JW Insider

2 hours ago, Anna said:

But the post you commented on was addressed to me. Of course I'm not saying you can't comment on posts addressed to other people

i hadn't ever thought of that as a problem to watch out for, but hopefully i will remember this to avoid future issues.

2 hours ago, Anna said:

but I was just wondering why you had to mention that, since we are supposed to be discussing topics and ideas rather than people and their motives and levels of competence. That's all.

i didn't have to mention it, you are right about that. my primary reason at the time, of course, was that it was the most direct way of clearing up the question from 'TrueTomHarley' about whether or not 'scholar JW' was 'Allen Smith' --based on Neil's own words. I knew that Neil had not denied Ann's references to him as Neil, but Neil's own statement to you was the only one I remembered where he directly made that statement himself.

However, I will also say that when a person makes their own competence or that of a specific person, or organisation, a part of the discussion, that the person has actually forced the issue of competence to be included into the discussion. this can happen when a person claims that a folder of theirs that includes a lot of correspondence with published authors should be trusted as supporting his point of view whether or not a questionable claim in it is ever actually presented. a person may imply that their own competence is sufficient to differentiate a good chronology from a dismissable one in that it is based on methodology that followed from their own ability to validate good methodology from no methodology.

or a person can even use the idea that a particular idea is to be dismissed because it is 'controversial' - with the implication that it is controversial among scholars - when all current scholars actually agree - save a person or single group who disagrees. we have seen this as the sole reason given to accept 539 as a pivotal year -- but not any other year in the neo-babylonian chronology. why? because it's 'controversial.' why is it controversial? Because someone who disagrees has been imputed with a status that allows their disagreement to redefine something non-controversial as controversial. obviously we wouldn't allow this for some other types of evidence. and we'd immediately recognise why it's a kind of logical fallacy. we would surely think it inappropriate to allow that 2-2=0 is controversial just because we know that someone has claimed that 2-2=1. not saying anyone or any group here is claiming 2-2=1, it's just a way to show how easily the logic of this type of thinking can become skewed.

Edited to add: Whoops, it looks like I had edited out a chunk of the original post to truetom so that some of what i just said above won't make as much sense. I think you are pointing out that i only focused on his claim of competence, and not so much on evidence that he self-identified. so now i see the problem more clearly. yes, this was unnecessary in the contekst [sic] of responding to tth. I still think it's important to the rest of the conversation, however.

25 minutes ago, Anna said:

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Neil Mc Fadzen has self-identified as 'scholar' on another forum and as @scholar JW here

I already had that figured out, as might have others. But I don't think it's fair you state it.

you said you didn't think it was fair that i stated this, but it's fair because i wasn't the one to disclose it. as i said above he self-identified. note the words i highlighted in red, from his own words, just three weeks ago...

On 12/13/2017 at 8:54 PM, scholar JW said:

The real answer is that it comes down to Methodology, plain and simple and confirmed by the pioneering studies of Rodger Young  which followed from observations made by Neil  Mc Fadzen aka scholar JW.in the preceding decade and presented on the JWD forum.

10 minutes ago, John Houston said:

Not I!

If you meant that you don't want my posts to get shorter, then you are very generous and long-suffering with respect to one of my greatest weaknesses -- long-windedness.

Not sure what that meant, but I would be just as happy to stay over here, although I always have a tendency to think that every prior false or misleading statement should be addressed before addressing any new statements that might be false or misleading. --this includes addressing any of my own errors, of course--

unfortunately, there are already at least 100 statements made in this thread that were false or misleading, even if the person making the statements meant well, or thought they were defending truth. addressing just one point in the middle of all those issues, is almost like a tacit acceptance of the errors around it. But so many of the errors had nothing to do, really, with the topic of whether 607 is Biblically supported. That was the reason to make a fresh start.

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Gasp!!!!!! Neil is not allensmith28, is he? (the first one to react)

apologies in advance that a few keys on my keyboard are not working, including the shift and caps lock along with a few key letters. workarounds take a long time, so although i will repair a few of the problems created, some of this post might be hard to read.

On 1/1/2018 at 10:02 PM, scholar JW said:

 In fact, amongst the entire worldwide brotherhood there are possibly only two brothers who have publicly demonstrated competence in Chronology and these brothers are Rolf Furuli in Norway and Neil Mc Fadzen from Australia.

scholar JW

Neil Mc Fadzen has self-identified as 'scholar' on another forum and as @scholar JW here. what he is saying above is that he might be only one of two brothers in the entire world who have demonstrated competence in chronology. you admit that you have not followed the thread that closely, but perhaps you might wish to follow it more closely on this basis alone. you are evidently privileged to be in the presence of a very rare level of competence.

since this topic has veered from its original course, and it was started by me, i'm happy to create a new version of it that deals only with the more serious issues about watchtower chronology vs. bible chronology vs. secular chronology. evidently i still have the ability to move posts from one thread to another, to keep topics organised. if i still have some of these moderator functions available to me, i can always move irrelevant and irreverent posts back over to this thread.

if i do decide to start a new thread, i will probably not be moving any posts from here, but will likely try to summarise by quoting from posts made here. this might have to wait until i add a wireless keyboard to this laptop, or perhaps i'll start using my Macbook more often, which slows down my typing by about 50wpm until i get used to it. that would likely cut down the length of my posts by more than 50 percent --and who wants that?

40 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Then JWI adds some explanatory details and it is a wonder he does not go on for pages. 

There is still time!

I thought of the prosperity gospel churches too, and large "personality" mega-churches that highlight their evangelists and "faith healers" on television along with the audiences. However, I suspect that the person who made the original meme was aiming more at the hypocrisy inherent even in more typical church situations where the pastor is a couple of tax brackets higher than the congregation. Another form of clergy/laity distinction. It must seem exacerbated in those poorer neighborhoods with a church, two pawn shops and two liquor stores on every block. The churches in such neighborhoods often grow even with all the block-by-block competition, and the pastors therefore do well.

But I also noticed that Bible Speaks wanted to make it clear that this kind of thing does not happen in her congregation. But can it? She adds "Be on the watch" as if there might be some danger even among our own. But she also added "We are not called Pastors anyhow." This means, evidently, that the idea doesn't apply to us after all.

I take it for granted that most people here know that this is not really a problem among JWs. So is it something to watch out for? Ann shows that it has happened before. Rutherford kept a few houses for his personal use in several places around the world. He had more than one of these expensive cars, simultaneously during the great depression. His own "prosperity" gospel took advantage of the economic desires of his audience, but correctly turned them toward a more spiritual perspective. He had books and booklets and talks called Riches, Prosperity, and Prohibition is from the Devil? Oh wait, that last one didn't turn toward spirituality in the same was as the others, it just went ahead and "proved" that prohibition really was from the Devil. But money was clearly not the primary thing for either Russell or Rutherford. Both of them believed for much of their lives that the end was coming in a matter of years or often, even just a few months. Russell spent the Society's funds like crazy right up until October 1914. No reason to have anything left over. Rutherford didn't turn down the amenities, but he was clearly not driven by money, either.

It's always good to look at the possibilities even if we are really nothing like most of these churches that rake in millions for a feel-good and/or prosperity message that never seems to pan out for the average member. I mentioned the 125-foot yacht for the same reason that Ann mentioned the car. It's a bit thought-provoking about how easy it is to attach ourselves to material things without noticing the effect on onlookers. Watches, jewelry, vacations, chandeliers, cruises, yachts, and such can look like a showy display of one's means, even if that's not what one means.

56 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

@JW Insider is trying to tell you that there is a difference between astronomical year numbering and AD/BC or CE/BCE year numbering.

Common mistake.

Thanks Ann. The reason I wasn't explaining it again is that this mistake made me realize that the last two times I explained it carefully, that Allen wasn't paying attention. It's fine not to pay attention, that's anyone's choice, but I was simultaneously being ridiculed by Allen for supposedly not understanding and not reading carefully the last two times I pointed out this exact same point.

One time was in a discussion of Charles T. Russell misunderstanding the same point, evidently thinking that astronomers were saying there was a zero year, and thinking that he was therefore probably right in using the zero year to calculate 606 to 1914 as 2520 years. But he also used the potential difference to buy himself some flexibility in case 1914 didn't pan out as the start of Armageddon and the Great Tribulation and the Jewish repatriation of Palestine. Russell thought it might "buy some time" until 1915. As Russell said in the Watch Tower, December 1912, page 376, "The Ending of the Gentile Times."

• If we count the first year B.C. as 0, then the date 536-1/4 B.C. is the proper one for the end of the seventy years of captivity. But if we begin to reckon it by counting the first year before the Christian era as B.C. 1, then evidently the desolation ended 535-1/4 years B.C.
• As to the methods of counting, Encyclopaedia Britannica says, "Astronomers denote the year which preceded the first of our era as 0 and the year previous to that as B.C. 1--the previous year B.C. 2, and so on."
• Whichever of these ways we undertake to calculate the matter the difference between the results is one year. The seventy years of Jewish captivity ended October, 536 B.C., and if there were 536-1/4 years B.C., then to complete the 2,520 years' cycle of the Times of the Gentiles would require 1913-3/4 years of A.D., or to October, 1914. But if the other way of reckoning were used, then there were but 535-1/4 years of the period B.C., and the remainder of the 2,520 years would reach to A.D., 1914-3/4 years, otherwise October, 1915.

The other case was when both you and I pointed out to Allen that the lavia.org site is not fully reliable. (The lavia link was also provided by @Foreigner earlier in this thread.) In another thread ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/24592-the-superiority-of-jw-chronology/?page=7&tab=comments#comment-45134 ) Allen had ignored my earlier warnings about the site and assumed I had treated the whole thing as "reliable" and therefore somehow tied his own error to proof of apostasy in others!!

At any rate, just to show you are in good company @allensmith28, it was not only C.T.Russell, but this writer quoted below who made a similar, common mistake.

------quote from http://www.lavia.org/english/archivo/vat4956en.htm

Besides, as we can see on NASAÂ’s image, the eclipse of July 4th indicated in tablet VAT 4956, did not take place in 568 BC, but in 567 BC.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Therefore the correct calculation of the year in which Jerusalem was destroyed must be as follows:

       If 567 BC was the year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, the 19th year (18 complete years) was 586 BC.

37-18 = 19, 567 +19 = 586

Therefore Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 BC.

1 minute ago, allensmith28 said:

No mistake. It's straightforward without having to resort to calendars. But it's common to assume.

You just showed the Saros for 609 BCE and 610 BCE. Common mistake.

3 minutes ago, allensmith28 said:

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

This image does not represent 607 B.C.E.  It's the picture for 608 B.C.E.

I'm using your logic, what has changed in your view?

Nothing has changed in my view. It's just that you showed a picture of a Saros cycle for 608 BCE and referred to it as if it were a picture for 607 BCE. Common mistake.

35 minutes ago, allensmith28 said:

Secular chronology cannot use VAT4956 or the Babylonian Chronicles to pinpoint ANYTHING biblical by using their own data.

And that one is 568 B.C.E.

Also, are you really claiming that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar is not biblical? Does the same thing hold true for the first year of Cyrus?

2 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

A far cry from VAT4956, but good for 607.

This image does not represent 607 B.C.E.  It's the picture for 608 B.C.E.

6 hours ago, Witness said:

Could John be referencing the future coming of Christ in the flesh? The “many deceivers” were already well aware of Jesus Christ; thus, they knew he had been ‘in the flesh’ as a man; so possibly this refers to his future coming, or his ascension. At any rate, the Bible usage of “coming” defines it as coming and going.

If this was written around 99 C.E. then I think it would just as likely (or more likely) to have referred to the fact that Christianity started among a very small group of actual eye-witnesses of Jesus, but had grown to a "great crowd" in areas far-flung from Galilee/Judea in areas where it would be common among Greek philosophical influence to allegorize the person of Jesus into a "mythological" origin -- perhaps some kind of amalgamation of brilliant rabbi/teacher, healer, wonder-worker, angel, demigod, etc. To me, it makes much more sense that this was a great danger, much more of a dangerous "apostasy" than being concerned with what sort of a body Jesus would have when he would return.

@Israeli Bar Avaddhon, As you already know, I disagree with some of your conclusions, but I love the fact that you want to have lively, vibrant conversations about Biblical matters. And, to be fair, I have not yet taken the time to explain why I disagree with your conclusions, so I'm glad you are still around. Still, the kind of discussions you are fostering are of the type that true Bible Students have always enjoyed. It's not for everyone, of course. As you say, some like "tranquility." Hope some of these ideas become "settled" for you.

6 hours ago, Anna said:

That could be a good "Question from readers". Why don't you send it in? 

I think someone already did:

*** w11 8/15 p. 22 Questions From Readers ***

• Memorial partakers. This is the number of baptized individuals who partake of the emblems at the Memorial worldwide. Does this total represent the number of anointed ones on earth? Not necessarily. A number of factors—including past religious beliefs or even mental or emotional imbalance—might cause some to assume mistakenly that they have the heavenly calling. We thus have no way of knowing the exact number of anointed ones on earth; nor do we need to know. The Governing Body does not keep a list of all partakers, for it does not maintain a global network of anointed ones.

*** w09 6/15 p. 24 pars. 16-18 The Faithful Steward and Its Governing Body ***

• 16 Are all these anointed ones throughout the earth part of a global network that is somehow involved in revealing new spiritual truths? No. Although as a composite body the slave class is responsible for feeding the spiritual household, not all individuals of the slave class have the same responsibilities or work assignments. (Read 1 Corinthians 12:14-18.) As noted earlier, in the first century, all were involved in the vital preaching work. But only a very limited number were used to write the books of the Bible and oversee the Christian congregation.
• 17 To illustrate: The Scriptures at times speak of “the congregation” as taking certain action in handling judicial matters. (Matt. 18:17) In real terms, though, it is only the elders who take this action in their capacity as representatives of the congregation. The elders do not contact all members of the congregation to ask their various opinions before they make a decision. Theocratically, they perform the role that they have been assigned; they act on behalf of the whole congregation.
• 18 Similarly, today a limited number of anointed men have the responsibility of representing the slave class. They make up the Governing Body of JehovahÂ’s Witnesses.

 

 

12 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

And remember the Question Box from the km 9/07?

Quote

Does “the faithful and discreet slave” endorse independent groups of Witnesses who meet together to engage in Scriptural research or debate?—Matt. 24:45, 47.

No, it does not. ...

As you already mentioned, the "Kingdom Ministry" in September 2007 answered this question by saying: " 'the faithful and discreet slave' does not endorse any literature, meetings, or Web sites that are not produced or organized under its oversight."

I wonder how they could have known that for sure. Did they take a survey of 9,500 different persons? After all, in 2007 the "faithful and discreet slave" consisted of about 9,500 persons who all claimed to be part of that "faithful and discreet slave." And the Governing Body who also claimed to be part of that slave, claimed in 2007 that all the persons who were of the anointed remnant class were included in that slave class, not just the Governing Body. 

It was not until June 2009, that the Watchtower claimed that, even though all the anointed remnant were still part of that slave class, that only the Governing Body could represent them in "giving food at the proper time." To prove it, a scripture was quoted that had previously been used to prove exactly the opposite. The full context quoted should make it clear why this passage could be used to show that all the anointed remnant were part of the slave. But this time only the red portion of the passage was suggested for reading, and only the red, bolded, underlined portion below was actually quoted in the paragraphs:

• (1 Corinthians 12:14-13:3) 14 For, indeed, the body is made up not of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I am no part of the body,” that does not make it no part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I am no part of the body,” that does not make it no part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If it were all hearing, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But now God has arranged each of the body members just as he pleased. 19 If they were all the same member, where would the body be? 20 But now they are many members, yet one body. 21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I do not need you,” or again, the head cannot say to the feet, “I do not need you.” 22 On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are necessary, 23 and the parts of the body that we think to be less honorable we surround with greater honor, so our unseemly parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 whereas our attractive parts do not need anything. Nevertheless, God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that had a lack, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but its members should have mutual concern for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all the other members suffer with it; or if a member is glorified, all the other members rejoice with it. 27 Now you are Christ’s body, and each of you individually is a member. 28 And God has assigned the respective ones in the congregation: first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then powerful works; then gifts of healings; helpful services; abilities to direct; different tongues. 29 Not all are apostles, are they? Not all are prophets, are they? Not all are teachers, are they? Not all perform powerful works, do they? 30 Not all have gifts of healings, do they? Not all speak in tongues, do they? Not all are interpreters, are they? 31 But keep striving for the greater gifts. And yet I will show you a surpassing way. 13 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels but do not have love, I have become a clanging gong or a clashing cymbal. 2 And if I have the gift of prophecy and understand all the sacred secrets and all knowledge, and if I have all the faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my belongings to feed others, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I do not benefit at all.

This next scripture, also used in the past to show that all the remnant were part of the "slave" class, was not quoted this time, although it says essentially the same thing:

• (Ephesians 2:19-22) 19 So you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are fellow citizens of the holy ones and are members of the household of God, 20 and you have been built up on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, while Christ Jesus himself is the foundation cornerstone. 21 In union with him the whole building, being harmoniously joined together, is growing into a holy temple for Jehovah. 22 In union with him you too are being built up together into a place for God to inhabit by spirit.

It was not until a talk in October 2012 and a Watchtower dated July 15, 2013 that the Governing Body finally claimed to be the "faithful and discreet slave" and changed the doctrine in a way that removed the rest of the remnant from the slave class.

On 1/1/2018 at 7:18 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

In fact, they actually empowered you. For they didn't merely ax a meeting. They replaced it with a Family Study' night over which you, as family head, preside. It is on the premise that you, as head, know specifically what your family will most benefit from, and can tailor your family study to that. There is no elder at all to monitor what you say at this meeting

Exactly! Have to say that this is something to take advantage of.

*** w11 3/15 pp. 11-12 pars. 20-21 Receive God’s Spirit, Not the World’s ***

• 20 Know the Bible well. When resisting Satan’s direct attack on his faith, Jesus quoted the Scriptures. (Luke 4:1-13) When confronting his religious opposers, Jesus used God’s Word as his authority. (Matt. 15:3-6) Jesus’ whole life revolved around knowing and fulfilling God’s law. (Matt. 5:17) We too want to keep feeding our mind with the faith-strengthening Word of God. (Phil. 4:8, 9) Finding time for personal and family study may prove to be a challenge for some of us. Rather than find time, though, we may have to make time.—Eph. 5:15-17.
• 21 “The faithful and discreet slave” has helped us to have time for personal and family study by arranging for a Family Worship evening each week. (Matt. 24:45) Are you making wise use of this arrangement? To help you gain the mind of Christ, could you include in your study session a systematic consideration of what Jesus taught on subjects of your choice? You could use the Watch Tower Publications Index to locate informative discussions of the subject you are pursuing. For example, from 2008 to 2010, the public edition of this magazine carried a series of 12 articles that had the theme “What We Learn From Jesus.” You may want to use these articles as a basis for study. Beginning in 2006, Awake! carried the feature “How Would You Answer?” This quiz was designed to help broaden and deepen your knowledge of God’s Word. Why not include material from such features in your Family Worship program from time to time?

Can't see anything wrong with these suggestions. Don't care what the original motives were. I noticed that it freed up a couple of evenings at the Hall so that a 4th congregation could immediately share the same Hall with plenty of time between meetings, when it was difficult for 3 congregations to do that previously.

9 hours ago, Arauna said:

This is not about the "earthly Jerusalem"  it was about an establishment of the kingdom in 'heaven' - which was an earthly kingdom before in the time of Israel - when Sedekia was the last king.

I agree. I don't know why, but @scholar JW and even some of the accounts tied to @AllenSmith have brought up this old idea that the 1914 Gentile Times doctrine was also proved to be correct through Zionist activities. I know that some people still believe this, but clearly you and I do not, and the Watchtower publications have provided a lot of good scriptural information to explain why it's not about earthly Jerusalem.

I'm guessing that "scholar JW" and "Allen Smith" bring it up because they are aware that this was the meaning of "Gentile Times" prior to 1914, and they realize that in order to say that we predicted it in advance, that something should have happened to earthly Israel. After all, the only prediction about 1914 that we can still claim to have gotten right from "decades in advance" of 1914 is the prediction that the Gentile Times would end that year. All the predictions that 1914 would be the end, and not the beginning of the times of distress had to finally be thrown away. All we had to do, of course, is change the meaning of "Gentile Times" so we could claim that we at least got that part right. There is a level of hubris, presumptuousness, haughtiness, ego, and pride which has always been a part of Bible prophecy predictions. They fail 99% of the time, which then results in either humility or dishonesty. You can guess what most religious leaders choose.

9 hours ago, Arauna said:

And these people will be adamant that there is no proof for 607 and will quote all the defective sources to prove their case.

Every honest person who has looked carefully at the evidence has admitted that there is no proof for 607. If you read the "Chronology" article in the Insight book more carefully, you will realize that even the WTS is admitting that they are basing their own belief about the secular date 607 on the same defective sources. It has nothing to do with a belief related to fleshly Israel in modern times.

9 hours ago, Arauna said:

Any case - referring to Russel - again and again - when this group of people were the  (Elijah) who prepared the way for the slave in 1914 - as brought out in our new publication.

Yes, Russell is being brought up again and again in the publications. A kind of resurgence especially since the 2014 centenary. I'm in favor of learning from the past so as not to repeat mistakes, to choose the good and discard the bad, and learn humility, and learn how Jehovah can accomplish his purposes through imperfect people, often in ways they don't even understand at the time. We can appreciate the blessings they enjoyed, especially as they overcame so many obstacles as a very small group which has now grown to millions. But I am not in favor of re-writing history and putting a false spin on it just so we can try to attach a measure of that success to ourselves. It's like a person who longs for the days of old, their "glory days" which is fine up to a point, but loses its good, encouraging effect when they start enhancing that history with "adjusted" stories that sound more impressive.

9 hours ago, Arauna said:

Any case - please answer:  When is the fulfillment of  Revelation 12: 7-13. No long answer needed ..... just give short answer - please. 

Revelation was written to be an encouragement in all time periods when Christians sigh and groan through the present system of things, filled with war, pestilence, famine and death, and still therefore eagerly call out "Come! Lord Jesus."

Christians were given a "taste" of the glory of Jesus' kingship during the activities and proofs of the first century, and that glimpse should be enough for us to realize that we don't need to know everything that is going on behind the scenes in order to "persevere" until Jesus is manifested again at the end, the parousia (sudden, highly visible royal visitation) the synteleia (final conclusion; end of all things), the manifestation, the revelation, the judgment. He appeared "once for all time" as King and Priest according to the manner of Melchizedek, King and Priest. Revelation provides a vision, based on the glimpses of the glory revealed in the first century, and reveals how much greater and more real that glory must be in the "behind-the-scenes" heavenly enactments of those events, both past, present and future. In this way, Revelation brings the promises even closer to us so we can keep it close in mind.

Revelation is a parallel, in vision form, to the same admonition to endure to the end that we get in many other passages of scripture which are not in vision form. For example:

• (1 Timothy 6:11-16) 11 However, you, O man of God, flee from these things. But pursue righteousness, godly devotion, faith, love, endurance, and mildness. 12 Fight the fine fight of the faith; get a firm hold on the everlasting life for which you were called and you offered the fine public declaration in front of many witnesses. 13 Before God, who preserves all things alive, and Christ Jesus, who as a witness made the fine public declaration before Pontius Pilate, I give you orders 14 to observe the commandment in a spotless and irreprehensible way until the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which the happy and only Potentate will show in its own appointed times. He is the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords, 16 the one alone having immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal might. Amen.

Note that the foundation here is that Jesus is already King of Kings [same point made in Revelation 1:5; 17:12], yet we continue to endure faithfully until a future manifestion or revelation of that same Kingship, when it can again be said that "Jehovah has become King!" based on the fulfilled promise of the Kingdom through Christ when he battles the nations, brings them to ruin [true End of Gentile Times], judging and rewarding the resurrected dead.

• (Revelation 11:17, 18) . . .“We thank you, Jehovah God, the Almighty, the one who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and begun ruling as king. 18 But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time came for the dead to be judged and to reward your slaves the prophets and the holy ones and those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”

Revelation 12 is this same history of Jesus' appointment and divine protection in vision form, using Biblical imagery from the past. It provides assurance that the promises will come no matter what obstacles arise, even death. Here is the same promise in non-vision form:

• (Romans 8:31-39) 31 What, then, are we to say about these things? If God is for us, who will be against us? 32 Since he did not even spare his own Son but handed him over for us all, will he not also, along with him, kindly give us all other things? 33 Who will file accusation against God’s chosen ones? God is the One who declares them righteous. 34 Who will condemn them? Christ Jesus is the one who died, yes, more than that the one who was raised up, who is at the right hand of God and who also pleads for us. 35 Who will separate us from the love of the Christ? Will tribulation or distress or persecution or hunger or nakedness or danger or sword? 36 Just as it is written: “For your sake we are being put to death all day long; we have been accounted as sheep for slaughtering.” 37 On the contrary, in all these things we are coming off completely victorious through the one who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life nor angels nor governments nor things now here nor things to come nor powers 39 nor height nor depth nor any other creation will be able to separate us from God’s love that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

That "short period of time" might make sense to you as a period of 100 or 200 years, depending on how long the overlapping generation is defined. But there is nothing in scripture that says it is one "generation," or that it is less than 2,000 years or even less than 1 year. Perhaps it is the same time period that is also called "one hour" as the kingdoms being brought to ruin think that they must cooperate against the Lamb if they are to have any chance of survival:

• (Revelation 17:12-14) 12 “The ten horns that you saw mean ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but they do receive authority as kings for one hour with the wild beast. 13 These have one thought, so they give their power and authority to the wild beast. 14 These will battle with the Lamb, but because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, the Lamb will conquer them. Also, those with him who are called and chosen and faithful will do so.”

I do not claim that this way of reading Revelation is the right way or true way, but it brings me comfort and encouragement, probably in a similar way to the way in which it brought comfort and encouragement to the first readers of Revelation in Ephesus, Pergamum, etc. I don't claim to know any more about the signs or the times and seasons than they did. If you find comfort in believing that Jesus took his full power and kingship in 1914, that's fine, too. Although I'm sure that, by comparison, you will be in even more awe of the power of that kingdom over the times of the gentile nations when that power is more fully manifested. And I'm sure you appreciate the glimpses of that power and glory that Jesus revealed in the past as recorded in scripture. So in this we are not so different, and I do not think there is any value in demeaning whatever meaning you currently give to this intermediate manifestation of that kingdom in 1914.

But with respect to honesty about the past, we do know that there is no evidence for the date 607. But, if one wishes, they can still find other reasons to look back at 1914. For many of us, I can tell it gives us a sense of superiority and self-righteousness that we, of all peoples, were able to predict 1914, decades in advance. But exactly what were we able to predict?

We were able to predict that it meant Armageddon would be completed in the surrounding months, that the great tribulation would be completed, and that it would usher in a time of peace before 1915. And, as the end of the times of power given to the nations (Gentile Times) it would also see the collapse into chaos of all nations and political institutions of all kinds except for the nation of Israel -- the Gentiles had had truly their day. It was "the end of the World" in that sense. So, in order to continue to be right and not admit a failure, we (WTS) loudly proclaimed that the "World had ended in 1914." That worked well through the war, but soon lost its value as 100% of the predictions for 1918 failed, too. We continued to say that Armageddon had actually started in 1914, because all we had to do was keep extending the meaning of Armageddon and weakening its Biblical meaning so that it was more related to the fight between "Labor and Capital." We also had a clever reason for continuing to say that the "great tribulation" had started in 1914, but that the break in the tribulation was the same one Jesus predicted saying that the days were cut short "on account of the chosen ones." This explanation was in effect when I was baptized, and didn't change until a few years later:

*** w99 5/1 p. 16 par. 11 “Let the Reader Use Discernment” ***

• However, in later years we have come to see things differently. On Thursday, July 10, 1969, at the “Peace on Earth” International Assembly in New York City, F. W. Franz, then vice president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, gave an electrifying talk. In reviewing the previous understanding of Jesus’ prophecy, Brother Franz said: “The explanation was given that the ‘great tribulation’ had begun in 1914 C.E. and that it was not allowed to run its full course then but God stopped World War I in November of 1918. From then on God was allowing an interval for the activity of his anointed remnant of elect Christians before he let the final part of the ‘great tribulation’ resume at the battle of Armageddon.”

Now, the only remaining portion of the prediction that we claim we got right was the prediction that the Gentile Times would end in 1914. We still claim that we were right about that, but had to change the definition of the term "Gentile Times" in order to keep claiming that we at least got that part right.

So, hopefully, you can see that I am only interested in the  repeated misuse of the doctrine by which we like to claim superiority because we wish to be "right at all costs." If it's at the cost of honesty and integrity, we should clean it up. I wonder how many people that we talk to in our ministry have been able to see through the false claims and hubris and this becomes the reason they give no further respect for the wonderful truths that we also could share with them.

5 hours ago, scholar JW said:

WT Chronology has been consistent with its value not only in Bible Chronology but also in terms of its significance to Bible Prophecy and Theology.for after all, it introduced the 'Gentile Times'.

It's fine to believe this, but it's false to claim that the evidence supports it. We have already gone through dozens of examples showing that the Watchtower's chronology is inconsistent. Of course, even more inconsistency is introduced through mixing up the Gentile Times into this. You may have missed previous discussions on that particular topic.

5 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The evidence for 607 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem and the beginning of the Exile is well established not only from the biblical perspective and its chronological data but also from NB Chronology with a little 'fine tuning'because of a shortfall or 'Gap' of twenty years.

The Bible chronology fits the archaeological evidence from NB chronology. There is no evidence for 607. To get anywhere near 607 you have to accept 539, which you have no right to do if you are going to reject 539 by claiming that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year was 607. If you are honest, you are forced to reject 539 if you accept 607. You can't cherry pick a range of dates that are interwoven and interlocked through tens of thousands of tablets and at least 10 other completely independent lines of evidence. You can claim whatever you want, but you'd have to show evidence if you are honest.

5 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Further, our Chronology is suitably anchored to the well established pivotal date 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon thus giving this scheme much scholarly credence whereas most other schemes are based on Absolute Dates that lie outside the NB Period.

Your chronology is not at all anchored to 539. By choosing 607 as Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year you have rejected 539. Claiming you still want it after you reject it is dishonest. This is probably a difficult concept for anyone who has not really studied the data, and I suspect now, for many reasons, that you have never studied the data. This would explain why you have failed to present or counter any evidence and have merely repeated the mistaken logic and declared it "wondrous."

5 hours ago, scholar JW said:

WT Chronology has the added strength of its simplicity and avoids much of the technical issues of Calendation that prevents many schemes from positing fixed dates for various biblical events, the best example of such confusion is the 587/86 BCE controversy which remains unresolved to this day.

Your repetition of this particular point tells me again that you have not paid attention even to the Watchtower's explanation or have decided to use the fact that the Bible gives two different counting methods as an opportunity to try to bluster those who will not look into it for themselves. Bluster in this case would be dishonest, but you have failed to give any evidence that you mean to do anything else.

5 hours ago, scholar JW said:

In contrast, our Chronology has a scheme for the Divided Monarchy that is workable and intelligible, first published in 1944 in The Kingdom Is At Hand .

That's fine. But it's meaningless with respect to the Watchtower's misuse of the NB period which is unintelligible and unworkable.

5 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The well-established date 607 BCE secures the modern date 1914 CE as the time of the birth of God's Kingdom which contextualizes the subject eschatologically in harmony with the view of prominent German Theologians in the earlier part of the 20th century who pioneered scholarship about the Kingdom.

The date 607 is not well-established until at least a tiny piece of evidence can be shown. You have failed to show evidence, but you apparently wish to continue blustering that it is "wondrous" and "well-established." Although you might have a doctrine that makes the same mistakes of prominent German theologians, it is still out of harmony with the words of Jesus. Jesus said that the parousia would come as a surprise and that the times and seasons were only in the Father's jurisdiction. Besides it is even out of harmony with the German theologians in that the Watchtower tied the predictions for 1914 with the reinstatement of the Israelite nation and the demise of all other nations and institutions in 1914. The failure of Israel to dominate in 1914 showed that the Gentile Times prediction failed. John Aquila Brown did not tie the Gentile Times to the 2,520 years having noticed that Revelation only ties the number 1,260 to Jesus words about the Gentile Times. The Bible never mentions "SEVEN Gentile Times." (The closest is Revelation's mention of THREE AND ONE-HALF Gentile Times.)

5 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The date 1914 according to historians is the most celebrated date in our modern history and providentially it marked the end of the Gentile times again a subject on which Christendom's most prominent Clergy fixated on especially with the capture of Jerusalem by Allied forces in 1917 CE.

The capture of Jerusalem by Allied forces in 1917 is a direct admission of the failure of the Gentile Times doctrine. If the Gentile Times had truly ended in 1914, there would be no Gentile forces to capture Jerusalem after 1914. Russell's fixation on the topic of the Jews repatriation to Palestine (Zionism) made him (in)famous, but all those predictions failed, and Rutherford finally dropped them all after 1926.

5 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Such recent studies in Historiography, in my opinion, undergird our interpretation of the Danielic and Lukan descriptions of the 'seven times'-'Gentile Times' beginning in 607 BCE and ending in 1914 CE.

His study doesn't support our theory at all. Also, Jesus made it clear that the Gentile Times had not started before his own day which would be necessary for the Watchtower's theory to work. More importantly, the Bible undermines the Watchtower's theory. 607 is pseudo-archaeology, but it fails on every other point, too.

5 hours ago, scholar JW said:

In short, our Chronology has no 'dead ends' it is prophetic, build faith, adds life and flesh to biblical history. It alone works whereas all other schemes fail.

Jesus said that this kind of prophecy would be wrong, so I assume that if it builds faith, it must be the wrong kind of faith. Faith in a date, perhaps. Paul said we need nothing to be written to us about dates because the parousia comes as a surprise, like a thief in the night. And the worst part has been all the dead ends that have resulted from our chronological speculations over the years. So far, all the schemes have failed. It's surely better to listen to words of Jesus. He said that if someone claims to be able to show that the end is near, not to go after him. He said that no one would know the day or the hour. He said the parousia will be as sudden as visible as lightning. Surely, we have so many more valuable doctrines to focus on rather than disrespectfully toying with these words of Jesus.

• (2 Peter 3:8-15) 8 However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 9 Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with YOU because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance. 10 Yet Jehovah’s day will come as a thief, . . . 11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought YOU to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 awaiting and keeping close in mind the presence [PAROUSIA] of the day of Jehovah, t. . . .14 Hence, beloved ones, since YOU are awaiting these things, do YOUR utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished and in peace. 15 Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul according to the wisdom given him also wrote YOU,

10 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

Here is a longer version of your second  Insight book quote just to clarify that it was the 11th year of Zedekiah's reign  and that Insight: was not referring to yet another  different regnal period for Nebuchadnezzar-

Yes, a lot of Witnesses are quick to deny this because they don't realize that the Watchtower has promoted two different regnal periods for Nebuchadnezzar. And it's completely unnecessary if you are willing to accept the Bible's timeline. The Bible's timeline is corroborated by archaeological evidence, too. But the Bible's timeline is not that helpful for pushing 1914, so it's adjusted here to put more emphasis on 607.

And it wasn't just done for Nebuchadnezzar. A lot of Witnesses are probably not aware that the timeline has been tampered with so that Jehoiakim has "yet another different regnal period" too.

Your quote from page 463 is actually one I was about to include because it very clearly shows some of the points I was making. Thanks. If the 11th year of Zedekiah marked a regnal period for Nebuchadnezzar that started in 607, then this really is "yet another different regnal period for Nebuchadnezzar" that started in 625. Don't you agree? The Insight book is numbering Nebuchadnezzar's reign from two different accession years: 625 and 607. Neither is correct, of course, from the perspective of the Biblical and historical evidence. The point is clearly to avoid the idea that Nebuchadnezzar was taking exiles from this early in his reign, which would lend support to the idea in Jeremiah (and Daniel) that the 70 years for Babylon in Jeremiah referred to the period of Babylon's greatest domination. Of course, Daniel also agrees with the Babylonian archaeological records here, too, which state that Babylon was taking things from Judea from the very earliest years of his reign, or even before, during his father's reign.

And, as I said, the Watchtower chronology also prefers to give Jehoiakim "yet another different regnal period" because this one also fits the Biblical and secular chronology, but does not fit the Watchtower "chronology" as well. (Here again, the Bible also fits the archaeological evidence in both cases, but this is not as important, evidently, as force-fitting 1914.) Compare these two references from "Insight."

*** it-1 p. 576 Daniel ***

• This was in Jehoiakim’s third year (as tributary king to Babylon), which third year started in the spring of 618 B.C.E. (Da 1:1)

*** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***

• This took place in the fourth year of Judean King Jehoiakim (625 B.C.E.)

Counting from his first year as his accession year, Jehoiakim's third year would have been about 625 B.C.E, not 618 (both Watchtower dates) based on the date range below, where his accession year would be 628, first year 627, second year 626 and third year 625. 625 is of course Watchtower-speak for 605 the same year that Babylon beat both Assyria and Egypt making a last stand together at the battle of Carchemish.

** it-1 p. 1268 Jehoiakim ***

• Jehoiakim’s bad rule of about 11 years (628-618 B.C.E.)

The reason the Watchtower doesn't like the Bible's account here is because it would have Nebuchadnezzar beginning his devastations and depredations in Judea even earlier than 625, which would mean that the 70 years that Jeremiah speaks of for Babylon's domination would clearly be closer to 90 instead of 70 years.

But both Babylonian records and the Bible shows that the devastation began even earlier, from very near the very beginning of the 70 years that the nations would begin serving Babylon. Note:

• (2 Kings 23:36-24:1) 36 Je·hoiʹa·kim was 25 years old when he became king, and he reigned for 11 years in Jerusalem. . . . In Je·hoiʹa·kim’s days King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came against him, and Je·hoiʹa·kim became his servant for three years.. . .

Biblical and secular chronology would put the start of Jehoiakim's reign in about 608 B.C.E, which would be the earliest that Judea under Jehoiakim could have suffered depredations under Nebuchadnezzar. [And no later than 600 to account for 3 years of servitude.] (That's 608+20=628 in Watchtower chronology.)

In fact it was "early in Jehoiakim's reign" that Jeremiah already had an eye on Babylon and the destruction of Jerusalem:

*** it-1 p. 1268 Jehoiakim ***

• Early in Jehoiakim’s reign Jeremiah warned that unless the people repented, Jerusalem and her temple would be destroyed.

In fact the incursions by Egypt, Assyria and Babylon could have been nearly simultaneous for a time around 609 up through about 605 as the third year of Jehoiakim would have included the battle of Carchemish, won by Babylon, after a few years of battles in 609 when Egypt's Necho killed Judah's King Josiah, and Babylon overtook Assyria's Harran. Carchemish would would have then been in the third official year of Jehoiakim's reign. The situation fits 2 Kings 24:1-7:

• (2 Kings 24:1, 2, 7) . . .In Je·hoiʹa·kim’s days King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came against him, and Je·hoiʹa·kim became his servant for three years. However, he turned against him and rebelled. 2 Then Jehovah began to send against him marauder bands of Chal·deʹans, Syrians, Moʹab·ites, and Amʹmon·ites.. . . Never again did the king of Egypt venture out of his land, for the king of Babylon had taken all that belonged to the king of Egypt, from the Wadi of Egypt up to the Eu·phraʹtes River.

In those years from 609 through 605, Egypt and Assyria are finally boxed in and Babylon is the primary, ascendant power, having toppled Assyria as the power to fear back in 609, and having been the strongest power for Judea to fear since that date.

And, as mentioned, even though the Watchtower publications cannot accept it, we have the Biblical statement in Daniel which is corroborated in the Babylonian Chronicles:

• (Daniel 1:1-4) 1 In the third year of the kingship of King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah, King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. 2 In time Jehovah gave King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah into his hand, along with some of the utensils of the house of the true God, and he brought them to the land of Shiʹnar to the house of his god. He placed the utensils in the treasury of his god. 3 Then the king ordered Ashʹpe·naz his chief court official to bring some of the Israelites, including those of royal and noble descent. 4 They were to be youths without any defect, of good appearance, endowed with wisdom, knowledge, and discernment, and capable of serving in the king’s palace.. .

Notice that this is a perfect fit for 605 B.C.E. (625 Watchtower date), even though the Watchtower dating scheme does not like the term "third year of Jehoiakim" here. So it has to be reinterpreted in the Watchtower as closer to the end, not the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign.

A portion of the archaeological evidence is mentioned in Insight, where Hattu clearly includes Judea, and 625 is "Watchtower-speak" for 605, and 624 is 604:

*** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***

• Historical notices in cuneiform inscriptions presently available about Nebuchadnezzar somewhat supplement the Bible record. They state that it was in the 19th year of Nabopolassar’s reign that he assembled his army, as did his son Nebuchadnezzar, then crown prince. Both armies evidently functioned independently, and after Nabopolassar went back to Babylon within a month’s time, Nebuchadnezzar successfully warred in mountainous territory, later returning to Babylon with much spoil. During the 21st year of Nabopolassar’s reign, Nebuchadnezzar marched with the Babylonian army to Carchemish, there to fight against the Egyptians. He led his forces to victory. This took place in the fourth year of Judean King Jehoiakim (625 B.C.E.).—Jer 46:2.

  The inscriptions further show that news of his father’s death brought Nebuchadnezzar back to Babylon, and on the first of Elul (August-September), he ascended the throne. In this his accession year he returned to Hattu, and “in the month Shebat [January-February, 624 B.C.E.] he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 100) In 624 B.C.E., in the first official year of his kingship, Nebuchadnezzar again led his forces through Hattu; he captured and sacked the Philistine city of Ashkelon. During his second, third, and fourth years as king he conducted additional campaigns in Hattu, and evidently in the fourth year he made Judean King Jehoiakim his vassal. (2Ki 24:1)

14 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I am sure JW Insider has more details than I about who wrote it, and why .... but many years later I found out that the book we studied globally, once a week, was written by a group of Brothers as an inside joke to see what they could get away with ... and the entire writing committee was several years DF'd later for apostasy.

You should read it again, and try to see what it was exactly that you didn't get. Be happy to discuss it in a new thread.

Yep. Looks like it got run over with a tank and had acid poured on it.

On 12/27/2017 at 10:04 AM, Gone Fishing said:

The year 607BCE is seen by Jehovah's Witnesses as the coincidence of 2 events: 

1. The desolation of the city of Jerusalem and the land of Judah.
2. The deposition of a king ruling as a representative of the family line of David, actually sitting on Jehovah's throne.

I am still of the opinion that this secular date of 607 doesn't matter that much. Millions of JWs believe it was when the city of Jerusalem and the land of Judea was desolated, and the year the last Davidic king was deposed. For many years now, I've known that there is overwhelming evidence against this date, and overwhelming evidence that it actually happened 20 years after the date that our publications promote. Again, I don't think anyone should make a big deal about a date, and the date is "in the same ball-park," only a couple of decades off. That's less than 1% error for an event that happened about 2,624 years ago.

Millions of Witnesses who accept it do not have any reason to look into it to make sure about it. Why should they? Witnesses should have no reason to be skeptical of the publications, and the publications state very clearly that 607 is the secular date for this Biblical event, without question. I think that it is to be expected, therefore, that most of us will merely defend the date 607 because of the way it is presented in the publications. It appears to be what we should do. It is transparent on this forum that defending 607 has become another way of defending "slave" itself, which has become part of the belief and faith that we naturally defend from a scriptural point of view:

• (1 Peter 3:15) . . ., always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have. . .

So all of us have that scriptural desire and reason to defend our beliefs, which is why I am sure that you and Arauna and others are presenting your views honestly, and with the right motive. My own reason for concern is not so much about the date itself, as explained above, but just an explanation of why I myself cannot honestly promote it. For me it's much more about honesty than the date itself. Looking very carefully and prayerfully at our own explanations in our publications I can see no Biblical reason to concern ourselves with either 607 or 587 or 539 or 537, whether the dates are correct or not. These dates are only as valuable to us as say 1513 B.C.E. or 740 B.C.E.

But I also believe I see evidence that the "slave" does not believe in 607, either. I believe the "slave" must feel trapped into this belief and have not yet found a clear way out. I base this opinion on the way in which the writers deal with evidence that reveals that the writers don't want the evidence questioned because they know what will be found. This shows a fear of the evidence. The very careful way in which they dealt with Furuli's evidence in October and November 2011 was very revealing. Even Insight shows that the writers knew more than they could say.

In fact, it is made to appear that this secular date has scholarly support. In many scholarly publications you will see a "c." for "circa" or "about" in front of a date, or else a range of dates is mentioned so that you can know that there is a measure of uncertainty. The Insight book does this too, in places -- but NEVER for 607. Here's an example:

• *** it-1 p. 192 Ashkelon ***
  In the prophecy of Amos (c. 804 B.C.E.) prediction was made of defeat for the ruler of Ashkelon. (Am 1:8) Secular history shows that in the succeeding century Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria made Asqaluna (Ashkelon) a vassal city. Jeremiah (after 647 B.C.E.) uttered two prophecies involving Ashkelon. While Jeremiah 47:2-7 could have seen some fulfillment when Nebuchadnezzar sacked the city early in his reign (c. 624 B.C.E.), the prophecy at Jeremiah 25:17-20, 28, 29 clearly indicates a fulfillment subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. Zephaniah’s prophecy (written before 648 B.C.E.) also foretold a coming desolation for Ashkelon, along with other Philistine cities, after which the remnant of Judah would eventually occupy “the houses of Ashkelon.” (Zep 2:4-7) Finally, about 518 B.C.E., Zechariah proclaimed doom for Ashkelon . . .

In fact, the 607-date chronology is inserted into quotes and references from authorities as if it were referenced from there when it was not.

*** it-1 p. 1025 Hamath ***

• According to an extant cuneiform inscription (British Museum 21946), after the battle of Carchemish in 625 B.C.E. (Jer 46:2), Nebuchadnezzar’s forces overtook and destroyed the fleeing Egyptians in the district of Hamath. (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 99) In this same area, a few years earlier, Pharaoh Nechoh had taken King Jehoahaz captive. (2Ki 23:31-33) Then in 607 B.C.E., with the fall of Jerusalem, . . .

*** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***

• The inscriptions further show that news of his father’s death brought Nebuchadnezzar back to Babylon, and on the first of Elul (August-September), he ascended the throne. In this his accession year he returned to Hattu, and “in the month Shebat [January-February, 624 B.C.E.] he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 100) In 624 B.C.E., in the first official year of his kingship, Nebuchadnezzar again led his forces through Hattu; he captured and sacked the Philistine city of Ashkelon.

*** it-1 p. 1267 Jehoiachin ***

• It appears that Jehoiakim died during this siege and Jehoiachin ascended the throne of Judah. His rule ended, however, a mere three months and ten days later, when he surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar in 617 B.C.E. (in the month of Adar, according to a Babylonian chronicle). (2Ki 24:11, 12; 2Ch 36:9; Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. Grayson, 1975, p. 102)

*** it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***

• One fragmentary Babylonian text, dated to Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year (588 B.C.E.), does, in fact, mention a campaign against Egypt. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, p. 308)

*** it-1 p. 238 Babylon ***

• That year, 607 B.C.E., when Jerusalem was laid desolate, was a significant one in the counting of time until Jehovah, the Universal Sovereign, would set up the world ruler of his choice in Kingdom power. . . . One cuneiform tablet has been found referring to a campaign against Egypt in Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year (588 B.C.E.).

Grayson and Pritchard, although referenced as authorities, actually offer contrary evidence, showing that the event marked here for 624 was actually 604, 625 was actually 605, 617 was 597, and the event marked here for 588 is actually 568 -- therefore the date marked 607 would actually be 587.

So although the Jerusalem event marked 607 was actually 587/6, according to all the referenced authorities found in Insight (these and dozens of others, including those not referenced), the Insight book chooses to refer to 607 as if it has never been questioned. Insight mentions the date 607 authoritatively, about 150 times.

To keep 607 in the limelight and evidently to avoid questions about thinking about the Biblical definition of the 70 years, the Insight book not only says 607 was Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year, but also claims it was his "1st year" by another reckoning. Compare these two claims from Insight:

*** it-1 pp. 1185-1186 Image ***

• Images in the Book of Daniel. In the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship (evidently counting from the time of his conquest of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E.), the Babylonian king had a dream . . .

*** it-1 p. 463 Chronology ***

• the city fell in his 11th year (607 B.C.E.), corresponding to Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year of actual rule (counting from his accession year in 625 B.C.E.).

So Nebuchadnezzar's accession year was both 625 and 607 according to the Insight book. Yet Grayson, Pritchard and a thousand other sources would agree that it was 605.

Also, to keep 607 in the limelight the events of 598 and 589 through 587 are sometimes tied to just 607 as the "pivotal" year. For example, note that this last siege lasted for a year and a half, and a siege prior to this was about 10 years earlier. 

*** it-2 p. 1065 Tammuz, II ***

• It was on the ninth day of this fourth month (Tammuz) that Nebuchadnezzar breached the walls of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. after an 18-month siege.

Insight often admits that the siege was dated 2 years earlier and 10/11 years earlier, but notice the shorthand sometimes preferred for referencing Jerusalem's siege:

*** it-1 p. 1242 Jackal ***

• Babylon’s siege of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. brought the stress of famine, with the result that mothers treated their own offspring cruelly. Thus Jeremiah appropriately contrasted the cruelty “of my people” with the jackals’ maternal care.—La 4:3, 10.

The point, of course, is that the one date most in question of all dates that the Society uses, is always presented as if it is the one date least in question. It is repeated 150 times in the Insight book alone. And dates that fall within the period, including 625, 624, 617, 609, 607, 539 and 537 (more likely, the actual dates 605, 604, 598, 589, 587, 539 and 538) -- these dates make up the majority, by far, of all the dates ever mentioned in the entire Insight book, including all mentions of 29 C.E. and 33 C.E. put together.

Compare the case of 607 carefully with how we deal with evidence or "no evidence" in other doctrinal matters. I thought it was very revealing. In matters like "stauros" and several others, for example, the publications don't show the same fear and avoidance of the evidence.

1 minute ago, Melinda Mills said:

How do you keep the 2006 one from updating?

The 2006 Watchtower Library CD does not have the ability to update. It was not part of the program code.

21 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I think it is no more than going the extra mile.

It might not seem right or fair, but when one quotes an academic, it is actually important to get the context.

(In this case it would have meant reading and understanding the point made here: http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/full/10.1139/g11-046#.WkfFXN-nFPa

and then recognizing that the quote could still have been used but with an explanation that Singh himself was trying to show just how poorly people understand the theory of evolution and how poorly even biologists have explained it. For this reason, he says, not only lay people, but even a lot of academics don't believe it.

The quote, if used correctly, could still have had some impact for the point the Awake! was making, especially since the opening graphic/survey question was based upon that quote. After removing it, the opening was much weaker, relying mostly on just 'Gerard the entomologist.' And if you have read enough of our publications you know that whenever a possible expert is only given a first name, or given just a generic title without a name, that he is probably a Witness, and we don't want that fact made too obvious, out of fear that it makes the argument seem weaker. Some countries, especially in Europe, have begun to look down upon this type of quote as "yellow" so that European language Watchtowers and Awakes will often contain the last name. (And, in Europe, the likelihood of someone knowing him or trying to contact 'Gerard the entomologist' is much lower.)

5 minutes ago, Nana Fofana said:

He was quoted accurately. He was not entitled to have the quote removed, much less anything further.

Just found that on topix.com by "pcloadletter", thanks.

Then why do you think the Watchtower Society gave in, and did what he wanted?. Fear of men?