Ann O'Maly

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).

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?
 

Okeydokey.
 
Hey, I've been keeping this issue to the fore. You have been ducking and diving away from the obvious conclusion. 😂

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?

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

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

There may have been seeds sown by Dispensationalists before him, but it can pretty much be traced back to John A. Brown's 2-volume work from 1823, Even-tide. There, he applied Dan. 4's 'seven times' to a period of 2,520 years where the Jews would be under the domination of 'four tyrannical monarchies' until their kingdom was restored in 1917. It's also important to note that Brown put the beginning of the time period to Nebuchadnezzar's first regnal year in 604 BCE.
Link to relevant chapter.

Okeydokey.
 
Hey, I've been keeping this issue to the fore. You have been ducking and diving away from the obvious conclusion. 😂

There may have been seeds sown by Dispensationalists before him, but it can pretty much be traced back to John A. Brown's 2-volume work from 1823, Even-tide. There, he applied Dan. 4's 'seven times' to a period of 2,520 years where the Jews would be under the domination of 'four tyrannical monarchies' until their kingdom was restored in 1917. It's also important to note that Brown put the beginning of the time period to Nebuchadnezzar's first regnal year in 604 BCE.
Link to relevant chapter.

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

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

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

Okeydokey.
 
Hey, I've been keeping this issue to the fore. You have been ducking and diving away from the obvious conclusion. 😂

At least I have been fully and completely honest. I'll try a little harder to be more unpleasant. 😉 But even when you say I am blatantly lying and lyingly say every sort of untruth and insult about me, I realize where it comes from. It's not really you personally. It's a zeal for God, just not according to accurate knowledge. We must always be learning.

There may have been seeds sown by Dispensationalists before him, but it can pretty much be traced back to John A. Brown's 2-volume work from 1823, Even-tide. There, he applied Dan. 4's 'seven times' to a period of 2,520 years where the Jews would be under the domination of 'four tyrannical monarchies' until their kingdom was restored in 1917. It's also important to note that Brown put the beginning of the time period to Nebuchadnezzar's first regnal year in 604 BCE.
Link to relevant chapter.

That was the point: that Daniel does NOT allow room for both views here. How could Jehovah be bringing a king low for his haughtiness and braggadocio, and it still makes sense that Jehovah was also bringing him low for his humble attitude and his being lowly in heart and disposition? There was not room for both views.

The snag with that is Daniel said the tree represents Nebuchadnezzar himself - not just Babylonian rulership ('The tree ... is you, O King'). While Nebuchadnezzar was ill, the kingdom, its everyday affairs, commerce, government, agriculture, etc. continued.
Another problem (apart from giving the dream an antitypical fulfillment that isn't scripturally warranted), is Babylonian rulership was uniformly seen in the Bible as oppressive to God's people, and yet this oppressive regime that destroyed his people's cities and cruelly held them captive is a type for God's righteous kingdom? How does that work?

I can never read that dialogue with a straight face. 😆

The glitch I am speaking of is the following:
(But first some doctrinal history because I know how much certain people here just love doctrinal history.)
Russell left the "1914" doctrine in disarray by predicting so many things for it that failed. And even changing the "End of the Gentile Times" to 1915, and at least once also implying that the "Jewish Year 1915" could run from October 1915 to October 1916. But even Rutherford had continued to create a mess around the 1914 problem by waffling on 1914 for a while, pushing for 1918, then 1925, and only very slowly giving up on the the idea that the "End of the Gentile Times" was still going to be a Jewish mitzvah in Palestine.
It took Rutherford a while to give up on the great pyramid, and the seven or so other evidences for reaching 1914 by using 'divine proofs for 1874' plus the 40-year harvest. Including "parallel dispensations" in Old Testament Israel as the proof of divine origin of our chronology. Although even this last 1914 proof, he had "messed with," by adjusting "1874+40=1914" to 1878 plus a 40-year harvest to reach 1918. (1878+40=1918)The old emphasis on Elijah passing the mantle to Elisha would give Rutherford a more personal sense of scriptural authority, when he moved the date out of Russell's time slot and into the start of his own presidency in 1918. The same idea carried over into the "ns" book when that entire Russell/Rutherford transition was moved from 1918 to 1942 to represent the Rutherford/Knorr-Franz transition where "Elijah" was now the time under Rutherford's presidency and "Elisha" became the transition to the time of the Knorr/[Franz] presidency).
[edited to add: No one should get the idea that 1914 had been downplayed as a doctrine. The war broke out in 1914, and by mid-1915 the doctrine was being explained pretty much as it is now, but still with Zionist overtones, and with the background chronological reasons in question or in flux. By 1916 the "parousia" signs were being added to it. But that old consistent stable basis for 1914 was being shaken a bit. And Daniel 4 had not been utilized very much, even for the 2,520 years. Articles mentioning the 2,520 years did NOT include Daniel 4. I might add an explanation of what I mean here under another topic.]
So when Rutherford died (1942), it was up to F.W.Franz to push hard for the tree dream prophecy again because all those other methods now needed to be dropped completely. Officially Christ's presence was still 1874 right up until about 1943:
*** ka chap. 11 pp. 209-210 par. 55 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” ***
In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published the book “The Truth Shall Make You Free.” In its chapter 11, entitled “The Count of Time,” . . .  Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning of his invisible presence or parousia.
The book just mentioned, "The Truth Shall Make You Free," was the first big push on the chronology of 1914 in quite a while. But this was back before the NWT was available, and we often used the American Standard Version, and Rotherham's translation. This is where and when the first glitch was much more visible, and had to be overcome. Note page 240 of the book:
To whom does Jehovah give the heavenly overlordship over all men of good-will in A.D. 1914? Daniel4: 17 answers: "To the intent that the living may know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men." "One low among men he setteth up over it." (Roth.)
Humiliating Nebuchadnezzar with insanity and making him eat with the beasts was a way of showing just how low and beastly these kingdoms of men really were, but that Jehovah was still so far above them, that almost "on a whim" Jehovah could prove just how "base" these rulers were that he allowed to rule in the kingdom of men.
So this entire parable was not about the Kingdom of God, but about how "base" and "beastly" were these relatively weak and transient humans who thought they were so great in the kingdom of men.
So the first thing to do is get rid of that phrase the "basest of men." Rotherham helped here. If it can apply to Jesus, we could get away with "lowest" instead of "basest" because then we could use Jesus' humility, or his perceived stature by those who were not of honest hearts. Even this is a problem, because Jesus wasn't really "low." It's just that people were mistaken when they considered him "low." (Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Isn't he the carpenter's son? How can he say he existed before Abraham? etc.)
So page 241 of the same 1943 book goes on:
God has not given the 'kingdom of men" to totalitarian and religious dictators, who are wicked demonized men. Jehovah God has given the heavenly kingdom of the new world to the one whom politicians, commercial traffickers and religious clergy despjse as the "basest of men", namely, Christ Jesus, who was nailed to a tree between two thieves.
Note the deceptive twisting of the Bible's words here. With a kind of sleight of hand, and taking advantage of the negative opening in the sentence, Franz makes the "kingdom of men" represent "the heavenly kingdom." And while Daniel 4 was about a truly vicious beast who needed to be humiliated for his haughtiness, "the basest of men," Jesus is only falsely accused of being the basest of men. There is no need to humiliate Jesus for his haughtiness. Jesus is not a vicious beast. Jesus does not need to be taught a lesson by making him go insane.
So over the years, there has been a near disappearance of this explanation about how Jesus is like the "basest of men." And tricks of language are still being used to try to make the parallel between the return of wicked, pagan, gentile Nebuchadnezzar after 7 years to refer to the return of the Jewish Messianic Kingdom through the enthronement of Jesus Christ, who was not wicked, pagan, or gentile -- after 7 "times."

PROJECTION:
If we include Allen Smith##, Billy the Kid, etc., in the count, I think you just reached example number 1,000!!
We should have some kind of celebration.
Wikipedia:
Psychological projection is a defense mechanism in which the ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves by attributing them to others.[1] . . .  It incorporates blame shifting and can manifest as shame dumping.[2]

The snag with that is Daniel said the tree represents Nebuchadnezzar himself - not just Babylonian rulership ('The tree ... is you, O King'). While Nebuchadnezzar was ill, the kingdom, its everyday affairs, commerce, government, agriculture, etc. continued.
Another problem (apart from giving the dream an antitypical fulfillment that isn't scripturally warranted), is Babylonian rulership was uniformly seen in the Bible as oppressive to God's people, and yet this oppressive regime that destroyed his people's cities and cruelly held them captive is a type for God's righteous kingdom? How does that work?

I though the same, if only for the simple reason that it's irrelevant to the topic. I was wondering whether I should copy and paste here just the relevant portions so that people don't have to keep referring to the website. Although you probably already mean that you will paste the relevant section and then comment on that. I wish we could find some method that would keep things orderly....that probably won't happen, so perhaps towards the end when it seems that everything has been exhausted, one could have a summary...

And Ezekiel 33:21-29 shows that in the December/January following Jerusalem's destruction there were inhabitants living in Jerusalem's ruins. God instructed Ezekiel to tell them a message.

Since we have begun looking at the Bible's chronology versus the Watchtower chronology, we should look at how easily the Bible chronology fits into the standard Babylonian timeline.
(2 Kings 25:27) . . .And in the 37th year of the exile of King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah, in the 12th month, on the 27th day of the month, King Eʹvil-merʹo·dach of Babylon, in the year he became king,. . .
For example, look how well that question is answered about the date of Jehoiachin's 37th year of exile.

625 624 623 622 621 620 619 618 617 616 615 614 613 612 611 610 609 608 607 606 605 604 603 602 601 600 599 598 597 596 595 594 593 592 591 590 589 588 587 586 585 584 583 582 581 580 579 578 577 576 575 574 573 572 571 570 569 568 567 566 565 564 563 562 561 560 559 558 557 556 555 554 553 552 551 550 549 548 547 546 545 544 543 542 541 540 539 538 537 536 535 534 533 532 531 530 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 33 591 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 Just start in E-M1 which is 561 and go back 37 years on the timeline and you get 598. And this is exactly Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year. Now the Bible never says that Nebuchadnezzar reigned exactly 43 years, but notice how this perfectly matches the Babylonian standard timeline. The Bible gets another confirmation from the Babylonian timeline. Even the fact that it was the 7th year is confirmed not only in the Bible but in the Babylonian Chronicles, as you can see from the first quote from Insight in the previous post.
But the WT chronology now has only a 25-year period into which to somehow squeeze 45 years worth of kings' reigns between the first year of E-M and the last year of Nabonidus (17). But it gets worse. You'll recall that the Watchtower publications use the Nabonidus Chronicle to confirm that Cyrus conquered Babylon in the 17th year of Nabonidus. This means that Nabonidus also reigned only 17 years and ended that reign in 539. The INSIGHT book admits this evidence.
So we have all of the 43 years of Nebuchandnezzar, at least 1 year of Evil Merodach's 2 years, and all 17 of the years of Nabonidus. That's 63 of the 70 years the NB timeline from NEB1 to CYRUS1. This means that the WTS chronology must now fit 25 years of kings' reigns into the 5 years between 560 BCE and 556 BCE in the standard timeline. That's the only place left where the Watchtower's missing 20 years can be made to fit. 20 year of a broken cable of chronology.

The fact that there was a great war in 1914 is evidence that the nations were still active. Once ANY ONE of those nations remained after 1915 (according to the final version of the readjusted prediction) it was proof that the times of these nations had not ended. Once a Jewish nation in Israel was not the ONLY nation still standing in the entire world as of the end of 1915, this became further proof that the Gentile Times had not ended.
The Great War ended up proving that the Gentile Times had not ended in 1914!