Watchtower's 1914 Chronology - Ad Nauseum

[TrueTomHarley]

Ring ring . . . 

“Hello?”

“Good evening, madam, this is the AllenGeorge Fire Department. Are there any fires raging in your area?”

”No, I don’t think so. Only that pesky kid JWI roasting potatoes again. He has a little campfire going in the back yard, but it’s going out.”

”It is??!!! This is serious! Why didn’t you call? We’re on our way! Alphonse, crank up the siren so everyone hears! George, grab the accelerant! There’s not a moment to lose!”

 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

For a decade, you have opposed the Watchtower's chronology, and now you bear the responsibility for the lives you have misled.

Why do I bear more responsibility than the 15 or more reference books that the Watchtower publications have quoted from as authorities with respect to the Neo-Babylonian chronology, all of which oppose the Watchtower chronology. The Watchtower has never yet pointed readers to one source that supports the Watchtower chronology. What if others were inclined to use the resources the Watchtower referenced in doing further research? Is it only because, for so many years, I agreed with the Watchtower chronology? Is the Watchtower misleading people by pointing them to Sachs and Hunger, Wiseman, Pritchard, Steele, Grayson, Walker, Hunger, Dougherty, Brown, Huber, Weidner, Parker and Dubberstein, Thiele, etc.? Even the references in the 2011 articles supporting Furuli's folly never once pointed to Furuli, but only to at least 10 sources that all, 100%, supported 587/6 BCE as the time for Jerusalem's destruction. No exceptions.

[BTK59]

26 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

”It is??!!! This is serious! Why didn’t you call? We’re on our way! Alphonse, crank up the siren so everyone hears! George, grab the accelerant! There’s not a moment to lose!”

While I acknowledge the potential for humor in your group, I must inquire: how can George be reintegrated if he was removed from the forum? Should any of your fictitious accounts also partake in amplifying the excitement? lol!

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

So, if you're going to challenge the release of the Jews from Palestine by the British in 1914

There is no dispute. It's merely a distortion of facts. There were about 60,000 Jews living in Palestine in 1914, about the same as the year before and the year after. They weren't "released" from Palestine in 1914. The Gentile Nations were not demolished in 1914 or even within a few months of that date. 1914 did not END the time of trouble that the WTS had predicted for decades prior. World War 1 proved that Russell was wrong. None of those 7 or 8 major expectations for 1914 came true. And as you said, the gentile times "persist" even until now.   

[BTK59]

6 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Why do I bear more responsibility than the 15 or more reference books that the Watchtower publications have quoted from as authorities with respect to the Neo-Babylonian chronology, all of which oppose the Watchtower chronology.

To put it simply, the Watchtower is not deceiving the public as you are.

When you shared the "proverbs," it was expected to reflect your character.

8 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

What if others were inclined to use the resources the Watchtower referenced in doing further research? Is it only because, for so many years, I agreed with the Watchtower chronology? Is the Watchtower misleading people by pointing them to Sachs and Hunger, Wiseman, Pritchard, Steele, Grayson, Walker, Hunger, Dougherty, Brown, Huber, Weidner, Parker and Dubberstein, Thiele, etc.? Even the references in the 2011 articles supporting Furuli's folly never once pointed to Furuli, but only to at least 10 sources that all, 100%, supported 587/6 BCE as the time for Jerusalem's destruction. No exceptions.

It is essential for individuals to comprehend these sources within their appropriate contexts, rather than rely solely on their own misconceptions. It is evident that you are well aware of what Professor Wiseman has also incorporated into his works, much like another Nechuchadnezzar figure. Hence, instead of haphazardly mentioning meaningless names, it is highly encouraged for people to conduct thorough research of their own, unlike you or Carl Olof Jonsson. It is about seeking genuine knowledge.

The Watchtower vehemently disagrees with your assertion of 587 BC, which you continue to deny advocating for. Every post you have made so far clearly exposes the falsehood. You have always recognized your place in relation to 587 BC, even in the past. So, why all the deceit. 

[BTK59]

23 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

There is no dispute. It's merely a distortion of facts. There were about 60,000 Jews living in Palestine in 1914, about the same as the year before and the year after. They weren't "released" from Palestine in 1914. The Gentile Nations were not demolished in 1914 or even within a few months of that date. 1914 did not END the time of trouble that the WTS had predicted for decades prior. World War 1 proved that Russell was wrong. None of those 7 or 8 major expectations for 1914 came true. And as you said, the gentile times "persist" even until now.   

In 1914, the British Empire liberated approximately 60,000 Jews in Palestine. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that this event alone does signify the end of the gentile times, as there may be some other distortion of facts not by me but by you. It is important to pinpoint which fact is being misrepresented: whether it is the population of 60,000 Jews in Palestine or the specific year 1914. Are you challenging the notion that Palestine was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, or that a different gentile nation liberated the Jewish community from the control of an Arab nation, just as the land was originally handed over to the Arab nation Babylon by God?

Could you please explain your interpretation of the historical records that mention the presence of 60,000 Jews in Palestine? Are you disputing the accuracy of this number? Are you suggesting that there should have been even more Jews in order to support your statement?

Are you now confusing the Balfour declaration? 

To the public, if you are interested, there are numerous historical facts that provide many examples of the plight the Jewish Nation faced leading up to that year and beyond. Dozens upon dozens of reference books are available for the public to gain a deeper understanding.

Jews and Palestinians in the Late Ottoman Era, 1908-1914

Zion Liberated: Jewish Nation Building Under the British

Bitter Harvest; Palestine Between 1914-1967

The Question of Palestine, 1914-1918: British-Jewish-Arab

Etc.

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

What if others were inclined to use the resources the Watchtower referenced in doing further research? Is it only because, for so many years, I agreed with the Watchtower chronology? Is the Watchtower misleading people by pointing them to Sachs and Hunger, Wiseman, Pritchard, Steele, Grayson, Walker, Hunger, Dougherty, Brown, Huber, Weidner, Parker and Dubberstein, Thiele, etc.? Even the references in the 2011 articles supporting Furuli's folly never once pointed to Furuli, but only to at least 10 sources that all, 100%, supported 587/6 BCE as the time for Jerusalem's destruction. No exceptions.

It is essential for individuals to comprehend these sources within their appropriate contexts

Exactly. The context  was that the Watchtower quoted them as authoritative resources for matters related to Babylonian and Assyrian chronology. Naturally, the Watchtower only chose to use portions of these resources where the source agreed (or seemed to agree) in order to make it look as if the Watchtower is generally basing its view of chronology on authoritative and respectable secular sources. The Watchtower publications have often used ellipses and selective quotations to avoid revealing that the Watchtower actually opposes the chronology found in these authoritative sources. 

This reminds me of how much play the Watchtower Society got out of R. R. Newton's book "The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy."  Some brothers even referenced this book title in one of the talks (re: "Gentile Times") back when the "Sunday Public Talk" was an hour long. I don't recall if it was added to the Society's outline, but the outline already used a reference to cast doubt on the dates given for Nebuchadnezzar and compare them to the supposed "absolute" date of 539 for Cyrus using "Strm. Kambys. 400" as it was called in the outline (which was never pronounced correctly by any speaker I heard give the talk, myself included). 

Of course the talk left out a key point from that same book. The 140 page PDF I quoted earlier gives this some context, discussing the same book:

 (1) We now know from archeology that astronomical diaries from Babylon were abundant. It is reasonable to suppose that Ptolemy, a giant in the field, had access to some such records . (2) One of the eclipses listed above, the one in 7 Cambyses, certainly was recorded by the ancients, as the tablet record exists today (see page 15, item 2) . (3) Of the eclipse in 20 Darius, Ptolemy specifically claims it “is the one Hipparchus used.” Presumably this was not private information, and therefore Ptolemy could be checked by anyone familiar with the subject — and who else was he addressing in his very technical book? (4) There were other king lists whose numbers were incorrect, or corrupted, though much less detailed than the Canon (Dougherty, 7-10) . How do we explain the purity of Ptolemy’s list? It was a list for and by scientists, and its integrity was maintained by the utility to which it was subject . This implies that there were ancient observations by which the Canon could be checked . In any event, it is important to keep two things sharply in focus . (1) Ancient history does not depend on Ptolemy’s Canon . (2) Even Robert Newton, in whose book these concerns are raised, acknowledges “we have quite strong confirmation that Ptolemy’s list is correct for Nebuchadnezzar” (Newton 375, cited from Jonsson 48) . And the dates for Nebuchadnezzar control the date of the fall of Zedekiah and the kingdom of Judah.

Newton, Robert R ., The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1977

In fact, the book admits the strength of then entire Neo-Babylonian chronology (Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar, Amel-Marduk, Neriglissar, Nabonidus). But Watchtower readers would have missed this point from the only reference to this book in the Watchtower: 

*** w77 12/15 p. 747 Insight on the News ***
How certain can we be of the presently accepted chronology of the ancient Babylonian Empire? For many years, chronologists have put heavy reliance on the king list of Claudius Ptolemy, a second-century Greek scholar often considered the greatest astronomer of antiquity.
However, in his new book “The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy,” the noted physicist Robert R. Newton of Johns Hopkins University offers proof that many of Ptolemy’s astronomical observations were “deliberately fabricated” to agree with his preconceived theories “so that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories.”
In its comments on Newton’s book, “Scientific American” magazine notes: “Ptolemy’s forgery may have extended to inventing the length of reigns of Babylonian kings. Since much modern reconstruction of Babylonian chronology has been based on a list of kings that Ptolemy used to pinpoint the dates of alleged Babylonian observations, according to Newton ‘all relevant chronology must now be reviewed and all dependence upon Ptolemy’s [king] list must be removed.’”—October 1977, p. 80.

The Watchtower wasn't wrong, but what the Watchtower failed to mention was that that these were references to the much older original Babylonian Empire closer to the time of Abraham (Hammurabi, etc.) more than 1,000 years earlier than the Neo-Babylonian Empire (Nebuchadnezzar, etc.)
 

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, BTK59 said:

The Watchtower vehemently disagrees with your assertion of 587 BC, which you continue to deny advocating for. Every post you have made so far clearly exposes the falsehood. You have always recognized your place in relation to 587 BC, even in the past. So, why all the deceit. 

I don't deny believing that the evidence points to 587/6 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th/19th year. But the Watchtower is not as "vehement" as you present it to be. The WTS admits that 587 BCE is the time that historians and archaeologists agree with:

*** w11 10/1 p. 26 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One ***
“According to historians and archaeologists, 586 or 587 B.C.E. is generally accepted as the year of Jerusalem’s destruction.

And after admitting that this is the accepted secular chronology, our publications admit that all the archaeological evidence currently points to that year, but that it MAY be misunderstood, and perhaps some new evidence MAY be found someday that counters the current evidence:

*** kc p. 186 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
According to that Neo-Babylonian chronology, Crown-prince Nebuchadnezzar defeated the Egyptians at the battle of Carchemish in 605 B.C.E. (Jeremiah 46:1, 2) After Nabopolassar died Nebuchadnezzar returned to Babylon to assume the throne. His first regnal year began the following spring (604 B.C.E.).
The Bible reports that the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in his 18th regnal year (19th when accession year is included). (Jeremiah 52:5, 12, 13, 29) Thus if one accepted the above Neo-Babylonian chronology, the desolation of Jerusalem would have been in the year 587/6 B.C.E.

Some major lines of evidence for this secular chronology are:
Ptolemy’s Canon: .  . . Most modern historians accept Ptolemy’s information about the Neo-Babylonian kings and the length of their reigns. . . . Ptolemy’s figures agree with those of Berossus, a Babylonian priest of the Seleucid period.
Nabonidus Harran Stele (NABON H 1, B): This contemporary stele, or pillar with an inscription, was discovered in 1956. It mentions the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar. The figures given for these three agree with those from Ptolemy’s Canon.
VAT 4956: This is a cuneiform tablet that provides astronomical information datable to 568 B.C.E. It says that the observations were from Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year. This would correspond to the chronology that places his 18th regnal year in 587/6 B.C.E. . . .
Business tablets: Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets have been found that record simple business transactions, stating the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets of this sort have been found for all the years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in the accepted chronology of the period.
From a secular viewpoint, such lines of evidence might seem to establish the Neo-Babylonian chronology with Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year (and the destruction of Jerusalem) in 587/6 B.C.E. However, no historian can deny the possibility that the present picture of Babylonian history might be misleading or in error. . . . Or, even if the discovered evidence is accurate, it might be misinterpreted by modern scholars or be incomplete so that yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology of the period.

Everyone should go to the original to see the ways in which the publication (Kingdom Come, kc) also tries to cast doubt on this evidence, but at least it admitted that the evidence currently points to 587/6 BCE as the destruction of Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th/19th year. it doesn't even attempt to deny that there are at least 50 more astronomy observations, so that VAT 4956 is superfluous. And even though it brought up the idea that yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology, at least 2 more relevant astronomical inscriptions have been published, and both of them give further support to the already evidenced chronology. Also, many more of the 70,000+ dated business tablets have been published that provide even stronger evidence for the order of the Neo-Babylonian kings and the exact length of their reigns, sometimes nearly to the day of the transition between kings, and providing further confirmation of Parker and Dubberstein's intercalary data.
 

[TrueTomHarley]

4 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Should any of your fictitious accounts also partake in amplifying the excitement? lol!

Please don’t get them started. I have a hard time controlling those misfits and yo-yos as it is.

[BTK59]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I don't deny believing that the evidence points to 587/6 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th/19th year. But the Watchtower is not as "vehement" as you present it to be. The WTS admits that 587 BCE is the time that historians and archaeologists agree with:

The Watchtower's approach is one of inquiry rather than assertion. It's crucial to grasp the historical backdrop of 587 BC, as some individuals, despite being apostates, staunchly uphold that belief, much like yourself. It took numerous misleading posts before you finally acknowledged the truth. You have consistently stood your ground in the past. There was no need to ban George simply for speaking the truth.

The purpose of these articles is to demonstrate to the public that the year 587 BC is not the actual date of Jerusalem's destruction. It is truly difficult to comprehend why you would assume otherwise.

The Watchtower acknowledges the Babylonian Chronicles, as well as any other false presentations and statements made by apostates regarding those dates and items. However, this acknowledgment does not change the fact that such claims are unsubstantiated. So, what is the significance of this acknowledgement?

Do you really believe that you have the "authority" to dictate to the Watchtower what it should or shouldn't write in a way that people can understand? It seems like you're trying to go above God, placing yourself above him just like Srecko the apostate does when he challenges God with his nonsensical ideas.

[BTK59]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Everyone should go to the original to see the ways in which the publication (Kingdom Come, kc) also tries to cast doubt on this evidence, but at least it admitted that the evidence currently points to 587/6 BCE as the destruction of Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. it doesn't even attempt to deny that there are at least 50 more astronomy observations, so that VAT 4956 is superfluous. And even though it brought up the idea that yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology, at least 2 more relevant astronomical inscriptions have been published, and both of them give further support to the already evidenced chronology. Also, many more of the 70,000+ dated business tablets have been published that provide even stronger evidence for the order of the Neo-Babylonian kings and the exact length of their reigns, sometimes nearly to the day of the transition between kings, and providing further confirmation of Parker and Dubberstein's intercalary data.

By utilizing your inaccurate interpretation or ensuring the public truly comprehends the authentic context. They must also be informed of any uncorrected typos that occurred, as this necessitated an electronic "reprint," which has now been addressed. It was a more time-consuming process, and what do apostates say about reprints? The same concept that you are implying with your slander.

I urge the public to thoroughly examine previous publications. It's crucial to be discerning and not be misled by irrelevant information. The Watchtower, as early as 1972, referenced VAT 4956 in the Awake magazine. This is undeniably significant! Yet, So, What!

The villains here are distorting not only published works, but history itself. How many examples do you need to understand that 568 BC can be linked to other military campaigns that you are unwilling to acknowledge? Others should not be swayed by your irrational beliefs.

[JW Insider]

30 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

It took numerous misleading posts before you finally acknowledged the truth.

And I thought I was acknowledging the truth even before any of your misleading posts. LOL.

(And no I am not making fun of your grammar. Your grammar was perfect. I am merely copying one of your tactics to reflect your own words back to you in order to highlight your constant, empty ad hominem style. You always throw in as much pejorative snarkiness as you can, but you never are able to address any specific point.)

36 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

There was no need to ban George simply for speaking the truth.

I honestly don't know who banned George, or exactly why either. But I doubt seriously it could have been for speaking the truth. On topics like this one at least, truth was far removed from him.