AlanF

1 hour ago, allensmith28 said:

I understand, O'Maly tried to sell me that bill of goods. Written History, just doesn't see it that way. Therefore, I don't see it that way. Just reading the chronicles gives us an in-depth view of what Cyrus had to contend with. O'Maly *LINKED* our debate. I don't need to explain myself again.

The silliest claim from him is that people were city dwellers. So, what! where does anyone living in a city get their food from? the CITY? Sure in modern times. You get them from a grocery store. How about back them. Didn't it have to be carted from the fields? to be sold in the city?  So, City dwellers had to wait until someone brought food in. No one needs a scholarly reference for that, just logic. 

As for COJ. You give him to much credit. He can make amendments to his book. But if he did, it would nullify most of what he originally rejected. So, plan to never see that happening.

So, NO! it would be too farfetched for the Jews to have done everything, starting from OCT-539BC

Still no evidence presented. Just bald assertions.

And of course, no one presented even one iotum of argumentation against what I posted above.

You've learned well from Mommy Watch Tower.

AlanF

allensmith28 wrote:

:: Correct. This is the argument I've been presenting.

:: Note that the Jews used a secular calendar beginning with the seventh month Tishri (Sep/Oct), and a religious calendar beginning with the first month Nisan (Mar/Apr). The Babylonian calendar began in Nisan.

Quote

That’s conceivable if it weren’t, for the many things, secular history has to offer.

That statement is meaningless. The Jewish and Babylonian calendar systems are solidly established. If you disagree, you must provide evidence along with references, if you have any.

Quote

I do agree, with certain months, however, I disagree with the implementation of, certain month.

Another meaningless statement. It's meaningless because it's not supported by any evidence.

Quote

I argued the same thing with O’Maly, and ended with a 5-6 month difference.

A difference between what and what?

Quote

Nisan 538BC would also be a focal point for the Jews since the last Babylonian King denied the Jews that celebration.

What on earth are you talking about, and what evidence do you have?

Quote

I see Cyrus giving them their PASSOVER as a sign of mending fences, and complying with God’s wishes through the Prophets.

Based on what evidence?

Quote

However, I believe getting in the last wheat harvest while preparing must be noted.

Wheat harvest? The Jews and other captives lived in the cities, like Daniel, and were generally business people. They were not farmers. Again, where is your evidence?

Quote

We can’t automatically assume all the people didn’t have to wait before the barley and wheat harvest, were in, before they made that journey, with enough food.

Evidence, evidence, evidence!

Quote

So, my calculations extend, about a minimum of 5-6 months to the month of Cheshvan 538BC

Present your calculations, along with all supporting evidence, and especially references to scholarly sources.

Quote

thus making the arrival time of the Jews in the Month of Nisan 537BC.

Which basically contradicts Ezra 3:1-7, because that passage implies that the Jews' arrival in "their cities" was shortly before the 7th month Tishri.

Quote

A time for jubilation with the PASSOVER and UNLEAVENED BREAD,

Pure speculation.

Quote

and 7 months later in the month of Tishri 537BC, the month of the TABERNACLES, ATONEMENT, would be more conceivable to rebuild the temple.

Again contradicting Ezra. Ezra 3:8-10 clearly states that the work on the Temple was begun in the 2nd month (Iyyar) of the 2nd year of the Jews' return.

Quote

Since a lot of emphases is placed on the Babylonian Chronicles as a failsafe. I would also remind everyone, those chronicles are of military campaigns. So, it is rather easy to compare, that chronology with Military History.

Which has what to do with pegging the date of the Jews' return to Judah?

Quote

Now, for a long time, it was said, JOSEPHUS was out of sync by at least 1-2 years.

By who?

Quote

Now, the 1-2 years has developed a different meaning.

Like what?

Quote

I will continue with my personal assessment on this one until something more concrete turns up. Meanwhile, the History of Josephus could be compiled to coincide with 537BC.

More meaningless statements.

Quote

 

History shows, Cyrus had plenty of things to do, after his conquest; it might be conceivable, everything happened in 538BC, however, the probability is remote!!!

Take the example of Donald Trump. His first year has passed and yet he still doesn’t have a FULL cabinet to run the nation properly. Then ask, why, should it be any different, even though it DID take a lot longer to do things back then, because of communication and distance.

So, one can conclude, IF the Watchtower erred? It would be defined by MONTHS not YEARS. The later part of 538BC. The other thing would be the New Year festivals by which calendar, Babylonian, Hebrew, and Persian.

 

This is approaching complete gobble-de-goop.

Quote

So, the probability of the Gentile Time still stands since that started with King Jehoiakim.

Pure speculation, based on a long chain of extremely questionable reasoning.

Quote

Therefore, even if the Watchtower is off, for 538BC, then it still holds TRUE for the Gentile Times.

What holds true? Based on what evidence?

Quote

So, it would be rounded to 67 years instead of 70 years.

Except that the Watch Tower Society has declared such a claim "apostate reasoning".

Quote

The earliest known argument has been about three years, by Secular Chronology.

References, please.

Quote

If 537BC can be explained, then 607BC can be explained by secular history.

Wrong. Even if 537 BCE is correct for the return of the Jews to Judah, 607 rests on the biblically falsified claim that Jerusalem was destroyed 70 years earlier. 2 Chron. 36:20 clearly states that the 70 years ended when the Persian empire came to power, which was in 539 BCE. And Jer. 25, 27 and 29 together show that the 70 years ended when Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty ended -- in 539 BCE.

:: Really. In what way were their writings flawed?

Quote

His aim was to discredit the "Gentile Times". That's what, this book is about.

Wrong. You've given no evidence for anything.

Quote

He didn't prove, there's NO such thing as the time of the Gentiles, Ergo, flawed by his own reasoning.

Wrong. Jonsson's thesis is not that there is no such thing as the "Gentile times" -- after all, Luke 21:24 mentions it -- but that the Watch Tower Society's application of Luke 21:24, and lot of other stuff besides, is wrong.

If you disagree, then quote the parts of Jonsson's writings that you think prove your claim.

:: As Christopher Hitchens observed, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Quote

Many people that I know of, contacted many scholars through various means. I found the majority of those contacts used leading questions to mislead the scholars, about what the Watchtower had actually quoted. To have an honest assessment, contact any scholar with the right mindset about their works, will grant you an honest opinion.

More meaningless generalities. Try being specific.

AlanF

allensmith28

The Watch Tower Society's hypotheses concerning 537 BCE for the date of the Return and 607 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem need to be tested and examined carefully. There are three questions one should ask:

1. Have they been peer reviewed?

Answer: No. The Watch Tower Society considers itself without peers, and never submits anything for normal peer review.

2. Have they been endorsed by Carl Jonsson?

Answer: No. In fact, Jonsson is a critic of Watch Tower Chronology as a whole and has published extensive debunkings of it.

3. Why has not The Watch Tower Society published these theses in a respected scholarly journal because the subject of this date would be of minor interest to scholars and historians?

Answer: Because the matter has long been settled by secular historians and by most religious historian, and the Society knows full well that none of its chronological theses concerning 607 BCE would get past a normal peer review process.

Further, one could also ask whether the Watch Tower Society's schemes are simply 'contrivances' based upon problematics associated with the speculations of quacks like Nelson Barbour that were used to originate traditions that have all failed historical tests. Also, how do they differ from secular methodology on this subject, the similarities between the two and the assumptions used?

AlanF

23 minutes ago, allensmith28 said:

I have read COJ’s Book, James, Penton book, my good old friend Raymond Franz book until he decided to pay attention to a book that was in generally flawed in every respect. So, I don’t need to define which part was good and which parts were bad. His general theory of the Gentile Times is flawed.

As Christopher Hitchens observed, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

AlanF

3 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

But, back to topic: 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported? Yes!! It has been proven by secular chronology it’s a justifiable means to the symbolic time of the Gentiles.

Wrong. There is no proof in secular chronology for 607 BCE as the date of Jerusalem's fall. Virually all of secular chronology puts that date at 587/586 BCE.

Quote

COJ’s treatise was flawed from the get-go. James Penton fared no better.

Really. In what way were their writings flawed?

Don't tell us: "because they contradict Watch Tower Tradition".

AlanF

10 minutes ago, allensmith28 said:

That’s acceptable. But, when the “definitions” remain the SAME? Then, the NWT is comparable to any bible that reflects the original author’s context and intent.

Right. I consider the original NWT  among the most literally accurate of translations I've used. That's why I've quoted from it a lot on this board. Not that it's free of problems.

AlanF

allensmith28 wrote:

Quote

... Even, by their own secular chronology of 539BC, it has already been deduced, since Cyrus entered Babylon in “late” 539BC, ... So, the most probable date of Cyrus edict was in (Nisannu) ... Also, acceptable would be a period of 6 months, “researchers” like *JEFFRO* a person that “repudiates” the WT chronology, wholeheartedly has concluded. That would mean the Jews returned in time for the Sesame harvest, (Tasritu) 538BC with enough time to settle in, and prepare to rebuild the temple by Nisan 537BC...

Correct. This is the argument I've been presenting.

Note that the Jews used a secular calendar beginning with the seventh month Tishri (Sep/Oct), and a religious calendar beginning with the first month Nisan (Mar/Apr). The Babylonian calendar began in Nisan.

Keep in mind that Cyrus' army overthrew Babylon in early October, 539 BCE. From that point to Nisan (late March), 538 BCE is nearly six lunar months (cf. "Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C. - A.D. 75", Parker & Dubberstein, p. 29). During that time, all captives in Babylon would have known about Cyrus' practice of releasing captives, and so would have anticipated being released fairly soon. So if Cyrus issued his edict of release in Nisan, there would have been up to nearly six lunar months for the captives to prepare to go home -- plenty of time.

Once the edict of release was in force, there were another nearly six lunar months, until the beginning of Tishri (mid-September), for the Jews to travel to Judah and become settled in their cities. The journey was about four months, leaving nearly two months for preparation and settling in. So there is plenty of time for the Jews to be "in their cities" by Tishri, 538 BCE.

Quote

However, I’m more inclined to think the Jews took a little more time to leave. This, of course, comes from EZRA’s 1 account.

That's perfectly acceptable, and in view of my arguments above, both 537 and 538 are possible dates -- as long as no other information is available. However, a statement by Josephus provides the tie breaker.

In Against Apion I,21, Josephus states:

<< These accounts agree with the true histories in our books; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius. >>

The crucial piece of information is that the temple foundations were laid in the second regnal year of Cyrus. That year began in Nisan, 537 BCE.

How does that date relate to Ezra's account? I'll use your page from Nelson's Old Testament Survey for reference:

https://s3.dualstack.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/theworldnewsmediabucket/monthly_2018_01/537BC.jpg.ce79628dbd644fcd2f1dc1b9f9f15168.jpg

Ezra 1 states that Cyrus, in his first year (using the accession-year system), decreed that the Jews could return to Judah. Cyrus’ first year was Nisan, 538 BCE through Adar, 537 BCE. Ezra 3:1-7 states that by the seventh month Tishri, the Jews were settled in their cities, and at that time they gathered in Jerusalem to initiate the rebuilding of the temple. So the year that ended immediately before Tishri was the first year of the Jews’ coming home, and the new year beginning in Tishri was the second year.

Ezra 3:8, 10 states that the temple foundations were laid in the second month of that second year. In Against Apion I,21, Josephus states that “in the second year of the reign of Cyrus [the temple’s] foundations were laid.” Therefore, this second Jewish year overlaps with the second year of Cyrus. Since Cyrus’ second year began in Nisan, 537 BCE, the second month was also in 537, and the first year of the Jews’ return was in 538 BCE.

In summary, the synchronism between Josephus and the book of Ezra is solid evidence that the Jews returned to Judah in 538 BCE. Both refer to the laying of the temple foundations about half a year after the Jews were settled in their cities in the month of Tishri (autumn). Ezra gives only a relative date in Jewish terms, while Josephus gives a date in terms of the years of Cyrus’ reign, which is solidly established. This date is in the spring of 537 BCE; hence the Jews must have returned half a year earlier, in the autumn of 538. See https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/ for an extended discussion.

AlanF

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Actually, 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:

Right. But we'll never see a pathological liar admit to this.

AlanF

On 1/7/2018 at 8:16 AM, allensmith28 said:

Therefore, if the “elements” of thought are there? It makes NO difference which Bible one uses to arrive, to the same conclusion.

Quite right. But in many cases these "elements" are not there, or the words don't translate well from one language to the other, or there might not even be equivalent words, so using an accurate translation becomes crucial to good understanding.

AlanF

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

AlanF, I think that you will be asked to avoid the kind of insulting language and imagery. I am sure that other forums have allowed an escalation of this type to reach greater heights/depths of such. One of the things that has made this particular forum more palatable, according to several people here, myself included, is the fact that all perspectives have been able to come together WITHOUT these rough edges.

 

Fair enough. I will abide by these guidelines.

I will not be responding to pathological liars, though.

AlanF

10 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

 

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

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

Quote

Yes, you were forced by me during the original discussion on this topic on the other forum years ago that a connection was made by Brown

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".

Quote

and this is simply what the Proclaimers recognizes the connection as proved by the contents of page 208.

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.

Quote

The Society makes no equation of the two time periods by means of Brown's reference but simply a connection but the context of p.134 in the Proclaimers certainly implies the equating of these two periods as part of our traditional understanding of the Gentile Times.

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

Quote

No, you are misreading the Proclaimers book because even though it upholds our traditional understanding of the Gentile Times equating these with the seven times it simply uses Brown's reference on page 208 to a connection of the two periods to show that he was the first Expositor to do so.

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".

Quote

The Proclaimers  book as far as I know was not written to satisfy the needs of Alan F or to meet his criteria of how the Gentile Times should be discussed.

It certainly wasn't. It was written to deceive Jehovah's Witnesses by telling half-truths and making misleading statements.

Quote

This book simply used a reference from Brown that he was the first expositor to connect both time periods.

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.

Quote

The context of the Society's book certainly supports our traditional understanding that both time periods are equated.

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

Quote

Yes, on page 21 of COJ's GTR he used the verb 'associate' but in his next edition, p. 69 he used the verb "connect".

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.

Quote

Now, the word 'associate' has a range of meanings as you say and context is everything so it could be argued that COJ was thinking of an equation but when he later uses the word 'connect' then that lowers the bar somewhat saying something now quite specific and this contradicts what Brown simply acknowledged as pointed out in the Society's 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.  

Quote

Self praise is no recommendation

Oh, the wonderful hypocrisy!

I said that to goad you into yet another bit of hypocrisy.

Quote

but I am happy for you that you have excellent reading comprehension so I will look forward to your scholarly research on 538BCE.

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.

Quote

The overall context of the Proclaimers book equates the Gentile Times with the seven times. The fact that Brown connected or linked these times does not infer any equation of the two

Yes, we know that. But the Proclaimers book implies an equation.

Quote

but can simply be connected by means of other reasons such as context, similar words, or thoughts or the historical fulfilment etc. You are inferring something that is absent and this is just plain nonsense.

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

Quote

That is not necessary because you possess excellent reading comprehension but the reader can make up his/her own mind and read the two paragraphs on page 208.

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

Scholar JW Pretendus Activus wrote:

:: did not say they were. I've said consistently that a Jewish remnant left Babylon in early 538 BCE. I've said consistently that the Jews as a whole were no longer captive to "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons" after Babylon was overthrown simply because the Babylonian rulers were no longer in power and therefore could hold no captives.

:: For many years, Neil, your main tactic of argumentation has been to create straw men by misrepresenting what your oponents say. You're still at it. So unchristian!

Quote

Well if you now correctly argue that the Jews' captivity expired after 539 BCE in 538 BCE then how can you possibly argue that the seventy years which was the nominated period of captivity-exile-servitude could possibly end in 539 BCE? That does not make any sense at all.

What do you mean "now", you reprehensible liar? You continue to misrepresent what both the Bible and I have said. Jeremiah prophesies only about servitude to "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons". He does not prophesy about any captivity to the Persian empire. I have always said that any captivity of the Jews to Babylon -- to "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons" -- ended with Babylon's overthrow in late 539 BCE. I have always said that the return of the Jews to Judah occurred in either 537 or 538 BCE, but have long argued that the only real evidence (Ezra and Josephus combined) makes 538 virtually certain.

Quote

You accuse me of misrepresentation and to create a straw man in the pursuit thereof and that I am unchristian.

Correct. Lying and deliberate misrepresentation of the truth is unchristian.

Quote

This is a bit rich coming from a person who has professed to be a unbeliever or am I misrepresenting your personal views on God, Jesus and the Bible?

I'm not a Christian, but that is irrelevant, since my conduct on these forums far better conforms to Christian standards of honesty than yours does. And no, what I've said about you is not "rich"; it is a fact based on your reprehensible, dishonest behavior demonstrated over two decades.
     
:: 538, actually.

Quote

Actually No! The date 537 BCE is the better candidate.

Sez you.

As usual, you present no evidence, no actual arguments. Just bald assertions.

:: So we agree on that. But the declaration of release was made in early (Nisan) 538 BCE, likely in conjunction with ceremonies connected with the beginning of Cyrus' first full regnal year (not his accession year, which began in late 539 shortly after his armies conquered Babylon). Since Ezra and Josephus together provide the only complete testimony (see https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/ ) on when rebuilding of the temple began (537 BCE), 537 is not possible for the return of the Jews to Judah, because temple rebuilding would have to have begun in 536 BCE, thus contradicting both Ezra and Josephus

Quote

It is nice to agree on something. Your claim that Ezra and Josephus cannot support 537 BCE is simply your opinion but if you have evidence to the contrary.

I've told you several times now: read the link I gave you. There's a section that addresses this topic specifically.

Quote

I am not interested in your website as I have read it before years ago and it lacks scholarship.

So says a demonstrable, reprehensible liar. Someone completely incompetent to pass judgment. Someone no more a scholar than he is an astronaut. Someone who is nothing more than a biased Watch Tower drone.

Quote

So, if you wish to persevere with this matter then prepare an academic paper, properly formatted to COJ for his opinion and to me for my examination and I will give you feedback and possibly an academic grade if you behave yourself. You may choose its length and as you have already a University Degree I expect rigour from you.

LOL! You've dragged this red herring around for a decade and a half, Neil. It's one of your tactics of last resort when you know you're trapped.

Having already participated in extensive debates on this 12-14 years ago, and having been thoroughly trounced in every detail, you don't want to expose yourself to more ridicule from readers. You're so transparent!

:: Also note that Jeremiah prophesied nothing about the land paying off sabbaths, so "Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah" had nothing to do with the paying off of sabbaths. Nor does the passage say that the paying of sabbaths ended when the 70 years ended. It merely says that during the 70 years the land would be paying sabbaths. Since various sources prove that the 70 years were a time of Babylonian supremacy over the Near East, and they most likely began in 609 BCE when Babylon overthrew the last remnants of the Assyrian empire, and they most certainly ended with Babylon's overthrow in 539 BCE, and Jerusalem was overthrown in 587 BCE, the sabbaths were certainly being paid during that time of Babylonian supremacy.

Quote

Jeremiah linked

There's one of those weasel words again, which you're so fond of using.

What passage in Jeremiah gives this "link"? You can cite none. Thus you've proved my point once again.

Quote

the land paying off its sabbaths with the Jewish nation's servitude to Babylon thus constituting a single historic period of seventy years.

Wrong. The only vague "link" is in 2 Chronicles 36, which I and others have already shown does not prove your case.

Quote

When reading this texts along with the others by Ezra, Daniel and Zechariah one can only conclude that the seventy years can only be one of servitude-exile-desolation. No other interpretation can fit the biblical narrative, it is as simple as that.

Wrong. Carl Jonsson and many others have discussed this to death and proven that Watch Tower claims are false. You're simply too much of a Watch Tower drone to admit that Mommy is wrong.

Quote

To argue that there was Babylonian supremacy in 609 BCE is historical revisionism at best,

Wrong again. It is a fact that Babylon, under Nabopolassar, defeated the last remnant of the Assyrian empire in 609 BCE. But you already know that, so you're lying yet again.

Quote

I believe that no academic study of that Late Judean Period would support such a view

Your beliefs are irrelevant. Jack Finegan, in "Handbook of Biblical Chronology", and various other scholars, support this view. But you already know this.

Quote

and besides that the date 609 BCE is simply to 'fuzzy'

It's not "fuzzy" at all. As you well know, various contemporary Babylonian documents prove that date.

Quote

and that is why COJ also argued that 605 BCE was an alternative candidate for the beginning of the seventy years.

Now you're switching gears. The 609 date for Babylon's overthrow of Assyria is virtually certain. The 605 date for Nebuchadnezzar's accession, and his capturing Jerusalem for the first time, is virtually certain. The only thing that is uncertain is whether the 70 years is to be viewed as an exact or an approximate period. If exact, then 609 is the only candidate. If approximate, then 605 can be argued as well. What is certain is that the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy ended in 539, when Persia overthrew Babylon.

Quote

The date 587BCE is also problematic

Yet another weasel word.

Quote

as you well know for most leading scholars have always preferred 586 BCE so this too is rather 'fuzzy'.

Correction: many leading scholars, following Edwin Thiele's opinion, prefer 586. But as you well know, many others, such as those who wrote articles in "The Cambridge Ancient History", prefer 587. And as you well know, in a 2004 JETS article "When Did Jerusalem Fall?" Rodger C. Young proved with a careful biblical analysis that the only date consistent with all biblical passages is 587. The glacial pace of scholarship in this area has simply not caught up. Edwin Thiele, writing beginning in the 1940s, was unaware of the material that Rodger Young used.

Quote

The date 607 BCE takes the razor to both dates for it reminds one of 'Ockham's razor'.

LOL! That's like saying the earth is flat because some scientists say it's spherical while others say it's pear shaped.

:: It does more than that. In conjunction with Jer. 25 and 27, it defines the 70 years as a period defined by Babylonian supremacy over the entire Near East, not merely supremacy over Judah or the captivity of the Jews. The latter was a minor event in Babylon's history.
         
:::: Who are "these nations" that were to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years? The context of Jer. 25 is clear: the Jews and the nations round about. During what time period did they serve? From the beginning of Babylon's rule over the Near East in 609 BCE to its end in 539 when the Persian empire overthrew it.

:::: Note that servitude is not the same as captivity. Jeremiah implored the Jews not to rebel against Babylon. If they did not, Jehovah would allow them to remain on their land during the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy. -- Jer. 27:4-11 They rebelled, and so were punished with captivity  

Quote

Jer. 29:10 simply addresses those previous exiles who take as part of the first deportation and had to remain in Babylon until the seventy years had expired.

It does that, but more importantly -- why do you continue to fail to address this? -- it defines the 70 years, not as years of Jewish captivity/exile in Babylon and desolation of Judah, but as years of Babylonian supremacy over all the nations of the Near East.

Jewish captives were taken to Babylon in 604, 597, 587 and later. They were no longer captives of "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons" after Babylon's overthrow in 539. Therefore, Jewish captivities occurred within the 70 year period between 609 and 539.

Quote

Further, it recognized Babylonian supremacy particularly over Judah and its nation having to serve Babylon seventy years.

No specific nation -- not Judah, not any other -- was prophesied by Jeremiah to serve Babylon for 70 years. Rather, "these nations" as a whole would serve, by virtue of the fact that Babylon was supreme over the entire Near East. And of course, as I have repeatedly explained, servitude did not imply captivity, exile or desolation of a homeland -- Jer. 27.

Quote

Jeremiah's description of the seventy years applied to Judah alone

Another flat out lie. Jer. 25:11: "... and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years."

Quote

unless otherwise specified as with the case of Tyre who had to serve Babylon for a similar period.

More deliberate vagueness. Tyre "served" only in a limited sense, and for much less than 70 years.

Quote

The expression 'these nations' is subject to interpretation according to Commentators and a number of plausible have been offered

Only in the sense of exactly which nations "these nations" included. Since the expression "these nations" is plural, it includes more than Judah. Thus your claim about Judah is disproved.

Quote

but in any event commensurate with the events that befell Judah at that time other nations were in for judgement as prophesied in Jer. 25:15-38. We cannot say with any certainty the chronology for these other nations as we can in the case of Judah and Judah alone.

Correct, but that's only because the Bible and Babylonian records say nothing more than something like "these nations". But we know for certain that Jews were taken captive in 605/4, 597, 587/6, and at other times.

Quote

Yes, I agree with you that servitude is not the same as captivity but the simple facts are is that the nation was to be brought into servitude and transported from their homeland to a foreign country which in anyone's language means Exile.

Very good! But not Exile for a full 70 years. Some were exiled for about 67 years, others for about 59 years, others for about 49 years. None for a full 70 years. But all of "these nations" served Babylon in a global sense from 609 to 539 BCE.

And as I have shown, the Temple was desolate for 50 years -- 587 to 537 BCE. Josephus confirms this (see below).

Quote

So with the seventy years as foretold by the Prophets the seventy years would be one of servitude/captivity and Exile.

Wrong.
     
:: Wrong. What Daniel says is ambiguous, as I have carefully explained.

Quote

There is nothing ambiguous about Daniel's observation for it was a fitting prelude to his prayer to Jehovah and I am quite sure that Jehovah God and the angel that answered his prayer did not find any ambiguity in Daniel for he was a 'straightshooter'.

Complete gobble-de-goop that addresses none of my arguments.
     
:: does, but it mainly describes the 70 years as a period of servitude of Judah and all nations round about to Babylon. Jer. 25:8-11:

:: << . . . I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these surrounding nations . . . and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years. >>

:: Judah is not the primary focus; "all these surrounding nations" are a far bigger target.  

Quote

Jer. 25;11 describes two events both of which were to be fulfilled within that seventy period namely that the land would be desolate in harmony with the previous description in vss.9-10

You continue to ignore Jer. 27, which shows that any desolation was contingent on a nation failing to bow to Babylon's power: "'the nation that brings its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon and serves him, I will allow to remain on its land,' declares Jehovah, 'to cultivate it and dwell in it.'" -- Jer. 27:11.

Quote

and the nation's servitude to Babylon. the surrounding nations would also be caught up in the forthcoming maelstrom as foretold and later described in the OAN. It cannot be said that Judah was not the primary target for Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Daniel who were all contemporaries to those events had Judah in sight especially with a description of a totally devastated land without an inhabitant and Exile in Babylon.

Again ignoring Jer. 27.

:: Why do you continue to ignore Jeremiah 27?

Quote

That is not my intention for this chapter speaks for itself, it details events associated with the reigns of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah namely the impending destruction and their servitude to Babylon. Its contents harmonize with our view of Late Judean history, the end of the Monarchy and our Chronology.

In other words, you will continue to ignore the parts of the Bible that you don't like, because they contradict what you've learned from Mommy Watch Tower.
     
:: Totally wrong. Keeping on repeating nonsense that was debunked 40 years ago does not make it true.

:: And of course, Josephus and Ezra prove that a return in 537 is impossible

Quote

The reader can consult Josephus who in several places viewed the seventy years are running between the Fall and the Return so cannot be debunked.

As has been repeatedly proved by Carl Jonsson in various editions of "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" and by other scholars, Josephus' first three references to "70 years" in this context were just his repeating of current Jewish legends. In his last work he corrected himself, based on his reference to Babylonian historian Berossus, and said clearly that the Temple was devasted for 50 years -- not 70.

For a more complete discussion of Josephus, see pages 298-300 at this link:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjKpruOycbYAhVI5IMKHecSDa0QFggpMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.watchtowerlies.com%2Flinked%2Fthe-gentile-times-reconsidered.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2qcUETI_cz35sfzx9FslCp

Quote

You are yet to prove with sound scholarship that Ezra and Josephus disproves 537 BCE.

Wrong. I've already told you several times: a brief discussion is here: https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/

That you refuse to address the material on this forum proves that you're no scholar, and dishonest to a fault.

Quote

scholar JW emeritus

LOL!

AlanF

Scholar JW Pretendus wrote:

:: Either you cannot read, or you're a hopeless liar. Read again what I said:

:::: 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

Quote

The quote in the Proclaimers book was simply recognized that Brown was the first scholar to connect the seven times with the Gentile Times.

You continue with your gross dishonesty. You refuse to acknowledge that what I said was correct. You refuse to admit that the Watch Tower Society's words were not meant in some vague way, where "connect" has no specific meaning, but were meant to convey to the reader that Brown equated the "seven times" with the "Gentile Times".

Quote

The quote does not 'equate' the two periods but 'connects' them only.

This is actually a very good illustration of how the Watch Tower Society dishonestly uses language. It uses ambiguous language to convey a clear meaning to naive readers, while actually saying something non-committal or even opposite. That way, when called out on a false statement, they can claim, "well, we didn't actually say blah blah blah".

Quote

We have and do equate the periods but Browns' reference and the Society's reference is not to equation but connection. Plain and simple!

Still not defining exactly what "connection" means in the offending Proclaimers book statement.
     
:: Brown "connects" the two periods vaguely at 1917, and not even directly but through an intermediate 75 lunar year period at the end of the "Gentile Times". The "seven times" were 2,520 solar years beginning in 604 BCE and ending in 1917 CE. The "Gentile Times" of the "Mohameddan Imposture" began in 622 CE with Mohamed's flight to Mecca, and ended in 1844 CE. From 1844 to 1917 is 75 lunar (Mohameddan) years.

:: 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

Quote

This first paragraph is correct, the second is false for you are making the implication that the Society is equating both periods but that is your reading of it and not mine. Just leave it up to the readers to decide for themselves.

Continuing to try to pull the wool over readers' eyes.

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".
     
::: The Proclaimers book on p.134 simply stated the fact of the connection between the two time periods contra Jonsson who had asserted the contrary.

:: No he didn't. Cite your sources if you disagree

Quote

GTR, 1986, Second Edition, p.21.

It's astonishing how dishonest you can be when you put your mind to it.

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.

One is still left wondering why the Proclaimers book's author bothered to italicize his statement. There is no reasonable explanation other than that he wanted to contradict someone else.

:: the Society strongly implied -- in context -- an equation

Quote

That is your interpretation of the quotation and its context. There is a big difference between an equation and a connection for these are not identical.

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.
     
:: Let's see if you can quote Brown and make your above statements specific. No one will be holding their breath

Quote

Simple just read the two paragraphs on page 208 for this is self-explanatory.

How about you quote them and then explain how each sentence supports your claim.

So far you're batting zero, as I said you would.
     
AlanF

Scholar JW Pretendus wrote:

:: The Watch Tower Society's pivotal date for its 1914 chronology is 537 BCE, which it bases on speculation that there were about two years between the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE and the return of some Jewish exiles to Judah in 537 BCE. Yet there is no proof of this speculation, and one will find only speculation in Watch Tower publications. Further, the available evidence is that the Jews returned to Judah in 538 BCE, thus wiping out Watch Tower chronology in one fell swoop.

:: The claim that the prophet Jeremiah predicted exactly 70 years of desolation of Judah is demonstrably false, using the Bible alone. What Jeremiah predicted was 70 years of Babylonian hegemony over the Near East. Desolation of Judah was to occur only if the Jews refused to bow to Babylonian rule   

Quote

No, the pivotal date for 1914 chronology is not 537 BCE but 539 BCE which is our 'anchor date' for OT Chronology and dates that are derived from that form the basis for our prophetic interpretation. The date 537 BCE is simply the beginning of the calculation for 1914 CE.

I'm perfectly well aware of the Watch Tower Society's claims, but I'm talking about reality: the reality is that 1914 must be maintained at all costs, and 1914 is based on these dates: return of the Jews -- back 70 years -- fall of Jerusalem -- forward 2,520 years -- 1914. The date of Babylon's fall (539) is undisputed. The date of the return of the Jews is undetermined in the scholarly community but Watch Tower chronology is fundamentally based on it being 537. Therefore it is the real, practical pivotal date.

Quote

There is no room for speculation in Chronology for it is a science and as such it must be testable or falsifiable and based on evidence and methodology. The date 537 BCE falls within these parameters. There is no evidence for 538 BCE in the scholarly literature just an assertion or opinion

Still lying. I and others have pointed out a number of sources to you. That you continue to ignore them proves your scholastic dishonesty.

Quote

also unlike our publications there is no methodology disclosed either in determining a date for the Return only assumptions which can have its place for Chronology not only demands a methodology but equally it demands interpretation.

Lying still more. I've given you a brief reference ( https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/ ), and you've read and ignored far more extensive writeups.

Quote

Jeremiah's seventy years are clearly stated as one of desolation

Wrong. Jer. 25 and 27 clearly define the 70 years as a period of Babylonian supremacy over all the nations in the Near East. Whether desolation of a nation occurred was contingent on how it reacted to Babylon's supremacy.

Quote

and this can be ignored for nowhere does Jeremiah disassociate the period of servitude from desolation for the two are linked together as in Jer. 25:11.

A flat out lie. As I pointed out, and you have steadfastly ignored, Jer. 27 shows that you're lying:

<< 8 “‘“‘If any nation or kingdom refuses to serve King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and refuses to put its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, I will punish that nation with the sword, with famine, and with pestilence,’ declares Jehovah, ‘until I have finished them off by his hand.’ 9 “‘“‘Therefore, do not listen to your prophets, your diviners, your dreamers, your magicians, and your sorcerers, who are saying to you: “You will not serve the king of Babylon.” 10 For they are prophesying lies to you, so that you will be taken far away from your land and I will disperse you and you will perish. 11 “‘“‘But the nation that brings its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon and serves him, I will allow to remain on its land,’ declares Jehovah, ‘to cultivate it and dwell in it.’”’” >>

You know you're lying because these scriptures have been pointed out to you dozens of times over the years.

Quote

Yes, a measure of contingency was involved for Jeremiah urged the populace to repent but the outcome was foretold and rest is history.

If the outcome was definitely to be desolation, then there was no contingency. Get your story straight.

:: Since Russell's day, the Watch Tower Society used 536 BCE as the pivotal date for its chronology, claiming that Babylon was destroyed and the desolation of Judah ended then. Thus they used 606 BCE as the beginning date for "the Gentile Times". In the 1940s and 1950s they changed a number of dates. Babylon's fall occurred in 536, then 537, then 538 and finally 539 BCE. The desolation of Jerusalem ended in 536, then 537 BCE. The "times of the Gentiles" began in 606, then 607 BCE. Always the goal was to maintain the 1914 date

Quote

Correct ! So What?

 

As I said above: the whole focus of Watch Tower efforts has been to maintain the 1914 date.

Quote

Chronology has and always be a 'work in progress' There is no 'perfect' Chronology. How many scholarly papers have been written over the this and the last century in trying to resolve problems and issues in Chronology. That was the motivation of Edwin Thiele and others so likewise WT scholars have in harmony with the latest scholarship have had to make adjustments and there is no need to be embarrassed or apologetic about it.

The difference is that the Watch Tower Society has always claimed that its chronology is divinely directed, and has treated critics as if they were heretics. Scholars don't do that.

:: More unevidenced gobble-de-goop. As I pointed out some 12 years ago, Josephus made statements about the beginning of the building of the temple in 537 BCE that, in conjunction with Ezra, prove that the Jews did not return to Judah in 537 but in 538 BCE. Need I refer you back to the old JWD threads where your claims were demolished

Quote

For starters, Josephus did not, as far as I know, assign past events into our modern calender

Straw man. Josephus did not use the modern Gregorian calendar since it did not exist, nor the Julian calendar. He used some form of the Jewish calendar, as anyone can see by reading his works.

Quote

thus such events relating to the rebuilding of the Temple require interpretation

Very little interpretation is needed. Ezra 3:8, 10 states that in the 2nd month of the 2nd year of the return of the Jews to Judah, the temple's foundations were laid. Since Ezra is clear that the Jews returned in the 7th month (Tishri of 538 or 537), the 2nd month of the next year must necessarily be Iyyar of 537 or 536. The Watch Tower Society claims 536, based on Ezra's statements.

Understanding Josephus' statement that "in the second year of the reign of Cyrus [the temple’s] foundations were laid" requires little interpretation. Whether that 2nd year is in a Nisan or Tishri calendar makes no difference to the final result -- the temple foundation was laid in Iyyar of 537, requiring the return of the Jews in 538.

Now, you can deal with actual details for once, or resort to your usual meaningless generalities and gobble-de-goop, as you do here:

Quote

and it is highly unlikely that his description of matters could upset 537 BCE for the Return. Now if you have worked out some thesis that refutes 537 BCE and confirms 538 BCE once for all, I am quite sure that scholars and historians the world over would appreciate such illumination.

Surely a competent scholar such as yourself could easily point out where Josephus and Ezra combined are wrong, thus saving us all a lot of trouble. But you can't, not now and not a decade ago. Thus you'll just bluster and spew gobble-de-goop.

Readers with a bit of scholastic honesty will read my linked article, analyze the evidence, and come to their own conclusions. But most of them already know that my argument is correct, and that you cannot refute it.

Quote

Also, now that you take notice of Josephus' testimony in order to disprove 537 BCE then Why do you not accept Josephus regarding the 'seventy years'?

Irrelevant, but I'll answer anyway: Josephus mentioned the 70 years four times. In the earliest three instances he said that Judah was desolated for 70 years, but a good deal of evidence shows that he was merely repeating the current popular legend. But in the last instance Josephus referenced material from an earlier Babylonian writer, set down various dates, and showed why the temple was desolated for fifty -- not seventy -- years. This latter material is consistent with most other historical material.

But you already know all this, so your bringing it up is a red herring and another instance of your scholastic dishonesty.
     
:: Since no definitive evidence is presented in any Watch Tower publications, the words "likely", "evidently", "doubtless", etc. clearly prove speculation

Quote

What these terms prove is called 'intellectual honesty' for such terms demonstrate that scholarship recognizes the limits of history and of the historical records so when constructing any scheme of Chronology one is forced or compelled to deal with Methodolgy and Interpretation. If you cannot grasp these concepts then you should drop the subject altogether.

More gross lying. The Watch Tower Society is so convinced that these speculations are divinely inspired that it actually declares anyone who disagrees an apostate from God, declares them wicked, and disfellowships them. That is NOT intellectual honesty but intellectual terrorism.

Furthermore, only in a handful of instances does the Society admit that its 537 date is speculative. In most cases, the date is stated or implied to be definitively established, thus definitively establishing a base for the 1914 calculation. The Watch Tower Society is lying about this. Like mother, like son.
     
:: Wrong. There are NO historical sources that are well established regarding 537 as you claim. The proof is easy: you cannot provide any

Quote

Now you are being childish or girlish for you know that WT scholars in their publications have always explained matters for we do not pluck a figure out of the ether. The date 537 BCE is endorsed by scholars and historians, others prefer 538 or even the late figure 536 BCE.

As I said: you cannot cite any historical sources to support your claim. You lose.
     
:: Wrong again. Ezra and Josephus together prove that 537 is impossible, and that 538 BCE is almost certainly the date. See https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/ for a brief discussion

Quote

This is simply your opinion and proves nothing for if 538 BCE is such a certainty then how is it the case that I do not find in any of the literature such explanation.

Because I'm the first one to have written about it, so far as I know.

Quote

COJ although preferring 538 over 537 did not make an issue other than quoting two sources so you will need to come up with not opinion but sound, reasoned scholarship, my lad.

Already done. Read the material at the link I provided.

You disagree with it? Then argue your case. Otherwise you're just blowing wind, as all readers can see.

Quote

If there was really such an issue then COJ would have been all over it for all that he has done is simply footnoted it.

COJ was not aware of this argument until after he published the last edition of GTR.
 
:: Wrong again. Most refuse to speculate, but a few offer 537 -- always without solid evidence -- and an equal number of others offer 538, usually without much evidence.

Quote

At last. Honesty prevails for your statement acknowledged that there is no place for dogmatism in Chronology but that it requires sound methodology and interpretation. Well done!

LOL! The Watch Tower Society and you are thoroughly dogmatic about your fake 537 date and about a host of other chronological matters. Such a gross hypocrite!
     
:: It certainly does fit the evidence, the only actual evidence being given by the combined testimony of Ezra and Josephus, as the above link shows.

Quote

Present your evidence with scholarship.

Read my linked essay.
     
:: Your usual unevidenced claims. As Christopher Hitchens observed, that which is set forth without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Except that I and others have provided mountains of evidence against Watch Tower Chronology.

Quote

Simple. Just do the online course sponsored by the Tel Aviv University under the auspices of Prof. Obed Lipschits and his course team- The Fall and Rise Of Jerusalem which plainly explains the political reality of the Neo-Babylonian Empire.

I've read Lipschits' book. It says nothing to support Watch Tower traditions.

Readers should note that "scholar JW" normally cites no scriptures or scholarly souces. Rather, he resorts to bald assertions and statements of opinion without presenting actual evidence.

AlanF

Scholar JW Pretendus wrote:

:: Who did the Jews become captive to and servants of? To Nebuchadnezzar and his sons. Until when were they captive? Until the kingdom of Persia began to reign in place of the kingdom of Babylon. In what year was that? In 539 BCE. Therefore the captivity of the Jews to Nebuchadnezzar and his sons ended in 539 BCE -- not in 537 BCE as the Watch Tower Society claims. What fulfilled "Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah"? The ending of the Jews' captivity by their being released by the newly reigning kingdom of Persia . . .   

Quote

No! The Jewish captives were not released in 539 BCE

I did not say they were. I've said consistently that a Jewish remnant left Babylon in early 538 BCE. I've said consistently that the Jews as a whole were no longer captive to "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons" after Babylon was overthrown simply because the Babylonian rulers were no longer in power and therefore could hold no captives.

For many years, Neil, your main tactic of argumentation has been to create straw men by misrepresenting what your oponents say. You're still at it. So unchristian!

Quote

but remained captive in Babylon until released by Cyrus in 537 BCE.

538, actually.

Quote

This fact is proven by 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 wherein Jehovah declared that it was in the 'first year of Cyrus the Persian that the captives would be released and his 'first year' was 538/537BCE.

So we agree on that. But the declaration of release was made in early (Nisan) 538 BCE, likely in conjunction with ceremonies connected with the beginning of Cyrus' first full regnal year (not his accession year, which began in late 539 shortly after his armies conquered Babylon). Since Ezra and Josephus together provide the only complete testimony (see https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/ ) on when rebuilding of the temple began (537 BCE), 537 is not possible for the return of the Jews to Judah, because temple rebuilding would have to have begun in 536 BCE, thus contradicting both Ezra and Josephus.

:: Also note that Jeremiah prophesied nothing about the land paying off sabbaths, so "Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah" had nothing to do with the paying off of sabbaths. Nor does the passage say that the paying of sabbaths ended when the 70 years ended. It merely says that during the 70 years the land would be paying sabbaths. Since various sources prove that the 70 years were a time of Babylonian supremacy over the Near East, and they most likely began in 609 BCE when Babylon overthrew the last remnants of the Assyrian empire, and they most certainly ended with Babylon's overthrow in 539 BCE, and Jerusalem was overthrown in 587 BCE, the sabbaths were certainly being paid during that time of Babylonian supremacy.

Quote

According to the Chronicler vs.21 clearly quotes Jeremiah's prophecy about the 'land paying off its sabbaths'

You just proved my point: Jeremiah nowhere makes such a prophecy.

If you disagree, then cite the appropriate passage.

Quote

which was a requisite component of the 'seventy years' period as the land had to remain desolate for 70 years as stated. In order for the land to repay its sabbaths it had to remain infertile, desolate for a fixed pre-determined period of time -seventy years. Nothing of any historical consequence occurred in 609 BCE as Babylon had by that time reached at any stage of political hegemony as Egypt remained the dominant player at that time in the region. The seventy years could not have begun in 609 BCE for the simple reason there was no suitable event that would warrant the status of a terminus a quo.

More unevidenced gobble-de-goop. You still can't cite the Bible for evidence.

:: According to this rendering, all that Daniel said was that 70 years must pass before the desolations of Jerusalem would end, not that the end of the desolations would coincide with the end of the 70 years

Quote

Daniel in ch.9 vs.2 simply affirms the ongoing fulfilment of the seventy years as a period of desolation of both Jerusalem and Judah.

Wrong. What Daniel says is ambiguous, as I have carefully explained.

Quote

He made this observation during the 'first year of Darius' which began after the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE proving that even at that late hour the 'seventy years' had not then expired.

Pure speculation and a fine example of circular argumentation. Far more likely, Daniel had already observed the fall of Babylon, and therefore concluded that the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy had ended, based on Jer. 25:11, 12: "'... and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years. But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,' declares Jehovah." Since Jehovah had clearly called to account the king of Babylon by removing him (Nabonidus) from power and killing his viceroy (and probably son, Belshazzar) Daniel could only conclude that the 70 years had ended.

:: This passage explicitly proves what I have said: the 70 years refer to Babylonian supremacy, not to the captivity of the Jews as a whole or the desolation of Jerusalem.

Quote

Jeremiah 29:10 simply affirms the fact that the seventy years was a period of Babylonian supremacy over the Jewish nation and its land as a period of servitude to Babylon whilst exiled in or at Babylon.

It does more than that. In conjunction with Jer. 25 and 27, it defines the 70 years as a period defined by Babylonian supremacy over the entire Near East, not merely supremacy over Judah or the captivity of the Jews. The latter was a minor event in Babylon's history.
     
:: Who are "these nations" that were to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years? The context of Jer. 25 is clear: the Jews and the nations round about. During what time period did they serve? From the beginning of Babylon's rule over the Near East in 609 BCE to its end in 539 when the Persian empire overthrew it.

:: Note that servitude is not the same as captivity. Jeremiah implored the Jews not to rebel against Babylon. If they did not, Jehovah would allow them to remain on their land during the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy. -- Jer. 27:4-11 They rebelled, and so were punished with captivity   

Quote

Jeremiah 25:11 describes the seventy years as a period of servitude of the Jewish nation whilst the land was desolate.

It does, but it mainly describes the 70 years as a period of servitude of Judah and all nations round about to Babylon. Jer. 25:8-11:

<< . . . I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these surrounding nations . . . and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years. >>

Judah is not the primary focus; "all these surrounding nations" are a far bigger target.

Quote

During this period other surrounding nations roundabout would also experience servitude, brought under Babylonian domination as in the case of Tyre, Egypt and others.

Exactly. But just as many of them capitulated to Babylon and were not made captive or desolate, so did Judah have the opportunity (Jer. 27) but rejected it, and suffered the consequences.

Why do you continue to ignore Jeremiah 27?

Quote

All of the 'seventy year' textual corpus proves that the 'seventy years was a definite historic period of servitude to Babylon,

Yes, of Judah and the surrounding nations.

Quote

an exile in Babylon with a desolated land

Wrong.

Quote

running from the Fall in 607 BCE until the Return in 537 BCE which harmonizes well with the many accounts of the Jewish historian, Josephus.

Totally wrong. Keeping on repeating nonsense that was debunked 40 years ago does not make it true.

And of course, Josephus and Ezra prove that a return in 537 is impossible.

AlanF

2 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

Yes, I know.  It's not good enough, of course, but at least it shows Cyrus' Decree being issued not before Oct of 538, when he actually arrived in Babylon.  The "seventh month" the remnant were settled back on their land,  and had resumed  the daily sacrifices ,wouldn't have been the seventh month of 538, then, would it?

I think  some people might prefer that travel back and forth between Babylon and Jerusalem be almost instantaneous, maybe to account for Nebuchadnezzar's amazing itineraries and battles schedule -some propose all happened "in his first year", if I'm remembering right?

Even the Watch Tower Society agrees that Cyrus conquered Babylon in early October of 539 BCE, and that his accession year was most likely 539-538. Thus Cyrus' 1st regnal year was 538-537, and he most likely issued his decree freeing the Jews and many other captives in early 538. Therefore there was sufficient time for the Jews to prepare for and journey back Judah by early October, 538 BCE.

AlanF

Scholar JW Pretendus wrote:

Quote

Again you misrepresent the facts for nowhere did the Society in the quotation on page 134 of the Proclaimers book use the word 'equate' but used the word 'connect' which is not synonymic.

Either you cannot read, or you're a hopeless liar. Read again what I said:

:: 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.

Quote

Brown simply connects these two time periods simply on the basis that the 'seven times' would be the 'Gentile Times' as part of the signs of his second coming which also would include his second judgement etc..(Eventide , 1823, vol.2.p.208)

Brown "connects" the two periods vaguely at 1917, and not even directly but through an intermediate 75 lunar year period at the end of the "Gentile Times". The "seven times" were 2,520 solar years beginning in 604 BCE and ending in 1917 CE. The "Gentile Times" of the "Mohameddan Imposture" began in 622 CE with Mohamed's flight to Mecca, and ended in 1844 CE. From 1844 to 1917 is 75 lunar (Mohameddan) years.

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?

Quote

The Proclaimers book on p.134 simply stated the fact of the connection between the two time periods contra Jonsson who had asserted the contrary.

No he didn't. Cite your sources if you disagree.

Quote

How then as you claim that Brown equated the two periods

I did not. You are either a liar or abysmally stupid.

Quote

when in fact he interprets both periods differently throughout his treatise and the Society did not 'equate' these either but simply affirmed the connection which is clearly understood by any unbiased reader.

The Society strongly implied -- in context -- an equation.

Quote

The Society in its publication did not explain the connection but simply affirmed it, Brown, on the other hand, connected the two contextually by means of two successive paragraphs, one with the former 'seven times' and in the next, by a quotation of Lule 21;24. Further, the link between the two time periods is part of the' signs of his second coming'.

Let's see if you can quote Brown and make your above statements specific. No one will be holding their breath.

Quote

There you have it in a 'nutshell'. No need for 'gobble-de-goop'.

Almost nothing but unevidenced gobble-de-goop.

AlanF

Scholar JW Pretendus wrote:

:: As usual, JW defenders with their preset agenda are here making pronouncements on subjects they know little or nothing about. I'll disabuse them of some of their notions with facts

Quote

 

Yes Alan, let's get some facts.

I shan't worry about your early comments on 1914 as these are simply nonsense.

 

As usual you provide no evidence whatsoever -- just your bald assertions which are contradicted by a world of facts.

Quote

As this post is about 607 BCE let us stick to that!

:: The Watch Tower Society's pivotal date for its 1914 chronology is 537 BCE, which it bases on speculation that there were about two years between the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE and the return of some Jewish exiles to Judah in 537 BCE. Yet there is no proof of this speculation, and one will find only speculation in Watch Tower publications. Further, the available evidence is that the Jews returned to Judah in 538 BCE, thus wiping out Watch Tower chronology in one fell swoop.

:: The claim that the prophet Jeremiah predicted exactly 70 years of desolation of Judah is demonstrably false, using the Bible alone. What Jeremiah predicted was 70 years of Babylonian hegemony over the Near East. Desolation of Judah was to occur only if the Jews refused to bow to Babylonian rule.   

Quote

No, the pivotal date for WT chronology is 539 BCE and not 537 BCE

So they claim, but their actual statements prove this wrong.

Since Russell's day, the Watch Tower Society used 536 BCE as the pivotal date for its chronology, claiming that Babylon was destroyed and the desolation of Judah ended then. Thus they used 606 BCE as the beginning date for "the Gentile Times". In the 1940s and 1950s they changed a number of dates. Babylon's fall occurred in 536, then 537, then 538 and finally 539 BCE. The desolation of Jerusalem ended in 536, then 537 BCE. The "times of the Gentiles" began in 606, then 607 BCE. Always the goal was to maintain the 1914 date.

The WTS's basic claim is that the beginning of the "Gentile Times" is to be counted from 70 years back from 537 BCE. This counting back 70 years has always been the most fundamental claim for WTS chronology.

Quote

and there is no speculation associated with the calculation of 537 BCE for it is a 'stand alone' date based on the historical events described 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-3:1-7.

More unevidenced gobble-de-goop. As I pointed out some 12 years ago, Josephus made statements about the beginning of the building of the temple in 537 BCE that, in conjunction with Ezra, prove that the Jews did not return to Judah in 537 but in 538 BCE. Need I refer you back to the old JWD threads where your claims were demolished?

Quote

The word speculation is defined as: contemplation along with other related meanings such as conjecture but nothing of that sort is present in WT publications discussing the chronology of the Return of the Jewish Exiles.

Easily falsified with some examples:

Quote

 

Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E. -- Insight, Vol.1, p.568

This decree was evidently issued late in 538 B.C.E. or early in 537 B.C.E. -- All Scripture, p. 85

Cyrus’ first regnal year would end on March 5 of 537 B.C., or toward the end of the rainy season. Doubtless he considerately issued his decree near the end of the rainy season, shortly before March 5 of 537 B.C. -- W64 2/1 p. 80

 

Since no definitive evidence is presented in any Watch Tower publications, the words "likely", "evidently", "doubtless", etc. clearly prove speculation.

Quote

The date 537 BCE is well established historically,

Wrong. There are NO historical sources that are well established regarding 537 as you claim. The proof is easy: you cannot provide any.

Quote

biblically

Wrong again. Ezra and Josephus together prove that 537 is impossible, and that 538 BCE is almost certainly the date. See https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/ for a brief discussion.

Quote

and in accordance with sound principles of Chronology.

Translation: "in accordance with Watch Tower Tradition".

Quote

The WT publications clearly outline all of the data associated with this period and a relevant dating is thereby established as outlined. There is nothing 'bogus' or 'fuzzy' here.

As shown above, even the Watch Tower admits it's speculation. It is proved by the complete lack of definitive evidence.

Quote

In fact, even Carl Jonsson has not found any problems with our Methodology  simply proposing 537 or 538 BCE for the Return.

Wrong again. Do I have to cite page numbers from GTR for you, oh great and wonderful Oz?

Quote

In fact, biblical historians leave this matter open by simply either omitting a precise date or giving a suggestive date for the Return.

Wrong again. Most refuse to speculate, but a few offer 537 -- always without solid evidence -- and an equal number of others offer 538, usually without much evidence.

Quote

Your date of 538 BCE does not fit the evidence and is a poor choice, yes you can make it fit but it is a tight squeeze, for 537 BCE is just a nice fit, comfortable in scope and nature.

It certainly does fit the evidence, the only actual evidence being given by the combined testimony of Ezra and Josephus, as the above link shows.

Quote

Your claim that Jeremiah's 'seventy years' represents only a period of Babylonian hegemony over the Near East is only partially correct for this period also represents total desolation of Jerusalem and Judah and the Exile for and in Babylon.No other theory than this fits all of the biblical, historical data coincides with secular history namely Josephus and fits well within the OT theological context.

Your usual unevidenced claims. As Christopher Hitchens observed, that which is set forth without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Except that I and others have provided mountains of evidence against Watch Tower Chronology.

AlanF

Arauna:

You yourself just proved what I said:

:: The claim that the prophet Jeremiah predicted exactly 70 years of desolation of Judah is demonstrably false, using the Bible alone.

Since you insist, I'll have to demonstrate my claim.

Quote

 

2 CRON 36:20 + 21

20 He took all the survivors to Babylonia, where they served him and his descendants as slaves until the rise of the Persian Empire. 21 And so what the Lord had foretold through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: "The land will lie desolate for seventy years, to make up for the Sabbath rest[c] that has not been observed."

 

The GNT is a "dynamic equivalence" translation that often relies on interpretation rather than literal interpretation. The above misrepresents what Jeremiah said, because it is an interpretation not a literal translation. Much better is the NWT's rendering:

Quote

20 He carried off captive to Babylon those who escaped the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia began to reign, 21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill 70 years.

Who did the Jews become captive to and servants of? To Nebuchadnezzar and his sons. Until when were they captive? Until the kingdom of Persia began to reign in place of the kingdom of Babylon. In what year was that? In 539 BCE. Therefore the captivity of the Jews to Nebuchadnezzar and his sons ended in 539 BCE -- not in 537 BCE as the Watch Tower Society claims. What fulfilled "Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah"? The ending of the Jews' captivity by their being released by the newly reigning kingdom of Persia.

Also note that Jeremiah prophesied nothing about the land paying off sabbaths, so "Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah" had nothing to do with the paying off of sabbaths. Nor does the passage say that the paying of sabbaths ended when the 70 years ended. It merely says that during the 70 years the land would be paying sabbaths. Since various sources prove that the 70 years were a time of Babylonian supremacy over the Near East, and they most likely began in 609 BCE when Babylon overthrew the last remnants of the Assyrian empire, and they most certainly ended with Babylon's overthrow in 539 BCE, and Jerusalem was overthrown in 587 BCE, the sabbaths were certainly being paid during that time of Babylonian supremacy.

Thus, various other Bible passages must be understood in light of the clear and unambiguous statement in 2 Chron. 36:20 that the Jews were captive to the Babylonians until the Persians began to reign, which was in 539 BCE.

Quote

 

Daniel 9

Darius the Mede, who was the son of Xerxes, ruled over the kingdom of Babylonia. 2 In the first year of his reign I was studying the sacred books and thinking about the seventy years that Jerusalem would be in ruins, according to what the Lord had told the prophet Jeremiah. 3

 

A good example of what I just said, and of the interpretation put upon Daniel 9 by the GNT. A literal translation shows that Daniel did not say that Jerusalem would be in ruins for 70 years. The NWT is again much more literal:

Quote

9 In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus -- a descendant of the Medes who had been made king over the kingdom of the Chadeans -- 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.

This does not state that the desolation of Jerusalem would end when the 70 years ended. Indeed, it could not mean that, since we have the direct statement in 2 Chron. 36:20 that the 70 years of captivity ended when the Persian empire came to power in 539 BCE.

The ESV allows for this fact:

Quote

9 In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, by descent a Mede, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans -- 2 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.

According to this rendering, all that Daniel said was that 70 years must pass before the desolations of Jerusalem would end, not that the end of the desolations would coincide with the end of the 70 years.

So Daniel 9 cannot be used to prove anything; it is ambiguous and therefore must be understood in light of other Bible passages.

Quote

 

Jeremiah 29:10 Good News Translation (GNT)

10
“The Lord says, ‘When Babylonia's seventy years are over, I will show my concern for you and keep my promise to bring you back home.

 

This passage explicitly proves what I have said: the 70 years refer to Babylonian supremacy, not to the captivity of the Jews as a whole or the desolation of Jerusalem.
 

Quote

 

Jeremiah 25:

11 And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.

12 And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, a

 

Who are "these nations" that were to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years? The context of Jer. 25 is clear: the Jews and the nations round about. During what time period did they serve? From the beginning of Babylon's rule over the Near East in 609 BCE to its end in 539 when the Persian empire overthrew it.

Note that servitude is not the same as captivity. Jeremiah implored the Jews not to rebel against Babylon. If they did not, Jehovah would allow them to remain on their land during the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy. -- Jer. 27:4-11 They rebelled, and so were punished with captivity.

So you can see how easy it is to disprove Watch Tower Chronology using the Bible alone -- as long as you don't saddle the Bible with Watch Tower traditions.

For a great deal more information on this topic, see here:

https://ad1914.com/

Also see:

https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/

These links contain many links to other definitive deconstructions of Watch Tower chronology.

AlanF

Scholar JW Pretendus wrote:

Quote

. . . Alan F who incidentally was forced to concede that there is, in fact, a 'connection' established from the context on page 208.

LOL! A leopard doesn't change its spots, and pathological liars rarely quit lying.

I never claimed that Brown wrote or implied that there is no "connection" between "the seven times" and "the Gentile Times". Rather, 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.

The overall topic is stated in the title to the section "End of the Gentile Times". The section begins:

Quote

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.

Most readers, especially JW readers, are well aware that the Watch Tower Society has always equated these two periods. Therefore, 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. Here is the offending statement:

Quote

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 "even times" with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24.

So then, SJWP, in exactly what sense do you think that the Proclaimers book connected the "seven times" with the "Gentile Times"? And how did Brown connect them? Justify your answer by quoting the appropriate sources.

Of course, all who know your wily ways understand that you'll never answer, any more than you did in our old debate 14 years ago. Rather, at best you'll unleash a blather of gobble-de-goop in an attempt to sidestep.

Quote

I hope it takes you much less time to discern the nature of the 'connection'!

Ann O'Maly is well aware of exactly what the "connection" is. You are obviously clueless.

AlanF

As usual, JW defenders with their preset agenda are here making pronouncements on subjects they know little or nothing about. I'll disabuse them of some of their notions with facts.

On 1914:

C. T. Russell made the 1914 date the linchpin of his chronological doctrinal structure beginning in 1876. His creation, the Watch Tower Society, has continued with this false structure through today.

How do we know that Russell's chronological structure is false? By many methods, but what I'll mention here is that the proof is in the pudding:

Not a single one of Russell's predictions for visible events based on that structure came true.

Not one of the supposedly Bible-based claims made by Russell's successors in the Watch Tower Society for the post-1914 period are valid:

Famine in the world has, on average, been much less severe than pre-1914.

Pestilence in the world has, on average, been much less severe than pre-1914.

War has been, on average, nearly the same in terms of per capita killed than pre-1914.

Earthquake frequency and intensity have been about the same as pre-1914. The risk of death due to earthquakes is substantially lower than pre-1914; the per-capita death rate in the 18th century was about 2 1/2 times lower than in the 20th century.

Had the mass killers of history claimed by the Watch Tower Society to have been operating on an unprecedently high level since 1914 actually been so operating, they would have killed an unprecedently high percentage of world population, resulting in a massive population crash. Yet we see a massive population explosion beginning in the early 1800s and continuing without letup through today.

Yes, today there are many potential severe killers on the loose: global warming, political crises, war, etc. But these do not support the Watch Tower Society's tradition about post-1914 events (e.g. famine, pestilence, war, earthquakes). Thus, trouble in the world today is irrelevent to the Watch Tower Society's claims about events beginning in 1914.

On 607:

The Watch Tower Society's pivotal date for its 1914 chronology is 537 BCE, which it bases on speculation that there were about two years between the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE and the return of some Jewish exiles to Judah in 537 BCE. Yet there is no proof of this speculation, and one will find only speculation in Watch Tower publications. Further, the available evidence is that the Jews returned to Judah in 538 BCE, thus wiping out Watch Tower chronology in one fell swoop.

The claim that the prophet Jeremiah predicted exactly 70 years of desolation of Judah is demonstrably false, using the Bible alone. What Jeremiah predicted was 70 years of Babylonian hegemony over the Near East. Desolation of Judah was to occur only if the Jews refused to bow to Babylonian rule.

Much more could be said, but for now I'll leave it at that.

AlanF