607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?

[Ann O'Maly]

11 hours ago, AlanF said:

[... quoting the Insight book's statement] Evidently it is to this third year of Jehoiakim as a vassal king under Babylon that Daniel refers at Daniel 1:1.

There is no 'evidently' about it. Daniel specifies 'kingship,' not 'vassalage.' A king can spend a portion of his 11 year reign as a vassal to Egypt, Babylon or the kingdom of Siam, but he is still king from the time he's placed on the throne until the time he's succeeded by someone else or he dies. So when the book of Daniel specifies '3rd year of Jehoiakim's kingship,' it means '3rd year of Jehoiakim's kingship' - just as, when the book of Daniel specifies '2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar's kingship' (Dan. 2:1), it means just that, and NOT '20th year of Nebuchadnezzar's kingship' (cp. Daniel's Prophecy, p. 46, par. 2; w64 12/15, p. 756). Watchtower has to redefine simple terms like 'kingship' and 'second year' and make them mean something totally different so that the Bible conforms to Watchtower's ideas.
 

[AlanF]

Nana Fofana wrote:

Quote

 

:: Agree with what, exactly? Certainly not with anything AllenSmith wrote, because his gibberish has nothing to do with anything you've written below.

This [below] assumes the same sequence of events  [+ 20, of course]  as WT, doesn't it?

 

Of course. So what?

AllenSmith wrote so much gibberish that your saying "Agree" fails to give any information about what you agree with.

Oded Lipschits' summary of events is pretty much what is accepted by all modern Near Eastern scholars. The events and dates are almost exactly what I've been setting forth.

On the other hand, the Watch Tower dates for the period, and some events that it claims for the sequence, contradict modern scholarship.

You "agree" with the Watch Tower's version of history for one and only one reason: its leaders claim to speak for God, and you accept that.

Tell me, do you agree with them that God began creating life on the earth only 20,000 years ago?

AlanF

[AlanF]

For Nana Fofana,

Nana, I'm afraid you're very confused about the timeline of the period 609 BCE onward through about the end of the Babylonian empire, so I'll give a brief timeline of the most accepted secular history.

<<<<
609: Nabopolassar's 17th year, Assyrian empire ends at the battle of Harran, Jehoiakim's accession year

605: Nabopolassar's 21st year, Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, battle of Carchemish, first siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, 1st deportation where Daniel and other elites taken captive to Babylon (this deportation possibly occurred in 604), Jehoiakim becomes vassal to Nebuchadnezzar

602/601: Jehoiakim rebels against Babylon, Jehovah sends marauder bands against Judah

598: Nebuchadnezzar besieges Jerusalem, Jehoiakim is killed, Jehoiachin becomes king for 3 months

597: Jehoiachin surrenders, 2nd deportation where Jehoiachin and many others taken to Babylon, Zedekiah's accession year

589: Babylonian forces besiege Jerusalem

587: Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, Jerusalem destroyed, many more captives taken in 3rd deportation

582: Nebuchadnezzar's 23rd year, 4th deportation of captives

562: Nebuchadnezzar dies, Evil-Merodach's accession year

539: Babylon falls to Cyrus, Cyrus' accession year

538: Jews released, return to Judah
>>>>

This timeline agrees almost exactly with that given by Oded Lipschitz.

Now, AllenSmith has claimed many times that Carl Olof Jonssson (COJ) in his various editions of "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" stated that only TWO Jewish exiles occurred. But this is false, as I've shown by actual quotations that COJ described at length in various parts of his books that Jews were taken captive in 605/604, 597, 587 and 582. Clearly, AllenSmith is lying, because various people have corrected him many times.

The dates of exile stated in AllenSmith's link ( https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/exhibits-events/tablets-of-jewish-exiles/ ) are 604, 597 and 587 B.C.E. The 604 date reflects the uncertainty between it and 605, as mentioned above. The Bible gives no details about the exile of 582 aside from the number of Jews taken, so many historical narrators fail to mention it, since it is not entirely clear where the exiles came from.

With the above information in view, I'll go on to some comments on your post.

Quote

 

::: Agree,

:: Agree with what, exactly? Certainly not with anything AllenSmith wrote, because his gibberish has nothing to do with anything you've written below. In fact, on page 25 of this thread he contradicts your citation below from WTS literature. In his usual gibberish style, AllenSmith wrote:

:: << Until people like Carl Olof Jonsson can explain the contradiction in secular history that DEMAND, there were only,  2 instances, in the exile of the Jewish people in, Babylonian time? It’s futile to argue against any skeptic, since 2015, recent Babylonian tablets, found, indicate 3 exiles NOT 2, meaning 3 points of interest. So, those 3 years I keep referring to, remain WITHIN the same archeological EVIDENCE . . . >>

Maybe agree is too strong a word for the above when I don't know for sure,

 

Well then, you should make sure that your information is correct, or not bother to comment at all. And you should say exactly what you mean, or what you agree with.

Quote

but assume Allen is correct that this is your friend's timeline that you agree with, including dates.

Then you should have said that. Furthermore, had you been reading all the posts on this matter -- if you have not, then why are you even commenting? -- you would have seen that several times I showed exactly where AllenSmith's claims about COJ and a host of other things were out and out falsehoods.

Quote

I didn't think Allen was agreeing with those dates, but if he was, then I don't agree with him about that.

He has no idea what he's talking about, and spouts gibberish, so it's impossible to know what he really means.
     

Quote

 

:: As proof he cites this link:

:: https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/exhibits-events/tablets-of-jewish-exiles/

:: which states:

:: << The exhibit is accompanied by a beautiful catalog, By the Rivers of Babylon,1 which describes the Al-Yahudu Archive and addresses the three waves of exile—in 604, 597 and 587 B.C.E. >>

::: And I agree with him , what I think  he's saying,, that if secular dates were correct and the Battle of Carchemish were in 605, but you place the "Babylonian servitude" as starting in 609, you would be wrong because up until Carchemish they were tributary to Egypt, not Babylon.

: So AllenSmith not only does not support your "agreement", but contradicts your WTS citation, which claims that there were only TWO exiles.

I very much doubt that can be true, as  Jeremiah 52 says- there were 3 times captives were taken.

 

See how confused you are? The discussion was restricted to the exiles in 605/604, 597 and 587. Nothing was said about the exile of 582. Anyone familiar with WTS chronology knows perfectly well that they claim THREE exiles -- 617, 607, and 602 -- but your citation from the Insight book only explicitly mentions the first (it does not give the date, which is given elsewhere in WTS literature). Your citation says nothing about Jeremiah 52:30.

AlanF

[AlanF]

Nana Fofana wrote:

Quote

 

:: You "agree" with the Watch Tower's version of history for one and only one reason: its leaders claim to speak for God, and you accept that.

But Alan- how can you know whether this is true or not?

 

I know from dozens of their own statements in WTS literature that they claim to speak for God. J. F. Rutherford, for example, wrote many times that angels inspired him. Would you like me to cite examples?

And of course, if you consider yourself a loyal JW, the Governing Body requires you to accept their words as being equivalent to God's words. Again, do you want me to cite such demands from WTS literature?

Quote

And I don't believe they claim to literally "speak for God".  More like - "speak up for Him"?

Well actually they talk out both sides of their mouth at the same time, so it's understandable that you would be a bit confused. But yes, they do literally claim to speak for God. That's what "theocratic rule" literally means.
     

Quote

 

:: Tell me, do you agree with them that God began creating life on the earth only 20,000 years ago?

They don't say that, that I know of.

 

Yes, they do. Would you like me to prove it, using WTS literature?

Quote

The last thing they've said, regarding something like that -that I know about - is that the earth[?] [or was it the universe ?] -could be 400 billion years old or more?  Something like that, anyway.

They deceive the JW community about their teachings. They allow that the earth and universe could be as old as science says -- 4.55 billion years old for the earth and 13.7 billion for the universe. But they have long taught that animal life was created just 20,000 years ago -- not the ~600 million years that science shows.

You don't believe me? I encourage to do your own research in WTS literature. You'll find that the Watch Tower Society nowhere teaches, or even admits, that animal life is more than 20,000 years old.

I can easily cite dozens of WTS statements proving this, but you'll do much better to figure this out for yourself.

AlanF

[AlanF]

Nana Fofana wrote:

Quote

 

:: Anyone familiar with WTS chronology knows perfectly well that they claim THREE exiles -- 617, 607, and 602 -- but your citation from the Insight book only explicitly mentions the first (it does not give the date, which is given elsewhere in WTS literature). Your citation says nothing about Jeremiah 52:30.

I confess, there are many things in the Insight book which I did not quote.  Pages and pages of things, in fact.

 

Of course, but if you want to make a point, you need to argue for that point, and cite enough evidence -- like source references -- to prove it.

Quote

But  "602" is not exactly an "exile", I don't think,

<< In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people. >> -- Jer. 52:30

Do you believe the Bible or not?

Quote

because with the land having already begun resting  and paying off its' sabbaths in 607, and the captives taken to Babylon in Nebuchadnezzar's 23rd year from Egypt were exiled -technically speaking- 6 or more years previously, right?

Not necessarily. The WTS's claims notwithstanding, many scholars agree that Judah was not completely devoid of inhabitants after Jerusalem's destruction. And the Bible itself says nothing about captives being taken from Egypt in Nebuchadnezzar's 23rd year -- it only says that Jews were taken into exile. Therefore it is pure speculation to say where those Jews were taken from.

AlanF

[AlanF]

Nana Fofana wrote:

Quote

 

:: J. F. Rutherford, for example, wrote many times that angels inspired him. Would you like me to cite examples?

Whatever it was he actually said , maybe he was referring to something like this-

Hebrews 13:2 American Standard Version

2 Forget not to show love unto strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

 

Nice try, but no cigar. Here's a small sample of Rutherford's teaching:
 
<< The remnant are instructed by the angels of the Lord. The remnant do not hear audible sounds, because such is not necessary. Jehovah has provided his own good way to convey thoughts to the minds of his anointed ones.(Preparation, 1933, p. 64; The Watchtower, October 15, 1933, pp. 247-8; The Watchtower, September 15, 1938, p. 286) >>

<< Jehovah would employ his power through his angels to put in the minds of his servants to take the course that he would have them take.(The Watchtower, November 1, 1937, p. 326,¶14; 1938 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, Daily Texts and Comments, February 15) >>

<< Certain duties and kingdom interests have been committed by the Lord to his angels, which include the transmission of information to God's anointed people on the earth for their aid and comfort. Even though we cannot understand how the angels transmit this information, we know that they do it.(Preparation, 1933, pp. 36, 37; The Watchtower, August 15, 1933, p. 243 ¶3; The Watchtower, March 1, 1938 p. 79,¶4) >>

<< Angels are delegated by the Lord to convey his instructions to the members of his organization on earth. Just how this is done is not necessary for us to understand.(The Watchtower, December 1, 1933, p. 364) >>

<< Without a doubt the Lord uses his angels to cause the truth to be published in The Watchtower... Certainly God guides his covenant people by using the holy angels to convey his message to them.(The Watchtower, February 1, 1935, p. 41) >>

<< No man can properly interpret prophecy, and the Lord sends his angels to transmit correct information to his people,.... The Greater Gideon [Jesus] does not begin the Armageddon battle until the message of truth from Jehovah God concerning the same is transmitted by his angels to the faithful remnant on the earth.(The Watchtower, February 15, 1935, p. 52,¶7, 8; 1935 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, Daily Texts and Comments, November 13. See further, The Watchtower, July 1, 1938, pp. 199, 200,¶24, 25; 1939 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, Daily Texts and Comments, June 22; J.F. Rutherford, His Vengeance, 1934, p. 6) >>

These are direct claims of inspiration.

AlanF

[AlanF]

Nana Fofana wrote:

Quote

 

:: << In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people. >> -- Jer. 52:30

Okay, I concede this one point to you.  It says "exile", so I was wrong to say "not exactly an exile, I don't think".

 

Ok.

My compliments! Unlike many JW defenders, who will go to the mat even when they're dead wrong, you have integrity.

Quote

Bye, for now-

Hope you have a great day!

AlanF

[AlanF]

4 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Nana,

That’s GOOD you wouldn’t agree with me if I believed such obtuse speculations about secular history. If you, knew my arguments with JWinsider over some 3 years now?  It wouldn’t be a “question” as to whether I believe in nonsensical timelines that people have been debating, even before D.J. Wiseman Babylonian chronicles were published.

So, it doesn’t matter if JWinsider, titles his post as, “607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?” Or “607 B.C.E - Is there any SECULAR support for the Watch Tower's view?” Another deceptive spin to *link* WT chronology with secular chronology, when the argument is about secular chronology “only” and its failed attempts in “support” of Bible chronology, or any other form of literary discussion on FACTS. So, the *gibberish* comes from people like Alan, that no longer have a leg to stand on, when it comes to secular chronology.

It won’t make a difference, when opposers can’t even sync their OWN secular history to Bible Chronology, much less use it to justify their failed attempts to understand scripture.

Leave, the debates to the Scholars, NOT wannabe’s that wish to know? What, is actually, standing in their way is the lack of faith, they personally have for GOD. For someone like AlanF, that’s a futile debate.

Rolf Ruruli’s chronology has been heavily criticized, but only because he opted to look at the ancient script, differently. “New understanding of the verbal system of Classical Hebrew.”

JWinsider has known that for years, yet, he has NOT bothered to include it in his argument, for consideration. However, Furuli’s, argument is CONSISTENT with scripture.

Another possible scheme would be John M. Steele approach, which “demonstrates that new astronomical concepts”. This was included in my past debates with JWinsider, and O’Maly.

I, however, did make a statement, that, I wasn’t expecting anyone to agree with my proposals in the PAST, nor do I need any such validation from anyone now. It is, what it is, and there is NO denying it anymore. This silly debate, that COJ prompted some 41 years ago, has gone long enough for skeptical witnesses.

So much blah blah blahing without saying anything.

You don't even know your own "proposals" because you have none.

At least, none that can be stated outside your head.

AlanF

[AlanF]

4 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Once again, it, is what it is. . .

The usual gobble-de-goop.

AlanF

[JW Insider]

17 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

That’s GOOD you wouldn’t agree with me if I believed such obtuse speculations about secular history. If you, knew my arguments with JWinsider over some 3 years now?

@Nana Fofana,

This was addressed to you, @Nana Fofana, but with reference to my own discussions with @AllenSmith on this forum and jw-archive before this one going back 3 years. @Anna has already counseled me on my habit of responding to posts meant for other people, but I think I should make another exception here.

I do happen to know all those discussions quite well, and I can tell you with assurance that AllenSmith is playing a deceitful game with you here, as he tries to do with everyone, Witnesses and non-Witnesses alike. By purposely not being clear, he attempts a kind of plausible deniability each time he is caught. @Arauna pegged him perfectly, if inadvertently, when she said the following in this thread, referring to someone else.

On 1/5/2018 at 12:11 AM, Arauna said:

When someone has left the truth and they are pursuing a scholarly career then ego and politics at the university enters into it.  At present I would NOT like to be working at any  university - have you noticed what is going on?   Would I completely trust such a person and their integrity to just go after truth?  Or is it more important to them to get noticed and pose a new theory?

And again, referring to someone else she said the following, which perfectly describes someone who does not care for real scholarship even if one professes it. She also mentions one who won't show the reasonableness to look at all aspects of a subject, and who always goes back to her old arguments even if good arguments are given.

On 1/5/2018 at 12:20 AM, Arauna said:

My experience exactly in the few years that I have come back to this forum - she is always ready for a fight - and does not care for real scholarship - even if she professes it. 

A person's search for truth also involves a reasonableness to look at all aspects of a subject. Even if good arguments are given - she does not consider it and goes back to her old arguments.    

AllenSmith has, indeed, "posed a new theory." He has spoken about it, given several details of it here, and even mentioned here that he has had such a theory published by a ghostwriter for reasons he stated, just two weeks ago.

On 1/8/2018 at 6:37 PM, AllenSmith said:

I could only reply with how I felt when wanting to publish my thesis. Peer review, in my opinion, proves more problematic than helpful. But, as I have stated in this forum, I have dyslexia, so my reluctance went deeper, FEAR. So, I used a ghostwriter and published under another name, that, I won't divulge since my opinion is NO greater than any other scholar when it comes to history.

You can reconstruct some of this thesis by statements that AllenSmith has made about it himself in the last three years. But it is better to ask him of course because there are some seeming contradictions and I'm sure there is much more to the thesis than the portions he has revealed so far.

If he is willing to explain further, I'm sure you will see that it is an interesting theory, but it is also pretty clear that most JWs would see it as doing exactly what AllenSmith has called "deceptive:"

17 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Another deceptive spin to *link* WT chronology with secular chronology, when the argument is about secular chronology “only” and its failed attempts in “support” of Bible chronology, or any other form of literary discussion on FACTS.

I don't consider his theory deceptive at all, but if he is willing to explain it, I do believe you will see that it contradicts too many Biblical facts. For example, potentially equating Nebuchadnezzar II with Nabopolassar, and making "Nebuchadnezzar the Great" the same as Nebuchadnezzar III might have some coincidental support here and there in later works. (AllenSmith has pointed to the book of Judith and its references to "Nebuchadnezzar" and also a 19th century "typo" in a scholarly work.) But it is not directly evidenced in any contemporary Babylonian artifacts. Also, what does AllenSmith do with the Bible's data that Evil-Merodach followed Nebuchadnezzar in the 37th year of Jehoicachin's exile? This is a fact that perfectly fits the "secular" and "Biblical" evidence, but not AllenSmith's thesis.

• (Jeremiah 52:31) Then in the 37th year of the exile of King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah, in the 12th month, on the 25th day of the month, King Eʹvil-merʹo·dach of Babylon, in the year he became king, released King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah and brought him out of prison.

You would have to drastically shorten the reign of "Nebuchadnezzar the Great." This might clarify why AllenSmith tries to discredit the contract tablets, especially the Egibi tablets, too. That's because the Egibi tablets agree with the Biblical chronology, but not the Watchtower chronology or AllenSmith's proposal. As Insight says:

*** it-1 p. 453 Chronology ***

• For Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach, 2Ki 25:27, 28), tablets dated up to his second year of rule have been found. For Neriglissar, considered to be the successor of Awil-Marduk, contract tablets are known dated to his fourth year.

By the way, much better examples of this kind of "deceptive spin" in linking WT chronology with secular chronology were found in the first few posts by @scholar JW in this thread, and which matched the first arguments he put forward in a previous thread, too. Here's an example. See if you can see it:

On 1/1/2018 at 4:47 PM, scholar JW said:

WT Chronology is indeed anchored to 539 BCE just read our publications. The biblical data makes mention of Neb's 18th and 19th year in connection of the Fall of Jerusalem and we have no difficulty with using both in calculating 607 BCE. In contrast, our critics simply cannot reconcile the 18/19th years thus cannot determine the precise date for the Fall with the vague 586/587 BCE scenario.

 

[JW Insider]

17 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Another deceptive spin to *link* WT chronology with secular chronology, when the argument is about secular chronology “only” and its failed attempts in “support” of Bible chronology, or any other form of literary discussion on FACTS.

In addition to @scholar JW's infamous attempts, I have to mention again that the "Insight" book and other Watch Tower publications have also done something just like it many times, even adding bracketed secular dates of their own choosing to contexts discussing secular chronology which are in complete disagreement with the dates the Watch Tower has added:

*** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***

• The inscriptions further show that news of his father’s death brought Nebuchadnezzar back to Babylon, and on the first of Elul (August-September), he ascended the throne. In this his accession year he returned to Hattu, and “in the month Shebat [January-February, 624 B.C.E.] he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 100) In 624 B.C.E., in the first official year of his kingship, Nebuchadnezzar again led his forces through Hattu; he captured and sacked the Philistine city of Ashkelon.

*** it-1 p. 1025 Hamath ***

• According to an extant cuneiform inscription (British Museum 21946), after the battle of Carchemish in 625 B.C.E. (Jer 46:2), Nebuchadnezzar’s forces overtook and destroyed the fleeing Egyptians in the district of Hamath. (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 99) In this same area, a few years earlier, Pharaoh Nechoh had taken King Jehoahaz captive. (2Ki 23:31-33) Then in 607 B.C.E., with the fall of Jerusalem, Zedekiah and other captives were taken to Riblah . . .

*** it-1 p. 1267 Jehoiachin ***

• It appears that Jehoiakim died during this siege and Jehoiachin ascended the throne of Judah. His rule ended, however, a mere three months and ten days later, when he surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar in 617 B.C.E. (in the month of Adar, according to a Babylonian chronicle). (2Ki 24:11, 12; 2Ch 36:9; Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. Grayson, 1975, p. 102)

*** it-2 p. 359 Medes, Media ***

• Following the Median capture of Asshur in Nabopolassar’s 12th year (634 B.C.E.), Cyaxares (called Ú-ma-kis-tar in the Babylonian records) met with Nabopolassar by the captured city, and they “made an entente cordiale.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 93)

*** it-2 p. 410 Minni ***

• . According to a Babylonian chronicle, in his tenth year of reign (636 B.C.E.) Nabopolassar “captured the Manneans who had come to their (i.e. the Assyrians’) aid.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 91)

*** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***

• But a mere three months and ten days thereafter the reign of the new king ended when Jehoiachin surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar (in the month of Adar [February-March] during Nebuchadnezzar’s seventh regnal year [ending in Nisan 617 B.C.E.], according to the Babylonian Chronicles). A cuneiform inscription (British Museum 21946) states: “The seventh year: In the month Kislev the king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Hattu. He encamped against the city of Judah and on the second day of the month Adar he captured the city (and) seized (its) king [Jehoiachin]. A king of his own choice [Zedekiah] he appointed in the city (and) taking the vast tribute he brought it into Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 102; PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 326)

*** it-2 p. 505 Nineveh ***

• With reference to Nineveh, a Babylonian chronicle reports: “They carried off the vast booty of the city and the temple (and) [turned] the city into a ruin heap.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. Grayson, 1975, p. 94; PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 958) To this day Nineveh is a desolate waste, and in the spring, flocks graze near or atop the mound of Kuyunjik.
• Date of Nineveh’s Fall. Though effaced from the extant cuneiform tablet that relates the fall of Nineveh, the date for this event, the 14th year of Nabopolassar, can be supplied from the context. It is also possible to place the destruction of Nineveh in the framework of Bible chronology. According to a Babylonian chronicle, the Egyptians were defeated at Carchemish in the 21st year of Nabopolassar’s reign. The Bible shows this to have taken place in the fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign or in 625 B.C.E. (Jer 46:2) Therefore, the capture of Nineveh (about seven years earlier) in the 14th year of Nabopolassar’s reign would fall in the year 632 B.C.E.

It was almost as if there was a Watch Tower policy stating that whenever a book is quoted that gives evidence of secular chronology, it is almost always necessary to make it look like it supports Watch Tower chronology even when anyone who reads the books in question can easily see that they do not.

[scholar JW]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

In addition to @scholar JW's infamous attempts, I have to mention again that the "Insight" book and other Watch Tower publications have also done something just like it many times, even adding bracketed secular dates of their own choosing to contexts discussing secular chronology which are in complete disagreement with the dates the Watch Tower has added

JW Insider

What is your problem? There is absolutely nothing wrong with the insertion of our Dates by means of brackets into a specific reference or quotation for the reader can easily see that by means of such a bracket, a insertion of the author's viewpoint or correction is intended. Such an academic convention is in harmony with their 'Style Manual' provided to WT writers and would follow similar style manuals common to other organizations and institutes of higher learning.

scholar JW emeritus