Anna

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

there is always some "Biblical" method to take prophecy and find a way to interpret it to reach somewhere into every single century, perhaps every single decade..........

they soon became "God's dates."

Exactly!

This is why I will take my cue from the 2017 convention video and say "I am dedicated to Jehovah, not a date".

3 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The beauty of WT  Chronology is that it is simple and clear and does not have the ambiguities found in all other Chronologies, therefore, our 'Cable of Chronology' is strong and able to resist the criticisms of apostates and scholars influenced by the school of Higher Criticism.

Yes, it is simple and clear, but I wish I could agree with you that it is also correct. I cannot logically reconcile the fact that WT agrees on 539, but has a problem with 587, if I am to believe that both dates are derived from the same sources. Why would one be false and the other true? It seems as illogical as saying 587 is a correct date, but 539 is a wrong date,  so we will count forward 70 years from 587, and insist that 517 is when Cyrus conquered Babylon.

6 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

This is what they are relying on - readers taking on trust what is being said/written without properly checking - to hoodwink the uninformed. If the article/book looks technical and has lots of footnotes or endnotes, it gives the appearance of being well-researched, truthful, or balanced

I don’t want to give the impression that I believe this whole Chronology thing was some kind of setup and a deliberate exercise in deceptiveness right from the get go (although some will dispute that).  What I do believe though is that with the passage of time and new evidence, this particular subject obviously did not receive the same treatment as other beliefs, where with the “light getting brighter” adjustments in understanding were readily made.

11 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

The crux of objection to the Bible Chronolgy as used by Jehovah's Witnesses is a disagreement with the Witness view of the year 1914 CE

I don’t think trying to discredit 1914 is the reason. Not among serious Bible students and seekers of truth anyway. As for secular historians and scholars, logically, why would they be interested in discrediting 1914? Why should they care? I would think it’s only ex witnesses who would be happy to throw 1914 under the bus.

Personally, I have no interest in discrediting 1914, but I am interested in truth. Unfortunately, and this is the part that raises suspicions in my mind (regrettably), is that  607/1914 is going to remain an unverified subject, and because of that it will be accepted by most JWs without question. What I mean by that is how many JWs are in the position where they are able to investigate anything like this at more than a cursory level? Honestly? When someone starts to study the Bible with JWs and begins to investigate the Trinity, Hell fire, immortality of the soul etc. easy! But 607 is a whole different kettle of fish!

I would hazard a guess, and someone might have a better idea, but I think there can’t be more than 10% of JWs who are interested in Bible chronology to a deeper level. I personally know of no one, except maybe one brother, but I was a teenager at the time so I didn’t really pay much attention, but I know his library was full of history and scholastic books on the Bible and the Middle East. Thinking about it now, maybe the 10% is being generous; the real number might be nearer 1%. Chronology can't be everyone's hobby.  I don’t think this has anything to do with the level of intelligence of the friends but rather their focus. The average Witness just does not have the time to devote to researching this very involved subject. And most don’t have the desire. I wonder, how many have thoroughly read “When was ancient Jerusalem destroyed?”  part 1& 2 in the WT 11/10/1*  Probably a very few. And out of the very few, how many actually bothered to look up the references and do further research?  

I for one find it frustrating because I know I cannot contribute to this discussion in any meaningful way because I just do not have the time to acquire all the background knowledge I would need in order to do so. I mean, how many years did it take COJ to write his treatise? I can only do this in snippets of maybe an hour every other day, (if that) making notes and drawing diagrams. I know what it’s like to study a subject, but you have to be young free and single and living with your parents, or a guy and retired (women still have to cook and clean, generally).

So I think 607 will remain WT’s well hidden Achilles heel for a long while because of the majorities’ lack of interest, and those who might have interest; with work, taking care of family and all the theocratic activities, when would they find the time?

*  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011736

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011810

Definitely more women! Don't ask me why, you may not like the answer..

3 new pages since I last commented!! Hard to keep up. Thank you @JW Insider, @Ann O'Maly and @scholar JW for your answers.

I have another question. What is wrong with WT counting back 70 years from 539 (537 as the start of the temple rebuilding) assuming the 70 years applied to the Jews, when 539/537 is a reliable date.

I know some who don't, but it is not a rule. I for one would never miss the Sistine chapel! 

While out on the ministry in England, as teenagers, we would sometimes stop and go inside a church and look for God's name in the big Bible by the pulpit. We would leave it open at Psalms 83.

LOL

Is that a trick question?

Thank you @JW Insider @Ann O'Maly and @scholar JW. I am processing all the information, and made lots of notes. Just haven't had time to put it all together yet.

I have one question in the meantime, why is it that WT has no trouble accepting the 539 date but will not accept the 587 date? Besides the obvious reason, are both dates based on completely different historical sources? Pardon the ignorance, I just haven't got that far in my research yet.

On 12/10/2017 at 9:41 AM, Bible Speaks said:

800 million rubies 

Oh, how many diamonds would that be?

2 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

2017 do you mean?

No, they really mean 2018. January. Don't forget as well the Americans write their dates in the month/day/year format. It's under "scheduled actions" and it's due 30 days from when it is issued. So I said it wrong. It was evidently issued 8th December 2017 and is due 8th January 2018

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/scheduledActions.cfm?dist=41&doc_id=2150357&doc_no=D070723&request_token=NiIwLSInLkg9WzApSSFNXE1IQEw6UkxbJCJeWzhTQCAgCg%3D%3D

1 hour ago, Noble Berean said:

So this is going to a higher court? 

@Gone Fishing   According to the link for the appellate court case information Srecko provided, a remittitur has been issued on 01/08/2018 which means it has been handed back down to the lower court. I am no lawyer so I don't know what this means for WT, whether it will be appealed again, or whether the lower court will close the case.....or what...one would need to ask someone who knows what they are talking about.

1 hour ago, Noble Berean said:

This says it's dated November 11...everyone was saying it was still up in the air? Was a decision made a month ago?

Someone already posted this at the beginning of this thread.

It is up in the air because it can be appealed. Which no doubt it will be...until it reaches the US supreme court. They have always treated us fair. Ok, most of the time. So there is a possibility this will come to nothing at all.

9 hours ago, Anna said:

 according to WT Carchemish was 625.  and   Megiddo 629.....

 

To get the 609 and 605 dates for the two battles what source was used? I calculated it comes to those dates using VAT 4956, but were there any other sources for dating those two battles? How come  WT dates it earlier by 20 years? 

11 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Maybe R.L. went down in flaming fire

Wait a minute....who is R.L.... ?

3 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

25 minutes ago, Anna said:

"Some may feel that they can interpret the Bible on their own. However, Jesus has appointed the ‘faithful slave’ to be the only channel for dispensing spiritual food. Since 1919, the glorified Jesus Christ has been using that slave to HELP his followers understand God’s own Book and heed its directives. By obeying the instructions found in the Bible, we promote cleanness, peace, and unity in the congregation. Each one of us does well to ask himself, ‘Am I loyal to the channel that Jesus is using today?’

I have capitalized one word, which I think explains it all. Neither comments not thinking need be boiler-plate. See my previous post on this thread.

Yeah, I get that and I agree with you. But I've highlighted the sentence that I wish had somehow slipped off the printing press and vanished down a deep hole, never to resurface again...

6 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

intrigues me is just so much mental cabbage

Now you've piqued my curiosity

2 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

 Caleb and Sophia.

Please leave the poor kids out of this, it's not their fault

I don't like admitting it, but I have a big problem with this paragraph. I had thought it had been a while since we had made similar remarks, but here it is, as recent as last year. (Noble Berean mentioned it in one of the threads too).

Study WT Nov. 2016 p.16 par. 9

"Some may feel that they can interpret the Bible on their own. However, Jesus has appointed the ‘faithful slave’ to be the only channel for dispensing spiritual food. Since 1919, the glorified Jesus Christ has been using that slave to help his followers understand God’s own Book and heed its directives. By obeying the instructions found in the Bible, we promote cleanness, peace, and unity in the congregation. Each one of us does well to ask himself, ‘Am I loyal to the channel that Jesus is using today?’

What do others interpret this to mean? Surely, one thing is dispensing, and another is interpreting...

2 minutes ago, Noble Berean said:

I didn't create the new topic, but is there a way to change titles?

Should be able to go to edit at the bottom of your first post..and from there you can change the title....

@Noble Berean did you move this topic over here or was it the @The Librarian? I was wondering if the title could be changed to "doctrinal" or "spiritual" hierarchy,....or something like that, because I don't think the organizational aspect of it is the problem, is it?

 1 John 5:20  "But we know that the Son of God has come,  and he has given us insight* so that we may gain the knowledge of the one who is true. And we are in union with the one who is true, by means of his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and life everlasting.

* Lit., “mental perception; intellectual capacity.

  Proverbs 2:1-4  "My son, if you accept my sayings And treasure up my commandments, By making your ear attentive to wisdom And inclining your heart to discernment;  Moreover, if you call out for understanding And raise your voice for discernment;  If you keep seeking for it as for silver, And you keep searching for it as for hidden treasures; Then you will understand the fear of Jehovah, And you will find the knowledge of God".

Is this only the privilege of the Slave/GB or is it all of the anointed and by extension those who are associated with them, the great crowd?

34 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

For the same reason I don't just waltz right in there. Had Moses been directed to put up a chain link fence instead of a curtain, I would feel differently

Seriously, I think we should stop being hung up about old Moses. Those days are gone. Otherwise we will be like those who didn't like Stephen because he spoke about Jesus...the greater Moses:

 Acts 6:8-14  "Now Stephen, full of graciousness and power, was performing great portents and signs among the people.  But certain men rose up of those from the so-called Synagogue of the Freedmen, and of the Cy·re′ni·ans and Alexandrians and of those from Ci·li′cia and Asia, to dispute with Stephen; and yet they could not hold their own against the wisdom and the spirit with which he was speaking.  Then they secretly induced men to say: “We have heard him speaking blasphemous sayings against Moses and God.” And they stirred up the people and the older men and the scribes, and, coming upon him suddenly, they took him by force and led him to the San′he·drin. And they brought forward false witnesses, who said: “This man does not stop speaking things against this holy place and against the Law.  For instance, we have heard him say that this Jesus the Naz·a·rene′ will throw down this place and change the customs that Moses handed down to us.”

Another question:

The battle of Megiddo was in 609 where Egypt and its ally the Assyrian Empire went against the Neo-Babylonian empire (also when Josiah is killed and Judah becomes a vassal state of Egypt). 

Then the battle of Carchemish in 605 where the Neo-Babylonian empire defeats the Egyptians...

Are the dates of these two battles recognized by WTS?*

If so, is there any reasonable theory where Jerusalem could have been destroyed by the Babylonians in the years between Megiddo and Carchemish? 

*did some research later and no,  according to WT Carchemish happened in 625.  As for Megiddo, WT doesn't seem to give a date, at least I can't find one...ok, found it..WT gives Megiddo 629......it's those notorious 20 years again!