Watchtower's 1914 Chronology - Ad Nauseum

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

The understanding of "Keep Watch" among Christians in the past should not be underestimated.

True. But it's not a matter of watching for what hour a thief might be coming, because he will come at an hour you do not think to be it. Instead it's a matter of keeping watch of ourselves, of our conduct.

“Watch out that no one deceives you. . . .  “Watch out for yourselves.

Watch what sort of persons we ought to be.

(Ephesians 5:15, 16) . . .So keep strict watch that how you walk is not as unwise but as wise persons,  making the best use of your time, because the days are wicked. 

(2 Peter 3:11, 12) . . .Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, as you await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah,. . .

(Matthew 24:43, 44) . . .But know one thing: If the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into. On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it.
 

[BTK59]

42 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

True. But it's not a matter of watching for what hour a thief might be coming, because he will come at an hour you do not think to be it. Instead it's a matter of keeping watch of ourselves, of our conduct.

Your argument lacks coherence, as you are suggesting that people should not bother being prepared. Therefore, based on your standpoint, it seems that nobody should value their Christian life simply because you do not embrace it.

I sincerely hope that others will not be influenced by your example and advice. Personally, I have no intention of following it. I value my relationship with God, which allows me to encourage others to study scripture in the correct manner without any hindrance.

[BTK59]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

The exiles arrived in Jerusalem 2 years later, 537 BCE. That's not in the Bible. It's an adjustment the Watchtower had to make in order for 1914 to still work, related to fixing the old mistake claiming it was 606 to 536 BCE.

Neither is 587 BC, 586 BC, or 585 BC. It appears that Manuel is concerned about the time being wasted, and you persist in leading others astray, despite the historical evidence from 539 BC and Cyrus's decree in 538 BC. The Jews' arrival in Jerusalem aligns with scripture, indicating thorough preparation for the journey. Your claims lack historical support, and it's essential to acknowledge this, no matter your personal beliefs. Your opinions should be based on factual evidence.

Proving the occurrence of an event in 587 BC is much more compelling than relying on the unreliable VAT 4956, which can be open to multiple interpretations.

[BTK59]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I’m still dealing with that image of a hot potato that no one wants to touch.

If you think about it, that could also be God's perspective on false witnesses. Lol!

However, what sets Paul apart is that, being inspired by God, he took an additional step by urging us to have nothing to do with them. This is a profound expression of Christian love, as it serves to protect the purity of the congregation by preventing the influence and corruption of dissenters.

[JW Insider]

10 hours ago, BTK59 said:

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The exiles arrived in Jerusalem 2 years later, 537 BCE. That's not in the Bible. It's an adjustment the Watchtower had to make in order for 1914 to still work, related to fixing the old mistake claiming it was 606 to 536 BCE.

Neither is 587 BC, 586 BC, or 585 BC.

You are right that BC dates are not given to us in the Bible, and that goes for 607 BCE and 539 BCE and 537 BCE, too. But I was focusing on the idea that "the exiles arrived in Jerusalem 2 years later." According to the Bible, it was 1 year later. The Watchtower ignores the Bible's account that it was one year later. It added the idea of two years later so that 1914 would still work. 

Of course, the Isaiah's Prophecy book (quoted above) says that the 70 years of Babylon's greatest domination ran from 609 to 539, referencing Jeremiah 25 -- and this follows 2 Chronicles, too.

(2 Chronicles 36:20-22) . . .He carried off captive to Babylon those who escaped the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia began to reign,  to fulfill Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill 70 years. In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in order that Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah would be fulfilled, Jehovah stirred the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his kingdom, . . .

So there is really nothing in the Bible about having to wait until the Jews got back to their homeland anyway. Russell had this right. The Jews got back to their homeland one year later, but the 70 years had already ended when the kingdom of Persia began to reign. That would be Cyrus' accession year (about October 539 per astronomy evidence). 538 at the latest.

[BTK59]

Your argument is flawed and riddled with inconsistencies as you desperately try to focus on 539 BC, even after acknowledging that the Bible doesn't mention BCE dates. This only serves to reinforce the distortions you are intent on perpetuating.

The falsehood lies in the fact that Russell used 606 BC instead of 607 BC. Moreover, the major distortion here is the belief of 539 BC rather than what Pastor Russell and His own Bible Students thought the 70 years ended in 536 BC. There were other considerations regarding 539 BC, but someone is misrepresenting Russell's ideas to create a nonsensical argument.

"The chronological prophecy, which we will consider first, is the one associated with what is termed in the Scriptures, "the times of the Gentiles!' This prediction covers the long period in which the Jewish nation, God's ancient people have been under the dominion of earth's nations. The period began with the overthrow of Zedekiah, the last king of Judah. This is referred to in Ezekiel 22:25-27, as follows, "And thou profane, wicked prince of Israel, whose day is come, when iniquity shall have an end, thus saith the Lord God: Remove the diadem, and take off the crown . . . I will overturn, overturn, overturn it; and it shall be no more until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him." The period ends with the overthrow of the Gentile nations, which will occur at the end of the forty year harvest period, at the close of the present Gospel Age. Gentile times began then with the beginning of the seventy-years' desolation of the land of Israel, by the Kingdom of Babylon. The seventy years ended in 536 B. C., with the decree of Cyrus, king of Persia, permitting the Jewish people to go back to their land. It will therefore be seen that the overthrow of Zedekiah occurred just seventy years before this, in 606 B. C., which"

The ongoing obsession with distorting the era when Pastor Russell led the Bible Student movement defies rational thought and seems to reflect more on the mental state of the individuals perpetuating it. This has nothing to do with being a Jehovah's Witness.

It is evident that this person lacks in-depth knowledge of the Bible Students, the People's Pulpit, and the IBSA under Russell's guidance. They seem to rely on fragmented and distorted information to undermine the early teachings of those who were open to rediscovering Christianity from its foundations, just as the Early Christians did with Judaism. This kind of behavior is characteristic of someone who manipulates written information to serve nefarious purposes.

Another aspect of failure lies in the fact that while we may consider the assumption of the historical date of 539 BC within that context, it is equally true that we are referring to the genuine history that pertains to the "END" of that year, specifically in November-December or potentially even October-November.

What this false presentation fails to mention is that a dear friend and governor of Cyrus tragically passed away shortly after his conquest of Babylon. Additionally, Cyrus's beloved wife also passed away, leading to a period of mourning. Thus, the notion that the year 539 BC should be applied in any other context is unequivocally false.

That's why historical records indicate that Cyrus issued his decree to the Jews in and around March-April of 538 BC if we follow that timeline. Cyrus did not immediately command the Jews to leave his land in 539 BC as one individual would want to claim, thus giving a false impression.

Then you have the preparation and the long journey the Jews would have to deal with. The Jews didn't simply snap their figures like magicans in mid 538 BC to arrive in their land. The journey took many months in itself.

The idea of a false narrative about 1 or 2 years is simply unfounded. The year 537 BC can be fully substantiated based solely on historical facts.

These apostates and one incorrigible individual tirelessly engaged in a relentless battle of discord and division was shown a month by month explanation. That information, however, has conveniently been wiped away to prevent the public from grasping the undeniable truth, thus perpetuating a state of ignorance.

 

[JW Insider]

20 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Your argument is flawed and riddled with inconsistencies as you desperately try to focus on 539 BC, even after acknowledging that the Bible doesn't mention BCE dates. This only serves to reinforce the distortions you are intent on perpetuating.

I know that several people have considered the possibility that your many accounts represent an embittered Witness or ex-Witness who asserts himself here because he has lost privileges in the congregation. It is difficult to imagine a person so nasty, divisive, judgmental, haughty and presumptuous being allowed to represent Jehovah's Witnesses in any public capacity. However, I'm going to continue giving you the benefit of the doubt and treat you as if you are sincerely trying to defend the Watchtower's traditions with respect to chronology. 

I sincerely and honestly believe that the Watchtower will someday adjust their traditional chronology to align with the Biblical and archaeological evidence. If and when that happens, I'm sure you will begin fighting just as adamantly for the Biblical and archaeological evidence instead of arguing against it as you do now. 

Also, as a reminder: I am not asking anyone to believe as I believe. I am merely honestly and sincerely expressing my own belief with full knowledge that it differs from the traditional WTS teachings about chronology. In doing so, I will continue to honestly explain why the evidence leads me to hold these beliefs.

So far, in every case where you have responded to the evidence presented, you have simply made empty attacks without addressing that evidence. This does not mean I am right in my beliefs, because someone else may come along with actual evidence to counter it. There are a few times when you have included items you apparently believe have constituted "evidence." I have most often ignored it, hoping no one is confused by it, and in the hopes that those who read your "evidence" will recognize that it has never addressed the evidence presented. Very often your supposed "counter evidence" actually provides excellent support for the evidence I have already presented. Obviously this isn't your intent, but I know that others have also noticed when this happens. 

Sometimes I get the feeling that you might honestly believe that when you create an empty attack on someone that you have actually said something meaningful. You might honestly believe that you have made a point. All of your posts contain attacks, but they are empty because they don't address any actual points. 

I'll take the above comment I just requoted as one small example out of hundreds, so far. You said my argument is flawed and riddled with inconsistencies as I desperately try to focus on 539 BC. It's true you were able to squeeze a lot of pejorative and judgmental "snarkiness" into that sentence, but it's meaningless unless you actually point out a flaw, or one of those inconsistencies. You can't even support the falsehood that I was desperately trying to focus on 539, especially since I made it clear (for the second time) that I wasn't even focused on the exact year, but rather on the Bible's evidence that the Jews returned home in the first year of Cyrus, not the second year as the Watchtower claims. Instead of addressing that Biblical point, you continued to focus on 539 BC.

I'm not too concerned about that kind of response because, for any sincere persons, it actually supports what I said, because it indicates that, even for someone who tries as hard as you do to find counter-evidence, that you could find none. You have indirectly and inadvertently added support for the actual evidence presented.

But there are also people -- I've seen them respond -- who don't actually care to look into the details of the evidence for themselves. Some of these ones are quite happy that you have supposedly stood up to someone who disagrees with the WTS chronology traditions. There aren't many of these persons remaining here who will support your attacks, but some have probably assumed that your responses are valid just because they seem to support the WTS. That's always been enough for most of us (myself included for many years) to at least see that there is "controversy" which leaves room for "doubt" and for which it's easiest and best to err on the side of the WTS. At least that's a somewhat honest response for those who don't care to look into the details for themselves. 

If I get time, I wll address some of the ideas you have presented from Adam Rutherford and other sources, and other ideas you have made about Assyrian, Egyptian and Babylonian military campaigns, and the order of various events, etc. But you should know that none of these ideas address even one bit of the Biblical and archaeological evidence. In fact, I have left them alone because they often very directly contradict the Biblical evidence itself, and I just hoped people would notice that without me pointing it out. 

[JW Insider]

So, @BTK59, I'll start addressing some of the claims you have made which you might have thought were some kind of counter-evidence, but which actually support what I already presented. I'll probably start from some of the more recent things you have said and then continue to work my way back to things you said in previous days:

20 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Your argument is flawed and riddled with inconsistencies as you desperately try to focus on 539 BC, even after acknowledging that the Bible doesn't mention BCE dates. This only serves to reinforce the distortions you are intent on perpetuating.

The falsehood lies in the fact that Russell used 606 BC instead of 607 BC. Moreover, the major distortion here is the belief of 539 BC rather than what Pastor Russell and His own Bible Students thought the 70 years ended in 536 BC. There were other considerations regarding 539 BC, but someone is misrepresenting Russell's ideas to create a nonsensical argument.

There is no "falsehood" because I had just stated that Russell used 606 instead of 607. That was the very point I had just made about why it was partly based on the change from 606 to 607 that it was necessary for the WTS to ignore the Bible's statement that it was the first year of Cyrus, and change it to the "second year of Cyrus," as referenced by @Manuel Boyet Enicola. 

You say that the "major distortion here is the belief of 539 BC rather than what Pastor Russell and His own Bible Students thought the 70 years ended in 536 BC." I have pointed this very fact out many times before. You were too focused on the actual BCE year, and not the Biblical evidence I was pointing out. Russell thought that Babylon was captured in October 537 and that the decree to release the Jews was made at the beginning of the first year of Cyrus, which would have been 536. Russell had the relative chronology correct and in line with the Biblical evidence. The only thing he had wrong is being off by two years with the "absolute" date of 539 BCE. The WTS has since corrected the absolute date, but now needed TWO years instead of ONE to reach 537 so that they can count back 70 years to 607. Otherwise 1914 would still be off by one year. 

Then you quoted Russell with the idea of showing that I was wrong, I suppose, but it actually showed that I was right. You summarized your point after inadvertently showing that I was right by saying:

20 hours ago, BTK59 said:

The ongoing obsession with distorting the era when Pastor Russell led the Bible Student movement defies rational thought and seems to reflect more on the mental state of the individuals perpetuating it. This has nothing to do with being a Jehovah's Witness.

It is evident that this person lacks in-depth knowledge of the Bible Students, the People's Pulpit, and the IBSA under Russell's guidance. They seem to rely on fragmented and distorted information to undermine the early teachings of those who were open to rediscovering Christianity from its foundations, just as the Early Christians did with Judaism. This kind of behavior is characteristic of someone who manipulates written information to serve nefarious purposes.

So you provide no evidence that I was incorrect, only evidence that I was correct, and then you use it to attack with the long ad hominem just requoted above. Considering your typical and repeated problem with "projection," you might have been concerned that all those attacks on someone else may have reflected more correctly on yourself.

I noticed something else in the actual quote you provided that gives further evidence to the point I made previously that the WTS found it necessary to change the definition of "Gentile Times" after the expectations for 1914 failed. You quoted Russell as saying: "The period ends with the overthrow of the Gentile nations, which will occur at the end of the forty year harvest period, at the close of the present Gospel Age. Gentile times began then with . . . "

The 40-year harvest period ran from 1874 to 1914. Brother (Joseph) Rutherford temporarily changed to 1878 to 1918 after the failure of the Gentile nations to be overthrown in 1914. 

[JW Insider]

21 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Another aspect of failure lies in the fact that while we may consider the assumption of the historical date of 539 BC within that context, it is equally true that we are referring to the genuine history that pertains to the "END" of that year, specifically in November-December or potentially even October-November.

This "failure" is only another example of your accidental support for what I had just said. It's true that I didn't go as late as November-December. Instead, I used the October date based on archaeological evidence which the WTS also supports:

*** it-1 p. 236 Babylon ***
. . .until the night of October 5, 539 B.C.E. (Gregorian calendar), when Babylon fell before the invading Medo-Persian armies under the command of Cyrus the Great.
 

Then you go on to present a piece of "evidence" that you have presented before (under a different account). I think you are trying to support the "delay" that the Watchtower needs here, but you probably don't realize that you have not provided enough of a delay to match the Watchtower adjustment:

21 hours ago, BTK59 said:

What this false presentation fails to mention is that a dear friend and governor of Cyrus tragically passed away shortly after his conquest of Babylon. Additionally, Cyrus's beloved wife also passed away, leading to a period of mourning. Thus, the notion that the year 539 BC should be applied in any other context is unequivocally false.

That's why historical records indicate that Cyrus issued his decree to the Jews in and around March-April of 538 BC if we follow that timeline. Cyrus did not immediately command the Jews to leave his land in 539 BC as one individual would want to claim, thus giving a false impression.

I also have many times stated that believe it was around March/April of 538 BCE. @Arauna has also insisted that it had to be March/April of 538 BCE. But the Watchtower has decided to move it to the near the end of 538, or even the beginning of 537, but without evidence. This way it would force the seventh month of Ezra 3:1,6 to be 537 (instead of 538 as even your "evidence" would allow).

*** it-1 p. 568 Cyrus ***
In view of the Bible record, Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E. This would allow time for the Jewish exiles to prepare to move out of Babylon and make the long trek to Judah and Jerusalem (a trip that could take about four months according to Ezr 7:9) and yet be settled “in their cities” in Judah by “the seventh month” (Tishri) of the year 537 B.C.E. (Ezr 3:1, 6)

The Bible does NOT say however that the decree could not have been made in 539, shortly after he became king in his accession year, because the Bible often calls the accession year the FIRST year. So, it's a possibility, but like you I personally prefer the official FIRST year here (538), not the accession year (539). 

21 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Then you have the preparation and the long journey the Jews would have to deal with. The Jews didn't simply snap their figures like magicans in mid 538 BC to arrive in their land. The journey took many months in itself.

The idea of a false narrative about 1 or 2 years is simply unfounded. The year 537 BC can be fully substantiated based solely on historical facts.

The Insight book does not try to stretch the journey beyond 4 months, based on Ezra 7:9. There are historical records that show that it COULD be done much faster, but 4 months sounds reasonable for people in groups taking along belongings, perhaps even with beasts of burden. And of course we know even from the Bible evidence along with historical records that many Jews never left Babylon, choosing to stay. Makes me think that those who wanted to leave might have left as soon as possible, but there is nothing specific either way. Only that the Bible indicates that Jews were back in their homeland in the 7th month of the FIRST year of Cyrus, and the WTS prefers the 7th month of the SECOND year of Cyrus.

Your idea that the Bible might be wrong about the FIRST year just because the SECOND year can be fully substantiated based solely on historical facts sounds like something you might call "apostasy," if I had said it.

And, speak of the . . . , I mean, right on cue, you say:

21 hours ago, BTK59 said:

These apostates and one incorrigible individual tirelessly engaged in a relentless battle of discord and division was shown a month by month explanation. That information, however, has conveniently been wiped away to prevent the public from grasping the undeniable truth, thus perpetuating a state of ignorance.

No matter what that supposed "evidence" was, I'm sure it wasn't strong enough to counter the Bible evidence.

[JW Insider]

On 6/18/2024 at 10:54 PM, BTK59 said:

The Jews' arrival in Jerusalem aligns with scripture, indicating thorough preparation for the journey. Your claims lack historical support, and it's essential to acknowledge this, no matter your personal beliefs. Your opinions should be based on factual evidence.

Proving the occurrence of an event in 587 BC is much more compelling than relying on the unreliable VAT 4956, which can be open to multiple interpretations.

On 6/18 you made the above statements, as if my claims lacked historical support and factual evidence. But you make an odd comparison to "proving the occurrence of an event in 587 BC" and "relying on the unreliable VAT 4956." As I'm sure you should already know, VAT 4956 is much more reliable than the tablet the WTS relies on for the 7th year of Cambyses in order to prove 539. But ultimately NEITHER or open to multiple interpretations. But neither one matters. Even without either of them, you still have 50 more DIRECT astronomical evidences that the entire period from Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar, Nabonidus, Cyrus and Cambyses is completely and reliably and consistently attested to. You could throw out VAT 4956 which opposers of the evidence seem to obsess over because they believe it is somehow "critical" to the astronomical evidence. It wouldn't make a bit of difference. There is still too much completely consistent factual evidence to overcome.

[JW Insider]

On 6/18/2024 at 10:44 PM, BTK59 said:

On 6/18/2024 at 9:58 PM, JW Insider said:

True. But it's not a matter of watching for what hour a thief might be coming, because he will come at an hour you do not think to be it. Instead it's a matter of keeping watch of ourselves, of our conduct.

Your argument lacks coherence, as you are suggesting that people should not bother being prepared. Therefore, based on your standpoint, it seems that nobody should value their Christian life simply because you do not embrace it.

Strange counter-argument to my argument that we should ALWAYS be prepared. But at least we are in agreement with the idea that we should always be prepared, and should always value our Christian life.

I won't bother yet with our ways of supporting Matthew 24 and Mark 13. I can leave that for another time. But I would point out that your own quotation includes Jesus' words that "the end" (synteleia) is not dependent on the events like a war, or wars.  These types of events are the easiest ones to be deceived by, because they are going to continue to happen, and naturally cause concern.  But Jesus pointed out that the disciples should not be looking at them as the sign of his presence. His presence would come without that type of warning sign. 

[JW Insider]

Alright, I worked my way back to Monday 6/17, and references you made to COJ and Adam Rutherford. 

When you made two clearly false statements about COJ, I did not understand why. You explained that one part of your false statement was because you had used a period instead of a comma. But even that correction didn't change the major false statement. When I asked you about it, you acted like my understanding of your clear statement was somehow a childish game and display of arrogance and a comment on your grammar. It wasn't. Your grammar was perfect. 

On 6/18/2024 at 12:47 AM, BTK59 said:

You're once again displaying your arrogance through your comments on grammar. Take a moment to reflect upon your own grammar mistakes and perhaps consider maturing.

At any rate, you couldn't explain away the second claim but it doesn't matter. I think you merely meant something different from what you said. No big deal.