JW Insider

I never claim that anything I say is more than an opinion even if it comes across that way when presentation of strong evidence is assumed to be a statement that the opinion must be correct. One person's point of view can literally have a thousand times more evidence behind it than another's, but it doesn't absolutely mean that the person with better or more evidence is always right. We should all be willing to learn new things all the time, and I am always on the lookout to be able to find new and interesting evidence that can change my perspective. Jehovah doesn't change, but my personal views and opinions are always subject to correction. As I've said before, it's one of the primary reasons I like to share on the forum. It's an opportunity to accept correction and discover new and better evidence. It becomes another way to "make sure of all things" and to "hold fast to what is fine." So, of course it's fair enough that we both have a right to our opinions and both have a right to agree with or disagree with views expressed. What's "this" that has been "forced" upon you. Again, opinions aren't forced upon anyone. Opinions remain opinions. Only when we feel that the weight of evidence changes against our current view, would we in any way feel "forced" to change an opinion. But the statement of an opinion forces nothing. Even a preponderance of evidence forces nothing. If we feel "forced" it says more about our response to evidence; it says something good about own proper thinking abilities. I wish my above statement wasn't true, but here we have evidence of number 5. I get it. You are saying that my opinion is being "forced" on you for a fifth time now, because when you called my post irrelevant and contradictory above without even trying to show any evidence of that claim, I responded that I would happily change my opinion if you actually presented evidence that was better. Just so you know it's a true and honest offer. As you might have already seen, I have changed my opinion on several topics in just the last couple years since I began posting. It's one of the reasons I enjoy the forum. Also, I can still enjoy learning about your personal opinions even if I don't hear evidence in favor of your opinion.

Even after all this time you still appear confused about what VAT4956 is. It's a diary of some astronomical events that were observed in YEAR 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. When scholars of all kinds check these events against the year in which they must have happened they see that the year these observations were made can only match 568. Even Furuli admits that most of the readings on the tablet can only match 568. Any amateur can also look up in an astronomy program to see what year is matched by these observations. Now if you had a diary that observed the positions of the moon and planets for your 37th year you would also be able to look up what calendar year this must have been by using an astronomy program. But let's say you also: got married in your 18th year and got divorced in your 28th year and your house burned down in your 30th year and your father got sick in your 35th year According to you, these other events in your life evidently didn't happen because you didn't mention them in that diary you kept in your 37th year. You must be confused about this tablet. Almost as if you are conflating it with some portions of the Babylonian Chronicles. "As far as this tablet is concerned" Jerusalem might have never existed and Jehoiakim might have been the Pharaoh of Egypt. Neither are mentioned at all. We know nothing of Jerusalem or Jehoiakim from the diary. We only know that it provides evidence to know in what year Nebuchadnezzar must have reigned from his accession year and every year after that up to his 37th year. I wish you didn't use superfluous question marks, partial sentences as full sentences, and superfluous commas in exactly the same way that Allen Smith does. It makes your writing just as hard to understand as his. But I agree that this tablet doesn't have the value that people give it. Furuli, for example, seems to pretend that it is the most important document in the evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year was 587. He apparently thinks that if you can damage its reputation that this would change a thing with respect to the date of Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year. Darren Thompson admits to thinking about it in the same way. Scholars know that VAT4956 adds to the overwhelming evidence for the Neo-Babylonian chronology, but that we can take it or leave it and we would still have the same overwhelming evidence for the same Neo-Babylonian chronology. As you say, it's not that important. Of course you do. And if you can point out any evidence of your claim anywhere, I'm always happy to change my opinion in favor of better evidence.

But you were wrong. Humility and sincerity require that we look at our mistakes and try not to repeat them. And Babylonian dates are verified by Greek sources, Persian sources, tens of thousands of clay tablets, and also with Babylonian chronicles. The Babylonian sources are verified in the same way as Persian sources. The weaknesses in these sources affect the Persian rulers in the same way as they affect the Neo-Babylonian rulers. The strengths in these sources do the same. This is only one of the ways in which Persian dates have been counted. Olympiads is also one of the ways in which we can "reliably" learn that the date for Jerusalem's fall is not the date that the Watchtower has promoted. The Olympiad dating is further evidence to confirm the interlocking dates of the entire period. The organization uses the Babylonian chronicles, astronomical diaries and king's lists. The organization relies upon copies of copies of secular sources in order to use secular dates like 539 and 537. Quote this The Watchtower Society relies upon astronomical calculations to get the secular dates that the organization promotes. The problem with the description of eclipses is not related to the dating of the Neo-Babylonian period. It's usually true that humility and sincerity are necessary to avoid repeating the same mistakes. If one of the mistakes that is commonly made is to brag about having correctly predicted something decades in advance, but anyone can look up and see that what was predicted decades in advance was something else entirely, then we should look at the motive. I am sure that the "straw man" idea of an organization that "spends their entire time thinking up plots on how to cover up the 'mistake of 1914'" is ridiculous. I would guess that as little time as possible is spent thinking about the mistake of 1914. But if we find dishonesty in 100% of the instances where the topic did come up, we have a right to be suspicious of the motives for bringing it up. Just as you and I have a right to be suspicious of the motives of ex-JWs and apostates who bring up the subject when and if they make false claims about it. I agree that this could be the crux of the problem. I think it should bother us when we see the 607 theory and the 1914 theory produce contradictions in our literature, purposeful mistranslations of the Hebrew and Greek in our own Bibles, and a string of interpretations of related doctrines that rely on the least likely meanings of the Bible text. Hopefully, we will stop using these Babylonian dates in our literature. Our repeated rehash of these Babylonian dates implies that the Bible is not sufficient, not enough for us to be fully equipped for every good work. The more one looks into the evidence it appears that it is based on a presumptuous and unscriptural agenda. Not of everything, of course, but just a portion of our teachings, that most of us probably no longer consider "core teachings," anyway. We should be humble enough to look at the Bible and the secular evidence we have imposed upon it with an open mind. I understand that it makes for better "unity" if we all just go along and gullibly agree with all things, but was it really better for all of us that we kept 1874 as a Biblical teaching up until 1943 and even kept 1878 as part of a Biblical teaching up until the 1960's? The problems that such chronological teachings caused in 1918, 1919, 1925, and 1975 were caused primarily through "unity" but was this really "unity" in the cause of "truth" or of mere conformity to a false teaching?

VAT4956 illustrates exactly what direction one needs to go to get to exactly the 18th and to get to exactly to the 19th year. That's the thing about an astronomical diary that tells you what year aligns to Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year. From there you know what direction you need to go to reach the 18th and 19th years or any other prior year in his reign. And it does this from the front side. It does this from the back side. And it does this from both sides. If you go back to the post you made here on Saturday, 12/23, the one with the Map of the Ancient Near East, you can see that you went from a mistaken or unproven premise and then said that this [false premise] was why VAT4956 tells us nothing about the 18-19 years, and that VAT4956 can only be used to show what his first (accession) year was. As you said: While it's true that knowing his 37th year was 568 will also tell you that his accession year was 605, it ALSO tells you that: his first year was 604 and his 18th year was 587 and his 19th year was 586 and his 36th year was 569 and his 35th year was 570. It pinpoints which year matches every regnal year from 605 to 568. Claiming otherwise is a math mistake just as false as claiming that 4+1=6, or worse, really. It is the same as saying: If 568+37 = 605, then 568+36=0 [nothing] and 568+1=0[nothing] and 568+19=0[nothing]. You made an incorrect conjecture, rather than basing what you said on scholarly findings or scripture or simple math. This is "word salad" with non-sequiturious dressing. Of course. Then we would have to check how much of Bible understanding a scholar has to give an expert opinion on that subject matter. We can if it will help. But for nearly half its existence the Watchtower, along with educated people like Fred Franz, believed and promoted a "Bible" chronology that we now admit is false. Franz, Russell, Rutherford all had plenty of Bible understanding, yet two of them taught a Bible chronology until they died, that the Watchtower now considers to be false. They used the term "absolute" and "God's dates, not ours" incorrectly. An archaeologist can correctly make use of the term "absolute" even if they are talking about a style of canoe made in New Guinea. They need absolutely no Bible understanding to use the term with its correct scholarly meaning. Quite the opposite of justifying how contradictory it would be. You are veering off into bad math again. VAT4956 tells you to start . . . his 17th year in 588, his 18th year in 587 his 19th year in 586 his 20th year in 585 his 27th year in 578 his 37th year in 568 If you really can't see where it does "indicate in VAT4956 where one should start to view 587 BC specifically," then you shouldn't be talking about contradictory evidence or what VAT4956 does and does not indicate. Secular chronology does not place the 18th and 19th year where it "wishes." More word salad. This is irrelevant to the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. Would you say that the Watchtower publications are biased because they look at the books of Kings and Chronicles with errors? Note, how the Insight book inserts the bracketed words "actually, the fifteenth" instead of "the thirty-fifth" year of Asa. If you read "Insight" you will see that it suggests that the Bible contains scribal errors in several other books, too. *** it-1 p. 184 Asa *** So, too, the apparent difference between the statement at 2 Chronicles 15:19 to the effect that, as for “war, it did not occur down to the thirty-fifth [actually, the fifteenth] year of Asa’s reign,” It is not necessary to read the rest of this post, but it covers not even half of the potential scribal errors that the Watchtower publications have made reference to in the attempt to correct errors in the Bible text. I'm sure you are aware that there is even a chronology "glitch" in the book of Daniel that the Watchtower publications have discussed at length so that the meaning we give this verse is quite different from the actual statements in Daniel. *** it-1 p. 412 Capital *** (1Ki 7:15, 16) In view of the passages indicating that the capitals were five cubits high, a number of scholars have concluded that the reference to “three cubits” in 2 Kings 25:17 is a scribal error. That is why some Bible translations (for example, JB, NAB) have replaced “three cubits” with “five cubits.” *** it-1 p. 570 Daleth *** The fourth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. There is considerable similarity between the letters daʹleth [ד] and rehsh [ר], allowing for possible scribal errors in copying. This may account for various differences in spelling, such as that of the “Rodanim” at 1 Chronicles 1:7 and the “Dodanim” at Genesis 10:4. *** it-1 p. 619 Deuel *** In the Masoretic text and the Syriac Peshitta, he is called “Reuel” at Numbers 2:14. This may be due to a scribal error, since the Hebrew letters for “D” and “R” are very similar and the name “Deuel” does, in fact, appear at Numbers 2:14 in the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Latin Vulgate, and over a hundred Hebrew manuscripts. *** it-1 pp. 626-627 Dimon *** . . . Dibon did not stand by any large “waters,” it being a considerable distance from the nearest wadi, the Arnon. They suggest, therefore, that Dimon may be a scribal alteration of Madmen, mentioned in Jeremiah’s condemnation of Moab (Jer 48:2), and usually identified with Dimna, about 4 km (2.5 mi) WNW of Rabbath-Moab, on a height dominating the waters of the ʽAin el-Megheisil to the SE. Both views are conjectural, the latter having in its favor identification with a site associated with waters, which the context seems to require. *** it-1 p. 706 Elhanan *** In 2 Samuel 21:19 Elhanan is identified as “the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite,” and it is said that he struck down Goliath. However, many scholars think that the original reading of 2 Samuel 21:19 corresponded to 1 Chronicles 20:5, the differences in the two texts having arisen through scribal error. *** it-1 p. 718 Elishama *** This Elishama is listed as Elishua in 2 Samuel 5:15, in 1 Chronicles 14:5, and in two Hebrew manuscripts at 1 Chronicles 3:6. Elishua is generally considered to be the correct name, as the name Elishama appears again in 1 Chronicles 3:8 and therefore could easily have crept into verse 6 through a scribal error. *** it-1 p. 929 Gibeah *** The Hebrew spellings of Geba (masculine form of the word meaning “Hill”) and Gibeah (feminine form of the term meaning “Hill”) are almost identical. Many believe that this has resulted in scribal errors in the Masoretic text and therefore recommend changing certain scriptures to read “Geba” instead of “Gibeah,” and vice versa. *** it-1 p. 1015 Hadadezer *** This could account for their being called “horsemen” at 2 Samuel 10:18 and “men on foot” at 1 Chronicles 19:18. The difference in the number of Syrian charioteers killed in battle is usually attributed to scribal error, the lower figure of 700 charioteers being considered the correct one. *** it-1 p. 1015 Hadadezer *** The variation in the enumeration of these at 2 Samuel 8:4 and 1 Chronicles 18:4 may have arisen through scribal error. In the Greek Septuagint both passages indicate that 1,000 chariots and 7,000 horsemen were captured, and therefore 1 Chronicles 18:4 perhaps preserves the original reading. *** it-1 p. 1145 Horse *** However, David’s son and successor, Solomon, began to accumulate thousands of horses. (1Ki 4:26 [here “forty thousand stalls of horses” is generally believed to be a scribal error for “four thousand”]; compare 2Ch 9:25.) *** it-1 p. 1166 Ibleam *** . . . (Jos 21:25) reads “Gath-rimmon” instead of “Bileam” or “Ibleam.” Generally this is attributed to scribal error, “Gath-rimmon,” the name of a city in Dan, probably having been inadvertently repeated from verse 24. *** it-1 p. 1239 Jaare-oregim *** A name appearing only at 2 Samuel 21:19. It is generally believed that scribal error has given rise to this name and that the correct reading is preserved in the parallel text at 1 Chronicles 20:5. “Jaare” is considered to be an alteration of “Jair,” and “oregim” (ʼo·reghimʹ, “weavers” or “loom workers”) is thought to have been copied inadvertently from a line below in the same verse. *** it-2 p. 87 Johanan *** Grandson of Eliashib, the high priest contemporary with Nehemiah. His being called Jonathan in Nehemiah 12:11 is probably due to a scribal error, as the names “Johanan” and “Jonathan” are very similar in Hebrew. *** it-2 p. 113 Josheb-basshebeth *** There are other scribal difficulties with the text in 2 Samuel 23:8, making it necessary for the obscure Hebrew in the Masoretic text (which appears to read, “He was Adino the Eznite”) to be corrected to read “He was brandishing his spear.” (NW) Other modern translations read similarly. (AT; RS; Mo; Ro, ftn; JB) Thus Samuel is made to agree with the book of Chronicles and with the construction pattern in this section of material. It is “the three” that are being discussed, but to introduce another name, Adino, makes four. *** it-2 p. 177 Kite *** The Deuteronomy list contains ra·ʼahʹ in place of da·ʼahʹ, as in Leviticus, but this is considered to be probably due to a scribal substitution of the Hebrew equivalent of “r” (ר) for “d” (ד), the letters being very similar in appearance. And then there are more complicated errors to deal with when the text that is preferred for the NWT Hebrew Scriptures is based on the Masoretic text which makes changes from phrases like "Jehovah cursed" to "Jehovah blessed," and even makes changes like the following one: *** it-2 p. 307 Manasseh *** . A name appearing in the Masoretic text at Judges 18:30, because of scribal modification. The account concerns Danite apostasy, and the New World Translation says that “Jonathan the son of Gershom, Moses’ son, he and his sons became priests to the tribe of the Danites.” (See also AT; Mo; Ro; RS.) Jewish scribes inserted a suspended letter (nun = n) between the first two letters in the original Hebrew name so as to give the reading “Manasseh’s” instead of “Moses’,” doing so out of regard for Moses. The scribes thus sought to hide the reproach or disgrace that might be brought upon the name of Moses because of Jonathan’s action. In addition to the altered Masoretic text, “Manasseh’s” appears in the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209 of the Greek Septuagint and in the Syriac Peshitta. However, “Moses’” is found in the Alexandrine Manuscript of the Greek Septuagint and in the Latin Vulgate at Judges 18:30. *** it-2 p. 349 Mash *** At 1 Chronicles 1:17 the Masoretic text reads “Meshech” instead of “Mash.” But this is probably a scribal error since Meshech is listed as a “son” of Japheth.—Ge 10:2; 1Ch 1:5. *** it-2 p. 396 Michmas(h) *** According to 1 Samuel 13:5, the Philistine forces at Michmash included 30,000 war chariots. This number is far greater than that involved in several other military expeditions (compare Jg 4:13; 2Ch 12:2, 3; 14:9), and it is hard to imagine how so many war chariots could have been used in mountainous terrain. For this reason 30,000 is generally viewed as a scribal error. The Syriac Peshitta and the Lagardian edition of the Greek Septuagint read 3,000, and numerous Bible translations follow this rendering. (AT, JB, Mo) However, even lower figures have been suggested. *** it-2 p. 398 Mijamin *** He may have founded the paternal house of Miniamin mentioned at Nehemiah 12:17 (where the name of the head of that house appears to have been an inadvertent scribal omission in the Hebrew text). *** it-2 p. 938 Shuppim *** Since the last three characters of his name in Hebrew (Shup·pimʹ) are identical to the last three characters of the previous term (behth ha·ʼasup·pimʹ), scholars suspect that it is a dittograph (an unintentional scribal repetition), therefore, in this verse, not the name of a person.—Compare 1Ch 26:10, 11. *** it-2 p. 1112 Tob-adonijah *** (2Ch 17:7-9) Reference to Adonijah and Tobijah in the same verse leads some scholars to believe this name is a scribal dittograph, that is, an inadvertent repetition. And of course there are other issues with the variations in manuscripts. The NWT shows "18 years" for both of the following, but several major texts actually show 8 years in 2 Chronicles 36:9 and 18 in 2 Kings 24:8. (2 Kings 24:8) 8 Je·hoiʹa·chin was 18 years old when he became king, and he reigned for three months in Jerusalem. . . . (2 Chronicles 36:9) 9 Je·hoiʹa·chin was 8 years old when he became king, and he reigned for three months and ten days in Jerusalem. So the Watchtower publications speak very appreciatively of the critical textual studies by scholars that have helped to identify some of these scribal errors and correct them. *** it-2 p. 313 Manuscripts of the Bible *** Despite the care exercised by copyists of Bible manuscripts, a number of small scribal errors and alterations crept into the text. On the whole, these are insignificant and have no bearing on the Bible’s general integrity. They have been detected and corrected by means of careful scholastic collation or critical comparison of the many extant manuscripts and ancient versions. Critical study of the Hebrew text of the Scriptures commenced toward the end of the 18th century. Where possible, the Watchtower publications seek to avoid admitting scribal errors even if we have no better explanation currently: *** it-2 p. 489 Nehemiah, Book of *** However, there are differences in the numbers given for each family or house, and the individual figures in both listings yield a total of far less than 42,360. Many scholars would attribute these variations to scribal errors. While this aspect cannot be completely ignored, there are other possible explanations for the differences. It may be that Ezra and Nehemiah based their listings on different sources. -----------NOTE------------ For anyone just scanning quickly across this post and wondering why there is so much about scribal errors here, it's because I'm responding to Foreigner's assertion that if one looks at Scripture as if it might have error in it, then their scholarship cannot be trusted. Yet, there are literally more than a thousand places where the Watchtower believes that errors have crept into the Biblical texts that are relied upon to translate the NWT or any other Bible translation. This is one of the reasons the persons who have worked on scholarly Bible dictionaries and Bible translation itself have expressed appreciation for scholars who have looked into errors and potential errors. The assertion is therefore not true that just because a scholar might look into potential errors that this makes their scholarship automatically unstrustworthy.

Yes. In my imaginary illustration, a coin that had the same date on both sides is giving the accurate minting date on both sides. That's because I was making an illustration to match VAT 4956 which, on both sides, references the exact date on which the original observations were made. In the case of VAT 4956 it refers specifically to the same date of 568/7 for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar on both sides. The coin illustration was not really about coins, of course, it was an illustration about how honest you might consider me to be if I tried to pass off a coin that clearly said 587 as if it were a coin from 607 using the kinds of tactics I described. In real life, of course, an ancient coin cannot contain a B.C. date, and VAT 4956 is not a coin; it's a "text" or "diary" about a couple dozen astronomical observations. In fact, it's a later copy that has at least one minor error in it (which is one day off). VAT 4956 has a couple dozen observations on it, and all of them fit a specific year. It just so happens that all the other observations from Nebuchadnezzar's reign and the observations from all other Neo-Babylonian kings give us the same exact date. So we really don't even need VAT 4956 to see the chronology, but it's nice to know that it's further evidence and none of the evidence contradicts any of the other evidence. This is exactly why I shouldn’t mean anything that doesn’t have the possibilities of having many alternative endings. However, this statement implies a heavy-handed use of having another view forced to be accepted. You shouldn't say something like 2+1=4; and then "This" is why 2 dogs +1 dog = 4 dogs. It's true you could claim all kinds of possible alternative endings based on the premise that 2+1=4, but I mean that if your premise is unproven or false, then you should do the opposite of drawing a specific conclusion based on such a premise. Saying "this is why" or "therefore, this is true" after an unproven premise is "heavy-handed." Then with more of a confirmation, scholars view shouldn’t be heightened over one another. The credibility lies with those scholars that can find common ground with scripture, not those that make every attempt to “discredit” scripture. This can depend on the topic and the level of experience each scholar has in that particular topic area, whether it's the physics of making clay tablets, experience with hundreds of astronomical readings, Assyrian/Mesopotamian linguistics, paleography, etc. If none of the scholars have made any attempt to "discredit" scripture then this other point about finding "common ground" will be meaningless. Wiseman and Grayson have, evidently without even trying, translated documents of the Neo-Babylonian Empire that just happen to contain evidence for a Babylonian chronology that has a common ground with the scriptures. There is no contradiction between the secular chronology of Babylon and the Scriptures. In fact, it is the Watchtower chronology that creates more problems against the Biblical evidence. In effect, then it is the Watchtower chronology that, by comparison, attempts to "discredit" scripture, although I'm sure it's not on purpose. It's just that a higher priority is given to making 1914 appear to be right, than in being concerned about how the theory tends to contradict scripture. I think past posts in this thread and others on the same topic have already highlighted about 5 ways in which this has happened. Let’s look at this illustration with the eyes of Carl Olof Jonsson. Where does it in VAT4956 *pinpoint* the destruction of Jerusalem in 587BC in this tablet? Remember his argument is precision. Then, it became a relying point for ex-witnesses. His message was lost when he decided to rearrange scripture to fit secular ideology. VAT 4956 pinpoints Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year to be 568/7. If you can pinpoint his 37th year then you can pinpoint his 18th to be 587/6, right? If you can pinpoint that my 37th year of life was in 1994, then you can also pinpoint that my 18th year was in 1975, right? If you don't know how to do this, you should admit this right away, and someone can always draw a chart. So your only question is whether you believe that the destruction of Jerusalem was in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, or his 19th year, or some other year if you prefer. No matter which year you prefer, you can pinpoint it to a calendar year in the same way you can pinpoint his 37th year to be 568/7 from VAT 4956. Outside of that, why should anyone care what Carl Jonsson says? Why should anyone care what any ex-JWs say? There are probably a MILLION ex-JWs (literally) who don't even know who this Carl Jonsson is, and could rightly care nothing about 607 or 587. What Carl Jonsson says is no different than what every other modern Neo-Babylonian scholar says about Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. It just depends on whether you choose Nebuchadnezzar's year 18 or 19 for the destruction of Jerusalem. Which year do you choose, by the way? For some reason this was a difficult question for 607 promoters when it came up the last few times. Of course, the reason is obvious why someone should need to try to tie something to a specific person known as an "apostate" even if a million other non-religious persons and all other Neo-Babylonian scholars believe the same thing. Just for fun, everyone should look at a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies Notice especially the ones under "Red Herring" and "ad hominem" including these, like, "poisoning the well": Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument. Poisoning the well – a subtype of ad hominem presenting adverse information about a target person with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says. Abusive fallacy – a subtype of ad hominem that verbally abuses the opponent rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument. Appeal to motive – a subtype of ad hominem that dismisses an idea by questioning the motives of its proposer. Traitorous critic fallacy (ergo decedo) – a subtype of ad hominem where a critic's perceived affiliation is seen as the underlying reason for the criticism and the critic is asked to stay away from the issue altogether. Appeal to fear – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side Appeal to spite – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party. Judgmental language – insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment This implies as far as secular chronology has shown, the dates implied for his reign began in 605BC. Does that in itself mean its absolute? Where should the *faith* of a BIBLE STUDENT reside? Good point. The FAITH of the Bible Student shouldn't depend on secular chronology. Yet, so many Witnesses think that the secular date 607 must somehow be "credited" to be true -- yet 607 is completely dependent on SECULAR chronology. To be sure, it requires that we use secular chronology and then requires that we make a mistake in the way we use it, but we can't get anywhere close to 607 without depending on secular chronology. The Watchtower even uses the premise that 539 is a kind of ABSOLUTE secular date from which we then count 70 years farther back to get the secular date for the time period starting 70 years earlier. Yet, you are right in your implication that no true Bible Student should need such secular dates like 539 and 607 for his faith. The term "absolute" is used by archaeologists and astronomers who study historical texts like these to describe the ability to tie this entire period from Nebuchadnezzar's father, Nebuchadnezzar and down to Cyrus and beyond to specific years or ranges of years in our calendar, such as, 587, 597, 607, 617, 539, 529, etc. They do not use the term "absolute" because we need to put "faith" in it. The Watchower, on the other hand, has used the term "absolute" "reliable" and "pivotal" with respect to such secular dates like 539 with the idea that we should have "faith" in them -- that we have reason to "believe" in them. You or Allen may have to come out of the tentative zone then and just explain clearly what it is you are trying to say. I believe I caught some of it from a set of previous posts, and Allen agreed to that part that I said I understood, but he also said he wasn't ready to present the entire theory yet. I can respect that, but it's not useful to make guesses here, because the entire thing could become a moving target until the theory is "nailed down" so to speak. It's possible that Allen once thought of "scholar JW" as someone with the background to help validate or invalidate the theory through shared resources. If so, I can see another reason for a further delay. If asked, I'll be glad to see if I can help, as I have offered before. But otherwise I'll have no more to say on those ideas until the theory is spelled out. I should also mention again that I am offering to look up resources, test astronomical data, help look up variations in published translations, or any number of things. And as several others here can attest, I have had such conversations "on the side" completely in private, completely confidentially, without ever publicizing names or any of the content of those conversations. One such side conversation on this forum now contains 203 private posts as of today.

Sure. I know that I have already quoted him in a previous conversation on this topic, which I will show below. But I will also clip a picture of the paragraph I am referring to on page 333 of Furuli's book so you can see it for yourself: Here's what Furuli says on page 333: Conclusion The following principal conclusions can be drawn on the basis of the discussion of VAT 4956: The Diary may be a genuine tablet made in Seleucid times, but in modern times someone has tampered with some of the cuneiform signs, or, the tablet was made in modern times; the obverse side was made by the help of a mold, and the signs on the reverse side and the edges were written by someone. Because of the excellent fit of all 13 lunar positions in 588/87, there are good reasons to believe that the lunar positions represent observations from that year, and that the original lunar tablet that was copied in Seleucid times was made in 588/87. Because so many of the planetary positions are approximately correct, but not completely correct, there are good reasons to believe that they represent backward calculations by an astrologer who believed that 568/67 was year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II. Thus, the lunar positions seem to be original observations from 588/87 and the planetary positions seem to be backward calculations for the positions of the planets in 568/67.

Fine, but I was making a "coin" more analogous to VAT4956 which has the date on both sides. "This" is why? I think you should mean the opposite. It's because VAT4956 is not analogous to your undated coin, that VAT4956 holds a very high value in pinpointing an absolute date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year AND Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year. And furthermore we have no real question about the actual date that VAT4956 pinpoints for his 29th year, his 5th year, his 35th year, his 37th year, his 8th year, his 1st year, his accession year, etc., because every Babylonian text is dated consistently. Since VAT4956 pinpoints Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year to be 568 then it is pinpointing his accession year to be 568+37=605. It is therefore pinpointing his first year to be 604. It is pinpointing all these years: Acc = 605 1st = 604 2nd = 603 3rd = 602 4th = 601 5th = 600 6th = 599 7th = 598 8th = 597 9th = 596 10th = 595 11th = 594 12th = 593 13th = 592 14th = 591 15th = 590 16th = 589 17th = 588 18th = 587 19th = 586 20th = 585 . . . 27th = 578 . . . 37th = 568 So VAT4956 pinpoints every year of Nebuchadnezzar from his accession to his 37th year. Yes. It does discredit 607, because it means that Nebuchadnezzar wasn't even a king in 607. It also means that his 18th year was 587. So it's a matter of whether you believe the Bible when it speaks of the events that took place in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. How could Nebuchadnezzar be in his 18th year two years before he started reigning? You can't use the expression "This is why" after stating a false or unproven premise. You create a "non sequitur." It's like if you had said you found a documentary showing that World War 2 started in Europe in 1939 while Roosevelt (FDR) was in his second term as U.S. President. And from that documentary, you decide you can make an unproven or false premise that therefore WW2 might have started when Hitler invaded Poland in 1929 which was during Herbert Hoover's presidency. For evidence of this false premise, you claim that it's all a matter of scholarly opinion. In fact, historical evidence is not always a matter of scholarly opinion. You don't need to be a scholar to know that Hoover was president in 1929 and that it had to be Roosevelt who was concurrent with Hitler's rise. You can't just move FDR's presidency back to 1929. There is too much evidence against it no matter what kind of scholar makes the claim. This makes no sense. Wiseman and Grayson are both linguistic scholars who have catalogued, translated and published hundreds of Babylonian/Mesopotamian texts from discovered tablets, bricks, temple walls, etc. Furuli, for example, never questioned their scholarship, nor did he make a coherent theory or argument based on linguistic scholarship. His argument is based on trying to denigrate some of the data on the VAT4956 tablet by saying it was tampered with, even though ALL the evidence says otherwise. The rest of his argument is to say that a portion of the lunar data on the VAT4956 tablet is a better fit for a different year, even though the data says otherwise. So he never invokes "linguistic scholarship." He invokes an astronomy program, which he uses inconsistently. He claims NOT to be a professional astronomer, and is therefore invoking AMATEUR status for his claim, not the status of a scholar on which to base his claims. There has never been a problem on that count. The Babylonian data agrees with the chronology of Kings, Chronicles, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah. Individuals might have a specific interpretation that they might WISH had been confirmed by the Babylonian data, but there has never been a contradiction between the Babylonian account and the Bible account. The Babylonian secular data helps to corroborate the Bible account, a fact which can help more people to see the Bible as a trustworthy historical account. This proposal is interesting and is quite similar to what has already been presented tentatively by Allen Smith and some other names associated with his accounts. But it tends to start with a date and then tries to match circumstances to that date -- which is backwards. The Bible doesn't just say it was in Nebuchadnezzar's time that Jerusalem was attacked, but it says it was in his 18th year. It says that the siege was about 10 years prior to that. The Bible account even indicates prior incursions and deportations before the siege. Of course, these other accounts associated with Allen Smith have also tentatively raised the possibility that the Bible scribe is making a mistake, having written down this evidence years after it had occurred, and that the years could belong to the father Nabopolassar. The year 607 could have therefore matched the 19th/18th year of Nabopolassar, not Nebuchadnezzar, he has indicated. Of course the entire purpose of this proposal is to save 607 even if it effectively ends the Judean king on the throne shortly after Josiah's death in 609. It can save, 607, and therefore save 1914, but at what cost?

I suppose that's better than being an irregular Sherlock Holmes.

I'm not attempting to respond to the points you made in response to @Ann O'Maly. Still, I'm glad you pointed out some of the things you did. I think these points are often missed. I think that it's easy for people to think that Furuli has somehow given good evidence that VAT 4956 actually points to 588 as Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year. This would be pretty much the same as saying that 607 is correct because: 588+37-18=607. But 100% of scholars who have studied the tablet believe that the majority of the astronomical dates on the calendar point to 568 as Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year. This would be pretty much the same as saying that 607 is incorrect because 568+37-18=587. I think that a lot of people still don't know that Furuli actually claims that the MOST valuable/critical of the astronomical dates (readings/observations) on this tablet point to 587 as his 18th year, and that the tablet therefore mostly shows that 607 is incorrect. To repeat, the point that is often missed is this: FURULI admits that the most valuable/critical readings on VAT4956 show 587 as the correct date for Jerusalem's destruction. FURULI admits that most valuable/critical readings on VAT4956 show 607 as the incorrect date for the destruction of Jerusalem. I think a lot of people are still surprised that Furuli actually admits this. This is why, even after [incorrectly] claiming that SOME the data on the tablet, the lunar data, fits the WT 607 date, he still has to overcome the MOST valuable and critical of the data, the planetary data. So even after making a claim about the lunar data which proves to be demonstrably false, he still has to claim that the tablet might have been tampered with anyway! How silly is that? If he still has to admit that much of the tablet's data still goes against the WTS 607 date, then why go to the trouble of making a claim that denigrates only a part of the data? If he can't get rid of ALL the data and is stuck with admitting that he still needs a second theory that the text was tampered with, then why worry about the first theory, that only covers a portion? How would anyone know that it wasn't the lunar data that had been tampered with to make them look like they might support the WTS 607 date? (Of course, neither side was actually tampered with, and both sides actually show what Furuli only admits about all the lunar data on one side: that the tablet shows that the WTS 607 date is incorrect.) ------------------------ Imagine how honest you would think I was if I had a coin that had 587 stamped on both sides. One side is clearly and unmistakably stamped 587, but the other side is a bit worn out, so I go around telling people that this coin might actually be from 607. Here's my imaginary conversation about such a coin: YOU: Why do you say that this coin is actually from 607, when everyone who has studied it says that it reads: 587? ME: Because if you look at the worn-out side, and squint just right, you can see that a 5 looks a bit like a 6, and if you put a line through a 0 it can look like an 8, so I think date on the worn-out side of the coin is actually 607. YOU: But if you flip the coin over, it says 587 even bigger and more clearly on that other side. ME: That's because someone in modern times must have tampered with the coin. YOU: Then how do you know they didn't tamper with the worn-out side? ME: Because 1914!

I've had my own comments disallowed specifically for discussing moderation policy, which is often a sensitive subject for moderators. And some for engaging with a poster who appears bent on spamming his or her own blog address, and I'm inadvertently helping them out by discussing their blog. And of course, that might mean that this very response won't last long. But I bring it up anyway because it was in this very thread where @allensmith28 (##?) was minding his own business and got an earful from @tromboneck. (I say, "earful" because it had somethng to do with a corn cob, if I remember correctly.) So, allen was actually the one being "protected" by the moderators. Not that allen needs protecting -- he can handle himself -- and not that tromboneck had really pushed the envelope as far as others have, either. Moderation can never be totally fair, and this is one of the reasons that I often wish it had never been used. When the topic of a discussion forum takes a turn toward the totally absurd, as this one nearly had, it often just means that some people are just too tired or too uncomfortable to deal with it seriously. Silliness sometimes sends a serious message.

In this case, I happen to know that he is not slow as some people consider slowness. I happened to catch a glimpse of some of his more short-lived posts that the moderators disallowed. This particular one, slipped through the crack, as it were.

The BM numbers will have already been written in the reference works he consulted. But this raises the issue of how the same tablet can be assigned different numbers depending on how they were catalogued and the publication they appeared in, and it can make research pretty challenging for somebody initially trying to find their way around this subject I'm afraid that @tromboneck had his mind in the toilet with that particular comment. He was thinking of BM in another sense: (Song of Solomon 5:4, KJV) ". . . and my bowels were moved for him.."

If it makes you feel any better, I detest a lot of the memes that JTR posts, and he's a man. Can I get any credit for that?

Everyone can and will believe what they want, but I thought they looked especially fake for a man who was caught lying and cheating just months before he died. I looked up the first line of the speech in Google and got the following back on the first page. Of the first 6 items returned, 5 of them indicated it was fake on the blurb that is returned with the link. Only one, the Youtube, link didn't say anything about it being fake -- and it was leading people to watch a different speech not related to the one above. These aren't Steve Jobs's last words, but they still managed - BGR.com bgr.com/2016/04/29/steve-jobs-last-words-branson/ Virgin founder reposts fake final words of Steve Jobs - Digital Trends https://www.digitaltrends.com › Social Media The Last Words Of Steve Jobs Are Inspirational As Hell, Even If They ... brobible.com/life/article/steve-jobs-last-words/ A quick search will reveal that these particular words are not actually the Apple founder's final remarks. The last words of Steve Jobs - I have come to the pinnacle ... - YouTube These aren't Steve Jobs's last words, but they still managed to ... - Yahoo https://www.yahoo.com/.../aren-t-steve-jobs-last-words-still-managed-011403254.htm... These aren't Steve Jobs' last words | St John's Anglican Church Reid ... https://www.stjohnscanberra.org/single-post/2016/.../These-arent-Steve-Jobs-last-word... ---------- A couple of the links included this information which was already in the NYT. In late 2011 after Jobs’s passing, his sister Mona Simpson published the eulogy she had given at his memorial service in The New York Times. Her moving account of Jobs’s last words read as follows: But with that will, that work ethic, that strength, there was also sweet Steve’s capacity for wonderment, the artist’s belief in the ideal, the still more beautiful later. Steve’s final words, hours earlier, were monosyllables, repeated three times. Before embarking, he’d looked at his sister Patty, then for a long time at his children, then at his life’s partner, Laurene, and then over their shoulders past them. Steve’s final words were: OH WOW. OH WOW. OH WOW. ------------- Also, should note that it is extremely common for people to make use of a famous "respected" person and then make them give a speech that the person wants others to hear. It's been happening since Bible times. A whole genre of apocrypha is named after it: pseudepigrapha, including, Assumption of Moses, Book(s) of Enoch, Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, etc. It's just like Abraham Lincoln said: You can't believe everything you read on the Internet.

You mean did he say "Oh Wow! Oh Wow! Oh Wow!" ? That seems probable based on confirmation from those close to him. If your loved ones admit that your last words were something that sounds like the side effects of a morphine drip, then this is much more likely than a long, written speech that had no similarity to the kind of person he had been for most of his later life. A quick search on the words of the longer speech on Google returns articles admitting that those close to him know that the speech is not from Steve Jobs.

That's what a lot of people at Bethel must still think. Can't blame them, I guess. But this bit of history is rarely described as it actually happened. But even if it had been predicted, it wouldn't make the theory true. The biggest problem is that 1914 was to usher in an era of peace. Initially 1914 was predicted as a time when there would NOT be war. Here is the prediction as it stood just 20 years prior to 1914, in the Watch Tower, July 15, 1894 p.226: But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble. How many times have you read that in the publications describing what was supposedly predicted "decades in advance"? Instead, because chronology usually accompanies dishonesty, unfortunately, we had this to say at a time when the Society was trying to bolster belief and speculation in 1975: (from the Awake! January 22, 1973, p.8 "Jehovah's witnesses pointed to the year 1914, decades in advance, as marking the start of "the conclusion of the system of things." One of the very reasons that Adventism became so popular in the early 1800's is that a Bible prophecy that had been predicted through chronology in the late 1600's had actually come true near the end of the 1700's. Russell was a strong believer that this prediction had come true, and was therefore also a believer in some of the same predicted prophetic phenomenon that was seen in the early decades of the 1800's. I've described this before, so perhaps I'll find a link to the post rather than describing it again here. It was that amazingly accurate prediction, however, that got so many religions caught up in this search for more dates.

Don't know if this was intentionally offered as support for what I have been saying in recent posts, but I thank you for it anyway. Currently, our faith in the correctness of the year 539 (from which we derive 607) is based on faith in the Babylonian Chronicles and their secular equivalents. 539 and 607 are secular dates, of course, and the weight of evidence is more in the theories of men than what is actually written in God's inspired word, scripture. I agree 100% that the Babylonian Chronicles tell an incomplete story, that has been interpreted. Our faith should be in the Bible without so much reliance on interpretations that are based on theories of men. Well said!

Thanks. That's certainly good to know.

Looking into these facts can be very faith-strengthening. For example, the Bible says that: (1 Thessalonians 5:1) Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. However, if it's really true that we need to be able to trace the times and seasons to 539, but dismiss the same evidence that gave us 539 so that we can claim that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607, then obviously most of us don't have access to the evidence and the reasons why we do this. If we really need to have things written to identify the times and seasons when Jesus began his rule and his parousia, and if this is truly an important part of being on the watch for Jesus' parousia, then we make a mockery out of Paul's words and Jesus' words. We say the opposite of what Paul said above, because I guess we just don't think that what he said has a "ring of truth." We prefer to contradict Paul. So once we understand just a little bit more about the claim that is being made, our faith should be strengthened in the correctness of the Bible.

Now I really wonder again if you have read his book, or if you just see this as a chance to bluster the less informed. You could have just read the chapter titles and known better than to make the statement just quoted. The opening page of Chapter 4, The Absolute Chronology of the Neo-Babylonian Era, says the following: In this chapter it will be demonstrated that the whole Neo-Babylonian period, including the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, may be established as an absolute chronology by the aid of astronomical cuneiform documents found in Mesopotamia. Jonsson goes on for the rest of chapter showing why he considers dates like 597 to have the same status as 539, because they are all part of the same pivotal era. Of course, this also means that one way to double-check that 539 is 'absolute' is to count forward through each king's reign from 597. This also provides an excellent double-check that the entire era is "absolute," using the language of scholars of chronology. As to your claim that there is not enough evidence, there are evidently about 1,600 of these astronomical texts, and about 1,300 of them help us specifically with the timeline from the Babylonian region, with several of them going back to the very centuries we are discussing: The greater part of the remaining texts, however, about 1,300 in number, are non-mathematical and principally observational in nature. The observations date from about 750 B.C.E. to the first century of the Christian era. The great number of observational texts are of the utmost importance for establishing the absolute chronology of this whole period. (p.156) Your claim that there is not enough evidence is wrong, because not only do ALL of these 1,000 plus astronomical-related texts fix the entire B.C.E. period back to about 750, but there are another 20,000+ commercial tablets, contacts and receipts, that also perfectly support the entire period. They are each dated to the reign of the king and some even have valuable additional information that doubly confirms the absolute chronology with an unambiguous relative chronology. Do you have an idea what would be considered enough evidence? Maybe just one more contract tablet and one more astronomial diary? LOL

[Edited to add that Ann O'maly has added information below that indicates that the single, full pdf was not put together by Carl Jonsson and contains spurious text. Therefore, I am removing the 4 links that likely pointed to that version.] http://kristenfrihet.se/english/gtr4/contents.htm http://kristenfrihet.se/english/epage.htm http://kristenfrihet.se/english/gtr4/gt of luke 21.24 .pdf http://kristenfrihet.se/english/artaxerxes.htm http://kristenfrihet.se/english/furuli.htm I searched Google for "Gentile Times Reconsidered 4 pdf" and the above pages came up. I couldn't find a complete single pdf on kristenfrihet.se but the pieces seem to be there. I tried a download from all the others except scribd and all of them returned the full 559 page pdf. I don't know if all of these sites are making it available legally with permission, btw. Use your own judgment.

It's there too, of course (in your 4th edition): Chronicles: Neo-Babylonian, 100-105, 148; nature of, 100; reliability of, 104, 105; BM 21946, 101 (picture), 102, 201-203, 207, 295, 296, 339,340, 342, 343; Nabonidus Chronicle, 102, 103 (with picture); BM 21901, 233; BM 22047, 346 But this sort of begs the whole question about what you have been doing for the last few decades. From what I can see on J-W Discussion, you have apparently made a kind of multi-decade career out of Jonsson-bashing, and yet you don't even know what's in his book? Have you ever read his book? I could quote a dozen other times from J-W Discussion where you talk about how Jonsson fails to do this or that, and now I have to wonder whether any of this has been honest. That's not true either, of course. At the end of this post I'll add an image from page 254 which includes it among all the most important documented activities of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. A longer discussion of how BM 21946 relates to Nebuchadnezzar's 7/8th yr takes up several paragraphs on page 296. An even longer discussion of the importance of BM 21956 as it relates to his 7/8th yr is on page 342 and 343 of Jonsson's book. Here's a portion of pages 342-3: Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Jerusalem during the reign of Jehoiachin is also described in the Babylonian chronicle B.M. 21946. For the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar this chronicle says: From Dec. 598 (or Jan. 597) to March 597 B.C.E.: ”The seventh year: In the month Kislev the king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Hattu. He encamped against the city of Judah and on the second day of the month Adar he captured the city (and) seized (its) king. A king of his own choice he appointed in the city (and) taking the vast tribute he brought it into Babylon.”[68] NebuchadnezzarÂ’s army left Babylon “in the month of Kislev,” which was the ninth month, and seized Jehoiachin “on the second day of the month Adar,” that is, the twelfth month.[69] This means that even if the army left Babylon in the beginning of Kislev (which this year began on December 18, 598 B.C.E., Julian calendar), the interval between the day it left Babylon until the city was captured and its king (Jehoiachin) seized, on the second Adar (which corresponded to March 16, 597), was three months at the most.[70] Footnotes: [67] It is interesting to note that in this first deportation Nebuchadnezzar brought only “some” of the vessels from the temple in Jerusalem to Babylon, and these were not even the “valuable” vessels. This strongly supports the conclusion that the siege of Jerusalem at this time did not end up in the capture of the city. If it did, why did he not take the valuable vessels from the temple? If, on the other hand, the siege was raised because Jehoiakim capitulated and paid a tribute to Nebuchadnezzar, it is quite understandable that Jehoiakim did not include the most valuable vessels in the tribute. [68] A. K. Grayson, op. cit., p. 102. The chronicle is in complete agreement with the description of this siege given in the Bible. (2 Kings 24:8–17; 2 Chronicles 36:9–10.) [69] The Babylonians had a second Ululu (an intercalary month) in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar, thus making Kislev and Adar the tenth and thirteenth months respectively that year, although they were normally the ninth and twelfth calendar months . This fact does not affect the discussion above. [70] If the Babylonian army left Babylon some time after Jehoiachin had ascended the throne, the siege was of very short duration, two months at most and probably less, as the time the army needed to march from Babylon to Jerusalem has to be subtracted from the three months from Kislev to Adar. Such a march took at least one month. It is possible, however, that a part of the army had left Babylon earlier, as 2 Kings 24:10–11 indicates that Nebuchadnezzar arrived at Jerusalem some time after the siege had begun. The reason for the short duration of the siege was JehoiachinÂ’s surrender to Nebuchadnezzar on Adar 2 or March 16, 597 B.C.E., Julian calendar. (2 Kings 24:12) For an excellent discussion of this siege, see William H. Shea, “NebuchadnezzarÂ’s Chronicle and the Date of the Destruction of Lachish III,” in Palestine Exploration Quarterly, No. 111 (1979), pp. 113f. I suspect you are not truly puzzled in the least by his treatment of that point. If you really were you should certainly not try to pass yourself off as any kind of student of chronology. It's the entire Neo-Babylonian period that is now "pivotal" through "absolute" chronological dating. The entire period is known through established, chronometric (calendar) dating. The entire range from Nabopolassar through Cambyses and beyond is considered "absolute" in this sense by chronologists who study this historical period. Yes, it's true that WT "chronology" places the events of 597 in 617. That's easy to understand though completely outside the context of chronology: It's because the writers at the WTS created a never-ending problem for themselves by adding 20 years to 587 to get 607 to force it to fit 1914. So they are stuck adding it to every date prior to 607, too. They clearly haven't yet figured out how or when or if they are going to fix the problem. It's no more about real chronology than 1874 was really one of "God's dates, not ours" just because it was claimed to be such in the Watch Tower publications. But remember, the Watchtower kept 1874 on the books for 64 years, until finally it no longer was one of "God's dates, not ours." That means that for 64 years, 1874 had come from God, and not from any private interpretation: (2 Peter 1:20,21) 20 For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by manÂ’s will, but men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit. The Watchtower didn't fix that particular date problem until 1943, just a year after Rutherford died. Now we know it wasn't about real chronology, but it was a private interpretation after all. Perhaps a hint about why can be found in this quote referencing Rutherford and those who agreed with him. "We understand . . [a person]. . who like Judge Rutherford is permeated with the real Biblical and prophetic spirit. . . ." (g1924, December 17, p.179) Rutherford had a very similar outlook on Russell which kept him from overcoming all of those previously-labeled "God's dates" for many years. That's why the discussion in the May 1922 Watchtower is so interesting in that it points to what Rutherford thinks is at the heart of the chronology problem: it's coming from those who are falling away from the faith they once put in Russell, who had died in 1916. Apparently Fred Franz in 1943 showed he had fallen from the faith he once put in the late Rutherford, who had died in 1942. Apparently, by the late 1970's, many more had fallen away from the faith they had once put in Fred Franz. The 4th edition of Jonsson's book has been further expanded online, by about 130 pages, and this moves the index, too, but the index is still the original one, and the rest of the book, through page 380 is still exactly the same as the printed 4th edition. The index does not reference the added material.

Do you think people will just believe you without checking? Jonsson even has pictures of it. This is from page 101 of Jonsson's book: (Gentile Times Reconsidered, 4 edition). The Babylonian Chronicle BM 21946 This chronicle covers the period from Nabopolassar’s 21st year (605/04 B.C.E.) to Nebuchadnezzar’s 10th year (595/94 B.C.E.). Photo used courtesy of D. J. Wiseman (shown in his Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, Plate VI). Here is from page 102: The extant (actually existing) parts of Chronicles 2-7 cover the following regnal years: TABLE 2: EXTANT PARTS OF THE NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONICLES 2–7 CHRONICLE NO. RULER REGNAL YEARS COVERED No.2 = B.M. 25127 Nabopolassar acc.-year – 3 3 = B.M. 21901 Nabopolassar 10 – 17 4 = B.M. 22047 Nabopolassar 18 – 20 5 = B.M. 21946 Nabopolassar 21 ” ” ” Nebuchadnezzar acc.-year – 10 6 = B.M. 25124 Neriglissar 3 7 = B.M. 35382 Nabonidus 1 – 11 ” ” ” Nabonidus 17 In all, the Neo-Babylonian period (625–539 B.C.E.) includes a total of eighty-seven regnal years. As is seen in the preceding table, less than half of these years are covered by the preserved parts of the chronicles. Yet some important information may be gathered from them. Chronicle 5 (B.M. 21946) shows that Nabopolassar ruled Babylon for twenty-one years, and that he was succeeded by his son Nebuchadnezzar. That part of the text says: For twenty-one years Nabopolassar ruled Babylon. On the eighth day of the month Ab he died. In the month of Elul Nebuchadnezzar (II) returned to Babylon and on the first day of the month he ascended the royal throne in Babylon. Jonsson also mentions it on page 199, 201, 207, 208, 209, 254 (7 times on that page), 296, 315, 338, 339, 342, 347, 349, 506, 512, 514 and 515.

And the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar is not in dispute, either, for it is a date universally recognized as 605 BCE.