Srecko Sostar

In this "secular" report JWs volunteers say the opposite. That the people around them are nice, that they approach them and that they chat nicely with them, they say Hi to them, (this remind me on GB command how "simple Hello" is forbidden if you are ex-JW), express their appreciation for what JWs do.
Hey, nobody hates you. Here are your brothers and sisters confirming it George! Wake up!
 
 
 

No, you are mistaken. It is actually individuals like you who manipulate the words of others, solely in an effort to divert attention away from the actual issue at hand.
It's quite humorous that you're comparing one isolated incident with the hundreds of accusations made against JWs. I can't recall anyone persecuting Joel Osteen on the same scale as the ongoing persecution faced by JWs from millions and governments, with supporters like yourself. If you're going to make a comparison, at least find a more valid reason.
 

This is Georg's frequent practice.

This is Georg's frequent practice.

No. That's completely false. I'm glad you admitted that this is what you were thinking, because it's easy to correct. It's not at all because it is generally accepted. Only because 100% of the Neo-Babylonian astronomical diaries that touch upon Nebuchadnezzar's reign consistently point to 587 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign. (19th if you include counting his accession year.) There are at least EIGHT separate references to his king years. And ALL of them indicate that 587 was his 18th year -- with no exceptions and no inconsistencies.
(Jeremiah 32:1, 2) . . .The word that came to Jeremiah from Jehovah in the 10th year of King Zed·e·kiʹah of Judah, that is, the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar. At that time the armies of the king of Babylon were besieging Jerusalem, . . .
 

I'm surprised, but you just pretty much admitted the entire schema and methodology of the Watchtower tradition. As you say, it starts by looking at the secular NB chronology, but determines that, no matter what the NB Chronology says, the fall of Jerusalem must have happened in 607 BCE (else the 1914 prediction fails). So when they see that 607 is 20 years off from the NB Chronology they merely "fine-tune" the entire NB Chronology timeline by adding 20 years. 
This is exactly correct. Thank you.

Armageddon did not happen in 1914.
No possible way to ignore that.
THAT makes WWI ONLY A COINCIDENCE.

The Bible does not give a BCE start date or a BCE end date for the Jewish/Babylonian exile. The Bible, which I consider excellent evidence, says that it was in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. And, fortunately, there is excellent evidence for the BCE date of Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. You can ignore all else, even though the biblical and historical facts ALSO provide excellent and consistent support for the correct BCE dates.  
Not for me. I couldn't care less whether COJ found no evidence, 17 lines of evidence, or 100 lines. It's not about COJ. And it shouldn't be for anyone else, I'd think. Bringing him up is just a way to say that ONE of the THOUSANDS of persons who support 587/586 is an apostate for having supported it, too. So it's just an easy deflection and diversion that "poisons the well" or attempts the ad hominem. If you could provide a good ad hominem for the other THOUSANDS of people who have carefully looked at the evidence then you might be onto something. But I'd still prefer looking at the evidence and not worry about specific individuals you might like or dislike.
If you prefer 586 then say so. If you prefer 587 say so. In the past, just has you are apparently doing here, you always bring up this same argument that because it's either one or the other then it can't be either. To me, that's a very specious argument. 

Although Russell never explicitly stated that Armageddon would occur in 1914, it is clear that he did not have a distorted view of the matter, about the end of the Gentile Times. The fact that World War I coincided with that year cannot be dismissed as a mere coincidence. Therefore, I strongly believe that there is no justification for paying attention to nonsensical claims.

All of the above discussions, and every detail of the above discussions by all sides are totally irrelevant. 
World War One and Two, remember?
Anytime you can incinerate 90,000 people in an instant by making a star over their city makes all other previous human combat irrelevant.
The fact that it was about 2600 years ago and the only evidence is a siege ramp of hand thrown stones up to the inner walls of Ninevah, or Massda, or one wall in Jerusalem makes the whole thing ONLY, and I repeat ONLY … an intellectual exercise.
Armageddon didn’t happen in 1914. WWI was a COINCIDENCE.
Nothing argued here will change that.
Nothing!

Do you know another explanation for why the Watchtower publications present the year 632 instead of 612 as the date for the fall of Nineveh? It's true that the Watchtower never admits the reason they added 20 years to the evidenced date, but they did explain the reason they add 20 years to the 587 date. It's pretty obvious to me that it's for the same reason. You can't change one date without consequences to the surrounding dates. You just have to figure out where you want to start and stop adding the 20 years. That's something the Watchtower publications have NEVER explained.
Claiming someone's explanation "lacks comprehension" without being able to say what specifically was wrong gets us nowhere. It's just an insult that might even give credence to a suspicion that the person trying that tactic can't point out where it's illogical. Until you can, I take it as a tacit admission that my explanation might just as easily be correct as incorrect. You can't say you made any point "precisely" in the past either when you never were able to even try to make a vague point, only an insult, or a false claim that someone was relying heavily on a "person." I rely absolutely ZERO on COJ. That would be stupid. I rely only on evidence.
 The Babylonian Chronicles contain only relative dates. I think we generally already agree on those relative dates. I would never try to prove a BCE date with a relative date. Also your insult about COJ being a regrettable individual for doing just that is a misdirection. I read his book and he NEVER, EVER claims that the Babylonian Chronicles validate 587 over 607. I'm sure you already agree with COJ about the relative dates presented in those Chronicles. If not, you are free to show me where you disagree with the dates provided within those Chronicles. 
Again, if you can't specifically show where, I have to assume you can't. This is why I say that empty insults don't help us make any progress on the topic.
Don't you think there is always a chance that someone might be able to come along and show why these "incorrect perceptions" are incorrect? What you said gives the impression that you are simply afraid of the evidence. If these were my own private beliefs however I would agree. But these are hardly private beliefs. They are based on the difference between what the Watchtower has publicly claimed and what literally HUNDREDS of other publications have already publicly claimed. There is nothing private about it. There should be nothing to hide.
Not only that, the Watchtower itself has encouraged the interest in this claim: 
*** w11 10/1 p. 26 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One ***
This is the first of two articles in consecutive issues of The Watchtower that discuss scholarly questions surrounding the date of the destruction of ancient Jerusalem. This two-part series presents thoroughly researched and Bible-based answers to questions that have puzzled some readers.
“According to historians and archaeologists, 586 or 587 B.C.E. is generally accepted as the year of Jerusalem’s destruction. Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses say that it was 607 B.C.E.? What is your basis for this date?”
SO WROTE one of our readers. But why be interested in the actual date when Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II razed the city of Jerusalem? First, because the event marked an important turning point in the history of God’s people.
 

No problem. I have found that to be true of most fellow Witnesses when it comes to this topic. It's not comfortable to engage when you know where the evidence is heading. 
But for others, I will still go ahead and try to respond to your comments about the evidence and questions you have already asked of me.

It absolutely WAS my intention to discuss evidence regarding the 20-year difference that the Watchtower has been forced to add to the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology prior to 539 (technically 556, see below). It even goes back further to the dates given to the entire Judean and Israelite kingdom.
The most significant of the dates for the Watchtower during this period would be the change from 587 to 607, which is the entire purpose of changing all these other dates you will find specific references for in "Insight" and various other Watchtower articles:
The fall of Nineveh (from 612 to 632) The the 14th year of Nabopolassar (changed from 612 to 632) The the 17th year of Nabopolassar (changed from 609 to 629) The death of Josiah (changed from 609 to 629) The 21st year of Nabopolassar (changed from 605 to 625) The last major battle at Carchemish (changed from 605 to 625) The 1st regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar (changed from 604 to 624) The 7th regnal year "ending" of Nebuchadnezzar (changed from 597 to 617) The 19th regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar (changed from 587 to 607) The 43rd regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar (changed from 562 to 582) Accession year of Evil-Merodach (changed from 562 to 582) Beginning of reign of Nabonidus (NOT CHANGED from 556 to 556) End of reign of Nabonidus (NOT CHANGED from 539 to 539) Note also that, as I mentioned before, these changed dates are directly tied to the Judean (and Israelite) kings, so that the chronology links are changed by 20 years all the way back to David. You can see this in the following Insight quote, that also makes it appear that the most prestigious reference books agree with the Watchtower chronology, even though it's false. Note how the Watchtower adds its changed dates right there within the quotes from Grayson.
*** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***
He led his forces to victory. This took place in the fourth year of Judean King Jehoiakim (625 B.C.E.).—Jer 46:2.
The inscriptions further show that news of his father’s death brought Nebuchadnezzar back to Babylon, and on the first of Elul (August-September), he ascended the throne. In this his accession year he returned to Hattu, and “in the month Shebat [January-February, 624 B.C.E.] he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 100) In 624 B.C.E., in the first official year of his kingship, Nebuchadnezzar again led his forces through Hattu . . .
When you add something to direct quotes and don't clarify or admit that the brackets weren't in the original, it is considered very bad form or even academic dishonesty.
The other thing to notice is that the Watchtower publications force the 20-year gap into the smallest possible reigns of only 2 kings Evil-Merodach who reigned only a few months, and Neriglissar who reigned only 4 years. Unfortunately, for the Watchtower's chronology, the greater part of the Neo-Babylonian years from Nebuchadnezzar to Nabonidus are already ruled out by the Bible itself, forcing the Watchtower to try to squeeze that extra 20 years into the most obvious place where it could never fit and would have been the most conspicuous if it actually existed.
I think that's very relevant information to start out with for anyone who believes there is any merit to the reasons that the Watchtower changed the "evidenced" date for the fall of Nineveh by 20 years. (612 to 632 BCE)
 

If you want to have a serious conversation (and not a "talk show" as a certain V.Putin might call it) then I am quite willing. As long as we continue to discuss evidence rather than personalities and faults and supposed expertise and supposed authority. I don't claim expertise or authority on this topic, but I have long been amazed now at the availability of so much consistent evidence when I used to have the impression that it was all a mess and so much of it contradicted other evidence, and was therefore useless to study. 
In response to what you say above, I did NOT intend to only mention you. In fact I said: "
Pudgy was the one who joined the conversation only to say he wasn't interested in it, and that would therefore include not being interested in facts or evidence about it, one way or another. I usually expect Pudgy to join a conversation like this mostly to make some points about the Democratic Party, and throw in a few memes or cartoons, some of which are his own making and, yes, also to trade insults with you. I have no problem with such additions to topics I have started, but it probably isn't fair to @xero to ask a question and then see most of the responses filled up with unrelated insults.
I admit I had you in mind for some of my other observations, based on some of your statements above, but I'm quite willing to start fresh if you wish.
And I don't think I am any paragon of virtue in this regard. Look at some of the old "back-and-forth"  between me and scholar_jw, or posts referring to Furuli when it comes to this particular topic. I don't control myself very well when I believe I'm seeing academic dishonesty and possibly purposeful diversions and fallacies. In this regard, I understand where you might also be coming from.

I you were directing that statement at me, I am not resorting to gimmicks to revisit the topic of 607 BC.
It's a fact that the Watchtower changed the "evidenced" date for the fall of Nineveh by 20 years from 612 to 632 for only ONE purpose: in order to support the change for the fall of Jerusalem by 20 years from 587 to 607.
*** it-1 p. 205 Assyria ***
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. . . .
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 Duʼuzu, 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.) 
 
I could be wrong, but so far, every time a Witness brings up the difference between Watchtower chronology and the standard accepted chronology, they are invariably referring to the 20-year gap that the Watchtower chronology creates for itself.  @xero can correct me if this is a misconception on my part. 
Put simply, the Watchtower chronology takes every Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian-era date for which there is archaeological or historical evidence prior to 539 BCE and simply adds 20 years to it. This is only done in order to try to resolve (or even "cover up") the fact that there is excellent evidence for Jerusalem being destroyed in 587 BCE but the Watchtower needs it to be 607 BCE. Otherwise they would have to dismiss the idea that the Bible "predicted" 1914. I think the GB will not be able to extricate themselves very easily from this tradition. Even though the Watchtower has claimed that OTHER dates they promoted were even more sure than 1914, they have dropped those dates. Russell indicated that 1874 was more sure and anchored date than 1914 but that date was finally dropped. Rutherford claimed that there was more proof and evidence for 1925 than for 1914, but that date was also dropped. Therefore, the only "sure" date left, then, is 1914 and it would likely be too much of a disappointment for most Witnesses to have to admit we were wrong all along about this supposed "prophecy" -- the only "sure" dated prophecy we have left. 
Those with good access to that evidence often have trouble knowing what to do with it. So when the topic comes up they try to "run interference" by brining up people instead of evidence. (One person, R.Furuli, as a last resort against the evidence published by COJ, did try to run interference against the evidence itself.) But normally, from those who have tried to understand the evidence, you instantly start seeing phrases about people JWI, xero, COJ (Carl O Jonsson), apostates, rather than any real attempt to present evidence.
Did you really think people would fall for the idea that it was Carl Jonsson who "introduced" this nonsense when it was already known by the preponderance of existing evidence since the early 1800's. And now that even more consistent and corroborating evidence has been found, the chronology is now agreed upon by the scholars who have looked into that evidence for over 100 years already. The Watchtower was already commenting on people who wrote to Russell and Rutherford about this same evidence long before COJ was born.  
So it's not about people and their flaws or even scholars and experts who agree with one another. It's about the evidence. 
That said, you did make a point or two in this thread about evidence and since some of those points were directed at me personally, so I will respond. 

Was Jesus an "apostate" or a "whistleblower"?
 
apostasy- https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/apostasy
The act of giving up your religious or political beliefs and leaving a religion or a political party.
apostate - https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/apostate
An apostate is someone who has abandoned their religious faith, political loyalties, or principles.
JWs agree with the general view that Jesus founded Christianity, thus a religion distinct from the Jewish religion. This would mean that Jesus belongs to the category of apostates and more. Not only did he abandon the religion of his fathers, but he founded another, the opposite of the one to which he belonged.
 
whistleblower - https://www.whistleblowers.org/what-is-a-whistleblower/
On the simplest level, a whistleblower is someone who reports waste, fraud, abuse, corruption, or dangers to public health and safety to someone who is in the position to rectify the wrongdoing. A whistleblower typically works inside of the organization where the wrongdoing is taking place; however, being an agency or company “insider” is not essential to serving as a whistleblower. What matters is that the individual discloses information about wrongdoing that otherwise would not be known.  
Because of his constant criticism of the religious leaders and the revelation of their hypocrisy and the injustices they inflicted on the people, Jesus would also be included under this category because of his actions.

Was Jesus an "apostate" or a "whistleblower"?
 
apostasy- https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/apostasy
The act of giving up your religious or political beliefs and leaving a religion or a political party.
apostate - https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/apostate
An apostate is someone who has abandoned their religious faith, political loyalties, or principles.
JWs agree with the general view that Jesus founded Christianity, thus a religion distinct from the Jewish religion. This would mean that Jesus belongs to the category of apostates and more. Not only did he abandon the religion of his fathers, but he founded another, the opposite of the one to which he belonged.
 
whistleblower - https://www.whistleblowers.org/what-is-a-whistleblower/
On the simplest level, a whistleblower is someone who reports waste, fraud, abuse, corruption, or dangers to public health and safety to someone who is in the position to rectify the wrongdoing. A whistleblower typically works inside of the organization where the wrongdoing is taking place; however, being an agency or company “insider” is not essential to serving as a whistleblower. What matters is that the individual discloses information about wrongdoing that otherwise would not be known.  
Because of his constant criticism of the religious leaders and the revelation of their hypocrisy and the injustices they inflicted on the people, Jesus would also be included under this category because of his actions.

Who are you agreeing with?
I have NEVER opined on this issue, ever … because I don’t care at all about fuzzy stuff that may or may not have happened 2600 or so years ago.
It’s IMPOSSIBLE for me to be wrong, because I am not promoting ANY date.
I have never “manipulated any calculations”.
It’s very, very simple.
Your agenda driven hatred of me has completely warped your thinking processes.
You see clearly things which do not exist.

That is because universally you see quite clearly things that do not exist.
The things which DO actually exist your stated agenda prohibits you from seeing.
Your incomprehension is self-inflicted.

The above doesn't convey any valuable insights from a former witness's perspective.

… at least Joe Biden has a good excuse for forgetting what he’s talking about … he’s in his 80’s and demonstrably senile ….

… when you reply “Exactly.” that means you agreed, Georgie.
Woops! …. let’s make sure I quoted you in context …..

You’re reading comprehension is woefully deficient. 
What part of “I don’t care” did you not understand?
Even a rational, provable correct answer has absolutely NO PRACTICAL VALUE .
(…. sheesh! …. what do you do with someone who AGREES with your question, but does not answer it …?)

If you translate from the original Babylonian language it can mean one of two things:
1) “Overlapping generations? Yeah!”, or
2) “ Who gives a crap? Yeah!”.

IF YOU HAD THE CORRECT ANSWER AND COULD PROVE IT, OF WHAT PRACTICAL VALUE WOULD IT BE NOW?

These glaring errors in "enhanced" posts remind me that it is actually quite easy for "AI" scraping tools to even produce false information from wol.jw.org.
For example, it's been pointed out several times in these related discussions that the Insight book often quotes a scholarly source but adds brackets within that quote to insert the special Watchtower chronology, which makes it look like scholarly sources had actually supported the special Watchtower chronology instead of the evidenced chronology. This can fool the AI tools. 
For example:*** it-1 p. 94 Ammonites ***
The inscriptions of Assyrian King Shalmaneser III, who ruled in the time of King Jehu (c. 904-877 B.C.E.) of Israel, claim that the forces of “Baʼsa, son of Ruhubi, from Ammon” were among a coalition of kings opposing Assyria in the battle of Karkar. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 1974, p. 279) 
The quote appears to use the scholarly reference "Ancient Near Eastern Texts" as support for the special Watchtower dates, but that book would reject those dates. This is all the more important when it's done in a section especially concerned with Chronology and dates.
*** it-1 p. 190 Ashdod ***
A stone prism of Sennacherib of Assyria says that “Mitinti from Ashdod” brought him sumptuous gifts and kissed his feet, and it adds concerning King Hezekiah of Judah (745-717 B.C.E.): “His towns which I had plundered, I took away from his country and gave them (over) to Mitinti, king of Ashdod.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 1974, pp. 287, 288) Ashdod seems to have been in a weakened state by the time of Jeremiah (after 647 B.C.E.) so that he spoke of “the remnant of Ashdod.” (Jer 25:20) Nebuchadnezzar, whose rule began in 624 B.C.E. . . .
*** it-1 p. 205 Assyria ***
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.) . . . 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 Duʼuzu, 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.)
Note that the last one above even includes the phrase: "brackets and parentheses theirs." Yet the special Watchtower dates 632 BCE and 629 BCE, also in parentheses, are rejected by the reference work in favor of the evidenced dates. 
*** it-2 pp. 178-179 Kittim ***
This is in harmony with the historical evidence for Phoenician colonies in Cyprus at the time of Isaiah’s prophesying (c. 778–a. 732 B.C.E.). An inscription of Sennacherib relates the flight of King Luli of Sidon to the island of Iadnana (Cyprus) as the result of the Assyrian attack. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, pp. 287, 288)
 
And what about cases where no quote marks are used, as in the reference above. How would "AI" know that dates given are NOT supported by the referenced book, and that even here the special Watchtower chronology has taken the evidenced dates and added 20 years to them without admitting it?
Who would know that the following, which make it appear that cuneiform tablets support Watchtower dates, are actually NOT supported by those tablets or the referenced book about such tablets?
*** it-2 p. 457 Nabonidus ***
Last supreme monarch of the Babylonian Empire; father of Belshazzar. On the basis of cuneiform texts he is believed to have ruled some 17 years (556-539 B.C.E.). He was given to literature, art, and religion.
In his own inscriptions Nabonidus claims to be of noble descent. A tablet found near ancient Haran gives evidence that Nabonidus’ mother or grandmother was a devotee of the moon-god Sin. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, pp. 311, 312) As king, Nabonidus showed great devotion to the worship of the moon-god, both at Haran and at Ur, where this god occupied a dominant position.—PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 324.
Cuneiform tablets of the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar (Nisan 617-Nisan 616 B.C.E.) list a certain Nabu-naʼid as the one “who is over the city,” and some historians believe this is the same Nabonidus who later became king. However, this would mean that Nabonidus was a very young man when placed in such administrative position and would make him extremely aged at the fall of Babylon, some 77 years later (539 B.C.E.).
Discussing events in the 20th year of Nebuchadnezzar (Nisan 605-Nisan 604 B.C.E.), the Greek historian Herodotus (I, 74) describes a treaty negotiated between the Lydians and the Medes by one “Labynetus the Babylonian” as mediator. 
And how would one know in the above reference that 20 years was added to every date EXCEPT 539, which creates a bigger problem for that reference to that claim about Nabonidus being 77 years old? It uses the phrase "some historians believe" and implies therefore that some of them believe he would be 77. This is false, of course. Also if one were to look further into it, they would see an even bigger problem with the same Insight article references to Nabonidus' mother (or grandmother). [She evidently died at 104, but inscriptions for her actually list out the number of years she lived under each Babylonian king, and it happens to perfectly match the evidence from King's Lists, all the contemporary business documents, and "Ptolemy's Canon," VAT 4956, all the astronomical tablets, etc.
There are many more of these in Insight, and not just from Pritchard's book. In fact, you can actually backtrack the AI @xero quoted with a likely scrape from Insight here:
*** it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***
One fragmentary Babylonian text, dated to Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year (588 B.C.E.), does, in fact, mention a campaign against Egypt. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, p. 308) But it cannot be established whether it relates to the original conquest or a later military action.
 
That's the most likely place from which "AI" misunderstood to create the following:
Anyway, this could go on and on. Just shows the danger of reliance on these tools. And there's a good chance it will also be reading what we're writing here. Yikes!