Ann O'Maly

19 hours ago, Anna said:

Yes, I realize there was an evolution of the scheme, but as you say, it got pretty much fixed with Rutherford. However, I do think that they genuinely believed that secular history was not to be trusted because it was from Satan. Quote from the May 1 WT you cited: "When did this period of the gentile times begin and when is the end thereof? These facts cannot be proven by profane history, because such history is made by men who acted as agents of Satan’s empire and hence were unreliable; for Satan is the father of lies"

But now, surely that is no longer the belief?

The publications may no longer assert that disconfirming secular history is satanic, but the argument is still made that much of the secular history for the NB period is untrustworthy and one is better trusting the Bible's record. There are two problems with this line of reasoning:

• We are being presented with a false dichotomy - secular history vs. the Bible. The choice is really secular history and the Bible (the two dovetail nicely) vs. Bible interpretation.
• The Org. relies on 'unreliable' secular history to date and corroborate Bible events in order to build confidence in the reliability of the Bible!

8 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If they had kept their insurance premiums up to date they wouldn't have been destroyed at all.

True. If they had submitted to Babylon and paid their dues as they were supposed to, the city would have been left alone. Jer. 27:6-14.

--------------------------------------------------

4 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The date 539 BCE is a Pivotal Date for the purpose of Chronology whereas 587 BCE is not and cannot be.such a candidate.

But 597 BCE can be. This is where a dated event in the Bible and the same event dated in the Babylonian Chronicle coincide. The BCE year can be derived from dated astronomical tablets - the same method used for pinning BCE years on kings' reigns, Babylon's fall, and Jerusalem's destruction.

6 hours ago, Anna said:

 What I do believe though is that with the passage of time and new evidence, this particular subject obviously did not receive the same treatment as other beliefs, where with the “light getting brighter” adjustments in understanding were readily made.

When you trace the evolution of the Org's chronological scheme from its inception, you'll find that there were significant adjustments in response to new interpretational light - most of them being settled (from the Org's standpoint) in the Rutherford era.

The historical, archaeological and astronomical evidence for the conventional NB and Persian timeline has been around for well over a century (since the numerous discoveries in the Middle East back in the 19th century). The Org has been alerted to the wider evidence over and over again since Russell's day  - you can read the articles retrenching their position in response, a notable example being a series of WT articles in 1922* which included demonizing the counter-evidence, insulting and shouting down the questioners, and accusing them of disloyalty against God and his chosen representative (believed then to be Russell). Periodically since then, WT books and articles have been published trying to overcome the mountains of evidence against the Org's scheme because this issue just keeps on resurfacing - as it will continue to do until they conform to the facts.

* May 1 and 15, June 1 and 15 editions

11 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Then we can agree that this reference, would be “false* to claim 99.9999% certainty on ancient writings since no one was there to authentic what was “copied” didnÂ’t have readjusted writings to boaster that kingdoms claims? Or for that matter, writing errors due to linguistic incompatibilities.

A little like the Bible. All the manuscripts are later copies by unknown scribes; there is clear evidence in some places of redaction; there are transcription errors and linguistic ambiguities here and there. Maybe we should weigh the Bible on the same scales of skepticism?

3 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Are we referring to the revisions *Grayson* admitted were mistakes?

Do Grayson's revisions impact the NB timeline or not?

3 hours ago, Foreigner said:

This opinion insinuates you were there to know the scribe (he didn’t) make any mistakes or received secondhand information for historical prosperity.

Either the astronomical data on this tablet is consistent with a particular year or it isn't.  

3 hours ago, Foreigner said:

However, was the VAT4956 tablet “tested” with carbon dating to know the proximate date the tablet was made?

I am unaware of whether it has been carbon dated, but the astronomical data represent planetary and lunar observations made in 568-7 BCE. The tablet itself is a copy made in the Seleucid period, evidenced by some of the terminology used and a remark indicating the original had been 'broken.'

3 hours ago, Anna said:

I don’t think this has anything to do with the level of intelligence of the friends but rather their focus. The average Witness just does not have the time to devote to researching this very involved subject. And most donÂ’t have the desire. I wonder, how many have thoroughly read “When was ancient Jerusalem destroyed?”  part 1& 2 in the WT 11/10/1*  Probably a very few. And out of the very few, how many actually bothered to look up the references and do further research?  

Absolutely. This is what they are relying on - readers taking on trust what is being said/written without properly checking - to hoodwink the uninformed. If the article/book looks technical and has lots of footnotes or endnotes, it gives the appearance of being well-researched, truthful, or balanced. But not necessarily so (Hislop's Two Babylons is a prime example). And it isn't always easy getting hold of reference works - especially in these kinds of niche subjects. Thankfully, we have the internet now!

3 hours ago, Anna said:

I for one find it frustrating because I know I cannot contribute to this discussion in any meaningful way because I just do not have the time to acquire all the background knowledge I would need in order to do so. I mean, how many years did it take COJ to write his treatise? I can only do this in snippets of maybe an hour every other day, (if that) making notes and drawing diagrams. I know what itÂ’s like to study a subject, but you have to be young free and single and living with your parents, or a guy and retired (women still have to cook and clean, generally).

So I think 607 will remain WTÂ’s well hidden Achilles heel for a long while because of the majoritiesÂ’ lack of interest, and those who might have interest; with work, taking care of family and all the theocratic activities, when would they find the time?

Uh oh, that's how I started with this subject many years ago - lots of questions, mostly a spectator in these mind-bendingly involved discussions, limited time, energy and resources as a wife, mother of young children, multiple other responsibilities, etc., etc., but with a burning interest to get to the bottom of all these niggles, lots of scraps of paper with brick diagrams and notes all over the place ... 

'Wanting to know' will impel you to build up a decent working knowledge little by little.

17 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Everyone is entitled to think and have faith in whatever standard they wish to apply without having it scrutinized by interpretations that have "faults" of their own by secular reckoning.

You are entitled to be a flat-earther or believe in flying pink unicorns. But it doesn't make your opinions factual. Scrutiny, under the light of objective evidence, will thoroughly debunk those 'entitled' opinions.

17 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Even "Grayson" readjusted some mistakes in his earlier work. BM21901 etc have unreadable areas. The Babylonian Chronicles don't tell a "complete" story. Was the scribe with Nebuchadnezzar when writing those events? or were they dictated after as a matter of history? NONE of these hypotheticals have a 100% certainty.

How do Grayson's revisions, the chronicle's lacunae, and brief highlights of each regnal year affect the neo-Babylonian timeline? Because, this is what we are talking about here - whether chunks of time are missing to the tune of e.g. 20 years (WT) or 200 years (Thompson) - not whether every single thing a king did in his reign was recorded for posterity (even the Gospels aren't the 'complete story' - John 21:25). We CAN establish with 99.9999% certainty that the NB timeline has no 20-year or 200-year chunks of time missing.

16 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Such as the claim VAT4956 is supposed to be read to coincide with 587BC instead of 588BC

The diary has been tested. It was dated to a clearly marked regnal year and had 30 or so celestial observations recorded on it. The astronomical data only matches one year: 568-7 BCE. It can be no other. Even if the scribe had written the wrong regnal year or king (he didn't), the astronomical information would still only fit 568-7 BCE. The sky doesn't lie.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

9 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

I have debated this person *JEFFRO* for a long time in JWN.

Take a close look at his timeline. This person is a GREAT SUPPORTER of Carl Olof Jonsson’s, claims.

I'm glad you mentioned him. He's one who has NOT read COJ's book, but has independently researched and pieced together a timeline from the archaeological, historical and biblical evidence. Surprise, surprise - his findings for the NB and early Persian periods coincide with the standard, conventional timeline that reputable historians and Bible chronologists use.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

11 hours ago, Anna said:

I have another question. What is wrong with WT counting back 70 years from 539 (537 as the start of the temple rebuilding) assuming the 70 years applied to the Jews, when 539/537 is a reliable date.

Nothing is wrong with counting back 70 years from 539 or 537 BCE.

The problem is assigning events to 609 or 607 BCE that history testifies happened in other years. Watchtower asserts that 609 BCE was when Jerusalem was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar and that 607 BCE was when Jerusalem was destroyed. Archaeological records testify that Nebuchadnezzar wasn't even on the throne yet.

Another problem is how the '70 years' are understood: As the period of nations' servitude to Babylon (according to Jeremiah)? Or as the duration of Jerusalem' and Judah's being 'desolated, without an inhabitant' (Russell/Barbour's interpretation resulting from putting together two separate ideas)?

Yet another problem is insisting the Jews were repatriated in 537 BCE (or previously 536 BCE) despite there being no concrete evidence it was 537 and that a 538 BCE return is not only a viable date but more likely.

Photo by Steve Bronstein, an advertising photographer.

https://stevebronstein.com/Portfolio/9/caption

He describes how he designed/produced the shot.

(Psst, it's photographic art - not real.)

26 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

I do not believe so because I cannot recall any discussion or what type it would have been because COJ did not engage in online forums. Further, he makes no reference to Young's articles in his writings at that time.

You have forgotten ChannelC?

 I'd think an upright stake had more phallic symbolism. (Ezek. 8:17)

 

1 hour ago, Foreigner said:

So, does Darren Thompson.

His dates do not agree with the archaeological and historical evidence. He believes Azariah reigned during the 605 - 586 BCE period, that Josiah died in 412 BCE, and he dates Jerusalem's destruction by Nebuchadnezzar to 390 BCE. So no, he does not stick to the biblical and archaeological evidence in their entirety but makes up his own timeline according to his biases and presuppositions.

Re: quote box below reproducing article from w11, 11/1.

1. The article didn't disclose who the 'researchers' were so readers could check their work for themselves (a peculiar omission given the article's writer(s) had gone to great pains to reference other academic sources).

2. The article's claim that "all 13 sets match calculated positions for 20 years earlier, for the year 588/587 B.C.E." is demonstrably false. Do an internet search for more details.

Also see one past discussion from this forum: LINK

12 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

Does it denigrate the evidence to present more evidence and, even if so, might denigrating inferior evidence in favor of superior evidence be preferable to not denigrating?

VAT 4956 ....

 

On ‎15‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 9:12 PM, Foreigner said:

But, the latter portion of your comment, becomes a matter of opinion, does it not? I could very well include COJ, Doug Mason, Max Hatton, etc. as poor resources to cite, wouldn't it?

However, COJ, Doug Mason and Max Hatton do stick to the biblical and archaeological evidence in their entirety. You are entitled to your opinion, though.

On ‎15‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 8:18 PM, scholar JW said:

No one introduced me to the subject of Methodology in Young's earliest articles for that is something that I realized myself However it is  possible that someone first mentioned Rodger Young on the JWD forum.Perhaps it was you?  I cannot recall anyone going into any depth regarding the use of Decision Tables which is nonsense anyway in trying to resolve the 586/7 dilemma.

I already said that I was tipped off about Young's articles by you. You, however, learned of them by Carl Jonsson during a discussion with him in c. 2004, were you not?

@Foreigner - I was commenting on the book you quoted. The author wants to make radical changes to biblical chronology which means the established, historically-verified 7th-6th century dating for the last Judahite kings and the neo-Babylonian empire goes bye-bye. It's a poor resource to cite.

21 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Rodger Young was the first scholar to introduce Methodology as a  term of nomenclature in Chronology published in the scholarly literature.

21 hours ago, scholar JW said:

In fact one of the reasons why  I was the first scholar to introduce the term 'methodology' into the subject of Chronology long prior to 2004

Huh?

Anyway, who introduced you to Young's Decision Tables methodology in the first place? Think carefully before you answer and be honest.

19 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Now you’re confusing me. What would the revision of VAT 4956 from 568/7 to 364 have to do with the timeline in question? That wasn’t adjusted.

VAT 4956 is dated to Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year. Join the dots.

3 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Why the Bible Is Historically Accurate 2006 (2nd Ed.)

Oh Lordy, another ANE chronology revisionist. He wants to re-date VAT 4956 to 364 BCE, wipe out two whole Egyptian dynasties and drastically reduce the NB and Persian timelines. Smh.

17 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

what is embarrassing for critics of WT Chronology is that they do not know the precise year that Jerusalem was destroyed whether it 586, the Thielean sate or 587 BCE

You are, then, embarrassed about the Bible's testimony, since as you very well know, the difference in date derives from the Bible dating Jerusalem's destruction to both the 18th and 19th years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign.

 For readers that are unaware, cp. 2 Ki. 25:8-10 and Jer. 52:12-14 (a repeat of the 2 Kings passage) with Jer. 52:29.

Cue Rodger Young's research (yes, yes, Neil, I got that tip from you - let's get that out of the way to avoid one of your boast-fests).

This statement ...

23 hours ago, Foreigner said:

2 Kings were appointed within a 3 month period. 1 by Egypt, 1 by Babylon.

... is considerably different to ...

21 hours ago, Foreigner said:

King Necho ll originally deposed one King and substituted him with another. Both were under the control of Egypt. 1 King, then Jehoiakim became a puppet King to Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar ll, 1 King. 1 Egyptian, 1 King Babylonian.

So we agree now that Jehoahaz was appointed by his own people. Pharaoh Necho appointed Jehoiakim in Jehoahaz's stead (2 Kings 23:30-35).

13 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

Josiah became king of Judah at the age of eight, after the assassination of his father, King Amon, and reigned for thirty-one years, from 641/640 to 610/609 BCE

Josiah died in 609 BCE. Regarding Jehoahaz's and Jehoiakim's succession, you said:

               "There’s a good indication that happened in the latter part of the year 610 BC."

Therefore, you must be arguing that Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim ascended the throne before their father died. Or do you have a different scenario?

On what basis do you 'not doubt' that R. Franz and Jonsson were directly influenced by Hatton?

19 hours ago, Foreigner said:

King Necho ll originally deposed one King and substituted him with another. Both were under the control of Egypt. 1 King, then Jehoiakim became a puppet King to Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar ll, 1 King. 1 Egyptian, 1 King Babylonian.

That's not what you initially said, contributing to the confusion.

12 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Then King Necho ll replaced (Shallum) with Jehoiakim. However. There’s a good indication that happened in the latter part of the year 610 BC.

You mean, BEFORE Josiah died?

13 hours ago, Foreigner said:

I donÂ’t doubt thatÂ’s where Raymond Franz and then Carl Olof Jonsson got their ideas from.

Raymond Franz said that while he was researching the Aid book, he couldn't find evidence for 607 BCE being the destruction of Jerusalem so worked on undermining the evidence for 587/6 BCE instead. Jonsson did his own independent research and submitted it to Watchtower HQ. It was then that R. Franz became aware of just how bogus the WT chronology for the NB era was.

 

@Anna -  No. The date 539 BCE is derived from the very same historical sources as 587 BCE.

There is the Babylonian Chronicle that indicates Babylon fell in Nabonidus' 17th year.

How can we pin a BCE date to Nabonidus' 17th year? Babylonian astronomical tablets, that's how - by using the ancient sky clock. The astronomical record on VAT 4956 gives an anchor point for Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year being none other than 568-7 BCE. There are other astronomical anchor points too - one of which is dated to Cambyses' 7th year (522-1 BCE). The method is, once we find out how many years kings ruled (evidenced from other historical data), to count forwards or backwards accordingly.

And so, we arrive at 539 BCE for Babylon's conquest and 587 BCE for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar when he destroyed Jerusalem (Jer. 52:29).

16 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

This is an honest assessment for the year 609BC. 2 Kings were appointed within a 3 month period. 1 by Egypt, 1 by Babylon.

You're referring to Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim? Jehoahaz was appointed by his own people. Pharaoh Necho hauled off Jehoahaz to Egypt and appointed Jehoiakim in Jehoahaz's stead (2 Kings 23:30-35).

Your chart is confusing. Honestly, the plentiful information supports only one theory, and the data on VAT 4956 belongs only to 568/7 BCE.

13 hours ago, scholar JW said:

After I had made a post to you this morning I was sitting on the throne ...

 Ah ha. That explains the subsequent bout of verbal ... um ... outpourings.

12 hours ago, scholar JW said:

No  I have not checked Furuli's hypothesis as to its validity but others have and it has been subject to Peer Review. But boy it is impressive don't you think?

Yes, it is impressive ... but for all the wrong reasons.

 

Another very helpful non-JW/Bible-believing discussion from a respected journal for @Anna:

JEREMIAH'S SEVENTY YEARS FOR BABYLON: A RE-ASSESSMENT PART I: THE SCRIPTURAL DATA

JEREMIAH'S SEVENTY YEARS FOR BABYLON: A RE-ASSESSMENT PART II: THE HISTORICAL DATA