Anna

So far so good. Introduction pared from 7000 words to 4100. Chapter 1 from 6500 to 4800, with no harm done to the narrative. In fact, it is enhanced by being less obscured with what is superfluous.

Ah, rats.
In preparing the Dear Mr. Putin for print, I’ve come to think that it is not very good. I don’t like it. It was too much of a rush job. About 50% is good. But it is not integrated well. I am giving it a thorough shakedown before print. I’ll bet I can say everything I mean to say in 3/4 the words, maybe even 2/3.
Part of the problem is that the ebook doesn’t know what it wants to be. Is it a chronicler of events? The event are truly horrific, and they get worse by the day. Or is it a vehicle for me to witness to my faith as JW? It is both, actually, but these are not easily combined. Rather than each one buttressing the other, I think I have each one detracting from the other.
It is my first project of this magnitude. The text runs about 150K, and then there are a few hundred endnotes. I wanted to put together a complete history of events as they unfolded, as logged by international news sources, governments, and human rights groups—and the ebook does do that. It is the only such record, to my knowledge. But I wrote a great deal of it here on the WMNF as individual thread comments. Then I cooked up chapters and shook out all my comments until each fit into one of them, after which I too sloppily cobbled them together. It’s a crazy way to write a book.
I felt too much the sense of a reporter chasing a deadline, and now I almost don’t want to fix it, for the light tone I have throughout is at odds with the horrific twists the narrative has taken. But I also don’t want to put it into print as the mess that it is. I figure it will be two or three months to get it as I like, and then the new version will be both print and ebook. This book has caused me more trouble than my other 4 combined.
The revised ebook will remain free, for it is a labor of love. Of course, the print version will not be.
As to the horrific twists the narrative has taken, they are logged in this latest update from Chivchalov: 
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcredo.press%2F234969

You know, it started as a joke. Explaining a metaphor to Ann that any child would instantly understand, it reached the point of my posting a tree fallen across the road with the comment that it was blocking “Evolution Row.”
Of course, that was a reference to Desolation Row, and I afterwards posted the lines with that phrase.
Sometimes something gets in your head and you knock it around a bit and come up with something more. “Evolution” Row is actually not a bad interpretation of the song. Take this portion:
At midnight all the agents and the superhuman crew
Come out and round up everyone that knows more than they do
Then they bring them to the factory where the heart-attack machine
Is strapped across their shoulders and then the kerosene
Is brought down from the castles by insurance men who go
Check to see that nobody is escaping to Desolation Row.
Anyone familiar with the Bible (as Dylan is—he did a stint as a born-again Christian. Listen to Slow Train Coming, for example, and you’ll see he is thoroughly familiar with scripture) will know who is “all the agents and the superhuman crew.”
At the darkest time, they round up everyone “who knows more than they do.” Well, nobody knows more than does the “superhuman crew,” so it must be a reference to those who think that they they know more than others, who think that are very smart indeed and that take great pleasure in parading their knowledge before everyone else, quick to disparage anyone in their path, ones who don’t suffer fools gladly—and a fool is anyone who disagrees with them.
Despite their self-heralded knowledge, they are “rounded up” and processed, as though in a “factory.” The knowledge that they take such pride in is nevertheless death-dealing, like a “heart attack machine strapped across their shoulders,” with “kerosene” thrown in for good measure. 
Despite their knowledge being death-dealing—settling for a few dozen years lifespan at best and then eternal blackness—nobody must escape this tripe. “Insurance men” see to it. Nobody will escape from Evolution Row. (Of course, Dylan actually wrote “to Desolation Row,” not “from,” but it was probably a typo.) Let us not forget that the evolution teaching (in its full measure— not counting the intelligent design variety) is desolation to the Bible based hope of living forever on a paradise earth.
Naw, I don’t really think Dylan had that in mind. Other stanzas don’t so readily lend themselves to that interpretation. But it’s not a bad interpretation all the same. Dylan often writes in a stream of consciousness and doesn’t necessarily have any underlying message. It’s like decrypting Kafka. The tone is distinct, but the underlying words can be taken any number of ways.

Jeremiah is the source of the 70-years prophecies, though. Later interpretations and references to them need to harmonize with what Jeremiah actually said. The root of WT's divergence from mainstream understandings of the 70 years is its insistence that the 70-year period relates to the length of time the land would be 'desolate, without an inhabitant.' However, Jeremiah nowhere says this. He talks about a '70 years servitude' to Babylon and a '70 years for Babylon' but not that the land would be uninhabited for 70 years. It is this (mis)understanding that locks Watchtower into its chronological scheme. 
As far as I can see, WT nearly always ignores the problem of Jer. 25:12's sequence of events. One time it attempts to resolve it (w79 9/15 p. 23-24) by claiming the nations continued serving the king of Babylon after the city had been conquered and its king removed by Cyrus because Cyrus then became king of Babylon - the 70-year period was only up two years after the conquest and it was when Cyrus let the Jews go that the Babylonians were punished. Not only is this convoluted tripe not in keeping with the wording in Jer. 25:12, but it goes against Ezra's wording too at 2 Chron. 36:20:
"He [Neb] carried off captive to Babylon those who escaped the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia began to reign"
As for WT's solution to Jer. 29:10 - it doesn't offer one. It sticks with its translation 'at Babylon' and sidesteps the context by applying it to exiles taken 10 years later.
But we still have the wording of the texts to get past. The 70 years are fulfilled, then the Babylonian king is punished / then God will turn his attention to the exiles. It's not the other way around.

I'll look for an older post. I think it was in another topic, but I recall AlanF seemed to have brought this up out of nowhere somewhere else recently. If that's older than yours, the problem is resolved. AlanF deserves this one anyway. I don't think he can go 20 posts without changing to one of these subjects, even if it's just as simple/banal as: "You're as moronic as a flat earth creationist."
[Edited to add: Looks like your off the hook. Arauna appears to have the oldest post here, but I'll still be on the lookout for one from AlanF that pins this whole offshoot on him.]

1. It's off topic,
2. Do some reading on Earth history, plate tectonics, and geological time. 🙄
@AlanF, may I suggest that, rather than have Anna's thread go off track, a new one might be started on human existence/development, etc.?

You think a guided tour is a form of worship? How so?

My understanding is that he wished an announcement to say: “4Jah is no longer with us, and he has released a statement explaining why” and that the elders seriously considered reading it before the congregation, but refrained only because the statement was longer than the rest of the meeting parts combined.

Just wanted to add a consideration of a very odd (to me) use of Daniel 4:17 as a way, not to prove that Jesus was humble, but as if Daniel 4:17 was a reference to the way Jesus' enemies viewed Jesus. The exact logic of this Watchtower article still escapes me:
*** w05 10/15 p. 27 par. 6 Cultivate Genuine Humility ***
That was the greatest example of humility and love ever set by one of God’s creatures. Not all appreciated Jesus’ humility, his enemies even considering him to be “the lowliest one of mankind.” (Daniel 4:17)
And yet here, it was humility:
*** w90 10/15 p. 18 par. 15 Be Thankful—Jehovah’s Messianic Kingdom Rules ***
Only one person came to be qualified in all respects to be called “the lowliest one of mankind.” The only-begotten Son of God proved himself to be such by willingly leaving his heavenly glory to be born as a human, as Jesus, who suffered the most humiliating and cruel death at Satan’s hand. (Philippians 2:3, 5-11)
 

I think we both know that he would have been "better off" had he not written any letters. He would have been viewed as "inactive" and he would not have been shunned. But he wanted to let the elders know how bad the org is, and this is why he no longer wants any part of it. What he didn't realize was that no one would announce that he voluntarily left, but that the announcement could make it look like he was disfellowshipped because he did something bad. The days when a disfelliwshiping and dissasociation were announced as two separate things are gone. Much to his chargrin.... 

I am not scoffing, but when an organisation cries wolf many times and there is no wolf, then trust runs out.
I know it's coming, but it's coming  'as a thief in the night'  and we do not know 'the day or the hour'.  So i don't think an Elder should say it is months not years. As i said we will continue to disagree. 
WW1 happened because of the invention of machines, vehicles, aeroplanes, bombs, machine guns, all improved weapons of war, so it made war easier and more able to cover larger areas. 
Lockdown is due to a virus, either man made or accidental. But lockdown is because of the knoledge of how the virus spreads and therefore trying to stop it.  
I will not read into things to try to pretend they represent phrophecy ........... 

It seems that is not the concern (of WT) whether someone's bad rule is used for the sake of illustration (by Jehovah) for a secondary fulfillment of something that is good.  Cameron states:
"The prophecy in Daniel chapter 4 was given so that people would know that “the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind.” This in itself indicates that the prophecy has a bigger fulfillment than just the one involving Nebuchadnezzar. And throughout the book of Daniel, we find prophecies about the establishment of God’s Kingdom under the rulership of his Son. Do you think it’s reasonable to conclude, then, that this prophecy in Daniel chapter 4 also has something to do with God’s Kingdom?"
Whether that is a reasonable conclusion or not I don't know. What might make it more convincing is if the Bible anywhere else uses something bad, to illustrate something good.  Anyone?
Also, what would make an antitypical fulfillment warranted? Or is the account of Neb's demise and rise just purely a lesson to show who is ultimately in charge? Since the book of Daniel is a prophetic book, it would seem that this prophesy could have a secondary application, and that this lesson is too random for it not to have an extended meaning...just my thoughts.
Just as an aside, does anyone know who first came up with an antitypical fulfillment of Neb's dream? 

Since love doesn't keep account of the injury and covers a multitude of sins, I will not go back and show you what you have actually said. Besides, I've never wanted to make this into a contest of who is smart or not. I've never claimed to be smarter than you or anyone else here. This just happens to be one of my strong interests -- and of course it's an interest that is recommended in the Watchtower itself. It's easy to make mistakes in this area of study. I've made quite a few while learning and might still be making some. I'm hoping to be corrected where I am making mistakes. But it gets easier, and makes more sense every time I read another book and compare it with the evidence and the appropriate Bible passages.
But I'm sure you'll agree that there's nothing wrong with taking an interest in this topic:
*** w11 10/1 p. 26 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One ***
But why be interested in the actual date when Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II razed the city of Jerusalem? First, because the event marked an important turning point in the history of God’s people. . . .
Second, because knowing the actual year when this “ultimate catastrophe” began and understanding how the restoration of true worship in Jerusalem fulfilled a precise Bible prophecy will build your confidence in the reliability of God’s Word. So why do Jehovah’s Witnesses hold to a date that differs from widely accepted chronology by 20 years? In short, because of evidence within the Bible itself.
The problem, of course, is not just taking an interest, but discovering that the Watchtower's solution produces too many contradictions and cannot be supported without manipulation or rejection of the Biblical and archaeological evidence.
Of course the only right thing to do when one discovers that the evidence leads to a different conclusion is to be quiet and wait on Jehovah. At least that's what I was told even by the persons who first showed me a few pieces of this evidence in 1977 and 1978. If you speak up, you could be disfellowshipped, I was warned. So I stayed pretty quiet about it for more than a third of a century (i.e., 33 years) but I have kept studying about these things off and on.
But my conscience bothered me a bit, because Jehovah is the "God of Truth." (Psalm 31:5) If we see our brother take a false step we shouldn't just ignore it. When I asked about these things with responsible persons in the organization, who I respected, I realized that the only defense was "empty speeches." (Non-answers, avoidance, evasion, misquotes, and very weak or completely unrelated evidence.) Mostly you begin to see that no one really has looked at the evidence. Or, if they are like Furuli, they try to exploit a weakness in one or two tiny pieces of evidence, and won't even admit that their theory is already demolished by 1,000 other bits of independent evidence.
So for me, I must follow my conscience.
(2 Timothy 2:14-18) . . .. 15 Do your utmost to present yourself approved to God, a workman with nothing to be ashamed of, handling the word of the truth aright. 16 But reject empty speeches that violate what is holy, for they will lead to more and more ungodliness, 17 and their word will spread like gangrene. Hy·me·naeʹus and Phi·leʹtus are among them. 18 These men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred, and they are subverting the faith of some.
Hmmmm. Thanks? Well, that should convince her!  I think she trusts your judgment pretty much the way she judges mine.

Anna said:
This says nothing about laying the foundations of the temple. It does say something about returning to Jerusalem to restore true worship, and Ezra does say something about laying the temple foundations:
Ezra 3:8-10 states that the temple foundations were laid in the second month of the second year of the Jews' return. The first year of the Jews' return ran from either Tishri, 539 BCE through Elul, 538 BCE, or Nisan, 538 BCE through Adar, 537 BCE. Assuming the more likely Tishri-Tishri dating system, the second year began in Tishri, 538 BCE. In Against Apion I,21, Josephus states that “in the second year of the reign of Cyrus [the temple’s] foundations were laid.” Therefore, this second Jewish year overlaps with the second year of Cyrus. Since Cyrus’ second year began in Nisan, 537 BCE, the second month Iyyar was also in 537. Therefore, the temple's foundations were laid in Iyyar, 537 BCE.
You can find my extended discussion of all of this here: https://critiquesonthewatchtower.org/new-articles/2019/02/why_jews_returned_538.pdf

Yes, I know.
But there was talk of 1914, and the gentile times ending, even though nothing like what he expected happened. I also know that since all expectations about it failed, 1914 got swept under the carpet for a long time, to be "resurrected" some time in the 1940's. JW history is not quite honest about that, and gives the impression that although Russell was disappointed, 1914 was always believed to be the year Jesus was enthroned, which as we know is not true. Nevertheless, it doesn't bother me too much (the dishonesty does) because I expect understanding to progress over time. It's like that in every sphere of life, medicine, science, technology etc....

Those scriptures only talk about them settling in their cities in the 7th month and building some makeshift temporary altar.
Ezra 3:6 - From the first day of the seventh month they started to offer up burnt sacrifices to Jehovah, though the foundation of Jehovah’s temple had not yet been laid.
Ezra 3:8 - In the second year after they came to the house of the true God at Jerusalem, in the second month, Ze·rubʹba·bel the son of She·alʹti·el, Jeshʹu·a the son of Je·hozʹa·dak and the rest of their brothers, the priests and the Levites, and all those who had come to Jerusalem out of the captivity started the work; they appointed the Levites from 20 years old and up to serve as supervisors over the work of the house of Jehovah.
So the Jews, quite sensibly, didn't start work on the temple during the winter but waited till the next spring (536, WT time).

Yes, I know.
But there was talk of 1914, and the gentile times ending, even though nothing like what he expected happened. I also know that since all expectations about it failed, 1914 got swept under the carpet for a long time, to be "resurrected" some time in the 1940's. JW history is not quite honest about that, and gives the impression that although Russell was disappointed, 1914 was always believed to be the year Jesus was enthroned, which as we know is not true. Nevertheless, it doesn't bother me too much (the dishonesty does) because I expect understanding to progress over time. It's like that in every sphere of life, medicine, science, technology etc....

There may have been seeds sown by Dispensationalists before him, but it can pretty much be traced back to John A. Brown's 2-volume work from 1823, Even-tide. There, he applied Dan. 4's 'seven times' to a period of 2,520 years where the Jews would be under the domination of 'four tyrannical monarchies' until their kingdom was restored in 1917. It's also important to note that Brown put the beginning of the time period to Nebuchadnezzar's first regnal year in 604 BCE.
Link to relevant chapter.

The glitch I am speaking of is the following:
(But first some doctrinal history because I know how much certain people here just love doctrinal history.)
Russell left the "1914" doctrine in disarray by predicting so many things for it that failed. And even changing the "End of the Gentile Times" to 1915, and at least once also implying that the "Jewish Year 1915" could run from October 1915 to October 1916. But even Rutherford had continued to create a mess around the 1914 problem by waffling on 1914 for a while, pushing for 1918, then 1925, and only very slowly giving up on the the idea that the "End of the Gentile Times" was still going to be a Jewish mitzvah in Palestine.
It took Rutherford a while to give up on the great pyramid, and the seven or so other evidences for reaching 1914 by using 'divine proofs for 1874' plus the 40-year harvest. Including "parallel dispensations" in Old Testament Israel as the proof of divine origin of our chronology. Although even this last 1914 proof, he had "messed with," by adjusting "1874+40=1914" to 1878 plus a 40-year harvest to reach 1918. (1878+40=1918)The old emphasis on Elijah passing the mantle to Elisha would give Rutherford a more personal sense of scriptural authority, when he moved the date out of Russell's time slot and into the start of his own presidency in 1918. The same idea carried over into the "ns" book when that entire Russell/Rutherford transition was moved from 1918 to 1942 to represent the Rutherford/Knorr-Franz transition where "Elijah" was now the time under Rutherford's presidency and "Elisha" became the transition to the time of the Knorr/[Franz] presidency).
[edited to add: No one should get the idea that 1914 had been downplayed as a doctrine. The war broke out in 1914, and by mid-1915 the doctrine was being explained pretty much as it is now, but still with Zionist overtones, and with the background chronological reasons in question or in flux. By 1916 the "parousia" signs were being added to it. But that old consistent stable basis for 1914 was being shaken a bit. And Daniel 4 had not been utilized very much, even for the 2,520 years. Articles mentioning the 2,520 years did NOT include Daniel 4. I might add an explanation of what I mean here under another topic.]
So when Rutherford died (1942), it was up to F.W.Franz to push hard for the tree dream prophecy again because all those other methods now needed to be dropped completely. Officially Christ's presence was still 1874 right up until about 1943:
*** ka chap. 11 pp. 209-210 par. 55 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” ***
In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published the book “The Truth Shall Make You Free.” In its chapter 11, entitled “The Count of Time,” . . .  Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning of his invisible presence or parousia.
The book just mentioned, "The Truth Shall Make You Free," was the first big push on the chronology of 1914 in quite a while. But this was back before the NWT was available, and we often used the American Standard Version, and Rotherham's translation. This is where and when the first glitch was much more visible, and had to be overcome. Note page 240 of the book:
To whom does Jehovah give the heavenly overlordship over all men of good-will in A.D. 1914? Daniel4: 17 answers: "To the intent that the living may know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men." "One low among men he setteth up over it." (Roth.)
Humiliating Nebuchadnezzar with insanity and making him eat with the beasts was a way of showing just how low and beastly these kingdoms of men really were, but that Jehovah was still so far above them, that almost "on a whim" Jehovah could prove just how "base" these rulers were that he allowed to rule in the kingdom of men.
So this entire parable was not about the Kingdom of God, but about how "base" and "beastly" were these relatively weak and transient humans who thought they were so great in the kingdom of men.
So the first thing to do is get rid of that phrase the "basest of men." Rotherham helped here. If it can apply to Jesus, we could get away with "lowest" instead of "basest" because then we could use Jesus' humility, or his perceived stature by those who were not of honest hearts. Even this is a problem, because Jesus wasn't really "low." It's just that people were mistaken when they considered him "low." (Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Isn't he the carpenter's son? How can he say he existed before Abraham? etc.)
So page 241 of the same 1943 book goes on:
God has not given the 'kingdom of men" to totalitarian and religious dictators, who are wicked demonized men. Jehovah God has given the heavenly kingdom of the new world to the one whom politicians, commercial traffickers and religious clergy despjse as the "basest of men", namely, Christ Jesus, who was nailed to a tree between two thieves.
Note the deceptive twisting of the Bible's words here. With a kind of sleight of hand, and taking advantage of the negative opening in the sentence, Franz makes the "kingdom of men" represent "the heavenly kingdom." And while Daniel 4 was about a truly vicious beast who needed to be humiliated for his haughtiness, "the basest of men," Jesus is only falsely accused of being the basest of men. There is no need to humiliate Jesus for his haughtiness. Jesus is not a vicious beast. Jesus does not need to be taught a lesson by making him go insane.
So over the years, there has been a near disappearance of this explanation about how Jesus is like the "basest of men." And tricks of language are still being used to try to make the parallel between the return of wicked, pagan, gentile Nebuchadnezzar after 7 years to refer to the return of the Jewish Messianic Kingdom through the enthronement of Jesus Christ, who was not wicked, pagan, or gentile -- after 7 "times."

I though the same, if only for the simple reason that it's irrelevant to the topic. I was wondering whether I should copy and paste here just the relevant portions so that people don't have to keep referring to the website. Although you probably already mean that you will paste the relevant section and then comment on that. I wish we could find some method that would keep things orderly....that probably won't happen, so perhaps towards the end when it seems that everything has been exhausted, one could have a summary...

Or, why not advance from several mistakes to less mistakes? We are not supposed to look for "True Anointed" because this would make us followers of men. Do you assume that Paul and Peter were "True Anointed"? If so, remember that persons in the Christian congregation were NOT supposed to follow them. Peter and Paul and others made serious mistakes. This is why the only "True Anointed" we follow is Jesus Christ.

And I'm sure you had in mind, too, that Jesus said:
(Luke 21:24) 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.
It's another bit of language manipulation, imo, to say that although Jesus said it would be in the future, that he actually meant it "will" start in the past.

I was harsh, because the more I study it, the more I believe that one MUST use deception to keep any kind of "prophetic chronology" going. I see the way that F.W.Franz toyed with language to keep people hyped up about 1975. I see the way that Rutherford was using deceptive language to keep people hyped up about 1925. And then looking back at Miller and Barbour I see the same thing. I just read some of Harold Camping's predictions for May 21, 2011 and I see the same exact style. And, as I started to write up what I saw in the Jon & Cameron conversation, I saw some of the same.
This doesn't mean the deception is on purpose. We "inherit" our beliefs about chronology, just as Russell "inherited" them from Nelson Barbour. Just as I expect that you personally believed this material about 1914 when you were a Witness because you "inherited" it from your teachers, a combination of the person who studied with you, and the Watchtower publications, and from the platform, as it were. You weren't being purposely deceptive when you shared this with others. But you were using the same deceptive language, highlighting innuendos and skipping inconsistencies. It's just one of those traditions, in my opinion, that makes the word of God invalid. (I say this because this particular tradition does indeed invalidate the very counsel of the Scriptures.)
But that inherited tradition about chronology doesn't invalidate all the other teachings. It just means that we have to prove to ourselves and make sure of all things. It was the same principle Jesus taught his audience:
(Matthew 23:1-3) . . .Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying: 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses. 3 Therefore, all the things they tell you, do and observe,. . .
The Scribes and Pharisees were incorrect about several things, and yet Jesus could tell his audience to do and observe all the things they tell you. Jehovah reads hearts and judges us individually before the judgment seat.
 

The word lowly in English seems to have a dual meaning as an adverb or adjective. A person can be put in a lowly position without being lowly in mind, just as a person can be humbled without being humble. Or they can actually be lowly in heart or humble in spirit as well as having a lowly position, and then be elevated in position without losing the dis-postion. or vice versa. So I can't see anything too deep here. Jesus was lowly in mind in the sense of being humble in disposition. As far as his enemies were concerned, he was the lowest of the low, deserving treatment reserved for the lowest criminals. That image they portrayed may well have been believed by some, even if Pilate was not convinced. The description in Daniel allows room for both views.
So the purpose of Nebuchadnezzar's dream as a way of highlighting that no government, good or bad, can rule without Gods sanction is not contradicted by either view. Secular authorities only rule by Jehovah's toleration and as such even currently serve as his "minister" (Rom.13:4), just as much as the government described elsewhere in Daniel (2:44).
Pr.21:1 reminds us of this fact: "A king’s heart is like streams of water in Jehovah’s hand. He directs it wherever He pleases"
This the real purpose of the Daniel 4 account of Nebuchadnezzar's dream. So applying the dream to immediate events in historical context, and then widening the picture to include an overarching view of events in connection with resolving the issue of Jehovah's Sovereignty seems quite in order (to me at least).

I think this happens to be the most disputable assumption in the whole discussion between Cameron and Jon. I actually had a study where the lady, a science teacher, wondered about that date, since no one else except the Witnesses recognized it.....at the time I was not familiar with the topic at all, since like everyone else I assumed that was the date. We had other topics to discuss first, so we never really got into it. She moved, and I lost touch with her. (Although I did pass her onto someone in the area she moved to). Evidently, Jon was not knowledgeable about any other dates and of course we cannot blame him since ancient history, especially something as specific as the razing of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, is not common knowledge.
I know we arrive at that date by counting 70 years back from 537, (Cyrus' 'restoration of the Jews to their homeland and the start of the rebuilding of the temple (I think)).
For some reason this does not seem good enough, and I am sure we will find out why in this thread. Stay tuned 😁