Watchtower's 1914 Chronology - Ad Nauseum

[JW Insider]

7 hours ago, BTK59 said:

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The WTS admits that 587 BCE is the time that historians and archaeologists agree with:

. . . . 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.

I never assumed otherwise. If you had read or understood more clearly you would have seen that I only claim that the WTS admits that this is where the secular evidence leads, but that everyone should read the original publication to see how the WT tries to cast doubt on that evidence. I said:

9 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/19th year.

You also said:

7 hours ago, BTK59 said:

The Watchtower acknowledges the Babylonian Chronicles,

Yes. But usually with the idea that the Babylonian Chronicles support the WTS chronology. Imagine how you would react if I had tried the same tactic the Watchtower tries so often. You would be screaming about how I was being misleading and manipulating:

*** ad p. 878 Jehoiachin ***
It appears that Jehoiakim died during this siege and Jehoiachin ascended the throne of Judah. His rule ended, however, a mere three months and ten days later, when he surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar (617 B.C.E., in the month of Adar, according to the Babylonian Chronicles).

Notice how the unwary could get the idea that "according to the Babylonian Chronicles," Jehoiachin's rule ended in "617 B.C.E., in the month of Adar." If I had said it that way, you would be right that it was a misleading and manipulating statement, a FALSE statement.

Even the more accurate statements can leave a false impression, because they often juxtapose a WT chronology date next to a reference from a respected, authoritative source of the Babylonian Chronicle:

*** it-1 p. 1025 Hamath ***
According to an extant cuneiform inscription (British Museum 21946), after the battle of Carchemish in 625 B.C.E. (Jer 46:2), Nebuchadnezzar’s forces overtook and destroyed the fleeing Egyptians in the district of Hamath. (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 99)

There is no admission, of course, that Grayson would date this to 605 BCE rather than the WT date of 625 BCE.

*** it-2 p. 359 Medes, Media ***
Following the Median capture of Asshur in Nabopolassar’s 12th year (634 B.C.E.), Cyaxares (called Ú-ma-kis-tar in the Babylonian records) met with Nabopolassar by the captured city, and they “made an entente cordiale.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 93)

Here, it was made to look well-documented that Nabopolassar's 12th year was 634 BCE. Who would guess by reading this that all the evidence points to 614 BCE?

Similarly:

*** it-2 p. 410 Minni ***
According to a Babylonian chronicle, in his tenth year of reign (636 B.C.E.) Nabopolassar “captured the Manneans who had come to their (i.e. the Assyrians’) aid.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 91)

*** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***
The inscriptions further show that news of his father’s death brought Nebuchadnezzar back to Babylon, and on the first of Elul (August-September), he ascended the throne. In this his accession year he returned to Hattu, and “in the month Shebat [January-February, 624 B.C.E.] he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 100) In 624 B.C.E., in the first official year of his kingship, Nebuchadnezzar again led his forces through Hattu...

*** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***
But a mere three months and ten days thereafter the reign of the new king ended when Jehoiachin surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar (in the month of Adar [February-March] during Nebuchadnezzar’s seventh regnal year [ending in Nisan 617 B.C.E.], according to the Babylonian Chronicles). A cuneiform inscription (British Museum 21946) states: “The seventh year: In the month Kislev the king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Hattu. He encamped against the city of Judah and on the second day of the month Adar he captured the city (and) seized (its) king [Jehoiachin]. A king of his own choice [Zedekiah] he appointed in the city (and) taking the vast tribute he brought it into Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 102; PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 326)

*** it-2 p. 505 Nineveh ***
(Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. Grayson, 1975, p. 94; PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 958) To this day Nineveh is a desolate waste, and in the spring, flocks graze near or atop the mound of Kuyunjik.
Date of Nineveh’s Fall. Though effaced from the extant cuneiform tablet that relates the fall of Nineveh, the date for this event, the 14th year of Nabopolassar, can be supplied from the context. It is also possible to place the destruction of Nineveh in the framework of Bible chronology. According to a Babylonian chronicle, the Egyptians were defeated at Carchemish in the 21st year of Nabopolassar’s reign. The Bible shows this to have taken place in the fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign or in 625 B.C.E. (Jer 46:2) Therefore, the capture of Nineveh (about seven years earlier) in the 14th year of Nabopolassar’s reign would fall in the year 632 B.C.E.

So mentioning a Watchtower date next to a respected resource about the Babylonian Chronicles adds an air of respectability around a Watchtower date that otherwise has no evidence going for it other than the fact that it's part of a chronology that was necessary to change in order to make 1914 work. 

But when an article is specifically about when Jerusalem was destroyed, now the tune changes, and the Babylonian Chronicles must be a set of inscriptions we should doubt:

*** w11 11/1 p. 23 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
The Babylonian chronicles.
What are they? The Babylonian chronicles are a series of tablets recording major events in Babylonian history.
What have experts said? R. H. Sack, a leading authority on cuneiform documents, states that the chronicles provide an incomplete record of important events. He wrote that historians must probe “secondary sources . . . in the hope of determining what actually happened.”
What do the documents show? There are gaps in the history recorded in the Babylonian chronicles.3 (See the box below.) Logically, then, the question arises, How reliable are deductions based on such an incomplete record?
 

[BTK59]

11 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

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

You pretend a lot and claim to be something you're not. It's important to show the kind of truth that is genuine, not false. Don't confuse God's truth with your falsehood.

You deny the significance of 587 BC, even though you defend it fervently like an apostate. However, this is not the truth that God is seeking, nor did Christ teach deception.

15 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

(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.)

You've gone to great lengths to pour out your meaningless words on an entire page, but people are able to read and comprehend your failures and strategies. Therefore, it's time to put an end to your feeble excuses regarding ad-hominem attacks, especially when you are no different. The only criticism you have against me is that I am not an apostate pretending to be a witness.

19 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

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.

It's clear that either you or Tom has control over this site. There's no need for a facade because I already know the truth, which you can't deny. Your anger towards banning users seems unjust when both your and Tom's behavior can be more offensive to God than you realize mine is.

You can rest assured that, in terms of behavior, I am at the lower end from you according to God's judgment.

[JW Insider]

19 hours ago, BTK59 said:

You deny the significance of 587 BC, even though you defend it fervently

In my opinion, 587 (or 607) should not be significant to any of us from a Biblical perspective, especially if we take Paul's and Jesus' words seriously:

(1 Thessalonians 5:1, 2) . . .Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night. 

(Acts 1:7) . . .He said to them: “It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction.

It's not important when Jerusalem fell, if it is part of an attempt to conjure up the future like a fortune-teller, or identify the time period that Jesus said none of us would know.

Even if is used to try to pretend we have special knowledge of when some invisible event happened in heaven, we should also consider Paul's warning about claiming that the parousia has already occurred:

(2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2) . . .However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here.

This type of presumptuousness could even lead to the claim that the resurrection has already occurred, or that as Paul said above, persons are already "being gathered together to him."

(2 Timothy 2:18) 18 These men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred, and they are subverting the faith of some.

So it shouldn't matter whether Jerusalem fell in 587 or 607. But it should matter to us that we pay  close attention to our teaching. This means that we shouldn't go around making claims that are unsubstantiated. It's one thing to make a claim that we know we are denying all the available evidence from Neo-Babylonian archaeology and astronomy because we think that God has given us special insight that makes us wiser than those who claim to be specialists and respected authorities. But if we love truth, this doesn't give us the right to make false claims about the evidence we oppose. It doesn't give us the right to pick and choose from the evidence, pretending without evidence that one small part of the whole is better than the other 99%.

And when we do in fact make our fortune-telling predictions based on a kind of prophetic numerology, as Russell did with 1914, then we shouldn't try to save face when all those predictions failed, by changing definitions and claiming he really said something else. It's even misleading to haughtily focus on one or two little things that were partially right while not also humbly admitting the error and the number of people hurt by the error. (As you pointed out before, Russell promoted the idea that Christians should thank God for Russell's mistake because it somehow made Christians more prepared!) 
 

[JW Insider]

48 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

It's clear that either you or Tom has control over this site. There's no need for a facade because I already know the truth, which you can't deny.

Then I have no choice but to point out that you are making a false statement. I can't say absolutely that Tom does not control this site, but in my heart of hearts I'm about 99.9999% sure that he doesn't. I don't think he even has moderator functions.

53 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Your anger towards banning users seems unjust when both your and Tom's behavior can be more offensive to God than you realize mine is.

I'm not angry toward banning users, I just think it's not always going to be done evenly and fairly, so why do it at all for the kinds of things you/George/Noisy Srecko/etc./etc./etc. do here? It's meaningless when someone can just pop up with one of their other accounts anyway. I do admit to being a little indignant that banning a person can take away ALL their old posts. That's completely unfair, and I would bet there is a way to ban someone without going that far. A person with 1,000 posts may try to make themselves a pain to deal with, but even if 90% of their posts are worthless, we have an ignore function (although I've never tried it). The other 10% of their posts might leave 100 out of 1,000 that are worth addressing.

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

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 have no idea what that means. When I use the WOL (Watchtower Online Library) or the Watchtower Library "CD" image and keep it updated, I am already getting the "electronic reprint." And I don't recall any typos in those publications that weren't already updated where necessary. (This goes mostly for "Insight" and rarely, only a few of the more recent books and Watchtower articles.) If there were other typos involved in anything I presented, I am unaware, and will assume there are none unless you or someone else can point them out.

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

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?

I gladly acknowledge that 568 BC (astronomically the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar) might be linked to other military campaigns, but even if these other campaigns could be proven, it doesn't override the Bible's testimony about what occurred in the 7th, 18th and 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar.

[BTK59]

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

In my opinion, 587 (or 607) should not be significant to any of us from a Biblical perspective, especially if we take Paul's and Jesus' words seriously

However, throughout the past 10 years, you have obstinately defended a false premise, much like your current stance, rendering this observation inconsequential when it originates from you.

Why are you spending 13 whole pages trying to defend your inaccurate interpretation of the events of 587 BC and AD 1914? It seems like you're not paying attention to the actual scripture you posted, so bringing it up doesn't really help your argument.

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It's not important when Jerusalem fell, if it is part of an attempt to conjure up the future like a fortune-teller, or identify the time period that Jesus said none of us would know.

Even if is used to try to pretend we have special knowledge of when some invisible event happened in heaven, we should also consider Paul's warning about claiming that the parousia has already occurred:

When Jesus spoke about being alert to future events, no one with sincere spiritual beliefs would accept your misleading presentation. Your lack of spiritual conscience undermines your attempt to gain favor with God.

Hence, in addition to the proverbs you mentioned that apply to you, true Christians should also pay attention to the entirety of scripture, not just what is convenient for them. Otherwise, you will make the Bible meaningless.

Ephesians 5:6-12 New King James Version
6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not be partakers with them.

2 Thessalonians 2:3-16 English Standard Version
3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the son of destruction,

Matthew 24:4-36 New International Version
4 Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.

What aspects of these signs do you, as a dissenting observer of the truth, struggle to comprehend?

When you slander the Watchtower as fortune-tellers, you are promoting an apostate view, indicating a refusal to comprehend the numbers "driven" by scriptural observation. As a result, this lack of knowledge reflects a lack of faith. Visitors should not take comfort in paying attention to such lies and accusations, as they are driven by apostasy.

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

This type of presumptuousness could even lead to the claim that the resurrection has already occurred, or that as Paul said above, persons are already "being gathered together to him."

Incorrect. Your assertion is a misinterpretation aimed at deflecting responsibility. It is completely unrelated to the accurate comprehension of resurrection, which is based on a deep understanding of scripture. Therefore, there is no justification for raising this point to mask your shortcomings as a Christian. Another useless deflection tactic.

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

So it shouldn't matter whether Jerusalem fell in 587 or 607. But it should matter to us that we pay close attention to our teaching. This means that we shouldn't go around making claims that are unsubstantiated. It's one thing to make a claim that we know we are denying all the available evidence from Neo-Babylonian archaeology and astronomy because we think that God has given us special insight that makes us wiser than those who claim to be specialists and respected authorities. But if we love truth, this doesn't give us the right to make false claims about the evidence we oppose. It doesn't give us the right to pick and choose from the evidence, pretending without evidence that one small part of the whole is better than the other 99%.

Our teachings are firmly rooted in scripture, which you have chosen to refute. This raises the question: what kind of teacher are you?

Your rejection of the word of God based on personal ignorance and lack of knowledge is concerning. The unfounded claims you enthusiastically advocate for apostasy should be a greater cause for alarm for the audience than your limited understanding of history. Once more, it is worth questioning who you are to dismiss well-established historical evidence that contradicts your assertion of an "absolute" year as 587 BC.

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

And when we do in fact make our fortune-telling predictions based on a kind of prophetic numerology, as Russell did with 1914, then we shouldn't try to save face when all those predictions failed, by changing definitions and claiming he really said something else. It's even misleading to haughtily focus on one or two little things that were partially right while not also humbly admitting the error and the number of people hurt by the error. (As you pointed out before, Russell promoted the idea that Christians should thank God for Russell's mistake because it somehow made Christians more prepared!) 

Making erroneous judgments about someone's Christian life without a basis is unjustifiable. It is unethical to make unfounded allegations against the Watchtower organization without a clear understanding of Christian principles. Therefore, the only failure evident here is on your part.

Why do you insist on continuously launching these ad hominem attacks against the Watchtower organization?

[BTK59]

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Then I have no choice but to point out that you are making a false statement. I can't say absolutely that Tom does not control this site, but in my heart of hearts I'm about 99.9999% sure that he doesn't. I don't think he even has moderator functions.

Of course, you do. When you make false statements, who holds you accountable?

As I mentioned before, I truly have no concern about your identity or beliefs. I am fully aware of the indisputable facts, and if you desire to persist with your petty manipulations, feel free to do so.
 

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I'm not angry toward banning users, I just think it's not always going to be done evenly and fairly, so why do it at all for the kinds of things you/George/Noisy Srecko/etc./etc./etc. do here? It's meaningless when someone can just pop up with one of their other accounts anyway. I do admit to being a little indignant that banning a person can take away ALL their old posts. That's completely unfair, and I would bet there is a way to ban someone without going that far. A person with 1,000 posts may try to make themselves a pain to deal with, but even if 90% of their posts are worthless, we have an ignore function (although I've never tried it). The other 10% of their posts might leave 100 out of 1,000 that are worth addressing.

Of course, you have no problem banning just one individual whom you believe has hundreds of accounts, as opposed to many users using the same writing style. A former member was known to be straightforward and blunt, much like you, Tom, and others who have a similar writing style, leading one to assume multiple individuals. Your mind games are your own.
You are absolutely right. There are instances when you just banned an individual in order to safeguard and protect others, particularly when they resort to profanity or are found to be spreading outright falsehoods that have been proven false.

When apostates like Srecko make false allegations and those are proven to be false, who is the one to face the consequences, Srecko the apostate, or George? Save it for your group.

 

[BTK59]

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I have no idea what that means. When I use the WOL (Watchtower Online Library) or the Watchtower Library "CD" image and keep it updated, I am already getting the "electronic reprint." And I don't recall any typos in those publications that weren't already updated where necessary. (This goes mostly for "Insight" and rarely, only a few of the more recent books and Watchtower articles.) If there were other typos involved in anything I presented, I am unaware, and will assume there are none unless you or someone else can point them out.

We are both aware that this was not always the situation when "typesetting" was the only option, and reprints were the only way to make corrections. You also understand how apostates thrive on attempting to prove that the Watchtower manipulates their publications to conceal whatever their distorted minds conceive.

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I gladly acknowledge that 568 BC (astronomically the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar) might be linked to other military campaigns, but even if these other campaigns could be proven, it doesn't override the Bible's testimony about what occurred in the 7th, 18th and 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar.

I understand that you hold a different perspective on the significance of the year 568 BC. I acknowledge that you prefer the year 587 BC.

The Watchtower's interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's reign by his years are explained just like historical data. Show me precisely where VAT 4956 tablet provides evidence of Jerusalem's destruction in 587 BC, as you insist. In the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, he was occupied with other military campaigns. Therefore, can you demonstrate how the astronomical tablet specifically relates to Jerusalem's fate? There is historical evidence that places Nebuchadnezzar approximately 400 miles away from Jerusalem at the time of its destruction in 587 BC. However, I am curious about the alleged proof that firmly establishes the year 568 BC as the date of Jerusalem's destruction. Instead of making baseless statements, please provide credible evidence to support your claim. It is time to put an end to these unsubstantiated arguments and present factual information.
 

[TrueTomHarley]

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I honestly don't know who banned George, or exactly why either

I hear he went down into the abyss locked in combat with a mortal enemy who was yelling ‘Fly, you fools!’ and imagining he had saved the day. Only, unlike the movie, he remained suppressed and it was his adversary who emerged in renewed form.

 

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Then I have no choice but to point out that you are making a false statement. I can't say absolutely that Tom does not control this site, but in my heart of hearts I'm about 99.9999% sure that he doesn't. I don't think he even has moderator functions.

he he he ))))))))))

 

59 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

When apostates like Srecko

You know, whatever happened to Srecko—another one who has disappeared? Maybe he and Pudgy also went down into the abyss, locked in mortal semi-disagreement.

[BTK59]

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I hear he went down into the abyss locked in combat with a mortal enemy who was yelling ‘Fly, you fools!’ and imagining he had saved the day. Only, unlike the movie, he remained suppressed and it was his adversary who emerged in renewed form.

That's why it's pointless to pretend, because we're aware of who has the power when they get angry.

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

You know, whatever happened to Srecko—another one who has disappeared? Maybe he and Pudgy also went down into the abyss, locked in mortal semi-disagreement.

I have witnessed him endorsing meaningless content, indicating that he is still active. It is highly likely that he is anticipating the Watchtower to face charges in another impartial court, as they are engaged in the work of Satan.

Regarding Pudgy, there are two distinct possibilities: one pertains to his health, while the other is related to legal matters. Naturally, I sincerely hope that his health is in good condition. However, if the situation is indeed legal in nature, it is plausible that a court ruling might impose restrictions on his internet access for a certain duration. In such a scenario, it is likely that we won't see any posts from him for approximately three years or so. Perhaps you should consider reaching out to him, either yourself or through JWI, if you are genuinely concerned.

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Then I have no choice but to point out that you are making a false statement. I can't say absolutely that Tom does not control this site, but in my heart of hearts I'm about 99.9999% sure that he doesn't. I don't think he even has moderator functions.

he he he ))))))))))

Hmmm. With remarks like that, I just moved the needle to only 99.9998% sure. 

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, BTK59 said:

The Watchtower's interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's reign by his years are explained just like historical data.

No. They are not.

5 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Show me precisely where VAT 4956 tablet provides evidence of Jerusalem's destruction in 587 BC, as you insist.

• VAT 4956 gives us 587 BCE as an ABSOLUTE date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign.
• VAT 4956 gives us 604 BCE as an ABSOLUTE year of Nebuchadnezzar's 1st year of reign.
• VAT 4956 gives us 586 BCE as an ABSOLUTE year of Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year of reign.
• VAT 4956 gives us 568 BCE as an ABSOLUTE year of Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year of reign.
• VAT 4956 gives us direct evidence that 607 BCE was not ANY year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign.

If you don't understand that to be true then you have no business discussing Neo-Babylonian chronology. Period.

Archaeologists and historians discuss relative chronology and absolute chronology. The Bible never gives us an absolute chronology, but it gives us a fairly complete relative chronology. The only thing that can give us an absolute chronology for Neo-Babylonian times is an astronomical date. That's the only thing that can tie a piece of evidence to a specific year in the BCE or CE era. That's what the term "absolute" means to archaeologists and historians. 

But there is no reason for opposers of the astronomical chronology to obsess over VAT 4956. That's because WITH it you can know that 587 BCE is an ABSOLUTE date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign. But WITHOUT it you can still know that 587 BCE is an ABSOLUTE date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign. ALL of the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign are known in ABSOLUTE years, because there are many more astronomical observations and reports that tie 587 BCE directly to his 18th year of reign. 

Whether or not Nebuchadnezzar had any interaction with Jerusalem in his 18th and 19th year is up to you to either agree with or deny. All I can tell you is that we have ABSOLUTE BCE dates for every year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign.