower publications, then we also have to accept that not everything said about 1975 was completely consistent. If we accept that the views of the Witnesses are represented by the Watchtower's traveling representatives (circuit overseers, district overseers, branch representatives, Watch Tower Society directors, Governing Body, etc.) then again we have to accept that not everything said about 1975 was completely consistent. Anna has already pointed out that Charles Sinutko's infamous talk is not even consistent within itself.  Here is an article from *1974* that I carry around with me which shows what mature Witnesses knew and were saying: This statement should raise a red flag immediately. We already know that not everything that was said or written was consistent. So we should be immediately wary of making use of one specific statement to generalize what "mature Witnesses knew and were saying." Also, if we look carefully at all the statements in the Watchtower publications from 1966 to 1975 we can see that by October 1974 the trend of the statements about 1975 had already begun to be more cautious. The most direct statements were made from 1968 to 1973. This is a typical pattern with predictions. It happens in corporations, political and economic analysis, and religion:
The initial idea is floated, often with a bit of caution. Then someone is sure enough to begin championing the prediction and begins to stake their reputation on it. Then as confidence builds, those statements become more and more direct and less careful. Then as the time approaches and the kinds of surrounding expectations that might have validated the prediction aren't there yet, real caution kicks in, and if necessary, some backtracking begins. After the failure is obvious, we can expect blame and finger-pointing. Statements about the time period dating back to 1956 were in stage #1. Statements in 1966 were already in stage #2. Dozens of district overseers and circuit overseers along with statements by the service department until 1973 were in stage #3. F.W.Franz himself appeared to remain in stage #3 until 1975, but he also had vacillated into stage #4 at times during the 1974-1975 period. The 1974 summer assemblies, and the 1974 Watchtower quoted here, were in stage #4. Stage #5 had already begun at Bethel as early as late 1975 and early 1976, even though the initial definition of the time period was not about what would happen in 1975, but what would happen in the short number of years or months following 1975.
"The publications of Jehovah's Witnesses have shown that, according to Bible chronology, it appears that 6,000 years of man's existence will be completed in the mid-1970's. But these publications HAVE NEVER SAID THAT THE WORLD'S END WOULD COME THEN. Nevertheless, there has been considerable individual speculation on the matter. So the assembly presentation "Why We Have Not Been Told ‘That Day and Hour'" was very timely. It emphasized that we do not know the exact time when God will bring the end."--w74 10/15 p. 635 "It appears" that 6,000 years of man's existence will be completed in the mid-1970's." Note the backtracking (stage #4). Note even some "finger-pointing" (stage#5) in blaming considerable "individual speculation." The 1966 book (see first post in this topic) said "Six thousand years since man's creation will end in 1975." It did not say "it appears." Now, the new Watchtower didn't even want to use the term "1975" but changed it to "mid-1970's." Previously the question had been "What will the 1970's bring?" But this brings up an important caveat about stage#3 and stage#4 above. As Witnesses, we had an internal policy and external policy. So even while we could expect the more "reckless" stage#3 statements in our own special meetings from traveling overseers, circuit assemblies, and service meetings -- we could expect more careful stage#4 statements when we addressed the public in Sunday public addresses at the same assemblies or district conventions. In preaching, we were careful in such a way that we could even use language that meant stage#4 to the public while we were simultaneously able to treat it as less careful stage#3 speech. Here's a subtle example from a 1970 Watchtower:
*** w70 4/15 p. 256 Announcements ***
WHAT WILL THE 1970’S BRING? Many believe that the 1970’s will see drastic changes in man’s affairs, some hoping for the better, others fearing the worst. What is your view? Whether good or bad, no man knows for sure unless Jehovah God himself reveals it. Will he do so? His own Word says, Yes! Through his prophet Amos, Jehovah has promised: “For the Lord Jehovah will not do a thing unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his servants the prophets.” (Amos 3:7) Do not guess! And do not be unprepared! Whatever the future holds, it can work to your good if you read the Bible regularly, assisted by The Watchtower. Send today. One year, $1. Write now and receive free three timely booklets on Bible subjects. While we were not stating it for sure to the public, internally we all knew what it means that Jehovah is revealing his confidential matter to his servants the prophets. We don't have to guess. We don't have to be unprepared. This is the same idea in Sinutko's talk, saying that "we don't have to guess." ( He said: "Well, we don't have to guess what the year 1975 means if we read the Watchtower. And don't wait 'till 1975. The door is going to be shut before then.")
Compare the 1970 announcement to the same type of announcement just 2 years earlier:
*** w68 4/15 p. 256 Announcements ***
WHAT DOES YOUR FUTURE HOLD? What will the future bring you? Will it bring you peace of mind and security? Will it bring you faith and favor with God? It can! Regular reading of the Bible and following its teachings closely will bring you this and more. To ensure your full appreciation and understanding of what you read you need The Watchtower also. Study it with your Bible and receive the greatest benefit from what lies ahead. Send at once and receive three timely booklets on Bible subjects. One year, $1. This type of ramping up of the rhetoric was common. There are several more examples.
I'll stop here for now, so this doesn't become impossibly long.

"Re-discussing the departure date" does not need to understand the day and time. You rightly mentioned 1 Thessalonians 5 and I agree.
That there is "nothing more to calculate", however, it is a mistake.
If there is nothing more to calculate then what is it used to write, for example, that the two witnesses dressed in sack will preach for 1260 days?
1260 days from when?
If there is nothing more to compute because the angel says to Daniel "happy who is waiting and arrives at 1335 days"?
If we do not have to calculate why Revelation and Daniel talk about specific days and also say when to start?
According to your reasoning both the angel who speaks to Daniel and also the vision of John have made a mistake.
You who are a reflective person, you will not believe that the 1260 days or 1290 or 1335 days concern assemblies, books, resolutions, is not it?
Why, when Daniele asks "What will be the end of these things?" the angel does not tell him "You do not have to calculate, no one has to calculate, you can not know"?
The people of the world do not "see anything" but Christians have the Word of God.
The scripture you quoted continues: "But you brothers, you are not in darkness, so that day comes upon you as upon thieves, because you are all children of light and children of the day We belong neither to the night nor to the darkness "- 1 Thessalonians 5: 4, 5
The Bible clearly explains (not me) the order of events and even periods.
This does not mean knowing precisely "the day and the hour" but the order of events, yes.
The people of God, today, are watching this "superimposed geberation" which is non-scriptural nonsense.
Instead, the suppression of the continuous sacrifice is scriptural (whether it happened on April 20, 2017 or a future one) and from this event we begin to count clear and specific days.
I have not yet found any "superimposed generation" in the Bible (did you find it?)
instead, read what the Bible says about the suppression of continual sacrifice: "And I heard a certain saint speak, and another saint said to him that he was speaking:" Until the vision of the [constant] sacrifice and of the transgression that causes desolation , to make both [the] holy place and [the] army something to trample on? "14Thus said to me:" Up to two thousand three hundred [and] mornings, and [the] holy place will certainly be brought to the right condition. "- Daniel 8:13, 14 (see Revelation 11:7)
We must honestly ask ourselves whether we have gone from making absurd and ridiculous calculations (like those of the seventh millennium) to failing to see what is written in the Bible.
 

Just going back to the 1967 Charles Sinutko talk, it is eerily similar to what we would hear now, except minus the gore and gloating over the death of billions. Thankfully we have toned down on the descriptive part of the vengeance of Jehovah, including the "see, we told you!" attitude. Also our talks are much more refined in other ways too. But as regards the end, terminology such as "so very near" "on the brink" and whatever other ways of describing the imminent end, that is still the same. Even him mentioning that "many of us have been waiting for the end for many years, and we are getting tired and weary now". I am not criticizing the pep talks to keep us on our toes at all. It was just very strange, listening to a talk given 50 years ago, and it sounding the same as some talks do now. I just thought of that after I read @JW Insider comment regarding Br. Russell imagining people looking back 100 years. Of course we really can look back 100 years now. That is the point JWI was making no doubt.
I wonder if Charles Sinutko is still alive. It would be interesting to talk to him. (There is a story about him in the 2004/8/22 Awake... Interestingly, reading his story, he never mentions 1975).
P.S. "Jehovah has given us a new year.....1975 "meat in due season".......Jehovah has given us.........where have I heard that before? That might explain why I get a little skeptical when I hear this kind of reasoning now....Is it always Jehovah? Or can it be imperfect humans sometimes?
 
 
 

Still conjecture I'm afraid....
Yes, I am aware, I was only being brief. I understand the reasoning behind it. But still, we cannot say that this is what Jesus had in mind....