Anna

Anna
The reason why we accept 539 BCE and not 587 Bce even though both dates are derived from similar secular sources but reflect diifferent methodologies in calculating these. The answer is Methodology for WT scholars make a determination based upon the textual, historical, biblical and astronomical sources. All of these things must come together in order for a measure of confidence be assured. It is only very recent times from 2000 that METHODOLOGY has become part of the Chronologist's toolkit in order to solve some of the vexing issues of OT chronology such as the precise date for the Fall of Jerusalem in either 586 or 587 BCE We have course have long solved this problem by fixing the precise date of 607 BCE because of the 70 years.
scholar JW

@Anna -  No. The date 539 BCE is derived from the very same historical sources as 587 BCE.
There is the Babylonian Chronicle that indicates Babylon fell in Nabonidus' 17th year.
How can we pin a BCE date to Nabonidus' 17th year? Babylonian astronomical tablets, that's how - by using the ancient sky clock. The astronomical record on VAT 4956 gives an anchor point for Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year being none other than 568-7 BCE. There are other astronomical anchor points too - one of which is dated to Cambyses' 7th year (522-1 BCE). The method is, once we find out how many years kings ruled (evidenced from other historical data), to count forwards or backwards accordingly.
And so, we arrive at 539 BCE for Babylon's conquest and 587 BCE for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar when he destroyed Jerusalem (Jer. 52:29).
 

In fact, both dates conform to the exact same set of sources. They are both part of the same NB chronology which is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence from all the archaeological and astronomical sources. You could use 8 sources and come up with both 539 and 587 as correct, and you use only four of those sources and still come up with both dates as correct. You could also dismiss those 4 you just used, and use the other 4 and still see that both dates are correct. You simply cannot accept the data for 539 without also accepting the data for 587.

I was assigned to give a Manhattan tour to several of the new Gilead classes around the period from 1977-1981. There were two churches on the tour, and one (St. Patrick's) we would enter if there was not a major event going on at the time. About half the class would not enter and I was told to expect this and just let them know it was considered to be completely up to them, and to please stay nearby if they were not comfortable. Often the instrumental organ or choir music was beautiful and a couple times I heard it mentioned that even those who went in felt bad for enjoying it.

The opening bell at 9:30 at the New York Stock Exchange is a more religious experience for a lot of New Yorkers.

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.
 

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.
 

Duh?????
They do??? But not to worship.........(No brainer that one I would have thought.)

LOL
 

I saw a cloud the other day that looked like Jesus

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.
 

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.
 

Just a simple color coding based on a traditional grouping of Bible Books according to type, not chronology or authorship.  This is not the only grouping in existence, but it is a commonly used version. Others may care to comment in more detail on the history of the particular grouping as used in the New World Translation, but  In the case of the Hebrew Scriptures, the grouping dates back at least to the Septuagint version. 
The alternate colours make it easy (for some) to find a particular book in the list of 66,  (if you have an idea of the groupings of course).
Pentateuch or Law (5 books): Genesis to Deuteronomy
Historical (12 books): Joshua to Esther
Poetic or Wisdom (5 books): Job to Song of Solomon
Prophets (17 books): Isaiah to Malachi
Gospels (4 books): Matthew to John
Acts (1 book)
Letters (21 books): Romans to Jude
Revelation (1 book)

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

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

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

@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.
 

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.

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?

..and now for something completely different, to releve a great deal of stress and wasted effort .... a short musical interlude ...
 

NO No Noble Berean, you are reading too quickly! I said this "Any other "heirarchical perception" exists only in the minds of those men who hold it I'm afraid, whoever they are."
I didn't say that there isn't a hierachy, I said that any hierarchy that attaches a position-related value to individuals within it exists only in the mind of those who hold that perception. Interesting how an unreality can be part of an unfortunate reality don't you think? 
Anyway, don't worry yourself unduly over it. It will all get ironed out. "Next, the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power." 1Cor 15:24.
Seems best to get in line now to me...really! It relieves a great deal of stress and wasted effort. 
 

Now you've piqued my curiosity

Too many seem to think these two things are mutually exclusive - growing spiritually and following theocratic headship. I do not. 
Paul spoke somewhere about the pattern of the truth. Be around long enough and you pick up on the pattern. To say to headship: "you're all wet!" is not part of the pattern. There is no biblical precedent for it, beyond an individual yoyo or two like Naman that one must do end runs around. But muttering against theocratic headship on any significant scale is always associated with disaster.
Spiritual growth does not require you butt heads with it. It is better enabled if you do not. I comment frequently in my home congregation. I write a lot. I almost never give "the answer" from the paragraph. I have picked up on the pattern of the truth, and it is not necessary or even desired for a mature one to simply spit out what is in writing. 
Often I am surprised that where I go within the pattern, no one seems to have gone before. Sometimes I am surprised that they stick to what is (to me) dull and do not reach for things more subtle and interesting. Maybe I could set up my own "Institute of Deeper Understanding" but I don't. Others will catch on if it is worth catching. Or it may turn out that I am wrong - or just irrelevant and what intrigues me is just so much mental cabbage.
I am amazed at how many think it is necessary to walk in lockstep. It isn't. That said, I would never blow off as nothing counsel about obedience. Even counsel about hanging out verbally with unsavory ones I do not blow off - I would be much worse without it. 

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

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