Watchtower's 1914 Chronology - Ad Nauseum

[JW Insider]

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

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.

I hope no one else is confused. I haven't changed my stance in 15 years, 10 of them here on a public forum. I have always agreed that 607, plus or minus a year or two, is an excellent time with which to start the 70 years of Babylon's desolations against the nations per Jeremiah 25:10. And I have also believed that the "these 70 years" of Zechariah's reference to the destruction of the temple is a good fit (plus or minus a year or two) based on the Watchtower's own date for the timing of Zechariah's prophecy (about 518/517 BCE as the 4th year of Darius). "These 70 years" of the Temple's destruction would therefore run from about 587 to 517 using the Watchower's own year for the 4th year of Darius.

*** it-2 p. 1225 Zechariah, Book of ***
The last time indicator found in the book of Zechariah is the fourth day of Chislev in the fourth year of Darius’ reign (about December 1, 518 B.C.E.)
 

Turns out that Adam Rutherford used the same scriptures and evidence I have used to reach the same Biblical conclusion, but he "adjusts" it by two years, for his own reasons.

I added the same image from his Vol 3 as above, but this time to highlight the dates 585 to 515 on the right under the destruction (and rebuilding) of the Temple.

 

[TrueTomHarley]

10 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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.

They tell me that brothers giving that talk in his area routinely point to him as a cautionary tale.

Not a word from him. It’s almost like the removal of the constant feature. That is the downside of online relationships. They disappear one day and you haven’t a clue why.

Hopefully, one of the roaming hogs bit his hand and as soon as it heals up we will hear from him again.

[BTK59]

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I hope no one else is confused. I haven't changed my stance in 15 years, 10 of them here on a public forum. I have always agreed that 607, plus or minus a year or two, is an excellent time with which to start the 70 years of Babylon's desolations against the nations per Jeremiah 25:10. And I have also believed that the "these 70 years" of Zechariah's reference to the destruction of the temple is a good fit (plus or minus a year or two) based on the Watchtower's own date for the timing of Zechariah's prophecy (about 518/517 BCE as the 4th year of Darius). "These 70 years" of the Temple's destruction would therefore run from about 587 to 517 using the Watchower's own year for the 4th year of Darius.

It is intriguing how you justify your disagreement with Watchtower Chronology, especially considering that it is discussed in an apostate site, AD1914, alongside your own rejection of 607 BC for the reasons you mentioned. King Nebuchadnezzar was not king in 607 BC. However, numerous reputable individuals, including Bro. Adam Rutherford, have been able to discern this, while you seem to be unaware of these facts.

 

This is a compelling reason why one should not take your personal observations seriously, as you do not appear to be a serious researcher. Fortunately, people can turn to Adam Rutherford's works and learn how he properly utilized the Babylonian Chronicles, as opposed to the incorrect methods employed by apostates in the past, including some active witnesses here and of course this would include Carl Olof Jonsson.

 

It's good that you are finally being honest with the people whom you personally caused to stumble with your conflicted views. It's important to acknowledge that your opposition of 1914 and 607 can be easily proven.

 

As always, you tend to react with frustration and possible banning, or attempt to cleverly manipulate the situation with wordplay to maintain a favorable image. However, it seems unreasonable that you only value your own words and those of your friends, without consideration for the general public.

 

[BTK59]

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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.

Certainly, you do. You have been contending with misinformation for 10 years. What aspect of those dissenting views is leading you to shift your position?

 

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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. 

Your claims are merely speculative, as he has his own method for determining those dates. Furthermore, you conveniently overlook the fact that he relied on the Babylonian chronicles to validate his claims, which is my main argument that you seem determined to evade.

 

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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!

More speculation: just because you can't figure it out personally, doesn't mean the rest of us are handicapped. That seemingly only applies to you. He didn't seem to have a problem organizing historical events in their proper order. It seems disingenuous to criticize just because you don't get it.

Someday, you will inevitably grasp the simplicity that honest researchers effortlessly comprehend. However, in the meantime, it is of little value to entertain conjecture and speculation from dissenters who stubbornly refuse to accept facts, whether they are rooted in biblical or historical evidence. Those who are interested are free to delve into the positive findings of the Watchtower Chronology.

 

Unfortunately, as more people search the internet, they are increasingly exposed to misinformation, not only from unreliable sources such as apostates and several active witnesses but also from biased search engine owners who prioritize deception over truth in their results.

[JW Insider]

16 hours ago, BTK59 said:

alongside your own rejection of 607 BC for the reasons you mentioned. King Nebuchadnezzar was not king in 607 BC. However, numerous reputable individuals, including Bro. Adam Rutherford, have been able to discern this, while you seem to be unaware of these facts.

Yes. You are right. Numerous reputable individuals realize that Nebuchadnezzar was not even a king in 607 BCE. Adam Rutherford also realized this. In fact, 100% of the reputable historians, archaeologists, Assyriologists, and commentators that the Watchtower Society has referenced as authorities on the matter have realized this. So how could Nebuchadnezzar have been in his 19th year as King when Jerusalem was destroyed in 607, if he was not even a king yet in 607?

16 hours ago, BTK59 said:

However, numerous reputable individuals, including Bro. Adam Rutherford, have been able to discern thisj . . . . Fortunately, people can turn to Adam Rutherford's works and learn how he properly utilized the Babylonian Chronicles

Yes. "Bro. Adam Rutherford" agrees with me, and disagrees with you on this fact. So why are you including this vague and convoluted admission by you that you are wrong? Yes, I agree that he has properly used the Babylonian Chronicles. This is how he was able to understand the relative chronology of the period correct. I believe he is correct in his relative chronology but the astronomy data says he is off by two years in his absolute chronology, which is why he generally ignores the astronomy data and sticks with the Babylonian Chronicles, which are relative.

I agree with his relative chronology of the period, he has the correct lengths for the reigns of the kings. But in one post you indicate agreement and in another you admit that you disagree with his conclusions, including both the relative and the absolute chronology he has utilized. 

On 6/13/2024 at 11:13 AM, BTK59 said:

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.
. . .  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.

Try to be more consistent.

 

[JW Insider]

15 hours ago, BTK59 said:

It's good that you are finally being honest with the people whom you personally caused to stumble with your conflicted views. It's important to acknowledge that your opposition of 1914 and 607 can be easily proven.

I personally think that you know better, and you cannot actually claim that you have misunderstood my position on this matter that I have repeated many times. You can't just claim that you don't understood what I've said while everyone else here understands what I've said. 

But just in case you have confused anyone, I'll say it again. I think the Bible opposes the idea that we can know the times and seasons in relation to the end times. I have no problem agreeing with 100% of the current authorities that the Watchtower has referenced about the Babylonian Chronicles and the various astronomical diaries and other tablets and inscriptions of the period. ALL of those quoted authorities agree that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year would be about 586 BCE. ALL of those quoted authorities agree that Nebuchadnezzar was not even a king in 607 BCE. 

All of them would agree that it was within a couple of years of 607 BCE when one could finally say that the Assyrian Empire had lost its ascendancy and the Babylonian Empire was now the newly recognized Empire of the region. All of them would agree that Babylon was defeated by Cyrus in 539 BCE. Therefore the 70 year period of Babylonian domination falls between those years, plus or minus one or two years. Therefore Bible prophecy (Jeremiah 25) is proven to be correct again. 

I have therefore never disagreed with 607 (plus or minus a year or two) as the beginning of the 70 years. I do disagree with taking a dream about a wicked Gentile named Nebuchadnezzar and claiming that his anti-Messianic rulership represents Christ's Messianic rulership. So any attempts to try to turn his 7 times of insanity, humiliation and restoration into a picture of the Messianic kingdom's restoration is unscriptural, in my opinion.  

[BTK59]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I personally think that you know better, and you cannot actually claim that you have misunderstood my position on this matter that I have repeated many times. You can't just claim that you don't understood what I've said while everyone else here understands what I've said. 

You have consistently expressed your opposition to the Watchtower Chronology and your support for the historical view of 587 BC, aligning yourself with apostate friends past and present. I understand your position on this matter. If you are engaging in mind games, that is your concern.

Your actions will never absolve you of the responsibility for causing conflict, division, and distress (stumble) to genuine visitors who came seeking the truth, only to encounter a supposed witness taking such reckless actions to share an untrustworthy opinion.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But just in case you have confused anyone, I'll say it again. I think the Bible opposes the idea that we can know the times and seasons in relation to the end times.

If you are uncertain about the true meaning of the gentile times, let me clarify that it is not about predicting Armageddon. Rather, it is based on the proximity of the actual event of "tribulation." It appears that you and your misled circle of friends are still confused about this.

You keep bringing up a misinterpretation of 587/6 BC despite criticizing me for being confused about your interpretation. Cease playing your childish games.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

All of them would agree that it was within a couple of years of 607 BCE when one could finally say that the Assyrian Empire had lost its ascendancy and the Babylonian Empire was now the newly recognized Empire of the region. All of them would agree that Babylon was defeated by Cyrus in 539 BCE. Therefore the 70 year period of Babylonian domination falls between those years, plus or minus one or two years. Therefore Bible prophecy (Jeremiah 25) is proven to be correct again. 

However, it seems that you haven't fully grasped the details of historical events that lead us to the year 607 BC, as you still hold the belief that Nebuchadnezzar was the king in 605 BC. Let's examine the historical events surrounding Cyrus: indeed, he defeated Babylon in late 539 BC. In mid-538 BC, he issued a decree for the Jews to return home, and by 537 BC, when they were already back in their homeland, they erected an altar. These facts are straightforward enough. Consequently, we can indeed trace back the 70-year period to the year 607 BC.

There's no window for error using the date 539 BC.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I have therefore never disagreed with 607 (plus or minus a year or two) as the beginning of the 70 years. I do disagree with taking a dream about a wicked Gentile named Nebuchadnezzar and claiming that his anti-Messianic rulership represents Christ's Messianic rulership. So any attempts to try to turn his 7 times of insanity, humiliation and restoration into a picture of the Messianic kingdom's restoration is unscriptural, in my opinion.  

Wow, that's a surprising statement. Have you received counseling or have you developed a conscience? It appears that the truth in your recent comments truly reveals your authentic self and how you wish to be perceived, not as a true witness. As I mentioned before, lacking understanding shouldn't be an excuse for causing others to stumble for more than 10 years.

[BTK59]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Yes. You are right. Numerous reputable individuals realize that Nebuchadnezzar was not even a king in 607 BCE. Adam Rutherford also realized this. In fact, 100% of the reputable historians, archaeologists, Assyriologists, and commentators that the Watchtower Society has referenced as authorities on the matter have realized this. So how could Nebuchadnezzar have been in his 19th year as King when Jerusalem was destroyed in 607, if he was not even a king yet in 607?

You seem to struggle with interpreting past information accurately due to a lack of research skills. This is a critical issue for a self-proclaimed researcher.

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Yes. "Bro. Adam Rutherford" agrees with me, and disagrees with you on this fact. So why are you including this vague and convoluted admission by you that you are wrong? Yes, I agree that he has properly used the Babylonian Chronicles. This is how he was able to understand the relative chronology of the period correct. I believe he is correct in his relative chronology but the astronomy data says he is off by two years in his absolute chronology, which is why he generally ignores the astronomy data and sticks with the Babylonian Chronicles, which are relative.

If Brother Adam were alive today, I highly doubt that he would agree with your understanding of the historical events surrounding Nebuchadnezzar's kingship in 605 BC. He has his own chronology which places the destruction of Jerusalem in 585 BC, whereas you have been adamant in advocating for the date of 587 BC. Even in his astronomical data, I haven't found any inclusion of information other than Ptolemy's Canon.

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I agree with his relative chronology of the period, he has the correct lengths for the reigns of the kings. But in one post you indicate agreement and in another you admit that you disagree with his conclusions, including both the relative and the absolute chronology he has utilized. 

It appears that you tend to only support ideas that do not align with the Watchtower Chronology when it comes to historical events. However, I also observe your agreement regarding how Adam Rutherford, a member of the "British Israelite" sect of Christianity, successfully utilized the Babylonian chronicles to establish a reliable chronology. On the other hand, the COJ, unfortunately, failed to accomplish the same feat.

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Try to be more consistent.

I always strive to maintain consistency, which is why individuals like George were banned for. Just like George, there are various explanations surrounding the active military campaigns during the years 590,589, 588, 587, 586, 585, 584, 583, and 582 BC, etc. Consequently, my commitment lies in ensuring that different correct interpretations of historical events are consistently acknowledged.

[JW Insider]

6 hours ago, BTK59 said:

You have consistently expressed your opposition to the Watchtower Chronology

I don't oppose all of it. Only where it is inconsistent and produces potential Bible contradictions.

6 hours ago, BTK59 said:

and your support for the historical view of 587 BC

Because it is the only year supported by the overwhelming astronomical evidence, I support the historical view that 587 BCE was the 18th year of King Nebuchadnezzar. If any apostates wish to accept that view, too, that's up to them. It is also the view of EVERY ONE of the authors, experts and authorities that the Watch Tower Society quotes when they refer to Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Persian chronology. If the WTS chooses NOT to accept the view of the same persons they deem to be experts on the matter, that's up to them. 

6 hours ago, BTK59 said:

I understand your position on this matter.

If that's true, then you were pretending that you didn't because you kept implying that my position had shifted.

6 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Your actions will never absolve you of the responsibility for causing conflict, division, and distress (stumble) to genuine visitors who came seeking the truth

 A person who speaks the truth need not be overly concerned about whether simple truth will cause division or distress among others. If those visitors are seeking truth they will not be stumbled by truth. Besides I am telling people the truth about what I personally believe. No one is telling other people that they must believe what I believe. 

The only people who would get overly concerned about what I believe are people who understand that there may be no adequate response to the evidence presented. If you are angry about what I say that I believe, then I can only guess that you also do not believe there is an adequate response to the evidence. For that, I appreciate your responses because they certainly add more credibility and strength to the evidence. If anyone has any actual evidence that counters the evidence presented in the past on this forum, I'm still happy to consider that evidence, too. 

I don't think it's typical that a group of Witnesses would pay much attention to evidence that goes against our traditional beliefs about chronology. But I see evidence that a good percentage of people here have actually listened, asked questions about it, have contacted me privately for more information, and in some cases will publicly admit to agreeing with that evidence in spite of the danger to their standing and positions of responsibility in their congregations. I don't recommend that anyone speak of these things in their  congregations, but if they have concerns about how our traditions hold up in this regard, I'm happy to try to help address their concerns.

I think you have been a large part of the positive reception that the Biblical and historical evidence gets on this forum. Your confused and convoluted methods attempting to promote the Watchtower tradition have helped several people see more clearly that the evidence for the Watchtower's tradition really is confused, convoluted and contradictory. Bible doctrines need not be that way, but you have helped to show that this particular doctrine really is that way.  

[BTK59]

49 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I don't oppose all of it. Only where it is inconsistent and produces potential Bible contradictions.

Misunderstanding history and biblical chronology does not necessarily imply the presence of contradictions. Such contradictions only arise in your mind, as you are the one perceiving them as contradictory.

51 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Because it is the only year supported by the overwhelming astronomical evidence, I support the historical view that 587 BCE was the 18th year of King Nebuchadnezzar. If any apostates wish to accept that view, too, that's up to them. It is also the view of EVERY ONE of the authors, experts and authorities that the Watch Tower Society quotes when they refer to Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Persian chronology. If the WTS chooses NOT to accept the view of the same persons they deem to be experts on the matter, that's up to them. 

There is an abundance of compelling historical evidence to consider additional factors for that particular year, which you persistently refuse to acknowledge. Therefore, I will refrain from engaging in pointless arguments over baseless counterarguments, as the public is capable of conducting its own research. I firmly believe that George attests to that. But since you or Tom banned that person, it seems to have been erased.

57 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

If that's true, then you were pretending that you didn't because you kept implying that my position had shifted.

Your actions as a witness consistently highlight your dysfunction. It is evident that you are pretending to be one, and it is not difficult to comprehend this fact.

59 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

A person who speaks the truth need not be overly concerned about whether simple truth will cause division or distress among others. If those visitors are seeking truth they will not be stumbled by truth. Besides I am telling people the truth about what I personally believe. No one is telling other people that they must believe what I believe. 

Indeed, a person who speaks the "truth" has no reason to fear judgment from God. However, individuals who inflict conflict, discord, and lead people astray with deceit, distortion, and misguided intentions must bear the weight of concern before God. This principle holds true not only for those present but also for certain members in the exclusive group who still align themselves with that individual.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

The only people who would get overly concerned about what I believe are people who understand that there may be no adequate response to the evidence presented. If you are angry about what I say that I believe, then I can only guess that you also do not believe there is an adequate response to the evidence. For that, I appreciate your responses because they certainly add more credibility and strength to the evidence. If anyone has any actual evidence that counters the evidence presented in the past on this forum, I'm still happy to consider that evidence, too. 

I don't resort to anger to justify banning people; that's something you and Tom do. There is ample evidence that you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge, which seems like a futile attempt to defend false claims. Therefore, I concur with the Bible and historical events. I have doubts about your professionalism and research skills. Hence, your credibility is nonexistent.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I don't think it's typical that a group of Witnesses would pay much attention to evidence that goes against our traditional beliefs about chronology. But I see evidence that a good percentage of people here have actually listened, asked questions about it, have contacted me privately for more information, and in some cases will publicly admit to agreeing with that evidence in spite of the danger to their standing and positions of responsibility in their congregations. I don't recommend that anyone speak of these things in their  congregations, but if they have concerns about how our traditions hold up in this regard, I'm happy to try to help address their concerns.

Overall, the majority of our brothers do not share apostate views like the ones you're expressing. Our focus should not be on questioning the truthfulness of our brothers, but rather on addressing the distortions presented as false truth being forced and presented here. When scripture admonishes us to avoid such behaviors, it becomes clear that you do not align with the faithful brothers, but rather stand as a stain among them.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I think you have been a large part of the positive reception that the Biblical and historical evidence gets on this forum. Your confused and convoluted methods attempting to promote the Watchtower tradition have helped several people see more clearly that the evidence for the Watchtower's tradition really is confused, convoluted and contradictory. Bible doctrines need not be that way, but you have helped to show that this particular doctrine is that way.  

I haven't encountered any positive perspectives here so far. Criticizing the Watchtower, the Governing Body, the Elders, and their interpretation, as well as their chronology, seems to be the only thing you find beneficial. Your mindset on adhering to Bible truth as presented by an organization you disparage and slander appears to deviate from the civilized world under the guidance of Christ.

Are Tom and you missing Pudgy (James) so much for that reason?

[JW Insider]

6 hours ago, BTK59 said:

However, it seems that you haven't fully grasped the details of historical events that lead us to the year 607 BC, as you still hold the belief that Nebuchadnezzar was the king in 605 BC.

You always appear to have a very convoluted and inconsistent grasp on the details you argue about. I believe Nebuchadnezzar became king in 605 because 12 different and independent pieces of evidence tell us that he became king in 605. So far, after 10 years you haven't attempted to show even one bit of evidence that shows he was NOT.  You make a vague reference to the non-canonical book of Judith now and then, as if it might override Jeremiah. You make a vague and unsubstantiated claim that there may have been a King Nebuchadnezzar during the time when Nebuchadnezzar's father, Nabopolassar, was king. You make vague references to 18 and 19-year cycles as if they might somehow override the actual evidence. You pretend that these vague hints produce insurmountable problems to the chronology, but you won't even say what they might lead to. Except that they might somehow support the Watchtower's traditional chronology. 

Now you begin quoting the works of a self-proclaimed Russell-supporting-Bible-Student-turned-Pyramidologist who rejects what Russell said about the "606 event" and puts that event in 585, 21 years later than Russell, and 22 years later than the current Watchtower. You begin calling him "Brother Adam Rutherford" and praising his methods. Yet you forget that he is in almost exact agreement (within 2 years) of your obsessed-over nemesis, Carl Olof Jonsson. Adam Rutherford understands Ptolemy the same way COJ does; he understands the Babylonian Chronicles the same way COJ does; he understands the contract tablets the same way COJ does. Adam Rutherford agrees with my own view of 607, but because he merely mentions 607 and continues to keep Russell's 1914 as the end of the Gentile Times, you apparently think he's doing something right. Do you agree with one-time Governing Body member Joseph Rutherford in seeing Pyramidology as Satanic?

I have rarely seen a more confused and inconsistent argument from you.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

There is an abundance of compelling historical evidence to consider additional factors for that particular year, which you persistently refuse to acknowledge. Therefore, I will refrain from engaging in pointless arguments over baseless counterarguments

I have read and acknowledged all the evidence surrounding 607, 587, etc, that has ever been presented on this forum. You act like I can claim that 2+2=4, but that if you can ramble on for long enough about how 2+2=1,440 then I need to agree or else you will claim I have somehow not "acknowledged" your so-called "compelling evidence." You have never provided a shred of evidence, not under any account you have ever used here. If you think that rambling incoherently about various false claims is the same as "compelling evidence" then it's no wonder you have made some of the false claims you have made. 

If you disagree with this then go ahead and try out just ONE piece of your so-called compelling evidence, and see how it stands up against actual evidence. It's not that you have ever refrained from engaging in pointless arguments, it's that you refuse to present evidence.