Nana Fofana

JW Insider
What is your problem? There is absolutely nothing wrong with the insertion of our Dates by means of brackets into a specific reference or quotation for the reader can easily see that by means of such a bracket, a insertion of the author's viewpoint or correction is intended. Such an academic convention is in harmony with their 'Style Manual' provided to WT writers and would follow similar style manuals common to other organizations and institutes of higher learning.
scholar JW emeritus

For Nana Fofana,
Nana, I'm afraid you're very confused about the timeline of the period 609 BCE onward through about the end of the Babylonian empire, so I'll give a brief timeline of the most accepted secular history.
<<<<
609: Nabopolassar's 17th year, Assyrian empire ends at the battle of Harran, Jehoiakim's accession year
605: Nabopolassar's 21st year, Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, battle of Carchemish, first siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, 1st deportation where Daniel and other elites taken captive to Babylon (this deportation possibly occurred in 604), Jehoiakim becomes vassal to Nebuchadnezzar
602/601: Jehoiakim rebels against Babylon, Jehovah sends marauder bands against Judah
598: Nebuchadnezzar besieges Jerusalem, Jehoiakim is killed, Jehoiachin becomes king for 3 months
597: Jehoiachin surrenders, 2nd deportation where Jehoiachin and many others taken to Babylon, Zedekiah's accession year
589: Babylonian forces besiege Jerusalem
587: Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, Jerusalem destroyed, many more captives taken in 3rd deportation
582: Nebuchadnezzar's 23rd year, 4th deportation of captives
562: Nebuchadnezzar dies, Evil-Merodach's accession year
539: Babylon falls to Cyrus, Cyrus' accession year
538: Jews released, return to Judah
>>>>
This timeline agrees almost exactly with that given by Oded Lipschitz.
Now, AllenSmith has claimed many times that Carl Olof Jonssson (COJ) in his various editions of "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" stated that only TWO Jewish exiles occurred. But this is false, as I've shown by actual quotations that COJ described at length in various parts of his books that Jews were taken captive in 605/604, 597, 587 and 582. Clearly, AllenSmith is lying, because various people have corrected him many times.
The dates of exile stated in AllenSmith's link ( https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/exhibits-events/tablets-of-jewish-exiles/ ) are 604, 597 and 587 B.C.E. The 604 date reflects the uncertainty between it and 605, as mentioned above. The Bible gives no details about the exile of 582 aside from the number of Jews taken, so many historical narrators fail to mention it, since it is not entirely clear where the exiles came from.
With the above information in view, I'll go on to some comments on your post.
Well then, you should make sure that your information is correct, or not bother to comment at all. And you should say exactly what you mean, or what you agree with.
Then you should have said that. Furthermore, had you been reading all the posts on this matter -- if you have not, then why are you even commenting? -- you would have seen that several times I showed exactly where AllenSmith's claims about COJ and a host of other things were out and out falsehoods.
He has no idea what he's talking about, and spouts gibberish, so it's impossible to know what he really means.
     
See how confused you are? The discussion was restricted to the exiles in 605/604, 597 and 587. Nothing was said about the exile of 582. Anyone familiar with WTS chronology knows perfectly well that they claim THREE exiles -- 617, 607, and 602 -- but your citation from the Insight book only explicitly mentions the first (it does not give the date, which is given elsewhere in WTS literature). Your citation says nothing about Jeremiah 52:30.
AlanF

I do agree that Festivals should be all about worshiping the True God and he alone. For people in those ancient days have done things such as Passover, Weeks (Pentecost), Trumpet Blast in the Month of Ethanim, Festival of Dedication and Festival of Purim, etc. However, these festivals/feasts pertain to the worship of God, never has there been in the bible that such also pertains to the celebration of one's birth. Unless I am missing something and as well as what Solomon had said.
 
If I'm not mistaken, Jehovah's Witnesses have stated that true Christians do not celebrate said Holidays due to believing such Holidays displease God, they make a case in their articles, probably more (https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/bible-about-christmas/ https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/birthdays/), which is actually true, therefore, God will be the judge as in who is doing what is right in terms of avoiding/partaking such traditions and the like or anything that deviates worship to God, since Christmas tends to collide with an alleged Birthday regarding those who think Jesus was born on that day.What is incorrect it wasn't said many times by the JWs, it was said great number of times by Christians in the past who did take action at times, long before they existed as bible students, long before most denominations, like ages ago, into the very days of even John's students and the early Church Fathers.
The celebration of one's birth is up to question Christendom and has been debated over and over among Christians, so them, the JWs, as do others, will say that in regards to True Christians, that those who really stick to true worship will ignore and or abandon those things. It doesn't contradict scripture because the one whom you show genuine worship to will be the judge of each of us individually, especially when it comes to the history of both Christmas and Birthdays, or any Holiday for that matter (that was also an issue with Christians in 3rd century and onward.)
In short, The Jehovah's Witnesses and other denominations will consider such as something that displeases God. We have seen in scripture of how God reacts to what displeases him and we seen how that turned out when he judges those people on the spot.
You can take the vile things out of Christmas, which is very good unlike some Christians who don't, however, you still got the celebration of one's birth (alleged).
But there is chance, some Christians do is not only get out all the Christmas antics, they also cease celebration of one's birth and they choose to worship to God on that day.
Examples being spreading the gospel to those who on't know God, learning about what Jesus did, what his Disciples did, what God's followers in the Old Testament did and take example, sing to God, teach the family and or friends about God and thanking God for the one sent who has sacrificed himself to provide us amnesty, a chance of redemption to repent for our sins. I know some who use the Holidays to read a really large portion of the bible, like a reading marathon/bible book club type of thing (reading to your pace verses/chapters in the bible), getting through a an X amount of gospels in a span of a day kind of. In short, these Christians make the day 100% spiritual since they have more free time.
---
End to first comment
---
dual post (because I'm feeling lazy and I just wanna put this here for others)
Since I feel someone may bring up Christmas and Holidays, JWs and Christmas/Holidays,  or Christians and Christmas/Holidays, I will just post this here just to shed "some" history and the fact that not celebrating holidays wasn't of JW origin.
(more of a to whom this may concern kinda thing, a dual post)
What people don't know was way back before the Jehovah's Witnesses ever existed, the belief that Christmas and or the celebration of one's birth is of pagan customs. I will just post information just to debunk that this is merely a Jehovah's Witnesses belief (JW-only belief), which will tread into Birthday territory too.
1855 Christmas was not just illegal in some parts, but considered Satanic. In the 1560s, Christmas was in fact banned, by Christians (Protestants) as well as Puritans English Reformed Protestants in the 1600s. Anyone caught celebrating it, even if a Christian was caught celebrating it, they'd have serious consequences ahead of them, as well as a financial consequence.
If you go further back in ancient days, like way back 3rd century, you have Origen of Alexandria (185 AD-254AD). Despite the fact he was not part of the Church of God, the writings of the early 3rd century Catholic theologian shows us that even that late Orthodox Catholics were against the celebration of birthdays. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: Origen, glancing perhaps at the discreditable imperial Natalitia, asserts (in Lev. Hom. viii in Migne, P.G., XII, 495) that in the Scriptures sinners alone, not saints, celebrate their birthday (Martindale C. Christmas, 1908).
He wrote:
Said Holidays of birth celebration and Christmas eventually became intertwined with Christianity around the 4th century, even becoming common among those who profess Christ, in addition to Infant Baptism being introduced. The Romans, especially Emperors, tend to have these celebrations of their birth (wild parties as they call it, while the Romans have started to accept Christianity. Romans also partook in Sol Invictus, even as Christians.
 
Other Info:
So in short, festivals of worship and the like is okay, however things that pertain to yearly celebration of one's birth and or Christmas based celebration (wild partying, Yule Tree/Sun God worship, Satuernila, etc). Yes these things can be taken out of Christmas and make it free of those things, but then you got the yearly celebration of one's birth part.
The Jehovah's Witnesses themselves, back in their bible student days did celebrate Christians and I assume Birthdays too, in fact they are open about it too, but they have come to the realization that Christmas or these Holidays are not Christian at all. Years before them, Christians consider the Holiday pagan, even when they have members of theirs migrate to America, they still hold things view, and even before them, you have both Christians and Catholics who oppose these celebrations, some have given in, but others held on to these views still, that such acts displeases God.
So today, you will have Christians who will say True Christians don;t celebrate those things, they can say it, some will tend to judge one who does celebrate it, others will take both a physical and verbal approach that can lead to minor to major situations. As I said, God himself will judge and biblically we have seen him react to some festivals that displeases him or festivals that do not have anything to do with worship to him.
No one is able to go either way. But you do have a choice. But since you said that you use the for worship and talking about God, that is a good thing and respects t you for that, but as I said about being careful about including things into worship, examples being celebration of someone's birth even though the birth date itself is unknown,  is some murky-water type situation.
I already told Cos that us Unitarians, as do most Christians, have roots back to the Pre-Nience days, The Apostolic Age, and like our early Christian counterparts if we have to make change to make sure our faith doesn't mix in with what is not good, we have to really pick ourselves back up, should we stumble a bit or should we fall.
In the end, each and every one of us have time to adjust ourselves, for we are all imperfect anyways, JWs are also imperfect, for we all have flaws and think something is right/wrong when it is the opposite. We do what is best to build our faith, or as my pop's tells me, be strong physically, mentally and spiritually, and to keep ourselves clean with a Christian based lifestyle and attitude.
As for God, he will be the judge for each and everyone one of us. He will judge us Unitarians, The Jehovah's Witnesses, Baptist, Muslims, whatever denomination, he will judge.
 
check out my sources if you want (3 of 11 ):
http://www.cogwriter.com/birthdays.htm
https://rcg.org/articles/abcc.html
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/how-december-25-became-christmas/
 
One thing I'd like to add is out of 2 billion Christians, 27 million plus Christians (the only recent statistic I can find, the other was Halloween-only): https://www.theodysseyonline.com/christians-groups-that-dont-celebrate-christmas
 

 
The Tl;DR
Worship can also translate to homage, bow down to/him, latreai, obeisance. Jesus was exalted that is why the angels had shown an act of obeisance to him, which is vastly different from God because God is already Superior. (This is also a command given to the Angels by God to do so, not something a human being would be doing as to your comment). Also a Man who is worshiping Jesus= Arian/Arianism compared to a Man worshiping God=Not Arian/Not Arianism.
Obeisance/Worship/Honor/Homage/Reverence/etc = to Proskyneo/Proskuneos=Shahhah/Shachhah (In Hebrew) whereas in Hebraic sense it equals to Worship and or Obeisance, the act of such resembles Prostration (The act of obeisance or worship via standing in silence, lying flat on the floor face down, etc).
No The former Jehovah's Witness was actual right: Spirit Creatures=Angels, command by God to do what? Worship and or show Obeisance to/To honor. Why? Because God said so. Why in terms of Jesus? Because God exalted him, making him Superior to the Angels. He also places Jesus at the right side of his him if you continue reading.
The Jehovah's Witnesses are not the only ones who uses a different word in place of worship, few other bibles also use obeisance, as well as bow down to, homage, etc, even in different languages you might find something like adoration, or prostration. Even other Christians will say the same thing, those who know what the word means in both ancient Greek and Hebraic sense, and take no issue or rip out their hair if worship is obeisance, or homage, etc.
As for Unitarianism, it traces back to it's root, in fact, the root to all Christianity in the Pre-Nicene era, and that root is called Subordinationist, the belief of God, the Son, The Holy Spirit, however, they do not believe that all of them are literally a 3-in-1 Deity. This belief is when one knows who God is and know how his Word and his Spirit is used, especially in terms of creation; subordinates to the Father's being.
Other: First you accused and or assume that I am a Jehovah's Witness, when it is evident I am not, however, I do respect them because of a specific bible verse when it comes to "Men of Peace". Second, you accuse Unitarianism of being Arian, when you clearly recognize what I said, we don't worship Jesus, that is wrong, we worship God the Father, which is correct. Arians, even to this day, worship Jesus, they don't consider him a mediator, they pray to Jesus only, etc. the complete opposite of what we, as well as others do. Plus no one in their right mind you practice Arianism if they know what Jesus did in regard to The Shema (Shema Yisrael, something Trinitarians can't stand to talk about or even speak of). Arians not only ignore The Shema, but they act as if it never existed. That being said, you ask me a lot of questions, the only thing I would ask of you 2 simple question:
"How can you have free will if it's punishment for disobedience?" And Why to Trinitarians oppose The Shema; and or even know what it is based on or represents? That is all  
Now then, on to the other stuff.
 
Long Verison
I don't see why you had to use parentheses when I already establish that this man is no longer a Jehovah's Witness, this debate was not only old, but it was among the best Christian debates next to Christians vs Atheists, Adnan Rashid vs James White, and Hamza Myatt vs. Godwin, there are numerous debates and it is often done by Christians from Non-Trinitarianism and Trinitarianism, Baptist, Protestants, Muslims, etc. As for the former Jehovah's Witnesses, even to this day he still defends them because he is a Non-Trinitarian who is on the side of Monotheistic Christianity.
I am aware the NWT has Obeisance, and I am aware that Worship and what Mr. Stafford has said. But what you fail to realize is the word is also used "Proskyneo" (Proskuneo) that can be translated to either "Homage", "Bow Down/To/Bow Before", "Worship", as well as "Obeisance", it can also be translated to Latreia, Prostration (The act of obeisance or worship via standing in silence, lying flat on the floor face down, etc)., or Reverence in other languages. As for the word itself it has the same meaning as the other mention. I also said that it has another meaning, for you brought up that:
 
What Mr. Stafford was referring to was in Hebrews 1:6 whereas it says: And when he again bringeth in the firstborn into the world he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
You can see his book when it comes to defending, not for just the Watchtower, but for God the Father and Jesus, what he says on worship can be seen in page 5 via scrolling (literal page num. 364): http://www.elihubooks.com/data/topical_index/000/000/259/JWD3_Chap_5_sec_worship_051210_SITE.pdf
The Ex-JW turned apologist makes himself even clearer as to the word worship and or obeisance.
Also the other links, I dunno if you saw them, Brother Kel speaks on the same thing and what worship/homage/obeisance means in terms of Jesus when he was made superior than the other angels.
If you want to be hardcore about it, the English word "worship" in Hebrew "Shahhah/Shachah". This Hebrew word appears 172 times in the Biblical text, however, only translated as "worship" 99 times in the KJV. As Hebrew instructor Jeff Benner has said:
So to a man, it is God alone he must worship. The angels themselves worship God an to the some they were commanded to pay homage/worship/obeisance before the one who has been exalted, the only reason why the Angels bow down to Jesus because we are told why, very obvious in text.
As I said before, Obeisance
So what were the angels commanded to do (What God the Father commanded them to do)? Pay obeisance (to bow down, to honor) to Jesus, for not only he was exalted by God (given power and authority, is the anointed one, the horn of salvation, the king). You can use the word worship if you like. Also last I checked, Jehovah's Witnesses don't worship (as in pray to directly, glorify, etc) Jesus, they do this with God the Father, Yahweh/Jehovah. The worship in a sense that is given to Yahweh, if done to Jesus, is Arianism, for Arians practice worship to Jesus only and do not consider Jesus as the mediator to God.
In the debate, James White (in every debate) doesn't think that angels are to show any obeisance/worship (whatever floats your boat) to Jesus, however the bible makes it clear as to whom Yahweh made superior to the angels, thus why they so this honor and respect to (Not in the same sense as God) and if you read the verse even further, you will see what position Jesus has on God's throne, at his right hand side, The Son next to the Father, vice versa.
You also claim that:
Well there are few Bibles that use the word "Obeisance". An example would be the Apostolic Bible Polyglot (ABP) that was complete bible translated in 2003 (Not easy to copy, but you can see it).
Several examples of Hebrew 1:6 in terms of Angels showing obeisance/honor,worship, etc to Jesus
Another, uses a word similar to it "Bow Before Him", this can be seen in the Young's Literal Translation (YLT), complete bible translated in 1862.
 
Revised English Version (REV), complete translated in 1989:
 
The Latin Vulgate is a late-4th-century Latin translation of the Bible that became the Catholic Church's officially promulgated Latin version of the Bible during the 16th century.
NOTE: Obeisance being used in the bible, the word that is said to be used by ONLY the Jehovah's Witnesses is false because there are few bibles, even in other languages as well that will have something in a similar sense. The perks of those who can speak other languages, huh.Ones I didn't mention, which you can look up:
Twentieth Century New Testament (TCNT)-1898-1901 Word used: bow down before him
New Jerusalem Bible (NJB)-1985 Word used: Homage
The Complete Bible in Modern English (MEV)-2014 word used: Honor/Honour
To they all equal to worship and or obeisance? Yes.
The list goes on, even into other languages an other translations, take your pick because there is  TONS of translations and editions, as well as revised ones, some to modern English and or chosen language. It proves the point that "worship" not only has other meanings, but other words that pertain to "worship" still remains the same.
Obeisance or paying homage is an act of bowing to or honoring someone. There is no issue with saying worship, obeisance, homage, reverence, etc or if used in a bible translation. Plus you yourself thought before I was talking about JWs or any Christian worshiping Jesus (again, Jesus worship is Arian). If you watch the video, you would understand what that JW (now an ex-JW) met.
 
Plus you be surprised that Mr. Stafford, even though he isn't a Jehovah's Witnesses anymore still speaks to anyone, even JWs, former JWs, or those who want to be JWs because Stafford still holds dearly to what the Bible says about God and about Jesus, hence his status as The JW Apologist, as many have called him, especially in terms of his blogs and writings, in addition, this guy has never lost a debate, ever. One Pastor in particular didn't fair too well against him, Pastor Rob Bowman, to a degree, Greg Stafford is literally the Jehovah's Witness version of Hamza Myatt/Adnan Rashid, both who are Muslims and prominent Speaker's Corner (Hyde Park) debaters, and both never lost against a Trinitarian, including James White. If you do go to those videos, I advise caution because the comment section puts what you know about the bible to the test.
 
A quote from another Christian when it comes to worship/obeisance in terms of Jesus Christ:
As for our history being traced back to the Apostolic Age and or the Pre-Nicene Creed is true. Because during those days, before the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), majority of Christianity were Subordinationist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subordinationism), including us Unitarians, hence why I quoted "Unitarianism traces their roots back to the Apostolic Age".
An example is St Irenaeus, Clement, Trurellian, and many many more (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Age), but to focus on where we trace our history as Subs we can look into what, since I will be focusing on St Irenaeus, on what he says in some of his writings, examples being:
Irenaeus speaks of both the Word (LOGOS) and Wisdom, for us today it is the Son Jesus Christ and and Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is like God's hands, in which he uses to bring this universe and the living creatures on land and sea, as well as the sky into existence, by his hand the heavens were also made, even the Angels, Sons of the Most High (Bene Elohims who are/come into existence because of El Shaddai).
We know clearly that human being as the image of God (came into existence because of God/called Sons of God).
We also know that The Word of the LORD is the one who brought forth the teachings of God so people may learn about God and they have a choice to take to heart these teachings or to ignore it, for no one is forcing them.
And we know that the Father is capable of creating humanity and all living things for everything came into existence through his LOGOS. Angels were also created by the Father through the Word, as for the Holy Spirit is God's power or force that he uses to create things, his breathe, his hands, his fingers, as to what the bible compares said Spirit to. That same spirit can be used/bestowed among others as well as those who follow God, in short used on behalf of his servants, if that makes better sense, in addition to operate in a variety of ways in all persons (examples being, Mary becoming pregnant, Zechariah being able to speak, the list goes on).
 
 
Other quotes
During Alexandria and the rise of Binitarianism, Subordinationst Unitarians, wrongly called Arians or Eusebians by the later Trinitarians.
Document and the writings of Tertullian are Unitarian: http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p088.html
Difference in Socinianism/Unitarianism to Arianism:
You also see that:
I can pull up even more if you want. But I see this is starting to term from Jehovah's Witnesses to Unitarians.
So the claim as we, also Christians don't have history that traces back to the Apostolic Age, is false. Our views pertains to those days, and we as well know the difference between an Arian believe and what isn't. I will gladly post even more information if that isn't enough for you.
 
As I stated in my TL;DR, I always comment you, but now I ask you something.
"How can you have free will if it's punishment for disobedience?"
Why to Trinitarians oppose The Shema; and or even know what it is based on or represents?
 
Well I gotta admit, you like putting people to task,huh.

There is no 'evidently' about it. Daniel specifies 'kingship,' not 'vassalage.' A king can spend a portion of his 11 year reign as a vassal to Egypt, Babylon or the kingdom of Siam, but he is still king from the time he's placed on the throne until the time he's succeeded by someone else or he dies. So when the book of Daniel specifies '3rd year of Jehoiakim's kingship,' it means '3rd year of Jehoiakim's kingship' - just as, when the book of Daniel specifies '2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar's kingship' (Dan. 2:1), it means just that, and NOT '20th year of Nebuchadnezzar's kingship' (cp. Daniel's Prophecy, p. 46, par. 2; w64 12/15, p. 756). Watchtower has to redefine simple terms like 'kingship' and 'second year' and make them mean something totally different so that the Bible conforms to Watchtower's ideas.
 

Hi Ann
I am proud of the Bible's testimony, the difference between the two dates is based on the supposedly conflicting dates for Neb's regnal years in connection with the Fall of Jerusalem. WT scholars have not been troubled by this supposed anomaly because we are able to assign a precise date for the event whereas most if not all other scholars are perplexed. The real answer is that it comes down to Methodology, plain and simple and confirmed by the pioneering studies of Rodger Young  which followed from observations made by Neil  Mc Fadzen aka scholar JW.in the preceding decade and presented on the JWD forum.
scholar JW

Foreigner
Yes the distribution of those earlier treatises was restricted or limited to a few as this was pre-Internet. However, during those decades a Pastor Bruce Price again in Australia and a SDA waged a war if you like against WT Chronology and circulated the magazine Witness which was for SDA scholars, pastors and ministers again a limited distribution. Further, he published a fictional account centred in a rural setting which narrated the conversion of a Witness couple to Adventism through the prism of Chronology.
scholar JW

JW Insider
The use of Ptolemy comes down as with all other sources to Methodology. Scholars are free to cherry pick facts from sources in order to construct a scheme of Chronology because this is what. they do and explains why there are so many different OT Chronologies right down to the present day. Ptolemy's Canon is of value to the Historian and the Chronologist and should not be ignored but Edwin Thiele had a realistic and honest view about the Canon for he stated "Ptolemy's Canon was prepared primarily for astronomical, not historical purposes. It did not pretend to give a complete listof all of the rulers of either Babylon or Persia, nor the exact month or day of the beginning of their reigns but it was a device which made possible the correct allocation into a broad chronological scheme of certain astronomical data which were then available". Mysterious Numbers Of The Hebrew Kings, 1965, pp.216-7
scholar JW

JW Insider
This response is to your claims about the'' Babylon the Great  ' book and Max Hatton.
I reject your claim that this book 'makes claims that are shamefully wrong'. The quotation from this book is correct both in fact and in history. Ptolemy's Canon has traditionally drawn much criticism over the centuries and even in Russell's day there was criticism of the Canon in the early WT. In 1913 Martin Anstey published his Romance of Bible Chronology which was a significant piece of scholarship in its time. On pp. 18-21 Anstey makes some criticisms of the Canon and his ability as an historian although a high regard for this work remains. In 1963 the Society published its first major work on Chronology proper in the  All Scripture Is Inspired of God and it explained how the Absolute Date for 539 BCE was determined. It stated that various historical sources including Diodorus,Africanus, Eusebius, Ptolemy and other Babylonian tablets support 539 BCE when Babylon was overthrown. So it is incorrect to say that we relied only on the Canon for establishing the Absolute Date. We knew even before 1963 that there were significant problems with the traditional Chronology when compared with Bible Chronology because of the 70 years which we had long regarded as period of Desolation of the land of Judah.
Max Hatton whom I have met in 1983 or thereabouts became a Seventh Day Adventist and was one of the earliest critics of WT Chronology on the world scene and  perhaps was influenced by a thesis written by a resident in Western Australia ,  G. Rogerson who wrote An Examination Of The Year 1914 In The Prophetic interpretation Of The Watchtower Society. I have copies  of all Hatton's correspondence to the Society and would need to compare its contents with Rogerson's treatise I should say rather than a thesis because Hatton spent his earlier days in Perth, Western Australia about that time.. This treatise deals much with the Babyl;on book and its criticism of the Canon. When I met Max at Bondi, Sydney after 1983 Max excitedly told me that he had just received a copy of Edwin Thiele'ds third edition perhaps to put me to shame but I told him that I had in fact already had purchased Thiele's edition so that deflated him somewhat. Edwin Thiele perhaps Christendom's greatest Chronologist was a Seventh Day Adventist . 
scholar JW

Insider JW
You have posted in three parts so I will respond accordingly:
A debate has two sides with opposing points of view, honesty is required by both parties so I call this a two-way street.
There is no Gap in the NB Period at this stage of our present knowledge but there is a difference of 19 years. when one compares WT Chronology with NB Chronology. The much earlier  Babylon the Great Has Fallen-God's Kingdom Rules , 1963, p. 138. Rol Furuli in recent times has published extensively on the Chronologies of the Ancient World and his thesis is that the Babylonian Empire should be expanded some 20 Years. In view of these viewpoints and because the NB Period and its appended Chronology omits any mention of the Jeremiah's 70 years a Prophett who was contemporaneous with the NB  Period, a eyewitness 'to boot', I have classified the difference between the two systems as the 'Babylonian Gap'. The 'missing 20 years' I propose could properly be inserted at either two points: Neb's 18th year or his 37 th years and that will harmonize the two dating systems and all is well!!
Your claim that the methodology used by WT in connection with 537 BCE for the Return of the Exiles is 'fuzzy' is simply nonsense. Our explanation of all of the relevant data and its sources is well discussed in our publications and 537 BCE is well established. You accuse WT of being fuzzy with dates and cite 537 BCE as an example of this but I must remind you that Historians and Scholars are very fuzzy about this event for you cannot find a specific date for the event in the scholarly literature for this is a fact plain and simple. You quibble over the use of language or terms used in the WT publications which express uncertainty or a lack of finality but history is imperfect and there is no room for dogmatism in either history or chronology. Where matters are uncertain then the reader is advised but this not mean that a Chronology in harmony with certain facts cannot be constructed. The question you should be asking yourself is: 'what then is the precise date for the Return of the Jews?' 
You seem to 'hung up' on the Zero Year problem which is often raised by apostates but not by serious scholars. The WT has simply explained the anomaly and back then some chronologists possible misunderstood the difference between the Astronomical Year and the Years in the Gregorian Calendar and perhaps many reference works at that time made a similar error but once the error was noted then an adjustment was made fortunately or providentially the integrity of the 1914 CE date was preserved as the beginning of the Gentile Times. End of Part One.
scholar JW

JW Insider.
Now I am off the throne and in a relieved state I am ready for battle.. 
Nebuchadnezzer reigned for 43 years and not 63 years as shown by NB Chronology.Methodology allows one to insert 20 years into the scheme in order to harmonize NB Chronology with Biblical history via the seventy years of Jeremiah unaccounted for in NB Chronology..i have suggested that in Neb's 18th regnal years which of course would expand the the NB Period by 20 years. Now , I hear a very loud voice of protest about such an intrusion but that is not my problem it a problem for those scholars or scribes who compiled the list of reigns in the first place. they should have exercised greater diligence and not been sloppy or careless. They were very naughty.
Your claim that our theory is impossible is unclear to me because we accept the 43 years of Neb' s reign and have well described how this synchronizes with the reigns of the last Kings of Judah according to the biblical data. If it does not fit certain data from the NB Chronology then that is not my problem. Just make the required adjustment based only on trusted biblical facts . If you have found a problem then why not try to solve it? DO YOU WANT ME TO SOLVE IT FOR YOU. Already, there are other problems in connection with Jehoiakim's reign such as the 'third year of his kingship' in Dan. 1:1. and this is explained in the Insight article under 'Jehoiakim'. You will find the chart for the Reigns of Judah and Israel published in the Aid  book most helpful.
If you want me to solve your problem then present your question simply and clearly. Just present the facts, skip the references. Chronology is complex enough so simplicity works for me. You got it?  When I get a problem I usually get the solution even though it can be hard work.
scholar JW
 

Ann OMaly
An update on Jer.25:11: I do not withdraw my comment that nowhere in the OT does the seventy years refers to the nation's servitude to Babylon and in the context of all of the seventy years of Jeremiah's corpus for this applies to Judah alone. However, Jer. 25:11 can be interpreted as it is read so in accordance with the insightful comment in Keil & Delitzch's Commentary On the Old Testament, Vol.8.p.374 it offers this interesting observation on 'these nations'. In short, these peop[es or nations which surrounded Judah would also be desolated and along with Judah would have to serve Babylon. So it could well be argued at the time of Judah' servitude, desolation and exile other nations also experienced that same fury whether at that time or later is unknown so the Babylonish intervention during that time may well have  extended beyond the borders of Judah which raise some additional questions of research. The text in view has a number of interpretations regarding its application to 'these nation's.in the context of the entire chapter. Rolf Furuli has discussed the linguistics of this verse with alternative translations.
Another interpretation concerns these nations viewed metaphorically or theologically namely with the downfall of Jehovah;s kingship at Jerusalem with the end of the Davidic Monarchy it could be said that all other nations were now subject to Babylonian sovereignty. These are just short comments but nothing obscures the simple fact that Judah served Babylon for 70 years whilst exiled at Babylon leaving behind a devastated and depopulated land of Judah and perhaps beyond its borders. It is amazing how one simple expression opens many other doors for further reflection and research and I thank you for quoting that text.
scholar JW
 
 
 
 
 

Ann O Maly
I brought Rainer Albertz up because his view on the timing and nature of the Exile agrees with us in many respects but not all
 
. He begins the Exile not from 609 BCE the choice of many scholars but from the Fall of Jerusalem in 587/6 BCE but differs from us in that he ends the Exile in 539 BCE with the Fall of Babylon.  In that same paragraph on p.2 He begins the Exilic Era from that same event, the Fall of Jerusalem in 587/6 and ends it in 520 BCE which is OK with me. Also, he dates the seventy years from 587 BCE until 517 and not 609 BCE which supports our view but differs on the endpoint based on his interpretation of the two texts in Zechariah.
I repeat nothing of any historical significance occurred in 609 according to NB Chronology. If there is something then state it but remember it must be of such significance that warrants the beginning of the 70 years.  
 
Jere. 25;11 is problematic for all exegetes because ' these nations are not identified. This could refer to the inhabitants of Judah or it could refer to the peoples of the Babylonian Empire. There are a number of linguistic possibilities and the immediate context which targets Judah alone is the determinant factor.
No  I have not checked Furuli's hypothesis as to its validity but others have and it has been subject to Peer Review. But boy it is impressive don't you think?
scholar JW

Anna
Ann O Maly has kindly posted links to two scholarly articles by Ross Winkle on the Seventy Years. I recommend both articles but please be advised that these are published by a University affiliated with the Seventh Day Adventists. Also, if you choose to examine these articles do not neglect the other major  studies that Winkle references in ftn.1. p.201 of first article-PART 1.
Methodology:
1. Read all of the 70 texts and take personal notes on your thoughts
2. Research WT publications on each of those texts so that you have a firm understanding of the subject
3. Read Winkle's article again take personal notes or questions
4. Contact me for any assistance required
scholar JW

JW Insider
I admit to no such thing. Honesty is a two-way street. The simple fact is that NB Chronology as currently presented fails to mention or include the 70 years and its impact on the life and times of its vanquished people and their Land of Judah. the Biblical record contains such a period so when one wishes to construct a scheme based on the Bible then clearly there is a Gap of 20 years. Thus, the NB Period is falsified by this Gap of twenty years so to ignore it is dishonest. The twenty years must be inserted somewhere so that would be at the discretion of the Chronologist and according to his/her Methodology.
You choose to ignore the Gap along with most if not all other scholars so that is fine with me for in any event Chronology is personal, is individual and this accounts for the many schemes and interpretations at present. Chronology is based on  Methodology and Interpretation which underscores the foregoing.
The Gap exists when one compares one scheme with another. If you make no comparison then there is no Gap. If you choose to ignore the historical reality of the 70 years then also there is no Gap. You preach Honesty to me and yet you choose to ignore such a major piece of Biblical/Jewish history which was the Exile leaving Judah totally devastated whilst its population was enslaved by a foreign conqueror-Babylon. Whitewashing history is dishonest and trivializing the period by adopting 'fuzzy' beginning, 609 BCE and a 'fuzzy' end, 539 BCE is also dishonest. Perhaps now you should make that insertion at a point of time within the NB Period!!!
scholar JW

JW Insider
The Babylonian Gap of 20 years is proved by comparing that period with the 70 years of biblical history, The Bible specifies the period which was commensurate with the Babylonian Period therefore that Period requires that adjustment. Such a corrective harmonized all of the data allowing an accurate scheme of chronology to be realized
The scheme of WT chronology.is a valid presentation of all of the evidence and can be tested and has been subject to scholarly inquiry over many decades but recent research has proven its validity such as in the case of Furuli's research into VAT 4956 amongst other things. I am no late entrant into this discussion but remain very comfortable not only with our Chronology but of others and have long debated these matters over decades with many different WT critics.
You do not need a specific point to insert the twenty years but if you require some specificity I would insert it between the Neb's 18th year and the last year of Nabonidus' reign in 539 BCE for that will do nicely.Honesty requires consideration of all relevant factors so if you ignore the 70 years then your scholarship is compromised. This requires sound methodology and this is plainly evident because all factors are considered even secular evidence where necessary and relevant. There is no room for pretentiousness in Chronology but simply following the evidence where it leads.
Traditional Chronology ignores the seventy years mostly and where some have included it in their schemes there is a lack of consistency in its timing or its nature is misconstrued eg such lists or schemes end it with the Fall of Babylon and not the Return so this creates many problems. In your last paragraph, I have answered your question in the foregoing: iNSERT the 20 years anywhere between 587/586 and 539 BCE and that will expand the timeline to 607 BCE. QED
scholar JW

Anna
Herein I will attempt to answer your questions in your last two posts simply for if you read my responses to Ann and JW Insider these would address your questions in part.
The two dates of 609 and 605 BCE are used in our publications for different events so it is not the events but the dates that are not recognized in our publications or in WT/ Bible Chronology. Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 which of course lies between these two dates but these events, the battle at Carchemish and Megiddo preceded the Fall thus must be duly corrected or adjusted.
The dates for those events 629 and 625 now corrected by means of the insertion of the biblical 70 years causing a twenty-year corrective factor.
scholar JW
 

JW Insider
WT Chronology only uses the secular date for the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE for all other dates are based on the biblical narrative counting backwards or forwards in order to construct a scheme of Chronology, During the Neo-Babylonian Period alone there is found to be a Gap of 20 years and thus is used as 'corrective'in order to harmonize Biblical Chronology with traditional Chronology. For Dates that lie outside this period the biblical data where applicable is used to construct a Chronology that goes far back to Adam in 4026 BCE. 
Your claim that 'we have absolutely no idea at what point between 607 and 539 for example, that we have actually added the 20 years that we needed' is simply nonsense.The fact of the matter is that period, the Neo-Babylonian Period parallels Biblical Period of Jewish history and contains events that are or can be synchronized between both schemes. It is proven that there is a 20 years gap which floats between the two because of the '70' years missing from the NB Period historically, therefore, any interpreter, Chronologist or scholar needs to make an adjustment or corrective in order to harmonize the two systems. This is what scholars call -METHODOLOGY!!!!! This represents sound academic practice.
According to at least not half a dozen as you say but there are 17 lines of evidence which would corroborate NB Chronology along with thousands of clay documents wherein no mention or description of the biblical 70 years occurs. How strange! Yet the Bible mentions. discusses, explains this most important and critical period of biblical history so it cannot be ignored for it intruded upon and shaped the NB Period.
scholar JW

Ann
It is impossible to begin the 70 years of nation's servitude in 609 BCE because nothing of any historical significance occurred in that year. At that time it is historically incorrect to speak of any Babylonish domination at that time for the major player in the Region was Egypt and remained a dominant player until the Battle at Carchemish some four years later.Further, nowhere does the OT refer to the expression of '70 years of nation's servitude' for it seems you are conflating this with the seventy years of Jeremiah'.Scholars including Albertz refer to 3 deportations so that means that for some exiles their respective exiles would vary in length as you have explained but when we come to the chronology and nature of the 70 years our minds are focussed on that Exile proper which consumed the nation and as Albertz termed it- a CATASTROPHE. It is this Exile which began after the Fall and lasted until the Return which the 70 years of Jeremiah refer because it was commensurate with a period of servitude to Babylon and Desolation of the land of Judah.
scholar JW

Ann, Yes we have had numerous discussions numerous times and your objections have been countered and rebutted on each and every occasion. Rainer Albertz does conform to traditional Chronology or timeline except that he begins the Exie or Exilic Era from the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/586 BCE, rather than an earlier date. Josephus gives several references which are explanatory of the 70 years and it is only one other that refers to a period of 50 years which alone is contentious.
scholar JW
 

Ann O'Maly
Hi Ann
WT interpretation most certainly accommodates both meanings 'for' or 'at Babylon' because your proposition asserts  that the Exile began 10 years earlier and it is true that for those earlier exiles their length may well have been much longer than 70 years. However, the Biblical passages relevant to this matter synchronize the seventy years with the land being desolate so this requirement necessitates that the Exile proper began only after the Fall in 607 BCE. This viewpoint is in harmony with current scholarship and I urge you to read 'Israel In Exile' by Rainer Albertz and expert in the specialized study of the Exile and Restoration. Further, this also matches the description of the 70 years by Josephus. I can say much more on this topic but that will do for now!
scholar JW

Hi Anna
This highlights a major problem for WT critics as to when should the dating of the 70 years properly begin? Because the beginning of the NB Period is an open question historically speaking. The beginning of the 70 years should be an event that meets all of the prophetic and historic considerations and the only possible candidate for this epochal event is when Jerusalem was destroyed which scholars use the term the 'Fall of Jerusalem'. the 70 years would be and was a period of desolation of the Land Of Judah- a period of servitude for/to Babylon and Exile in/at Babylon- this formula alone encapsulates all of the relevant '70year' texts of Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezra and Zechariah and duly noted by Josephus.
In short, you are quite correct the 70 years applies to Jews exiled to Babylon and to their former homeland-Judah.
scholar JW

JW Insider
No, I cannot agree that Jeremiah's seventy years refers to Babylonish domination alone but only in part for those two texts that you have quoted make it quite clear that the 70 years was also a period of Exile and desolation of the land of Judah.This is proven by the context of Jer. 25:8-11 wherein the Exile and Desolation is well described. In vs. 12 judgement will befall Babylon only after a period of 70 years has expired. In Jer. 29:10 the servitude and Exile to Babylon and in Babylon is foretold. So this means that apart from the other 70 texts of Daniel, Zechariah and Ezra, Jeremiah' confirms the fact of DESOLATION-EXILE-SERVITUDE.
The translation of Jer.29:10 remains a matter of dispute as to whether the Hebrew proposition should properly be rendered as 'for' or'at' as these are possible meanings. However, it does not matter because the above interpretation of the 70 years as outlined above can accommodate either of these two meanings. In short, it makes no difference whatsoever.for the simple reason that the 70 years contains the element of servitude as shown by 'for' indicating purpose  and exile as shown by 'at' indicating location.
The 70 years of Isaiah belonging to TYRE are totally different to Jeremiah's seventy years which belong to Judah so we should not conflate the two periods for the only commonality is that both indicate Babylon's domination either in part or in whole. The 70 years of Jeremiah does contain that one aspect of Babylon's domination or servitude to or for Judah.
scholar JW

Yes, just like all those things were removed in 1914, according to C. T. Russell's predictions.
The world has serious problems, alright, but they have nothing to do with Watch Tower predictions of the future. Not a single visible thing that Watch Tower prophetic speculators have predicted has come true.
AlanF

Yes. It's the same as an article that Brother C.Aulicino had been working on for years. He had been giving most of these points in a couple of non-outline public talks. I was hoping to find that they had been recorded somewhere, because he has about two hours on this same material. He has collected old books (commentaries, etc) on the subject for years. Excellent points.