AlanF

That applies equally to the board's Great African Queen Arauna.

He seems to be suffering from two serious defects: a mind damaged by JWism, and the biggest case of Dunning-Kruger effect I've ever seen.

He seems to be suffering from two serious defects: a mind damaged by JWism, and the biggest case of Dunning-Kruger effect I've ever seen.

Pretty much what all JWs do. "Don't confuse me with facts! Just tell me what to think!"

Same here. But I was interested in your 'much easier method' for obtaining the year of Cyrus' death without stars and calendars. Maybe your method was restricted to flipping open the Insight book and it telling you? 

That's because this moron hasn't got two brain cells to rub together.

ScholarJW has now, for at least 20 years in the time I've dealt with him on JW-related forums, proved himself to be a truly pathological liar, on the order of current U.S. President Donald Trump. Various commentators have observed that it's easy to tell when Trump is lying -- his mouth is moving. It's similar with ScholarJW. The bulk of what he posts on forums such as this is either a flat-out lie, or is a deliberate misrepresentation of something. He has actually misrepresented the Bible itself over these past 20 years. He often tries to make some dishonest claim, is proven to have lied, and then completely ignores that proof, thus compounding his lie because he has, by failing to admit it, doubled down on it.
So how does one tell when ScholarJW is lying? He's typing on his keyboard.
Below I present some examples of these failings, which are mostly deliberate.
Recently, in the thread "Archaeological Evidence for 607 BCE", ScholarJW referred to a couple of academic papers presented by scholars Steven M. Bryan and Jeffrey Niles that considered the implications of "the 70 years" of Jeremiah (Jer. 25:11, 29:10, etc.). He made some outrageous claims for these papers, which amounted to claiming that these secular scholars actually supported Watchtower chronology and the summaries of that chronology that ScholarJW usually makes. His claims are false, of course, because no normal scholars support Watchtower chronology. His basic claim can be read here: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88083-archaeological-evidence-for-607-bce/page/7/?tab=comments#comment-149440 . Here is an excerpt:
<< Recent scholarship confirms the simple basic fact that the Jewish Exile ended not with the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE but with the return of the Jews from Babylon under Cyrus' Decree following the prediction of Jeremiah's prophecy of 70 years. This viewpoint of matters is thematic in an article  by Steven M Bryan to wit "The Reception of Jeremiah's Prediction of a Seventy-Year Exile' in JBL, vol.137, no.1, 2018, pp.107-26.
This recent scholarship is a devastating to the COJ  interpretation of the 70 years wholly based on servitude to the Babylonian power ending in 539 BCE.
Further, other scholarship in the form of a Master of Theology Thesis for the Dallas Theological Seminary, 2012 vindicates the said's scholars view that the 70 years was a period of SERVITUDE-DESOLATION-EXILE as argued on many forums over the last decades. Scholar disagrees with many points in this thesis but its essential theme is well received based on these three principal elements which are equated in disagreement with the author's view that these were not equated. >>
This excerpt contains ScholarJW's basic lie about "servitude-desolation-exile": "these three principal elements ... are equated". But he is so intent on promoting this lie that in the same sentence he refutes his own claim of support: "... in disagreement with the author's view that these were not equated".
ScholarJW seems to think that merely because an author discusses the concepts of servitude, desolation and exile in connection with Jeremiah's 70 years, he supports whatever ScholarJW and the Watchtower Society claim.
Now of course, dozens of scholars for two millennia have discussed all manner of details about exactly what Jeremiah's 70 years meant in the Bible passages that mention them, and in the many writings in the some 700 years from the beginning of the Babylonian hegemony over the Middle East in 609 BCE down through Josephus' writings in the early 1st century CE. Therefore, ScholarJW's claims are outrageous lies on their face.
Furthermore, ScholarJW's claim of scholarly support for his and the Watchtower's views is not new. He has lied many times these past 20 years in this way, on various online forums, and has generally been called out on the lies. Naturally, as a pathological Trumpian liar, he has never admitted to lying, nor has he retracted his false claims.
When I read ScholarJW's obviously false claims, I replied ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88083-archaeological-evidence-for-607-bce/page/8/?tab=comments#comment-149446 😞
<< I have not read that article, but I have no doubt that, as with virtually all articles you've cited in support of your views, it will turn out actually to debunk those views. Would you like to clarify now, before I read the article and point out where you've mucked it up? >>
After that, I requested that ScholarJW email me copies of the articles, since that would be the quickest way for me to read the material. But in the finest tradition of Trumpian/ScholarJWian obscurantism, he refused. Ultimately, a couple of months later, I obtained the articles and began posting debunkings of his trash. See https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88083-archaeological-evidence-for-607-bce/page/12/?tab=comments#comment-151323 and https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88083-archaeological-evidence-for-607-bce/page/12/?tab=comments#comment-151324 for my initial lengthy debunkings.
ScholarJW's reply was typically garbled and full of lies, without any real evidence of anything. He seems to think that merely denying a fact or an argument makes it disappear.
JW Insider soon called out ScholarJW's lies ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88083-archaeological-evidence-for-607-bce/page/13/?tab=comments#comment-151338 😞
<< Again, @scholar JW, you either have not read the paper in question, or you are not honest. Perhaps, as TTH implies, you are just showing that "people see what they want to see." (In which case, that would be evidence that you are no "scholar.") >>
In any case, this is not the first time the 70 years is acknowledged to have three principal elements: servitude, captivity/exile, and desolation of the land.
Even if you never read past the introductory summary, you would have seen how you have made a false claim here. His very reason for writing is that he SEPARATES all these three ideas into DIFFERENT periods.
The terms servitude, captivity, and desolation receive examination. Servitude refers to the period in which Judah and the surrounding nations would submit to the dominion of Babylon. This thesis proposes that the servitude lasted from 609 to 539 BC. Captivity resulted from the seventy-year period of Babylonian servitude, but the two must not be equated. Several captivities resulted in Babylon’s invasion of Judah and ended with the decree of Cyrus in 538 BC. Desolation also resulted from the period of servitude, but must not be equated with it. This refers to the period of destruction that followed the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC and lasted until the construction of the temple in 515 BC.
I agree that the period of servitude would be about from 609 to 539, although I wouldn't haggle over a couple years on either side. >>
And of course, ScholarJW replied to this with his usual garbled, circular, unevidenced, question-begging 'arguments' and, mostly, flat-out lies.
Many more posts along these lines were made in that thread, but I want to move on to the meat of this post in the present thread "SECULAR EVIDENCE and NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY (Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, etc.)".
It so happened that the dishonest 'research' of Norwegian JW apologist Rolf Furuli was discussed. After some discussion ScholarJW again falsely invoked support for his claims from scholars Bryan and Niles, and said this ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/7/?tab=comments#comment-152102 😞
<< You say that Furuli's research is debunked but this is only by those with bias to NB Chronology whom regard it as a sacred cow.- not to be critical of it. It is a nonsense to say that WT interpretations are demonstrably wrong when one only has to compare such interpretations with Bible commentaries and published journals and these show otherwise or at least some tangents of agreement as I have pointed out over the years. the most recent example is Nile's thesis that the 70 years related to three major elements ignored by COJ and most if not all other scholars/critics. >>
Note the flat-out lie: Niles' thesis is a "tangent of agreement" (whatever that means) that the 70 years are related to "three major elements ignored by COJ and most if not all other scholars/critics."
I had pointed out several times before that COJ (Carl Olof Jonsson) and many other scholars discussed these matters plenty of times during the past two millennia, but ScholarJW doubled down on his lie. I then stated ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/8/?tab=comments#comment-152113 😞
<< COJ did NOT ignore such things. Do you want me to quote his earliest published book?
And of course, plenty of other scholars have discussed such things, sometimes at length, sometimes as side notes. So what? None of those writings in any way lends support to your claims that they support the "607 chronology". >>
ScholarJW replied ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/8/?tab=comments#comment-152118 😞
<< COJ did no such thing and neither has any other scholar for it is only for the first time that these three concepts have been related to the 70 years. >>
To refute that lie I quoted COJ's first version of The Gentile Times Reconsidered ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/9/?tab=comments#comment-152132 😞
<<<< Of course he did. Note his discussion in The Gentile Times Reconsidered, version 1, 1983, pp. 92-93:
<< . . . the nations that that accepted the Babylonian yoke would serve the king of Babylon seventy years. But the nation that refused to serve the Babylonian king would become devastated. This fate at last befell Judah after about eighteen years of servitude. . . The devastation or desolation, though, is nowhere stated to have lasted for seventy years. Other nations, too, that refused to accept the Babylonian yoke, were punished, cities were ruined, and captives were brought to Babylon. . . That the seventy years refer to the period of Babylonian supremacy, and not to the period of Jerusalem's desolation, reckoned from its destruction in Nebuchadnezzar's eighteenth year, is also confirmed by verse 12 of Jeremiah 25: . . . All will agree that this began to be fulfilled when Babylon fell to Cyrus' army in 539 B.C.E. At that time the seventy years had "been fulfilled," according to Jeremiah's prophecy. Did the Jewish captivity end in 539 B.C.E.? No! Did the desolation of Jerusalem end in 539 B.C.E.? No! Did the Babylonian supremacy and the servitude to the Babylonian king end that year? Yes! As the seventy years ended in 539 B.C.E., they clearly refer, not to the captivity or the desolation, but to the servitude. >>
Read it and weep, Neil.
>>>>
Naturally, ScholarJW completely ignored COJ's exposition. Rather, he tried his usual trick of sidestepping by posing a completely irrelevant 'problem' ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/11/?tab=comments#comment-152184 😞
<< Seeing that you have boasted how smart you are and have written a contrived paper on the 538/537 BCE debate could you answer the following question:
Would you give the precise date for the beginning and ending of Cyrus' first full regnal year expressed in terms of the Babylonian/Jewish Calendar and in both the Julian, Gregorian calendars? >>
Of course, all of that (aside from the trivial and irrelevant conversion from Julian to Gregorian calendar dates) was covered in my very paper that ScholarJW labeled "contrived", which proves that his tactic here is to sidestep facts he cannot refute.
JW Insider perfectly described ScholarJW's sidestepping tactic ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/16/?tab=comments#comment-152284 😞
<< But the tactic I see that I'm wondering about is one I see you've tried about 20 times, at least. Near the end of your time of involvement on a thread, you start to make jobs for other people. You ask them to go look up something for you. Or you ask them to answer a specific question, often not much related to the issue. And then you often just declare yourself the winner and bow out. >>
And of course, ScholarJW quickly replied with yet another set of lies:
<< Rubbish, Scholar never runs away but stands firm. I ask questions to show that these so-called experts cannot answer immediate and simple questions on Chronology only known or stated by WT scholars???? 
Recent example was that Alan F proudly displays his paper refuting 537 BCE but when asked a simple question in relation to the fundamental timing of the first year of Cyrus then the cat got his tongue, he was struck dumb. !!!! >>
Which claims are entirely garbage because the answer to his 'question' was trivial, and known to all competent participants in this thread -- which ScholarJW knows perfectly well.
And of course, several pages on I did answer part of his question, partly by citing the Insight book and partly with quotations from scholarly publications, along with a suggestion that, if he really wanted to know more, he could easily find the answers on several websites.
Clearly then, ScholarJW thinks we are all so dumb as to not understand his dishonest tactics of sidestepping complete debunkings of his lies.
After the above debunkings, ScholarJW again doubled down on his lies ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/16/?tab=comments#comment-152286 😞
<< The said scholar has on the previous forum has made three contributions to the scholarship of Chronology:
1. The first scholar to introduce the role of 'Methodology' as a tool for Chronology as later advocated by Rodger Young
2. The first scholar to introduce into scholarship the three cardinal concepts of the 70 years of Jeremiah-SERVITUDE-EXILE-DESOLATION now observed by Niles in his Thesis. >>
Point 1. is nonsense because scholars have used various "Methodologies" for centuries.
Point 2. is simply false, as shown by my above quotation of COJ's 1983 version of The Gentile Times Reconsidered. I could easily have quoted dozens of other scholarly works, but I'm not going to spend time debunking a lie shown up as a lie by just one quotation.
Most JW apologists are neither interested nor competent enough to evaluate much of the technical information presented in this thread. But the above sequence should be completely clear to anyone not entirely braindead.
ScholarJW consistently lies, misrepresents scholars and opponents, ignores scholars he disagrees with, refuses to quote sources, even the Bible itself, often gives no references to claimed sources or refuses to provide links or computer copies, sidesteps arguments and debunkings in every possible way, almost never admits error, almost never concedes a point, and generally commits about every sin possible in the world of scholars.
In short, ScholarJW is no more a scholar than he is a Klingon.
Now, many readers will be amused at the way ScholarJW demonstrates the sins described and illustrated above.

Srecko Sostar said:
Exactly. Going from a specific number to a foggy number is NOT a change in their teaching. The foggy number is fully consistent with the old specific number. It was done, as I explained, to deceive the JW rank and file.
Precisely. Liars and cowards, all of them.
The following is the latest WTS statement on the specific length of the "creative days", from the January 1, 1987 Watchtower, p. 30:
<< a study of the fulfillment of Bible prophecy and of our location in the stream of time strongly indicate that each of the creative days (Genesis, chapter 1) is 7,000 years long. It is understood that Christ’s reign of a thousand years will bring to a close God’s 7,000-year ‘rest day,’ the last ‘day’ of the creative week. (Revelation 20:6; Genesis 2:2, 3) Based on this reasoning, the entire creative week would be 49,000 years long. >>

Nothing but already-debunked lies and zero content here; no evidence presented, none needed to dismiss.

Nothing but already-debunked lies and zero content here; no evidence presented, none needed to dismiss.

Nothing but already-debunked lies and zero content here; no evidence presented, none needed to dismiss.

Not really. The Big Bang was not in any sense an explosion, at least not in any normal sense of "explosion". Rather, it was an expansion of space-time from a tiny blob of whatever. You can read about this at any number of websites that explain physics.
The expanding primordial matter, consisting of quarks, electrons, photons and lots of other stuff, according to the latest ideas was opaque to light. This is because all that stuff formed a plasma, which absorbs light. After 300,000 years of expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow quarks to join up into protons and neutrons, and then combine with electrons to form atoms. At that point the plasma was mostly gone, and the universe became transparent to light.

TAKING A RELATIVE TIMELINE AND MATCHING IT TO OUR OWN ERA (BCE/CE)
Pieces of this topic are already under discussion elsewhere in this thread, so it's time I got caught up. There are a lot of questions and claims (and accusations and insults) flying around which might be better answered after presenting more data.
But, as some of the dust-ups settle, it's also a good time to review just how far we have gotten with the relative chronology, before jumping into a discussion of the astronomical diaries/tablets. Clearly this information is of highest interest to other Witnesses, so I will review how the relative data is being presented in terms of what the WTS has said about the secular evidence for the relative data.
REVIEW
Back on page 5 of this topic, I quoted from a WTS publication, "Let Your Kingdom Come" (1981) that can be found on jw.org here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101981019
Concerning the king list that's associated with Ptolemy, jw.org said: "Most modern historians accept Ptolemy’s information about the Neo-Babylonian kings and the length of their reigns..." Therefore, we used it as a tentative baseline to see if this "witness" holds up under the "scrutiny" of further evidence. We tested it against Berossus. jw.org (at the link above) admits that "Ptolemy's figures agree with those of Berossus." So Berossus provided a second "witness" that agreed with the first. The publication at jw.org didn't mention the Uruk king list, but we also tested against that king list, and this provided a third witness that exactly agreed with the first two. Then the Nabonidus Harran Stele (NABON H 1, B) is mentioned and the jw.org publication admits: "The figures given for these three [Neb,E-M,Neriglissar] agree with those from Ptolemy’s Canon."  Therefore this becomes a fourth witness agreeing with the first three, and even agreeing not just on three kings mentioned but also the entire length of Nabopolassar and first of Nabonidus. The jw.org publication does not mention that the Hillah stele (Nabon. No. 8 ) also confirms the period from Nabopolassar 16th to Nabonidus' accession year, touching, again, on all the N-B kings. This becomes a fifth witness all in perfect agreement with the other four. Then the jw.org publication refers to the Business/Contract tablets admitting: "Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets have been found that record simple business transactions, stating the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets of this sort have been found for all the years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in the accepted chronology of the period." So these tablets provide a sixth witness agreeing with the previous five. In effect, they are actually providing a great crowd of additional witnesses, up to 10,000 more witnesses, so far, to the entire N-B timeline.
So, now that we have all these witnesses to the Neo-Babylonian timeline before us, we can present what the Babylonians would have used as their own timeline. So far, again, I have only put relative dates at the top for the 96 different years of data from the first year of Nabopolassar to the last year of Cyrus. (Wel'll fix that shortly.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 N A B O P O L A S S A R (21 years) N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S (17) C Y R U S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Entire N-B period confimed by agreement of two "witnesses" Royal King List and Berossus Entire N-B period confimed by agreement of 3rd witness: the Uruk King List N-B period confirmed by agreement with 4th witness: the Adad-Guppi' stele (Nabon H 1, B) thru Nabonidus 9th                                                                 N-B period confirmed with 5th witness: the Hillah stele (Nabon. No. 8.)                                                     Entire N-B period confirmed by 1000's of business tablets incl lengths & order of reigns, & all transitions between all kings. So in Babylon, If a person wanted to calculate someone's age, or the length of time from the beginning to the end of a specific business deal, or the length of time from a specific event that would have happened in the timeline, then all they needed was a chart like the above. All they needed was a king list that gave the order and lengths of reigns.
If it were currently the 4th year of Nabonidus and I had was explaining how I know I just turned 60 years old, I would say, for example, "I was born in the 14th year of Nabopolassar, so I lived 7 years under Nabopolassar, 43 years under Nebuchadnezzar, 2 years under Evil-Merodach, 4 years under Neriglissar, and these last 4 years under Nabonidus." (7+43+2+4+4=60.) 
Similarly, if I were a Jewish person exiled in Babylon and knew that a trustworthy prophet had claimed that nations would be under the yoke of Babylon for 70 years, and that this time period would end when Persia conquered Babylon, then I might use the same timeline or king list to measure back from the first year of Cyrus to get an idea of when these 70 years must have begun. If I started counting from the 2nd regnal year of Cyrus, I might come up with, for example, 1 year under Cyrus, 17 under Nabonidus, 4 under Neriglissar, 2 under Evil-Merodach, 43 under Nebuchadnezzar, and therefore the last 3 years under Nabopolassar -- which would gets me to about the 19th year of Nabopolassar. (1+17+4+2+43+3=70.) Living in those times, I would never think of dates like 605, 607, 609 etc. I would just have an idea that it was around the 19th year of Nabopolassar.
We now see that, according to all the evidence that has been available so far --including all the secular evidence presented at the jw.org link above-- the 19th year of Nabopolassar was about 607 BCE. (This is why I don't have a problem with 607 BCE as the start of the 70 years of Jeremiah, by the way. It's about right, or at least within a couple of years depending on when exactly you end the period, and how accurately you wish to count backwards.)

Like most people who are semi-educated in Watchtower "science", Arauna does not know the difference between literal and metaphorical uses of words such as are translated as "spirit" and "power". Spirit literally means "breath of God". Now, God, not having lungs or breathing air, does not have literal breath. "Breath" is simply a metaphor for "the power of God" in Genesis. When Genesis says that the spirit of God was moving over the waters, it literally says "the wind of God". Ancient readers obviously knew that the literal wind was powerful, and therefore had no trouble understanding the metaphor. As regards "power", everyone can see what that means. Someone like Goliath was "powerful". Bears are powerful. The wind is powerful. Lightning is powerful. God was regarded as powerful. It's not rocket science.
Many biblical literalists go way overboard in trying to attribute modern understandings, such as of scientific ideas, to ancient writings. Islamic fundamentalists do the same thing with the Koran.

Your posts show clearly the difference between competence and incompetence in these matters.

AS the '607' topic was going way off topic I thought it best to start a new one.
Jesus directed His followers to preach the 'Good News of the Kingdom'. JW's pretend to do this but....................
In the '607' topic there has been much debate (off topic) about true teachings or false teachings. Some JW's only believe some of the GB's teachings and just let other teachings go by.   Some of the JWs call this being a mature Christian.  Other folks call it being physically in / mentally out.  I would call it being physically in but spiritually out. 
BUT here's the rub. What does a JW do if they do not believe some teachings from the GB, but that same JW has to teach those teachings to others. ? 
This happens in many ways.
It would happen on the door to door work by distributing magazines promoting those false teachings.
It would happen on the Cart / Trolly work by encouraging members of the public to take books and magazines promoting those false teachings.
It would happen in a study, that pretends to be a Bible Study, for a newly interested one. I say pretends, because it is really a study of a book written by the GB's writing department. The book would be promoting the false teachings and the JW would be encouraging the interested person to believe those false teachings.
It would happen by inviting an interested person to a Meeting where the false teachings are preached from the platform.
It could be happening if a JW is posting out magazines to address given them by their Elders.
And all this encouraged by JWs that do not believe those false teachings themselves.
Hypocrisy ? I think so. But obviously JW's see it as being a mature Christian.  Do any of you JW's here promote false teachings ?
Do you promote teachings that you yourself do not believe ? 
( It was a secondary reason for me to leave the JW Org. My Christian conscience would not allow me to teach lies to innocent people ).

We know that dates like 1513 BCE, 606 BCE, 587 BCE, 539 BCE, 70 CE (or AD), don't occur in the Bible, nor in the ancient astronomical diaries either. If we can pin a specific astronomical event to a record of any of Nebuchadnezzar's years, it would help. But we don't need those kinds dates yet. We can get them later.
The first thing we need to do is to figure out where the variously listed kings fit in our timeline relative to each other. If we knew the order of the kings in succession and knew how long they each ruled for, we could at least create a "relative" timeline.
So. To begin. Do ancient records provide an agreed upon list of kings, their order of succession, and the lengths of their rule?
Yes.
Do all ancient records agree?
No. (Most would argue that they agree in all the important areas, and minor disagreements are easily fixed, but we should still admit that not all records are 100% in agreement.)
So. Can we find two or three that do agree with each other, or perhaps even the majority of the records, in order to start a tentative timeline, and then deal with the disagreements later?
Yes. The most important of the ancient records from Babylon itself and from those who made use of Babylonian records for astronomical purposes all agree anyway (Babylonians, Persians, Greeks). We would expect the most accurate records to relate to works for predicting or understanding eclipses (for example) or various lunar cycles  and planetary movements. We know that certain types of astronomical phenomena were predicted in advance, or even known to be occurring even if invisible behind thick clouds, or because it occurred below the horizon, or invisible because some events relative to stars and planets could not be seen in the daytime. So  we should expect records accurate enough to be used to actually calculate and predict a future eclipse even if it would be invisible.
OK. So we'll put into our chart an example where two of these records agree with each other. For now, we'll pick the Royal King List that must have been available to Ptolemy's Almagest as a kind of "look-up table" and the writings of Berossus a Babylonian historian/priest from the Seleucid Period. They both agree on the following:
Nabopolassar        21 years Nebuchadnezzar  43 years Awel-Marduk         2 years Neriglissar             4 years [Labashi-Marduk  9 months]* Nabonidus            17 years So, we have two "witnesses" (so far) to the names, years, and order of succession for these kings, which I will place in the chart below. To save space and give us a fairly legible font size, I only put in the last few years of Nabopolassar's 21 year reign. And we haven't discussed the length of position of Cyrus reign yet, but both Berossus and the Royal King List give him 9 years starting immediately after the 17th year of Nabonidus.
So this, so far, becomes an 81-year span (arbitarily) from the 16th year of Nabopolassar up to the 9th year of Cyrus as King of Babylon. It might not be right, but it's a version that we can begin to test against the data to see if it holds up. E-M by the way, is short for Evil-Merodach (Awel-Marduk).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Nabopo-lassar N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S C Y R U S 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  
*Labashi-Marduk reigned only a few months, but we would NOT expect his name included in a timeline used for counting the number of years between any points on the timeline. And we definitely would not expect it to be included for any purposes related to astronomy calculations. That's because if a reign was so short that it started in a year already counted as "Neriglissar 4" and it ended before the start of "Nabonidus 1" then it should not be inserted because those full years were already counted. In fact, it would be considered a mistake then to include it in an astronomical reference, because it would have thrown off all calculations. predictions and cycles by a full year, making the entire king list worthless. In this case, Berossus, in the role of historian mentions him, but in the Royal King List used for astronomical purposes as a reference for Ptolemy's Almagest, for example, it should NOT be listed, and it wasn't.

Arauna said:
This has nothing to do with the meaning of Isaiah 40:26.
Ah. Kind of like in the many African religions where spirits inhabit physical objects.
Good conclusions? Witchcraft is more like it.
"Truth"? LOL! Provide references for your claim.
Oh? Do enlighten us with your astute analysis of my words.
Wrong. Your references were to Watchtower traditions, not the Bible. Would you like me to list them?
I had already burdened you with several really, really hard concepts that I knew you couldn't deal with. I didn't want to add a further burden. Besides, you didn't make a point of it.
And of course, you failed to respond to any of my answers, just as I had thought. You're quite predictable.
You obviously don't know how problematic this passage is. What is "the northern sky"? What is "empty space"? What is "nothing"? Are you aware that the Hebrew word for that is the same as is translated in Genesis 1:2 in the NWT as "formless" (tohu)? Can you figure that out? Of course not.
I can point you to a much more comprehensive discussion of this and related passages, but I doubt that you would read it, much less understand it
All of which is entirely consistent with the Babylonian view of the universe, from whom the Jews borrowed their concept. For a picture, see https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/gre13.htm .

Quite so. But remember that this was translated by good old Freddie Franz, who never hesitated to distort the Bible text whenever existing Watchtower doctrine or "good arguments" could be made to rationalize it. His thinking was obviously: "Aha! Energy! Sounds like Einstein!" -- even though he was astute enough to understand that a Hebrew word for "power, strength" had nothing to do with the modern scientific concept of energy. Franz was a master of the bogus argument.
All such expressions are meaningless. What does it mean to keep the stars in place? Certainly not the actual stars zooming around in our Galaxy or in the trillions of other galaxies. They're zooming around at hundreds of kilometers per second. And even from the earth's viewpoint, their configuration certainly changes over periods of centuries and more.
As for constellations, all they are, are patterns of stars seen from the earth's tiny viewpoint. They are NOT PHYSICAL OBJECTS. Their stars do not move as one (the Pleiades is an exception). Their stars range in distance from a few light years to thousands.
And what does "none are missing" mean? Missing from what? The catalog of stars given in the Bible? The expression is meaningless. Or perhaps it means, "none that we've seen before have now gone missing". Still meaningless. Think of the star that went supernova hundreds of years ago and now is the Crab Nebula.
If one insists on viewing expressions such as in Isaiah 40:26 as literally scientific, one is obviously up a creek without a paddle.
 

Is "dynamic energy" a Proper Translation In Isaiah 40:26?
In various Watchtower publications the writer argues that the phrase "dynamic energy" that the New World Translation uses in Isaiah 40:26 implies that God inspired Isaiah with divine knowledge of Albert Einstein's most famous equation E=mc^2, i.e., that matter and energy are equivalent. But is this a valid claim? I will show that it is not.
The 1998 Watchtower book Is There a Creator Who Cares About You? contains a typical example of this argument in chapter 6, "An Ancient Creation Record--Can You Trust It?" (pp. 90-91). After explaining what Einstein's equation means, that matter and energy are intimately related, it says:
<< From beginning to end, the Bible points to the One who created all the matter in the universe, the Scientist. (Nehemiah 9:6; Acts 4:24; Revelation 4:11) And it clearly shows the relationship between energy and matter.
For example, the Bible invites readers to do this: “Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing.” (Isaiah 40:26) Yes, the Bible is saying that a source of tremendous dynamic energy--the Creator--caused the material universe to come into existence. This is completely in harmony with modern technology. For this reason alone, the Biblical record of creation merits our deep respect. >>
The argument is wrong in several ways.
We note that the scriptural quotation is from the New World Translation. The key phrase here is "dynamic energy". The book claims that this somehow has to do with the modern scientific concept of "energy". Does it? Let's go a few verses farther into Isaiah 40 and see. Verse 29 says of God, "He is giving to the tired one power; and to the one without dynamic energy he makes full might abound." Now, does that sound like God is giving "energy" in the modern scientific sense to the one who is tired and lacking power? Of course not. By the same token Isaiah 40:26 is not saying anything about the relationship between matter and energy.
This can be seen further by looking at the meaning of the Hebrew word 'ohnim that the NWT translates as "dynamic energy". A variety of Hebrew lexicons yield the following definitions: "great strength, might, power, manly vigor", and these quite properly describe God. A better translation of these verses might be this, from Tanakh--The Holy Scriptures by the Jewish Publication Society: "Because of His great might and vast power, not one fails to appear... He gives strength to the weary, fresh vigor to the spent." It seems clear that the author of the Creator book has relied on a misleading translation to make his point. All that Isaiah is saying is that God is really, really big and strong.

Is "dynamic energy" a Proper Translation In Isaiah 40:26?
In various Watchtower publications the writer argues that the phrase "dynamic energy" that the New World Translation uses in Isaiah 40:26 implies that God inspired Isaiah with divine knowledge of Albert Einstein's most famous equation E=mc^2, i.e., that matter and energy are equivalent. But is this a valid claim? I will show that it is not.
The 1998 Watchtower book Is There a Creator Who Cares About You? contains a typical example of this argument in chapter 6, "An Ancient Creation Record--Can You Trust It?" (pp. 90-91). After explaining what Einstein's equation means, that matter and energy are intimately related, it says:
<< From beginning to end, the Bible points to the One who created all the matter in the universe, the Scientist. (Nehemiah 9:6; Acts 4:24; Revelation 4:11) And it clearly shows the relationship between energy and matter.
For example, the Bible invites readers to do this: “Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing.” (Isaiah 40:26) Yes, the Bible is saying that a source of tremendous dynamic energy--the Creator--caused the material universe to come into existence. This is completely in harmony with modern technology. For this reason alone, the Biblical record of creation merits our deep respect. >>
The argument is wrong in several ways.
We note that the scriptural quotation is from the New World Translation. The key phrase here is "dynamic energy". The book claims that this somehow has to do with the modern scientific concept of "energy". Does it? Let's go a few verses farther into Isaiah 40 and see. Verse 29 says of God, "He is giving to the tired one power; and to the one without dynamic energy he makes full might abound." Now, does that sound like God is giving "energy" in the modern scientific sense to the one who is tired and lacking power? Of course not. By the same token Isaiah 40:26 is not saying anything about the relationship between matter and energy.
This can be seen further by looking at the meaning of the Hebrew word 'ohnim that the NWT translates as "dynamic energy". A variety of Hebrew lexicons yield the following definitions: "great strength, might, power, manly vigor", and these quite properly describe God. A better translation of these verses might be this, from Tanakh--The Holy Scriptures by the Jewish Publication Society: "Because of His great might and vast power, not one fails to appear... He gives strength to the weary, fresh vigor to the spent." It seems clear that the author of the Creator book has relied on a misleading translation to make his point. All that Isaiah is saying is that God is really, really big and strong.

Anna said:
Actually, and in context, and in looking over what I said, I said both. I was also a bit vague several times. Sorry for not being precise.
You've already read the quotes from WTS literature that mentioned "our twentieth century", "the turn of the century", and "the end of the century". Those obviously mean "in or by the year 2000". Another WTS piece said "for the year 2000", which can mean in or by. In various comments I shortened all of these claims to "in 2000" for brevity.
Here again is what I have posted:
<<<<
<< Shortly, within our twentieth century, the "battle in the day of Jehovah" will begin against the modern antitype of Jerusalem, Christendom. >> -- "The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah"-How? - 1971
<< And if the wicked system of this world survived until the turn of the century, which is highly improbable in view of world trends and the fulfillment of Bible prophecy, there would still be survivors of the World War I generation. However, the fact that their number is dwindling is one more indication that “the conclusion of the system of things” is moving fast toward its end. >> -- October 15, 1980 Watchtower, p. 31
<< It has been thrilling to see the fulfillment of Jesus’ sign showing that the Kingdom was established in the heavens in that momentous year 1914. And Jesus has told us to rejoice at seeing the dark storm clouds of Armageddon gathering since that time. He has told us that the “generation” of 1914—the year that the sign began to be fulfilled—”will by no means pass away until all these things occur.” (Matthew 24:34) Some of that “generation” could survive until the end of the century. But there are many indications that “the end” is much closer than that! >> -- March 1, 1984 Watchtower, pp. 18-19
<< The Time for a Change Is Near!
Carole, from France, has a “marvelous hope” and foresees, for the near future, “something marvelous—not at all like the world we live in.” Samuel, a 15-year-old youth from the same country, also believes in a complete change: “For the year 2000, I visualize a world transformed into a beautiful paradise! But I don’t think that either the present world or its rulers will live to see that day. . . We are living in the last days of the system of things.” Ruth, a German girl of 16, also expresses her confidence in these changes: “I know I’m not smart enough to change the world and make things run right. Only Jehovah, our Creator, can and will do that soon.” >> November 8, 1986 Awake!, pp. 7-8
The Watchtower Society has been making claims like that since its beginning. Not one claim has come true. It taught that 1914 would bring "the end". It taught that 1918, 1920 and 1925 would bring Armageddon. It taught that Armageddon would come shortly after 1942. Then 1975 was really going to be "IT". Then 2000. After that, virtually every year after 2000.
But you're deliberately missing my point: A long history of failed predictions of specific dates for "the end" (1914, 1918, 1925, 1975, 2000) plus a history of generally false predictions prove that JW leaders have no actual understanding of whatever the Bible really says or of world events. By the same token, neither do you.
Let's see: we have 1914, 1918, 1920, 1925, 1941, 1975, 2000, and Real Soon Now.
Um, I was alive for 1975, 2000 and Real Soon Now. My mother was alive for them and 1941. Old Freddie Franz was alive for all of those false predictions.
The prediction for 2000 was made at various times from the 1970s through 2000 itself. Real Soon Now started about 1914 and continues.
I heard several JWs in the 1980s talking about 2000. In online forums in the late 1990s, many JW apologists threatened: "You'll get yours when 2000 rolls around!"
The point, Einstein, is that these JWs did not make this nonsense up for themselves, but read the predictions for 2000 in Watchtower publications. Do a little looking on the jwfacts website and you'll find some quotes. Or read some in my response to Anna above.
Are you really this stupid? 1941, 1975, 2000 and Real Soon Now are certainly within peoples' lifetimes. 1975 is NOT arguable, as the links I posted prove.
Unfortunately, JW leaders' counsel on that has often been accompanied by predictions of specific years to watch out for: 1914, 1918, 1920, 1925, 1941, 1975, 2000.
I don't believe I said in 2000, but by 2000. If not, that's what I should have said, because that's what the first two references explicitly say: "a work that would be completed in our century" and "within our twentieth century, the "battle in the day of Jehovah" will begin". Can't get any clearer than that.
>>>>
Nope. I already posted two links proving my claim:
https://www.critiquesonthewatchtower.org/old-articles/2006/02/part-3-statements-concerning-1918-1925.html
https://www.critiquesonthewatchtower.org/old-articles/2006/02/1975-new-info.html
Didn't you read them? Probably not, so I present here some information drawn from them.
The quotes below prove that the Society dogmatically taught that Adam and Eve were created at the end of the 6th creative day in 4026 BCE, that the 7th creative day began then, that 6,000 years of human history would end in 1975, and that the Millennial rule of Christ would be the last 1,000 years of the 7th day. These dogmatic statements lead only to the conclusion that the Battle of Armageddon would have to be over by late 1975.
More graphically, after the 6th creative day ends with Adam and Eve's creation in 4026 BCE, the Society's timeline is:
|4026 BCE + 6000 -> 1975 CE + 1000 = 7000 years| ...-------/\--------------------------------------------/\--------------- 6th day-->||<----------------- 7th day ---------------->||<--Millennium--> What the Watchtower Society said:
The October 8, 1966 issue of Awake! contained the article "How Much Longer Will It Be?" In answer to the question "when will God bring an end to wickedness?", under the subheading "6,000 Years Completed in 1975", it reasoned that the millennium would be the last 1,000 years of a 7,000-year rest day of God. On pages 19-20 it said:
<< The Bible shows that when God began to shape the earth for human habitation, he worked for six "days," or time periods. From the indications in God's Word, each was apparently 7,000 years in length. Then Genesis 2:22 states, Jehovah "proceeded to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had made." This seventh day, God's rest day, has progressed nearly 6,000 years, and there is still the 1,000-year reign of Christ to go before its end. (Rev. 20:3, 7) This seventh 1,000-year period of human existence could well be likened to a great sabbath day, pictured by the sabbath day God commanded ancient Israel to keep after working for six days. (Ex. 20:8-10; 2 Pet. 3:8) After six thousand years of toil and bondage to sin, sickness, death and Satan, mankind is due to enjoy a rest and is in dire need of a rest. (Heb. 4:1-11) Hence, the fact that we are nearing the end of the first 6,000 years of man's existence is of great significance.
Does God's rest day parallel the time man has been on earth since his creation? Apparently so. From the most reliable investigations of Bible chronology, harmonizing with many accepted dates of secular history, we find that Adam was created in the autumn of the year 4026 B.C.E. Sometime in that year Eve could well have been created, directly after which God's rest day commenced. In what year, then, would the first 6,000 years of man's existence and also the first 6,000 years of God's rest day come to an end? The year 1975. This is worthy of notice, particularly in view of the fact that the "last days" began in 1914, and that the physical facts of our day in fulfillment of prophecy mark this as the last generation of this wicked world. So we can expect the immediate future to be filled with thrilling events for those who rest their faith in God and his promises. It means that within relatively few years we will witness the fulfillment of the remaining prophecies that have to do with the "time of the end." >>
The above material was not dogmatically certain about 1975 being the date for Armageddon, but it was nearly so. Later material became more dogmatic.
The Watchtower, May 1, 1968, said on page 271, paragraph 4:
<< Thus, Adam's naming of the animals and his realizing that he needed a counterpart would have occupied only a brief time after his creation. Since it was also Jehovah's purpose for man to multiply and fill the earth, it is logical that he would create Eve soon after Adam, perhaps just a few weeks or months later in the same year, 4026 B.C.E. After her creation, God's rest day, the seventh period, immediately followed. >>
The study question for this paragraph then asked, "When were Adam and Eve created?", not "When were Adam and Eve possibly created?"
Paragraphs 5 and 6 then said:
<< After [Eve's] creation, God's rest day, the seventh period, immediately followed. Therefore, God's seventh day and the time man has been on earth apparently run parallel. >>
Apparently run parallel? Based on what? That's a fully dogmatic claim. Continuing:
<< To calculate where man is in the stream of time relative to God's seventh day of 7,000 years, we need to determine how long a time has elapsed from the year of Adam and Eve's creation in 4026 B.C.E...
The seventh day of the Jewish week, the sabbath, would well picture the final 1,000-year reign of God's kingdom under Christ when mankind would be uplifted from 6,000 years of sin and death. (Rev. 20:6) Hence, when Christians note from God's timetable the approaching end of 6,000 years of human history, it fills them with anticipation. Particularly is this true because the great sign of the "last days" has been in the course of fulfillment since the beginning of the "time of the end" in 1914. >>
The October 8, 1968 Awake! dogmatically stated on page 14:
<< According to reliable Bible chronology Adam and Eve were created in 4026 B.C.E. >>
The 1969 book Aid to Bible Understanding dogmatically indicated that Adam and Eve were created in the same year. On page 333, under the subject "Chronology," it said that the time from Adam's creation to the birth of Seth was 130 years, and on page 538, under the subject "Eve," it said that at the age of 130 Eve gave birth to Seth. Since this book was published as an authoritative, encyclopedia-like reference (Insight on the Scriptures is mostly identical), these comments again assured the reader that the Society was certain that Adam and Eve were created in the same year, and implied that it was certain that "everything would be over" by 1975.
The 1969 booklet The Approaching Peace of a Thousand Years was also definite about 1975. On pages 25-26 it dogmatically said:
<< More recently earnest researchers of the Holy Bible have made a recheck of its chronology. According to their calculations the six millenniums of mankind's life on earth would end in the mid-seventies. Thus the seventh millennium from man's creation by Jehovah God would begin within less than ten years...
In order for the Lord Jesus Christ to be "Lord even of the sabbath day," his thousand-year reign would have to be the seventh in a series of thousand-year periods or millenniums. >>
The 1974 book God's "Eternal Purpose" Now Triumphing for Man's Good shows that the idea that the 7th "creative day" began in 4026 BCE was by this time a well-established doctrine. Without reticence, page 51 displays the subtitle "'Evening' of Seventh Creative 'Day' Begins, 4026 B.C.E."
The December 15, 1974 Watchtower (pp. 764-766) dogmatically states, not that 1975 may be a critical year, but that it is a critical year:
<< Now, as the critical year of 1975 enters, it may well be asked: Has the Most High God of prophecy made a name for himself? The answer is self-evident, Yes! By whom? Not by Christendom or by Jewry, but by Jehovah's Christian witnesses!' >>
The Watchtower, August 15, 1968, spoke at length about the significance of 1975 on pages 488-501. The article "The Book of Truthful Historical Dates" discussed details again, on page 488:
<< Do we know that the seventh year from now will conclude the 6,000th year since Adam was created? And if we live to that year 1975, what should we expect to happen? >>
In this Watchtower, the article "Why Are You Looking Forward To 1975?" raised a good deal of anticipation when it said on page 494:
<< What about all this talk concerning the year 1975? Lively discussions, some based on speculation, have burst into flame during recent months among serious students of the Bible. [which students, and who started the fire?] Their interest has been kindled by the belief that 1975 will mark the end of 6,000 years of human history since Adam's creation. The nearness of such an important date indeed fires the imagination and presents unlimited possibilities for discussion.
... of what benefit is this information to us today?... why should we be any more interested in the date of Adam's creation than in the birth of King Tut?... in the fall of the year 1975, a little over seven years from now... it will be 6,000 years since the creation of Adam. >>
Since the Society had already dogmatically stated that Adam and Eve were both created in 4026 BCE -- the end of the 6th creative day and beginning of the 7th -- the 6,000 years since then have all been during the 7th creative day, and per the above quotes, the Millennial Reign of Christ must begin in 1975.
In the following, note the sense of urgency, and the implication that 6,000 years is a figure of special significance. Continuing on page 499:
<< Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man's existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ. If these two periods run parallel with each other as to the calendar year, it will not be by mere chance or accident but will be according to Jehovah's loving and timely purposes. [What can we say of this from the perspective of 2019?] Our chronology, however, which is reasonably accurate (but admittedly not infallible), at the best only points to the autumn of 1975 as the end of 6,000 years of man's existence on earth. It does not necessarily mean that 1975 marks the end of the first 6,000 years of Jehovah's seventh creative "day." Why not? Because after his creation Adam lived some time during the "sixth day," which unknown amount of time would need to be subtracted from Adam's 930 years, to determine when the sixth seven-thousand-year period or "day" ended, and how long Adam lived into the "seventh day." And yet the end of that sixth creative "day" could end within the same Gregorian calendar year of Adam's creation. It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years. >>
While this quote contains some cautionary language, the last sentence harks back to the Society's dogmatic statements that Adam and Eve were both created in 4026 BCE. Naturally, the attentive JW would interpret "may involve" as "will involve".
But one thing is clear: such a combination of dogmatic and cautionary statements is sure to produce confusion in the minds of listeners, and in the JW mind, such confusion is resolved in favor of the dogmatic statements.
By 1967 expectations about 1975 were high. The following is taken from a talk entitled "Serving with Everlasting Life In View," given at a circuit assembly in the spring of 1967 in Sheboygan, Wisconsin by an official of the Society, a District Servant named Charles Sinutko (see https://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/1975.php for audio). The speaker emphasized the nearness of Armageddon and specifically said that it would come before 1975. Speaking of the world to come after Armageddon, he said:
<< Well, now, who will be there, of us here tonight? For the Society has made application of this scripture, in pointing out that those of us among Jehovah's Witnesses that are not regularly associating with his people, without good cause, such as being flat on our back, will not be in the new order. And we're the ones that are going to come around when the doors close, and say 'I want in now. Sir, open to us!' And Jesus will have to say, 'I'm sorry, I don't even recognize you.' Now wouldn't that be an awful thing. Do you see now why the Society implores us, year in and year out, the same old thing, 'Brothers, get in the flock. Don't let any excuses get in our way. Nothing of any nature. There's only one thing that's going to count when that time comes, and that's that we are inside.' And we hope that all of us here tonight are going to listen to the Society's imploring. We're going to listen to the agonizing entreaty, 'Brothers get in!', because they know what's coming. And it's coming fast -- and don't wait till '75. The door is going to be shut before then. >>
The May 1, 1968 Watchtower continued this stimulation of anticipation. Using much the same arguments as above, it dogmatically said on page 272:
<< The immediate future is certain to be filled with climactic events, for this old system is nearing its complete end. Within a few years at most the final parts of Bible prophecy relative to these "last days" will undergo fulfillment, resulting in the liberation of surviving mankind into Christ's glorious 1,000-year reign. What difficult days, but, at the same time, what grand days are just ahead! >>
Similarly, the October 8, 1968 Awake!, on page 13, dogmatically emphasized the shortness of the time:
<< The fact that fifty-four years of the period called the "last days" have already gone by is highly significant. It means that only a few years, at most, remain before the corrupt system of things dominating the earth is destroyed by God. >>
How many years are "a few"? When this was said, it was seven. Today, in 2019, we're already 51 years 'few'.
Nope. I'm interpreting what they said as they meant it to be interpreted.
Why do you think the Society quoted rank and file JWs about the year 2000 as it did? Just for the hell of it?
     
So far so good. But being alert is quite different from making specifc predictions, as if you know for certain some date or short time period. And you've ignored Jesus' warning against trying to figure out when the end was to come or was about to come.
Matthew 24 is explicit that those who claim to know when “the time of the end” has arrived or will arrive, in advance of the appearance of “the sign of the Son of Man in heaven”, are false teachers:
<< 42 Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming ... 44 Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect. >>
Obviously, anyone who claims he knows, when Jesus specifically stated that his disciples could not know, cannot honestly claim to be one of Jesus’ disciples. Luke 21:8 confirms this with the admonition, “do not follow him”.
You and the Society disagree with the Bible on this. Why?
You're neglecting what "sign" means in the Gospel accounts. It does not mean what Watchtower tradition claims. Read Matthew 24 and see if you can find where Jesus' answer to his disciples says anything about a sign. It's not until verse 30 that he mentions a sign:
<< 29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity. >>
So Jesus said that the sign the disciples asked about was "the sign of the Son of man" that appears "in heaven". It will not be invisible, but will be so spectacular that "all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." Therefore no one would need preachers to tell them that this sign was about to appear -- its appearance would be plainly evident.
This sign was not the appearance of war, earthquakes, famine and pestilence mentioned in verses 6-7, and in the parallel accounts in Mark and Luke. Rather, those things were what Jesus warned not to interpret as signs that "the end" was about to happen.
Following 24:31 we read this:
<< 32 “Now learn this illustration from the fig tree: Just as soon as its young branch grows tender and sprouts its leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 Likewise also you, when you see all these things, know that he is near at the doors. >>
What are "all these things"? Obviously, the "sign of the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" -- not the earthquakes, etc., that Jesus warned against interpreting as signs. Obviously, then, when this heavenly sign appears, Jesus' followers would clearly know that "he is near at the doors", whatever that means.
Next, emphasizing that it was impossible for anyone to know in advance, by calculation or by signs, when "the sign of the Son of man" was to appear "in the heavens", Jesus said (English Standard Version😞
<< 36 “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. 37 For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, 39 and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. 41 Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left. 42 Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. 43 But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect. >>
I don't see how all that could be any clearer: don't try to predict when the end will come, because you cannot know it.
The Society claims that its prophetic speculations have been proved true by various events after 1914, such as a supposed 20x increase in earthquakes, and unprecedented increases in war, famine and pestilence. All of those claims have been individually disproved.
And as I have repeatedly pointed out, and you and all the other JW defenders on this board have ignored, we have today an unprecedented population explosion. Had the supposed huge increases in worldwide killers taken place, we would have had a population implosion after 1914. Yet we see an increase from about 2 billion to 8 billion. How do you explain that?
You'll have to argue with Jesus about this. I did not write the words of warning above.
No matter what you believe, Jesus' words warning against trying to predict "the end" still apply.
Nope. You didn't hear the fear and upset in his voice. He was trying to excuse the JW organization for its long history of false prophecy in predicting "the end".

TrueTomHarley said:
Still incredibly thick. Read my earlier post to Anna.
Still lying. My mother and plenty of other older JWs are still around, and saw the false predictions of 1941, 1975, by 2000 and Real Soon Now. You think these people are zombies?
[ Drivel deleted ].

No, there is no secular support for the Watch Tower's view that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE.
There exists some secular information against modern secular historical consensus, as compiled by Watch Tower supporters, but none of this supports the 607 view.
And of course, JW critics have published extensive material, online and in books and articles, that shows why the WTS's criticisms of solid secular history are invalid.
AlanF

TrueTomHarley said:
I think you're so blinded by your Watchtower blinders that you don't see your comments for what they are -- abhorrent to anyone with moral decency. Note this one:
<< And sometimes you wish that there was more differerentiation in “molestation.” At present, anything from a hand on the inner thigh or rear end to outright rape is described (and sometimes deliberately confused) as “molestation.” None of those actions are great, of course, but there is a substantial difference between them. >>
As Anna explained, in principle there is no difference between "a hand on the inner thigh or rear end" and outright rape. All are violations of law, and of New Testament principles for sexual misconduct, and all are forms of molestation -- despite your protests to the contrary. The 'minor' violations, if not checked, inevitably lead to major violations.
Your obvious attempt to minimize some forms of molestation is saying exactly, "Molestation is no big deal!"
That's exactly what JW leaders have always done, and continue to do, and is why they're in such trouble with the Law and molestation victims.
I think you need to go back to square one on what constitutes morality.
Coming from someone with a demonstrably defective moral sense and little critical thinking ability, that's rich!