Foreigner

!

The image was a bit small. I have page 208 in text format which generally uses the spacing and line break style of the original, with original spellings:
------------------------------------------------------
[resur-]rection of the dead, and on the triumphant era of blessed-
ness, which immediately ensues.   I would again impress
on the mind of the reader, that these events depend upon
the fulfilment of the chronological periods ; and that as
the " new heaven and new earth," which are created at
the second judgment, and at the time of the general resur-  
rection, necessarily synchronise with Daniel's era of blessed-  
ness ;  so must the " new heaven and new earth " be con-  
sidered as succeeding the '' old heaven and old earth," or
the tyrannical monarchies of the old dispensation.   The  
times of these monarchies are fixed by the " seven times "
of the symbolic image, and by the 1335 years of the Mo-
hammedan Imposture ;  and unless it can be shown that
erroneous data have been assumed, on which these chro-
nological periods have been founded, then must it be
maintained that the forty-five years of Daniel are the
period of the second judgment ; and, commencing in 1873,
are attended by the sitting of that judgment, and by the
general resurrection, the last hour of which terminates
with the " seven times " of the monarchies, and with the
1335 Mohammedan years, in 1917.  It may be further ob-
served, that it is a judgment of the " wicked " only ; be-
cause the righteous rise first, and attend Christ " at his
coming."  Death, hell and the sea, and their dead, sub-
sequently stand in judgment.
     The Saviour himself, speaking of the signs of his se-
cond coming, foretels all these events ;  and upon that
memorable occasion, when he predicted the treading down
of Jerusalem, and " that the Jews should be led captive
into all nations," during the times of the Gentiles, ob-
viously refers to the sitting of the second judgment, at
which he is to appear as the Judge. " Heaven and earth,"
or the dispensation of the tyrannical empires, which were
the instruments of the captivity and desolation of his peo-
ple, he declares " shall pass away,"---the very token of the
second judgment,--- " but my words shall not pass away."
Verily I say unto you, " This generation shall not pass
away till all be fulfilled."  Whatever, therefore, be the [p.209]
criticisms upon these extraordinary words . . .
--------------------------------------------------

Sorry, Scholar JW Pretendus, but I'm through trying to wade through your river of lies.
I'll no longer sully myself with your excrement.
AlanF

Apologies to @scholar JW but it's pretty clear that the Watchtower had already given away the answer, back in 1983, which shows clearly that AlanF is correct, as was Ann, Carl Jonsson, and many others:
*** w83 8/1 p. 20 par. 15 Israel and the “Times of the Gentiles” ***
15 In the dream that Jehovah God sent to his “servant,” King Nebuchadnezzar, there were “seven times” that were decreed from heaven. How do these connect up with “the times of the Gentiles” or coincide and become identical with them?  
THUS, EXAMPLES which would only make sense if the connection/link/etc means an "equating."
*** w98 9/15 p. 15 par. 1 Waiting in “Eager Expectation” ***
Similarly, a prophecy providentially caused sincere 19th-century Bible students to be in expectation. By linking the “seven times” of Daniel 4:25 with “the times of the Gentiles,” they anticipated that Christ would receive Kingdom power in 1914. *** yb75 p. 37 Part 1—United States of America ***
Very noteworthy was the striking accuracy with which that book pointed to the end of the Gentile Times, “the appointed times of the nations.” (Luke 21:24) It showed (on pages 83 and 189) that this 2,520-year period, during which Gentile or non-Jewish nations would rule the earth without interference by any kingdom of God, began with the Babylonian overthrow of the kingdom of Judah in the late seventh century B.C.E. and would end in 1914 C.E. Even earlier, however, C. T. Russell wrote an article entitled “Gentile Times: When Do They End?” It was published in the Bible Examiner of October 1876, and therein Russell said: “The seven times will end in A.D. 1914.” He had correctly linked the Gentile Times with the “seven times” mentioned in the book of Daniel. (Dan. 4:16, 23, 25, 32) True to such calculations, 1914 did mark the end of those times and the birth of God’s kingdom in heaven with Christ Jesus as king. Just think of it! Jehovah granted his people that knowledge nearly four decades before those times expired. *** jv chap. 10 p. 134 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth ***
As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in London, England, calculated the “seven times” of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length. But he did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did, however, connect these “seven times” with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. In 1844, E. B. Elliott, a British clergyman, drew attention to 1914 as a possible date for the end of the “seven times” of Daniel, but he also set out an alternate view that pointed to the time of the French Revolution. Robert Seeley, of London, in 1849, handled the matter in a similar manner. At least by 1870, a publication edited by Joseph Seiss and associates and printed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was setting out calculations that pointed to 1914 as a significant date, even though the reasoning it contained was based on chronology that C. T. Russell later rejected. *** w15 6/15 p. 22 par. 12 Live in Harmony With the Model Prayer—Part I ***
12 When the time approached for God’s Kingdom in the hands of Jesus to start ruling from heaven, Jehovah helped his people to understand the timing of events. In 1876, an article written by Charles Taze Russell was published in the magazine Bible Examiner. That article, “Gentile Times: When Do They End?,” pointed to 1914 as a significant year. The article linked the “seven times” of Daniel’s prophecy with “the appointed times of the nations” spoken of by Jesus.—Dan. 4:16; Luke 21:24. *** w84 4/1 p. 16 par. 4 Heed God’s Prophetic Word for Our Day ***
4 That year 1914—what of it? Over a century ago, C. T. Russell (who became the first president of the Watch Tower Society) linked the Gentile Times with the “seven times” mentioned in the book of Daniel. (Daniel 4:16, 23, 25, 32; Luke 21:24, Authorized Version) Writing in the Bible Examiner of October 1876, Russell said: “The seven times will end in A.D. 1914.” He also was a joint publisher of the 1877 book Three Worlds, and the Harvest of This World, which showed (on pages 83 and 189) that the 2,520-year period of Gentile world domination without interference by any kingdom of God began with the Babylonian overthrow of the kingdom of Judah in the late seventh century B.C.E. and would end in 1914 C.E. Similarly, the Watch Tower issue of March 1880 stated: “‘The Times of the Gentiles’ extend to 1914, and the heavenly kingdom will not have full sway till then.”  

Scholar JW Pretendus wrote:
:::: I have always explained exactly what Brown meant by "connecting" them. And that connection is not what the Society implied in the Proclaimers book (p. 134), which is that Brown equated the two time periods. The implication is clear from the arguments presented in the Proclaimers book
Wrong. I wrote about this back in the mid-1990s, shortly after I got hold of photocopies from microfilm of both volumes of "The Even-Tide".
Once again you're trying to mislead readers. Only saying that there was a "connection" is meaningless. What connection? The context is that the Society is trying to justify an equation between the "seven times" and the "Gentile times", and is supposedly giving a history of that equation, so the reader will automatically understand "connect" to mean "equate", especially since the actual connection is nowhere explained.
Exactly what I've been saying all along. You're finally forced to admit that Jonsson was correct in his criticism and so was I.
:: Again the point is that the Proclaimers book strongly implies that Brown equated the two periods, whereas he only said that they were somewhat related or vaguely connected. Why else would the author italicize the statement
You've contradicted what you wrote above. You're so accustomed to lying that you no longer know the difference between truth and falsehood, and switch between the two from paragraph to paragraph. LOL!
:: Once again, in context, the Proclaimers book was expounding on the "seven times" and the "Gentile Times". Almost all readers already know that Watch Tower tradition is that the two periods are the same. The whole section is titled "End of the Gentile Times". Brown set forth complicated expositions on these two time periods, almost all of which would be unknown to almost all readers. The Proclaimers book gives no indication about these expositions. Therefore, in context, when the book says that Brown "connected" these periods, the reader is meant to understand that Brown "equated" the periods -- not that he left his readers with some vague, unexplained "connection".
It certainly wasn't. It was written to deceive Jehovah's Witnesses by telling half-truths and making misleading statements.
Except that the context shows that "connect" is implied to mean "equate". Again, the author's use of italics to emphasize his statement proves his intent, and that intent was to contradict what someone else had already written. Read it again:
>>
End of the Gentile Times
The matter of Bible chronology had long been of great interest to Bible students. Commentators had set out a variety of views on Jesus’ prophecy about "the times of the Gentiles" and the prophet Daniel's record of Nebuchadnezzar's dream regarding the tree stump that was banded for "seven times."--Luke 21:24, KJ; Dan. 4:10-17.
As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in London, England, calculated the "seven times" of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length. But he did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did, however, connect these "seven times" with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24.
>>
Once again, because most readers, especially JW readers, are well aware that the Watch Tower Society has always equated these two periods, when the Proclaimers book uses the word "connect", readers will automatically interpret that to mean "equate". That is especially so in view of the book's failure to mention that Brown did not equate the two periods.
Imagine a test of reading comprehension which asks:
What connection did John A. Brown make between the "seven times" and the "Gentile Times"?
The natural and automatic answer is: He equated them.
Exactly as I keep saying.
:: Jonsson's overall exposition is on how the notion of the "Gentile times" came to be, and how various expositors came to calculate a "seven times" period of 2,520 years and to equate that period with the "Gentile times". In that context Jonsson wrote: "The first expositor known to have arrived at a period of 2,520 years was John Aquila Brown in 1823. He did not associate this period with the Gentile times of Luke 21:24, however; to him the Gentile times were a period of 1,260 lunar years, corresponding to 1,242 Julian years." Note the word "associate". That's another vague word that often takes on a clear meaning only in context. In this context it clearly means "equate", because Jonsson explicitly states that Brown viewed the 2,520 years as different from the 1,260 lunar years of the "Gentile times". Indeed, on page 22 Jonsson wrote: "The 2,520 years were soon identified by other expositors with the "Gentile times" of Luke 21:24." Obviously, "identified" here means "equated". Therefore, "associate" in this overall context also means "equate". So Jonsson was correct, and it's quite obvious that, if the author of the Proclaimers book read Jonsson's book (very unlikely), he misunderstood it
Yet another red herring, as shown below.
Keep in mind that Jonsson published GTR 2nd edition in 1986, long before the Proclaimers book was published, and that some of the material in GTR 3rd edition (1998) was a response to the misinformation in the Proclaimers book.
Yet another fine example of deliberate misrepresentation by gobble-de-goop. Here is what Jonsson wrote in GTR 3rd edition, pp. 67-69:
<<
True, the Society finally admits that Russell took over his calculation of the Gentile times from Nelson H. Barbour, who had published it one year before Russell "in the August, September, and October 1875 issues of the Herald of the Morning." In the preceding paragraph the book even seeks to enlist the 19th-century expositors of the 2,520-year calculation as supporting the 1914 date. This impression is further enhanced by the bold-typed statement to the left of the paragraph: "They could see that 1914 was clearly marked by Bible prophecy." The presentation of the history, however, is narrowly limited to a few carefully selected expositors, the calculations of whom are partially obscured, adjusted and arranged so as to create the impression that the 2,520-year calculation uniquely pointed forward to 1914. None of the many other terminal dates arrived at by expositors before Russell are mentioned. Thus, although John A. Brown is stated to have arrived at the 2,520 years "as early as 1823," his particular application of the period is completely veiled and distorted in the subsequent sentences:
<< But he did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did, however, connect these 'seven times' with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. >>
Quite to the contrary, as shown in the chapter above, Brown expressly stated as his firm conviction that the 2,520-year period began in 604 B.C.E. and would end in 1917. Further, despite the Society's italicized statement, Brown did not connect the 2,520 years with the Gentile times of Luke 21:24, because, as pointed out in the chapter above, he held the Gentile times referred to in this text to be 1,260 (lunar) years, not "seven times" of 2,520 years. Both statements about Brown's calculation, then are demonstrably false.
>>
Clearly, when Jonsson used "connect" in the above, he used it in the sense "equate". Obviously he understood the Proclaimers book to mean "equate". Obviously, as I pointed out, Jonsson used "associate" in the sense "equate" in GTR 2nd edition.
In view of the above specific information, Scholar JW Pretendus, it's obvious that your above statements are just gobble-de-goop designed to confuse readers, i.e., a red herring.
     
:: I happen to have excellent reading comprehension, and am not prone to misinterpreting subtle cues in Watch Tower literature. Once again, the overall context of the Proclaimers book here is how the "seven times" came to be equated with the "Gentile Times". With that context in mind, the statement that Brown "did connect these 'seven times' with the Gentile Times" clearly implies that Brown equated the two periods. This is especially so because the book gives no information about how the periods were "connected" apart from the implication that they were equated.  
Oh, the wonderful hypocrisy!
I said that to goad you into yet another bit of hypocrisy.
As I continue to say, that research was done 14 years ago and a summary is available: https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/
The fact that you refuse to deal with that research says a great deal about your scholastic honesty.
Yes, we know that. But the Proclaimers book implies an equation.
You're making after-the-fact excuses, now that the false implication has been clearly pointed out.
 
:: How about you quote them and then explain how each sentence supports your claim
And here I'd think that you'd love to demonstrate your scholarly prowess by carefully showing exactly what Brown meant.
Yet another punt by a master of scholastic punting.
AlanF

Ann O Maly
Boy I am trembling all over as I face the mighty juggernaut of Alan F but I have dealt with far greater minds than the pretender, Alan F. It seems that we are now in embedded with personalities so perhaps I should throw Emeritus Professor Michael Hasofer and his wife Atara into the mix who were converted to Orthodox Judaism because of Jehovah's Witnesses, its a fascinating story.
Further, I chose not to post p. 208 because of your attitude and I still remain puzzled why it has taken you so long to procure the document and Why you have had to get help from Alan F- your hero to get you out of the mess.
No, it is you who do not pay attention to detail for my reference to Franz's COC was sourced from page 367 in the 2nd edition, September, 1994. Please consider the Appendix and the first paragraph on page 367 which begins:"Now, for the first time"
scholar JW
,..

You had listed your source as this, Nana: 
The Bible Dictionary was commenting on the Nabonidus Chronicle but, because the Bible Dictionary was published in the 19th century, its dating of the Persian conquest of Babylon was a year out.
The Nabonidus Chronicle only gives a damaged '17th year' of Nabonidus for Babylon's fall - it doesn't contain BCE dating. The modern scholar has to deduce the BCE date by other means. As I said, the Bible Dictionary was out a year.
Nice try, though.

Thanks @Ann O'Maly and it looks like thanks also to @AlanF for posting the pages in question. Of course, for anyone who really wanted to know, they already could have found enough of the content of those pages that had already been posted and discussed by both "AlanF" and a person calling himself "Earnest" on another forum and then again by AlanF on a separate blog at corior.blogspot.
On a major forum, AlanF had even exposed some of the content that @scholar JW has already made reference to here on this forum, under this current topic. (Referring to correspondence with WTS, COJ, Franz, etc.) A person on that same forum named "Earnest" had even quoted sufficient portions of those two paragraphs from page 208, which are still there to read for anyone who wishes. They can just search Google, for example, with phrases like the following (including the quote marks):
"john aquila brown" "Ray Franz, Carl Jonsson"
But I had also seen that AlanF had even quoted from a few other pages of Volume II, including the the near context of page 208 (pps. 68-9, 135, 152, 206). Just google:
"Part 5: Sanitizing the Past"
I also have the book "Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers" by Froom, volume 3. It contains a very good discussion of John Aquila Brown in the context of all his own proposed time periods compared with others being presented at the time. All in all, these resources have made it clear to me that Jonsson had it right from both a high-level perspective and a detail level perspective. It even reminded me that the April 2018 Watchtower (p.30,31) may have had this very type of exchange in mind when they spoke of allowing "apostates" and other critics to sow distrust through a forum that allows dialogue. The "Proclaimers" book gives the appearance that it may have actually been written in such a way as to engage in dialogue with "apostate" reasoning, on this specific point, as an attempt to offer a kind of "gotcha." Something similar had been tried in the Appendix of the "Kingdom Come" book in 1981, and two Watchtower articles in 2011. Unfortunately, I think that these particular attempts backfired on the WTS, and I'm sure they do not wish for this kind of embarrassment to show up again.  

Yikes! I run off for a day, and someone throws a party. I almost hate to interrupt, but it does look like you responded with 2 Chron 36, which I must admit, does appear to be the Biblical evidence against the claim I made when i said;  ' But nowhere does the Bible say that the full and complete desolation measured from some specific point in time, was to begin counting off the 70 year period. In fact, there is no Bible passage that says the entire 70 years of Babylonian domination was equal to be equal in length to a 70 year period of full desolation.'
It's almost ironic that a side conversation is going on about how John Aquila Brown had made a 'connection' between his 1260-year "Gentile Times" ending in 1844 and his 2,520-year period of the "Four Tyrannical Kingdoms" ending in 1917. John Aquila Brown made a connection without equating the periods. I think even "scholar JW" agrees with that much. And here we have 2 Chronicles speaking of a period of 70 years spoken by Jeremiah, and he connects them with a period when the land would pay off its sabbaths during all the days that the land would lay desolate. He appears to connect them, but does not equate them.
It seems to be similar to how a prophetic type in Jonah connects his being in the belly of a large fish for 3 days, and how the fulfillment is tied to the idea that Jesus would be in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights. There is an emphasis on the 3 day and 3 night period, even though the direct connection in the case of Jesus was more likely a reference to Jesus being in the grave all of Saturday, plus a few hours on Friday afternoon, and a few short hours on Sunday morning. Maybe 36 hours instead of 72 (3x24).
The prophetic period of "70 years" loomed large in these days and may have connected several periods in a loose way, especially since we know that the desolations that started as early as 604 ultimately resulted in more and more abandoned fields, abandoned cities, attacked cities, attacked populace, captured populace, two or three occasions of taking sacred utensils from Jerusalem, two or three sieges of Jerusalem. Finally, the desolation was effectively complete somewhere between Neb's 19th year and Neb's 24th year.
Nebuchadnezzar was a kind of abomination that caused desolations, not just a single desolation. The idea is used in the plural almost as often as it is used in the singular. Even when used in the singular it is often paired with plural places --desolate places-- so that the idea of plural desolations is still obvious. Notice how this fact is hidden in the NWT translation of Daniel 9:2:
(Daniel 9:2) 2 in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of years mentioned in the word of Jehovah to Jeremiah the prophet to fulfill the desolation of Jerusalem, namely, 70 years. But the Hebrew does not say 'desolation' חָרְבָּה of course. It says 'desolations' חָרְבֹות . As the ESV, quoted earlier says:
(Daniel 9:2, ESV) in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years. Can you see the difference?
Of course, as I've said before, I'm not a stickler for starting and ending these 70 years as of a specific certain event in the life of Neb., and I'm not so convinced that the 70 years must stop instantly with the event that freed the Jews from Babylonian captivity: i.e., the removal of Babylonian dominance by its capture in the first year of Cyrus over Babylon. Of course, this is the primary sense in Jeremiah, but I think it's clear that the 70-year period of that prophecy became a focus of several associated time periods that would find fulfillment either within that period, or because of that time period.
One of the "desolations" (In Hebrew, it's also the word for "drought") was the spiritual "drought" caused by the desolation of the Temple. That particular "drought" must have been seen as connected with the 70 years of desolation, too, even though the connected  70-year period would have run from about Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year up to the first few years of Darius. (see: Zechariah, Haggai)
At any rate, the evidence on the ground is that we can only find about 50 years between the destruction of Jerusalem in Neb's 19th year and the overthrow of Babylon in the first year of Cyrus. By evidence on the ground, I mean, literally, the tens of thousands of dated contract tablets, with or without the multiple examples of other evidence that will also mesh perfectly with these tablets. If we allow two or three extra years after the first year of Cyrus and start with the desolation in Neb's 8th year, we could get about 63 years, but still not 70. If we go all the way back to the time when the Babylonian power proved itself as the next power over Assyria (or even a combination of Assyria and Egypt), then we get a complete 70 years, and it perfectly fits Jeremiah's prophecy that the 70 years were "for Babylon" even though they would "effect'' the fulfillment of the desolations upon Judea and Jerusalem. I don't see a contradiction between 2 Chronicles 36 and Jeremiah 25, even if the focus is different. 

Your antiquated source has Cyrus conquering Babylon in 538 rather than the established 539. It doesn't help you determine that Cyrus could only issue his decree from Oct 538. In reality, once the year is corrected, it shows that Cyrus could only issue his decree from Oct 539. We have no issue with Cyrus issuing his decree after Oct 539.
 
(Just saw Alan had already addressed this. Soz.)

No, I actually meant friends in the truth.
I understand, but maybe you did not read my other post to you* where I mention that I haven't seen you presenting any valid counter arguments which could convince an unbiased observer to side with your explanation. What I said was that your arguments would not stand up in trial.  It's like the opposition is talking about apples and you are talking about oranges. The opposition is talking about dates (not the fruit ) and numbers, and you are talking about feelings and motives and evidence on the ground....
How is that? As far as I know, probably more than 90% of the friends (Jehovah's Witnesses) do not understand 1914, or to be more specific, do not understand how we arrive at 1914, and don't even try.
Yes. Us simple folks need numbers. Numbers are nice. People like numbers and dates. They help to tangibly anchor ideas or situations in the stream of time. Without dates it's just not the same. Try reading a biography or a report without them. And of course not to mention the fact that dates are essential for establishing time periods in history and a billion other things. Jehovah is the arbiter of time, and is the great timekeeper. BUT that does not mean the dates and numbers and lengths of periods we simple folks put together are always correct are they? What has happened to the millions that were not supposed to die? (they did). What has happened to the generation that was not supposed to pass away? (they have, practically) What has happened to the children that were not supposed to even finish school in this system? (they did, and they have children of their own). What has happened to the world that can't get any worse? (it did, and still might) As you say, the proof is in the pudding.
So that is why, when the rubber hits the road, we need to have faith in Jehovah, not man.
(*I wish the posts were numbered so that they could be easily referenced @admin @The Librarian)

I'm amazed (or am I? I shouldn't be really) that you still claim this, repeating the Proclaimers book's error. I've lost count how many times you've been corrected on this point over the past decade or so by several individuals. @JW Insider has just corrected you again! and yet you persist. 
I'll c&p a portion of my email to you from 2012:
Readers can see for themselves: https://www.scribd.com/document/299825677/The-Even-Tide-by-John-Aquila-Brown-1823
 

I would have to say, you and I are looking at the same historical "evidence" with an open mind, NOT a closed one that is determined to support inaccurate knowledge of history and scripture.

 

The word salad is the only one aggressively being, served. Therefore, the *FALSE* premise becomes that VAT4956 covers 37 years of Nebuchadnezzar ‘s reign with NO MENTION of a catastrophic event being mentioned, that scripture describes. Therefore, as far as this tablet is concerned, Jerusalem was destroyed in 605BC, 3 years after King Jeroiakim, upset Nebuchadnezzar, and then after being upset, even more, he had God’s House Destroyed in 587BC.  If other tablets have those types of observations? Then what does that tell us about this record keeping tablet, that can be speculated in, both ways? This tablet doesn’t have the value that ex-witnesses (faders) wish it to have.
 
 
 
 
A conjecture is only relevant to those that oppose the WT chronology by misleading hypothesis.
I believe the rest of your post has become irrelevant, and contradictory. Perhaps you feel better debating someone else since your tone has become "ad hominem" as you indicated on the last page, and I have no need for it. Thank you for your opinion.
 

The word salad is the only one aggressively being, served. Therefore, the *FALSE* premise becomes that VAT4956 covers 37 years of Nebuchadnezzar ‘s reign with NO MENTION of a catastrophic event being mentioned, that scripture describes. Therefore, as far as this tablet is concerned, Jerusalem was destroyed in 605BC, 3 years after King Jeroiakim, upset Nebuchadnezzar, and then after being upset, even more, he had God’s House Destroyed in 587BC.  If other tablets have those types of observations? Then what does that tell us about this record keeping tablet, that can be speculated in, both ways? This tablet doesn’t have the value that ex-witnesses (faders) wish it to have.
 
 
 
 
A conjecture is only relevant to those that oppose the WT chronology by misleading hypothesis.
I believe the rest of your post has become irrelevant, and contradictory. Perhaps you feel better debating someone else since your tone has become "ad hominem" as you indicated on the last page, and I have no need for it. Thank you for your opinion.
 

But you were wrong. Humility and sincerity require that we look at our mistakes and try not to repeat them.
And Babylonian dates are verified by Greek sources, Persian sources, tens of thousands of clay tablets, and also with Babylonian chronicles. The Babylonian sources are verified in the same way as Persian sources. The weaknesses in these sources affect the Persian rulers in the same way as they affect the Neo-Babylonian rulers. The strengths in these sources do the same.
This is only one of the ways in which Persian dates have been counted. Olympiads is also one of the ways in which we can "reliably" learn that the date for Jerusalem's fall is not the date that the Watchtower has promoted. The Olympiad dating is further evidence to confirm the interlocking dates of the entire period.
The organization uses the Babylonian chronicles, astronomical diaries and king's lists. The organization relies upon copies of copies of secular sources in order to use secular dates like 539 and 537.
Quote this The Watchtower Society relies upon astronomical calculations to get the secular dates that the organization promotes. The problem with the description of eclipses is not related to the dating of the Neo-Babylonian period.
It's usually true that humility and sincerity are necessary to avoid repeating the same mistakes. If one of the mistakes that is commonly made is to brag about having correctly predicted something decades in advance, but anyone can look up and see that what was predicted decades in advance was something else entirely, then we should look at the motive. I am sure that the "straw man" idea of an organization that "spends their entire time thinking up plots on how to cover up the 'mistake of 1914'" is ridiculous. I would guess that as little time as possible is spent thinking about the mistake of 1914. But if we find dishonesty in 100% of the instances where the topic did come up, we have a right to be suspicious of the motives for bringing it up. Just as you and I have a right to be suspicious of the motives of ex-JWs and apostates who bring up the subject when and if they make false claims about it.
I agree that this could be the crux of the problem. I think it should bother us when we see the 607 theory and the 1914 theory produce contradictions in our literature, purposeful mistranslations of the Hebrew and Greek in our own Bibles, and a string of interpretations of related doctrines that rely on the least likely meanings of the Bible text.
Hopefully, we will stop using these Babylonian dates in our literature. Our repeated rehash of these Babylonian dates implies that the Bible is not sufficient, not enough for us to be fully equipped for every good work. The more one looks into the evidence it appears that it is based on a presumptuous and unscriptural agenda. Not of everything, of course, but just a portion of our teachings, that most of us probably no longer consider "core teachings," anyway. We should be humble enough to look at the Bible and the secular evidence we have imposed upon it with an open mind.
I understand that it makes for better "unity" if we all just go along and gullibly agree with all things, but was it really better for all of us that we kept 1874 as a Biblical teaching up until 1943 and even kept 1878 as part of a Biblical teaching up until the 1960's? The problems that such chronological teachings caused in 1918, 1919, 1925, and 1975 were caused primarily through "unity" but was this really "unity" in the cause of "truth" or of mere conformity to a false teaching?

VAT4956 illustrates exactly what direction one needs to go to get to exactly the 18th and to get to exactly to the 19th year. That's the thing about an astronomical diary that tells you what year aligns to Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year. From there you know what direction you need to go to reach the 18th and 19th years or any other prior year in his reign. And it does this from the front side. It does this from the back side. And it does this from both sides.
If you go back to the post you made here on Saturday, 12/23, the one with the Map of the Ancient Near East, you can see that you went from a mistaken or unproven premise and then said that this [false premise] was why VAT4956 tells us nothing about the 18-19 years, and that VAT4956 can only be used to show what his first (accession) year was. As you said:
While it's true that knowing his 37th year was 568 will also tell you that his accession year was 605, it ALSO tells you that:
his first year was 604 and his 18th year was 587 and his 19th year was 586 and his 36th year was 569 and his 35th year was 570. It pinpoints which year matches every regnal year from 605 to 568. Claiming otherwise is a math mistake just as false as claiming that 4+1=6, or worse, really. It is the same as saying: If 568+37 = 605, then 568+36=0 [nothing] and 568+1=0[nothing] and 568+19=0[nothing]. You made an incorrect conjecture, rather than basing what you said on scholarly findings or scripture or simple math.
This is "word salad" with non-sequiturious dressing. 
We can if it will help. But for nearly half its existence the Watchtower, along with educated people like Fred Franz, believed and promoted a "Bible" chronology that we now admit is false. Franz, Russell, Rutherford all had plenty of Bible understanding, yet two of them taught a Bible chronology until they died, that the Watchtower now considers to be false. They used the term "absolute" and "God's dates, not ours" incorrectly. An archaeologist can correctly make use of the term "absolute" even if they are talking about a style of canoe made in New Guinea. They need absolutely no Bible understanding to use the term with its correct scholarly meaning.
Quite the opposite of justifying how contradictory it would be. You are veering off into bad math again. VAT4956 tells you to start . . .
his 17th year in 588, his 18th year in 587 his 19th year in 586 his 20th year in 585 his 27th year in 578 his 37th year in 568 If you really can't see where it does "indicate in VAT4956 where one should start to view 587 BC specifically," then you shouldn't be  talking about contradictory evidence or what VAT4956 does and does not indicate. Secular chronology does not place the 18th and 19th year where it "wishes."
More word salad.
This is irrelevant to the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. Would you say that the Watchtower publications are biased because they look at the books of Kings and Chronicles with errors? Note, how the Insight book inserts the bracketed words "actually, the fifteenth" instead of "the thirty-fifth" year of Asa. If you read "Insight" you will see that it suggests that the Bible contains scribal errors in several other books, too.
*** it-1 p. 184 Asa ***
So, too, the apparent difference between the statement at 2 Chronicles 15:19 to the effect that, as for “war, it did not occur down to the thirty-fifth [actually, the fifteenth] year of Asa’s reign,” It is not necessary to read the rest of this post, but it covers not even half of the potential scribal errors that the Watchtower publications have made reference to in the attempt to correct errors in the Bible text. I'm sure you are aware that there is even a chronology "glitch" in the book of Daniel that the Watchtower publications have discussed at length so that the meaning we give this verse is quite different from the actual statements in Daniel.
*** it-1 p. 412 Capital ***
(1Ki 7:15, 16) In view of the passages indicating that the capitals were five cubits high, a number of scholars have concluded that the reference to “three cubits” in 2 Kings 25:17 is a scribal error. That is why some Bible translations (for example, JB, NAB) have replaced “three cubits” with “five cubits.” *** it-1 p. 570 Daleth ***
The fourth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. There is considerable similarity between the letters daʹleth [ד] and rehsh [ר], allowing for possible scribal errors in copying. This may account for various differences in spelling, such as that of the “Rodanim” at 1 Chronicles 1:7 and the “Dodanim” at Genesis 10:4. *** it-1 p. 619 Deuel ***
In the Masoretic text and the Syriac Peshitta, he is called “Reuel” at Numbers 2:14. This may be due to a scribal error, since the Hebrew letters for “D” and “R” are very similar and the name “Deuel” does, in fact, appear at Numbers 2:14 in the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Latin Vulgate, and over a hundred Hebrew manuscripts. *** it-1 pp. 626-627 Dimon ***
. . . Dibon did not stand by any large “waters,” it being a considerable distance from the nearest wadi, the Arnon. They suggest, therefore, that Dimon may be a scribal alteration of Madmen, mentioned in Jeremiah’s condemnation of Moab (Jer 48:2), and usually identified with Dimna, about 4 km (2.5 mi) WNW of Rabbath-Moab, on a height dominating the waters of the ʽAin el-Megheisil to the SE.  Both views are conjectural, the latter having in its favor identification with a site associated with waters, which the context seems to require. *** it-1 p. 706 Elhanan ***
In 2 Samuel 21:19 Elhanan is identified as “the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite,” and it is said that he struck down Goliath. However, many scholars think that the original reading of 2 Samuel 21:19 corresponded to 1 Chronicles 20:5, the differences in the two texts having arisen through scribal error. *** it-1 p. 718 Elishama ***
This Elishama is listed as Elishua in 2 Samuel 5:15, in 1 Chronicles 14:5, and in two Hebrew manuscripts at 1 Chronicles 3:6. Elishua is generally considered to be the correct name, as the name Elishama appears again in 1 Chronicles 3:8 and therefore could easily have crept into verse 6 through a scribal error. *** it-1 p. 929 Gibeah ***
The Hebrew spellings of Geba (masculine form of the word meaning “Hill”) and Gibeah (feminine form of the term meaning “Hill”) are almost identical. Many believe that this has resulted in scribal errors in the Masoretic text and therefore recommend changing certain scriptures to read “Geba” instead of “Gibeah,” and vice versa. *** it-1 p. 1015 Hadadezer ***
This could account for their being called “horsemen” at 2 Samuel 10:18 and “men on foot” at 1 Chronicles 19:18. The difference in the number of Syrian charioteers killed in battle is usually attributed to scribal error, the lower figure of 700 charioteers being considered the correct one. *** it-1 p. 1015 Hadadezer ***
The variation in the enumeration of these at 2 Samuel 8:4 and 1 Chronicles 18:4 may have arisen through scribal error. In the Greek Septuagint both passages indicate that 1,000 chariots and 7,000 horsemen were captured, and therefore 1 Chronicles 18:4 perhaps preserves the original reading. *** it-1 p. 1145 Horse ***
However, David’s son and successor, Solomon, began to accumulate thousands of horses. (1Ki 4:26 [here “forty thousand stalls of horses” is generally believed to be a scribal error for “four thousand”]; compare 2Ch 9:25.) *** it-1 p. 1166 Ibleam ***
. . . (Jos 21:25) reads “Gath-rimmon” instead of “Bileam” or “Ibleam.” Generally this is attributed to scribal error, “Gath-rimmon,” the name of a city in Dan, probably having been inadvertently repeated from verse 24. *** it-1 p. 1239 Jaare-oregim ***
A name appearing only at 2 Samuel 21:19. It is generally believed that scribal error has given rise to this name and that the correct reading is preserved in the parallel text at 1 Chronicles 20:5. “Jaare” is considered to be an alteration of “Jair,” and “oregim” (ʼo·reghimʹ, “weavers” or “loom workers”) is thought to have been copied inadvertently from a line below in the same verse. *** it-2 p. 87 Johanan ***
Grandson of Eliashib, the high priest contemporary with Nehemiah. His being called Jonathan in Nehemiah 12:11 is probably due to a scribal error, as the names “Johanan” and “Jonathan” are very similar in Hebrew. *** it-2 p. 113 Josheb-basshebeth ***
There are other scribal difficulties with the text in 2 Samuel 23:8, making it necessary for the obscure Hebrew in the Masoretic text (which appears to read, “He was Adino the Eznite”) to be corrected to read “He was brandishing his spear.” (NW) Other modern translations read similarly. (AT; RS; Mo; Ro, ftn; JB) Thus Samuel is made to agree with the book of Chronicles and with the construction pattern in this section of material. It is “the three” that are being discussed, but to introduce another name, Adino, makes four. *** it-2 p. 177 Kite ***
The Deuteronomy list contains ra·ʼahʹ in place of da·ʼahʹ, as in Leviticus, but this is considered to be probably due to a scribal substitution of the Hebrew equivalent of “r” (ר) for “d” (ד), the letters being very similar in appearance. And then there are more complicated errors to deal with when the text that is preferred for the NWT Hebrew Scriptures is based on the Masoretic text which makes changes from phrases like "Jehovah cursed" to "Jehovah blessed," and even makes changes like the following one:
*** it-2 p. 307 Manasseh ***
. A name appearing in the Masoretic text at Judges 18:30, because of scribal modification. The account concerns Danite apostasy, and the New World Translation says that “Jonathan the son of Gershom, Moses’ son, he and his sons became priests to the tribe of the Danites.” (See also AT; Mo; Ro; RS.) Jewish scribes inserted a suspended letter (nun = n) between the first two letters in the original Hebrew name so as to give the reading “Manasseh’s” instead of “Moses’,” doing so out of regard for Moses. The scribes thus sought to hide the reproach or disgrace that might be brought upon the name of Moses because of Jonathan’s action. In addition to the altered Masoretic text, “Manasseh’s” appears in the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209 of the Greek Septuagint and in the Syriac Peshitta. However, “Moses’” is found in the Alexandrine Manuscript of the Greek Septuagint and in the Latin Vulgate at Judges 18:30. *** it-2 p. 349 Mash ***
At 1 Chronicles 1:17 the Masoretic text reads “Meshech” instead of “Mash.” But this is probably a scribal error since Meshech is listed as a “son” of Japheth.—Ge 10:2; 1Ch 1:5. *** it-2 p. 396 Michmas(h) ***
According to 1 Samuel 13:5, the Philistine forces at Michmash included 30,000 war chariots. This number is far greater than that involved in several other military expeditions (compare Jg 4:13; 2Ch 12:2, 3; 14:9), and it is hard to imagine how so many war chariots could have been used in mountainous terrain. For this reason 30,000 is generally viewed as a scribal error. The Syriac Peshitta and the Lagardian edition of the Greek Septuagint read 3,000, and numerous Bible translations follow this rendering. (AT, JB, Mo) However, even lower figures have been suggested. *** it-2 p. 398 Mijamin ***
He may have founded the paternal house of Miniamin mentioned at Nehemiah 12:17 (where the name of the head of that house appears to have been an inadvertent scribal omission in the Hebrew text).  
*** it-2 p. 938 Shuppim ***
Since the last three characters of his name in Hebrew (Shup·pimʹ) are identical to the last three characters of the previous term (behth ha·ʼasup·pimʹ), scholars suspect that it is a dittograph (an unintentional scribal repetition), therefore, in this verse, not the name of a person.—Compare 1Ch 26:10, 11. *** it-2 p. 1112 Tob-adonijah ***
(2Ch 17:7-9) Reference to Adonijah and Tobijah in the same verse leads some scholars to believe this name is a scribal dittograph, that is, an inadvertent repetition. And of course there are other issues with the variations in manuscripts. The NWT shows "18 years" for both of the following, but several major texts actually show 8 years in 2 Chronicles 36:9 and 18 in 2 Kings 24:8.
(2 Kings 24:8) 8 Je·hoiʹa·chin was 18 years old when he became king, and he reigned for three months in Jerusalem. . . . (2 Chronicles 36:9) 9 Je·hoiʹa·chin was 8 years old when he became king, and he reigned for three months and ten days in Jerusalem. So the Watchtower publications speak very appreciatively of the critical textual studies by scholars that have helped to identify some of these scribal errors and correct them.
*** it-2 p. 313 Manuscripts of the Bible ***
Despite the care exercised by copyists of Bible manuscripts, a number of small scribal errors and alterations crept into the text. On the whole, these are insignificant and have no bearing on the Bible’s general integrity. They have been detected and corrected by means of careful scholastic collation or critical comparison of the many extant manuscripts and ancient versions. Critical study of the Hebrew text of the Scriptures commenced toward the end of the 18th century. Where possible, the Watchtower publications seek to avoid admitting scribal errors even if we have no better explanation currently:
*** it-2 p. 489 Nehemiah, Book of ***
However, there are differences in the numbers given for each family or house, and the individual figures in both listings yield a total of far less than 42,360. Many scholars would attribute these variations to scribal errors. While this aspect cannot be completely ignored, there are other possible explanations for the differences. It may be that Ezra and Nehemiah based their listings on different sources. -----------NOTE------------
For anyone just scanning quickly across this  post and wondering why there is so much about scribal errors here, it's because I'm responding to Foreigner's assertion that if one looks at Scripture as if it might have error in it, then their scholarship cannot be trusted. Yet, there are literally more than a thousand places where the Watchtower believes that errors have crept into the Biblical texts that are relied upon to translate the NWT or any other Bible translation. This is one of the reasons the persons who have worked on scholarly Bible dictionaries and Bible translation itself have expressed appreciation for scholars who have looked into errors and potential errors. The assertion is therefore not true that just because a scholar might look into potential errors that this makes their scholarship automatically unstrustworthy.
 

I would have to say, you and I are looking at the same historical "evidence" with an open mind, NOT a closed one that is determined to support inaccurate knowledge of history and scripture.

 

I have pointed it out before that JWs  establishment of 537BCE is NOT based on the Babylonian chronicles but mostly on Persian sources.  Middle east chronology is synchronized with Egyptology dates - and Egyptology dates are out with 300 years - with less as we get to the Greek Ptolemaic kings. Recently watched an interesting lecture by David Rohl.... fascinating evidence that the exodus did take place ...... if one looks in the right period.
Persian dates are verified by Greek sources and also with Babylonian chronicles.  Persian dates are counted in Olympiads and since the games were held every 4 years they are very reliable. But people on this forum keep on hashing up these Babylonian chronicles of very old king lists as though they were inspired by God! But these ex-witnesses  have an agenda.... this is why they keep rehashing these unreliable old Babylonian king lists.  While these lists are helpful they are not to be trusted as the only source of information. 
Please read the insight book to see where the organization get their dates.  Some of the Babylonian chronicles were copies of copies and written 250 years after Cyrus died. The organization give several good reasons why they do not use the Babylonian chronicles.
The death of Cyrus  is given in Olympiads as 62, year 2. (531/530 B.C.E)  Cuneiform tablets give Cyrus a reign of 9 years which substantiates his year of conquest as 539 BCE. (handbook of biblical chronology by Jack Finegan 1964. ) The kings which come AFTER Cyrus are also dated by these same methods and therefore the persian dates of succession are much more reliable. 
Astronomical calculations can also be misleading because the most reliable information is only a 'total' eclipse ... because many eclipses occur in a 50 year period and many are not  properly described - which can be misleading such as in the case with king Ahab.....  Please read this information in the insight as well.  
I fear there are some people here who think that the organization spends their entire time thinking up plots on how to cover up the "mistake of 1914" so they can be important..... but I think the shoe is on the other foot.  There are people here who think they are smarter than Jehovah's spirit and smarter than the available written information on the middle east and persian dynasties.  They keep bringing up the same old rehash of these Babylonian dates which I call the typical OCD of those who have lost Jehovah's spirit.
 

It wouldn't, Allen. The astronomer scribes knew the difference between addition and subtraction, having already learned those basic mathematical skills when they were children.
If you are having difficulty with these math concepts, I recommend this website. Then hopefully you'll eventually figure out whether 18 is more or less than 37 and, if you become more advanced with how BCE dating works, which way we should count to get from 568 BCE to 587 BCE.
You're welcome  

Sure. Would a coin that had a date on both sides give you an accurate minting date?
This is exactly why I shouldn’t mean anything that doesn’t have the possibilities of having many alternative endings. However, this statement implies a heavy-handed use of having another view forced to be accepted.
Then with more of a confirmation, scholars view shouldn’t be heightened over one another. The credibility lies with those scholars that can find common ground with scripture, not those that make every attempt to “discredit” scripture.
Let’s look at this illustration with the eyes of Carl Olof Jonsson. Where does it in VAT4956 *pinpoint* the destruction of Jerusalem in 587BC in this tablet? Remember his argument is precision. Then, it became a relying point for ex-witnesses. His message was lost when he decided to rearrange scripture to fit secular ideology.
This implies as far as secular chronology has shown, the dates implied for his reign began in 605BC. Does that in itself mean its absolute? Where should the *faith* of a BIBLE STUDENT reside?
If this view is the case, then I hope those that argue against the WT chronology will understand, the Babylonian Chronicle tablets actually “help” to confirm certain pieces of an incomplete puzzle.
Then we can agree that the only cost associated with any presentation is the errors of secular scholars that don’t understand scripture. However, what would be another reason for people to call someone King? Seeing past posts for myself. I believe ALLEN SMITH and ALL those numbering accounts, possibly due to deletion as I suspect, was raised as well.
 
 
 
 
 

That would be the point, wouldn’t it? VAT4956 doesnÂ’t “illustrate” which direction one needs to go with the 18-19 years. It works both ways. Unless, as you stated, one side is only looked at.
Ironically, I donÂ’t use 4+1=6. You are the one using such supposition to illustrate a formula not indicated by scholars or scripture. My comments are based on scholarly findings and scripture, not conjecture.
If Furuli expertise lies only with language, then it should be no surprise when he honestly doesn’t descend on an archaeological find. This is where “Theology” comes in. It receives the “best” of ALL expertise within knowledge. But, the BEST expertise comes from bible knowledge. Something, Fred Franz was great at. This would be the “BEST” for a Bible Student to learn.
I agree Disseminations give no value to bible understanding.
 
Of course. Then we would have to check how much of Bible understanding a scholar has to give an expert opinion on that subject matter.
Once again, wouldn't this be an attempt to justify how contradictory it would be to place the 18-19 year squarely where secular chronology would wish for it to be. Then we would also have to be satisfied by applying those years in the beginning reign of Nebuchadnezzar. 605-18=587BC, 605-19=586. Where does it indicate in VAT4956 where one should start to view 587BC specifically? VAT4956 605-37=568BC.
 
Then, does it really matter, who understands what? If secular chronology itself cannot justify its own findings that many people have gone to great lengths by rearranging scripture to meet their understanding and to discredit the WT Chronology? Then you are correct, why should it matter.
I will give you a personal view.
 
Theology works with the Babylonian Chronicle Series as a whole, not just beneficial parts.
T.G. Pinches
L.W. King
C.J. Gadd
S. Smith, probably an ancestor of ALLEN Sorry Allen, just joking!!
D.J. Wiseman
A.K. Grayson.
And since, D.J Wiseman sought to look at the book of Daniel with errors? Then we canÂ’t claim scholars are unbiased and look at scripture in a biased way.
If I mentioned that Abraham Lincoln “in his days” he was opposed, to slavery? Would this be true when he became President in 1861, or the proclamation in 1862-1863, or his ideology in 1854? So, “in his days” it becomes a general supposition, NOT indicative of a *specific* time. Therefore, Scripture would NOT be in error, 2 Kings 24:1, but rather the error would be in the interpretation of the READER.
Babylon Controls Jehoiakim
1: In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant for three years; then he turned and rebelled against him. 2The LORD sent against him bands of Chaldeans, bands of Arameans, bands of Moabites, and bands of Ammonites. So He sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the LORD which He had spoken through His servants the prophets.
At what point do you see King Jeroiakim being *PRESENT* if the destruction of Jerusalem, supposedly when it happened at the point where secular chronology and ex-witnesses imply in 587BC? This is the “pivotal” point in Carl Olof Jonsson’s argument. Why wait 18-19 years to punish the land and people of Judah for the sins of Manasseh. So, let’s continue to use his “pinpoint” ideology on this since King Zedekiah would have been on the throne on 587BC. Secular Chronology uses this text to corroborate the destruction of Jerusalem.
Can we use, this text to prove 598BC when King Jehoiachin was on the throne? According to secular chronology, as BEST we would have to conclude this happening in 605BC, three years later would be 605BC, 604BC, 603BC, or 603/2BC if you prefer.
Now verse two, stipulates God sent Bands of Chaldeans, and bands of Neighboring Kingdom’s to DESTROY the land of JUDAH. Jerusalem would be included. So, if that is the case. The “destruction of Judah (Jerusalem)” would have happened around the time of Nebuchadnezzar’s official reign 605BC, by God’s hand. Then what “destruction of Jerusalem” are scholars referring to in 587BC. Destruction on top of destruction? The land would have already been devastated by God’s judgment. So, 587BC might have included a specific destruction in Jerusalem, just NOT a “Complete” destruction that had already occurred. 2 Kings 25:10, 2 Chronicles 36:19
So, I place my *faith* in scripture, rather than secular chronology. Since secular chronology cannot use scripture to properly align and understand, Bible times.
 
 
 

Sure. Would a coin that had a date on both sides give you an accurate minting date?
This is exactly why I shouldn’t mean anything that doesn’t have the possibilities of having many alternative endings. However, this statement implies a heavy-handed use of having another view forced to be accepted.
Then with more of a confirmation, scholars view shouldn’t be heightened over one another. The credibility lies with those scholars that can find common ground with scripture, not those that make every attempt to “discredit” scripture.
Let’s look at this illustration with the eyes of Carl Olof Jonsson. Where does it in VAT4956 *pinpoint* the destruction of Jerusalem in 587BC in this tablet? Remember his argument is precision. Then, it became a relying point for ex-witnesses. His message was lost when he decided to rearrange scripture to fit secular ideology.
This implies as far as secular chronology has shown, the dates implied for his reign began in 605BC. Does that in itself mean its absolute? Where should the *faith* of a BIBLE STUDENT reside?
If this view is the case, then I hope those that argue against the WT chronology will understand, the Babylonian Chronicle tablets actually “help” to confirm certain pieces of an incomplete puzzle.
Then we can agree that the only cost associated with any presentation is the errors of secular scholars that don’t understand scripture. However, what would be another reason for people to call someone King? Seeing past posts for myself. I believe ALLEN SMITH and ALL those numbering accounts, possibly due to deletion as I suspect, was raised as well.
 
 
 
 
 

That would be the point, wouldn’t it? VAT4956 doesnÂ’t “illustrate” which direction one needs to go with the 18-19 years. It works both ways. Unless, as you stated, one side is only looked at.
Ironically, I donÂ’t use 4+1=6. You are the one using such supposition to illustrate a formula not indicated by scholars or scripture. My comments are based on scholarly findings and scripture, not conjecture.
If Furuli expertise lies only with language, then it should be no surprise when he honestly doesn’t descend on an archaeological find. This is where “Theology” comes in. It receives the “best” of ALL expertise within knowledge. But, the BEST expertise comes from bible knowledge. Something, Fred Franz was great at. This would be the “BEST” for a Bible Student to learn.
I agree Disseminations give no value to bible understanding.
 
Of course. Then we would have to check how much of Bible understanding a scholar has to give an expert opinion on that subject matter.
Once again, wouldn't this be an attempt to justify how contradictory it would be to place the 18-19 year squarely where secular chronology would wish for it to be. Then we would also have to be satisfied by applying those years in the beginning reign of Nebuchadnezzar. 605-18=587BC, 605-19=586. Where does it indicate in VAT4956 where one should start to view 587BC specifically? VAT4956 605-37=568BC.
 
Then, does it really matter, who understands what? If secular chronology itself cannot justify its own findings that many people have gone to great lengths by rearranging scripture to meet their understanding and to discredit the WT Chronology? Then you are correct, why should it matter.
I will give you a personal view.
 
Theology works with the Babylonian Chronicle Series as a whole, not just beneficial parts.
T.G. Pinches
L.W. King
C.J. Gadd
S. Smith, probably an ancestor of ALLEN Sorry Allen, just joking!!
D.J. Wiseman
A.K. Grayson.
And since, D.J Wiseman sought to look at the book of Daniel with errors? Then we canÂ’t claim scholars are unbiased and look at scripture in a biased way.
If I mentioned that Abraham Lincoln “in his days” he was opposed, to slavery? Would this be true when he became President in 1861, or the proclamation in 1862-1863, or his ideology in 1854? So, “in his days” it becomes a general supposition, NOT indicative of a *specific* time. Therefore, Scripture would NOT be in error, 2 Kings 24:1, but rather the error would be in the interpretation of the READER.
Babylon Controls Jehoiakim
1: In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant for three years; then he turned and rebelled against him. 2The LORD sent against him bands of Chaldeans, bands of Arameans, bands of Moabites, and bands of Ammonites. So He sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the LORD which He had spoken through His servants the prophets.
At what point do you see King Jeroiakim being *PRESENT* if the destruction of Jerusalem, supposedly when it happened at the point where secular chronology and ex-witnesses imply in 587BC? This is the “pivotal” point in Carl Olof Jonsson’s argument. Why wait 18-19 years to punish the land and people of Judah for the sins of Manasseh. So, let’s continue to use his “pinpoint” ideology on this since King Zedekiah would have been on the throne on 587BC. Secular Chronology uses this text to corroborate the destruction of Jerusalem.
Can we use, this text to prove 598BC when King Jehoiachin was on the throne? According to secular chronology, as BEST we would have to conclude this happening in 605BC, three years later would be 605BC, 604BC, 603BC, or 603/2BC if you prefer.
Now verse two, stipulates God sent Bands of Chaldeans, and bands of Neighboring Kingdom’s to DESTROY the land of JUDAH. Jerusalem would be included. So, if that is the case. The “destruction of Judah (Jerusalem)” would have happened around the time of Nebuchadnezzar’s official reign 605BC, by God’s hand. Then what “destruction of Jerusalem” are scholars referring to in 587BC. Destruction on top of destruction? The land would have already been devastated by God’s judgment. So, 587BC might have included a specific destruction in Jerusalem, just NOT a “Complete” destruction that had already occurred. 2 Kings 25:10, 2 Chronicles 36:19
So, I place my *faith* in scripture, rather than secular chronology. Since secular chronology cannot use scripture to properly align and understand, Bible times.