Nana Fofana

I well remember in the 70's discussing the verse about God bringing to ruin those ruining the earth. Back then, the only type of ruin one could envision to encompass the whole earth was by nuclear war. Now there are many to add to the list, including totally unforeseen ones. Not to mention that the first, threat of nuclear war, is staging a comeback.

It is so easy to "whitewash" any reasonings.  This is why I am careful.  I recall Jesus calling the Pharisees out on their "teachings of men"..... By this time the Greek way of reasoning had infiltrated the Sanhedrin.  With the building of gymnasiums in the Decapolis and the appointment of non-Levites into the Sanhedrin.  Human reasoning had allowed the Jews to steer away from the Torah and start to teach " teachings of men".  These non-Levites and power-happy individuals were behind the rejection of Jesus.

To all,
Let none of us fall into the trap of thinking that there is nothing crucially supplied our relationship with God by the guidance/corrections we are meant to find in our study of end-times prophecies (see as an example that we are meant to find such prophecy in the book of Revelation at 1:3; 22:7). Revelation alerts us that Satan would, in these last days, set traps for ensnaring unwary peoples of the earth into works of the flesh and into idolatrous (political) schemes, things opposed to God's Kingdom and His righteousness. Jehovah's people have taken to heart the prophecy of Revelation so that we neither add something to dilute any of its warnings, nor hide/withhold in our preaching any part of the prophecy about the Kingdom and what role its establishment must have in our lives in these last days (cf. Revelation 22:18, 19).  We know the identities of the various beasts and the identity of Babylon the Great; we know what are our responsibilities towards peoples of the earth for our trying to help them to respond to the call we participate in giving, namely, "Come! . . . Let anyone who wishes take life's water free" (Revelation 22:17). Read again the following passages in Revelation as to how invaluable and crucial to us is our understanding and obedience to Revelation: Revelation 2:6, 10, 13, 15; 3:19; 7:9, 10, 15; 9:3-11, 19, 21; 10:11; 11:6, 7, 11-13; 12:11; 13:15; 14:4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 16; 16:15, 21; 17:8, 9; 18:2, 3; 19:5, 6; 20:4; 21:8; 22:7, 11, 12, 15-17, 19.
Tiago
 

I hope no one felt slighted by Anna's remark about sparring partners. I certainly don't feel that anyone is at any kind of disadvantage, especially not you, or @AllenSmith, or  @Gone Fishing (Eoin), or @TiagoBelager, and others. (The last is a new name to me who impresses me with his maturity, organized thoughts, and style.) Resources are so easily available to everyone. All this information is available on the Internet, in the Bible, in Bible commentaries, Bible dictionaries. Even a close study of the changes and contradictions over the years, using ONLY the Watch Tower publications could lead one to the same conclusions being discussed here. If this were some completely esoteric issue that very few people could know about, then it might be wrong to even question it in a forum such as this, because it would simply be a matter of someone pontificating about a belief with no fair opportunity for anyone to respond, add to it, or discredit it. If we don't bring it up, our Bible students will rarely bring it up. And our overall message has been simplified somewhat so that the appeal is less and less to persons with the kind of educational background who would care to question it, anyway.
But on the other hand, it's dishonest to just make a claim that goes against the evidence without an explanation for WHY we are dismissing the evidence. It would be exactly as if there was a religion that started claiming that World War I started in 1894, not 1914. If we were in such a religion, we could claim it in 6,666 different places in various religious publications, and say that our Bible interpretation tells us this is true, so therefore we know it's true, and we could tell everyone who challenges it, that they are putting secular dates above the Bible dates. If someone were to challenge it with encyclopedias, coins, receipts, then they might be told they were being haughty. In religion, the leaders and members have the prerogative to do this.  But what would we think if the religion just started publishing the dates of everything prior to World War 1 by adding 20 years to it, and didn't offer an explanation? 
That's pretty much what happens even to things like the date for the "Fall of Nineveh" in 612. Because for 1914 to work, the Watch Tower publications also need to change this to 632, adding 20 years to it.
*** it-2 p. 505 Nineveh ***
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.
*** it-1 p. 205 Assyria ***
The fall of the empire. The Babylonian Chronicle B.M. (British Museum) 21901 recounts the fall of Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, following a siege carried out by the combined forces of Nabopolassar, the king of Babylon, and of Cyaxares the Mede during the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.): “The city [they turned] into ruin-hills and hea[ps (of debris)].” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 1974, p. 305; brackets and parentheses theirs.) Thus the fierce Assyrian Empire came to an ignominious end.—Isa 10:12, 24-26; 23:13; 30:30-33; 31:8, 9; Na 3:1-19; Zep 2:13.
According to the same chronicle, in the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.), Ashur-uballit II attempted to continue Assyrian rule from Haran as his capital city. This chronicle states, under the 17th year of Nabopolassar (629 B.C.E.): “In the month Du?uzu, Ashur-uballit, king of Assyria, (and) a large [army of] E[gy]pt [who had come to his aid] crossed the river (Euphrates) and [marched on] to conquer Harran.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 305; brackets and parentheses theirs.)
There is no evidence to move this from 612 to 632, but the Watch Tower publications have no choice, because all these dates are tied together, and must be manipulated so that 1914 still works.
Remember that it doesn't matter at all to me. It's our publications that say that the SECULAR date given for the end of the Babylonian empire in 539 is so accurate that they call it "assured" and even "absolute." That's the Watchtower that called this date "absolute." And therefore, our publications pretend that dates like 632 BCE for the fall of Nineveh are "set in stone." If you read the article on "Assyria" in the Insight book, you would even think that Babylonian Chronicle "21901" provides evidence for 632 BCE. You might also think that the same chronicle states that Haran was conquered in 629 even though all the archaeological evidence consistently points to 609 and no archaeological evidence points to 629. In fact, the publications continue to insist on these dates where they simply add 20 to the secular dates without any explanation in 99% of the cases. 
By the way, you might think that the Babylonian dates depend on the Assyrian (which depended on the Egyptian). But this isn't true. Those TEN THOUSAND pieces of evidence related to the Neo-Babylonian period include astronomical diaries and other interlocking tablet evidence that consistently supports, what the Watchtower calls the "accepted chronology." I'm not claiming that the Neo-Babylonian period is set in stone, but this would evidently have been the opinion of the Governing Body based on what the Watchtower, referenced in a previous post, has claimed here:
INCONTESTABLY ESTABLISHED
When a date is indicated by several lines of evidence it is strongly established. The scientific law of probabilities imparts a united strength to the strands of the cable of chronology far greater than the sum of the individual lines of evidence. This is a law which is implicitly relied upon in important affairs: viz., that when a thing is indicated in only one way it may be by chance; if it is indicated in two ways, it is almost certain to be true; and if in more than two ways, it is usually impossible that it is by chance or that it is not true; and the addition of more proofs removes it entirely from the world of chance into that of proven certainty.
This is the actual level of independent lines of evidence behind the fact that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year should be dated to 587 instead of 607. According to the Watchtower's line of reasoning, therefore, 587 would be the proper date, even if you threw out the Egyptian and Assyrian dates. It is NOT dependent on those synchronisms. Based on the evidence, the Watchtower is inadvertently here stating that 607 must be wrong, and 587 is a "proven certainty."
Of course, I don't believe it's a "proven certainty" any more than you do. But the problem is that anyone can look at this evidence for themselves. You do not have to be a specialist of any kind. Our methods of dismissing such evidence will come across exactly as dishonest as those who would argue that World War I started in 1894.
That's an excellent point.
Still plan on getting to that part of the discussion.
 

Absolutely. Revisionists try to redefine WWI as just "one of those things." The eventual next step will be to redefine the last days. ISIS attacks, North Korea, sexbots programmed to 'rape,' gender-hopping, addictive drug pandemics, and universal FAKE NEWS will all be just "another one of those things."

Yea, I was in the Organization in 1975 (was baptized 1973) and while brothers and sisters were speculating about it all the time in private I never heard it mentioned on the platform and I did not see it in important books we were studying.  Many were thinking that the day of "rest" would start (1000 reign). 
 

Some people here think we are not worthy 'sparring' partners.  I studied all this years ago- I can give you the date of the Fall of Nineveh 612 BCE after the fall of Ashur without looking it up on the internet.
As I said before, the secular dates are not set in stone because the Assyrian dates are set to correlate with Egyptian dates. The dynasty of Babylon FOLLOWED the Assyrian kings who controlled the region before the Babylonians and hence the Babylonian dates have to follow on the Assyrian dates .....and their dates are not 100% accurate - it is only Archeologist opinions. ..... so people on this forum  are continually referring to dates that are in line with current secular thought which are NOT 100% accurate no matter how hard you insist on it.
If you are an engineer and you look for the root cause of the problem one does not go searching around the middle - one works back from where the problem started.  I satisfied myself a long time ago that the organization has it right (give a year or two)...... because the ULTIMATE proof after all is in the signs on the ground - in 1914.  NO ONE CAN SPAR ABOUT A BETTER DATE THAN 1914 ON THE GROUND!  So what is the use of 'sparring' about any other SECULAR dates for the fall of Babylon when it brings you to a date in our time when NOTHING significant happened on the ground after 1914, until WW2 - and WW2 was a continuation of what happened in WW1.
It is just an exercise of self gratification and having someone to 'spar' with because some people spar with the 'slave' all the time!
The Babylonians went into exile for 70 years because they did not observe the Sabbath years in which the land was to lay fallow - for no other reasons- we all know that.
 

You cannot imagine how liberating it is to watch with disinterest as a pontificate piles sticks around your ankles to burn you at the stake, and not be combustible.

Thanks. I see nothing wrong with what you've said in most of this post (right up until near the end when you claim that: "a real 70-years absence of sacrifices had ended in 537 B.C.E. ").
I also agree that 539 B,C,E, is the date for the fall of Babylon, and thus 537 is a very possible year for when the Jews were able to resume offering sacrifices. (The Watch Tower publications have also indicated that this 537 date is an assumption however, which is why there is a possibility of 538.) I also agree that the period of 70 years described in Jeremiah (70 years for Babylonian rule of the nations) ended around that same date. I also agree that the desolation of the land began around 607 (even though we cannot claim that Jerusalem was physically destroyed at that date). The desolation of Judah began at the moment that the Jews had to begin fearing the Babylonian power that began crushing nations all around them. (It's in a similar sense that Tyre was forgotten for 70 years, which, according to the Isaiah book, was due to the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy as predicted by Jeremiah.) Tyre was a powerful commercial trading and shipping center. But it could not continue to trade and make plans as it always had with the fear of Babylonian power threatening it for 70 years. The fact that only a small fraction of those years saw the complete fulfillment of the prophecy against Tyre does not mean that it was not "forgotten" for 70 years. Similarly, Judea and Jerusalem were already becoming desolated, not only by the actual sword, but even through the fear of Babylonian power. Babylon became the ruling power of the world when Assyria lost its place as that ruling power in about 609 B.C.E, therefore 607 must be very close to the actual date when Jerusalem began to tremble at Babylon, and ultimately would be desolated completely.
(Leviticus 26:27-45) 27 “‘If in spite of this you will not listen to me and you insist on walking in opposition to me, 28 I will intensify my opposition to you, and I myself will have to chastise you seven times for your sins. 29 So you will have to eat the flesh of your sons, and you will eat the flesh of your daughters. 30 I will annihilate your sacred high places and cut down your incense stands and pile your carcasses on the carcasses of your disgusting idols, and I will turn away from you in disgust. 31 I will give your cities to the sword and make your sanctuaries desolate, and I will not smell the pleasing aromas of your sacrifices. 32 I myself will make the land desolate, and your enemies who are dwelling in it will stare in amazement over it. 33 And I will scatter you among the nations, and I will unsheathe a sword after you; and your land will be made desolate, and your cities will be devastated. 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. 39 Those of you who remain will be left to rot in the lands of your enemies because of your error. Yes, they will rot away because of the errors of their fathers. 40 Then they will confess their own error and the error and unfaithfulness of their fathers and admit that they behaved unfaithfully by walking in opposition to me. 41 Then I also walked in opposition to them by bringing them into the land of their enemies. “‘Perhaps then their uncircumcised heart will be humbled, and then they will pay off their error. 42 And I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and my covenant with Isaac, and I will remember my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land. 43 While the land was abandoned by them, it was paying off its sabbaths and lying desolate without them, and they were paying for their error, because they rejected my judicial decisions and they abhorred my statutes. 44 But despite all of this, while they are in the land of their enemies, I will never completely reject them nor cast them away to the point of exterminating them, which would violate my covenant with them, for I am Jehovah their God. 45 For their sakes I will remember the covenant with their ancestors whom I brought out of the land of Egypt under the eyes of the nations, in order to prove myself their God. I am Jehovah.’”
Leviticus puts no actual time period on the number of years of this. Russell once thought that the "seven times" mentioned here were the same as the 7 time periods in Nebuchadnezzar's dream, so that Leviticus was actually the first PRIMARY proof of the 2,520 years. When it was realized that the word "times" in Leviticus had nothing to do with time periods, the Watchtower dropped this idea. Besides, it's pretty obvious that this scattering among nations and eating of children includes the period of desolations and incursions and deportations and siege that began well before the final desolation -- including the fear that made them flee to Egypt and other nations, and the sieges that resulted in the eating of their children. (see Ezekiel.) This is a period of intensifying opposition, so that "seven times" refers to increasing, multiple times of hardships throughout all the years of Babylonian supremacy. Remember, for example, that Daniel and the 3 Hebrew youths must have been from at least one of several deportation from many years prior to the destruction:
*** Bible Citations ***
(Daniel 1:1-21) In the third year of the kingship of King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah, King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it.
And Jeremiah 52 mentions additional deportations.
Back to these 4 fasts in the 4th, 5th, 7th and 10th month. Your depiction of their association with Temple sacrifices does not seem to match up with the Insight book's identification of each of them:
*** it-1 p. 812 Fast ***
Four Annual Fasts of the Jews. The Jews established many fasts, and at one time had four annual ones, evidently to mark the calamitous events associated with Jerusalem’s siege and desolation in the seventh century B.C.E. (Zec 8:19) The four annual fasts were: (1) “The fast of the fourth month” apparently commemorated the breaching of Jerusalem’s walls by the Babylonians on Tammuz 9, 607 B.C.E. (2Ki 25:2-4; Jer 52:5-7) (2) It was in the fifth Jewish month Ab that the temple was destroyed, and evidently “the fast of the fifth month” was held as a reminder of this event. (2Ki 25:8, 9; Jer 52:12, 13) (3) “The fast of the seventh month” was apparently held as a sad remembrance of Gedaliah’s death or of the complete desolation of the land following Gedaliah’s assassination when the remaining Jews, out of fear of the Babylonians, went down into Egypt. (2Ki 25:22-26) (4) “The fast of the tenth month” may have been associated with the exiled Jews already in Babylon receiving the sad news that Jerusalem had fallen (compare Eze 33:21), or it may have commemorated the commencement of Nebuchadnezzar’s successful siege against Jerusalem on the tenth day of that month, in 609 B.C.E.—2Ki 25:1; Jer 39:1; 52:4.
If you admit that the fasts had continued beyond 537 right down until 518 then it seems impossible that you can claim that "these 70 years" really meant "those 70 years". The KJV had used the term "those" which might have helped create the initial misunderstanding, but since then the NWT has corrected the NW translation to refer to the "current" 70 years, by correctly translating the expression. The actual meaning of the Hebrew is what has moved so many scholars and translators to translate similar to the NIV:
(Zechariah 7:3, NIV) “Ask all the people of the land and the priests, ‘When you fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh months for the past seventy years, was it really for me that you fasted?
Both the books of Haggai and Zechariah show that the new era without the fasting was about to start now, at this time when the foundation for the Temple was being laid, 520 to 516. It was because of this very fact that, in 518, persons from Bethel (11 miles north of Jerusalem) came down to ask if the time of fasting was now going to be over:
(Zechariah 7:2, 3) 2 The people of Bethʹel sent Shar·eʹzer and Reʹgem-melʹech and his men to beg for the favor of Jehovah, 3 saying to the priests of the house of Jehovah of armies and to the prophets: “Should I weep in the fifth month and abstain from food, as I have done for so many years?”
I know that you already realize that they really had continued to fast for just about 90 years, and you have looked for a way to handle the contradiction. And, as I'm sure you know, the Watchtower has admitted the same, that this had actually gone on for 90 years (as required by Watchtower chronology), even though the scripture says 70 years (which matches the Bible chronology and the archaeological evidence).
*** pm chap. 14 p. 235 par. 4 Fasting over God’s Executed Judgments Improper ***
4 Bethel was one of the towns that had been reestablished in the land of Israel by the Jews who returned from exile in Babylon. (Ezra 2:28; 3:1) When Sharezer and Regem-melech from there asked: “Shall I weep?” it meant every inhabitant of Bethel individually. For “O how many years” now the Bethelites had been celebrating a fast, an abstinence from food, in the fifth lunar month of each year. It was observed evidently on the tenth day of that month (Ab), in order to commemorate how on that day Nebuzaradan, the chief of Nebuchadnezzar’s bodyguard, after two days of inspection, burned down the city of Jerusalem and its temple. (Jeremiah 52:12, 13; 2 Kings 25:8, 9) But now that the faithful remnant of Jews were rebuilding the temple of Jehovah at Jerusalem and were about half through, should the Bethelites continue to hold such a fast?
Since at least 1937, the Watchtower has said that this 70 years referred to the time period "during which Jerusalem and the land of Judah lay desolate while its former inhabitants were captive in Babylon?" (w37, p.317) Under Rutherford, not surprisingly, the Watchtower also said that this group of Bethelites was a prophetic picture of the cult of the Russellite "old-timers" who  "doubtless, wore ... long beards and had a very solemn and sanctimonious air," and, in the case of those old-timers, still talked about their "hero," "a prominent servant of the Lord" who died in 1916. (Watchtower 1939, p. 302)
Oddly enough, the Awake! magazine used Zechariah, written 90 years after 607 (in 518), as evidence that the 70 years was an actual literal period of 70 years ending not in 518, but in 537:
*** g72 5/8 p. 27 When Did Babylon Desolate Jerusalem? ***
When Did Babylon Desolate Jerusalem?
SECULAR historians usually give the year 586 B.C.E. as the correct date for the desolation of Jerusalem. Why, then, do Jehovah’s Christian witnesses speak of this event as occurring in 607 B.C.E.? It is because of confidence in what the Bible says about the duration of Jerusalem’s lying desolate.
The Scriptures assign a period of seventy years to the desolation of Judah and Jerusalem. . . .
Additional evidence is provided in the book of Zechariah. We read: “When you fasted and there was a wailing in the fifth month and in the seventh month, and this for seventy years, did you really fast to me, even me?” (Zech. 7:5; 1:12) The way this question is framed, with reference to specific months, certainly indicates that a period of seventy literal years was involved.
Since then, of course, the NWT has corrected the translation so that it now correctly refers to "these 70 years."

JW Insider,
I have made some corrections and clarifications in an edit of the post to which you responded. In the main, nothing of substance as might affect my uses of Zechariah 1:12 and 7:3, 5 has been made. Those verses do not stand as any hindrance to our using 539 B.C.E. as the fall of Babylon, and thus 537 B.C.E. as the year when the Jews were able to resume offering sacrifices to Jehovah in Jerusalem, thus ending a period of 70 years from when the the desolation of the land had begun in 607 B.C.E. In fact, absence in Zechariah 7:5 of mention of the fasts of the 4th and 10th months actually supports the conclusion that there really was an actual 70-years period of time that began with the absence of sacrifices, which was caused by events in the 5th and 7th months. And so it is understandable why Jehovah did not mention, in Zech. 7:5, the 4th and 10th months, and that because the memorial fasts in those months did not commemorate events that caused a real 70-years period of time during which sacrifices were not offered; the fasts of the 4th and 10th months did not fit Jehovah's rationale for why He was singling out for comment just a 70-years period of time. Jehovah's audience was only too painfully aware of what those 70 years had meant for them. Assuming that some were not merely keeping the fasts perfunctorily, but felt sadness for events that meant a 70 years absence from the land, we have Jehovah's assurance that they had the wrong kind of sadness, a sadness for their loss but not for what their sins had cost Jehovah. Whatever the motivation for the fasts -- whether for sake of just perfunctorily going along with the crowd, or whether out of self-pity, the fasts were hypocritical. They ought never to have commenced so long as they were not going to occur out of repentance, and certainly no good reason could ever obtain as motivation for why the fasts might continue, for they had been continuing now for about 18 years since restoration of Jehovah's worship in Jerusalem. Again, the verse certainly does not hinder our chronology, but actually supports the conclusion that a real 70-years absence of sacrifices had ended in 537 B.C.E., though the fasts themselves had not ended. Finally, some Jews were sensing the nation's problem with the fasts, and so they wanted Jehovah's viewpoint about whether to continue the fasts. Jehovah pointed out that the nation indeed had a problem with the fasts' continuance. Why, they had had an unrecognized problem with them even during the nation's 70-years absence from the land when they were keeping the fasts in Babylon. During those 70 years, they really were making displays of hypocritical sadness. 
Respectfully,
TiagoBelager

In Western countries it is easier to have your own opinion and just get on with life because you will not pose a threat to anyone else's spirituality in the congregation.  Since we have one family in the entire world we must take care not to stumble others. It is our duty to be responsible towards others and use our words only in an upbuilding way. The "idea" for the discussion is not the problem - it is the underlying attitude behind the promotion of a new idea that can become the problem
Satan started in this way - promoted a new idea..... and it just happened to be a treasonous one.  We all like to think we are intellectual and smart and we like to give ourselves the "permission" to discuss intellectually with others a subject -  but it is mainly to satisfy a selfish desire.
I happen to have lived in Africa 45 years..... I understand that elders have to be vigilant to new ideas that may be corrupting.  Education is often limited and tribal ideas still flourish..... politics and tribal issues easily influence people.  I now again heard of brothers that were reproved......because they do not "see" the implications of what they do.  I  now also work in Middle Eastern communities which is the total opposite.  To say something against Mohammad is treason and punishable by death.
We have a much more reasonable approach - to allow free thought but to be watchful for spreading of contentious ideas. 
Sadly, I have lost some friends and a family member to apostasy.....I know the signs and the pattern of behavior.   It usually starts with a 'brilliant new way of looking at a subject....... then the person becomes totally obsessive about it..... then the person tries to have others agree with them and the strange thing is - they do not stop ...... they go on and on......they cannot help themselves....there is an uncanny obsessiveness about it.........then they turn nasty against the "slave" when they are called in and reproved... and then become a rebel against authority in the organization and then some go on to extend their activities into activism to the point where they malign the "slave" and  organization.
I have seen on these pages here that the 70 years in captivity was questioned;  I have seen on these pages that a date (607 BCE) was questioned (while I gave very good reasons why it is a valid date for the beginning of the trampling by the nations);  I have seen the 1914 was questioned and the Parousia.....  I can go on and on....You see - when one does not accept the one idea - then it leads to so many other things that are not accepted and "questioned".
I have seen the "OCD"  which is so strong that a person will spend hours and hours of their life to just focus on this "one" subject and basically cannot go on with other activities  - like being an active part of the congregation and spend much time in preaching This to me is a "flag" that all is not "kosher" - I do not care how open minded and spiritual you say you are. - this is a flag  I know the spreading of new "ideas" and the compulsion which drives it.
As I said before ...... If you do not believe that Jesus is ruling invisible in heaven now and he started ruling in 1914.  What are you doing in this organization?  because you cannot be trusted to go out in field service and teach the truth in an "unhypocritical " way.   I would not trust such a one - and I am not and elder and never will be.  
So, I can only say - the new way of looking at these dates is not the problem to me - it is the obsessiveness with it - which is.  It is as though this drives the person and all his social contacts....to this point of discussion. And what better place can one find than a forum like this?
 

Yes it is obvious that Jesus is the head of the Congregation and we should never question what he does either in the First Century or today.
     As regards all the arguments by the poster about the parousia it is obvious that the truth is "simple" for Jesus himself defines the meaning of parousia not as a moment in time such as a judgement day but rather as the "DAYS of Noah" a period of time where people would do normal things but ignore the "signs" around them. Mt. 24
Luke 17:26 "presence...DAYS of the SON OF MAN"
   That Jesus’ pa·rou·siʹa is not simply a momentary coming followed by a rapid departure but is, rather, a presence covering a period of time is also indicated by his words recorded at Matthew 24:37-39 and Luke 17:26-30. Here “the days of Noah” are compared to “the presence of the Son of man” (“the days of the Son of man,” in Luke’s account). Jesus, therefore, does not limit the comparison just to the coming of the Deluge as a final climax during Noah’s days, though he shows that his own “presence” or “days” will see a similar climax. Since “the days of Noah” actually covered a period of years, there is basis for believing that the foretold “presence [or “days”] of the Son of man” would likewise cover a period of some years, being climaxed by the destruction of those not giving heed to the opportunity afforded them to seek deliverance.
 
In regards to all your other questions you posted about Jehovah's Witnesses please hear the talk below.
  

Your browser does not support the HTML5 audio tag.

According to that line of reasoning no one on earth has authority to interpret Scripture since all are sinners. So if everyone is wrong what is the point of being in any religion at all. I believe that Jesus is the head of the Congregation and he has the authority and has given the authority to the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses to interpret things like the meaning of 1914 or things related to chronology, Gentile Times or anything else. Jehovah has not given interpretational authority to bloggers on the Internet anymore than He would to Korah and his 250 rebels against the interpretational authority of Moses to speak for God.
   Jehovah has always led his people with imperfect people. Moses was about to lead the Israelites OUT of Egypt yet he "turned around" and went back in the opposite direction! The Egyptians thought they were "wandering in confusion" and even some of God's people said "What have YOU done to us by leading us out of Egypt? - That was said to who? Moses an 80 year old man with probably poor eyesight. {Ex. 14:11}. Some did not realize the big picture here. That Jehovah was the one leading the Congregation and if he wants us to do or believe in something "wrong" then is it not up to Him. Perhaps you do not have all the facts. such as the fact that Jehovah was setting a trap. Or the fact that Christendom's teachings and interpretations such as  chronology could be in error.
   So of course we do not have all the facts about 1914 or God's Name in the NT or any number of other teachings but sometimes Jehovah has reasons for what He does and no "scholar" will be able to figure that out with any kind of "chronology" Was it right or wrong for Moses to go in the "opposite" direction? We must be humble enough to realize that Jesus has been appointed head of the Congregation and He will direct it in any way He wishes and therefore we are to "Be obedient to those taking the lead among you and be submissive." Heb 13:17. 
 
 Some on this blog may think they should have "personal Christian freedom of interpretation" such as Christendom has. "Is it ONLY by Moses that Jehovah has spoken? Has he not also spoken through us? But remember when you say such things "Jehovah was listening" Num 12:1,2. And even Korah said the same idea: "We have had enough of you! The whole assembly is holy, ALL of them, and Jehovah is in their midst. Why, then, should you exalt yourselves above the congregation of Jehovah? Num 16:1-3. And  why did Aaron get a free pass when he got it wrong several times ? Seems like a double-standard if they didn't have consequences for teaching incorrect ideas to millions of others. But who are we to question Jehovah's way of running HIS Congregation back then OR today.
 Do You Appreciate Jehovahs Representatives.mp3
   God's people once believed the "superior authorities" were the human Governments but then in 1929 "changed" to Jehovah and Jesus! It was the "opposite direction" Was that wrong? The brothers had no idea a war was coming ten years later and this changed teaching protected them and enabled them to win dozens of Supreme Court victories...and then changed back and improved to relative subjection to human Governments. Did the head of the Congregation Jesus have a reason for those changes in doctrine?  Who are we to question His authority to change anything? Could changes be for something we do not understand or something in the future we cannot possibly see yet? If something "doesn't make any sense" then there is probably a reason for that.  LOYALTY  is sticking to someone out of love even if we do not have all the answers and even if they are imperfect.

Your browser does not support the HTML5 audio tag.
This talk will bring shivers up your spine! {1914 Meps...Supreme Court....} Jehovah really is in control!

Who is the slave.... to give food at proper time.  You either believe they are the appointed slave to give food at proper time or you don't.  Simple.  Your words and actions will prove what you think....One must be prepared to step back and let your opinions take second place.
As someone said earlier - if interpretation were given to everyone - we would have 8 million different interpretations wouldn't we? As each person thinks they can serve better and have more of Jehovah's Spirit to interpret what they find.  Our final test (I think) will come when the slave is attacked in a most vicious way and false information spread about them to deceive and take Witnesses away from our most basic beliefs such as not voting, neutrality etc.
I also think there is a difference  between having confidence/trust in Jehovah and his abilities to lead; and personal humility.  I think that very few people work on the teaching of Christ that we should lessen ourselves and be prepared to suffer for it as he did. Most Witnesses need to work on this.  Moses had to spend 40 years of his life with SHEEP!  Intellectual pursuit ?  Naa....  he had to learn to trust Jehovah completely.   Then only - was he ready to lead Jehovah's people in true humility of spirit.  All that fancy education in Pharaoh's palace was useless. Joseph spent 13 years in a prison.... (he really had to trust in Jehovah -  I would have given up by year 3)..... Must have been pretty nasty in there.  No human rights.... etc.
I wanted to mention that if the Sumerian chronology is out - then you start at a very rocky basis for the other dynasties which come after.... and some of them overlapped and ran simultaneously. Perfect clarity and "absolute" is not the words I would use to describe the DATES for these dynasties.... Very skeptical....
I mentioned my book to demonstrate that it is not important what we achieve in this world.....  at present I am too busy in the field in any case..... but that we sometimes have to step back and be happy with being a no-body and not achieving anything of great significance!  I have lost all ambition regarding this world and since I did that I am extremely happy!   I was raised in an extremely ambitious family and it took a long time to get rid of this trait.  Like a jack-in-the box- it jumps out sometimes and I have to push it back in.  One can even be ambitious in the truth - to stand out....... all of us should investigate ourselves to see if that spark of putting ourselves in front and grudging others a place in the sun is still part of our personality.  I do not count my value in how many people I helped get in the truth, how many studies at one time, and how many seeds I sowed.....  I just keep at the job and wait on Jehovah.... and the peace it brings is so uncluttered!
If all of us had a waiting attitude (while doing what Jehovah requires from us) most things usually sorts itself out.... and there are always adjustments in the teachings to help us stay faithful to Jehovah...... is this not after all the main goal of all of us? ..... to stay faithful?
 
 

Hi Anna. I too was concerned by this quote in a recent WT. It really jumped out at me. What authority does the GB have to claim definitive interpretation of scripture? Especially after they've established that they are fallible, imperfect, and have erred in the past. The GB can't have its cake and eat it too.

I agree with you wholeheartedly and that is why I find reasoning such as this one from the Nov. 2016 study WT a little disconcerting p.16, par. 9:
"Some may feel that they can interpret the Bible on their own. However, Jesus has appointed the ‘faithful slave’ to be the only channel for dispensing spiritual food. Since 1919, the glorified Jesus Christ has been using that slave to help his followers understand God’s own Book and heed its directives. By obeying the instructions found in the Bible, we promote cleanness, peace, and unity in the congregation. Each one of us does well to ask himself, ‘Am I loyal to the channel that Jesus is using today?’ "
I am misunderstanding what it's saying there? Anyone care to analyze this as they understand it?  And sorry, I know it's a little off topic.

I just want to know what "Bigly" world events happened in 1925 which outweighs 1914.... ... or any other date for that matter.  Any date which brought forth the world changing events of 1914.  Please help me out here!  You can change the date to whatever date you like with astounding reasonings and many quoted scriptures etc...... but I want to see the evidence on the ground!... and it must be really more significant than the events in and from 1914.  I am prepared to look at something I feel is really credible - otherwise you do not deserve  my attention!
Also - how much time is spent in teaching others about the Kingdom as instructed by Jesus.  This is our obligation.  We can spend all day in searching the scriptures and when we do not DO what Jesus said - all is in vain.  Our obedience is more important than knowledge because knowledge can puff us up and make us lose focus of bringing praise to Jehovah and warning  and informing our fellow humans on earth.  The attention of the focus can be ourselves if we indulge our own pleasures too much - whatever it is.
As you possibly may know my first language is not English and when I write fast I sometimes fail to check my sentences and my language... ..  I realize I am at a little disadvantage here! LOL  I am going to bow out gracefully now.  I have much preparation to do and I have been rushing in and out to return visits today..... so singing off in Sweden!
Good night.

@Annasince you asked about this: In the context of what @Arauna had said I was referring to the relative importance of being smart, scholarly or even RIGHT. We don't need to get all up in arms or push ahead. Knowledge is not the most important thing for Christians, as we both acknowledged.
At the time, I was thinking of this Scripture, where the context ON BOTH SIDES OF THE VERSE makes it appear that humility is the factor that keeps us from stumbling others, and that humility is the factor that keeps us from creating divisions among sincere persons who want to do what is right. Even if they have a zeal for God but not according to accurate knowledge.
(Mark 9:33-42) 33 And they came into Ca·perʹna·um. Now when he was inside the house, he put the question to them: “What were you arguing about on the road?” 34 They kept silent, for on the road they had been arguing among themselves about who is greater. 35 So he sat down and called the Twelve and said to them: “If anyone wants to be first, he must be last of all and minister of all.” 36 Then he took a young child and stood him in their midst; and putting his arms around him, he said to them: 37 “Whoever receives one of such young children on the basis of my name receives me also; and whoever receives me receives not me only but also Him who sent me.” 38 John said to him: “Teacher, we saw someone expelling demons by using your name, and we tried to prevent him, because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said: “Do not try to prevent him, for there is no one who will do a powerful work on the basis of my name who will quickly be able to say anything bad about me. 40 For whoever is not against us is for us. 41 And whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ, I tell you truly, he will by no means lose his reward. 42 But whoever stumbles one of these little ones who have faith, it would be better for him if a millstone that is turned by a donkey were put around his neck and he were pitched into the sea.
(Luke 9:46-50) 46 Then a dispute arose among them about which one of them was the greatest. 47 Jesus, knowing the reasoning of their hearts, took a young child, stood him beside him, 48 and said to them: “Whoever receives this young child on the basis of my name receives me also; and whoever receives me also receives the One who sent me. For the one who conducts himself as a lesser one among all of you is the one who is great.” 49 In response John said: “Instructor, we saw someone expelling demons by using your name, and we tried to prevent him, because he is not following with us.” 50 But Jesus said to him: “Do not try to prevent him, for whoever is not against you is for you.”
We expect the Governing Body to show the humility of the faithful discreet slave, not the idea that they should push ahead and claim things that they do not have knowledge of yet. As Arauna said, we (including the slave) must recognize Jehovah and the true channel, which is Christ the Head, our Exemplar, along with his Word and spirit so that we may have the same spirit and attitude of Christ Jesus. Jesus could have cleared up all questions of Law, but instead he focused on love, justice, and kindness. As long as everyone recognizes that this is the true channel, we will be blessed with more of Jehovah's spirit, stay connected with him, and stay in the truth. 

There are some very valid arguments you raise here JWI.  I am not qualified to make any worthwhile and detailed comments on Bible chronology, especially that which pertains to 1914 because I have never studied any of it in depth, and as @Araunaremarked: " NONE of you have taken the time to really study the entire sections on Chronology as set out in the Insight book" . Well  I am one of those people, I have neither studied the Insight book's Chronology, nor COJ's Chronology nor other secular study of Bible chronology and to be honest, who of the 8 or so million regular Witnesses have?? (not counting Rolf Furuli and those in the writing department who were assigned to do this) I have only know one brother to date. He was not brought up as one of JWs but came into the truth later. He had already been used to studying as he had a university degree. He was the scholarly type. I remember he had a library full of secular books on Bible history and chronology. I remember once when we stayed at his house (my mum is good friends with his wife) he mentioned this one particular secular book on something or other to do with Bible history or chronology and how extremely interesting it was. I don't remember any details about what he said, I just remember my negative feelings at the time. It was funny, but it was almost an aversion to even the thought of someone reading something BESIDES our literature. Feelings of distrust and suspicion, that anything else is tantamount to the Devil's work. Funnily enough, these feelings could not have emanated from my mother, since she herself is an educated and well read woman, and has read many secular books and strongly believes in education. These feelings came from the "general" air of suspicion derived from our meetings and our own literature, including the general opinion of brothers and sisters sharing the suspicion among each other.  It is actually understandable, since our attitude (and quite rightly so) regarding the world is that it is lying in the power of the wicked one, and thus logically, he, Satan, will want to promote anything to weaken man’s trust in the Bible as being from God.  But statements by the WT such as “Secular experts have repeatedly questioned the Bible’s accuracy” is a broad brush which automatically taints anyone (besides us) who tries to interpret Bible chronology, as being probably, if not obviously,  WRONG. Unless of course they agree with us. Truly, on the whole, secular scholars are responsible for giving themselves this reputation in our eyes because of their adherence to the theory of evolution and other theories discrediting God.  It is understandable that many of the things these scholars write will be tainted with their supposition that God does not exist. HOWEVER, and this is a most important part, in my opinion, what does the date of Jerusalem’s destruction have anything to do with whether a scholar is a believer in God and the Bible’s veracity or not? What possible reason would a secular scholar have for not agreeing with Watchtower’s 607? Most scholars (as opposed to JW haters and opposers) have no hidden agenda and have nothing against Jehovah’s Witnesses.  I believe COJ had no hidden agenda either. He merely reported on the evidence that’s out there. On the other hand, we, Jehovah’s Witnesses, base a large part of our belief on 1914. We would have a lot more to “lose” were we to agree with the secular date.  I can’t even imagine the commotion if we retracted 1914.  BUT we have to remember; “we do not serve God because of a date” as was bought out in the video at the convention regarding 1975. How much does our personal relationship with Jehovah depend on a date? Do we serve God just because “the end is just around the corner” And to take it even further, how much of our personal relationship depends on the Governing Body?  IF the Governing Body were all to become apostate tomorrow, where would we stand?
Out of interest, when I was studying “what does the Bible really teach” with my student, a biologist (the ex atheist I already mentioned on here before) when we came to the appendix about 1914 I also gave her the two articles in the WT “When was Ancient Jerusalem destroyed” part 1 and 2. She found the articles interesting but unconvincing. We never went into any detail of those two articles, as both of us agreed that it was more important to go back to the Bible and see what it had to say on what God expects from us, and how to live our life to please him. 

I think you keep on trying to prove you are right because you are not happy with what you have in the truth.  Why spend hours trying to get someone to agree with you.  What is the purpose of it?   If hypothetically I agree with you - then what will the next step be for us?  We go and make our own happy little group separate from other Witnesses - and pat ourselves on the back that we are smarter than the slave? or what?
It has nothing to do with being smart or scholarly or even being RIGHT - it has to do with recognizing Jehovah and the channel he is using to preach the Kingdom as the only hope for mankind.  I honestly believe that we must have Jehovah's spirit to stay connected with Him and stay in the truth.  I have enough knowledge of other history to firmly believe that WW1 was a major change in world affairs and that the year 537BCE is a reasonably good year (take a year of two) for the building work to restart in Jerusalem......and this will easily bring the date of Jerusalem's fall to 607 (70 years in Babylon ) - which makes 1914 not a mirage at all! 
And the other arguments that Jehovah will not use a wicked king and his 7 periods of madness as a symbol of the inhumane nations ruling the earth until Jesus kingdom starts to rule does not tread water at all.  Jehovah used prophets whose wives were unfaithful to illustrate the situation that his people were in..... Yes I have seen the things you took a lot of time to write and I honestly do not think it is worth my time to reply because  think that you are determined to promote your own way of thinking......  
It so happens that I do not agree with you.  In your mind you are the expert on this.   So be the expert and where will it get you? You need to serve Jehovah together with his servants or stay behind.  You need to be actively helping others to come closer to Jehovah - but with this expert fault finding scholarship you will not have enough time or enough of Jehovah's spirit to do this.
I learnt Jehovah's name, the fact that the immortality of the soul is a lie from satan, that Jesus really died for me (soul died) and that Jesus is not God - I learnt all from the Witnesses.  There is no other religion which stands up for the vindication of Jehovah's name like the slave does.  In fact our persecution will start because we proclaim this name and took it for ourselves to be identified by...
Most churches accept the name Jesus but not Jehovah's name.  Even Muslims accept a form of Jesus.... so this should tell you to appreciate the fact that Jehovah in his graciousness allowed both of us to be part of this group of people. ..... While it is good to investigate what you believe so you can stay strong - one should not go beyond/ or brazenly go ahead - where is the unity in that?  I have on occasion not agreed with small things and later came to this conclusion:-  it sorts itself out......  The really important stuff is all there and is understood....
I started writing a book about the intrinsic  LOGIC of the Bible and how everything fits in perfectly - a few years back and decided to stop..... because I decided that I do not want to be competition for the slave..... Jehovah gave them the job to advertise the kingdom.... and I will not use what I learnt from the organization (even if I have a lot of my own ideas - to make money for myself.   I may later finish it and ask them if I can publish..... and if they do not like  ..... it is OK with me.  I am participating in the greatest work on earth - to teach others about Jehovah. 
There is a thin line which one can overstep.  Think of Adam and Eve - it was a very simple test...... and such a small thing.... which actually shows the level of obedience and cooperation which Jehovah really expects from us.  This is why the bible shows we must be in unity and in cooperation when he finds us.....  We can use our powers to sow discord and doubt..... which is not the way Jehovah wants us to be.  We must be slaves...... of others ....not scholars.  Jesus knew all the knowledge there is all to know in heaven and on earth but not once did he show that he knows more than other people.  He stayed lowly until his death. We all - me included - can learn from this! for sure!

OK.. done. I have read it again. As always, I deeply appreciate the good research that has gone into the Insight book. When this book first came out under the name "Aid to Bible Understanding" I was just as amazed, especially at the "Chronology" section. It took me nearly four years of scratching out an hour or so each day to completely read the Aid book while still at Bethel. I have never completed the Insight book yet, although I recognize that most of the old entries have remained intact, verbatim, from the older Aid book.
That said, I would love to comment on many items of interest that I found in the "Chronology" article in Insight including everything I agree with and appreciated. First, I will try to limit my comments to those that are relevant to this discussion and the statements you have made above.
So here goes . . .
First, you said: "And -"NO"- the Sumerian, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronologies are NOT firmly established! ... There is too little reliable evidence for that."
I can say that you have understood very well the basic premise of the the first half of the Chronology article. It is clearly intended to make us us think that the Babylonian Chronology is not firmly established, when it really is, as I said above, one of the MOST firmly established of all ancient timelines. By mixing the Neo-Babylonian in with the Sumerian and Assyrian chronologies, especially by mentioning the much earlier mythical portions of those chronologies, we can easily get confused into thinking the Neo-Babylonian is just like the others. It's always easy to think that if something is wrong with part of something then something must also be wrong with the whole. But we should keep in mind that the Watch Tower publications are so sure of the accuracy of the Neo-Babylonian chronology, hat they take ONE of the dates from it (539) and for many years called it an ABSOLUTE date, and used that date as an anchor for the 1914 doctrine that has been repeated over 6,000 times, according to the current updated WT-Library CD. In fact scholars refer to the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology as ABSOLUTE dates, therefore the Watch Tower publications now only refer to 539 as a "pivotal" or "assured" date, rather than an absolute date..
*** it-1 p. 448 Chronology ***
The histories of the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, and others are, in the main, fragmentary; their earlier periods are either obscure or, as presented by them, obviously mythical.
A true statement "in the main" especially about their "earlier periods" but we are interested ONLY in the Neo-Babylonian period.
*** it-1 p. 448 Chronology ***
What is known from secular sources of these ancient nations has been laboriously pieced together from bits of information obtained from monuments and tablets or from the later writings of the so-called classical historiographers of the Greek and Roman period.
Notice that all these nations have still been mixed together, rather than marvel at the amazing completeness of the Neo-Babylonian period, based on literally THOUSANDS of interrelated, interlocking, dated tablets and monuments. It's true that it has been laboriously pieced together from bits of information. This is as we should expect, and it turns out that all these THOUSANDS of bits of information support the "accepted chronology." And we should note that the Watch Tower publications do refer to the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology as the "accepted chronology" -- not because one man named Carl Olof Jonsson accepts it, but because ALL the known Neo-Babylonian scholars accept the overwhelming evidence.  Obviously, these experts don't accept it just because it supports the Bible's timeline, yet it is easy to show that it really does.  And these same scholars are the ones that the Insight book relies upon for the 539 date. These THOUSANDS of pieces of evidence actually support the Bible's timeline much better than the Watch Tower's timeline.
*** kc p. 187 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
Business tablets: Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets have been found that record simple business transactions, stating the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets of this sort have been found for all the years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in the accepted chronology of the period.
This doesn't mean that the Watch Tower accepts the "accepted chronology," of course, but the reasons that the Watch Tower gives are not real reasons. It is very easy to show that they are just pretend reasons. The Insight book inadvertently admits that these are just pretend reasons, if you look at it closely enough.
*** it-1 pp. 448-449 Chronology ***
While archaeologists have recovered tens of thousands of clay tablets bearing Assyro-Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions, as well as large numbers of papyrus scrolls from Egypt, the vast majority of these are religious texts or business documents consisting of contracts, bills of sale, deeds, and similar matter. The considerably smaller number of historical writings of the pagan nations, preserved either in the form of tablets, cylinders, steles, or monumental inscriptions, consist chiefly of material glorifying their emperors and recounting their military campaigns in grandiose terms.
Notice the contradictory reasoning here. TENS OF THOUSANDS of clay tablets bearing inscriptions are supposedly minimized for being religious texts or mundane business documents. Notice what is left out, however: they are EACH ONE DATED to the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Also, by throwing some Egyptian papyrus scrolls into the mix, it's possible to imply that many of the TENS OF THOUSANDS of business documents might be religious documents -- and this very likely makes us think they are reduced in value in determining a chronology. We are also supposed to get the idea that the historical writings are reduced in value because they glorify their emperors and military campaigns. We are supposed to think if "myth" and "exaggeration" here. These are the bad apples that are supposed to spoil the whole bushel.
*** it-1 p. 449 Chronology ***
Engraved in stone or inscribed in clay, some ancient pagan documents may seem very impressive, but this does not ensure their correctness and their freedom from falsehood. Not the material written on, but the writer, his purpose, his respect for truth, his devotion to righteous principles—these are the important factors that give sound basis for confidence, in chronological as well as other matters. The great age of the secular documents is certainly outweighed by the vastly inferior quality of their contents . . .
Yes, these contemporary documents will never be the Bible. But let's at least admit to what they are. In fact, these TENS OF THOUSANDS of business documents about mundane matters do not contain any of "myth" or "religion" or "exaggeration" and they are all dated. Not only that, but these dates are interconnected not just through the year of each king, but they include a second name, the name of the current "company president" always including who his father was, and sometimes even who his son was who would become the next president when his father died or retired. In addition to a complete timeline of the kings, you can also double-check it with a complete timeline of the firm's presidents and their sons, grandsons, great grandsons, etc. Thousands of the tablets come from the largest "financial firm" of that time, which handled real estate, banking, loans, and commerce contracts.
It's as if you had a great-grandmother you never met who claimed to live to be 120 years old, and then you went into an attic and found that she had left 10,000 checkbook receipts, loan receipts, deeds, etc., which are not only dated with the day and month, but she also added the year of each U.S. President to each check, so that they would say for example: Lincoln's 3rd year, Johnson's 1st year, Grant's 2nd year. But they also had the name of the bank president, and the bank president's son. So now you could see how long each U.S president served and even synchronize it with how long each bank president served. But the main thing is that she had several checks for each and every year of each president. And you would have no trouble putting them in order because she also had a memo on each check where you could double-check the father and son currently running the bank in every year, too. This way if there were two presidents named Johnson (Andrew and Lyndon) in her check receipts, you could know which was which.
But there is one more thing about the TENS OF THOUSANDS of business documents -- not mentioned. There are enough of them to show exactly what month of the year a given king died, because whenever a king was living the month and day and year of that king's reign was inscribed, but when he died the new king was shown sometimes in tablets of the same month just days after the new king was inaugurated, and the new king would be inscribed as being in his "0" year, or "accession" year.
There is one more point that is just as important. Some of these tablets match up with customer's names on preceding tablets, or some tablets refer to transactions that cut across the time period of two kings. This could be a loan made in the time of one king, but paid off three years later in the time of another king. Or it could be a payment for an item during the last months of one king, and another for the delivery of those items in the early months of another king.
In every case, we not only have tablets for every year of the timeline, but there is no way to claim the kings are in the wrong order, or that one might refer ambiguously to a different king of the same name. (This actually comes close to happening when some usurpers named Nebuchadnezzar show up, but their attempts lasted only a few months at a time, and happened long after the dates we are concerned about between Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus.)
Without mentioning any of these facts, the Insight book goes on with a quote from Ceran "The Secret of the Hittites." If you have the book you will know the true context of the quote.
*** it-1 pp. 449-450 Chronology ***
Well illustrating why secular histories do not qualify as the standard of accuracy by which to judge Bible chronology is this statement by archaeological writer C. W. Ceram, commenting on the modern science of historical dating:  ". . .For as we examine the sources of ancient history we see how scanty, inaccurate, or downright false, the records were even at the time they were first written. And poor as they originally were, they are poorer still as they have come down to us: half destroyed by the tooth of time or by the carelessness and rough usage of men.” —The Secret of the Hittites, 1956, pp. 133, 134.
There are so many things wrong with this type of quotation when you realize that it is almost all geared toward accepting 539 (capture of Babylon) and not accepting 587 (destruction of Jerusalem). Yet both dates are from the same experts. Also there is no conflict between the Neo-Babylonian dating and the Bible, the only conflict is the Watchtower's interpretation -- which was only found necessary as a way to reach the 1914 date. But this book is talking about the Hittites. In fact, in just the next couple of paragraphs he uses an example of King Menes in Egypt from 2900 BCE! The purpose appears to be in order to mix up the problems of the early Egyptian timeline with the Neo-Babylonian. But it also leaves out the very next paragraph after King Menes. In fact, back in a Watchtower article that tried to bolster more faith in the predictions made about the 1975 time period, it actually used this same book to say that 539 was "assured."
*** w68 5/1 pp. 270-271 pars. 2-3 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
" . . . the book The Secret of the Hittites, by C. W. Ceram, in the chapter entitled “The Science of Historical Dating,” states:  . . . “But as we go even deeper into the subject, our respect for the achievements of historical detective work returns. We learn that the scholars have been careful to distinguish between ‘assured’ and ‘assumed’ dates. And we discover that the chronological framework of ancient history rests upon at least a few firm points. Certain key dates, around which other dates are mustered, can be determined almost without error. They are ‘assured.’”
3 Hence, outside the Bible’s timetable, most dates set by historians are unreliable. Only a few “assured,” or absolute, dates, such as 539 B.C.E., . . .
Ceram didn't mention 539 here, the Watchtower added that. As far as the Egyptian chronology goes, note that the Watch Tower is only pushing for about a 100 year difference through much of it, and only a 20 year difference by the time of Josiah.
*** it-1 p. 450 Chronology ***
The difference between the above dates and those generally assigned by modern historians amounts to as much as a century or more for the Exodus and then narrows down to about 20 years by Pharaoh Necho’s time. The following information shows why we prefer to hold to the chronology based on the Biblical reckoning.
That 20-year difference was necessary in order to make Jerusalem's fall change from 587 (accepted date) to 607 (the date required for 1914 to work). It's not that there is any evidence for it. There is none. But what is extremely ironic is that the entire discussion of why the Egyptian dates are not accepted is almost a precise description of the same exact reasoning about why 587 is not accepted. But here's the real irony: every one of these factors that supposedly weakens the unaccepted dates are exactly the factors that were used in order to get the 539 date. In other words the Watch Tower Society doesn't really think these are weakening factors at all; we accept them all perfectly for 539, and even call 539 an ASSURED date because of the same factors. This is how we know that the reasons given are only "pretend" reasons.
Under Assyrian Chronology no attempt is made to synchronize:
*** it-1 p. 452 Chronology ***
The information above points to the conclusion that Assyrian historiography either is not correctly understood by modern historians or is of very low caliber. In either case, we do not feel compelled to attempt to coordinate the Biblical chronology with history as presented in the Assyrian records.
For now, we can leave it at that because nothing there is critical to the points of discussion under Babylonian chronology. Twice as much space is devoted to the Neo-Babylonian and Persian chronologies and the issues surrounding their accuracy. This is the most interesting to this discussion, so I will continue some comments for discussion in the next post.

I appreciate the opportunity to dialogue with you without all the unnecessary rhetoric. I understand your situation somewhat, if you actually believe I am espousing the equivalent of apostate ideas, and you wish to counter them, but also wish to keep reminding an "audience" somewhere that you know "from whence such ideas come from," and need to clarify your distance while still engaging in dialogue. 
And yes, I could tell that there is a bit of censorship going on here, (e.g. the "POSTER") although I figured it was self-censorship due to previous warnings about not directly calling a specific poster an "apostate" or reminding them of their "Satanic" roots, or effectively threatening people who merely "upvote" the posts of people you strongly disagree with. (I copied a few of those long topics to my hard drive, and several of them have your original posts in them, that have since been deleted from the current site. Those deletions all reflected problems like the ones I just mentioned.) Personally, I really don't care about being mislabeled as much as the site owners apparently do. I think that as long as we can share information, it's the Internet after all, and we can expect whatever gets thrown at us.  But it does get to be a time waster for anyone who wants to wade through the debris. And I always assumed that's part of the reason why you and others have done this: it puts a protective wall of debris (anti-posts), so that people don't really get into the real [perceived] pile of garbage, the topic itself. That's actually the reason I've so often just ignored what you've said in the past.
I think a lot of people confuse the meaning of ad hominem a little bit, too. If you think someone is terrible and you say why you think that they are terrible based on why their argument is bad that is NOT ad hominem. It's when you say why you think they are terrible INSTEAD of saying why their argument is bad; that is an ad hominem. It's only when calling names is merely a diversion so that you don't have to defend against the argument itself. That's why Jesus was not using ad hominem when he spoke against the Pharisees, scribes, etc. He said they are 'wicked' BECAUSE of specific things they did or practiced.
I also agree that you (in all guises and names) have been generally peaceful, reasonable, and helpful in the majority of your posts, even where I disagree with the point. I also agree that when it comes to being purposely "obnoxious" (if that's the word) there have been others here who have taken the prize in that area. Of course, the lesson appears to be that if someone is trying to be both provocative and funny at the same time, then almost anything goes. But I can see why that looks hypocritical.
Sometimes, the danger of not responding to you allows ideas like this to fester, and then be used again as if they were true all along. My approach might appear more reasonable to you because I am beginning to understand your argument a bit better, but there is nothing inconsistent with previous arguments, which is why you cannot find any arguments that are inconsistent. I think you might be referring to the fact that I am not quibbling over a year or two difference, but if you go back to any of the old discussions you will find that this has always been the case. (I was the one, who agreed that the 3 weeks for Neb to get back from Hatti-land to Babylon always seemed just a bit too fast, even if Josephus is right about the short-cut.) Although I prefer 587, I can see a good reason for 586. Although the 70 years should end in 539, I can see a reason to go for 538. (The Jews could have come back in 537, but that wouldn't change when the 70 years ended a year or two prior to that.) You should be able to find all of these arguments in past discussions because they are all still around. These are not new arguments for a new audience. You might have conflated what I said with others like Ann, or ScholarJW, or others. You have done that before.
I have said that I could care less what Carl Olof Jonnson wrote. All he did is repeat the evidence that is agreed upon by nearly 100% of the experts and scholars on the subject. It has nothing to do with him. My own independent study, which I did because of a dialogue I was having with Rolf Furuli, convinced me that HUNDREDS of scholars were right and Rolf Furuli had used a lot of logical fallacies and outright intellectual and scholastic dishonesty in a book that he sent me personally (for free, at that!). So far, neither you nor ScholarJW or anyone else have been able to show otherwise. It matters not that COJ might have come to the same conclusion. I have never spoken with COJ, I have spoken with Rolf Furuli. I have never read all of COJ's book. I have read every word of the last two books by Furuli. I have not "stated" that COJ has more credibility than the Watchtower, which is why you will not find such a statement.
Your claim that I stated that "COJ has more credibility than the Watchtower" reminds me of J.F.Rutherford. Rutherford was not impugning the credibility of the Watchtower itself just because he found more evidence for a new teaching. Was Rutherford saying that his doctrine of 1925 has more credibility than Watch Tower's doctrine of 1914 just because he said: [2nd quotation corrected in late edit. Thanks Allen Smith.]
 "The year 1925 is a date definitely and clearly marked in the Scriptures, even more clearly than that of 1914; . . ."  — The Watchtower, July 15, 1924, p. 211.
"The physical facts show beyond question of a doubt that 1914 ended the Gentile Times. . . . The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures [than 1914] because it is fixed by the Law God gave to Israel." — The Watchtower, September 1, 1922, p. 262.
". . . the dates impart a much greater strength than can be found in other chronologies. Some of them are of so remarkable a character as clearly to indicate that this chronology is not of man, but of God. Being of divine origin and divinely corroborated, present-truth chronology stands in a class by itself, absolutely and unqualifiedly correct. INCONTESTABLY ESTABLISHED. When a  date is indicated by several lines of evidence it is strongly established. . . . when a thing is indicated in only one way it may be by chance . . . and the addition of more proofs removes it entirely from the world of chance into that of proven certainty. PROOF OF DIVINE ORIGIN. . . . this is proof of divine origin and that the system is not a human invention . . . — "The Strong Cable of Chronology" The Watchtower, July 15, 1922, p.217, 218.
QUESTION AND ANSWER: Have we more reason, or as much, to believe the Kingdom will be established in 1925 than Noah had  to believe that there would be a flood? [Answer] Our thought is, that 1925 is definitely settled by the Scriptures. . . we expect such a climax in the affairs of the world . . . He is already present. . . . He is dashing to pieces the nations. . . .As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon which to base his faith than Noah had . . . upon which to base his faith in a coming deluge." — The Watchtower,  April 1, 1923, p.106
"When you take up a more advanced study of the Bible, you will find that the year 1925 A. D. is particularly marked in prophecy." The Way to Paradise, p.220
No, he was not disparaging the Watchtower for having taught 1914. He was not putting one person as more credible than the Watchtower, because he obviously still accepted the Watchtower, and even though all the expectations for 1914 had failed, he still thought that there was evidence that something about 1914 was still true. Was Rutherford really saying that 1925 was more credible than 1914, or just saying that there was more evidence for 1925 than for 1914?
Similarly, I'm saying that there is more evidence against the 1914 doctrine than there is for it. Just like Rutherford, I think that multiple lines of evidence begin to make a proposition less an indication of chance, and more an indication of certainty. I am not using this to disparage the Watchtower in general which is right on many more things than it has been wrong about. Also, note that I am not even saying that the nearly 100% of experts (perhaps there are thousands) in the field of chronology need to be right. After all, Rutherford was not right about 1925 nor even about most of the other dates he referred to as "unqualifiedly correct." Nothing about my faith changes if secular experts show how  the chronology corroborates the Bible (which it does) or if it supposedly "proved" the Bible incorrect (which it doesn't). Even if all the potential thousands of experts could prove it was 607 when Jerusalem was destroyed, it still would have no effect on my faith, for Biblical reasons. I have faith that Jesus was correct when he said that no one would be able to put a date on the parousia.
I have never said it was a "PET" project. If I have a "PET" project, it has been to show that the Kingdom is one of the primary themes of the Bible, and that even the Hebrew Scriptures pointed to a Messiah who turned out to be identifiable in his day as Jesus Christ, and how this truth was revealed in such a way, even if it was a "sacred secret" that it was unavoidable and undeniable for the persons of his generation. But that is not a project that I have discussed much about yet on this forum. What I am doing here is sharing things I learned from other Witnesses years ago, didn't particularly want to believe, but which became undeniable to me after thorough study and prayerful consideration. It's not necessary that anyone follow it or believe it, but my conscience tells me that I should at least share in the things learned. New information is being found on this subject all the time, and I think some have had difficulty fitting this new cloth or new wine onto the old framework of the 1914 doctrine. I think the information shared might help these brothers and sisters. Others will have no use for it, which is OK, too:
(Matthew 9:16, 17) . . .Nobody sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old outer garment, for the new piece pulls away from the garment and the tear becomes worse. 17 Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins. If they do, then the wineskins burst and the wine spills out and the wineskins are ruined. But people put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”
(Matthew 13:52) . . .every public instructor who is taught about the Kingdom of the heavens is like a man, the master of the house, who brings out of his treasure store things both new and old.”
A research on this forum from other threads will definitely and consistently show this to be the case.

What about the effects of the website on those lands where people are poor and neither have computers nor the Internet, including JWs?  I remember an Article in the Watchtower recently wherein the Gov Body was asked if whose Witnesses who don't have access to the Website are well fed and they said Yes.  
 
Here is the quote:
*** w14 8/15 p. 5 Are You Receiving “Food at the Proper Time”? ***
3. If you do not have access in your language to all the publications that are produced, will you become spiritually undernourished?
The answer is no. And it should not surprise us that some of Jehovah’s servants might, at times, have access to more spiritual food than others do. Why not? Consider the apostles. They received more instruction than many other disciples in the first century did. (Mark 4:10; 9:35-37) Even so, the other disciples were not spiritually undernourished; they received what they needed.—Eph. 4:20-24; 1 Pet. 1:8.
It is also worth noting that much of what Jesus said and did while on earth is not recorded in the Gospel accounts. The apostle John wrote: “There are also, in fact, many other things that Jesus did, which if ever they were written in full detail, I suppose the world itself could not contain the scrolls written.” (John 21:25) Even though Jesus’ first-century followers had more information about the perfect man Jesus than we do, we are not deprived. Jehovah has made sure that we know enough about Jesus for us to be his footstep followers.—1 Pet. 2:21.
Think, too, of the letters sent by the apostles to the first-century congregations. At least one letter written by Paul was not preserved in the Bible. (Col. 4:16) Is our spiritual food inadequate because we do not have access to that letter? No. Jehovah knows what we need and has given us enough to keep us spiritually strong.—Matt. 6:8.
Today, some groups of Jehovah’s servants have more spiritual food available to them than others have. Do you speak a language in which only a few publications are available? If so, know that Jehovah cares for you. Study the material you have, and if possible, attend the meetings in a language that you understand. And be assured that Jehovah will keep you spiritually strong.—Ps. 1:2; Heb. 10:24, 25.
4. If you do not have access to material that is published on jw.org, will you become spiritually weak?
On our Web site, we publish copies of our magazines and other Bible-study publications. The Web site also provides material that helps couples, teenagers, and those with young children. Families benefit by considering this material in their Family Worship sessions. In addition, our Web site reports on special programs, such as Gilead graduations and the annual meeting, and it keeps our global brotherhood informed about natural disasters and legal developments that affect Jehovah’s people. (1 Pet. 5:8, 9) The Web site is also a powerful preaching tool, making the good news available even in lands where our work is restricted or banned.
However, you can remain spiritually strong whether you have access to our Web site or not. The slave has worked hard to provide enough printed material to keep each domestic spiritually well-fed. Therefore, you should not feel obligated to buy a device just to access jw.org. Some may make private arrangements to print a limited amount of material published on our Web site and give it personally to those who do not have Internet access, but congregations are not required to do this.
We are grateful to Jesus for keeping his promise to care for our spiritual needs. As these difficult last days rapidly draw to a close, we can be confident that Jehovah will continue to provide spiritual “food at the proper time.”
 

And yet out of all those JW.ORG is the most translated of all 1.2 Billion and the #1 of all religious websites on earth. Since Jesus said the True faith would be the ones preaching in ALL the inhabited earth obviously we see that as being true since a few years after 2012 when the website first launched.
Of course I still use Love as the predominant factor in identifying true religion but it is because of this love that the brothers did all this work in order to reach as many people as they can with the message. So it is connected to Jn. 13:35. We are the only one actually doing the WORK of Kingdom preaching. Why even the Roman Catholic Churches website [with over a billion members] is only translated in 10 languages whereas ours is 904 and climbing. And that is with all volunteer labor.
You see before 2012 we could say we have the truth and give evidence to back it up from Scripture like the worldwide preaching work which many would need faith to see but these facts on the internet are secular quantitative facts that are supportive and undeniable as to where JW.org stands in relation to all the rest. And EVERYONE can now see it with their own eyes. The small one becoming a thousand and a mighty nation Jehovah would speed it up in His time. Could that time be now, just a few years before the beginning of the Great Tribulation?

For years I was steamed that Bethel so universally spoke ill of R rated movies, when PG-13 movies might easily be more objectionable. They outmaneuvered me by saying 'alrght, PG-13 movies are also no good.'
I had a friend high up in a theater chain and during 1971-1972, saw virtually everything coming down the pipe for free. Recently, via Netflix, I revisited 'Colossus: the Forbin Project,' a sci-fi offering in which computers took over the world (I hate when they do that). "I enjoyed this drivel?" I asked myself.
I continued watching many a movie after baptism (Network was a favorite, despite abysmally foul language), but gradually tapered off from lack of interest, and now become impatient with putting in the required two hours, unless a film is truly excellent. 
Dunkirk sounds like a film I might like. I've not seen Private Ryan or Schindler, not because of any particular principle, but because I never got around to it. The most recent current movie I've seen was Captain Fantastic, which played into some themes I like.