JW Insider

Allen, you have brought this up at least twice before, mentioning in one earlier post that Russell was amazingly accurate in predicting that the Jews would gain their freedom in 1914. You associated this with Zionism in 1914. Based on the above statement, it appears you are still standing by this belief. How do you square it with the Watchtower's presentation of the belief, which now denies that any freedom for the Jewish nation in the 19th or 20th centuries is unrelated to the Gentile Times? You appear to be disagreeing with the Watchtower again.

I have never criticized the Watchtower for their revisions. Revisions are the way to improvement and correction. I have criticized the Watchtower for "revisionist history" and making false claims about history, archaeology, scholarship, doctrines. The only revisions I would dare to criticize the Watchtower for are those revisions that create confusion and contradictions with the Bible. Most revisions, especially since around 2000 have been honest and have been encouraging and welcome. Claims related to chronology, early organization history, and the "generation" for example have been notable exceptions. Hopefully, this will help you understand why I started this topic.

Exactly! I've said this many times myself. Long before I read anything about the 200-tablet exhibit at the BLMJ. I don't know if you noticed, but this particular exhibit of "new" tablets you have been talking about is only strengthening the same evidence that Mason and COJ and O'maly and Jeffro and AlanF and others have been pointing out for many years. In fact all "new" archaeological evidence that comes to light, invariably continues to strengthen the general Biblical description of events and continues to weaken the claims that the Watchtower has been asking us to believe. I suspect that the frustration arising from such evidence is where the repetitions of nonsensical arguments, distractions, and temper tantrums are coming from.

Goodness gracious, AllenSmith28 (I assume). There are better ways to argue your case. You (or at least, AllenSmith) were not banned for using foul language, but for making it personal. This is what is being done again again here. What AlanF did is point out what foul connotations Foreigner was likely intending with the "P*ND*JO remark. This is quite different from using foul language just to call people names. That's what got Allen Smith banned and disciplined so often he parodied his own case by creating AllenSmith20-something through AllenSmith28, to go along with a small army of other names to play various characters [and voting blocs] But I agree that AlanF should get a second warning even if he pointed out the fouler connotation of a word that someone else used. But I don't think anyone should be banned. We can all decide to avoid seeing someone's comments by blocking them if we are sensitive to that kind of thing. And a warning is available so that others can be aware that they may not wish to read what any certain person is saying. In a discussion like this, as I've said, it's much more useful to get warnings about logical fallacies, and warnings about the difference between depending on facts and depending on speculation. Misuse of language is a trivial matter to me.

I don't think it does much good to challenge it. There are nearly 120,000 congregations in the world. The first time I ever heard of a "pedophile database" was not when I was at Bethel, but near the end of the following decade, around 1998. A couple years later, when ex-JWs were beginning to make a big deal out of it, my uncle (circuit overseer) and I called a friend in the Service Department to clear up what we should say if asked about it directly. He said that although it sounds high, it averaged out to "just a little less" than one person in every congregation, but that these were mostly USA/North America figures, and he couldn't say how this might compare to the rest of the world. Also, anecdotally at least, a large number of them had been disfellowshipped and were showing no interest in coming back. We have about 120,000 congregations in the world, and I don't think we catch all the child abusers. Perhaps some want to become JWs to help overcome their problem. Based on the impression I got in 1998, that might translate to somewhere on the order of 50,000 abusers from the 80's through 2000. And perhaps another 100,000 from 2000 through 2017/8. This sounds way too high, 150,000 in aggregate, but is still less than one every two decades, per congregation. I don't believe it's even half that, but wouldn't be surprised if an up-to-date worldwide database contained a number like 1% of current publishers. 1% of 8 million is 80,000. Most of these would no longer be associated with a congregation anyway. But the other thing is that a high number of child abusers abuse more than one child, and continue to find persons to abuse all their life. I recently found out that the brother who married my sister, and who was a physical abuser (over which my sister left him to remarry) was a victim of something like this when he was younger. I think we'll find out that it is much more common than people have let on. My sister was instructed not to inform the hospital workers or police under threat of disciplinary action, losing her pioneer "status" and TMS privileges. Her husband, a ministerial servant, was apparently barely talked to, and continued to advance to a position as elder. The thing is, I don't think anyone outside our own family and a couple of elders every really knew about this. My parents are of the sort that believe it shames the family to admit that my sister married such a man, and would rather only talk about his success as an elder. (I was at Bethel when this was going on.) So how much do we know about our own congregations unless we are on the judicial committee, or it blows up into the newspapers, or an Australian Royal Commission? Another person in our congregation was an elderly special pioneer who started to get in trouble for sleazy behavior with younger sisters, mostly pioneer sisters, who were between 18 and 24 or so. Not "child abuse" and no crime of any kind, but also an issue of not disciplining him because he would lose his special pioneer stipend, and his son already had a very high position at Bethel. My father was one of the elders who talked to him, and I was a "second witness" to corroborate one of the sister's stories. I had evidently caught him improperly touching/groping on only one of many occasions. I mention this because it was easy for me to think that one abuser per congregation is not that unlikely. Therefore 1,000s of victims who suffered from "cover-up" is not that unlikely.

From what I can tell, they are not even in the same Zip Code. Society's Branch: Saksi-Saksi Yehuwa Indonesia Central Park APL Office Tower, Floor 31 Jl. S. Parman Kav. 28 Jakarta 11470 INDONESIA Stock Exchange: 1st Tower, Jalan Jend. Sudirman Kav. 52-53, Senayan, Kebayoran Baru, RT.5/RW.3, RT.5/RW.3, Senayan, Kby. Baru, Kota Jakarta Selatan, Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta 12190

The robes story may have shown that A.H.MacMillan was a good story-teller, but didn't care so much for research. He says there was a newspaper story about the occasion in Pittsburgh, but was probably confusing this with a story of some non-Russellite Second Adventists in Philadelphia. All the major Pittsburgh and Allegheny newspapers from the time period still exist and nothing like this was reported in Pittsburgh. The other thing is that the original "white robes" or "ascension robes" stories were probably made up out of whole cloth by non-Adventists making fun of Adventists, continuing since the Great Disappointment of 1843 and 1844, and repeated on a smaller scale among "Barbourite" Adventists in 1873 and 1874, with some Barbourite/Russellite Adventists trying again in 1878 and 1881. But "ascension robes" were not a real, confirmed part of any of these stories. Biblically, it was the "Lord" who was going to give the robes. Boston newspapers made up stories about clothes manufacturers working overtime to create these robes in time, but there was never any evidence. By 1916 however these stories of white "ascension robes" had become an accepted part of the supposed culture of Second Adventists, from outsiders, but had become "true" through repetition. So it's possible that Russell believed they were a useful symbol of his true faith in his imminent ascension. And it's possible that MacMillan writing in the 1950's was recalling events through those later "filters." But at the time, Sturgeon and Rutherford made an effort to distance the "toga" from that interpretation. I think it was possible that Russell's mind was gone by then. The type of sickness he had was the close equivalent of being poisoned to die slowly until the mind goes, too.

Just to make it easier to read page 2:

My father was in one of the assembly dramas back in 1967. Brother Glass had worked out this "play" with the Gilead students and produced the one-hour skit that was recorded by him and the Gilead students and a couple of other Bethelites with good voices (especially from the other primary instructors: Maxwell Friend, Harold Jackson, Karl Adams, Bert Schroeder). I remember that we attended two assemblies that year because of the drama. I was baptized at the first one. Those dramas had just started in '66 (Aachan and the theft of contra-"ban" at Ai) and that year they had learned that subtle gestures don't show up well in large stadium audiences, so they taught everyone to over-gesture (and gesticulate) so hard that everyone was karate-chopping the air with every syllable so you knew who was speaking. But the only thing I remember from the content was that it was used to show that everyone should stay in the protection of Jehovah's arrangement for security (the organization) or they would die. That we are all blood-guilty even if just "accidentally" so, through the sin of Adam, and that we must remain until the "high priest dies" but that he already died in 33 CE, so we are no longer bloodguilty, but we need to stay put anyway. Of course, that wasn't the whole story, but it definitely was NOT mined for treasures or gems the way that more recent discussions have done (including yesterday's WT study). I was also thinking that it highlighted safety issues, and it also did something else that isn't mentioned anywhere as far as I know. It's not just to provide a cooling-off period for the avenger who would be tempted to avenge potentially innocent manslaughter ("innocent" in the sense of unintentional). It's also a loving provision for the families who would have to continue to live and work next to the person responsible for such trauma and pain. Defending honor has developed into some terrible practices around the world, including Hatfield and McCoy style feuds that can go on for a century or more. I saw the play Hamilton last year which means I know even less about U.S. History now than I did before, but it showed a facet of dueling that I wasn't aware of, wherein, persons could use it for personal revenge, or purposely arrange to "miss" so as to forgive. Last year, I spent several days over the course of a week at the British Museum and asked if I could find information on other nations that were known to have sanctuary cities or cities of refuge. The answer was surprising, and got to read one of the recent books they had from David P. Wright and a couple articles in the JBL, including Jeffrey Stackert. Why Does Deuteronomy Legislate Cities of Refuge? Asylum in the Covenant Collection (Exodus 21:12-14) and Deuteronomy (19:1-13) Author(s): Jeffrey Stackert Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 125, No. 1 (Spring, 2006), pp. 23-49 The book by Wright would be very controversial for most of us.

Yes. There have already been quotes and links in this topic to discussions of these 200 or so Babylonian tablets "since 2015" that shed more light on the Jewish exiles in Babylon. The primary exhibit is still at the BLMJ ( blmj.org ). It's in Jerusalem with only a few artifacts that overlap with the British Museum. But you are "flailing wildly" with these false accusations again. How many times have you done this now? Every time you have brought up COJ it's to make some wild claim about what he failed to do in his book. Every time you have been shown to have made a false claim. Worse than that, every time, you have never acknowledged that you made a false claim. And even worse than that, you usually go out of your way to use words that make it seem like it was others were wrong and you were right all along. I can understand a person who misunderstands what they read, or makes a claim they are pretty sure about based on something they read or heard from a trusted source. But "chronology" has always seemed to be to be one of the worst topics to attract people who just hope to bluster and pretend and distract. I hate to say it but I think it's because the pretender is pretty sure that his or her words will be liked and defended if they at least appear to support the Watchtower's view. Beyond that it seems like the blusterers just hope that others haven't studied the issues very well yet. Those three different exile years mentioned with reference to these tablets are the same ones I have mentioned, and so has Ann and AlanF. And of course we all know that COJ has discussed and accounted for them. (I sometimes mention a fourth round-up of exiles in Nebuchadnezzar's 24th year.) But what's even more interesting, is that the Watchtower rejects the earliest one of these exiles in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar. So it's as if it's the WTS that you are really considering to be your biggest skeptic. I really can't understand why you (and others) have continued to make this same type of mistake with respect to COJ. It must be some kind of reflex. Let's just hope it's NOT supposed to be explained in the way you have projected onto others: Anyway, I enjoy the banter, but the bickering gets old in a hurry. In a discussion as important as this one (according to the Watchtower), however, this type of error needs to be pointed out in fairness to any who are really interested in truth, and not opposed to it.

It's not confusing at all that Jesus said only 1260. If you are saying that Jesus meant something else, just go ahead and clear up why Jesus would only mention 1,260 when he meant something else. This is what I said from the very start of bringing this up. That if we wish to contradict Jesus, we should at least be able to explain why. This is how people "twist" the scriptures, by claiming that just because Jesus only mentioned 1260 in connection with the Gentile Times, that he meant to say something more than what was mentioned in Scripture. All one has to do is add something to the scroll that isn't there. But is this something you really want to do? (Revelation 22:18, 19) 18 “I am bearing witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; 19 and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things that are written about in this scroll. Jesus spoke of the nations trampling the holy city, Jerusalem, for "appointed times." How long were those appointed times? Jesus connected 1,260 with these appointed times for the trampling of the nations. Jesus didn't mention another length of time. But your argument is that Jesus didn't say ONLY 1260, so that we should conceivably add another length, or lengths of time that we find in other prophecies. Is there some scripture you have in mind that gives you permission to change times and seasons like this? Should you add lengths of time you find in all other prophecies, or only the ones in Daniel? Since Jesus said ONLY 1260, I suppose by your logic you could add, 1,260 + 1,290 + 1,335 + 2,300 + 2,520. Of course, you really only mean that we should subtract the 1,260 from what Jesus said and add just one of those time periods, to replace it with. No matter how you wish to manipulate what Jesus said, it's still true that Jesus ONLY connected one time period to the Gentile Times. It would be false to claim otherwise.

Maybe "all others" see it different? We know that the Watch Tower Society sees it different from the poster. The Watch Tower used to say that Russell was the ONLY faithful slave, but he was "demoted" from even being a part of the slave, when the WTS changed the definition about five years ago. The slave now started in 1919, per the current view, and no members of the anointed who died before 1919, not even Peter and Paul themselves, were a part of that slave. Russell died in 1916. I'm not explaining my own view here, which has come up elsewhere. I'm only referring to the WTS view.

I never mentioned confusion or being confused. If you are confused, you'll have to explain what confused you then. I have to admit that I have no idea what you mean by an "attempt to reverse what [I was] denying by Jesus own words. To be more honest, I know exactly what the words mean, but I also know from your further statements that you don't likely really mean what your words mean. "Reversing what you are denying" would mean no longer denying, therefore "accepting." Thus, this subtle attempt to accept Jesus' own words is somehow a deceitful thing. If you will look back at the conversation you will see their was no deceit, just an attempt to give and get honest answers, and no deflection on my part. If you want real dialogue perhaps you can be clearer about where you thought there was deflection. I am guessing that this accusation wasn't based on anything, as is usually the case, and it's just a need to blame-shift and project back onto me what probably "hit a nerve" when I pointed out that I am accepting some words of Jesus that you appear to be rejecting or denying. This has become such a predictable form of deflection that it was already anticipated. It's exactly how several other persons have already avoided honest dialogue on this topic. I noticed that you didn't explain at all what you meant by adding these excerpts from an article on the day-year principle. Yes, some explain it as 538 (AD not BC) to 1798 as your accompanying charts show, from the "beginning" to the "end" of papal power. I think this is ridiculous, but Charles Taze Russell agreed with it. Russell used an adjustment to it: 539 AD to 1799 AD, pointing out that 539 was a midpoint between Constantine and Charlemagne (328 to 800). -- Thy Kingdom Come, Studies in the Scriptures [Millennial Dawn], Volume III, p. 67-69. Of course, we don't use the Day-Year principle for any of these prophecies, not the 1260, 1290, 1335, or even the 2300 any more. We only use that principle for the period of 2,520 days that we now derive from the 7 "times" of Daniel 4. Can you explain why you included this information about 1,260 years? I assume it is not something you believe, is it?

No trouble for me in Chrome, but Firefox doesn't display them.

Makes some sense. There seems to have been mix of "city" and "rural" life for the exiles: (Jeremiah 29:4-7) 4 “This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, says to all the exiled people, whom I have caused to go into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon, 5 ‘Build houses and live in them. Plant gardens and eat their fruit. 6 Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Become many there, and do not decrease. 7 And seek the peace of the city to which I have exiled you, and pray in its behalf to Jehovah, for in its peace you will have peace. Also see: https://www.timesofisrael.com/by-the-rivers-of-babylon-exhibit-breathes-life-into-judean-exile/ which includes information that probably helps explain why so many Jews stayed in Babylon and didn't come back when they were released by Cyrus: Each document catalogs when and where it was written and by whom, providing scholars with an unprecedented view into the day-to-day life of Judean exiles in Babylonia, as well as a geography of where the refugees were resettled. The earliest in the collection, from 572 BCE, mentions the town of Al-Yahudu — “Jerusalem” — a village of transplants from Judea. “Finally through these tablets we get to meet these people, we get to know their names, where they lived and when they lived, what they did,” Vukosavović said. The texts help dispel the misconception that the Judeans in Babylon were second-class citizens of the empire, living in ghettos and pressed into hard labor. While some toiled in base drudgery, others thrived, owned property, plantations and slaves, and became part of the Babylonian bureaucratic hierarchy. “It teaches us that we weren’t slaves, like we were slaves to the Pharaoh,” Vukosavović said. “It teaches us that we were simply free people in Babylon, living not only in Al-Yahudu, but also in a dozen other cities where Jews either lived or did their business.” I apologize if this has already been referenced. I still have a page worth of the comments to catch up on. However, the idea of "captivity" which was what many Jews feared, did not match up with Jeremiah's prophecy that things could go well with them. Yet, here we have a collection of about 200 texts that helps confirm or corroborate that Jeremiah was right.

(Proverbs 18:13) . . .When anyone replies to a matter before he hears the facts, It is foolish and humiliating.

Why would you want to pretend that? Are you saying you don't believe that the book and visions of Revelation came from Jesus? Here are the first 5 words of the book in the NWT: (Revelation 1:1) A revelation by Jesus Christ,. . . Again, I don't know why you would pretend this was true either. Revelation contains many references to prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures. Evidently. But why do you denigrate Jesus' words by calling his words "infamous"? Jesus said there will be appointed times for the nations to trample Jerusalem in both Luke 21:2 and Revelation 11:2. If you don't like the number, 1260, that Jesus connected with those Gentile Times, it's not me you need to take this up with. Since Jesus, around 33 CE, said that these Gentile Times were still future, I would place them some time after 33 CE. I think you are probably on the right track with your reference to Romans 11.

A better idea is to quickly change the title of all your books to "The Fire and the Fury." An old book called "The Fire and the Fury" by Randall Hansen from 2009 (about Allied bombing in WWII) has suddenly become a best seller in Amazon, in spite of languishing sales for many years. I heard an interview with Hansen where he says he should send a bottle of champagne to Michael Wolff.

The picture is misleading. It makes it look like Jesus thought of Charles Taze Russell as the "slave" or as part of the "slave" class. Do people think of Russell as included in the faithful and discreet slave? Do people think that the items shown on the right, that issue of the "Bible Student's Monthly" or "Zion's Watch Tower" were produced by the "slave"? According to the current teaching, Russell was NOT part of the 'faithful and discreet slave' and no issue of "Zion's Watch Tower" was produced or written by the "faithful and discreet slave."

That's progress! I can see 586 as a strong possibility too. Of course, most of the fake controversy between 586 and 587 is presented as a way to try to trick those who haven't studied the subject yet. The ruse is used to trick fellow JWs and others into thinking that the secular evidence for this period is just so faulty (over a one year difference!). When in fact the "Insight" book has admitted that this is not really a controversy at all. It's not the secular dating that is questionable here, it's an inconsistency in the Bible's reference to the date. But it's easily explained, as is done here in Insight. *** 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. Zedekiah and his men fled but were overtaken in the desert plains of Jericho. Since Nebuchadnezzar had retired to Riblah “in the land of Hamath,” Zedekiah was brought before him there. That's because it's the Bible that says these events happened in his 19th year: (2 Kings 25:8, 9) . . .In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. 9 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 Bible refers to several of these events happening in his 18th year: (Jeremiah 52:29) In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem. There are also some very similar Biblical references to the year of the Judean king, Zedekiah, for example. There is absolutely no issue at all identifying Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year in secular chronology, nor is there any problem identifying his 19th year. From the perspective of studying chronology, the entire Neo-Babylonian period is just as "absolute" as is the Persian period. The idea some have tried to promote (that this controversy is due to a weakness in the secular sources) is a hoax.

I think that when someone is raptured, all earthly references to them disappear.

I see you made a mistake here @allensmith28in the transcription of the URL that @AlanF gave. I clicked on your "typo" URL that you created when you left out the hyphen. I'm sure this was an accident on your part, but I was surprised that it linked to a Bible timeline that put the Exile from 585 to 487 and ended the Divided Kingdom in 586. I thought it an interesting coincidence that both sites would have such similar URLs. But it turns out that even if you had accidentally made further adjustments to the link, even with your own name in it, for example: http://www.biblehistory.com/ALLEN_SMITH_28.htm . . . that it also would have taken you to the same page with the 586 date on it. You can try it by clicking above. In fact, you did originally use the actual link AlanF's provided, on which you based your comments, just as you claimed. AlanF was wrong to offer only those three choices about you personally in response to your simple mistake. AlanF was also mistaken in not recognizing that you had gone on to criticise other parts of the page/site, beyond the point he was using and quoting, to point out the chronology information from the map found on this page and other parts of the same website -- which contained information not consistent with AlanF's views. Of course, even so, your only salient point is that there is some stuff on the site where AlanF's link came from that AlanF clearly doesn't believe in. We've been through this same type of logical fallacy before, where just because a site or page has something wrong on it that other things on the same site or page can't be useful. (Often a "composition" fallacy, sometimes a "poisoning the well" fallacy. Don't know the Latin for @TrueTomHarley's collection.) You had a chance to leverage the mistake to your own advantage, but then you went off and made some more serious logical blunders of your own. Yes. Someone used a word like "gobbledygook" with reference to ideas you have promoted or defended, so naturally you have no choice but to blame-shift and redirect that word onto those you oppose. Logically, however, there is no reason to push these words onto "AlanF supporters," whoever they may be. Also you point out that the American scholar, Edward Robinson, was born in 1794 and that this site is structured by his ideology. Is this really a problem to you? It has already been pointed out, even by you yourself, that we can expect some issues with the chronology of scholars who worked so early in the 19th century, but no one says that this means everything they say is to be under suspicion. After all, the WTS still prefers the support of 19th century scholars over 20th and 21st century scholars. It's off topic, but I have a couple in mind in case you doubt this. Also, guess who quotes Edward Robinson himself. Yep . . . here's the Awake! magazine, and it's only one of at least a dozen more times he is quoted, especially for Biblical language studies: *** g80 5/8 p. 17 A Book That Tells What the Future Holds *** What is the condition of ancient Edom today? “Around us were the desolation of ages; the dwellings and edifices of the ancient city [Petra, the former capital city, carved out of the mountain crag] crumbled and strewed in the dust.”—Edward Robinson, in “Biblical Researches in Palestine.” Then you say, "If this website is going to be used as proof of something, then 19-century ideology is PROOF of ancient events, as well." I think you are making the same mistake that Arauna made in misunderstanding the different uses of evidence, when 'proof' is not part of the equation. Besides, your statement is completely illogical on many levels. As far as the "Junior" and "6 year old" I think AlanF deserves to be treated just as he treats others, and I'm as entertained as anyone by the back-and-forth slinging. Although, I must say that those particular attempts sound like desperate shifting projections.

If Jesus rejected the 2,520, then who am I to say Jesus was wrong? Note, as I said above, that I have no problem with accepting the WTS view of most doctrines, even if they are not based on evidence. The vast majority of doctrines are absolutely correct from a Biblical point of view. I think they should be given the benefit of the doubt as respected teachers. (1 Timothy 5:17) 17 Let the elders who preside in a fine way be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching. It is only where the evidence is contradictory that there would be any real reason to be concerned. In this case, I think we should at least have a good reason why Jesus himself said that the Gentile Times were 1,260, if we still wish to contradict him. (Revelation 11:2, 3) . . .because it has been given to the nations, and they will trample the holy city [Jerusalem] underfoot for 42 months.” I don't think anyone can doubt that Jesus is referring here to the trampling of Jerusalem by the nations [gentiles] for the appointed times [42 months; 1,260 days; 3 and 1/2 times]. Do you really doubt that this is a reference to the appointed times of the nations? Compare the red-highlighted words if you have any trouble with this question. (Luke 21:24) . . . and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. I agree with the significance of Josiah's time and even the possible importance of his death in 609 to the prophecy about Babylon's 70 years of dominating rule over the other nations. Josiah has already been discussed in this context. But I have to say that I found this particular reference you just gave to be about the least valuable and least informed of all the books I have ever seen that reference Josiah and Jeremiah. BTW, do you think that dating Josiah's death to about 609 BCE is correct?

This, of course, would be on how you wish to view history. Technically, Babylon subdued King Jehoiakim in 605BC So it seems you would allow, potentially, that Babylon's 70-year domination of these nations around them could start when Babylon subdued King Jehoiakim in 605 BCE. That's a pretty late start, and if you take it down to 537, then you are already including parts of 69 years. 605, 604, 603, 602, 601, 600, 599, 598, 597 . . . that's 9 different years, so on to 587 represents 19 different years, 577 represents 29 different years, etc., etc., until 537 represents 69 different years. We also have another potential year or so, based on how we read Daniel 1:1, which would represent 70 years. And this is only referring to how Babylon affected Judea. Jeremiah doesn't say that the 70 years started only with Judea, did it? (Jeremiah 25:11, 12) 11 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.”’ 12 “‘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. The desolation that occurs upon the land of the Chaldeans (Babylonians) was not to be inflicted by Judea, but by the nations around Babylon, just as the servitude of the nations to Babylon was not dependent on when the punishment on Judea would begin or end. (Jeremiah 25:14) 14 For many nations and great kings will make slaves of them,. . . And, as "Arauna" has already pointed out, this word "desolation" which is said here to come upon Babylon at the end of their 70 years does not necessarily refer to literal absence of all inhabitants, either. In fact, Babylon remained a metropolis into Christian times. But other nations dominated over them, just as they had once dominated over other nations, including Judea. You think the Watchtower's view about Isaiah's prophecy is speculative? Do you think it's wrong? Do you think they were just trying to make things fit in those statements from "Isaiah's Prophecy"? It's curious that the Watchtower publications would perfectly agree with Carl Jonsson in this regard, but they did not change it in the online version, or the Watchtower Library CD, the way the "Insight" book has already been changed in several online articles. As far as I can tell, this is still the WT view, and I happen to agree with it -- not because Carl Jonsson agrees -- but because it fits the Bible's evidence. If you think you have a better explanation and this is only WT speculation, then please share your ideas. Also, why do you think that proposing a correction to the current doctrine is the same as defaming the WT? Isn't it true that if you see someone taking a false step, the loving thing to do is to speak up. otherwise you are complicit in the error, right?

That makes no sense. Just because the 70 years of Babylonian domination started in 609 (or 608, or 607), what does that have to do with the Gentile Times? Jesus said the Gentile Times were "1,260 days" long, and that they would start AFTER Jesus gave the "Olivet Sermon" about the end (the PAROUSIA, the SYNTELEIA) as recorded in Luke 21. If they started some time after 33 CE and lasted 1,260 days, what does this have to do with the death of Josiah? This is off-topic of course, but there have already been topics on the "Gentile Times."