607 B.C.E.

[JW Insider]

20 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

So far, the WTS and GB hasn’t given me cause to suggest indignation. The old biblical chronology range from 610BCE to 573BCE. The new biblical chronology ranges from 521BCE to 441BCE. At what point does 587BCE supersede all these variables? Who gave you divine intervention aside from secular history? At what point did it become necessary for you NOT to accept God’s counsel. WHO IS DESIGNATED TO CORRECT YOU!!!!!!!!!!

That's pretty easy to answer. You don't seem to put much reliance in the date 539 BCE, that the Watchtower promotes as the accurate, pivotal point. Yet, the older publications even called this an "absolute" date. 587 BCE does NOT supersede all these "variables." It does not supersede them because it is based only on the same lines of evidence for which we base 539 BCE. In fact, it's accuracy is merely a question of finding out what made 539 BCE an accurate, pivotal point. What made it so accurate as to once be called an "absolute date"?

*** w68 5/1 p. 268 par. 20 Understanding Time a Help to True Worshipers ***
20 For calculating Hebrew Scripture dates, the absolute date of October 5 to 6 in the year 539 B.C.E. is essential.

So, it turns out that we don't need any "divine intervention." If we take an interest in what made 539 BCE so accurate, that by itself, turns out to be the same information that makes 587 BCE not MORE accurate, but exactly the SAME in accuracy as the so-called absolute date of 539 BCE. It turns out to also be the same information that indicates the level of inaccuracy of 607 BCE. So if you trust that 539 BCE is accurate, and I understand that you might not, but if you did, then you would see that it's everything the Watchtower ever said about 539 BCE which is the source of evidence to correct 607 BCE.

From that perspective it is the Watchtower publications that are, in effect, declaring 587 BCE as accurate as 539 by pointing us to the types of evidence that make 539 BCE so accurate. The 539 evidence pointed to is the same evidence that makes 607 inaccurate.

20 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

Jehovah’s Witnesses do well to read your BLASPHEMY. They do well to LEARN from this argument NOT to fall into the same trap of thinking their knowledge is greater than Gods. If God chose a few selected men to dispense our spiritual food? Then, the fine work is to READ it for ourselves to SEE if it harmonizes with scripture and accept it, as correct and holy. Scripture does not define ignorance by saying if one’s personal view predicated by secular understanding, NOT GOD’S or SCRIPTURE, we are to defy the Elders, Biblical Law, Scripture, and God. If that’s your understanding, buddy there’s something wrong with you. If you are some type of Elder, I pity the Kingdom Hall you are erroneously misleading. Furthermore. As I stated, who are you to place yourself above Gods Law. Once again, let’s not misrepresent scripture to support our own argument. God’s provides the means for correction, just like R. Franz, Chitty, Greenlees, Jonsson, Paton, Anderson, and the many hypocrites of the faith.

No one's knowledge is greater than God's. But as you have also said "the fine work is to READ it for ourselves to SEE if it harmonizes with scripture and accept it as correct and holy."

You are right, and this is the ONLY reason to still be concerned about it. We should see if it harmonizes. It turns out that 607 BCE does NOT harmonize with scripture. It creates contradictions. It just so happens that the sources that make 539 BCE so accurate and absolute ALSO are the sources for the evidence for 587 BCE instead of 607 BCE. And coincidentally, 587 BCE just happens to remove the Bible contradiction that 607 BCE causes. This doesn't mean that 587 BCE is terribly important to me. Our core doctrines work perfectly well without 587 BCE and without 607 BCE.

This is also why in a local congregational setting, I never bring it up. My personal conversations have always been with friends and brothers from Bethel on this subject. I've had Bible studies where we discuss this particular doctrine and I merely say that this is the Watch Tower Society's current view on the subject. I admit that there have been various views on the subject of chronology and that some of the brothers take a very keen interest in these dates. But I add that we don't serve specifically for dates; the important thing is that we realize we are in the last days, that Jesus Christ is enthroned, and we still pray that this Kingdom will come and God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven. That should be enough to motivate us to show love and concern for all, but especially toward those related to us in the faith.

I don't tell anyone else that they should minimize these dates. It's just my own conscience. We've had several Bible studies reach the point of baptism, over a dozen through the years, and only once has a Bible study questioned why I don't emphasize the dates the same way that other brothers do. These views, to me, are not so divergent that they need to interfere with the ministry. To you, it sounds like they are. But that's your own conscience. I have to pay attention to my teaching, you have to pay attention to yours. The main thing is not to misrepresent scripture. We have a wide array of spiritual food, and a wide range of ministries. We are not all obligated to focus on the exact same ministry and teaching as the person next to us.

(1 Corinthians 12:4-11) 4 Now there are different gifts, but there is the same spirit; 5 and there are different ministries, and yet there is the same Lord; 6 and there are different activities, and yet it is the same God who performs them all in everyone. 7 But the manifestation of the spirit is given to each one for a beneficial purpose. 8 For to one is given speech of wisdom through the spirit, to another speech of knowledge according to the same spirit, 9 to another faith by the same spirit, . . . 11 But all these operations are performed by the very same spirit, distributing to each one respectively just as it wills.

If I'm not good at accepting 607 BCE, why not just consider it a weakness on my part.

(1 Corinthians 12:22) 22 On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are necessary,

But there is never a reason to use such disagreements to produce divisions and sects in the congregation. But that doesn't mean that we should be silent if we see a problem, and neither can I conscientiously remain silent when a problem such as this one has been brought to my attention.

 

[Evacuated]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

the important thing is that we realize we are in the last days, that Jesus Christ is enthroned

Do you attach a commencement date to these events? i.e. When was Jesus enthroned?, When did the last days begin?

[Menrov]

607 or any other calendar date, what is the value in relation to your Christian life? Did any other key bible character use dates to support their acts of faith?

For a true believer, dates are irrelevant. All they (should) care about is their faith and how they show their faith towards others. We do not know the exact date Jesus was born, nor when He died. Yes, the day in the month is mentioned but to point this to a secular calendar date(day, month and year) is hardly possible if at all. It is as JW Insider explained, all dates are secular.

If dates or the method to date events, was so important or essential, the bible would have provided that in a way ALL can understand. But as it stands now, denominations use their acclaimed "insight" on how to date biblical events as a unique selling proposition. To differentiate from other denominations.

Further to this specific item: regardless if one agrees / accepts a certain date (i.e. 607, 587 etc ect), it does not justify the prophecy presumably linked to that date (gentile times, 7 times, 1914). In other words,, for us this dating seem relevant because we are taught that the selected date is the beginning of a prophecy, with its own (secular dates) calculation again. But if there was no such prophecy linked to that date that has any relevance for us living today, then the date would not be of any importance either.

If actually there is no prophecy from God related to the date we are speaking about here, is it fair to say that the whole dating is useless?

In conclusion, I believe true believers are not worried about dates. Only their acts of faith are relevant. Regardless on what date these acts are done.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Do you attach a commencement date to these events? i.e. When was Jesus enthroned?, When did the last days begin?

The date doesn't matter, it's the fact that we are now living in the time when the Scriptures say that these events have occurred. I don't really attach a specific date to the beginning, but I assume our dates for the events the Bible describes are accurate. It seems likely that the enthronement would have happening around the same time that the Bible tells us that Jesus began to "rule as king." Paul used this expression (1 Cor 15:25) as an exact synonym for "sit at God's right hand" which was as soon as he was raised to heaven and began sitting at God's right hand of the throne of Majesty. Before this time, Jesus would have been the "king-designate" during his ministry, but after his resurrection when "all authority had been given to him in heaven and on earth," since that time he is called the "King of Kings." So the Scriptures seem to tie the event of Jesus' resurrection to his enthronement.

(Acts 2:30, 31) . . .God had sworn to him with an oath that he would seat one of his offspring on his throne, 31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ,. . .

(1 Timothy 6:15) . . .He is the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords,

(Hebrews 8:1) . . .he has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens. . .

(Matthew 28:18-20) . . .: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. . . .  I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.”

(1 Peter 3:21, 22) . . .through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 22 He is at God’s right hand, for he went to heaven, and angels and authorities and powers were made subject to him.

et cetera.

 

Every use of the term "last days" [Gk:  eschatos hēmera ] in the Bible also appears to fit a similar time period. Peter gave evidence that the "last days" were already upon them at Pentecost. 

(Acts 2:14-17) 14 But Peter stood up with the Eleven and spoke to them in a loud voice: “Men of Ju·deʹa and all you inhabitants of Jerusalem, let this be known to you and listen carefully to my words. 15 These people are, in fact, not drunk, as you suppose, for it is the third hour of the day. 16 On the contrary, this is what was said through the prophet Joel: 17 ‘“And in the last days,” [Gk:  eschatos hēmera ] God says, “I will pour out some of my spirit on every sort of flesh,. . .

And Paul explained to Timothy that the reason he should expect to suffer adversity and meet up with persons "not favorably" disposed, is because this is what they should expect now that they were living in the last days.

(2 Timothy 2:2-3:14) . . .. 3 As a fine soldier of Christ Jesus, take your part in suffering adversity. . .10 For this reason I go on enduring all things for the sake of the chosen ones, . . .12 if we go on enduring, we will also rule together as kings; if we deny, he will also deny us;  . . .14 Keep reminding them of these things, . . .16 But reject empty speeches . . . . Hy·me·naeʹus and Phi·leʹtus are among them. 18 These men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred, and they are subverting the faith of some. . . . 23 Further, reject foolish and ignorant debates . . .24 For a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, showing restraint when wronged, 25 instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed. Perhaps God may give them repentance leading to an accurate knowledge of truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the Devil, seeing that they have been caught alive by him to do his will. 3 But know this, that in the last days  [Gk: eschatos hēmera] critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, . . . 7 always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth. 8 Now in the way that Janʹnes and Jamʹbres opposed Moses, so these also go on opposing the truth. Such men are completely corrupted in mind, disapproved as regards the faith. . . . But you have closely followed my teaching, my course of life, my purpose, my faith, my patience, my love, my endurance, 11 the persecutions and sufferings such as I experienced in Antioch, in I·coʹni·um, in Lysʹtra. I endured these persecutions, and the Lord rescued me from them all. 12 In fact, all those desiring to live with godly devotion in association with Christ Jesus will also be persecuted. 13 But wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled. 14 You, however, continue in the things that you learned and were persuaded to believe, . . .

I left a lot of the context there because it makes it clear that Paul was not saying:

"Hey, you think you have it bad now, just be glad you aren't living in the last days. They start nearly 2,000 years from now and when those times get here, things will really be bad."

Paul is clearly saying that the kinds of things that were currently happening in their own day were surely to be expected now that they were living in the "last days"

The same point is made in the context of 2 Peter when Peter uses the expression "last days."

(2 Peter 2:17-3:12) 17 These are waterless springs and mists driven by a violent storm, and the blackest darkness has been reserved for them. 18 They make high-sounding statements that are empty. By appealing to the desires of the flesh and with acts of brazen conduct, they entice people who have just escaped from those who live in error. . . . 3 Beloved ones, this is now the second letter I am writing you in which, as in my first one, I am stirring up your clear thinking faculties by way of a reminder, 2 that you should remember the sayings previously spoken by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles. 3 First of all know this, that in the last days [Gk:  eschatos hēmera] ridiculers will come with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires 4 and saying: “Where is this promised presence of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep in death, all things are continuing exactly as they were from creation’s beginning.” 5 For they deliberately ignore this fact, . . . 8 However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 9 Jehovah is not slow concerning his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance. . . . 11 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, 12 as you await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah,. . .

Again, they were to be prepared in Peter's time for these ridiculers who had already come to ridicule the fact that the parousia had obviously not begun yet. In fact, the parallel to this chapter in Jude makes the point even clearer. The application was to the fact that they were in the "last days," or "last time."

(Jude 17-21) 17 As for you, beloved ones, call to mind the sayings that have been previously spoken by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, 18 how they used to say to you: “In the last time there will be ridiculers, following their own desires for ungodly things.” 19 These are the ones who cause divisions, animalistic men, not having spirituality. 20 But you, beloved ones, build yourselves up on your most holy faith, and pray with holy spirit, 21 in order to keep yourselves in God’s love, while you await the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ with everlasting life in view.

It also turns out that the exact same expression "the last days" is used in the following verses in Hebrews 1. Although the NWT is usually very careful to present a consistent translation, the translators chose to change the expression from "the last days" to "at the end of these days."

(Hebrews 1:1, 2) 1 Long ago God spoke to our forefathers by means of the prophets on many occasions and in many ways. 2 Now at the end of these days  [Gk:  eschatos hēmera] he has spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things.

The problem, is of course, the fact that the verse says that we were "now" already at that time, in the "last days" [Gk: eschatos hēmera]. 

Of course, the expressions the "last day," the "last days, the "last hour," etc., could also refer to the very end at the time of judgment, too. 

(John 11:24) . . .Martha said to him: “I know he will rise in the resurrection on the last day.. . .

(James 5:2, 3) . . .. 3 Your gold and silver have rusted away, and their rust will be a witness against you and will consume your flesh. What you have stored up will be like a fire in the last days.

So the expression does not seem to be reserved for some unique special use just to refer to a special 102-year-plus time period near the end of the last days.

 

 

 

 

[JW Insider]

I appreciate all the points you made in your comment. This was surely the same point being made in 2 Peter.

2 hours ago, Menrov said:

Further to this specific item: regardless if one agrees / accepts a certain date (i.e. 607, 587 etc ect), it does not justify the prophecy presumably linked to that date (gentile times, 7 times, 1914).

This is the point that I think Allen Smith might not have realized he was making for many Witnesses when he spoke of how "the fine work is to READ it for ourselves to SEE if it harmonizes with scripture and accept it as correct and holy." I think that most Witnesses will avoid doing this out of the fear that it leads to apostasy. But Witnesses who have done what Allen recommends are becoming troubled by how difficult it really is to harmonize it, and we should be concerned about what is happening to them and why. Many are leaving the organization specifically because of these troubles harmonizing these teachings with the Scriptures.

For example:

• We say that wicked king Nebuchadnezzar who killed and enslaved God's people pictures the Messianic Kingdom through Jesus Christ.
• We say that the break in this Gentile pagan's rulership pictured the break in the Jewish non-Gentile rulership.
• Daniel says the "Tree Dream" was fulfilled in Nebuchadnezzar's lifetime, and we say it was not fulfilled in his lifetime.
• We say that the "Gentile Times" ended at a time when the "Gentile Times" apparently became stronger and more troublesome than ever.
• Jesus said the Gentile Times will begin in the near future after the time he spoke, not that they will begin in the past. (Luke 21:24) . . .Jerusalem [the holy city] will be trampled [underfoot] on by the nations [Gentiles] until the appointed times of the nations [Gentiles] are fulfilled.
• The only time the Bible ever repeats Jesus expressions in Luke 21:24 about the Gentile Times is in Revelation 11:2,3 when it ties it to a time period of 1,260 days, not 2,520 years. (". . . the nations [Gentiles]. . .will trample the holy city [Jerusalem] underfoot for 42 months . . . 1,260 days. . . .)
• We say that the eyes of faith saw the unmistakable sign of Christ's presence begin in 1914 when the Watchtower kept saying it was 1874 until about 1930, and didn't officially change the 1874 date until 1943-4.
• We say the "Kingdom" began in 1914 when the Bible says it began when Jesus sat at God's right hand.
• We say the generation of anointed that could lift their heads up because they would not pass away until they would see all these things occur has mostly passed away in the 102 years since 1914.

Obviously, this could go on and on. But the important thing is that all these contradictions clear up when we accept Jesus words about not being concerned about the times and seasons.

[Menrov]

11 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

But Witnesses who have done what Allen recommends are becoming troubled by how difficult it really is to harmonize it, and we should be concerned about what is happening to them and why

I agree with this. It can be most troublesome when one starts to do real bible research and cannot harmonize certain doctrines taught by the organization with the scriptures (context).

[Guest Allen Smith]

So, what you’re saying to the JW community is, that only your strong personal belief is to be considered when other variables have been considered. You state that the bible doesn’t hold standard time chronology. That is correct.

 

The distention is between theories. ALL, biblical chronology is based on hypotheticals. Since MAN has NO Absolute starting point that can be interpreted with given variables from man driven time tables? The WTS has factored those probabilities.

 

The difference is your application of chronology. The given mistake you continue to assert is Bible Student Chronology as possibilities back then.

 

The ONLY thing that LINKS the Bible Students with Jehovah’s Witnesses is the SAME PUBLISHING HOUSE. That’s all. So when you state the term US to link two different ideology’s it becomes hypocritical. Does that mean we should dismiss the correct path C.T. Russell started? Of course not.

 

The Bible Students made a great contribution to move that present day ideology of churches pushing the fear of HELLFIRE to a better understanding. But just like in everything with society, they had just begun to learn a correct process to bible understanding.

 

Now you stated the WTS relies on the secular reckoning of 539BC to make their chronology work. You must admit, that date has been around as long as the other figurative dates as well. 606BC, 597BC, 586BC.

 

The difference became in the interpretation after the 1950’s with updated chronology. So now, the problem came into 2 categories. Do we believe the ancient chronology with people who were just a few centuries away? Or do you believe modern chronology that are millenniums away.

 

You stated that the absolute date of 587BCE is the most reliable, since it stands out to modern understanding. However, what you continue to misrepresent is the problems driven by accepting that date, even though you keep saying that’s the only one that fits.

 

Well it does in some respect but NOT in the manor you’re portraying. So if you accept 587BCE then you have to consider 586BCE. The same can be said about 597BC, and 606BC. We would have to consider the alternatives. 598BC and 605BC. The abstracts of those dates would be 607BC, 599BC, and 536BC.

 

The only thing with chronology is how to fit the pieces with scripture. Face value it can’t be done. Now the Doug Mason and Carl Jonsson Methodology is NOT to allow anything else into their argument. They just had a very high need to disprove the WTS chronology no matter what…to VENTDICATE every ex-witness in the world. So there’s no need to suggest that there are some witnesses that are hardcore not to accept any updated chronology. A definite statement that is flawed. So let’s not pretend that what YOU are advocating is NOT apostasy, even though you continue to state it isn’t. We will leave that up to YOU and GOD. It doesn’t matter if you question the WTS and GB in private or have personal doubts, that is still between you and GOD, but when you come to a PUBLIC FORUM complaining about those doubts, then it becomes a mission for every honest witness to voice any misconceptions a supposed witness has.

 

 

You continue to be in the belief that 587BCE as the only viable date that fits scripture when even ex-witnesses reference the possibility of 586BC being correct as well. So you continue to place TRUST in your flawed knowledge and MEN rather than GOD.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See the reference of Raymond Phillip Dougherty’s Book Nabonidus and Belshazzar from this ex-witness site. It states it must be accepted as the ultimate criterion in the determination of Neo-Babylonian chronological questions."

 

What the ex-witness DOESN’T mention is, the same author had another book called “Records from Erech, time of Nabonidus (555-538 B.C.) / By Raymond Philip Dougherty” that shows the ending date of 538BC.

 

Now we cannot take it upon ourselves to suggest that when the king gave the decree to the Jews, they all of a sudden packed it all up and left. If that’s the insinuation? Then it’s wrong according to other scholars. So the Statement “must be accepted as the ultimate criterion in the determination of Neo-Babylonian chronological questions." Is highly flawed. However it appears to coincide with your ideology doesn’t it. Not to mention if the WTS held 539BC absolute instead of an approximation, it would lead to 48 years not 50, and that would led you to 609BC.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another fallacy you have is not to see the revisions that even A.K. Grayson has made to his chronology.

 

 

 

So in all honesty, 587BC is NOT absolute. And if you bother to look into what was going on between 539BC to 537BC you would understand that 537BCE is more viable than 587BC

 

 

[Guest Allen Smith]

On 4/14/2016 at 8:14 AM, JW Insider said:

This is the point that I think Allen Smith might not have realized he was making for many Witnesses when he spoke of how "the fine work is to READ it for ourselves to SEE if it harmonizes with scripture and accept it as correct and holy." I think that most Witnesses will avoid doing this out of the fear that it leads to apostasy. But Witnesses who have done what Allen recommends are becoming troubled by how difficult it really is to harmonize it, and we should be concerned about what is happening to them and why. Many are leaving the organization specifically because of these troubles harmonizing these teachings with the Scriptures.

Well I don’t know about people leaving the organization because they can’t seem to harmonize chronology. It does however become a hypocritical point after a person has been disfellowshipped. Just like in human nature, people need an excuse to blame it on someone or something.

Now don’t misrepresent my point of view. If the GB asked someone to cheat, lie, steal, or fall into Satan's Trap like causing divisions, an honest assumption on why people would leave the organization? Then, it would be questionable. You as an ex-bethelite, are asking people to contradict scripture by disobedience, because of your personal understanding of SECULAR chronology that is riddled with many problems, when attempting to harmonize scripture. That’s fine if you want people to be crony’s and disobedient like you. Anyone with that mindset will agree with you.

Just keep it in mind, no matter how hard Satan tries, it will never change the WTS Doctrine just because a handful of active witnesses advocating apostasy, think it’s necessary for the greater good, when the greater good is to remove such people from the organization, just like RAYMOND FRANZ resignation. That’s what should be everyone’s concern and why?

Remember only ignorance suggest that some of us don’t have enough time vested by decades not to fully understand bible chronology.

[JW Insider]

Blame is easy; truth is hard!

 

Thanks for providing some real information in this post that is relevant to the discussion. I noticed that none of those sources you mentioned does anything except show that there is sometimes a one year difference among scholars, historians, and archaeologists. And among religious commentators and religious ideologies there can be any number of differences, because the all-too-common practice among religious writers is to accept an arbitrary secular date as true and then interpret prophecy in such a way that other dates are rejected. Or they push a specific interpretation of prophecy that tells them they must simply reject any secular dates, and then they decide that their religious ideological study has just become a "chronology."

 

You may easily find scholars and other specialists who accept dates with a one year difference from each other, there are several good reasons for this:

1. A king's reign is sometimes counted from the year he began ruling (as Year 1), and sometimes the remaining months in the first year are called the "accession year" or "Year 0" as it were, and only the start of the following year is called the first year. We have a similar linguistic issue in different English usage when we speak of a baby's first year: A baby born on July 1, 2015 might be said to be in his or her "first year":
   • only until December 31, 2015
   • only after January 1, 2016
   • only until June 30, 2016
   • only after July 1, 2016
2. Sometimes that following year starts in the Spring in some calendars and sometimes in the Fall, and the Jewish writings sometimes use either one, because they started their secular year in the Fall and religious year in the Spring.
3. The remaining months of the "accession" year might continue to be listed on dated financial documents and contracts for the previous ruler, especially if a transition is taking place, or if word of a ruler's death or removal has not reached all parts of an empire. (Similarly, in the US, J.F. Kennedy was killed in late November 1963, and some "remote" citizens in Appalachia and Alaska for example, didn't learn of it until after the Kennedy half-dollar coin circulated in 1964.)
4. Astronomers, for example, consistently refer to dates like 607 BCE as -606, or 587 BCE as -586. or 4 BCE as -3. It's because they use the dates in mathematical calculations, and adjust this way for the zero year problem. (This was one of the methods that appeared to confuse Russell when he said he wasn't sure about the zero year problem.)
5. Our current calendar years that are identified from January 1 to December 31 do not map directly to ancient years that could run from Spring to Spring or Fall to Fall. This means that historians may speak of a specific year as 587/586, for example. They are still referring to a single year, but it maps across parts of two ancient years.

One of the most dishonest arguments I have seen in these discussions is the idea that scholars mention both 587 and 586 for the destruction of Jerusalem, therefore if they can be off by one year, then this is a reason to consider that the WTS may be right when they need the evidence to be off by 20 years. The reason is usually related to #1 above, and sometimes #4 and sometimes #5.

(#1 and #2 together could potentially create a difference of 18 months which could appear to be a two-year discrepancy, even though it really is not.)

 

On 4/15/2016 at 2:06 PM, Allen Smith said:

So, what you’re saying to the JW community is, that only your strong personal belief is to be considered when other variables have been considered. You state that the bible doesn’t hold standard time chronology. That is correct.

Again: "Blame is easy; truth is hard."  When the Biblical evidence for anyone's religious belief turns out to be weak, we should know. It should be our habit to know about these things because this is also how we convince people in our ministry that or own beliefs are worth changing their life about. Of course, you also know that these ideas are not merely my own beliefs, they are the beliefs based on nearly 100% of Bible scholars and 100% of Neo-Babylonian historians and archaeologists. That is the reason to consider the evidence. Not because someone has strong beliefs. 

On 4/15/2016 at 2:06 PM, Allen Smith said:

The distention is between theories. ALL, biblical chronology is based on hypotheticals. Since MAN has NO Absolute starting point that can be interpreted with given variables from man driven time tables? The WTS has factored those probabilities.

Based on previous discussions, most Witnesses, I'd guess, do not believe you are correct, but I agree with the first part. The WTS gives a lot of evidence that they have not factored the probabilities.

 

On 4/15/2016 at 2:06 PM, Allen Smith said:

The difference is your application of chronology. The given mistake you continue to assert is Bible Student Chronology as possibilities back then.

The ONLY thing that LINKS the Bible Students with Jehovah’s Witnesses is the SAME PUBLISHING HOUSE. That’s all. So when you state the term US to link two different ideology’s it becomes hypocritical. Does that mean we should dismiss the correct path C.T. Russell started? Of course not.

The Bible Students made a great contribution to move that present day ideology of churches pushing the fear of HELLFIRE to a better understanding. But just like in everything with society, they had just begun to learn a correct process to bible understanding.

You are absolutely wrong on this point. The Bible Student chronology is completely irrelevant and meaningless to the actual evidence. It has nothing to do with the evidence from the Bible, history, and archaeology. I brought it up earlier because we can learn from past mistakes. We can see a "paper trail" that shows how and why some of these mistakes were made. And I think the most important lessons we can learn from those mistakes is that neither 606 nor 607 was ever considered to be a strong argument for 1914. That's because 1914 had already been determined through about 7 other methods that had nothing to do with the "7 times" of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4. All the other methods were considered definitive because all of them focused on 1874, plus a 40 year harvest. It was already a solid date due to its relationship with 1874. Russell wrote an article for George Storrs "Bible Examiner" in 1876 admitting this when he said:

 

"If the Gentile Times end in 1914, (and there are many other and clearer evidences pointing to the same time) and we are told that it shall be with fury poured out; at time of trouble such as never was before, nor ever shall be; a day of wrath, etc." - Russell, 1876.

 

His article made use of Daniel 4, but only in conjunction with additional reasons which we currently reject. (7 times in Leviticus, for example).  Because this was true, it's one of the reasons that it should not surprise us that the actual Biblical-historical-archaeological date for the destruction of Jerusalem was never that important. What was important was only that the period ended in 1914. Only the period from 1874 to 1914 was "absolute" and the Jerusalem date would be "interpreted" from there. The way he handled the mistake over the zero-year issue was just one of those evidences. The method of measuring the pyramids to reach 1914 was another evidence. (BTW, Russell's 1876 article in Bible Examiner also made it very clear that he didn't know the truth about the zero year.)

 

You said: "The ONLY thing that LINKS the Bible Students with Jehovah’s Witnesses is the SAME PUBLISHING HOUSE. That’s all. So when you state the term US to link two different ideology’s it becomes hypocritical."

 

That's a pretty strong statement, which we often hear from JW opposers, and while your position has some merit, it has been difficult for most Witnesses to accept. But it's not hypocritical to use the same terminology that the Watchtower uses about Bible Students and Witnesses. If you don't think it makes the WTS look hypocritical, then why does it make me look  hypocritical? I'm sure you know there are several quotes similar to the one below that links the two groups with a type of equivalence:

 

*** w06 2/1 p. 24 par. 12 “A Witness to All the Nations” ***

During the latter part of the 19th century, after a long period when religious apostasy prevailed, pure worship was reestablished. The Bible Students, as Jehovah’s Witnesses were then known.

 

On 4/15/2016 at 2:06 PM, Allen Smith said:

Now you stated the WTS relies on the secular reckoning of 539BC to make their chronology work. You must admit, that date has been around as long as the other figurative dates as well. 606BC, 597BC, 586BC.

The difference became in the interpretation after the 1950’s with updated chronology. So now, the problem came into 2 categories. Do we believe the ancient chronology with people who were just a few centuries away? Or do you believe modern chronology that are millenniums away.

I doubt that I understood either of these last two paragraphs correctly because every meaning that I can derive from either one is incorrect. There is no chronology anywhere that includes 606 or 607 for the destruction of Jerusalem. There is just its use in our prophetic theory that Nebuchadnezzar somehow pictures the Jewish Messianic Kings, including Jesus. But you can literally look at 1,000 different references from history, archaeology or chronology, and you will NEVER read about Jerusalem's destruction in 606 or 607, with the exception of some discussions influenced by Second Adventists, Seventh Day Adventists, or Witnesses.

On 4/15/2016 at 2:06 PM, Allen Smith said:

You stated that the absolute date of 587BCE is the most reliable, since it stands out to modern understanding. However, what you continue to misrepresent is the problems driven by accepting that date, even though you keep saying that’s the only one that fits.

Well it does in some respect but NOT in the manor you’re portraying. So if you accept 587BCE then you have to consider 586BCE. The same can be said about 597BC, and 606BC. We would have to consider the alternatives. 598BC and 605BC. The abstracts of those dates would be 607BC, 599BC, and 536BC.

I do not consider 587 BCE to be an "absolute" date. I only say that all of the evidence for the Neo-Babylonian period is very consistent and permits us to understand how long all the Babylonian kings ruled from the accepted dates from prior to Nebuchadnezzar's father all the way through the accepted dates for Nabonidus/Belshazzar, Cyrus, etc. Therefore, it also includes the accepted date for the 18th and 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. These dates can be discovered through several independent methods. We don't have to rely on the mouth of "one witness" because we have several independent lines of evidence. It's not "abolute" but, so far, it fits all the known lines of reliable evidence.

You also said: "So if you accept 587BCE then you have to consider 586BCE. The same can be said about 597BC, and 606BC. We would have to consider the alternatives. 598BC and 605BC. The abstracts of those dates would be 607BC, 599BC, and 536BC."

 

Yes, of course they are considered. That's how we know which alternatives are best, and we know that we can reject the wrong ones.  That's how we know there is no evidence for those alternatives. Of course, as stated before, variances of a year or so, are usually not relevant.

 

The one difference you mentioned 587BCE and 586BCE. That particular one is often brought up dishonestly by other Witnesses. It's due to the following minor discrepancy, where Jeremiah calls it the 18th year, but apparently Ezra called it the 19th year. But this has already been satisfactorily explained in the Watchtower and our other publications:

 

(Jeremiah 32:1, 2) 32 The word that came to Jeremiah from Jehovah in the 10th year of King Zed·e·kiʹah of Judah, that is, the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar. 2 At that time the armies of the king of Babylon were besieging Jerusalem. . .

 

(Jeremiah 52:12-14) 12 In the fifth month, on the tenth day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, who was an attendant of the king of Babylon, came into Jerusalem. 13 He burned down the house of Jehovah. . .

 

*** kc p. 186 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***

The Bible reports that the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in his 18th regnal year (19th when accession year is included).

 

*** w11 11/1 p. 25 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***

Scholars say that all these positions occurred in 568/567 B.C.E., which would make the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar II, when he destroyed Jerusalem, 587 B.C.E.

 

It would be dishonest to try to make it seem like all these scholars have trouble identifying the chronology that places Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year (including accession year) as 587 BCE, or his 18th year (without accession year) as 587 BCE, (or his 19th year, without accession year, as 586 BCE). The only reason some might place the Jerusalem destruction in 586 BCE, is because they read Jeremiah 52 as if it did not include the accession year.

 

On 4/15/2016 at 2:06 PM, Allen Smith said:

The only thing with chronology is how to fit the pieces with scripture. Face value it can’t be done. Now the Doug Mason and Carl Jonsson Methodology is NOT to allow anything else into their argument. They just had a very high need to disprove the WTS chronology no matter what…to VENTDICATE every ex-witness in the world. So there’s no need to suggest that there are some witnesses that are hardcore not to accept any updated chronology. A definite statement that is flawed. So let’s not pretend that what YOU are advocating is NOT apostasy, even though you continue to state it isn’t. We will leave that up to YOU and GOD. It doesn’t matter if you question the WTS and GB in private or have personal doubts, that is still between you and GOD, but when you come to a PUBLIC FORUM complaining about those doubts, then it becomes a mission for every honest witness to voice any misconceptions a supposed witness has.

Again: blame is easy; truth is hard. There are thousands of persons who have studied the chronology and all of them come up with the exact same conclusion, and most of them never knew about Doug Mason or Carl Jonsson. They have no concern with the WTS. Yet, even evidence from the WTS indicates that Carl Jonsson's initial need was to prove the Watch Tower right, not to disprove it. This makes perfect sense to me, because this has always been my own reason to study it carefully, too. I also suspect that the reason you are taking an interest in chronology that does not mesh with the WTS is because you also originally intended to defend it. (I don't remember if any documented evidence indicates Doug Mason's motive. I suspect that he was once a believer in 607, too.) 

 

I agree that there are some non-Witnesses and ex-Witnesses, and maybe even some Witnesses, who promote the Biblical-Historical-Archaeological date of 587 BCE to embarrass or provoke of "expose" the WTS. But this fact apparently escapes your notice, that literally thousands of archaeologists, historians and authors who have no interest in JWs accept the same chronology that Jonsson presents. Because it's not his chronology. He is just presenting the evidence. I'm not advocating for Parker & Dubberstein or Jonsson, or Sacks, or Mason, or Ptolemy.

 

I think you are claiming that it evidence of apostasy that someone would go on a public forum to discuss evidence that the Watchtower might have made a mistake. This was a personal decision. It was a difficult decision for many years and then Rolf Furuli made it easier. I never mentioned my own work on this subject for nearly 30 years. I never revealed what had happened inside Bethel until I spoke with Rolf Furuli, and realized his plan. I don't know what you believe about whether we have a personal obligation to preach what we know, or if you believe we have an obligation to hide what we know. But an Internet forum might give some ability to discharge our Christian obligation from Matthew 18. In this way, I can tell the truth in public, and need not offend anyone who had not already made a choice to potentially expose themselves to difficult and controversial evidence. If a person is willing to go on an Internet forum, then they have already made a decision that they will expect the possibility that they may run across information that might be true, might be interesting, or might be complete garbage. They know the counsel that they should be ready to filter what they look at, what they read, and what they think about. For those who need the ability to easily dismiss evidence for fear of being stumbled, it is easy to dismiss, because no one needs to believe the claims of a nearly anonymous Internet poster. Yet, if I feel I have some obligation to lay bare a fault in front of the congregation, after having tried to address the problem between me and him alone, then I can at least state the evidence.

 

On 4/15/2016 at 2:06 PM, Allen Smith said:

You continue to be in the belief that 587BCE as the only viable date that fits scripture when even ex-witnesses reference the possibility of 586BC being correct as well. So you continue to place TRUST in your flawed knowledge and MEN rather than GOD.

I am not concerned about what ex-JWs believe. Depending on how you interpret Jeremiah 35 or Jeremiah 52, there is nothing wrong with identifying the destruction at the 18th year or the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, accession or non-accession. There is chronological evidence that helps us identify both the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar and the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. As I said before, it would be dishonest to try to use this minor discrepancy in Jeremiah as a way to create uncertainty and doubt. It's just a matter of interpretation, and the Watchtower has already explained Jeremiah's discrepancy in a way that makes sense. It has nothing to do with the chronology, as I'm pretty sure you already were aware.

 

To avoid writing too long a post, I'll handle your "clippings" from other sites in the next post. Again, thanks for engaging with information, reasoning and evidence. 
 

[JW Insider]

On 4/15/2016 at 2:06 PM, Allen Smith said:

See the reference of Raymond Phillip Dougherty’s Book Nabonidus and Belshazzar from this ex-witness site. It states it must be accepted as the ultimate criterion in the determination of Neo-Babylonian chronological questions."

What the ex-witness DOESN’T mention is, the same author had another book called “Records from Erech, time of Nabonidus (555-538 B.C.) / By Raymond Philip Dougherty” that shows the ending date of 538BC.

Now we cannot take it upon ourselves to suggest that when the king gave the decree to the Jews, they all of a sudden packed it all up and left. If that’s the insinuation? Then it’s wrong according to other scholars. So the Statement “must be accepted as the ultimate criterion in the determination of Neo-Babylonian chronological questions." Is highly flawed. However it appears to coincide with your ideology doesn’t it. Not to mention if the WTS held 539BC absolute instead of an approximation, it would lead to 48 years not 50, and that would led you to 609BC.

Another fallacy you have is not to see the revisions that even A.K. Grayson has made to his chronology.

So in all honesty, 587BC is NOT absolute. And if you bother to look into what was going on between 539BC to 537BC you would understand that 537BCE is more viable than 587BC

Thanks for these references.

Your reference to R.P.Dougherty from http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/607-587.php is utilized to show that the knowledge of the reign of these kings is based on about two thousand dated cuneiform documents. That was in 1929. Today there are thousands more of these documents that have been discovered and/or translated. They merely add to the weight of the evidence against the 607 theory. Imagine still trying to support the 607 date with 10,000 pieces of evidence all conspiring against it.

 

What the ex-witness DOESN’T mention is, the same author had another book called “Records from Erech, time of Nabonidus (555-538 B.C.) / By Raymond Philip Dougherty” that shows the ending date of 538BC.

 

Differences of a single year, as explained in a post above, should not bother us at all.  This particular case of 538 instead of 539 is nothing to worry about, not worth mentioning, and it does not effect the identification of Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th year. Remember, that the real problem is that the WTS has dated the destruction of Jerusalem in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar to a year when Nebuchadnezzar hadn't even started his first year of reign, much less his 19th. You also said:

 

Now we cannot take it upon ourselves to suggest that when the king gave the decree to the Jews, they all of a sudden packed it all up and left. If that’s the insinuation? Then it’s wrong according to other scholars. So the Statement “must be accepted as the ultimate criterion in the determination of Neo-Babylonian chronological questions." Is highly flawed. However it appears to coincide with your ideology doesn’t it.

 

For me, it makes absolutely no difference if some left immediately, and some waited, or some never left Babylon at all. (Which we already know is true, btw.) If scholars don't know, let them take their best guess. We do know when some of them were back in Jerusalem because the Bible tells us this. We also know that it takes a minimum of a couple months, perhaps longer if it's a large group at once. There is nothing in the chronology that depends on whether they left right away or not. Also, there is no flaw in the statement you say is highly flawed. 2,000 dated documents must be accepted as the ultimate criterion is correct from the viewpoint of the evidence on the ground. If someone argued that we need an extra 20 years in this period, so maybe Nebuchadnezzar ruled for up to 63 years instead of 43, then let them argue. (Furuli toys with this same argument.) But the Bible says it was 43. For archaeologists and historians who do not rely on the Bible, however, the "ultimate criterion" is that there are 10,000 translated tablets from this period, and NONE of them indicate that Nebuchadnezzar ruled more than 43 years.

 

*** w11 11/1 pp. 23-24 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***

What have experts said? R. H. Sack examined numerous business tablets from the Neo-Babylonian period. In 1972, Sack wrote that new unpublished British Museum texts placed at his disposal “completely upset” previous conclusions regarding the transition of rule from Nebuchadnezzar II to his son Amel-Marduk (also known as Evil-merodach).6 How so? Sack knew that tablets showed Nebuchadnezzar II to be still ruling in the sixth month of his last (43rd) year. But these newly deciphered tablets from the accession year of the following king, Amel-Marduk, were dated to the fourth and fifth months of what had been assumed to be the same year.7 Clearly, there was a discrepancy.

What do the documents show? There are further discrepancies in the transition of one king to another. For example, the documents show that Nebuchadnezzar II was still ruling in his tenth month—six months after his successor is assumed to have begun reigning.8

 

Imagine! Even the Watchtower (because of Furuli's book) decided to publish information that clearly attempted to chip away at faith in the Bible's evidence. Among all of the following verses it's pretty obvious that the Bible already clarifies that Jehoiachin's first year in exile started in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, so that the 37th year of Jehoiachin's exile would have been about 36 years later, and could not therefore go beyond Nebuchadnezzar's 43rd year -- when the Bible itself says that Amel-Marduk began to reign after Nebuchadnezzar.

 

(2 Chronicles 36:9) 9 Je·hoiʹa·chin . . .8 Je·hoiʹa·chin was 18 years old when he became king, and he reigned for three months in Jerusalem.  . .  .11 Zed·e·kiʹah was 21 years old when he became king, and he reigned for 11 years in Jerusalem.

 

(Jeremiah 52:28) 28 These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile: in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews.

 

(2 Kings 25:8, 9) . . ., in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. 9 He burned down the house of Jehovah,. . .

 

(Jeremiah 52:31) 31 Then in the 37th year of the exile of King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah, in the 12th month, on the 25th day of the month, King Eʹvil-merʹo·dach of Babylon, in the year he became king, . . .

 

So these texts that supposedly "completely upset" previous conclusions  hadn't actually changed a thing. The Bible was still correct according to ALL the archaeological evidence. Remember that, even after Nebuchadnezzar stopped ruling in his 43rd year (44th year counting his accession year),  there is nothing wrong with continuing to call the remainder of that year either by the year of the King who started that year, or as the "0th" year of Evil-Merodach (Amel-Marduk).  It's the exact same year for chronological and financial contract purposes.   You added:

 

Not to mention if the WTS held 539BC absolute instead of an approximation, it would lead to 48 years not 50, and that would led you to 609BC.

 

There is nothing wrong with the year 609 BCE for the beginning of Babylon's 70 years. It's the year that Assyria fell. The Babylonian Empire follows the Assyrian Empire. Also, as you and others have speculated, the real rule of Cyrus, at least over the destination of the Jewish nation, may not have started until the time of the actual decree which could have delayed until 538 BCE. We really can't tell absolutely if Babylon was fully conquered in a single night, even if the effect of the conquest started then. I would not personally quibble about a few months, just as I would not quibble about the months it took Babylon to take advantage of the fall of Nineveh/Assyria 70 years earlier in 609 BCE. You also said:

 

Another fallacy you have is not to see the revisions that even A.K. Grayson has made to his chronology.

 

I don't care of A. K. Grayson had to correct an error or not. Obviously it didn't make a difference to the years of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty. It's not a fallacy because I don't rely on it. If a person looks for credibility in their logic, then depend on evidence, and don't use the word "fallacy" incorrectly about another person. If someone has pointed out a true "fallacy" and then you keep trying to use the word incorrectly, it comes across as blame-shifting, instead of reliance on evidence. (I think it was Pee-wee Herman who satirized blame-shifting with the children's expression: "I know you are but what am I?")

 

Also, for interested readers, the correction to Grayson is not really a change in his chronology. It should also not be confused with the way the WTS seems to make it appear that he agrees with the WTS "chronology" in the Insight book:

 

*** 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)

 

When you actually look up Grayson's book, you can see that the bracketed information within the quotes is not there. It was added by the WTS. It might even make it appear that Grayson supported 624 BCE as the year of Nebuchadnezzar's father's death or Nebuchadnezzar's accession year. In fact Grayson, EVERYWHERE, supports the same years that the evidence points to: 587/586 as the year of Jerusalem's destruction. There was no change by Grayson to any of this.

 

So in all honesty, 587BC is NOT absolute. And if you bother to look into what was going on between 539BC to 537BC you would understand that 537BCE is more viable than 587BC

 

587 is not supposed to be "absolute." But I have no trouble with the slippage of a couple of few months between 539 and 538. But using the WTS preferred years, there is no Biblical reason to move the end of Babylon's 70 years to 537, because the WTS does it for reasons related to the word "desolation" which is not a part of the 70 years for Babylon. That's because there is no Bible verse that demands that the desolation start counting exactly from the time Jerusalem is destroyed. The "desolations" as Daniel calls them could include the exiles and depredations against the Jews that started as soon as they began "shaking like a leaf" in fear of the Babylonian Empire all the way up until Cyrus decreed their release.

 

(Leviticus 26:34-38) 34 “‘At that time the land will pay off its sabbaths all the days it lies desolate, while you are in the land of your enemies. At that time the land will rest, as it must repay its sabbaths. 35 All the days it lies desolate it will rest, because it did not rest during your sabbaths when you were dwelling on it. 36 “‘As for those who survive, I will fill their hearts with despair in the lands of their enemies; and the sound of a blowing leaf will cause them to flee, and they will flee like someone running from the sword and fall without anyone pursuing them. 37 They will stumble over one another like those running from a sword, though no one is pursuing them. You will not be able to resist your enemies. 38 You will perish among the nations, and the land of your enemies will consume you.

Nations have long known that you begin killing your enemies when you make them afraid enough to pick up and move. Often, many more of them die in the "trek" than would ever be killed through warfare. Jeremiah says that some were already fleeing to Egypt for example, when it wasn't even necessary and wasn't going to save them. Also, the number of years of sabbaths to pay off are not necessarily 70 years, anyway, but whatever number they were could be completed because of the 70 years that was given for Babylon to become the dominant empire.

Your statement that 537 is more viable than 587 is not correct. In fact, accepting 537 for a Jewish restoration on their own land can only be done if you are also accepting 587 as the date for the destruction of Jerusalem. 587 is still part of the same chronology as 537.

This is not just seen by the chronology, but it even makes more sense from the Bible account. It's seen in the words of Zechariah about how long they have wailed over the Temple. Because if you accept 537, you are also accepting 519/8 for the 70 years of wailing between 587 and 518. It also makes more sense of the fact that several of the Jewish captives in Babylon made the trek back to Jerusalem and remembered the first Temple. The WTS chronology accepts 518, which requires 587, but if there was evidence of Jerusalem's destruction in 607 it would mean that these people who remembered what they had seen may have been teenagers in 607. That means that they ranged in age from 102 to 108 years old. That kind of lifespan was a rarity according to both Biblical and Babylonian records. You would think it even less likely of people kept in captivity, and forced to take the long trek back to Jerusalem at an elderly age.

Not only does the 607 date make very little sense from an archaeological perspective, it makes very little sense from a Biblical perspective, too. Also, the only reason we, as Witnesses, make a big deal about it, is because we require it as the only evidence for 1914. But from a Biblical perspective, the 1914 doctrine also creates unnecessarily contradictions for all the scriptures about the following topics:

• The Kingdom
• The Generation
• The Sign
• The Gentile Times
• The Parousia
• Jesus' instruction about not knowing the times and the seasons and not to follow anyone who says the due time has approched
• Paul's instruction that about the times and seasons we need nothing to be written to us

 

[Guest Allen Smith]

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Thanks for these references.

Your reference to R.P.Dougherty from http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/607-587.php is utilized to show that the knowledge of the reign of these kings is based on about two thousand dated cuneiform documents. That was in 1929. Today there are thousands more of these documents that have been discovered and/or translated. They merely add to the weight of the evidence against the 607 theory. Imagine still trying to support the 607 date with 10,000 pieces of evidence all conspiring against it.

 

What the ex-witness DOESN’T mention is, the same author had another book called “Records from Erech, time of Nabonidus (555-538 B.C.) / By Raymond Philip Dougherty” that shows the ending date of 538BC.

Now you’re just appealing to people’s ignorance and stupidity. Don’t contradict Dougherty’s outcome, your just embarrassing yourself now.

Your assertion of 587BC would end up at 585BC, contrary to the overwhelming evidence you wish to secure for your apostasy.

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

For me, it makes absolutely no difference if some left immediately, and some waited, or some never left Babylon at all. (Which we already know is true, btw.) If scholars don't know, let them take their best guess. We do know when some of them were back in Jerusalem because the Bible tells us this. We also know that it takes a minimum of a couple months, perhaps longer if it's a large group at once. There is nothing in the chronology that depends on whether they left right away or not. Also, there is no flaw in the statement you say is highly flawed. 2,000 dated documents must be accepted as the ultimate criterion is correct from the viewpoint of the evidence on the ground. If someone argued that we need an extra 20 years in this period, so maybe Nebuchadnezzar ruled for up to 63 years instead of 43, then let them argue. (Furuli toys with this same argument.) But the Bible says it was 43. For archaeologists and historians who do not rely on the Bible, however, the "ultimate criterion" is that there are 10,000 translated tablets from this period, and NONE of them indicate that Nebuchadnezzar ruled more than 43 years.

Now you intellectual dishonesty is creeping up again. It does matter to scholars and historians. Sell YOUR PROPAGANDA to those applauding your apostasy. However, as I stated, the good thing people are reading the real you.

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Differences of a single year, as explained in a post above, should not bother us at all.  This particular case of 538 instead of 539 is nothing to worry about, not worth mentioning, and it does not effect the identification of Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th year. Remember, that the real problem is that the WTS has dated the destruction of Jerusalem in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar to a year when Nebuchadnezzar hadn't even started his first year of reign, much less his 19th. You also said:

SIMPLY CONJECTURE IN YOUR BEHALF. Too many instances, the prevailing chronology reach 2, 3, and even 4 years difference

Quote

 

(2 Chronicles 36:9) 9 Je·hoiʹa·chin . . .8 Je·hoiʹa·chin was 18 years old when he became king, and he reigned for three months in Jerusalem.  . .  .11 Zed·e·kiʹah was 21 years old when he became king, and he reigned for 11 years in Jerusalem.

 

(Jeremiah 52:28) 28 These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile: in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews.

 

(2 Kings 25:8, 9) . . ., in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. 9 He burned down the house of Jehovah,. . . OVERWHELMING 604-19=585

 

(Jeremiah 52:31) 31 Then in the 37th year of the exile of King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah, in the 12th month, on the 25th day of the month, King Eʹvil-merʹo·dach of Babylon, in the year he became king, . . .

 

Please in order for this to be argumentative, you would have to accept a specific starting point. Are you suggesting you found one from tainted ex-witness websites? LEARN to understand chronology first. Remember theories differ. The WTS suggest, man’s history started in 4026BC. Furul’s observation indicates similarities.

However, even with secular chronology, events can be explained as they have been since the early 1800’s. The new documentation just confirms those time lines, without having to step back to the reign of Cambyses II 522/1BC as they used to, unless people distort the truth.

What I’m going to do is publish my findings, so historians can agree or disagree with an established probable time line. A much clear picture than just trying to prove a certain date one way or another. But for that, I need a good editor and proof reader. Till then, keep insinuating anything you want about the WTS, and how WRONG you are. It’s clear, that’s between you and God. And since you’re not going to convince me that apostasy is the way to look at historical evidence, to establish bible chronology? You have the last word.

[JW Insider]

9 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

Now you’re just appealing to people’s ignorance and stupidity. Don’t contradict Dougherty’s outcome, your just embarrassing yourself now.

Your assertion of 587BC would end up at 585BC, contrary to the overwhelming evidence you wish to secure for your apostasy.

Unfortunately for your claim, the complete texts of Dougherty's books are availalble online. You can start here:

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Dougherty%2C%20Raymond%20Philip%2C%201877-1933

You can see from the list at that link that he wrote the book on Nabonidus in 1920, which was his very first work on the subject. You can read the entire book and notice that he has no discussion of chronology. With no explanation, he merely accepts these particular dates for Nabonidus accession year as 555 BC and his 17th year as 538 BC. Except for the brief repetition of these dates in the title and on the first page, he never mentions dates again in the entire book.

Then, after about 10 more years of study and writing he finally, in 1929, writes a book that includes a full discussion of the chronology including the documentary sources and the synchronization of the various lists of kings. He even explicitly mentions that there had recently been many new studies, with new documentation and even (p.1) that "More than five hundred tablets of this type had been published in the last decade." (1920-1929).

That last book of his, the one that finally addresses the chronology question, starts out with these words in the very first sentence of the introduction: "the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C."  There is no more mention of that 538 B.C. date from his first work on Nabonidus, a decade earlier. In fact, he now dates the same period of Nabonidus, not from 555 to 538, but from 556 to 539.

So your attempt to imply that his sureness about the date 539 was somehow weakened by his first, older book seems disingenuous. It would be just like saying that the Watchtower doesn't really teach 1914, just because some of the older Watchtower magazines (from 1913 and early 1914) show that Russell had temporarily dropped 1914 and moved his expectations to 1915.