JW Insider

Bored today JWI ? As a rule, I am neither obtuse or acute, but that doesn't mean I am always right. By any measure, however, it's always good to try angles of all kinds. I can even try scalene new heights!

What @scholar JW says is true @Anna, You could say that 539, the accession year of Cyrus over Babylon, has the same accuracy as 587, the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar. But you may still not be clear about whether the Bible means Jerusalem was destroyed in the 18th or 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. Of course, we can know that Jerusalem was destroyed in either the 18th or 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, and this is absolutely as certain as knowing that Babylon fell in the "1st" (accession) year of Cyrus. I assume you can probably see through the magical sleight of hand that says that since you only know for certain that it was 586 or 587, then you must believe that that the new "wondrous" date is certainly .... wait for it.....607! Tadaaaaah!

Perhaps I was being obtuse when I was trying to be ...ah... cute, so I will explain from a different angle. If I know 4 engineers and 2 were married and 2 have never been married, then the engineers I know have been married an average of 0.5 times. Although this also works out to 0.500 times, a scientist would say that this level of zeros implies that I have enough data to declare that level of accuracy, which should mean that I know, let's say, 4002 engineers and 2001 were married once, and 2001 have never been married. Only by using that scope of data would I have a right to say 0.500, instead of just 0.5. A good explanation is also found here: http://www.tc3.edu/instruct/sbrown/stat/rounding.htm The significant digits in a number start at the first non-zero digit and end at the last digit. Examples: 1417 has four significant digits, and so do 1.417 and 0.00001417. What about 14.1700? It has six significant digits, not four, because only zeroes at the start of a number are non-significant. Finally, 14.07 has four significant digits. There can be some ambiguity with trailing zeroes in a large whole number. For instance, we quote the average distance from earth to sun as 93 million miles. In that form, the number has two significant digits. (Remember what significant digits mean: they mark the non-“slop” part of the measurement. All we’re saying is that the average distance is 92½ to 93½ million. But suppose we write the number as 93,000,000? Does it now have eight significant digits? Are we saying the average distance is between 92,999,999.5 and 93,000,000.5 miles? Surely not! . . . . . 4800 has two to four significant digits. The 4 and 8 are definitely significant, but just by looking at the number we can’t tell whether it’s accurate to the nearest whole number (4800, four significant digits), to the nearest ten (480x, three significant digits), or to the nearest hundred (48xx, two significant digits). 4800.0 has five significant digits. In the previous example (plain 4800), the two zeroes might indicate precision of measurement or be there simply as place holders. But with 4800.0 the last zero is obviously not needed as a place holder and therefore it must be significant.

True. One big US insurance company calls itself The Rock. (and some actor does too) They could have redeemed their policy. (Psalm 78:35) 35 Remembering that God was their Rock And that the Most High God was their Redeemer.

I think these comments show a lot of insight. Out of every 100 scholars who have taken an interest in this time period prior to 1970, 99% of them have problem never heard of 1914, and yet all 100 of those scholars inadvertently discredited our theory about 1914. However, like @Gone Fishing said, I do think that for JWs and exJWs involved in this discussion, 1914 must be at the heart of the matter. How can it not be? The only reason that we, as JWs, take any interest at all in 607 is because of 1914. The only reason we take any interest in the 70 years itself is because of 1914. The only reason we discuss Daniel 4 is 1914. A year has never gone by since the 1900's, when the WTS did not mention 1914 several times. We already have 68 years of searchable Watchtowers in the WT CD since 1950, and we can easily see the importance. No other "prophetic" date (BCE) is considered even a tenth as important to us as those which are said to support 1914. For example: We date Adam's creation to 4026 B.C.E. and Watchtowers since 1950 have mentioned this date only about 18 times in only 13 different Watchtower magazines. (10 of the 13 were in the period from 1966 to 1975). We date the beginning of the 70 weeks of years to 455 C.E. and this has been mentioned in about 45 different Watchtowers since 1950. We date the end of the 70 weeks of years to 36 C.E. and this has been mentioned in about 95 different Watchtowers. 1914 of course gets mentioned several times a year, often in most of the Watchtower magazine issues that are published in any particular year: nearly 4,024 mentions since 1950. 607 has been mentioned in at least one Watchtower per year (usually several times a year) in every year since 1950 (except 2010): over 850 times. 539, of course, is mentioned as the "evidence" for 607, but with only about 250 mentions since 1950. So, you make a good point, Ann, about scholars, but the subtext among JWs and ex-JWs is always going to be related to 1914. This was pretty obvious when members of the Writing Department and researchers at Bethel quickly realized that if they questioned 607, they would likely be questioned themselves with a view to being disfellowshipped for apostasy. If you questioned 607, it was considered obvious that you must also be questioning 1914. Anyone could connect the dots. In fact, when Carl Jonsson's manuscript arrived at Brooklyn Bethel, two of the writers told me it was called "the hot potato" by several others because no one wanted it to land on their desk. They knew it was a Lose-Lose situation. For months it just remained on a shelf. People made excuses why they didn't have the time to address it. A lot of people who don't take the time to look into such things don't realize that there is always some "Biblical" method to take prophecy and find a way to interpret it to reach somewhere into every single century, perhaps every single decade. Russell and various adventist-minded predecessors had been able to single out every decade since the 1780's to the 1900's with time-based prophecies. There was so much repetition, intertwining, and "ring of truth" about such dates, under Russell, that they soon became "God's dates." (1874, etc.) After Rutherford dropped almost every one of those old time prophecies, the only ones remaining that could reach into his own century (to 1914) were the 7 times of Leviticus and Daniel. After the 7 times of Leviticus was dropped, Daniel 4 was all the WT had left to reach into the 20th century. But look around the Internet, and you'll see that there is still enough numerology waiting to be extracted from Bible prophecies to reach every decade in the 2000's too. A little bit of 2520 days here, and a little bit of 2300 days there, and I'm sure there would be fodder for the year 2333, 2553, 2370, 2590, if this system could last that long. And if those methods ran out, there's always the potential claim someone could make that it was only unreliable secular chronology that told us Jesus was born in 2 B.C.E., when reliable "Bible chronology" obviously puts his birth closer to 100 C.E., then 200 C.E. etc., etc., as needed. This is why, for myself, I'm not so concerned that 586 and 587 are the most reliable dates for the destruction of Jerusalem. It's only because of what the Christian Greek Scriptures say about chronology that I could still not have accepted the entire 1914 theory. I couldn't accept it for scriptural reasons, even if Jerusalem had actually been destroyed on June 28, 607 or July 28, 607 B.C.E. and it was proven to be 2520 years to the day before Archduke Ferdinand was shot or WWI started in 1914.

This is a simple statement and really answers @Anna's question. The rest of the post should make it clearer however that "There is nothing wrong with the WT counting back 70 years from 539" as long as the WT admits that you can't honesty use the term "539" without also accepting that "587" is the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. I have no problem starting the 70 years in 609 or even 607, but I can't honestly use the term 609 or 607 unless I'm referring to a time more than 20 years before Jerusalem was destroyed. But it would also be dishonest of me to make a claim that "Bible chronology" would place Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year in the year 607. If you have been told 1,000 times that this idea shows that we put "Bible" chronology over "secular" chronology then the whole idea will have a "ring of truth" -- but it's still dishonest.

Dare I ask why you think this is?

There is nothing wrong with the WT counting back 70 years from 539. I believe that the 70 years starts from 70 years prior to 539, too. And of course, there is a definite connection between the 70 years given to Babylon and the chance for Judea to pay off its sabbaths. So Judea also pays off its sabbaths during the desolation of the 70 years Jehovah gave authority to Babylon. To me the Bible seems pretty clear about ending the 70 years when the kingdom of Persia takes over and not one or two years later, as the Watchtower suggests. That's because of what the 70 years really are, 70 years for Babylon's dominion, not 70 years of total desolation of Judea. However, I am not a stickler for all Biblical numbers having to be exactly counted the way we immediately think we should count them. When the Bible says a man's years are 70 or 80 (lifespan) I don't think that this means no one has ever lived to be 82 or died naturally at age 68, or 75. When the Bible says Jesus was in the grave for 3 days, I don't think that we need be concerned that it was all of Saturday, but perhaps only a few short hours on Friday afternoon and Sunday early morning. So, if the WT has good reason to believe it ran from 607 to 537, I would be very happy with that. But here is the snag. 539 is not a Biblical date. It's a secular date. The reasons we know that this secular date is accurate are here: because it's 66 years from Nebuchadnezzar's first year, because it's 9 years before Cambyses' first year, because it's 23 years after Evil Merodach's first year, because it's 21 years after Neriglissar's first year, because it's 17 years after Labasi-Marduk's short reign because it's 17 years after Nabonidus' first year because it's 87 years after Nabopolassar's first year In other words the only reason we know 539 is accurate is because we know the lengths of the kings' reigns from Nabopolassar to Cambyses, and a bit beyond (in both directions). We should never speak of the year 539 unless we are accepting that it is a date 66 years after the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, for example. In other words, if we say that we believe we can use the date 539 for the accession year of Cyrus over Babylon, then we can only say this if we believe that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 587. --------------- Another reason we know that 587 and 539 are accurate is because there are not just one or two, but DOZENS of points throughout the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings where we have astronomical evidence that points to only one particular year. In every case there is no question or contradiction about all of them fitting perfectly with each other. Not all data is still readable, of course, but all that is fits the timeline without contradicting the other forms of evidence. Another reason we know that the 587 and 539 dates are accurate is because there are literally tens of thousands of clay tablets that have no particular political or religious purpose that just happen to coincide with exactly the same lengths of each kings' reign as the later "king lists" that were copied and retained in much later years. Also, the clay tablets only match the same number of years of each king's reign that also coincidentally happens to fit all the other evidence. Another reason we know that the 587 and 539 dates are accurate is because there is a second thread of information that runs through hundreds of the clay tablets which provides a second witness by giving us the names of another parallel "dynasty" of the generations of the house of Egibi, who were something like the CEO's or bank presidents. They also happen to confirm the exact lengths of all the kings in the same way that coincides with all other forms of evidence. [This form of cross-checking in enormously helpful, especially when a loan is known to have started in a certain year of one king and one "bank president," and then end in a certain year of the next king. Also if a certain "bank president" is always active for every transaction that happens in the early part of a particular year of a particular king, but the son of that "bank president" is said to be the new "bank president" for the remainder of that king's year and even into the first few years of the next king, we have a whole new way to validate the order of the kings and the lengths of their reigns. It becomes similar to the way, in Egyptian chronology, when the records of special bulls were kept along with their ages and under which king's year they were born, and under which king's year they died.] Another reason we know that the 587 and 539 dates are accurate is because of a couple of kings' lists that were discovered to be contemporary with almost the entire set of Neo-Babylonian kings. These are not late versions of kings' lists like those that survive through Ptolemy's works -- which also happen to confirm the Neo-Babylonian period of lengths of kings' reigns, with no contradictions to any of the other pieces of evidence. ---------------- By the same token, if we don't believe that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year was 587, then we have no right to speak of the first [accession] year of Cyrus over Babylon as 539. Simply put, using the date 539 means that we accept the same dating system that puts Neb's 19th year in 587. It would be dishonest to speak of 539, if we didn't believe that. Also, because Jewish and Babylonian years don't start on January 1st and end on December 31st, it's a little more proper to say that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year starts in 587 and ends in 586. Also since Nebuchadnezzar became king late in 605, this was only a partial year, or accession year, and his "official" first year was therefore 604. Therefore by that count, 587 started his 18th year official year, but the Bible often uses a method where the accession year is counted and with that method this would be called his 19th year. *Note: some of the years and lengths mentioned above are going to be one year off due to avoiding the lengthiness of precise language accounting for the difference in cardinal/ordinal - accession/non-accession.

OK. Good. Glad to be back on track.

It's possible that "most" of them are "Witness kids" if you mean just over 50% which is "most" in a technical sense. But when you look at the baptisms at assemblies it seems in my experience to at least slightly favor those converted from outside Witness families -- although quite a few do often have connections to Witness families: cousins and other relatives.

No. The author is saying that VAT 4956 does matter, and therefore it should be precisely redated to his own preferences which are about 200 years off from Grayson, P&D, Furuli, COJ, Watchtower, scholar JW, etc. No. The author does not believe these are the possible reference sets of dates for Nebuchadnezzar's reign indicated by VAT4956. Nor for any of the other sets of dates you mentioned, either. The quoted page (35) was indicating dates that the author does NOT accept. You agree with this right? Didn't know you or I or anyone else was looking for a "gotcha" moment. LOL. But it should be obvious that VAT 4956 cannot actually agree with all possible dates, including 607/606. I've never heard of anyone who would think of publishing such a claim, have you? What skeptics? scholar JW? Foreigner? you? Thompson? If you are talking about VAT 4956, the Watchtower says: *** w11 11/1 p. 25 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two *** Scholars say that all these positions occurred in 568/567 B.C.E., which would make the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar II, when he destroyed Jerusalem, 587 B.C.E The positions mentioned on the tablet cover both the years 567 and 568; not just one year or the other. I'd be skeptical of any skeptic who didn't understand this point. From what I can tell, the misunderstanding must stem from this claim by @Foreigner: It might look like that's true if you just read a page or two, but if you continue reading the context you will see that the author does NOT find the 19 years accurate for 586BC to 605BC. He thinks both those dates are off by a very specific amount that begins just over 200 years later.

That's the first time I've ever heard of anyone supposing those are two different alternative dates for VAT4956. Rolf Furuli, for example, wrote a book that claimed that VAT4956 could refer to both 587 AND 588 for its lunar observations, but admits that it clearly refers to both 568 AND 567 for the other astronomical observations. No one I have ever heard of thinks that VAT 4956 is supposed to be read to coincide with 587 instead of 588. LOL. You seem to be having a lot of fun. Let's review: Your claim was this from your quote repeated here: I claimed that you were correct, in that everyone is entitled to apply whatever standards they wish. But if anyone wants to publish their reasons or try to convince others with their evidence, then they SHOULD be willing to have it scrutinized. You just said they should be entitled to NOT have it scrutinized. I disagree. For example: you should have the right to scrutinize what I say you should have the right to scrutinize what Grayson says you should have the right to scrutinize what COJ says you should have the right to scrutinize what the Watchtower says Furuli should have the right to scrutinize what COJ says Darren Thompson should have the right to scrutinize what Furuli says I should have the right to scrutinize what COJ says The Watchtower should have the right to scrutinize what Ptolemy says I agree with this, and I think most Witnesses are trained to agree with it. Even though you say you don't, I think even you agree with it. So I had to wonder why you were indicating that this author apparently had a right NOT to be scrutinized. Surely everyone, published or not, is entitled to their opinion about someone else's published work. Exactly. It seemed you were the only one who thought that was even a question, however, based on your odd claim that a particular author should not be scrutinized. At least we can now see you don't really believe it. For me, however, that whole diversion about "opinion and scrutiny"just seemed like a contrived red herring, because the question I was addressing was what you asked Ann about the relevance of VAT4956.

LOL. I never thought or claimed that you were referring the 1st edition, that's why I made that clear from the very start and have continued to make it clear. The claim I made is still true. I don't think there was any misunderstanding even on the part of those who wanted to make it look like they were misunderstanding. Red herrings are often dangled in such discussions when facts become uncomfortable. Nothing out of the ordinary or unexpected. It's been a large part of our own Watchtower's history on the 607 teaching for decades, which is why it was a good thing that it showed up here, too, in an even more blatant example. Thank you for seeing this. True. Your understanding of the author's adjustment doesn't explain why I have assumed this author's interpretation of events is not better than any other interpretation given out there. This is why I have explained the reasons quite separate from your own understanding of them. I only assume this author's interpretation is no better based on the author's own explanation of them. His idea is a schema, required to make a certain interpretation of the 70 weeks of years and Ezekiel's 390 years work in a way that tries to override all evidence. In the second edition, he pretends there is only one major piece of secular evidence to overcome, when this is obviously false. Ah! Now we are getting somewhere. This is a claim most people, especially Witnesses, believe is false. You and I probably both believe that everyone is entitled to think and have faith in whatever standard they wish to apply. I'm all for that. But everyone is NOT entitled to publish that standard and claim it's true "without having it scrutinized." If anyone puts an idea out there, just like you or me, they are really asking for it to be scrutinized. This is what I welcome. It's why I'm here. And yes, the secular reasoning and interpretations through secular reasoning will have "faults" of their own, but everyone should admit that, and it's often the very basis for such scrutiny.

Because the Bible tells us so. One of the theme scriptures either directly quoted or directly referenced in most of the books of the Christian Greek Scriptures was Psalm 110. (Psalm 110:1-4) Jehovah declared to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.” 2 Jehovah will extend the scepter of your power out of Zion, saying: “Go subduing in the midst of your enemies.” 3 Your people will offer themselves willingly on the day of your military force. In splendid holiness, from the womb of the dawn, You have your company of young men just like dewdrops. 4 Jehovah has sworn an oath, and he will not change his mind: “You are a priest forever In the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek!” We merely have to look at what time period this was applied to, in order to see if the four horseman are riding at this time. During what time period (since when) has Jesus been sitting at Jehovah's right hand? Obviously, it was from the time he was resurrected, back around 33 C.E. Just days after Jesus' resurrection Peter said: (Acts 2:29-35) . . .David, that he died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath that he would seat one of his offspring on his throne, 31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he forsaken in the Grave nor did his flesh see corruption. 32 God resurrected this Jesus, and of this we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore, because he was exalted to the right hand of God and received the promised holy spirit from the Father, he has poured out what you see and hear. 34 For David did not ascend to the heavens, but he himself says, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand 35 until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”’ So Jesus was seated on the throne at the right hand of God at his resurrection, which is confirmed by many other scriptures. We can even see from Paul's commentary on the verse that the term sitting at God's right hand is the equivalent of "ruling as king" which would explain why Jesus was also called King of Kings in the first century. (1 Corinthians 15:25) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. So Jesus has been ruling as king since 33 in the midst of his enemies. And what enemies has he been ruling in the midst of? Paul adds: (1 Corinthians 15:24-27) . . .when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing. 27 For God “subjected all things under his feet.”. . . So he has been ruling in the midst of the worst enemy, Death, awaiting the time associated with the thousand-year reign when God has finally put all enemies under his feet, including "Death." This is the same image we have in Revelation when we see Jesus given a crown (ruling) and going out conquering in the midst of this worst enemy, death by violence/war, death by famine, death by pestilence, etc. And it is obvious that Jesus is still waiting until God has finally put Death under his footstool, which is still in the future -- therefore Jesus is still riding and conquering at this time, until death is swallowed up forever: (1 Corinthians 15:54-57) 54 But when this which is corruptible puts on incorruption and this which is mortal puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will take place: “Death is swallowed up forever.” 55 “Death, where is your victory? Death, where is your sting?” 56 The sting producing death is sin, and the power for sin is the Law. 57 But thanks to God, for he gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ! (Revelation 20:13, 14) 13 And the sea gave up the dead in it, and death and the Grave gave up the dead in them, and they were judged individually according to their deeds. 14 And death and the Grave were hurled into the lake of fire. . . .

I'll guess it was Egypt. In Genesis 1, it was Jehovah, of course. (Then the first family when they were told to have in dominion all the animals and vegetation on earth.) Then in Genesis 6, it looked like the Nephilim and ilk might have constituted a world power just prior to the Flood. Then, in Genesis 11 it seemed to be starting from Nimrod in Shinar (Babel), but that was broken up in time. (Just as the wickedness in Noah's day was broken up.) In Genesis 12:10 we have Abraham depending on the "world power" of Egypt to obtain food during a famine. So I think this is the first "world power" to be directly associated with Jehovah's people. (Genesis 12:10) 10 Now a famine arose in the land, and Aʹbram went down toward Egypt to reside there for a while, . . . At the next famine, Jehovah promises survival independent of Egypt: (Genesis 26:1-3) 26 Now there was a famine in the land, in addition to the first famine that occurred in the days of Abraham, so that Isaac went to A·bimʹe·lech king of the Phi·lisʹtines, in Geʹrar. 2 Then Jehovah appeared to him and said: “Do not go down to Egypt. Dwell in the land that I designate to you. 3 Reside as a foreigner in this land, and I will continue with you and bless you because to you and to your offspring I will give all these lands,. . . And, then, of course a later famine has Jehovah's people directly involved within the world power of Egypt: (Genesis 37:36) 36 Now the Midʹi·an·ites sold him in Egypt to Potʹi·phar, a court official of Pharʹaoh and the chief of the guard. (Genesis 39:1, 2) . . .Now Joseph was taken down to Egypt, and an Egyptian named Potʹi·phar, a court official of Pharʹaoh and chief of the guard, bought him from the Ishʹma·el·ites who had taken him down there. 2 But Jehovah was with Joseph. As a result, he became successful and was put over the house of his master, the Egyptian. (Genesis 41:29-33) 29 “There are to be seven years of great abundance in all the land of Egypt. 30 But seven years of famine will certainly arise after them, and all the abundance in the land of Egypt will certainly be forgotten, and the famine will exhaust the land. 31 And the previous abundance in the land will not be remembered because of the famine afterward, for it will be very severe. 32 The dream was given twice to Pharʹaoh because the matter has been firmly established by the true God, and the true God will soon carry it out. 33 “So now let Pharʹaoh look for a man who is discreet and wise and place him over the land of Egypt.

We know exactly what it is. In Luke's account Jesus paralleled it with the encroachment of Rome around the city of Jerusalem. (Luke 21:20-24) 20 “However, when you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. . . .24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. Rome would ultimately destroy the city and temple itself, the seat of the very earthly organization that had represented Jehovah's holy people, his holy nation. The Bible never says that there is a second fulfillment, but it doesn't have to. We know from the rest of scripture that the application is for all of us to continue to be on the watch, because the worldly powers continue to encroach upon us. The end can come at any time, and waiting on some specific action to occur with the United Nations or some other entity could end up misleading us if we are trying to "divine" how close the end is based on what happens to worldly entities around us.

The opening bell at 9:30 at the New York Stock Exchange is a more religious experience for a lot of New Yorkers.

I was assigned to give a Manhattan tour to several of the new Gilead classes around the period from 1977-1981. There were two churches on the tour, and one (St. Patrick's) we would enter if there was not a major event going on at the time. About half the class would not enter and I was told to expect this and just let them know it was considered to be completely up to them, and to please stay nearby if they were not comfortable. Often the instrumental organ or choir music was beautiful and a couple times I heard it mentioned that even those who went in felt bad for enjoying it.

I should have mentioned that the Yearbook practice has not been using the peak-to-peak increase as the official increase or decrease from year to year, but only uses the average-to-average increase over the previous year. Based on the information and trends provided by the last few years, it is possible to guess fairly closely. My guess is here, in red. I'm guessing that the average publishers will be 8,211,391 based on a formula that would usually make an estimate within a quarter-percent. I adjusted it up slightly based on the better than usual jump in baptisms, so that the estimated increase will probably reach 1%

The peak publishers in 2016 was 8,340,347, so this represents a 1.4% increase in publishers, peak-to-peak. [per jw.org:] 2016 Grand Totals Branches of Jehovah’s Witnesses: 89 Number of Lands Reporting: 240 Total Congregations: 119,485 Worldwide Memorial Attendance: 20,085,142 Memorial Partakers Worldwide: 18,013 Peak of Publishers in Kingdom Service: 8,340,847 Average Publishers Preaching Each Month: 8,132,358 Percentage of Increase Over 2015: 1.8 Total Number Baptized: 264,535 Average Auxiliary Pioneer Publishers Each Month: 459,393 Average Pioneer Publishers Each Month: 1,157,017 Total Hours Spent in Field: 1,983,763,754 Average Bible Studies Each Month: 10,115,264

Then your observation would be a provocative one just like ANN’s. I can only suggest that you try not to feel provoked whenever someone makes an observation. Actually, you must have misunderstood, because that's completely false. I made the observation that the author wants to move the date of VAT 4956 by 200 years from the 2nd Edition, not the first edition you are claiming I got it from. Using the link, I noticed that I could not easily find out the exact date the author wished to assign to VAT 4956. Although there was enough information to detect it, it might not have been easy to follow the logic, and it might have looked like just an opinion. Since it was easy to find the exact number spelled out in the first edition, I knew this would make the point easier to explain and follow. At any rate, I can't help but see how clearly your misunderstandings have already been answered -- multiple times. So I'm only responding at this point in case of confusion to others. I wasn't too concerned with the first question that @Foreigner asked @scholar JW. References to VAT 4956 being "wrong by about 200 years" are also there in the first edition, and the author therefore sees it as "the most important astronomical artifact" to overcome (p.7). So it remains a part of the subtext, even for page 35, in that first post. However, I was responding to another question that Foreigner asked as follows . . . . Foreigner was evidently under the impression that "this wasn't adjusted" not realizing evidently that it was adjusted. Not true at all. In fact, I showed exactly how the author's calculation for VAT 4956 was made exactly to fit the theory described and exactly how it fit in to the theory mentioned on page 35. Yes, these are the standard dates that the author never agrees with on any pages of the book in any edition. And if you are asking, yes, he also thinks that 605-586=19. But that doesn't matter because he thinks that Jerusalem was destroyed in 390 BC. And he also thinks that the Jews remained in Babylon for only 49 years. (But he also says that they were returned after only 40 years in 350 BC, rather than 539/8.)

Ask for 3 wishes?

As you indicate, it all depends on the value of the evidence. For some reason the Watchtower writers thought they were dependent only on Ptolemy for many years and thought that they could speak about how accurate Ptolemy was when they liked a date, and then denigrated Ptolemy as inaccurate when they didn't like a date. Also, for some time, especially with the early 1960's release of a public talk outline on the "Gentile Times," the Watchtower, perhaps inadvertently, began a kind of competition between VAT 4956 and BM 33066, by often mentioning how this tablet proved that Cyrus' first year was 539. (In the talk outline, it was not called BM 33066, but "Strm Kambys 400" which speakers just called "Strom Cambyses" for some reason. I heard the talk from 3 different speakers over the years.) But it turned out that every possible way in which attempts were made to denigrate VAT 4956 would have just as troublesome, if not more so, for BM 33066. More recently, this has been admitted, better in "Insight" than in the "Aid" book, and better, even in the infamous 2011 articles where Furuli's roughshod ride over the VAT 4956 evidence somehow went unchecked. *** w11 10/1 p. 28 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One *** Confirmation by a cuneiform tablet: A Babylonian astronomical clay tablet (BM 33066) confirms the date of Cyrus’ death in 530 B.C.E. Though this tablet contains some errors regarding the astronomical positions, it contains the descriptions of two lunar eclipses that the tablet says occurred in the seventh year of Cambyses II, the son and successor of Cyrus. These are identified with lunar eclipses visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E., thus pointing to the spring of 523 B.C.E. as the beginning of Cambyses’ seventh year. That would make his first regnal year 529 B.C.E. So Cyrus’ last year would have been 530 B.C.E., making 539 B.C.E. his first year of ruling Babylon. Not that there is any real reason to doubt the overall value of either VAT 4956 or BM 33066 in helping to confirm the dates for the Neo-Babylonian/Persian empire. But if the same kind of looseness of interpretation and inaccurate analysis had been allowed on BM 33066 that the Watchtower publications (and Furuli) had already imposed on VAT 4956, then this tablet would be considered to be of even less value than the already denigrated VAT 4956.

This idea that the desolation was only 50 years is not the right way to look at it anyway in my opinion. It comes from the same kind of thinking that the Watchtower used when the researchers realized that the 70 years of desolation of Tyre might have lasted less than 34 years. (That's sometimes 54 years in Watchtower-speak) Or even less than that for the island-city itself. *** it-2 p. 531 Tyre *** Nebuchadnezzar II besieged the city. From a military standpoint, after many years it might have seemed futile to continue. But he persevered until Tyre fell at the end of 13 years, thus fulfilling the Bible prophecy that had named him as its conqueror.—Eze 26:7-12. *** ip-1 chap. 19 pp. 253-254 pars. 21-23 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre *** Isaiah goes on to prophesy: “It must occur in that day that Tyre must be forgotten seventy years, the same as the days of one king.” (Isaiah 23:15a) Following the destruction of the mainland city by the Babylonians, the island-city of Tyre will “be forgotten.” True to the prophecy, for the duration of “one king”—the Babylonian Empire—the island-city of Tyre will not be an important financial power. Jehovah, through Jeremiah, includes Tyre among the nations that will be singled out to drink the wine of His rage. He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble. What will then happen to Tyre? Isaiah continues: “At the end of seventy years it will happen to Tyre as in the song of a prostitute: ‘Take a harp, go around the city, O forgotten prostitute. Do your best at playing on the strings; make your songs many, in order that you may be remembered.’ And it must occur at the end of seventy years that Jehovah will turn his attention to Tyre, and she must return to her hire and commit prostitution with all the kingdoms of the earth upon the surface of the ground.”—Isaiah 23:15b-17. Following the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C.E., Phoenicia becomes a satrapy of the Medo-Persian Empire. The Persian monarch, Cyrus the Great, is a tolerant ruler. Under this new rulership, Tyre will resume her former activity and try hard to regain recognition as a world commercial center—just as a prostitute who has been forgotten and has lost her clientele seeks to attract new clients by going around the city, playing her harp and singing her songs. Will Tyre succeed? Yes, Jehovah will grant her success. In time, the island-city will become so prosperous that toward the end of the sixth century B.C.E., [520 B.C.E.] the prophet Zechariah will say: “Tyre proceeded to build a rampart for herself, and to pile up silver like dust and gold like the mire of the streets.”—Zechariah 9:3. The 13 years of the "Siege of Tyre" is usually dated from 586–573 BC. In fact, I'm sure you have noticed that the Babylonian Chronicle doesn't mention that Nebuchadnezzar was overtaking Jerusalem in 587/6 only mentioning Nebuchadnezzar at the siege of Jerusalem in 598/7 which was 11 years earlier. This makes sense in light of the most probable time for the preparations for the campaign against Tyre. This is also in accord with the testimony of Scripture which tells us that Nebuchadnezzar didn't show up for the breaking of Jerusalem's wall in the fourth month and burning of the temple in the seventh month. (2 Kings 25:8-12) 8 In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. 9 He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; he also burned down the house of every prominent man. 10 And the walls surrounding Jerusalem were pulled down by the entire Chal·deʹan army that was with the chief of the guard. 11 Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took into exile the rest of the people who were left in the city, the deserters who had gone over to the king of Babylon, and the rest of the population. 12 But the chief of the guard left some of the poorest people of the land to serve as vinedressers and as compulsory laborers. You will notice, too, that if you truly believe the Bible account, that you also cannot claim that the country was left completely desolate, without an inhabitant, at the time when the city and temple were desolated. Nebuzaradan left some of the poorest people to be vinedressers and compulsory laborers. A much more sensible way to look at the prophecy, which fits all the scriptures is to see that Babylon was given 70 years of ascendancy in order to inflict desolations and deportations and destruction upon Judea and Jerusalem which would finally result in the complete desolation she deserved during that 70 year period. Part of the punishment was the fear that Babylon began to inflict upon them immediately, knowing that one of Babylon's armies under Nebuchadnezzar was already in the area of Hattu-land (which would include Judea) causing destruction and desolation even before he became king in 605 B.C.E. In this sense, of course, the Watchtower is absolutely right that the 70 years of desolation began around 607. Babylon's reputation after 609 B.C.E. was unavoidable and, as said before, even the fear that caused fleeing to Egypt and other places was included as part of the punishment upon Judea. Note: (Leviticus 26:33-38) 33 And I will scatter you among the nations, and I will unsheathe a sword after you; and your land will be made desolate, and your cities will be devastated. 34 “‘At that time the land will pay off its sabbaths all the days it lies desolate, while you are in the land of your enemies. At that time the land will rest, as it must repay its sabbaths. 35 All the days it lies desolate it will rest, because it did not rest during your sabbaths when you were dwelling on it. 36 “‘As for those who survive, I will fill their hearts with despair in the lands of their enemies; and the sound of a blowing leaf will cause them to flee, and they will flee like someone running from the sword and fall without anyone pursuing them. 37 They will stumble over one another like those running from a sword, though no one is pursuing them. You will not be able to resist your enemies. 38 You will perish among the nations, and the land of your enemies will consume you. Another point that some people think is the key is this idea that Isaiah adds: that 70 years is the "days of a king" which is taken to mean the "days of a kingdom" in the "Isaiah" book. The book correctly points out that this is what Jeremiah meant in Jeremiah 25. This might imply that there was an expression whereby the term "70 years" had a kind of figurative meaning, implying that empires around these parts would rise and fall after just 3 generations for example. This point is made in another scripture that emphasizes that the time period was about Babylon's domination, not the exact length of time of Judea's decline: (Jeremiah 27:5-8) 5 ‘It is I who made the earth, mankind, and the beasts that are on the surface of the earth by my great power and by my outstretched arm; and I have given it to whomever I please. 6 And now I have given all these lands into the hand of my servant King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon; even the wild beasts of the field I have given him to serve him. 7 All the nations will serve him and his son and his grandson until the time for his own land comes, when many nations and great kings will make him their slave.’ 8 “‘“‘If any nation or kingdom refuses to serve King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon and refuses to put its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, I will punish that nation with the sword, with famine, and with pestilence,’ declares Jehovah, ‘until I have finished them off by his hand.’ It wasn't literally Nebuchadnezzar's son and grandson that followed him in a physical sense, but in any case, the nations would serve "him" until "his" time also came a couple generations down the line and the "yoke of Babylon" (after 70 years) was broken, even though some nations, like Tyre, may have only come directly under that yoke for 30 to 50 years. Of course, if you claim that Tyre came under that yoke from the start of the siege against it, then you would need to admit that Jerusalem came under that yoke 11 years earlier, too.

Which question was that? Whose earlier claim of 605 to 586? Foreigner's or the author of the book? As you can probably see now, the author of the book was only admitting that these were the standard dates that scholars agree to. The author wanted to move them by about 200 years. This was done for the same purpose I mentioned earlier when I said that many people look for a scheme wherein Adam was 6000 years ago, Abraham was 4000 years ago, David was 3000 years ago, and Jesus was 2000 years ago, with a Millennium starting before the 7000 years of a "Great Week" is completed. In addition, some people want Nebuchadnezzar to be 200 years later, so that with Nebuchadnezzar's taking of Jehoiachin as the starting point, they can make the "70 weeks" of years work out from that point. Some pick a date so that they can start it with Cyrus' Edict, which seems a better fit for Daniel's words: (Daniel 9:25) You should know and understand that from the issuing of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Mes·si?ah the Leader, there will be 7 weeks, also 62 weeks.. . ." All this is related to what the author states on page 39 attached at the end of this post. If you'll notice, all these attempts to denigrate the evidence are exactly what the Watchtower (and Furuli, etc) have attempted to do with the same evidence because of an interpretation of the 70 years. In Thompson's case it was about an interpretation of the 70 weeks of years. In both cases, they seem to have forgotten that even without VAT4956, the evidence is still overwhelming that VAT4956 would put Nebuchadnezzar's19th year at 587/6. Not at all. There is no dilemma for either secular chronology or Bible chronology. They match up perfectly well. There is so much evidence for this particular time period from so many different angles that you can use VAT4956 and get the answer, or skip VAT4956 and get the same answer. There never was a dilemma. page 39 from Darren Thompson's book: Â Â