Ann O'Maly

Date is disputed. Other non-WT models are out there that fit the 390 years with the conventional timeline.
As has been shown ad infinitum, Jer. 25:12 falsifies your claim that the 70 year period of the nations' servitude to Babylon ended with the repatriation of the Jews.
... is another subject beyond the scope of this thread and it similarly involves an erroneous WT starting date.
Again, WT interpretation of these periods is upended by sound exegesis and by WT following its own new approach regarding types and antitypes:
Humans cannot know which Bible accounts are shadows of things to come and which are not. The clearest course is this: Where the Scriptures teach that an individual, an event, or an object is typical of something else, we accept it as such. Otherwise, we ought to be reluctant to assign an antitypical application to a certain person or account if there is no specific Scriptural basis for doing so. - w15 3/15 p. 18
Neil, whatever WT fantasies you have swirling around in that stubborn skull of yours, you know what you've just said above isn't true. You know Young's articles well enough and are familiar with his conclusions. Doesn't your conscience prick you when you lie like that, especially when you can be caught out so easily? Have you no shame? Smh. 😦
"In this paper, the method is applied to all Scriptures in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 2 Kings, and 2 Chronicles relating to the date of Jerusalem's fall to Nebuchadnezzar. It is shown that all texts involved are in harmony with themselves and with each other, and the only year possible for Jerusalem's fall is 587 BC."
- http://www.rcyoung.org/papers.html
"The conclusions from the analysis are as follows.
"(1) Jerusalem fell in the fourth month (Tammuz) of 587 bc. All sources which bear on the question—Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and 2 Kings—are consistent in dating the event in that year."
- Young, R.C., 'When Did Jerusalem Fall?', JETS 47/1 (March 2004) 21–3.

The answer was even there in your random c&p's. You're too much of a giant nitwit to have noticed! 🤣🤣🤣

🤣 at Cesar's Googling and lengthy, but irrelevant, copy-and-pastes in a vain attempt to hide his embarrassing blunder, and that further drive home the point that he had no clue what Gertoux or I were talking about.
 👋👋👋 Well done!

🤣 at Cesar's Googling and lengthy, but irrelevant, copy-and-pastes in a vain attempt to hide his embarrassing blunder, and that further drive home the point that he had no clue what Gertoux or I were talking about.
 👋👋👋 Well done!

🤣 at Cesar's Googling and lengthy, but irrelevant, copy-and-pastes in a vain attempt to hide his embarrassing blunder, and that further drive home the point that he had no clue what Gertoux or I were talking about.
 👋👋👋 Well done!

Date is disputed. Other non-WT models are out there that fit the 390 years with the conventional timeline.
As has been shown ad infinitum, Jer. 25:12 falsifies your claim that the 70 year period of the nations' servitude to Babylon ended with the repatriation of the Jews.
... is another subject beyond the scope of this thread and it similarly involves an erroneous WT starting date.
Again, WT interpretation of these periods is upended by sound exegesis and by WT following its own new approach regarding types and antitypes:
Humans cannot know which Bible accounts are shadows of things to come and which are not. The clearest course is this: Where the Scriptures teach that an individual, an event, or an object is typical of something else, we accept it as such. Otherwise, we ought to be reluctant to assign an antitypical application to a certain person or account if there is no specific Scriptural basis for doing so. - w15 3/15 p. 18
Neil, whatever WT fantasies you have swirling around in that stubborn skull of yours, you know what you've just said above isn't true. You know Young's articles well enough and are familiar with his conclusions. Doesn't your conscience prick you when you lie like that, especially when you can be caught out so easily? Have you no shame? Smh. 😦
"In this paper, the method is applied to all Scriptures in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 2 Kings, and 2 Chronicles relating to the date of Jerusalem's fall to Nebuchadnezzar. It is shown that all texts involved are in harmony with themselves and with each other, and the only year possible for Jerusalem's fall is 587 BC."
- http://www.rcyoung.org/papers.html
"The conclusions from the analysis are as follows.
"(1) Jerusalem fell in the fourth month (Tammuz) of 587 bc. All sources which bear on the question—Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and 2 Kings—are consistent in dating the event in that year."
- Young, R.C., 'When Did Jerusalem Fall?', JETS 47/1 (March 2004) 21–3.

🤣 at Cesar's Googling and lengthy, but irrelevant, copy-and-pastes in a vain attempt to hide his embarrassing blunder, and that further drive home the point that he had no clue what Gertoux or I were talking about.
 👋👋👋 Well done!

Yes, please do continue with your lies, as all intelligent readers will become better educated in how not to be scholastically honest.

Alan de Fool
The said scholar stands for integrity and truth, qualities that are not of your character!!!
scholar JW

Since love doesn't keep account of the injury and covers a multitude of sins, I will not go back and show you what you have actually said. Besides, I've never wanted to make this into a contest of who is smart or not. I've never claimed to be smarter than you or anyone else here. This just happens to be one of my strong interests -- and of course it's an interest that is recommended in the Watchtower itself. It's easy to make mistakes in this area of study. I've made quite a few while learning and might still be making some. I'm hoping to be corrected where I am making mistakes. But it gets easier, and makes more sense every time I read another book and compare it with the evidence and the appropriate Bible passages.
But I'm sure you'll agree that there's nothing wrong with taking an interest in this topic:
*** w11 10/1 p. 26 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One ***
But why be interested in the actual date when Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II razed the city of Jerusalem? First, because the event marked an important turning point in the history of God’s people. . . .
Second, because knowing the actual year when this “ultimate catastrophe” began and understanding how the restoration of true worship in Jerusalem fulfilled a precise Bible prophecy will build your confidence in the reliability of God’s Word. So why do Jehovah’s Witnesses hold to a date that differs from widely accepted chronology by 20 years? In short, because of evidence within the Bible itself.
The problem, of course, is not just taking an interest, but discovering that the Watchtower's solution produces too many contradictions and cannot be supported without manipulation or rejection of the Biblical and archaeological evidence.
Of course the only right thing to do when one discovers that the evidence leads to a different conclusion is to be quiet and wait on Jehovah. At least that's what I was told even by the persons who first showed me a few pieces of this evidence in 1977 and 1978. If you speak up, you could be disfellowshipped, I was warned. So I stayed pretty quiet about it for more than a third of a century (i.e., 33 years) but I have kept studying about these things off and on.
But my conscience bothered me a bit, because Jehovah is the "God of Truth." (Psalm 31:5) If we see our brother take a false step we shouldn't just ignore it. When I asked about these things with responsible persons in the organization, who I respected, I realized that the only defense was "empty speeches." (Non-answers, avoidance, evasion, misquotes, and very weak or completely unrelated evidence.) Mostly you begin to see that no one really has looked at the evidence. Or, if they are like Furuli, they try to exploit a weakness in one or two tiny pieces of evidence, and won't even admit that their theory is already demolished by 1,000 other bits of independent evidence.
So for me, I must follow my conscience.
(2 Timothy 2:14-18) . . .. 15 Do your utmost to present yourself approved to God, a workman with nothing to be ashamed of, handling the word of the truth aright. 16 But reject empty speeches that violate what is holy, for they will lead to more and more ungodliness, 17 and their word will spread like gangrene. Hy·me·naeʹus and Phi·leʹtus are among them. 18 These men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred, and they are subverting the faith of some.
Hmmmm. Thanks? Well, that should convince her!  I think she trusts your judgment pretty much the way she judges mine.

ScholarJW Pretendus continues making the same mistake that most JW apologists do with chronology as well as many other beliefs: they're ass-backwards in their thinking. Since 1914 is all-important, they must perform all sorts of mental gyrations to justify it. Such as claiming that the 70 years is of fundamental importance to both Bible and secular chronology. But the period ONLY has importance to the 1914 chronology and the huge house-of-cards belief structure that rests on it.
And of course, ScholarJW Mendacicus continues lying about "the 586/7 BCE dilemma" when he knows quite well that Rodger Young put that issue to bed back in 2004. He knows this because he's completely unable to refute Young's paper; all he can manage is his usual limp but loudly proclaimed refrain, "It's wrong cuz the 70 years!!!"

There you go again, Neil. Back in your fantasy world.

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.

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?
 

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?