Watchtower's 1914 Chronology - Ad Nauseum

[BTK59]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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.

Your personal fallacy lies in not considering the historical context that could reveal the fallacy in this conclusion.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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. 

I was unaware that the scholarly works presented by both George and I were actually non-canonical books. These works are actually based on historical evidence, meticulously presented by professionals in the field. It seems that you are unfairly basing your criticism on just one book, without acknowledging the broader context.

 

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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.

Your personal investigation into Brother Adam Rutherford did not delve deep enough. Although he may have been recognized by the Bible students, his background goes beyond that. As I mentioned, he was a British Israelite with a lineage that can be traced back even further. Are you troubled by the fact that Rutherford was correct while your champion, COJ, was not?

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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

Multiple individuals, besides Joseph Rutherford, alleged that Pyramidology was associated with Satanism.

Your personal observations are causing confusion by trying to manipulate them with wordplay. I guess this is when you get very upset enough to ban.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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. 

Indeed! We are aware of your stance on 587 BC versus 607 BC, which aligns with that of other dissenters. However, it is crucial to note that the evidence you continuously dismiss has valid explanations of its own. Thus, your refusal to acknowledge these explanations renders your opinion insignificant and lacking credibility. Consequently, I cannot accept your distorted perspective on history either.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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. 

If you haven't witnessed the enlightenment brought about by many individuals over the course of a decade, what makes you believe that you are intelligent enough now to understand, especially if you still fail to comprehend it?

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

If you haven't witnessed the enlightenment brought about by many individuals over the course of a decade, what makes you believe that you are intelligent enough now to understand, especially if you still fail to comprehend it?

Instead of excuses, why not try to offer even just one piece of evidence that is specifically about Nebuchadnezzar that indicates a particular BCE year during his reign? If you don't, then it seems obvious that you can't. You've had over 10 years here to try.

[BTK59]

10 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Instead of excuses, why not try to offer even just one piece of evidence that is specifically about Nebuchadnezzar that indicates a particular BCE year during his reign? If you don't, then it seems obvious that you can't. You've had over 10 years here to try.

It appears that the excuses are coming from you. Why should I keep posting numerous pieces of evidence to debunk your personal fallacies when you keep deleting them every time you ban someone? That doesn't seem logical. Your opinion is irrelevant. I am focused on revealing the real truth about your deceit to the public, not to any apostate.

[JW Insider]

38 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

It appears that the excuses are coming from you. Why should I keep posting numerous pieces of evidence to debunk your personal fallacies when you keep deleting them every time you ban someone? That doesn't seem logical. Your opinion is irrelevant. I am focused on revealing the real truth about your deceit to the public, not to any apostate.

I have already posted many examples of evidence specifically about Nebuchadnezzar. Up to this point you have always ignored them. You have never posted anything more than vague "teasers" that imply you might know about some evidence that you are not willing to share. Besides, I will never delete you or anyone else, even if I could, and I will save your evidence and/or responses in case you do get yourself deleted by an owner or moderator. This way your "evidence" isn't going to be lost and you can continue to defend it if you wish under another account if necessary.

So again, not for me, but just to show anyone who reads this that you aren't a fake:

Instead of excuses, why not try to offer even just one piece of evidence that is specifically about Nebuchadnezzar that indicates a particular BCE year during his reign? If you don't, then it seems obvious that you can't. You've had over 10 years here to try.

[BTK59]

I won't waste any more time on this pointless argument about who deleted the past information and who the true librarian is. However, I must point out that the only thing you got right is that you reject the Watchtower Chronology. I have no obligation to prove anything to you or people like you.

I'm intrigued by the Babylonian Chronicle ABC4 - what specific aspects of it are posing challenges for you? What parts are you finding difficult to comprehend?

[JW Insider]

50 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

I'm intrigued by the Babylonian Chronicle ABC4 - what specific aspects of it are posing challenges for you? What parts are you finding difficult to comprehend?

LOL! None of ABC4 is difficult to comprehend. So why don't you stop pretending you have evidence of some kind and stop making excuses. As I said above:

Instead of excuses, why not try to offer even just one piece of evidence that is specifically about Nebuchadnezzar that indicates a particular BCE year during his reign? If you don't, then it seems obvious that you can't. You've had over 10 years here to try.

[nkboswell]

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

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.

What might Adam Rutherford have envisioned differently about the events of 588 B.C., which he identified as not the year of Jerusalem's destruction?

[BTK59]

5 hours ago, nkboswell said:

What might Adam Rutherford have envisioned differently about the events of 588 B.C., which he identified as not the year of Jerusalem's destruction?

Those who truly comprehend the prophecy of Ezekiel regarding the judgments upon Ammon, Moab, and Edom also recognize the similarities in the judgment that befell Egypt. In terms of historical perspective, it is crucial to emphasize that the Watchtower timeline diverges from the conventional Ussher's chronology, which sets the creation at 4004 BC. Scholars, historians, and archaeologists have long relied on this conventional starting point, but the alternative proposed by the Watchtower offers a fresh perspective. A more accurate one.

Under this understanding, the events that took place between 590-580 BC are indicative of divine judgments upon the kingdoms of that time. Historical evidence allows us to establish a connection between the kingdom of Ammon and the year 588 BC. However, it is important to note that these judgments were happening simultaneously, leading to the conclusion that the historical accounts focus mainly on military events rather than biblical events. Despite this, both theologians and scholars have attempted to intertwine these two aspects, even though they are aware that the historical data, whether archaeological, written, or astrological, does not align perfectly. It is worth mentioning that Babylonian astronomers were magicians whose primary purpose was to seek out signs that would captivate the king and his kingdom, rather than anticipating the retribution that the Jewish God would unleash upon them.

JUDGMENT AGAINST AMMON. (Ca. 588 B.C.?) The Daily Bible
Into His Presence, Volume 2, Napoleon Burt · 2020
The Ancient Arabs: Israel Eph’al 1982 - Page 177

Ezekiel 25:1-7 New International Version
A Prophecy Against Ammon
25 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, set your face against the Ammonites and prophesy against them. 3 Say to them, ‘Hear the word of the Sovereign Lord. This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Because you said “Aha!” over my sanctuary when it was desecrated and over the land of Israel when it was laid waste and over the people of Judah when they went into exile, 4 therefore I am going to give you to the people of the East as a possession. They will set up their camps and pitch their tents among you; they will eat your fruit and drink your milk. 5 I will turn Rabbah into a pasture for camels and Ammon into a resting place for sheep. Then you will know that I am the Lord. 6 For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: Because you have clapped your hands and stamped your feet, rejoicing with all the malice of your heart against the land of Israel, 7 therefore I will stretch out my hand against you and give you as plunder to the nations. I will wipe you out from among the nations and exterminate you from the countries. I will destroy you, and you will know that I am the Lord.’”

People tend to fixate solely on what is said about Jerusalem, but it's crucial to widen our focus to the entire region. It is important to remember that the kingdoms of Aram, Ammon, and Moab were allies of Babylon and allowed Babylon free passage through their territory. This does not mean that the King of Ammon liked the Babylonian King; he actually disliked him. However, his dislike for the King of Judah was even stronger. No different from what happened between Egypt, Judah, and Babylon. There was no love between the Judean king and Babylon, but he favored Babylon over Egypt, leading to the conflict between King Josiah and King Necho II.

Thus, the alliance was purely a matter of convenience.  It's possible that the neighboring countries like Egypt and Jordan of today hold similar ideologies to those of ancient kingdoms of Aram, Ammon, and Moab toward Israel and Judah. These kingdoms were positioned adjacent to Israel and Judah. This strategic alliance with Babylon also compelled the Egyptians to travel through the coastline to support Assyria. In the end, all these kings would face judgment from God through the hands of the Babylonians and other allies like the Medes.

2 Kings 24:2 The LORD sent against him bands of the Chaldeans, and bands of the Arameans, and bands of the Moabites, and bands of the people of Ammon, and sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the LORD, which he spoke by his servants, the prophets.

There is a crucial part of Judah that people, either deliberately or inadvertently, overlook: Jerusalem. It is essential to grasp that when God unleashed those marauders to bring devastation upon Judah, Jerusalem, being an integral part of Judah, would undoubtedly have been affected. To believe that the marauders would decimate every other city in Judah while leaving Jerusalem unscathed, solely for the purpose of ensuring historical accuracy depicting its destruction in 587 BC, is a fallacy propagated by those who stray from the truth.

Those who attempt to refute such events are, in fact, refuting the divine word of God as it is written in 2 Kings 24. Their so-called refutation revolves around speculations on chronological order, by going against the teachings of scripture. It is essential to recognize that scripture is a sacred text, set apart from man-made historical findings, which rely on human calculations rather than God's wisdom.

Furthermore, it is important to consider that the Babylonian Chronicles abruptly end in 594 BC. As a result, there is no mention whatsoever of the years 587 BC or 585 BC in these chronicles. However, when examining the historical events recorded, we do find references to Jerusalem in the year 598 BC, as well as accounts of numerous military campaigns that took place in 607 BC within those chronicles. It is worth noting that during this period, a band of marauders was actively wreaking havoc in Judah, including the city of Jerusalem, and as stated by scripture, Babylonian marauders were also involved in these destructive acts.

Can this be explained through historical events without relying on the Watchtower chronology, which differs from the conventional chronology? One simply needs to understand the region where Nebuchadnezzar was documented to be in, according to their own Babylonian chronicles ABC4.

[5] The nineteenth year (607/606): In the month Simanu the king of Akkad mustered his army and
[6] Nebuchadnezzar, his eldest son, the crown prince,
[7] mustered his army. They marched to the mountains of Za[...].
[8] The king of Akkad left the prince and his army there while he returned to Babylon in the month of Du'ûzu.

Therefore, according to the strict guidelines of examining secular history and the Bible's account in 2 Kings 24, it not only matches the description but also aligns with the pattern established by God for the judgement against Judah, including Jerusalem. Nebuchadnezzar's presence in every Babylonian campaign was not necessary. Such a belief would be foolish. Of course, he would get credit for directing a military campaign from afar, especially a successful one. 

Who was left to oversee the military campaigns in the western region, from the Zagros Mountains that transcend far up to Turkey? Nebuchadnezzar, according to the chronicles since Napolossar went home. This is the time period when Napolossar's health started to decline. History teaches us that the Medes and Babylonians besieged Harran in 610 BC, which clearly demonstrates the vibrant activity taking place in the western region during that time.

Particularly noteworthy is King Necho's attempt to assist the Assyrians in Harran, which was thwarted by the Babylonians and Medes after clashing with King Josiah of Judah in either late 610 BC or early 609 BC. The historical evidence of Egyptian King Necho's presence in Riblah in 609 BC, seeking to depose a Judean king and install his own, indicates the proximity of the Babylonians in the region, where the Arameans (Syria) are situated to the west of the Euphrates.

All of these events occurred between 610-607 BC, as confirmed by historical records. There is absolutely no basis for a fictional date of 587 BC, created solely to rationalize the mistakes made by previous generations. The supposed explanation for 587 BC is entirely distinct. 

However, it remains a topic of discussion for individuals who are unwilling to acknowledge their erroneous beliefs even after a decade. They are unable to admit their mistakes and are troubled by the thought of leading others astray.

All of these topics have been extensively discussed, as the title suggests. Countless posts, by numerous professional accounts, have been unjustly disregarded for challenging people's beliefs which prove them wrong.  Then, these individuals have the audacity to assert that no evidence has been presented in the last 10 years, as if their inability to recognize it somehow qualifies them to pass judgment. 

It is truly foolish for an ignorant person to believe that they have been communicating with the same individual all this time, especially when they consistently use the same writing style for all their accounts. This means the jokes on them. Furthermore, George presented additional persuasive evidence to undermine the credibility of this individual's criticism. It is clear that this person is compelled to criticize, as their stance in this forum would otherwise be undermined by a decade's worth of manipulation, distortion, and lies, as revealed by George.

[Manuel Boyet Enicola]

Can we say that it was a typo that got it right? 😁

[JW Insider]

6 hours ago, Manuel Boyet Enicola said:

Can we say that it was a typo that got it right? 😁

LOL. I can hardly believe anyone else read this far into the thread. At this point I thought I was just teasing BTK/nkboswell/Alphonse with a little dose of his own medicine.

It's an interesting thought. Some people have come at this from angles I never thought of. I saw one online source wondering whether Satan made sure that WW1 would start during the same year that Barbour and Russell had predicted would be the end [of the time of troubles]. If a major world event could happen in 1914 it could have the effect of tricking Jehovah's people into hanging on to a false tradition for many more years. 

It is amazing that Barbour had pinpointed a year for the end so many years in advance. And even though every prediction for 1914 failed, no one can deny that it was still a major historical turning point. Of course, Barbour came out of an era where almost every year from 1843 to 1890 was being prophesied as the end by someone. Even the Watchtower was also expecting prophetic fulfillments that had been predicted for the time periods surrounding 1878, 1881, 1904, 1910, 1912, 1914, 1915, 1917, 1918, 1925 etc. If WW1 had broken out in any of those other years the shift of emphasis and definitions would have been just as quick for highlighting how we had been correct about any of those years, too. No doubt we would always be able to point out that we got something right, and then just change the definition of what we had predicted so that we could better explain that it was Jehovah's guidance. 

Since so much emphasis had been on "the end of the Gentile Times" all we really had to do was drop the half-dozen "predictions" for 1914 and shift emphasis to the "Gentile Times." Then we only had to change the definition of what was meant by "Gentile Times" and we'd look like geniuses. (By "we" I mean the brothers representing the Watchtower Society in those times.)

[JW Insider]

I remember once enumerating 10 things predicted for 1914, all of which had to be dropped. I just noticed that Wikipedia had the list of 7 that come from "The Time is At Hand." It's curious that Russell admitted, not a typo per se, but that he had taken his pyramid measurements from the pages of Charles Piazzi Smyth's book, which he didn't realize was not to scale. The fix turned out to be a perfect change of 41 "inches" to move a date from from 1874 to 1915.

---------------from Wikipedia-------------

Based on measurements from the Great Pyramid of Giza, this "passing beyond the vail" or rapture was expected "before the close of A.D. 1910."^[95][96] Russell enumerated seven expectations for 1914 in The Time is at Hand:

1. God's kingdom would take full control of earth "on the ruins of present institutions";

2. Christ would be present as earth's new ruler;

3. The last of the "royal priesthood, the body of Christ" would be glorified with Christ;

4. Jerusalem would no longer "be trodden down by the Gentiles";

5. "Israel's blindness will begin to be turned away";

6. The great "time of trouble" would reach its culmination of worldwide anarchy;

7. God's Kingdom would "smite and crush the Gentile image—and fully consume the power of these kings".^[97]

In 1911, Russell wrote that October 1914 would witness the "full end" of Babylon, or nominal Christianity, "utterly destroyed as a system".

[BTK59]

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

LOL. I can hardly believe anyone else read this far into the thread. At this point I thought I was just teasing BTK/nkboswell/Alphonse with a little dose of his own medicine.

So, you're suggesting exposing you as a fraudulent witness and an apostate. That's great; it's important for others to know who they're dealing with – someone who used to be part of the Bethel community and is now engaging in questionable actions. Quite amusing, I must say!

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I remember once enumerating 10 things predicted for 1914, all of which had to be dropped. I just noticed that Wikipedia had the list of 7 that come from "The Time is At Hand." It's curious that Russell admitted, not a typo per se, but that he had taken his pyramid measurements from the pages of Charles Piazzi Smyth's book, which he didn't realize was not to scale. The fix turned out to be a perfect change of 41 "inches" to move a date from from

The current Watchtower has strengthened the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses based on their own understanding. Your criticism of the Bible students is meaningless because you lack an understanding of true chronology and are solely focused on defending your false claims. You will have to defend yourself on judgment day for causing strife, division, and leading others astray like an apostate.