JW Insider

2 hours ago, Pudgy said:

So …. what’s important about one or two or 20 or 70 years …2600 or so years ago, on the other side of the planet, by peoples and nations … whole civilizations that don’t exist anymore?

Thanks again for the soapbox setup regarding 1914. LOL.

Scripture says no one knows the day and the hour or the times and the seasons of Jesus' return. "For you do not know when the time will come." Also, scripture says that it wasn't for us to know and that we would need to stay on the watch for his return, by being always ready even for a completely unexpected visitation, like a thief in the night, not waiting for signs. Thieves in the night do not put up signs announcing their visit.

So the only proper way to keep on the watch is to always be prepared, watch our conduct, have faith. Thinking there might be an advance sign keeps people from being fully prepared until they see the sign. Christians need to be prepared BEFORE the sign appear. As Jesus said, when it is too late to even go back into your house to grab something, "THEN the sign will appear --IN HEAVEN!!"

But first a defense for anyone who might be interested in the topic just for the sake of knowledge.

Some people like puzzles. Some people like history. Most of the heavy lifting and most of the very detailed and tedious work has been done by hundreds, even thousands of people who had never heard of 1914. Many of the Greek historians who wanted to make a history of say, Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, Troy, Peloponnesia, or Alexander the Great also wanted to see just how exactly they could puzzle together the number of years between certain events, exactly how long ago something happened.

Just saying "Year 10 of King so-and-so" wasn't good enough if that king was so far back in time that you weren't sure if your "Kings List" or "archon list" was complete or accurate enough. If there was even one inaccurate listing or missing king from the list then the chain of accuracy was broken. Longer eras were tried. Attaching events to a certain numbered 4-year Olympiad was tried. Ptolemy and others realized that you could go back into Babylonian and Assyrian times and double-check their Kings Lists against actual astronomical readings that he could double-check against repeating cycles of eclipses and even repeated planetary motion against certain constellations. It was fortunate that the Babylonians had astrologers who took such meticulous note of such things. After double-checking, it turned out he could trust the Babylonian Kings Lists, just like today where the Watchtower trusts the same Kings List that Ptolemy quoted, in order to say that Cyrus in 539 is a trusted, anchored, pivotal date.

Full disclosure, the WTS only trusts the list from Cyrus on, NOT BEFORE. And there's also one place where the WTs doesn't like it again AFTER Cyrus, during the reign of Artaxerxes:

*** it-1 p. 182 Artaxerxes ***
Artaxerxes Longimanus, the son of Xerxes I, is the king referred to at Ezra 7:1-28 and Nehemiah 2:1-18; 13:6. Whereas most reference works give his accession year as 465 B.C.E., there is sound reason for placing it in 475 B.C.E.

The "sound reason" is again (just like for 607 from 587 BCE) a prophetic interpretation that we would like to have work a certain way, and the Watchtower interpretation doesn't work with the evidenced chronology.
 

But even today, many people will get angry if you say that the Civil War started in 1841 or that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1756, or that, nearly half-way around the world, the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand happened in 1894 or that Lenin's Revolution in Russia was in 1897. Or that Jesus was born around 22 BC. Some people are sticklers for accuracy and don't like false claims even when it really doesn't matter all that much to our own family and pets. 

And for that matter, saying that something happened in 1914 when no one at the time actually noticed whatever it was that happened at the time, also has no real effect on us today. If the Watchtower had claimed that whatever happened invisibly then, had actually happened in 1934, or if we still claimed that it had happened in 1874, there would be no material difference to anything else we believe in. Changing the starting dates, and then adding an undefinable and fairly flexible "overlapping generation" to it, means we don't really even have an expectation that is specifically tied to that year any more.

So the only real point for most Witnesses then, is to be able to brag that the WTS was able to predict that SOMETHING big would happen in 1914. And even though it wasn't anything like what the WTS predicted, no one can deny that SOMETHING big did happen that year. 

So the real point, pretty much the only remaining point, must be for some kind of gnostic bragging rights. Boasting about how our own esoteric and convoluted method of interpreting "hidden knowledge" proves we are about the closest thing to "prophets" that one might expect these days.

This is what Russell apparently had in mind in the first thing he ever published back before he started the Watchtower magazine. In 1876 he said regarding 1914:

We believe that God has given the key. We believe He doeth nothing but he revealeth it unto His servants. . . . But, some one will say, “If the Lord intended that we should know, He would have told us plainly and distinctly how long.” But, no, brethren, He never does so. The Bible is to be a light to God’s children;–to the world, foolishness. Many of its writings are solely for our edification upon whom the ends of the world are come. As well say that God should have put the gold on top instead of in the bowels of the earth it would be too common; it would lose much of its value. So with truth; but, “to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom."

In fact, look what was added to the Aid book and Insight book which were supposed to be all-purpose, general-use Bible Dictionaries. Even though the predictions about 1914 turned out not to be true, and even though a sensationalist newspaper at the time made a story that falsely misrepresented those predictions, the Insight book provides the following bit of boasting:

*** it-1 p. 135 Appointed Times of the Nations ***
“Seven times,” according to this count, would equal 2,520 days. That a specific number of days may be used in the Bible record to represent prophetically an equivalent number of years can be seen by reading the accounts at Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6. Only by applying the formula there expressed of “a day for a year” to the “seven times” of this prophecy can the vision of Daniel chapter 4 have significant fulfillment beyond the day of now extinct Nebuchadnezzar, as the evidence thus far presented gives reason to expect. They therefore represent 2,520 years.
It is a historical fact worth noting that, on the basis of the points and evidence above presented, the March 1880 edition of the Watch Tower magazine identified the year 1914 as the time for the close of “the appointed times of the nations” (and the end of the lease of power granted the Gentile rulers). This was some 34 years before the arrival of that year and the momentous events it initiated. In the August 30, 1914, edition of The World, a leading New York newspaper at that time, a feature article in the paper’s Sunday magazine section commented on this as follows: “The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. For a quarter of a century past, through preachers and through press, the ‘International Bible Students’ . . . have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914.”
 

So it has really just become a roundabout way of bragging and hinting at least subliminally that the WTS is a kind of "prophet:"

(Amos 3:7) . . .For the Sovereign Lord Jehovah will not do a thing Unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his servants the prophets.

22 hours ago, George88 said:

When was King Josiah born versus at what point he took the throne?

If he died in 609 BCE, as Pharaoh Necho was passing north through Megiddo, then he was born around 648 BCE. Josiah became king at 8 years of age in about 640/639 and reigned 31 years until 609.

TMI:

Apparently, Josiah's wife was pregnant with Johanan when Josiah was somewhere between 8 and 12 years old. Johanan never became king, but Josiah's other 3 sons all became kings of Judah. 

His second son, Jehoiakim/Eliakim was born in Josiah's 6th year as king (634 BCE), meaning when Josiah was about 14, so Josiah most likely fathered the child his second son when he was 13. 

When Josiah was about 16 (632 BCE), his third son Jehoahaz/Shallum was born.

About the 22nd year of his reign, Mattaniah/Zedekiah was born, around 618 BCE.

Zedekiah would be about 9 years old when his father died, and very shortly afterwards was himself made king around 609 BCE

22 hours ago, George88 said:

It is widely believed that this event occurred around 618 BC, suggesting that any scribe examining his date of birth would conclude that his reign would conclude in 607 BC.

It's hard to see why someone being born in 618 might influence a scribe to think his reign concluded 11 years later. You are evidently thinking it's possible that some scribe somewhere mixed up his birth-year with his first year of reign, counting 11 years from the wrong date. This seems a little less likely to me when you think about the method they used for counting years. It wasn't a matter of mixing up numbers like 618, 607, 597, 586, because counting calendar years didn't use numbers like that. You merely added up the length of all official kings' reigns between "king A' and "king B" and then used expression like "in the 3rd year of king A. . . " or in "10th year of king B." to add or subtract for the exact number of years. 

22 hours ago, George88 said:

23 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It's possible that you mean the observation doesn't make any big deal about the physical destruction of Jerusalem at that particular time.

Your assumption is incorrect if you consider the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC. Historical evidence points to a different path and timeframe.

I merely acknowledge that you were saying it was possible that historical evidence points to a different time frame from 587, and you say my assumption is incorrect but then go on to say almost the exact same thing I just said. So I guess I missed what part of my assumption was incorrect.

22 hours ago, George88 said:

23 hours ago, JW Insider said:

(Jeremiah 52) which puts this 12th  in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. . . . accounted for perfectly in the description of the city being struck down in Jeremiah, 2 Chron, 2 Kings, etc.

While not confusing the issue, this would conclude in historical context the 19th year of Nabopolassar.

It sounds like you are not saying that Nabopolassar can also be called Nebuchadnezzar, but that perhaps there was a co-regency of a certain Nebuchadnezzar of the same regnal length as Nabopolassar's or that Nabopolassar's regnal year numbers were used during a time when this Nebuchadnezzar was also a king (or effectively the king from the Biblical perspective?) during that same 19th year.  

22 hours ago, George88 said:

It could be argued that the Nebuchadnezzar mentioned by Scholar Dr. Wiseman, who matches the timeframe, could be the 19th year of that Nebuchadnezzar within Nabopolassar's reign. This Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nabopolassar (640 BC) and older than the Nebuchadnezzar described in scripture, could make all the difference.

There were others named Nebuchadnezzar, especially after the first "great" Nebuchadnezzar from 400 years earlier. The name according to Wiseman was little used elsewhere (if at all) by others in the second millennium, meaning prior to the first Nebuchadnezzar. But he believes that Nabopolassar, once established in his throne, thought it good to name his first son Nebuchadnezzar as a kind of throwback to that first Nebuchadnezzar to remind Babylonians of the old classical "dynasty". But others had used the name, since 'Neb the First' or names similar enough to swap with it. 

The other Nebuchadn(r)ezzar, however, was NOT the son of Nabopolassar as you say. You must have read it wrong. That would mean Nebuchadnezzar had a brother named Nebuchadnezzar. Note that Wiseman says that Nebuchadn(r)ezzar II had a brother named Nabuzerusabsi, named in a document almost NINETY YEARS AFTER the governor of Uruk (also named Nabuzerusabsi). It was that Uruk governor from 650 BC (not 640) who also had a brother named Nebuchadrezzar. 

according to:

which I didn't look up to double-check.

Nabopolassar's son, Nabuzerusabsi, would have been born well before 605 and so was already at least 44 when he was mentioned on a tablet in the year 562 BCE. The brother of the governor of Uruk's back around 650 would have been nearly a century earlier, and this would be, not impossible, but very difficult to see as "a Nebuchadnezzar" co-ruling with Nabopolassar, whose reign started in about 626 BCE. Not because it's impossible based on the dates, but because we have so much trivial information known about even obscure people from these years. Even people who reigned only a few months, even people who tried to usurp the kingship, and even details about co-rulers from Assyrian times just a few years prior to Nabopolassar. So it seems odd that we wouldn't have details about a brother of a governor co-ruling at the time history assigns solely to Nabopolassar. 

1 hour ago, George88 said:

However, this observation has a minor detail missing from the story. 

It's possible that you mean the observation doesn't make any big deal about the physical destruction of Jerusalem at that particular time. Perhaps you are thinking that there could have been another point at which Jerusalem was considered already devastated. Perhaps this might cover a potential 20 year gap if we consider a scribal error. Perhaps it's related to the so-called correction to a king's young enthronement. 

Before you give away more details than you are ready, I wonder if the following verse does not give the theory a big problem:

(Ezekiel 33:21) . . .At length in the 12th year, in the tenth month, on the fifth day of the month of our exile, a man who had escaped from Jerusalem came to me and said: “The city has been struck down!”

Although some might consider the BCE years attached to the event to be controversial, it does indicate that they are in the 12th year of an exile that was so great as to be named "our exile." The only exile the Bible gives the largest number to was the exile in the 7th/8th year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 52) which puts this 12th  in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. That 12 year gap (11 if using a non-accession style of counting) is accounted for perfectly in the description of the city being struck down in Jeremiah, 2 Chron, 2 Kings, etc.

I suppose one could say something like Sweeney is saying, that Jerusalem was effectively under Babylonian control as early as 605, and perhaps some kind of destruction accompanied what was done in this particular year. I would have a lot of trouble fitting Jeremiah's time related statements into this however. I do see a lot of the coincidences you have noticed. (e.g. 607 is not the 19th year of Nebu-, but it is in fact the 19th year of Nabo-. And the 20 year gaps are interesting. And the coincidence of the 37th year mentioned with respect to Jehoiachin and the accession year of Evil-Merodach, when the infamous tablet also concerns year 37. Don't know what anyone can make of that one though.)
 

39 minutes ago, George88 said:

Those who ignore the facts would be ignorant, while those who agree with such ignorance would be foolish.

I agree with that too. In fact, I think that when you consider everything that Jeremiah, Daniel, Chronicles/Ezra, Isaiah and Zechariah say about the term "70 years" it does give us a way to tie any of the "loose" pieces together in a reasonable fashion. 

52 minutes ago, George88 said:

Could it be possible that scribes based the calculation of King Mattanyahu's reign on his birthdate around 618 BC?

I need to ask you first: When do you think Zedekiah (Mattanyahu) was born? If we use the dating system that puts Josiah's death in 609 by Necho's army at Megiddo, and we believe that Josiah was about 39 at his death, born around 648 and put on the throne in 640, at a very young age, then this makes Zedekiah born (618/617) when Josiah was 30-ish, very reasonable, for a fourth son in those days. That also puts Zedekiah on the throne from around 597 to 586 using this chronology. So he'd be around 21 or so. Does that sound about right to you? 

10 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Please do and recognize that such a discussion is only made possible by those 'celebrated' WT scholars!

I believe both of us are pretty much repeating ourselves at this point. Before this conversation winds down I will try to summarize the points I tried to make, without all the repetition. You might get a chance to do the same. If you don't wish to, I will probably try to do that for you.

But no rush. @George88 has made a few comments that I'd like to address and he has also asked about the actual tablet evidence for Nebuchadnezzar's regnal years. I'd don't have much time, so I'd like to shift attention over to the points he has made and asked about.

6 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The date 537 BCE is well attested than the problematic 19th or 18th year of Neb.

I'm sure you know that the BCE date 537 for Cyrus 2nd year is almost as well attested as Nebuchadnezzar's 19th or 18th.

But it's not attested to at all as the end of a 70-year period of exile. Ezra says the Jews were released by a decree in the first year of Cyrus. The Insight book admits that Bible writers sometimes used a non-accession year method, so that this could have referred to the idea that Cyrus immediately decreed the Jews to be free in 539. That's the actual year that you agree is the year Cyrus conquered Babylon, right?

So according to the Bible it could be 539 when the Jews were decreed to be free. And therefore when they got back to their homeland in the 7th month of 538, not 537.

(Ezra 3:1) . . .When the seventh month arrived and the Israelites were in their cities. . .

Does this supposed contention between 538 and 537 perhaps mean that you should ignore both dates and say it was really in 557? Hmmm. That's what you do with the supposed contention for Nebuchadnezzar's reign.

In fact that idea of 539 for the decree and 538 for getting back home is a much better Biblical fit to what Chronicles says:

(2 Chronicles 36:20, 21) . . .He carried off captive to Babylon those who escaped the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia began to reign, to fulfill Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill 70 years.

It's pretty obvious that the kingdom of Persia began to reign in 539 BCE not 537 BCE. The Bible says nothing about the 70 years having to wait until they got all the way back to their homeland anyway. And we know that many of them never went home at all, or waited for many more years. 

Of course, 538 instead of your "celebrated" date makes the most sense here even if Ezra didn't say it. Unless you think ALL the Jews were lazy and didn't really want to get back home when they were freed until nearly 24 months after Cyrus conquered Babylon. 

it's pretty obvious that the Bible clearly states it was Cyrus 1st year, which you agree is 538, but another year is sacrificed to the altar of 607 so it had to be changed from the most logical agreed upon date 538, to 537. It really tells me that there is no respect for the Bible's dates. For the "idolized" Watchtower scholars they are satisfied with just a set of arbitrary dates chosen on both ends of the redefined 70 years, so that 1914 will still works.

6 hours ago, scholar JW said:

simply using a sound and solid date that can serve as an anchor point for OT Chronology thus one can then reckon backwards and forwards to construct a valid scheme of Bible Chronology.

 And yet it's not used as an anchor point going backwards because the same data and evidence that made 539 a so-called anchor date is thrown out the window immediately so that a 20 year gap is theorized to be in their somewhere, else a special interpretation for 1914 won't work. And then the same thing happens going forward hardly 100 years later, and the WTS needs to add 10 years to the evidenced chronology for another WTS interpretation to work: 

*** it-1 p. 182 Artaxerxes ***
Artaxerxes Longimanus, the son of Xerxes I, is the king referred to at Ezra 7:1-28 and Nehemiah 2:1-18; 13:6. Whereas most reference works give his accession year as 465 B.C.E., there is sound reason for placing it in 475 B.C.E.

Also, you continue to posit that the idea of two Biblically conflicting dates produces contentiousness among scholars, and therefore you are willing to dismiss both candidates. Yet the Watchtower publications figured out the reason for the difference between 18th and 19th years in the Bible accounts. You still think that you need to be so concerned with secular issues when it seems the Bible is actually clear after all? That solution, unless you disagree with it, will turn your so-called problematic secular dates back into Bible dates, courtesy of your own idolized scholars.

*** it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***
on Tammuz (June-July) 9 in the 11th year of Zedekiah’s reign (Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year if counting from his accession year or his 18th regnal year), a breach was made in Jerusalem’s wall. 

Same explanation works here:

*** w69 2/1 p. 88 Babylonian Chronology—How Reliable? ***
The Bible record is quite detailed in its account of the first punitive expedition against the kingdom of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar (or Nebuchadrezzar) in his seventh regnal year (or eighth year from his accession to the throne). (Jer. 52:28; 2 Ki. 24:12) 
 

16 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

which of course would include a deportation of the remaining inhabitants.

Then why does Jeremiah say that that the deportation of the remaining inhabitants happened 5 years AFTER the Fall of Jerusalem? And why was it only such a small number who were actually exiled according to Jeremiah: 4,600 total out of perhaps hundreds of thousands?

12 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

it highlights the contention within scholarship as to which is the precise date for the Fall.

You are funny. Did you really think that, in the Bible, Jehovah associates the fall of Jerusalem with both the 18th year and the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar in order to create contention among scholars who won't then be able to figure out the precise year? Or perhaps so that your own idolized scholars will stand out as greater and somehow get the upper hand when they choose neither date, but pick one that's only 20 years off? 

33 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

Relevant to 1914?

I'm kidding about those dates being relevant to @scholar JW. These dates (587 and 586) have ALL the best evidence behind them for the Fall of Jerusalem, and 607 has absolutely NONE, imo. But no one who has invested so many years at the altar of 607 and its idolized celebrated scholars will very easily see the relevance of 587/6, because it's NOT relevant to 1914. But 607 is relevant to 1914. 587/586 is actually the good guy, but it's considered to be the feared, evil "nemesis" god that threatens to make the 607 idol fall on its fishy face, relegated to the "piles" of a Dagon day gone by. 

4 hours ago, scholar JW said:

I am talking about the dates 586 or 587 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem which the Bible states happened in the 18/19th year of Neb. That is what is contentious! These two regnal years of Neb are irrelevant unless are tied to an event in biblical history such as the Fall of Babylon and the Fall of Jerusalem.

Let's break that down: You say 586 or 587 are being given for an event in Biblical history called the Fall of Jerusalem. Then you say these two regnal years of Nebuchadnezzar are irrelevant unless they are tied to an event in Biblical history such as the Fall of Jerusalem. 

Yeah!! I graciously accept your apology!! It took a while to convince you. Thank you for explicitly admitting that the years 586 or 587 are relevant! 

... continued...

Not according to the evidenced chronology, of course, but according to the WT chronology. 

(Jeremiah 52:27-30) . . .Thus Judah went into exile from its land. These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile: in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews.  In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem. In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people. In all, 4,600 people were taken into exile.

If you say the 18th year refers to 607, then the 7th year would be 618 BCE when the greater number were taken into exile.  In fact, as mentioned before, this number was two-thirds of the entire number of exiles, and the number exiled in the 18th year ("607") was only about one-sixth of the total number of exiles. 

Daniel said he was among a group of Judean exiles in an earlier group than "607." Jeremiah spoke of the exiles 10 years before "607." And Ezekiel goes so far as to use a new era of dating where each year was one of the "YEARS of OUR EXILE."  

(Ezekiel 33:21) . . .At length in the 12th year, in the tenth month, on the fifth day of the month of our exile, a man who had escaped from Jerusalem came to me and said: “The city has been struck down!”

So it really makes no sense to start claiming that something called "The Exile" (as if there were only one) MUST have started ONLY in the year of the smallest number of exiles, what you call 607. It also flies in the face of Ezekiel's use of the term "in the 12th year of our Exile" to refer to a time starting 10 years before "the Exile" that you are arguing for.

Why do you need to start "the Exile" a decade LATER than Ezekiel starts "the Exile"? 

4 hours ago, scholar JW said:

thus it is best to heed Jeremiah's prophecy that the 70 years of Babylon's domination/servitude be commensurate with the Fall of Jerusalem in Neb's 18th/19th year and the deportation of the populace to Babylon as exiles leaving a desolated Land of Judah.

If only Jeremiah's prophecy had made the 70 years of Babylon's domination commensurate with the Fall of Jerusalem and the deportation of the populace as exiles. But instead Jeremiah merely says that Babylon will have 70 years of dominance so that all the nations around will serve them. Here are some of the problems with that theory:

1. Jeremiah NEVER says the 70 years are for Judah, the prophecy says those 70 years are for Babylon and about Babylon.

2. Jeremiah says that many nations will come under this servitude of Babylon. Note:

(Jeremiah 25:9-26) . . .I am sending for all the families of the north,” declares Jehovah, “sending for King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these surrounding nations. I will devote them to destruction and make them an object of horror and something to whistle at and a perpetual ruin. . . . And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’  “‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,’ declares Jehovah, ‘and I will make the land of the Chal·deʹans a desolate wasteland for all time. I will bring on that land all my words that I have spoken against it, all that is written in this book that Jeremiah has prophesied against all the nations.   . . . So I took the cup out of the hand of Jehovah and made all the nations to whom Jehovah sent me drink: starting with Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, her kings and her princes, to make them a ruin, . . .  then Pharʹaoh king of Egypt . . .Uz;. . . the Phi·lisʹtines, Ashʹke·lon, Gazʹa, Ekʹron, . . . Ashʹdod;  Eʹdom, Moʹab,. . . Amʹmon·ites; . . .Tyre, . . .Siʹdon,. . . Deʹdan, Teʹma, Buz, . . . the Arabians . . .Zimʹri, . . . Eʹlam, . . .the Medes; . . . the kings of the north near and far, one after the other, and all the other kingdoms of the earth that are on the surface of the ground; and the king of Sheʹshach will drink after them.

So it's pretty obvious that the devastating effects of Babylonian domination will come upon all the known lands around them "ALL these surrounding nations." Not just Judah. So the 70 years were about a Babylonian domination that would END after 70 years. True, it was Jehovah's purpose that Judea and Jerusalem will be desolated through that domination, seemingly in a worse way than any of the other nations, but after those 70 years FOR BABYLON their domination would end, and it would be Babylon's turn for desolation.

Now it was mentioned before that Isaiah uses an expression about Babylon and 70 years, too. The expression in the prophecy against Tyre was that she:

"will be forgotten for for 70 years, the same as the lifetime of one king.  . . . At the end of 70 years, Jehovah will turn his attention to Tyre, and she will return to her hire and prostitute herself with all the world’s kingdoms on the face of the earth. But her profit and her hire will become something holy to Jehovah. . . . Look! Jehovah is emptying the land and making it desolate. He turns it upside down and scatters its inhabitants.  It will be the same for everyone:. . .

The WT publications say that this "70 years" expression means "70 years, the same as the lifespan given to one KINGDOM, Babylon" who will desolate the prostitute, Tyre, but that after the 70 years are over, Tyre will prostitute herself again with all the nations. As you know, the WTS explains it more fully this way:

*** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***
Jehovah, through Jeremiah, includes Tyre among the nations that will be singled out to drink the wine of His rage. He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble.
 

If this is true then the 70 years do not need to be associated directly with Judea's and Jerusalem's fall. It's the other way around, those 70 years for Babylon's domination would ultimately bring on a devastating effect in Judea and Jerusalem. It didn't need to be for the full 70 years that Babylon was given to begin it's period of greatest domination. So it also makes sense that we do not need to look for a specific date, exactly 70 years prior to October 539 BCE, or some arbitrarily chosen date within the first year of Cyrus. In fact most of Judea fell into exile a decade or more before Babylon tried to take the walled city of Jerusalem. (Jeremiah 52)

But think about this: Tyre didn't come under the domination of Babylon for a full 70 years. In fact some of those nations in Jeremiah's list appeared to hardly come under domination at all. Some nations that once paid tribute to Egypt or Assyria would simply transfer that tribute over to Babylon. That's probably what Jeremiah had in mind for Judea when he said to just put yourself under the yoke of Babylon without rebellion and you'll save yourselves.

So it makes sense that Babylon has control for 70 years but not all nations need to come under their thumb instantly, or all at once. But what if Tyre had come under their control earlier in Nebuchadnezzar's reign and had been in servitude to Babylon for, say, 75, 80 or 85 years. Would the 70 year prophecy make sense if it were really 80 years for example?

I think you'll see what I'm getting at. The fact that Babylon was given 70 years to dominate would make no sense if some of those nations that came under the 70 years were actually dominated for 80 or even 85 years.

Yet this is what MOST of the Judeans were -- MOST were exiled for 80 or even 85 years according to the WTS chronology. 

continued in next post  . . . 

2 hours ago, scholar JW said:

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I'm surprised you even admitted that one. It's an even better criteria for using Nebuchadnezzar's pivotal Bible dates instead of the secular Cyrus 1 date. Several of Nebuchadnezzar's years actually ARE synchronized to the Judean monarchy, yet ZERO of Cyrus' dates are. 

Why are you surprised?

I was surprised that you would say it's better to use a pivotal date tied to the Judean monarchy and then you still go right on and defend the ONE date in all of this discussion that is NOT tied to the Judean monarchy. The Nebuchadnezzar dates are explicitly tied to the Judean monarchy.

2 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Your methodology is flawed. The date 539 BCE remains the only pivotal date for the OT for no other date is its equal.

True, Nebuchadnezzar's years are only slightly better, not equal. LOL.

But putting faith in the secular date 539, although it isn't necessary for Bible students, doesn't cause any real trouble because it is validated by the same evidence that validates Nisan 1, 586 BCE as the first day of the first year of Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year of reign. And this also perfectly fits the words of Jeremiah about Nebuchadnezzar being there at the start of the 70 years of Babylonian domination because it puts his accession year back in 605.   

6 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The only way that the 70 years remains intact is to view it quite properly as the period of Jewish Exile beginning in 607 BCE and ending in 537 BCE.

And the problem with that is that you are putting faith in 539, then adjusting it as necessary to 537, and pretending that it is somehow better attested than 537 for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar.

I don't mind starting a Jewish Exile beginning around 607, because we know that Daniel claimed to be one of several exiles as early as Nebuchadnezzar's first or accession year, which is evidenced to be 605/4. So a period of Exile could well have matched the period of greatest domination of the Babylonian Empire. The Watchtower publications tell us that this period was the 70 years ending 539 and that different nations came under that yoke at different times. Same could be said for different parts of Judea and Jerusalem which also came under that domination and exile at different times during the 70 year period of their domination.

So clearly, according to the Watchtower's own publications, this particular 70 year period can remain intact without proposing that an event for Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year (which you call "607") actually happened BEFORE his own accession year, which all evidence shows was exactly in 605 BCE.

2 hours ago, scholar JW said:

the Biblical record proves a gap of some 20 years in the NB Chronology by means of the 70 years of Babylonian rule and Exile. Neb's 19th year or 18th year whether 586 or 587 BCE is problematic in its relation to the Fall of Jerusalem and thus cannot be used as a pivotal year.

There you go again with that specious argument that goes:

So it must be either 586 or 587 so since we don't know which of those two years is certain, we must dismiss them both and go with a year that's 20 years off, which forces us to pretend there must be an unidentified 20 year gap.

And we don't even know where that gap might fit correctly. We can't put it in Nebuchadnezzar's reign. And we make use of a 17-year Nabonidus reign. That leaves only a place where we have mundane business documents for a total of 4 years. So we must think that this period was actually 24 years and even though business documents have shown up for EVERY SINGLE known year of every king's reign, including those 4 years, but now we suddenly have 20 extra years in that "4-year" period where no business was transacted, and every single Babylonian lost their memory for those 20 years, and all the astronomical lunar and metonic cycles stopped, and the stars and planets also stopped moving, yet caught up instantly after the 20-year "gap" was completed.

We must sound like complete idiots to the same people we treat as experts when we quote from them about anything else in the "Insight" book.   

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

The regnal years of Neb's reign may well be documented in the Babylonian record but not in the Biblical record

OK. Now we might be getting somewhere. Yes, the regnal years are better documented in the Babylonian record than the Biblical record. But you can still trust the Bible when it says that the 18-20-month+ events surrounding the city of Jerusalem happened in the 18th and 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. It doesn't matter whether the Bible used Spring-to-Spring counting of new years or Fall-to-Fall counting of each newly counted year. We know we are in the right time period (within just a few months) if we use the well-documented Babylonian record for the way THEY calculated each year, which was consistent based on all their records, and supported by astronomical records, and their exact Nisan-to-Nisan method, and accession year method is supported by literally tens of thousands of always-consistent mundane business records. Furthermore, mundane business records have no religious agendas.  

The regnal years of Cyrus are not so well documented in the Biblical record and not quite as well documented in the secular record as Nebuchadnezzar's. But they are perfectly consistent with the method used by the Babylonians.

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

The date 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon is universally accepted within scholarship whereas Neb's regnal years remain contentious

You just keep making up the same false statement. Yet you contradict yourself because you have already admitted that "most if not all" reference works give the same years for EVERY year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. Turned out that even your own Professor (Oded Lipschits) used the same years for Nebuchadnezzar, in spite of your original claim that he didn't. .

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

Both the Fall of Babylon and the Fall of Jerusalem in Neb's 18/19th year and that of Zedekiah's 11th year are well described in the biblical account.

The fall of Babylon is not described with a regnal year associated with it. The fall of of Jerusalem is -- and, not only that, it's synchronized as you just showed with a Babylonian king and a Judean king. 

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

No. Both Neb's 18th and 19th year for our modern calendar along with 586 or 587 remain contentious within scholarship.

False. That's like saying that the first year or seventh year is contentious. You are only talking about the attempts to calculate the fall of Jerusalem with the Bible's data, NOT the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. There is no question at all that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar fell exactly on Nisanu 1, 586 BCE. There is no question at all that the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar fell exactly on Nisanu 1, 587 BCE.

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

and the WT explanation for its computation [539] is both immediate and simple.

Haven't you read the WT explanation for it's computation? It is NOT immediate and NOT simple. Yet, the computation of any year within Nebuchadnezzar's reign is much more immediate and simple, however.

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

Correct because 539 BC has universal acceptance as a date for the fall of Babylon

And just like 539,  587 BCE also has universal acceptance as the date for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar. As you said in your first sentence "Correct, most if not all past and current reference books on Bible Chronology most support 586 BCE and 587 BCE as a contender for the Fall of Jerusalem." And the Bible is the primary source of the question about which one to choose, because the Bible gives both year 18 and year 19. 

The Bible, by the way, does NOT say it was the first year of Cyrus, or the accession year of Cyrus when Babylon fell in 539. As you are aware, of course, Cyrus had already been ruling for the past 20 years before 539 BCE, as the ruler of the Persian Empire since c. 559 BCE, and the ruler of the Medes since 549 BCE, and the ruler of Lydia since 547 BCE. 

In fact, didn't I recall you conjecturing on this very forum about whether a certain Darius the Mede had either an interregnum rule before Cyrus or a co-rule with Cyrus starting immediately after the 539 capture of Babylon? The Bible does say that the decree went out to release the Jews in the first year of Cyrus, and yet the Watchtower puts that within a few weeks of his SECOND year starting in Nisan 537 instead of his first year 538 as the book of Ezra says. This additional stretch of what Ezra simply calls the "first year of Cyrus" allows the Watchtower to minimize the adjustment from 606 to 536, which were Russell's (Barbour's) original assumptions about the fall of Jerusalem and the first year of Cyrus. At the time, most of the reference books already had the two events correctly dated at 587/6 and 538, respetively, but Russell and Barbour misread the Cyrus date, and used a reference that had already confused the first years of Nebuchadnezzar's domination (and taking of exiles) with the destruction of Jerusalem. If one looks at the fine print footnote about it in Bishop Elliott's Horae Apocalypticae (a huge standard work for Bible chronologist study) it becomes understandable how such a mistake could be made. Instead of admitting a two to three year adjustment to the original dates, they were able to keep 1914 by making a one year adjustment at each end of the incorrect range they started with.

But the main thing that makes the Cyrus' years less simple and less direct is the fact that the Watchtower admits they are not using a dated tablet that mentions Cyrus. Instead, they are using one for Cambyses, and then trusting a King's List (exactly like the one Ptolemy used) to count backwards from Cambyses, and assuming the secular information is correct about the length of Cyrus' rule, and assuming there was no additional ruler between Cyrus and Cambyses. 

We don't have to do any of that nonsense for Nebuchadnezzar's chronology. 

To be clear, here is the Watchtower's "simple and direct" methodology for assuming Cyrus 1st year as 538 BCE. 

*** it-1 p. 453 Chronology ***
A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. This tablet contains the following astronomical information for the seventh year of Cambyses II son of Cyrus II: “Year 7, Tammuz, night of the 14th, 1 2⁄3 double hours [three hours and twenty minutes] after night came, a lunar eclipse; visible in its full course; it reached over the northern half disc [of the moon]. Tebet, night of the 14th, two and a half double hours [five hours] at night before morning [in the latter part of the night], the disc of the moon was eclipsed; the whole course visible; over the southern and northern part the eclipse reached.” (Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon, by J. N. Strassmaier, Leipzig, 1890, No. 400, lines 45-48; Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, by F. X. Kugler, Münster, 1907, Vol. I, pp. 70, 71) These two lunar eclipses can evidently be identified with the lunar eclipses that were visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E. (Oppolzer’s Canon of Eclipses, translated by O. Gingerich, 1962, p. 335) Thus, this tablet points to the spring of 523 B.C.E. as the beginning of the seventh year of Cambyses II.
Since the seventh year of Cambyses II began in spring of 523 B.C.E., his first year of rule was 529 B.C.E. and his accession year, and the last year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon, was 530 B.C.E. The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E.

Also note these comments in Insight about Cyrus:

*** it-1 p. 566 Cyrus ***
The early history of Cyrus II is somewhat obscure, depending largely upon rather fanciful accounts by Herodotus (Greek historian of the fifth century B.C.E.) and Xenophon (another Greek writer of about a half century later). However, both present Cyrus as the son of the Persian ruler Cambyses by his wife Mandane, the daughter of Astyages, king of the Medes. (Herodotus, I, 107, 108; Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, I, ii, 1) This blood relationship of Cyrus with the Medes is denied by Ctesias, another Greek historian of the same period, who claims instead that Cyrus became Astyages’ son-in-law by marrying his daughter Amytis.

So basically, the Watchtower is dependent, not on a tablet about Cyrus, but a clay tablet about the 7th year of a different king and the measurement and interpretation of a couple of lunar eclipses, to give a BCE date for that other king, which is then tied to Cyrus through a separate traditional "Kings List" that matched the one that Ptolemy used. Problem is, this would be the exact same Kings List as the one that gives us all the information about Nebuchadnezzar and all the other Neo-Babylonian kings. In fact, Cyrus' dates were originally considered accurate by Russell because he praised how good and reliable Ptolemy was -- that is until Russell realized that this was the same evidence that would demolished 606 (and 607). Then he trashed Ptolemy, but didn't have a good replacement for it and kept Cyrus' dates anyway. If we can have faith in this data for 539 then it's the same data that gives us 587 for the 19th year of King Nebuchadnezzar.  

And the Watchtower publications also admit that trying to use the Nabonidus Chronicle is not helpful, not only because it doesn't contain any information that would supply a BCE date, but that the year is cut off anyway:

*** it-2 p. 459 Nabonidus ***
In spite of the brevity of the Nabonidus Chronicle—the tablet measures about 14 cm (5.5 in.) in breadth at the widest point and about the same in length—it remains the most complete cuneiform record of the fall of Babylon available. In the third of its four columns, beginning with line 5, pertinent sections read: “[Seventeenth year:] . . . In the month of Tashritu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he (Nabonidus) massacred the confused inhabitants. The 14th day, Sippar was seized without battle. Nabonidus fled. The 16th day, Gobryas (Ugbaru), the governor of Gutium and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle. Afterwards Nabonidus was arrested in Babylon when he returned (there). . . . In the month of Arahshamnu, the 3rd day, Cyrus entered Babylon, green twigs were spread in front of him—the state of ‘Peace’ (sulmu) was imposed upon the city.”—Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 306.
It may be noted that the phrase “Seventeenth year” does not appear on the tablet, that portion of the text being damaged. This phrase is inserted by the translators because they believe that Nabonidus’ 17th regnal year was his last. So they assume that the fall of Babylon came in that year of his reign and that, if the tablet were not damaged, those words would appear in the space now damaged.
 

So, although we have some convolutions to go through to get the regnal years of Cyrus, we have no such issues with the regnal years of Nebuchadnezzar because much of the tablet evidence goes directly and simply to his regnal years. No assumptions necessary. 

1 hour ago, Pudgy said:

WHY is this THAT IMPORTANT?

I think it's important to be able to see the fallacy of relying so much on secular chronology and pretending it's Bible chronology. It's important to see that it's a mistake for Christians to think they have pretentious insight to know about the "times and seasons." If we can see that our supposed Biblical chronology is actually a man-made idol -- a pseudo-chronology -- then we wouldn't keep using it as a means for "bragging rights" about having supposedly predicted something the Watchtower never actually predicted. We wouldn't keep using it as a way to brag about how our special insight into the "times and seasons" proves we have Jehovah's spirit and backing and have had it for over 100 to 150 years. 

For me, I think we need to shift our "bragging rights" away from having made Palestine-Zionist-Times-Rulership vs Gentile-Times-Rulership predictions in advance of 1914, and focus on our real Christian progress in terms of teaching and promoting conduct in response to Jehovah's love, the ransom, and the good news of the kingdom:

(2 Corinthians 1:12) . . .For the thing we boast of is this, our conscience bears witness that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially toward you, with holiness and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but with God’s undeserved kindness. 

(2 Corinthians 10:3-5) . . .For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, . .

12 hours ago, George88 said:

rather than relying on other sources for confirmation, including calculating backward from 568 BC?

It's curious to me that this is not the first time you have mentioned "counting backward from 568 BC." You should know that ZERO of the dates you listed are discovered by calculating backward from 568.

For readers who wonder what this question is all about it comes from the mistaken idea that a certain tablet called VAT 4956 is somehow all-important to those who argue for Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year as 586 BCE.

That particular tablet refers to Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, and even Rolf Furuli says that all the planetary references on this tablet definitely refer to 568/7 and no other year as NEB 37- which puts Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year (NEB 18) in 587 BCE, which would destroy the WT claim of 607. Rolf Furuli is confident that the tablet contains information that MUST refer to 568 and NO OTHER possible year, which is what scholars have been saying all along.

He goes so far as to say that the correct information must have been spliced onto the incorrect information and that someone might have forged parts of it, but not all of it, or faked some of the markings on it, or even potentially used saws and sanders to create it -- all things that are obviously impossible when you look at it.

 But he also (inexplicably) claims that the LUNAR positions on that tablet refer to a different year, 20 years later, in support of the WT Chronology. Furuli spent so much time on this ridiculous SPLIT theory that it makes VAT 4956 seem more important than it is. He attempts to create confusion over the LUNAR positions (and makes embarrassingly amateur errors in doing so.) But no one seems to remember that he could NOT create any confusion about the PLANETARY positions. He admits that the planetary positions ultimately support 587/586 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, invalidating the WT claim. 

All this craziness about 568 can make some less-informed Witnesses believe that this particular tablet must be so important that those who still support 586 for Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year must have used this "NEB 37" tablet and simply counted backwards to "NEB 19".

Those who think that way probably don't realize that you can actually just toss out this particular tablet VAT 4956 that Furuli focused on, and still find that other independent evidence supports ALL those other years mentioned in the list. Counting backward from 568 was not done for ANY of them. 

1 hour ago, Anna said:

The elder and his wife I mentioned above did make a point of saying that the online presence of opposers is playing a big role in one's leaving....

Over all, our congregation is pretty solid, as far as I know. But all it takes is some disappointment in the org. or misunderstanding and then reading stuff on line ...

I also think this is much bigger than most people know. On a recent trip to California I visited a brother who had been involved in many of the scholarly efforts with people like Greg Stafford and many of the names that Juan Rivera mentioned some time ago. In fact, I had to double-check that this brother was not using the name "Juan Rivera" here on this forum. Years ago, a few of these names had contacts going up to HQ (Bethel), although HQ began cracking down (again) on any further scholarly groups, and finally was able to effectively get rid of them. This crackdown had also been tried in the early 1980's for obvious reasons too.

Maybe the WTS was right to crack down because, when I met with this brother in California, he listed so many of the names of all these brothers who had finally left the Witnesses, including more famous names like Rolf Furuli and Greg Stafford, and even a scholarly member of the late 1980's Writing Dept, kicked out of Writing, but possibly still a JW as far as he knew. 

I might be wrong, but I think sunlight is still the best disinfectant. People who are curious enough to go venture online "on their own" are going to hear all these things sooner or later anyway, so why not prepare them. Even when someone mentions Ray Franz' books, we can say:

"Imagine, Ray Franz already knew firsthand about all of that stuff he reports and yet he still did his best to stay within the brotherhood, the organization. Even after he resigned from the Governing Body, and was no longer allowed to be an elder, he STILL tried his best to remain a member in good standing with  his congregation in Alabama."  

Going around saying these things never happened, or that they are all lies doesn't help. In fact, it makes things worse for those who end up believing that and trying to defend the WTS against what turns out to be true. We end up looking uninformed, or haughty, naive, or worse yet, like liars ourselves.

10 hours ago, George88 said:

Could you please specify which tablet you are referring to?

Sure. It's not just one tablet. Several different tablets independently validate different years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign with the moon, planets, and/or star positions we can now identify with the particular BCE years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. 

Rather than redo all the work again, as I get time I'll probably copy some of my old posts over to here which identify the tablets I used for the calculations.

10 hours ago, George88 said:

Additionally, can you provide an image explicitly mentioning the 587 BC for the destruction of Jerusalem that a scribe specifically included in that tablet, rather than relying on other sources for confirmation

As I've pointed out before, there are no extant tablets that we know of explicitly mentioning Jerusalem's destruction in the 18th/19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. Rather, I am relying on another source of information: It's the Bible that speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem occurring in the 18th and 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. 

(Jeremiah 32:1, 2) . . .that is, the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar.  At that time the armies of the king of Babylon were besieging Jerusalem. . .
 (2 Kings 25:8-10) . . .in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan . . . came to Jerusalem. He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; he also burned down the house of every prominent man. And the walls surrounding Jerusalem were pulled down . . .

If you believe the Bible, then you don't need an explicit mention on a Babylonian tablet. You merely need to believe this happened around the 18th and/or 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. I believe the Bible's information is sufficient, and I'm happy with it. However, if you wish to also put a BCE date on those years, then you would just need evidence from recorded sun, moon, planet or star positions for ANY particular year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign.

If you can discover the BCE year for any ONE year of his reign this way, then you also know his 18th year and his 19th year.