AlanF

But the 70 years are not contingent on Jerusalem being repopulated. Jeremiah prophesied that the nations would serve Babylon for 70 years and that time would be up when the Babylonian king was 'called to account.' (Jer. 25) That 'calling to account' happened in 539 when Nabonidus and Belshazzar were deposed/killed. Thus, 539 marked the end of the 70 years servitude to the Babylonian dynasty.

I already showed you the Scriptural proof that they ended in 539 BCE when Jehovah "called to account" against Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty by conquering Babylon, deposing king Nabonidus and killing king Belshazzar. (Jer. 25:12, etc.)
The Bible does not specify the start of the 70 years, but there are enough hints in the Bible that the period was already running when Jeremiah issued several prophecies. (e.g., Jer. 29:10) Many commentators now tend to view the start as in 609 BCE, when the Babylonians put an end to the last of the Assyrian forces at the battle of Harran. But no one is dogmatic about it, since the Bible is silent.
Because of your JW training, you have it strongly ingrained that the 70 years are of great significance. They are not. The ONLY reason the Watchtower Society views them as significant is that without the 70 years, they cannot get to 1914.

Arauna said:
Once again: PROVE IT.
So what?
What does any of that have to do with the price of bread in Uruk?
So what? The only things the Babylonian astrologers recorded were perfectly normal things in the sky -- eclipses, positions of various bright objects, etc. No livers.
I challenge you again: how do those religious practices affect and/or distort the OBSERVATIONS these people made? Especially when they viewed making accurate observations as their sacred duty? What EVIDENCE do you have for your claims?
So what? The Bible clearly says it was not a star but some sort of light moving around and guiding the Magi. The people who recorded the supposed incident certainly didn't say that it was an astronomical observation.
As usual you're just throwing out all manner of crap hoping something will stick.
Try thinking for a change.

No. While the foundations were laid in the 2nd year of the Return, opposers quickly put a stop to the building. It was not resumed until the reign of Darius Hystaspis, and completed sometime around 516/515 BCE.
A decree permitting them to build is in no way the same as them starting the building.

Anna said:
This says nothing about laying the foundations of the temple. It does say something about returning to Jerusalem to restore true worship, and Ezra does say something about laying the temple foundations:
Ezra 3:8-10 states that the temple foundations were laid in the second month of the second year of the Jews' return. The first year of the Jews' return ran from either Tishri, 539 BCE through Elul, 538 BCE, or Nisan, 538 BCE through Adar, 537 BCE. Assuming the more likely Tishri-Tishri dating system, the second year began in Tishri, 538 BCE. 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 Iyyar was also in 537. Therefore, the temple's foundations were laid in Iyyar, 537 BCE.
You can find my extended discussion of all of this here: https://critiquesonthewatchtower.org/new-articles/2019/02/why_jews_returned_538.pdf

Anna said:
That's a big oversimplification of what Jeremiah said, so let's look at several of the passages of interest.
Jer. 29:10 New American Standard Bible
<< For this is what the Lord says: ‘When seventy years have been completed for Babylon, I will visit you and fulfill My good word to you, to bring you back to this place. >>
That says nothing about 70 years of captivity. It does say 70 years for Babylon. The sense is that when 70 years of Babylonian supremacy over something -- which other passages show is supremacy over the entire Middle East -- when 70 years of supremacy over the Middle East have ended, God would return the Jews to Judah.
The New World Translation in English follows the obsolete King James Version here, and uses "70 years AT Babylon". Many commentators have shown why this is wrong.
The above is entirely consistent with all other relevant passages -- as long as Watchtower spin is not applied. Take a look (this material is borrowed from the essay I pointed you to ( https://ad1914.com/biblical-evidence-against-watchtower-society-chronology/ 😞
Linguistic, contextual and historical biblical facts show that Jeremiah predicted that Judah and the nations around it would, as a group, serve Nebuchadnezzar’s dynasty for 70 years (Jer. 25:8-12; 27:6-7). The key passage is Jer. 25:11: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” The Bible and secular history show that Judah and various nations individually served less than 70 years, depending on when they were first conquered and how one measures “serving.” God, through Jeremiah and other prophets, gave each nation the choice whether to serve on their own land or in exile (Jer. 27:7-11, 17; 40:9-10). To serve in their own land they had to submit to Nebuchadnezzar. The Jews under various kings refused; hence they were taken into exile at various times from 605/4 through 582 BCE (Dan. 1:1-2; Jer. 52:28-30). Thus there was no 70-year exile or captivity or desolation of Judah.
A key point is: Jer.29:10 and Jer.25:11 are consistent: the Jews and surrounding nations would SERVE Babylon 70 years. Whether they would serve while remaining in their own land, or as captives in Babylon, depended upon their peacefully submitting to Babylon.
The 70 years of Babylonian supremacy ended in 539 BCE when Jehovah “called to account” against, or punished, Nebuchadnezzar’s dynasty (Jer. 25:12) by allowing the Medo-Persian empire under Cyrus to conquer Babylon and put an end to Nebuchadnezzar’s dynasty. This is directly stated in Daniel 5, where verses 28-30 say: “Your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and the Persians… in that very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was killed.” In contrast, the Society claims that Nebuchadnezzar’s dynasty was called to account two years after its demise, when the Persians freed the Jews to return home (w79 9/15 pp. 23-24; g 5/13 p. 13), but this is ridiculous. You cannot punish a dynasty that no longer exists.
2 Chronicles 36:20 states that Nebuchadnezzar’s minions carried off Jews to Babylon, and these Jews remained servants to Nebuchadnezzar’s dynasty until the Persians under Cyrus took over, after which they were servants to Cyrus and his minions until Cyrus let them return to Judah. This confirms again that the 70 years were a time of Babylonian supremacy, not the term of the desolation of Judah. That desolation occurred during the 70 years. This is consistent with Jer. 25:8, 11, 12 which states that the Jews and nations round about would be servants to “Nebuchadnezzar and his sons” until God called them to account.
Because Jews were taken into exile in 605/4, 597, 587 and 582 BCE, and released in 538, there was not just a single period of exile or captivity. Therefore it is wrong to speak of a 70-year exile or captivity. Similarly it is wrong to speak of a 70-year desolation of Judah, because Jerusalem was ruined (Hebrew: chorbah) in a relative sense from the Jewish point of view when Nebuchadnezzar first took a few captives (including Daniel) in 605/4 BCE, and in a complete sense after most of the Jews left the land between 587 and 582 BCE.
Much more could be said about all this, but I'm sure issues will come up during this discussion.

Yes they do. What you really mean is that secular dates do not match Watchtower history -- which demonstrably differs from biblical history.
Let's see if you manage a simple task: list the dates in question and the Scriptural and secular evidence for/against them. Of course, following your usual pattern, you won't.
Nonsense. Once again it is Watchtower 'chronology' that doesn't fit.
You've demonstrated repeatedly that you need to be spoken to like a petulant child.
Duh. That's because astronomy as such did not yet exist. Astrology -- predicting events based on the supposed connection between heavenly and earthly events -- was the motivation.
If anything, because astrology was religious in nature, Babylonian observers would have been all the more diligent in recording their observations. After all, when modern astronomers get something wrong, they only have to give an account to their boss. Babylonian astronomers had to give an account to their gods.
Wrong. You've got it ass- backwards, as usual.
You studied history from about 2,500 years too early.
That's funny, coming from someone who can't distinguish the Sumerian culture of 3,000 BCE from the Babylonian culture of 500 BCE.
Complete nonsense. Observations are observations, irrespective of the religiosity of the observer. The interpretations, if any, involve applying the observations to predicting earthly events. Again you display ass-backwards thinking.

Those scriptures only talk about them settling in their cities in the 7th month and building some makeshift temporary altar.
Ezra 3:6 - From the first day of the seventh month they started to offer up burnt sacrifices to Jehovah, though the foundation of Jehovah’s temple had not yet been laid.
Ezra 3:8 - In the second year after they came to the house of the true God at Jerusalem, in the second month, Ze·rubʹba·bel the son of She·alʹti·el, Jeshʹu·a the son of Je·hozʹa·dak and the rest of their brothers, the priests and the Levites, and all those who had come to Jerusalem out of the captivity started the work; they appointed the Levites from 20 years old and up to serve as supervisors over the work of the house of Jehovah.
So the Jews, quite sensibly, didn't start work on the temple during the winter but waited till the next spring (536, WT time).

The problem with that approach is that God's promise in v.10 would have been meaningless or misleading to those thousands of exiles already there. The whole reason for the letter was to neutralize false information coming from bad prophets who said the Babylonian yoke will be broken within a couple of years (Jer. 27 & 28). The letter was meant for those already exiled - not for those still in Jerusalem who, at that point in time, may never have ended up in exile. After all, God was giving them opportunities to avoid disaster:
Jer. 27:11, 17 - 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.
Do not listen to them. Serve the king of Babylon and you will keep living. Why should this city become a ruin?
Had they listened, Jerusalem would have been left alone and no more captives would have been taken. Jerusalem's destruction was not a foregone conclusion; 70 years servitude to Babylon (regardless of whether the Jews were exiled or at home) was inescapable.

Ezra said Cyrus' decree was given in his 1st year. WT understands that to have been late 538/early 537 (we won't go into how valid or otherwise that assumption is for now). The trip, according to Ezra 7:9, takes about 4 months. Ezra also said the Jews were settled in their cities by the 7th month (Tishri - around October). Therefore, WT understands that the first batch of Jews had returned to their homeland in 537.
"Then, during his first year as ruler of Babylon, Cyrus issued a decree opening the way for the Jewish exiles to return to Jerusalem. (Ezr 1:1-4) ... A remnant that numbered 42,360 (including men, women, and children) made the journey, arriving in Judah in 537 B.C.E. (Ezr 1:5–3:1; 4:1)"
- it-2 p. 332 - Insight, Volume 2

Anna said:
This says nothing about laying the foundations of the temple. It does say something about returning to Jerusalem to restore true worship, and Ezra does say something about laying the temple foundations:
Ezra 3:8-10 states that the temple foundations were laid in the second month of the second year of the Jews' return. The first year of the Jews' return ran from either Tishri, 539 BCE through Elul, 538 BCE, or Nisan, 538 BCE through Adar, 537 BCE. Assuming the more likely Tishri-Tishri dating system, the second year began in Tishri, 538 BCE. 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 Iyyar was also in 537. Therefore, the temple's foundations were laid in Iyyar, 537 BCE.
You can find my extended discussion of all of this here: https://critiquesonthewatchtower.org/new-articles/2019/02/why_jews_returned_538.pdf

Anna said:
That's a big oversimplification of what Jeremiah said, so let's look at several of the passages of interest.
Jer. 29:10 New American Standard Bible
<< For this is what the Lord says: ‘When seventy years have been completed for Babylon, I will visit you and fulfill My good word to you, to bring you back to this place. >>
That says nothing about 70 years of captivity. It does say 70 years for Babylon. The sense is that when 70 years of Babylonian supremacy over something -- which other passages show is supremacy over the entire Middle East -- when 70 years of supremacy over the Middle East have ended, God would return the Jews to Judah.
The New World Translation in English follows the obsolete King James Version here, and uses "70 years AT Babylon". Many commentators have shown why this is wrong.
The above is entirely consistent with all other relevant passages -- as long as Watchtower spin is not applied. Take a look (this material is borrowed from the essay I pointed you to ( https://ad1914.com/biblical-evidence-against-watchtower-society-chronology/ 😞
Linguistic, contextual and historical biblical facts show that Jeremiah predicted that Judah and the nations around it would, as a group, serve Nebuchadnezzar’s dynasty for 70 years (Jer. 25:8-12; 27:6-7). The key passage is Jer. 25:11: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” The Bible and secular history show that Judah and various nations individually served less than 70 years, depending on when they were first conquered and how one measures “serving.” God, through Jeremiah and other prophets, gave each nation the choice whether to serve on their own land or in exile (Jer. 27:7-11, 17; 40:9-10). To serve in their own land they had to submit to Nebuchadnezzar. The Jews under various kings refused; hence they were taken into exile at various times from 605/4 through 582 BCE (Dan. 1:1-2; Jer. 52:28-30). Thus there was no 70-year exile or captivity or desolation of Judah.
A key point is: Jer.29:10 and Jer.25:11 are consistent: the Jews and surrounding nations would SERVE Babylon 70 years. Whether they would serve while remaining in their own land, or as captives in Babylon, depended upon their peacefully submitting to Babylon.
The 70 years of Babylonian supremacy ended in 539 BCE when Jehovah “called to account” against, or punished, Nebuchadnezzar’s dynasty (Jer. 25:12) by allowing the Medo-Persian empire under Cyrus to conquer Babylon and put an end to Nebuchadnezzar’s dynasty. This is directly stated in Daniel 5, where verses 28-30 say: “Your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and the Persians… in that very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was killed.” In contrast, the Society claims that Nebuchadnezzar’s dynasty was called to account two years after its demise, when the Persians freed the Jews to return home (w79 9/15 pp. 23-24; g 5/13 p. 13), but this is ridiculous. You cannot punish a dynasty that no longer exists.
2 Chronicles 36:20 states that Nebuchadnezzar’s minions carried off Jews to Babylon, and these Jews remained servants to Nebuchadnezzar’s dynasty until the Persians under Cyrus took over, after which they were servants to Cyrus and his minions until Cyrus let them return to Judah. This confirms again that the 70 years were a time of Babylonian supremacy, not the term of the desolation of Judah. That desolation occurred during the 70 years. This is consistent with Jer. 25:8, 11, 12 which states that the Jews and nations round about would be servants to “Nebuchadnezzar and his sons” until God called them to account.
Because Jews were taken into exile in 605/4, 597, 587 and 582 BCE, and released in 538, there was not just a single period of exile or captivity. Therefore it is wrong to speak of a 70-year exile or captivity. Similarly it is wrong to speak of a 70-year desolation of Judah, because Jerusalem was ruined (Hebrew: chorbah) in a relative sense from the Jewish point of view when Nebuchadnezzar first took a few captives (including Daniel) in 605/4 BCE, and in a complete sense after most of the Jews left the land between 587 and 582 BCE.
Much more could be said about all this, but I'm sure issues will come up during this discussion.

You have yet to evidence your superior knowledge on the matter, Arauna. From what you wrote, you seemed to know very little.
I explained all that in my post and is the reason I put quote marks around the word 'science.' The Babylonians were committed and (for their time) expert sky-watchers. They recorded what they saw and tried to develop mathematical methods to predict what they would see in the future. This is proto-science, if you like. If you have done any reading or study of their practices, you should know this.
Anyway, astrology was intertwined with astronomy right up until the 17th or 18th century when the scientific method began to be formalized and they became separate disciplines. As I said before: to be a 'competent' astrologer, you had to be a competent astronomer. The Babylonians' superstitions and interpretations of celestial phenomena in no way negates what they observed. The sky doesn't lie. If the Moon or a planet was so many cubits from a certain star on a certain date, it can be checked and verified. What's so hard to understand about that?

Think about that for a minute. 
Let's use the rNWT for this verse:
10 “For this is what Jehovah says, ‘When 70 years at Babylon are fulfilled, I will turn my attention to you, and I will make good my promise by bringing you back to this place.’
But who was Jeremiah talking to? V. 1, 2:
These are the words of the letter that Jeremiah the prophet sent from Jerusalem to the rest of the elders among the exiled people, the priests, the prophets, and all the people, whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar had taken into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon,  after King Jec·o·niʹah, the queen mother, the court officials, the princes of Judah and Jerusalem, and the craftsmen and the metalworkers had gone out of Jerusalem.
The letter was for the exiles taken in 617 (WT time). Checking the figures in 2 Kings 24 and at the end of Jer. 52, the greatest number of captives were taken then. Jehovah told these exiles that he would turn his attention to them once their 70 years 'at Babylon' was fulfilled. But if these exiles were taken in 617, when God turned his attention to them after Babylon fell, they would have actually been 'at Babylon' 80 years - not 70.
Something has gone awry with WT's translation and application here, don't you think? Or do you have a resolution for this anomaly?
 

Because nothing happened that Russell predicted based on his interpretations of the Bible and secular history, it should be obvious that the underlying chronological calculations were bogus.
Not really. What happened is a lot more complicated. Rutherford used 1874 rather than 1914 until the early 1930s. Then over the next decade, Rutherford and Franz gradually migrated everything about 1874 to 1914. I cover some of this in a recent essay, if you're interested.
But when a group of religious leaders claim to speak for God, and to be guided by him, and to be God's mouthpiece, and to receive angelic direction, that's a lot more significant than in other spheres of life. After all, scientists won't disfellowship you from some organization merely because you contradict the ideas of prominent scientists. And they don't claim to speak for God, but for themselves, by writing papers that marshal evidence and try to convince other scientists by weight of evidence rather than weight of authority.

Because nothing happened that Russell predicted based on his interpretations of the Bible and secular history, it should be obvious that the underlying chronological calculations were bogus.
Not really. What happened is a lot more complicated. Rutherford used 1874 rather than 1914 until the early 1930s. Then over the next decade, Rutherford and Franz gradually migrated everything about 1874 to 1914. I cover some of this in a recent essay, if you're interested.
But when a group of religious leaders claim to speak for God, and to be guided by him, and to be God's mouthpiece, and to receive angelic direction, that's a lot more significant than in other spheres of life. After all, scientists won't disfellowship you from some organization merely because you contradict the ideas of prominent scientists. And they don't claim to speak for God, but for themselves, by writing papers that marshal evidence and try to convince other scientists by weight of evidence rather than weight of authority.

Because nothing happened that Russell predicted based on his interpretations of the Bible and secular history, it should be obvious that the underlying chronological calculations were bogus.
Not really. What happened is a lot more complicated. Rutherford used 1874 rather than 1914 until the early 1930s. Then over the next decade, Rutherford and Franz gradually migrated everything about 1874 to 1914. I cover some of this in a recent essay, if you're interested.
But when a group of religious leaders claim to speak for God, and to be guided by him, and to be God's mouthpiece, and to receive angelic direction, that's a lot more significant than in other spheres of life. After all, scientists won't disfellowship you from some organization merely because you contradict the ideas of prominent scientists. And they don't claim to speak for God, but for themselves, by writing papers that marshal evidence and try to convince other scientists by weight of evidence rather than weight of authority.

Nonsense. Did Jehovah cause the 9/11 deaths in New York?
By the same token, Jehovah is responsible for the horrible deaths of every prey animal on earth for half a billion years.
And of course, Jehovah is responsible for all of the Watchtower Society's false predictions and false teachings.

Anna said:
Actually, both dates are not only disputable, but flat out wrong. See below.
How times have changed. When I was a teenager in the 1960s, the whole "Gentile times" doctrine was put constantly to the fore. Even as a young teen, I knew the basis for the entire doctrine front to back. I arrogantly thought that this was part of why we JWs were a religion so superior to all others -- we knew the Truth!
Correct. And of course, both the 70 year figure and 537 are purely Watchtower interpretations of the underlying Bible verses and secular history. Those interpretations are demonstrably wrong.
Indeed. You might start with my essay "Biblical Evidence Against Watchtower Society Chronology" ( https://ad1914.com/biblical-evidence-against-watchtower-society-chronology/ ). It's about as simplified as I know how to make a subject that the Watchtower Society has so badly convoluted. Look up the Scriptural passages, and make your own judgments. If you find something you disagree with, by all means bring it up in this thread.
To date, not one JW apologist has published a refutation of my essay on any forum I'm aware of. Incompetent fakes like ScholarJW object to its conclusions, but only with a circular 'argument': "it's wrong because 607 is right." You'll probably see that here with ScholarJW.
As for anything in 1914 being 'predicted' by C. T. Russell, he got nothing right. Everything he predicted that was supposed to be observable failed. Note his predictions (See 
https://critiquesonthewatchtower.org/old-articles/2006/02/part-2-statements-concerning-1799-1874.html for more 😞
The Time Is At Hand, (originally published in 1889), said concerning the Times of the Gentiles, on pages 76-77 (early 1912 Edition):
<<
God's Kingdom, the Kingdom of Jehovah's Anointed... will be established gradually, during a great time of trouble with which the Gospel age will close, and in the midst of which present dominions shall be utterly consumed, passing away amid great confusion.
In this chapter we present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the Gentiles, i.e., the full end of their lease of dominion, will be reached in A.D. 1914; and that that date will be the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men. And be it observed, that if this is shown to be a fact firmly established by the Scriptures, it will prove: --
Firstly, That at that date the Kingdom of God, for which our Lord taught us to pray, saying, "Thy Kingdom come," will have obtained full, universal control, and that it will then be "set up," or firmly established, in the earth, on the ruins of present institutions.
Secondly, It will prove that he whose right it is thus to take the dominion will then be present as earth's new Ruler; and not only so, but it will also prove that he will be present for a considerable period before that date; because the overthrow of these Gentile governments is directly caused by his dashing them to pieces as a potter's vessel (Psa. 2:9; Rev. 2:27), and establishing in their stead his own righteous government.
Thirdly, It will prove that some time before the end of A.D. 1914 the last member of the divinely recognized Church of Christ, the "royal priesthood," "the body of Christ," will be glorified with the Head; because every member is to reign with Christ, being a joint-heir with him of the Kingdom, and it cannot be fully "set up" without every member.
Fourthly, It will prove that from that time forward Jerusalem shall no longer be trodden down of the Gentiles, but shall arise from the dust of divine disfavor, to honor; because the "Times of the Gentiles" will be fulfilled or completed.
Fifthly, It will prove that by that date, or sooner, Israel's blindness will begin to be turned away; because their "blindness in part" was to continue only "until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" (Rom. 11:25), or, in other words, until the full number from among the Gentiles, who are to be members of the body or bride of Christ, would be fully selected.
Sixthly, It will prove that the great "time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation," will reach its culmination in a world-wide reign of anarchy; and then men will learn to be still, and to know that Jehovah is God and that he will be exalted in the earth.
Seventhly, It will prove that before that date God's Kingdom, organized in power, will be in the earth and then smite and crush the Gentile image (Dan. 2:34) -- and fully consume the power of these kings. Its own power and dominion will be established as fast as by its varied influences and agencies it crushes and scatters the "powers that be" -- civil and ecclesiastical -- iron and clay.
>>
Note that the above is from a pre-1912 edition. Late 1912 and subsequent editions edited some of the statements thus:
<<
In this chapter we present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the Gentiles, i.e., the full end of their lease of dominion, will be reached in A.D. 1914; and that that date will see the disintegration of the rule of imperfect men.
Firstly, That at that date the Kingdom of God, for which our Lord taught us to pray, saying, "Thy Kingdom come," will begin to assume control, and that it will then shortly be "set up," or firmly established....
Thirdly, It will prove that some time before the end of the overthrow the last member of the divinely recognized Church of Christ....
>>
On pages 98-99 The Time Is At Hand said:
<<
True, it is expecting great things to claim, as we do, that within the coming twenty-six years all present governments will be overthrown and dissolved; but we are living in a special and peculiar time, the "Day of Jehovah," in which matters culminate quickly; and it is written, "A short work will the Lord make upon the earth....
In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished by the end of A.D. 1914.
>>
The post-1912 editions edited the second paragraph to read:
<<
In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished near the end of A.D. 1915.
>>
The Society tends to minimize the certainty with which Russell published statements like these, but his express statement that "we consider it an established truth" clearly shows his intent. On page 101 the 1908 edition of The Time Is At Hand said:
<<
Be not surprised, then, when in subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in A.D. 1878, and that the "battle of the great day of God Almighty" (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 [Later editions of The Time Is At Hand changed this to 1915] with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced. The gathering of the armies is plainly visible from the standpoint of God's Word.
If our vision be unobstructed by prejudice, when we get the telescope of God's Word rightly adjusted we may see with clearness the character of many of the events due to take place in the "Day of the Lord" -- that we are in the very midst of those events, and that "the Great Day of His Wrath is come."
>>
I challenge any JW apologist to show how anything observable in Russell's predictions came to pass in the sense his writings obviously meant. And I mean "meant", not with the hindsight of more than a hundred years of rationalizations by Russell's successors, but in the obvious sense that the Bible Students understood those predictions.

Anna, I'm giving you an extended answer here, so that you can see clearly why ScholarJW and certain other JW apologists who post on this board are not only too incompetent to post anything correct, but too much pathological liars to be believed about anything.
On 12/23/2020 at 12:46 PM, scholar JW had said:
It was answered several times, at least in part, by several posters, including by ScholarJW himself. All he has been doing is playing games, as JW Insider well described in the quoted material below.
If you really want to see what this charlatan has tried to be up to, you'll have to get down into the nitty gritty and carefully read the material below.
QUOTATIIONS FROM EARLIER POSTS:
Here we have ScholarJW admitting knowing about the dating of Cyrus' 1st regnal year:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/6/?tab=comments#comment-152093 
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/6/?tab=comments#comment-152094
Anna, you'll note that ScholarJW gave no proof, no source references -- only a bald claim.One of my responses:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/7/?tab=comments#comment-152105
AlanF
More responses:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/7/?tab=comments#comment-152106
 
Here we find the first glimmerings of ScholarJW's "test":
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/8/?tab=comments#comment-152112
And another bit of "test":
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/8/?tab=comments#comment-152121
My response:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/9/?tab=comments#comment-152133
 
Soon, ScholarJW posted material from the Insight book:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/9/?tab=comments#comment-152126
ScholarJW
To which AlanF replied:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/9/?tab=comments#comment-152138
Here I expand upon the events of Cyrus' 1st regnal year:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/9/
AlanF
Now we get to ScholarJW's post of interest:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/11/?tab=comments#comment-152184
To which I replied:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/11/?tab=comments#comment-152189
After which followed several rejoinders:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/11/?tab=comments#comment-152190
Later we have ScholarJW going at it with JW Insider:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/15/?tab=comments#comment-152280
To which JW Insider replied:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/16/?tab=comments#comment-152284
A bit farther on:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/16/?tab=comments#comment-152292
A little later we find:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/19/?tab=comments#comment-152333
Another day, another lie:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/19/?tab=comments#comment-152341
Forward a few days:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/39/?tab=comments#comment-152736
Later still:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/40/?tab=comments#comment-152762
END OF QUOTATIIONS FROM EARLIER POSTS
So, Anna, it should be obvious by now that ScholarJW posed simple questions as a simple-minded trap of some sort, that all of us participants -- including he himself -- knew that all the others knew the answers to. That's why we refused, for awhile, to play his stupid game.
Now that JW Insider has given an extensive answer to ScholarJW's challenge ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/42/?tab=comments#comment-152809 ), and ScholarJW has replied in such a way as to 'spring' his laughable trap, surely you can see how stupid his entire game has been. His comments about Darius are common knowledge among everyone qualified to comment on the material of this thread.
JW Insider again gave an insightful set of comments along these lines: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/42/?tab=comments#comment-152808
 
So, Anna, by now I'm sure you see why several of us refer to ScholarJW as "ScholarJW Pretendus" and as a pathological liar.

Anna, I'm giving you an extended answer here, so that you can see clearly why ScholarJW and certain other JW apologists who post on this board are not only too incompetent to post anything correct, but too much pathological liars to be believed about anything.
On 12/23/2020 at 12:46 PM, scholar JW had said:
It was answered several times, at least in part, by several posters, including by ScholarJW himself. All he has been doing is playing games, as JW Insider well described in the quoted material below.
If you really want to see what this charlatan has tried to be up to, you'll have to get down into the nitty gritty and carefully read the material below.
QUOTATIIONS FROM EARLIER POSTS:
Here we have ScholarJW admitting knowing about the dating of Cyrus' 1st regnal year:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/6/?tab=comments#comment-152093 
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/6/?tab=comments#comment-152094
Anna, you'll note that ScholarJW gave no proof, no source references -- only a bald claim.One of my responses:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/7/?tab=comments#comment-152105
AlanF
More responses:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/7/?tab=comments#comment-152106
 
Here we find the first glimmerings of ScholarJW's "test":
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/8/?tab=comments#comment-152112
And another bit of "test":
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/8/?tab=comments#comment-152121
My response:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/9/?tab=comments#comment-152133
 
Soon, ScholarJW posted material from the Insight book:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/9/?tab=comments#comment-152126
ScholarJW
To which AlanF replied:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/9/?tab=comments#comment-152138
Here I expand upon the events of Cyrus' 1st regnal year:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/9/
AlanF
Now we get to ScholarJW's post of interest:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/11/?tab=comments#comment-152184
To which I replied:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/11/?tab=comments#comment-152189
After which followed several rejoinders:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/11/?tab=comments#comment-152190
Later we have ScholarJW going at it with JW Insider:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/15/?tab=comments#comment-152280
To which JW Insider replied:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/16/?tab=comments#comment-152284
A bit farther on:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/16/?tab=comments#comment-152292
A little later we find:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/19/?tab=comments#comment-152333
Another day, another lie:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/19/?tab=comments#comment-152341
Forward a few days:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/39/?tab=comments#comment-152736
Later still:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/40/?tab=comments#comment-152762
END OF QUOTATIIONS FROM EARLIER POSTS
So, Anna, it should be obvious by now that ScholarJW posed simple questions as a simple-minded trap of some sort, that all of us participants -- including he himself -- knew that all the others knew the answers to. That's why we refused, for awhile, to play his stupid game.
Now that JW Insider has given an extensive answer to ScholarJW's challenge ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/42/?tab=comments#comment-152809 ), and ScholarJW has replied in such a way as to 'spring' his laughable trap, surely you can see how stupid his entire game has been. His comments about Darius are common knowledge among everyone qualified to comment on the material of this thread.
JW Insider again gave an insightful set of comments along these lines: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/42/?tab=comments#comment-152808
 
So, Anna, by now I'm sure you see why several of us refer to ScholarJW as "ScholarJW Pretendus" and as a pathological liar.

I disagree. This moron hasn't the brains to duck and dive.

Wrong as usual. Babylonian, Persian and Greek astronomers and astrologers kept up a running list of kings for centuries. By the time Ptolemy and his buddies wrote down the "Handy Tables" of kings and their reigns, along with the Royal Canon in the 2nd century CE, this king list had existed for at least 600 years.
Try doing some real research for once.

Wrong as usual. You're simply too stupid to know what the subject is.
Of course, you can point out where my comprehension is lacking. NOT.
I already explained this so simply that even a small child could understand.

JW Insider
The fact of the Great War along with after signs proved that the gentile times had ended and that the Kingdom was born and modern history a long with prominent members of clergy in 1917 attested to this fact.
scholar JW