Watchtower's 1914 Chronology - Ad Nauseum

[JW Insider]

23 hours ago, BTK59 said:

In his remarkable series, "The 4-Volume Books of Pyramidology," Adam Rutherford not only embraces the Watchtower's stance on 607 BC and AD 1914 but also enhances it . . . .

. . . Heck maybe Bro. Adam Rutherford got the idea from the Watchtower,.

According to an article on the Bible Student site HERALDMAG.ORG [ http://www.heraldmag.org/2004_history/04history_7.htm ] Adam Rutherford was a Bble Student

Quote

A Bible Student who got most of his inspiration from the Great Pyramid, he published an extensive four-volume set on the Pyramid and it’s teachings, as well as the journal Pyramidology Monthly. He wrote numerous books, booklets, and tracts. His institute ceased operations a few years ago.

This is fairly obvious from several passages in the 4 volumes, especially the first which paraphrases Joseph Seiss and C.T.Russell quotes, often nearly verbatim. Also he references Morton and John Edgar who were Bible Students in Russell's time and who went on to publish two extensive volumes on the Great Pyramid. In fact, one page of Volume 1 of Adam Rutherford's book (122) is nearly a full page quote from Russell's "Divine Plan of the Ages" (191-192). A.Rutherford even calls it the Bible in Stone several times, just as Russell (and Seiss and others) did. And he also calls it the blueprint of the Divine Plan of the Ages. He uses all the same scriptural references that Russell used in support of the supposed prophetic importance of the Pyramid.

But he has also adjusted a few of the dates, ignoring most of the pre-1914 dates that Russell made note of, and makes much use of the 2,520 number, starting it not with the destruction of the Temple (which he would put around 587 BCE) but with the beginning of the Babylonian Empire at the final destruction of the Assyrian Empire, which he places in 607 BCE. He uses the astronomy-backed dates instead of the Barbour/Russell date that the Watchtower still uses today. He also counts from the exact beginning of the Babylonian Empire's incursions against Judea in 604 BCE (first official year of Nebuchadnezzar) to show that they (2520) end with the Balfour Declaration in 1917. But the future dates he focuses on would have put the start of the Millennium in AD 1994 and the end of the Millennium in AD 2994.  

[BTK59]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

According to an article on the Bible Student site HERALDMAG.ORG

It's clear that Pastor Russell and the groups he proudly led had no association. Even today, these independent Bible Students continue on their own path, with some even embracing Adventism, as was the case in Pastor Russell's time. This does not mean that Russell was heavily influenced by Adventism, but rather that he found certain aspects intriguing enough to investigate. The false claim that Pastor Russell was an Adventist is an apostate vision, and today's Bible Students who support Russell's perspective will ardently defend this truth.

However, my statement remains valid. Not a single apostate has taken the trouble to mention that Brother Adam Rutherford, who is unrelated to Joseph Rutherford, made reference to the Babylonian Chronicles in his book volume 3.

It is irrelevant if certain Bible Students associate him with their long-forgotten alliances. What truly matters is what is referenced in all of his books. Personally, I own eight of them, and they all consistently refer to AD 1914 and how it marked the culmination of the Gentile Times, just as Russell had mentioned.

So, that's for the update. I'm sure someone else will find it interesting.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

This is fairly obvious from several passages in the 4 volumes, especially the first which paraphrases Joseph Seiss and C.T.Russell quotes, often nearly verbatim. Also he references Morton and John Edgar who were Bible Students in Russell's time and who went on to publish two extensive volumes on the Great Pyramid. In fact, one page of Volume 1 of Adam Rutherford's book (122) is nearly a full page quote from Russell's "Divine Plan of the Ages" (191-192). A.Rutherford even calls it the Bible in Stone several times, just as Russell (and Seiss and others) did. And he also calls it the blueprint of the Divine Plan of the Ages. He uses all the same scriptural references that Russell used in support of the supposed prophetic importance of the Pyramid.

John and Edgar Morton had their own comprehensive ideology, which Pastor Russell only briefly mentioned in one of his publications. I recall it being a three-paragraph long piece. However, it is important not to overemphasize the influence of the Morton's ideology on Pastor Russell, as his primary interest lied in the Great Pyramid. He merely utilized the pyramid to validate certain biblical interpretations through calculations. It is crucial to note that Pastor Russell did not extensively engage with the pyramid schemes that others were involved in.

Of course, he visited the Great Pyramid, but that's not the point. The associations were "independent", meaning they would think and act independently in the best interest of their respective churches. Although this sometimes conflicted with Russell's own views, he never sought to impose his authority over others.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But he has also adjusted a few of the dates, ignoring most of the pre-1914 dates that Russell made note of, and makes much use of the 2,520 number, starting it not with the destruction of the Temple (which he would put around 587 BCE) but with the beginning of the Babylonian Empire at the final destruction of the Assyrian Empire, which he places in 607 BCE. He uses the astronomy-backed dates instead of the Barbour/Russell date that the Watchtower still uses today. He also counts from the exact beginning of the Babylonian Empire's incursions against Judea in 604 BCE (first official year of Nebuchadnezzar) to show that they (2520) end with the Balfour Declaration in 1917. But the future dates he focuses on would have put the start of the Millennium in AD 1994 and the end of the Millennium in AD 2994.  

The key here is whether people are truly interested in the truth. For instance, if someone is genuinely interested in the truth as presented in Adam Rutherford's books, they should make a point to read all of his published works.

By examining the historical events, one can clearly understand the significance of the year 1776, which contrasts the alternative perspective of 1799 as a significant date. It is worth noting the inclusion of both 1917-1918 and 1914, as mentioned by the person in question. It is important to avoid distorting their words or manipulating their ideas.

I found it quite interesting when Adam depicted the British Empire as the savior of the Jews in 1914. Referring to Britain as "Israel" and the Jews as "Judah" adds a poetic touch to the story.

Anglo-Saxon Israel or Israel-Britain -- Adam Rutherford -- 1939

Snippet:
"It is important to notice, too, that since the Great War of 1914-1918 Great Britain (Israel) and the Jews (Judah) have occupied the Holy Land together, the latter being under the guidance of the former,"
 

 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

However, my statement remains valid. Not a single apostate has taken the trouble to mention that Brother Adam Rutherford, ... made reference to the Babylonian Chronicles in his book volume 3.

I can't imagine why anyone interested in astronomy-backed chronology would find any good reason to quote him. He adds nothing to what the available research already says about them. He is a secondary source who relies on the same scholars and scientists and archaeologists and linguists and astronomers who continue to extensively study and research and re-check those tablets. 

When I say he "adds" nothing, I should add that he does subtract a couple of years so that he can be in agreement with Russell's use of 536 BCE as the first year of Cyrus, and 537 BCE as the fall of Babylon. There is no good reason to do this and it requires conjecturing about a two year co-reign without good evidence. [And he also keeps the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology off by a year or two as a result.] Watchtower chronology has already corrected Russell's 2 year mistake and placed the fall of Babylon "absolutely" in 539 BCE, not 537 BCE. The WTS derives the 2 extra years (to reach 537) by ending the 70 years, not at the first opportunity for the edict of Cyrus, but after a conjectured delay for the edict and then another delay for the Jews to get back to their homeland.

At least he understands that he has to accept the "no zero year" between AD and BC (CE and BCE). Per a WT article, Russell wouldn't really accept it even after it was pointed out to him.

[BTK59]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

When I say he "adds" nothing, I should add that he does subtract a couple of years so that he can be in agreement with Russell's use of 536 BCE as the first year of Cyrus, and 537 BCE as the fall of Babylon. There is no good reason to do this and it requires conjecturing about a two year co-reign without good evidence. [And he also keeps the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology off by a year or two as a result.] Watchtower chronology has already corrected Russell's 2 year mistake and placed the fall of Babylon "absolutely" in 539 BCE, not 537 BCE. The WTS derives the 2 extra years (to reach 537) by ending the 70 years, not at the first opportunity for the edict of Cyrus, but after a conjectured delay for the edict and then another delay for the Jews to get back to their homeland.

 

Pyramidology -- adam rutherford -- Volume 3, 1966

He confidently refers to the years 539 BC and 537 BC, which he obtained from the Harran Inscriptions of 1957-1958 (H1, B; H2, A; H2, B). Additionally, he mentions the year 536 BC, which aligns with Pastor Russell's understanding of Chronology during that period. 

However, it is regrettable that some apostates here foolishly embraced Carl Olof Jonsson's erroneous misconception of secular chronology, which they desperately used to challenge the accurate Watchtower Chronology. It is clear that your unwavering insistence on using the incorrect date of 587 BC contributed to confusion and disharmony. If a good researcher wants to conduct a thorough investigation, they must utilize all available information, rather than cherry-picking data that aligns with their preconceptions.

 

Isn't it, what people want here? Not a discussion but a fight when things don't go their way? There is too much resorting to strife and division, even though the Bible "clearly" speaks against such behavior.

 

My statement remains firm: no apostate has utilized Adam Rutherford's work to "connect" the Babylonian Chronicles in a manner that doesn't support baseless argument like COJ. Anyone who had thoroughly examined the chronicles would have recognized that one individual had already used them correctly prior to the claims of the opposing party. This serves as further evidence supporting the validity of the Watchtower Chronology. Another compelling reason to dismiss theoretical ideologies presented here. For those to whom this issue is significant, I encourage independent and comprehensive research.

 

Some individuals often become easily fatigued solely because they lack belief in the existence of alternatives. However, it is important to understand that there is always an alternative, and sometimes these alternatives coincide, even if it's just a single one.

 

In Adam Rutherford's third volume from 1966, which predates Carl Olof Jonsson's misguided book, there is a question as to why conflicted Bethelites didn't explore that instead of embracing COJ's book. Now, 10 years later, there is a demand for explanations and justifications after causing so much confusion (Stumbling) for many.

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, BTK59 said:

He confidently refers to the years 539 BC and 537 BC, which he obtained from the Harran Inscriptions of 1957-1958 (H1, B; H2, A; H2, B).

Yes. He confidently says that the received date, 539 BCE for the fall of Babylon to Cyrus must be lowered by 2 years 

Unfortunately for him, the Watchtower chronology is exactly correct through this period and matches the tablets and the secular scholars readings, too. 

4 hours ago, BTK59 said:

However, it is regrettable that some apostates here foolishly embraced Carl Olof Jonsson's erroneous misconception of secular chronology, which they desperately used to challenge the accurate Watchtower Chronology.

True. A lot of people don't want to think for themselves. Taking Carl Olof Jonsson's word for something that is so simple to check out for oneself is a stupid mistake. A person should "make sure of all things," not just take man's word for it. 

4 hours ago, BTK59 said:

It is clear that your unwavering insistence on using the incorrect date of 587 BC contributed to confusion and disharmony.

The exact date of the siege and fall of Jerusalem around the 18th and 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar isn't important to me. The claim that a false chronology must be correct just because we've used most of it to hang onto a date that Barbour and Russell once published is a false premise. If we stand for truth, then we can't just make claims without evidence and tell the world that we are right and the astronomy is wrong. It would be one thing if we said that we know the chronology is wrong and have rejected it, but we hypocritically claim that the chronology is correct when it gives us 539 BCE, which we can use. But then we claim it is incorrect when it gives us 587 BCE for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. Both of those dates are backed consistently by all the astronomical evidence. And even if we didn't trust any of the astronomical evidence, we have all the archaeological evidence telling us that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year is exactly 49 years from the first year of Cyrus over Babylon. So it's a matter of presenting ourselves as upright and honest to the public that concerns me. We can believe whatever we want, but we can't be dishonest and pretend we have scholarly evidence for it, or that we are superior somehow because we can base our chronology on a lack of evidence. We look haughty when we present these alternatives to anyone who has looked into the matter for themselves, as everyone should. 

And just to make the point even clearer, recall that you have never and probably will never answer simple questions: 

What astronomical evidence do you use to get the date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign? What year did it give you?

You have never been able to give a straightforward answer to such simple questions under any of your accounts.

4 hours ago, BTK59 said:

If a good researcher wants to conduct a thorough investigation, they must utilize all available information, rather than cherry-picking data that aligns with their preconceptions.

 That's correct. Thank you.

4 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Not a discussion but a fight when things don't go their way?

A discussion talks about the merits of the evidence. A fight is when both sides look to attack the person, and call names. What often happens here is that one person is willing to discuss the merits of the evidence, and the other person gets angry and starts calling him an apostate, or a liar, or a deceiver. It seems like that person wants a fight, but can't really get one because the other person still wants to discuss the merits of the evidence. At least, that's been my experience here for many years.

 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

Anyone who had thoroughly examined the chronicles would have recognized that one individual had already used them correctly prior to the claims of the opposing party. This serves as further evidence supporting the validity of the Watchtower Chronology.

Adam Rutherford rejects the current Watchtower chronology. He places the destruction of Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year at about 585 BCE.

Also he uses the Harran inscription to show that the lengths of all these kings' reigns are exactly in accord with Ptolemy's regnal lengths. Therefore he also accepts that the number of years between Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year and Cyrus' first year is about 49 years. Same as me. Same as Wiseman. Same as Gadd. Same as Jonsson. Same as 99.99% of all people who have run the astronomy programs for themselves. He agrees with Carl Olof Jonsson in this regard and in the idea of beginning the 70 years of desolation with the fall of Assyria and rise of Babylon. I also agree with him on those points. The fact that he must ignore most of the astronomy to keep his chronology 2 years off doesn't bother me. I've always said that one or two years one way or another doesn't make enough difference to the understanding of the Bible's record of that time period.

The WTS claims that we need some pivotal of absolute secular dates for this period. I'd say that we don't need ANY secular chronology to understand the Bible's record of this period. (2 Tim 3:16,17)

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, BTK59 said:

In Adam Rutherford's third volume from 1966, which predates Carl Olof Jonsson's misguided book, there is a question as to why conflicted Bethelites didn't explore that instead of embracing COJ's book.

Anyone who embraced COJ's book was misguided when there was so much evidence to look at without being biased one way or another by what one man had to say. The question is an archaeological and astronomical one. COJ never claimed to be an expert in either one of those things. But he quoted persons who were. It was better to go directly to the archaeological evidence and astronomical evidence, and forget the claims of people like you, who kept obsessing over COJ's book.

That said, I doubt there is much of anything wrong with COJ's book. So far everything you or George88 or others claimed to be wrong in the book turned out to be correct, so based on things you have said, I have a lot of respect for COJ's book. But it's still not the right kind of resource for me. It's just not the right kind of source for someone who wants to make sure of all things.

[BTK59]

I absolutely agree with your statement. This indeed provides compelling evidence that apostates mistakenly relied on the Babylonian Chronicles, when they could have easily utilized the correct method, which supports the Watchtower Chronology. The COJ book should have been considered utterly worthless by conflicted bethelites.

Pyramidology -- adam rutherford -- Volume 3, 1966 
THE EARLY PERSIAN PERIOD Persia became the dominating world power, with Cyrus as first monarch, after the Fall of Babylon. In 1957-38 the pub-lication of the translation of the three recently discovered Harran Inscriptions (H1, B.; H2, A.; H2, B.) of Nabonidus, the last independent king of Babylon, is revolutionary in that the first-hand detailed chronological information therein supplied demands an adjustment of the hitherto accepted chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period and that of the reign of Cyrus of Persia following. The details of this are given in Chapter IV, wherein we discuss the chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period but, suffice is to say here that these new invaluable archaeological discoveries show that the hitherto generally received date of the Fall of Babylon, 539 B.c., must be lowered 2 years and that the correct date for that event is 537_Bic, This means of course that the date of the accession of Cyrus as the first Persian Emperor is accordingly 537 B.c., with his Ist regnal year beginning in Nisan, 536 B.c. That this dating is correct can also be shown independently from Persian history as follows: (This portion was posted by you)

Continued: After the fall of Babylon, the Jews returned to the Holy Land in the reign of Cyrus the Great. Both Ptolemy’s Canon and the contract tablet datings show a 9 years’ reign for Cyrus and 8 years for his son and successor, Cambyses. The latter reign is astronomically fixed by the record of the lunar eclipse of 16th July, 523 B.c. in the 7th year of that reign. 

Thus, there is an understanding of the events from 539 BC to Cyrus' Edict in 538 BC and the return of the Jews in 537 BC, which aligns with the Watchtower's view of 537 BC and the recognition of 607 BC as the 70-year mark. However, the inconsistency arises when the same two years accepted for the process of 539 BC are denied in the context of 607 BC, with the preference being for 587 BC based on astronomical data, which was previously upheld for 10 years. This shift in stance seems to come after causing confusion for many, all in an effort to argue against the Watchtower's position. It appears to be a belated change in perspective.

In his fourth volume, he delves deeper into the topic of 607 BC, shedding more light on it. Additionally, it's important to consider the timeframe of his demise.

Pyramidology -- adam rutherford -- Volume 4, 1972
This means to say that the end of this World Order comes precisely 4 Times or 1440 years (4x360=1440) after the beginning of Daniel’s 34 Times in a.d. 538. A pattern of prophetic Times apparently runs through the Divine Plan of the Ages, for from the birth of Christ in 2 B.c. (date of which is conclusively proved in Book JJ) to the inauguration of the Millennium in 1979 is exactly 54 Times or 1980 years (14. B.c. + A.D. 19782= 1980). All students of chronological prophecy are of course familiar with the 7 Times of Daniel, chapter 4, extending from the beginning of Babylonian domination in 607 B.c. till a.p. 1914, the commencement of World Wars and first stage in the breaking-up of the Old Order. Then the Great Pyramid’s chronograph defines another 3 prophetic Times beyond that, namely from 1914 to 2994 which is a period of 1080 years (3 x360=1080)—Book I, pages 149-150.

However, what is being overlooked is the fact that Adam Rutherford's book was actually published in 1966, yet no apostate from that time, such as COJ or anyone in the present era, has ever mentioned the connection it has with the Babylonian Tablets at the British Museum. This crucial link is being deliberately downplayed, and I am bringing this to the public's attention with great emphasis.

By relying solely on secular history, 607 BC stands as a credible date that has been substantiated in the past, well before the advent of all the COJ misconceptions.

[BTK59]

Furthermore, I am absolutely certain that he possessed an extensive compilation of the kings' chronicles from esteemed sources like "Edwin R. Thiele" and "Ptolemy Canon", which he frequently referenced.

The Watchtower Chronology commences in 4026 BC, whereas general secular history utilizes Ussher's 4004 BC. The crucial point here is that by solely relying on secular history as a reference, the same conclusion is reached without the need for Adam to utilize the Watchtower chronology.

Why do we keep trying to confuse the issue with our chronology dates when the end goal is the same?

Pyramidology -- adam rutherford -- Volume 3, 1966

THE 3RD YEAR OF JEHOIAKIM
Daniel 1:1
The first verse in the Book of Daniel states: “In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem and besieged it.’’ This verse has puzzled archaeologists. As punctuated in the English Bible, Jeremiah 46,!2 seems to state that the Battle of Carchemish was fought in the 4th year of Jehoiakim. It is clearly recorded in the cuneiform Babylon Chronicle (B.M. 21946) that this battle occurred a few weeks before Nebuchadnezzar ascended the Babylonian throne in the 21st year of his father,Nabopolassar, whose death occurred on the 8th of AB (August).

The Chronicle also records a siege of Jerusalem in the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar and the capture of the king (Jehoiachin) and appointment of the new king (Zedekiah) on the 2nd of Adar (March). As Jehoiachin only reigned 3 months, his accession on the death of Jehoiakim was therefore in the December of Nebuchadnezzar’s 7th year (8th year by Jewish reckoning). Hence Jehoiakim died in the first half of his 11th regnal year (being Tishri years) and in the latter half of Nebuchadnezzar’s 7th year (Nisan years). As the Battle of Carchemish was fought in the summer, had it taken place in the 4th year of Jehoiakim (second half), this would have been synchronous with the first half of Nebuchadnezzar’s 1st year (2nd year, Jewish reckoning), whereas we know from the Babylonian Chronicle itself that the battle occurred in the 21st year of the reign of Nabopolassar (Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year) and hence in Jehoiakim’s 3rd year. As explained on page 572, the seeming contradiction is accounted for by the erroneous punctuation of Jeremiah 46,1.),

Here we can observe that he specifically references the siege of Jerusalem in 598 BC. He thoroughly examines secular history without depending on other factors. According to his perspective, the third year of Jehoiakim begins in 610 BC, specifically in the late portion of the year around October or November. Notably, Jehoahaz was made king in that period, and three months later, Jehoiakim ascended to the throne, aligning with secular historical records from 606 BC.

However, the Watchtower's use of different dates originating from 4026 and chronologically running down from that point results in an obvious misalignment. Nevertheless, the discrepancy does not negate the fact that either the 607 BC Watchtower or the 606 BC Bible Students is correct, given that scripture mentions the 3rd year in one passage and the 4th year in another.

So, those 2 years you are now agreeing with could have been used anywhere from 605 to 539.

[nkboswell]

17 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Pyramidology -- adam rutherford -- Volume 3, 1966

THE 3RD YEAR OF JEHOIAKIM
Daniel 1:1
The first verse in the Book of Daniel states: “In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem and besieged it.’’ This verse has puzzled archaeologists. As punctuated in the English Bible, Jeremiah 46,!2 seems to state that the Battle of Carchemish was fought in the 4th year of Jehoiakim. It is clearly recorded in the cuneiform Babylon Chronicle (B.M. 21946) that this battle occurred a few weeks before Nebuchadnezzar ascended the Babylonian throne in the 21st year of his father,Nabopolassar, whose death occurred on the 8th of AB (August).

In seeking to avoid succumbing to the snares of the devil's influence, it's paramount to heed the wisdom of Proverbs 6:16-19. I find this book to be truly fascinating. While I'm aware that you're unable to divulge its content in full due to fair use restrictions and the fact that it was published in 1966 and thus falls outside the public domain clause of 1923, I'm curious if Adam Rutherford referenced the year 587 B.C.

[BTK59]

19 hours ago, nkboswell said:

In seeking to avoid succumbing to the snares of the devil's influence, it's paramount to heed the wisdom of Proverbs 6:16-19. I find this book to be truly fascinating. While I'm aware that you're unable to divulge its content in full due to fair use restrictions and the fact that it was published in 1966 and thus falls outside the public domain clause of 1923, I'm curious if Adam Rutherford referenced the year 587 B.C.

In volume 3, the mention of 587 BC and 586 BC is not in the context one might expect, as argued by apostates. Those who dissent arrive at their conclusion based on an astronomical tablet dated in 568 BC. The inconsistency here lies in their assertion, which hinges on retracing either the 18th or 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar back to their given dates, when we could just as easily utilize those year dates from 626/5 BC to arrive at 607/6 BC. The king's list is not necessary to extract the value of Jeremiah's mission. Adam Rutherford's approach, while one of many, is driven by the Sabbatical year or cycle. He does not endorse 587/6 BC as he believes it to be in error, but instead opts to link it to 585 BC which hinders that apostate claim of the astronomical tablet VAT 4956 from 568 BC that COJ and all apostates used to confirm the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC. They would also need to explain those 2 years.

library.biblicalarchaeology.org
According to the introduction to his eponymous biblical book, Jeremiah became a prophet in the 13th year of King Josiah, that is, around 626 BC. In that same year, the Chaldeans took control of the city of Babylon, and so began the rise of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, which in 40 years would swallow up Judah.

 

Pyramidology -- adam rutherford -- Volume 3, 1966
Hence 587 B.c. is also an erroneous date for the fall of Jerusalem. 
So 588 B.c. is not the correct date either for the Fall of Jerusalem. 
according to the system of chronology herein set forth, the destruction of Jerusalem took place in 585 B.c.

Naturally, this does not correspond to our comprehension of events based on our initial standpoint in time.
However, in all of Adam Rutherford's books, there are references to 607 BC and AD 1914. Regardless of any other connections and methods he may employ, it is ultimately these two dates that hold the utmost significance to the Watchtower Chronology. Rutherford emphasizes and establishes a connection with the Babylonian Chronicles in his own unique manner.

As I previously mentioned, his works should be interesting for any dedicated researcher. However, for myself, in certain instances, I must respectfully disagree with his perspective on historical chronology.

[JW Insider]

Still traveling. Sunday's talk was "Acquiring a Heart of Wisdom" by Brother West from East Shelby Congregation, which is just a couple of towns over from @Pudgy. Made me wonder how he is doing. Anyone heard from him? I have never followed @Pudgy on the forums, but from his Profile it looks like he has still shown no activity here since May 6th. 

Back to the topic. 

On 6/11/2024 at 9:31 PM, BTK59 said:

This indeed provides compelling evidence that apostates mistakenly relied on the Babylonian Chronicles, when they could have easily utilized the correct method, which supports the Watchtower Chronology. The COJ book should have been considered utterly worthless by conflicted bethelites.

I have no idea about apostates relying on the Babylonian Chronicles, but I see that Adam Rutherford relies on them in exactly the same way that COJ does. No difference. What COJ does a bit differently, is to ALSO rely on 100% of the astronomy readings . A.Rutherford can only rely on a few of them because he has chosen to disregard all evidence that gets in the way of his two-year adjustment of the entire Neo-Babylonian period.

This means he can rely completely on the accuracy of the regnal lengths found in Ptolemy's writings, and all the contract tablets, and ALL the different segments of the Babylonian Chronicles. That's because they don't include the actual BCE years, just the relative chronology. Rutherford uses Ptolemy's regnal lengths, but does not incorporate the actual astronomical dates that Ptolemy associated with those years. That would have given him 538 for the first year of Cyrus not 536 -- and would have given him 604 for the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, not the year 602 that Adam Rutherford uses. Rutherford takes what the Watchtower has called the supposed "absolute" and "pivotal" date of 539, and changes that date to 537 for the year Cyrus captured Babylon. So much for absolute dates!!

COJ exactly agrees with the Watchtower for this date (539) because both sources (COJ and WTS) use the astronomy evidence for all the years from Nabonidus down through most of the Persian period. That includes Nabonidus, Cyrus and Cambyses.

So although Adam Rutherford rejects the Watchtower Chronology, to keep 1914, he still ends up supporting Russell (and Barbour's) chronology as far as he can. It's easy to see why:

Barbour and Russell derived 1914 primarily through calculations related to Israel's "double" and not through counting 2,520 years from 606. The use of the “7 times” was a secondary method for calculating 1914, and it wasn't even based on Nebuchadnezzar's tree dream prophecy of Daniel 4. The primary method was based on counting 40 years from 1874 to get 1914. When the "7 gentile times" of Leviticus was used as a further support, Barbour knew he had to find a major event from 606 BCE. A quick check of Rev. Bowen's chronology in Rev. Elliott's famous book looked like it had dated the destruction of the Temple in 606. Perfect!

But Adam Rutherford knew that counting  back from 1914 actually leads to 607. And he had easily seen that Nebuchadnezzar wasn't even a king until 605, which was two years later. So his 18th year would have been 587 per the received evidence. For his own reasons, Adam Rutherford made that even worse by changing that period another two years so that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year would have been 585 BCE, not 587 BCE. 

So. Adam Rutherford had a new problem trying to support Russell's 1914 because he now had to find a DIFFERENT event for 607 BCE. For this event he did exactly what many Bible commentators have done. He did what COJ would also later do. He knew that 607 was BEFORE Nebuchadnezzar's kingship, and went with Jeremiah 25:10-12 and made it the "Fall of Assyria" using the date between 609 (Harran) and 605 (Carchemish). 607. Perfect!

All you need is a major Biblical event for 606 or 607 and let interpretation do the rest. So that 1914 can still work for you as the culmination of 2,520 years before that 1914 date.