The peak publishers in 2016 was 8,340,347, so this represents a 1.4% increase in publishers, peak-to-peak.

[per jw.org:]

On 12/15/2017 at 2:08 PM, Foreigner said:

Or are you now suggesting the year’s 605/4BC and 5867/6 are incorrect? Then, the methodology being used of inductive and deductive has no massive exclusion to the timetable.

On 12/16/2017 at 4:37 PM, DefenderOTT said:

VAT4956 is not that important, unless the research being made, considers 568BC to 587BC while excluding 567-586BC.

20 hours ago, DefenderOTT said:

On 12/16/2017 at 6:17 PM, JW Insider said:

As you can probably see now, the author of the book was only admitting that these were the standard dates that scholars agree to.

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.

20 hours ago, DefenderOTT said:

Your opinion is based on the author’s book: The Fourth Day: Why the Bible Is Historically Accurate, while Foreigner’s question is on the same author’s book: Why the Bible Is Historically Accurate (2nd Ed.)

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.

20 hours ago, DefenderOTT said:

The author is not looking at VAT4956 on the posted question, by foreigner.

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 . . . .

On 12/14/2017 at 6:13 PM, Foreigner said:

What would the revision of VAT 4956 from 568/7 to 364 have to do with the timeline in question? That wasn’t adjusted.

Foreigner was evidently under the impression that "this wasn't adjusted" not realizing evidently that it was adjusted. 

20 hours ago, DefenderOTT said:

Then, the author’s opinion runs independently from you’re observation. The author then makes a calculation for VAT4956 that would be “separate” from that theory.

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.

20 hours ago, DefenderOTT said:

Now, isn't 604/5BC and 586/7BC standard dates?

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?

11 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

Does it denigrate the evidence to present more evidence and, even if so, might denigrating inferior evidence in favor of superior evidence be preferable to not denigrating?

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.

11 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

I think it might be more disrespectful to ignore so much of  what's in the Bible, for instance, that Judah "will be desolated for 70 years" and then in effect, claim 50 years is 'close enough'? 

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.

1 hour ago, DefenderOTT said:

Then I would have to ask the same question the poster, (Foreigner) made. These pages show a preference not associated with his earlier claim of 605BC-586BC.

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.

1 hour ago, DefenderOTT said:

VAT4956 is not that important, unless the research being made, considers 568BC to 587BC while excluding 567-586BC. Then, the dilemma for secular chronology continues.

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:

 

 

2 hours ago, DefenderOTT said:

20 hours ago, scholar JW said:

this  book and I would have to read it entirely rather than comment on a single page however interesting it may appear, I sourced the book from Amazon Books and I am not impressed by it at this stage.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=GGM2HAuQv3AC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Why+the+Bible+Is+Historically+Accurate+2006&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi324r2-47YAhVB44MKHVY2DE4Q6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=Why the Bible Is Historically Accurate 2006&f=false

Unfortunately the most relevant parts of the book are not available for free on Google Books. His first edition, however, will return the relevant passages that would date VAT 4956 to 364 BCE (see also 374 BCE). You can see those passages here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=J44xsGrt9oUC&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&dq=Darren+Thompson+The+Fourth+Day&source=bl&ots=ZJGNisimOJ&sig=gR-IZeCylTJhQb5xvVamsrubwkQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVzr36jY_YAhUJ2oMKHZYnB0EQ6AEIXDAN#v=onepage&q=VAT&f=false

A passage is quoted from this first edition here: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/messiahtruth/wine-and-passover-t2842.html . Note especially the excellent summary of the Neo-Babylonian period by ProfBenTziyyon on the same page just above the quote from Thompson. The quote, btw, says:

• .four astronomical bodies, the Moon, Mercury, Mars and Venus match the observations of VAT 4956 for the astronomical year 567 BC(E) very well. Jupiter and Saturn however appear to be marginally out of position. The observations for 567 BC(E) appear to be very close tot he observations of VAT 4956, but not an exact match. Is there an astronomical year with a better match? Consider hte year 364 BC(E). ". . .the position of Saturn in the astronomical year 364 BC(E) is consistent with the observations of VAT 4956. So it is apparent that the year 364 BC(E) matches the position of 6 heavenly bodies as described in VAT 4956 (Moon, Mercury, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn) while the year 567 BC(E) only matches 4. . ."

Another link by the same person who provided that quote also linked to a b-Hebrew discussion that Rolf Furuli had been involved in. Furuli is not the only one to play with the similarities that will occur every few years as the moon and planets align. 

If this book's take on VAT 4956 was correct (and it isn't) the 2520 years after Jerusalem's fall would be somewhere around the year 2137 -- slightly beyond the maximum anyone could reasonably squeeze out of an "overlapping generation." Of course, if it were true, there would be no "overlapping generation" starting in 1914 because 2137 (minus 20 years) would become the new 1914, and a new overlapping generation starting in 2137 (minus 20 years) could last until the year 2357 (minus 20 years).

The real problem here is that VAT 4956 could be thrown out and we'd still know from other evidence that Jerusalem fell around 587/6. VAT 4956 is not as important as people pretend it is.

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

I am glad that you have read all of Young's articles and that you fully understand his use of Decision Tables/Analysis.

Have not completed all of them yet. Just all of "Samaria" and "Jerusalem." Portions of all the others.

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Now can you tell me on the basis of acquiring such new understanding do you agree with Young that Jerusalem fell in the fourth month, 587 BCE ?

It seems very probable. But, no, I can't simply agree. He's very likely right but I believe he took a shortcut. There is another methodology which is slightly better in my opinion. It takes a lot longer, is less practical, but might be rewarding. It makes use of the decision table, not just to filter out one hypothesis or another, but to go ahead and calculate all the reasonable possibilities (including changes in data) that the decision table makes available.

The calculations will then result, not in specific answers, but in the possible range of each answer with a terminus on each end. It's not an unknown method, but few would have the patience to test it against the entire king lists of of Israel and Judea, for example, and also throw in about a dozen pieces of Babylonian evidence into the mix. In this method, which makes use of ranges (terminus ante quem, terminus post quem, terminus ad quem and terminus a quo) you can even test what might appear to be unreasonable possibilities along with the reasonable ones, such as testing if Xth year could mean x, x-1, x+1, or even x+3 or x+20. If there is a questionable text that is different in the LXX or MT or DSS you could test special ranges here too. Believe it or not the possibilities will start resolving themselves much earlier than you might guess if you merely set limits to the number of inconsistencies you are willing to test for. Or you could test for a nearly infinite set of possibilities and keep only the solutions that produced the least inconsistencies.

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Now if you do agree with this date can you explain why it is the case that scholars from all disciplines still adhere to 586 BCE since March, 2004 which is when Young's research was published?

I am not at all worried about that. From what I can surmise so far, the range for when Jerusalem's Temple was burned falls on either the fifth month and 7th day of 587 or 586. These two dates can be potentially 13 months apart, and that is therefore the range that fits the most evidence, the most data, and therefore the most reasonable hypothesis.

As you know, it shouldn't even matter if you could pinpoint a specific day or year. The siege started as much as two years earlier. The wall was broken in the fourth month, about three months earlier. The famine lasted for months. In fact, the judgment itself was announced to come through Babylon decades earlier. There were several deportations going all the way back to a time when Nebuchadnezzar had just taken over as the official king. According to the "Insight" book:

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

• Historical notices in cuneiform inscriptions presently available about Nebuchadnezzar somewhat supplement the Bible record. They state that it was in the 19th year of Nabopolassar’s reign that he assembled his army, as did his son Nebuchadnezzar, then crown prince. Both armies evidently functioned independently, and after Nabopolassar went back to Babylon within a month’s time, Nebuchadnezzar successfully warred in mountainous territory, later returning to Babylon with much spoil. During the 21st year of Nabopolassar’s reign, Nebuchadnezzar marched with the Babylonian army to Carchemish, there to fight against the Egyptians. He led his forces to victory. This took place in the fourth year of Judean King Jehoiakim . . . .—Jer 46:2.
• The inscriptions further show that news of his father’s death brought Nebuchadnezzar back to Babylon, and on the first of Elul (August-September), he ascended the throne. In this his accession year he returned to Hattu, and “in the month Shebat . . .he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon.” . . . in the first official year of his kingship, Nebuchadnezzar again led his forces through Hattu; he captured and sacked the Philistine city of Ashkelon. (See ASHKELON.) During his second, third, and fourth years as king he conducted additional campaigns in Hattu, and evidently in the fourth year he made Judean King Jehoiakim his vassal. (2Ki 24:1)

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The date 607 BCE is not based on pseudo archaeology as you claim in fact it is consistent with the finds of modern archaeology as demonstrated by Avraham Faust's  Judah In the Neo-Babylonian Period:The Archaeology of Desolation, 2012, Society of Biblical Literature. Methodology permits one to accept one date, 539 BCE and reject another such as 586/7 and determine 607 BCE  for Neb's 18 th regnal year.

That's always been our "holy grail" to see if we could find a reputable sounding title that allows for 607 as a possible date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. So, I don't even have to look it up to know that either you or Faust are completely wrong. But if you can quote the evidence I'll read it and give it a benefit of the doubt if it's true. Of course, it's best, as you said to someone else, to read the entire book before judging specific points made in it.

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The nature of the audience that reads this online debate does not trouble me a bit

It looked like you were talking down to this audience when you implied that no one here could understand decision tables when you said "...Young's use of Decision Tables or Analysis . . . Try explaining that to this audience. Must keep things simple!!!"

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The WTS has explained in its publications the methodology for calculating 607 BCE and if you cannot see that then you have no business discussing this subject

I've seen this "so-called" methodology hundreds of times, and I think you know it doesn't stand up, or else you would probably have had a response to its weaknesses after all these years. Defending someone else (Rodger Young) who uses a methodology that gets him to a very reasonable 587 is hardly evidence that the WTS used a methodology to reach 607.

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Let us get get one thing straight. You, Ann o Maly and others would not be debating WT Chronology if it was not for the pioneering wresearch of Carl  O Jonsson so skip the pretence that somehow you and others could have originated such challenging ideas.

Who's pretending now. Several others DID originate such challenging ideas. Russell even dealt with some of them prior to 1916. Rutherford dealt with them especially from 1922 to 1925 -- several of the very same issues. This includes the so-called 20 year gap, too. Jonsson is a latecomer to this.

Also, you should understand that my interest is not about the chronology itself, but because we need to clean up all forms of dishonesty. The primary point should be keeping the congregation clean. We also have the direct statements of Jesus that we should not be looking for signs in order to try to understand the times and seasons. In times such as this we could all be better Christians if we followed the counsel of Paul, Peter, and Jesus.

• (Luke 21:8, 9) 8 He said: “Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The due time is near.’ Do not go after them. 9 Furthermore, when you hear of wars and disturbances, do not be terrified. For these things must take place first, but the end will not occur immediately.”

It has resulted in dishonest scholarship about the "parousia" the "synteleia" among many other doctrines. Bible chronologies depend directly upon genealogies:

• (1 Timothy 1:4-7) nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies. Such things end up in nothing useful but merely give rise to speculations rather than providing anything from God in connection with faith. 5 Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on so strongly.

Really, the reason Jesus gave us these instructions was clearly so that we would be better Christians at all times not because we knew the about the times and seasons. That's what all the illustrations of Matthew 24 and 25 are about. Peter summed it up well too:

• (2 Peter 3:8-18) 8 However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 9 Jehovah is not slow concerning his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance. 10 But Jehovah’s day will come as a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar, but the elements being intensely hot will be dissolved, and earth and the works in it will be exposed. 11 Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 as you await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah, through which the heavens will be destroyed in flames and the elements will melt in the intense heat! 13 But there are new heavens and a new earth that we are awaiting according to his promise, and in these righteousness is to dwell. 14 Therefore, beloved ones, since you are awaiting these things, do your utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished and in peace. 15 Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking about these things as he does in all his letters. However, some things in them are hard to understand, and these things the ignorant and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 You, therefore, beloved ones, having this advance knowledge, be on your guard so that you may not be led astray with them by the error of the lawless people and fall from your own steadfastness. 18 No, but go on growing in the undeserved kindness and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

And of course one of the most famous lines that the apostle Paul wrote about the "times and seasons" is this:

• (1 Thessalonians 5:1, 2) 5 Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night.

Please don't mix up the reasons why this discussion is important from a "Christian" perspective. All this so-called knowledge about chronology and Bible genealogies, and the resolution of what king ruled when, it's all foolishness. It's disrespectful to the very claim in the Bible that:

• (2 Timothy 3:16, 17) 16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

How disrespectful it must be to Jehovah who tells us that the Bible makes us fully competent and completely equipped, but then be told that we must also understand that 539, a secular date never mentioned in the Bible, is something like an absolute date, a touchstone that is necessary to understand an important doctrine for our day. These secular dates like 607, 539, 537, are somehow required to be fully competent about our doctrines, and required to set things straight about the final generation, to pinpoint important events that must have happened in 1914, 1919, 1922 -- all secular dates, too. Then there are the dozens of problems with related doctrines, such as the need to make wicked Nebuchadnezzar represent God's righteous kingdom. etc. etc. etc.

.

5 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

I believed I fared very well on the JWD forum over a period of many years but if you do not share my opinion then that is fine because I am not interested in convincing anyone about WT chronology just simply to defend it and in that regard, I have been successful. Don't you think?

I'm glad you have a sense of humour. If you are interested in my opinion about what it really means to defend something, you could start a new thread.  I'd like to keep this thread a little more on the topic of the chronology behind 607.

9 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

You misread things perhaps due to your anxiety to be right and overzealous in trying to discredit WT Chronology. Rodger Young was the first scholar to introduce Methodology as a  term of nomenclature in Chronology published in the scholarly literature. However, the said 'scholar' first applied the term to Chronology in his defence of WT Chronology published on the JWD forum.

Perhaps. Although I see nothing wrong with being anxious about being right, when it's the same as being anxious for the truth. Even zealousness is a good thing as long as it is for accurate knowledge and truth. 

• (Romans 10:2) . . .For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to accurate knowledge.

On this issue of Rodger Young being the first scholar to introduce Methodology as a term of nomenclature in Chronology, I'll withhold judgment, especially after seeing that Google Books returns thousands of references throughout the 20th century discussing the terms together. I believe his methodology is described exactly as we would hope that all scholars would have considered. It's a matter of being thorough and considering all possibilities before selecting the best options. I believe that Luke himself refers to such a methodology:

• (Luke 1:1-4) 1 Seeing that many have undertaken to compile an account of the facts that are given full credence among us, 2 just as these were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and attendants of the message, 3 I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them to you in logical order, most excellent The·oph?i·lus, 4 so that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally.

Decision tables happen to be a shorthand way of making sure that all those options were considered without having to spell them all out. You may have noticed that I used the equivalent of decision tables in a couple of previous discussions here. I assume it's a habit picked up in Computer Science classes, where it is a necessary tool for tracing the logic of a conclusion, or backtracking combinatorial algorithms, or quality assurance testing to make sure no possible path is missed. But these are also taught in LSAT (Law School Admissions Tests) as a way of making sure that potential students can "solve" for all logical permutations in a legal situation.

We can easily believe that many scholars have taken shortcuts before drawing their conclusions, and have seen plenty of evidence of this. But it's really a good reminder to always consider all possibilities in the most accurate detail possible before drawing conclusions. As of today, I have now read several of Rodger Young's articles, and have appreciated his attempts at accuracy. 

3 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Rodger Young does not support 607 but 587 as a revision to Thielean Chronology. What you fail to mention is Young's use Of Decision Tables or Analysis  in order to solve the problems associated with 587 and 586. Try explaining that to this audience. Must keep things simple!!!

How could he support 607? It's just made-up pseudo-archaeology with no solid basis. It pretends you can speak about 539 (the 67th year after the start of Nebuchadnezzar reign) without accepting that 587/6 was the19th year after the start of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, or vice versa.

I don't think you should underestimate this audience, especially if you think it's a reason to shortchange them on facts. A few will believe anything that fits what they've already accepted in the past, but that's not always going to be your typical Witness who finds reasons to visit topics like this one.

3 hours ago, scholar JW said:

You talk utter nonsense when you seek to superimpose WT  Chronology onto Youg's conclusion 6. on p. 38 in his 2004 study. What he is talking about here concerns a summary of his findings regarding the calendrical issues surrounding the resolution of the 586/7 BCE dilemma and has absolutely nothing to do with our Chronology and 607 BCE. Honesty would compel you to post conclusion 7 on p.38 and also the very first paragraph on p.21 which sets out the purpose and conclusion of his study.. You should be ashamed of yourself.

You are completely wrong here. I also find that his study on on the fall of Samaria, which the WT dates to 740 and which he and others date to the first half of 723n is another study that confirms exactly what I said. And it's also an indictment of the sloppy methodology of the WTS. Not that he ever mentions the WTS, of course. He may not even be aware of the theory the WTS promotes, but everything he presents about his methodology shows the WT theory to be even more ridiculous after the kind of scrutiny he recommends. I'm definitely going to make sure that the WTS is aware of his work in the next few days. On the inclusion of point #7, I wanted to include it already but thought of space considerations. Here it is, and it is an excellent explanation of where the WTS has gone wrong for so many years:

• The use of Decision Tables reveals that previous studies have overlooked many possibilities that were entirely consistent with the ideas of the author of the study, but which were not explored simply because they were never thought of. This failure to explore all the possibilities has been a major problem in the studies of OT chronology, and one that has led to significant confusion in the chronologies produced. It is to be hoped that future studies will not declare that some new solution is to be preferred, or the text needs to be emended, until it is demonstrated that there are no other sets of hypotheses that better explain the data. Ignoring this practice will reduce the credibility of the study.

The WTS has clearly lacked methodology, and has failed to even indicate an attempt to support the possibilities indicated by all the scriptures, much less even 10% of the secular evidence that the WTS half-relies on as absolutely true, and half-relies on as absolutely false. It would show up just how pretentious the WTS has been in selectively finding weaknesses that they don't admit are the same weaknesses for the secular dates that are relied upon.

And the first paragraph on page 21 sets out exactly what @Ann O'Maly has been saying: that it's not a matter of scholars divided over 586 and 587 due to any secular Babylonian records, but to the way in which they interpret the difference between the accession and non-accession years in the Bible record. You appeared to promote the idea that scholars should be ashamed of this "confusion" and kept implying that it was not due to the Bible's inconsistent methods of dating. Rodger Young points out this inconsistency in the Bible accounts several times. It even shows up in his other treatises. For example, on the dating of the destruction of Samaria. I'll quote it because it provides Young's own summary of a portion of the method he used in the Jerusalem paper:

• In Young, “Jerusalem,” it was shown that the years for Zedekiah are given by the non-accession method in both 2 Kings and Jeremiah. This was not recognized earlier because the switch to non-accession counting came right at the end of the Judean kingdom and no simple clues are given to indicate that the change was taking place. By applying a proper methodology that first asks how Jeremiah and 2 Kings 25 treat the reign of Zedekiah, we can determine that the authors used non-accession reckoning, but this still does not provide the reason for the change in the method of counting. The reason, indeed, can be as arbitrary as the whim of the reigning king. Zedekiah could have said, “This is the way weÂ’re going to count my years. DonÂ’t ask any more questions.”
• Although we do not know why the change took place, if we refused to consider anything but accession years for Zedekiah we would be guilty of a Factor One error (forcing our presuppositions on the data). One scholar who explored non-accession counting for Zedekiah was Alberto Green. . . Green was correct in saying that non-accession reckoning is not used for Jehoiakim in 2 Kings, but both Jeremiah and 2 Kings use non-accession reckoning for Zedekiah. It is unfortunate that Green missed this, because his article exhibits one of the best examples of attempting to examine all the possibilities before settling on a solution to a chronological problem.

Young therefore relies on knowledge of the Bible's inconsistency. And the WTS, of course, admits this same inconsistency as I pointed out already from the "Insight" book. But his best point is the more general counsel to examime all possibilities and not force presuppositions on the data, as the WTS has proven itself guilty of doing by not considering 90% of the data, and pretending that a denigration of 10% will suffice in denigrating the rest. (But forgetting to mention that the WTS also relies completely on the data they denigrate.) The shame is highlighted if a decision table would be shown.

3 hours ago, scholar JW said:

In fact one of the reasons why  I was the first scholar to introduce the term 'methodology' into the subject of Chronology long prior to 2004 was the fact that Carl Jonsson in his initial treatise stumbled over the WTS use of 539 BCE and not then using secular data to establish their OT chronology.

I really couldn't care less what Carl Jonsson used as a methodology. It's pretty easy to do this yourself anyway with all the evidence out their on display for anyone to scrutinize. The fact that Carl Jonsson happens to get the same 587 answer that Rodger Young got might be impressive to others, especially if they are convinced that he was able to do this even without a methodology. So I guess that Rodger Young was able to confirm Jonsson's conclusion of 587. I have to say that I'm not fully convinced that Carl Jonsson and Rodger Young are necessarily correct, only because it's not clear that Zedekiah is the only king (or specific passages are the only places) for which the non-accession reckoning was used over the accession year reckoning. I believe I could still make a reasonable case for 586, but a difference of one year does not matter to me. For me, this is not part of a 1914 calculation anyway, nor would it be for you, if you chose between 587 and 586 as the correct year. Even if it was proven to be 587 and not 586, I'm pretty sure you'd still go for 607, at least until a few seconds after the WTS changes the doctrine on us again.

3 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Prior to 2000, I was in the process of doing a thesis for my Honours Degree and one of the compulsory Units was on Methodology so at that time I knew of its importance in academic research so I realized that this was the solution to Jonsson's problem along with many other inquirers so I adopted the formula that Chronology was about Methodology and Interpretation as the two essentials tools for the constructing a scheme of Chronology.. So, do not come with the nonsense about 539 BCE!!

I'm glad you did. I still can't fathom any other way anyone could have drawn a solid conclusion. 

 

Even if 607 had been the correct date for the destruction of Jerusalem (all the evidence says otherwise) and even if there was supposed to be a 2,520 year period counting from that point (the Bible never mentions that there should be one), we still have another interesting issue to look at:

The Bible evidently doesn't consider the final destruction of Jerusalem, when Zedekiah was removed from the throne at Jerusalem, to be the most important chronological event from which to start counting time. The event that starts a new era of time in Matthew's chronology is "the deportation to Babylon," 11 years earlier.

• (Matthew 1:11-17) 11 Jo·siʹah became father to Jec·o·niʹah and to his brothers at the time of the deportation to Babylon. 12 After the deportation to Babylon, Jec·o·niʹah became father to She·alʹti·el;. . .  Matʹthan became father to Jacob; 16 Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ. 17 All the generations, then, from Abraham until David were 14 generations; from David until the deportation to Babylon, 14 generations; from the deportation to Babylon until the Christ, 14 generations.

"Jeconiah and his brothers" included, of course, Jehoahaz and Zedekiah.

• (2 Kings 23:30) . . .Then the people of the land took Jo·siʹah’s son Je·hoʹa·haz and anointed him and made him king in place of his father.

• (Jeremiah 1:3) 3 It came also in the days of Je·hoiʹa·kim the son of Jo·siʹah, the king of Judah, until the completion of the 11th year of Zed·e·kiʹah the son of Jo·siʹah, the king of Judah, until Jerusalem went into exile in the fifth month.

In fact, the era beginning from the "deportation to Babylon" at the time of Jeconiah and his brothers was, indeed, a period from which a new reckoning of time was counted. Note the examples from Jeremiah and Ezekiel, that indicate that this era was now the official era by which to synchronize the Jewish chrononolgy with that of the nations around them -- even 26 years after the Temple was destroyed:

• (Jeremiah 52:31) 31 Then in the 37th year of the exile of King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah, in the 12th month, on the 25th day of the month, King Eʹvil-merʹo·dach of Babylon, in the year he became king, released King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah and brought him out of prison.

• (Ezekiel 1:2, 3) On the fifth day of the month—that is, in the fifth year of the exile of King Je·hoiʹa·chin— 3 the word of Jehovah came to Ezekiel . . .

• (Ezekiel 8:1) And in the sixth year, in the sixth month, on the fifth day of the month, when I was sitting in my house and the elders of Judah were sitting before me, the hand of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah took hold of me there.

  (Ezekiel 20:1) Now in the seventh year, in the fifth month, on the tenth day of the month, some of the elders of Israel came and sat down before me to inquire of Jehovah.

  (Ezekiel 24:1, 2) The word of Jehovah again came to me in the ninth year, in the tenth month, on the tenth day of the month, saying: 2 “Son of man, record this date, this very day. The king of Babylon has begun his attack against Jerusalem on this very day.

  (Ezekiel 26:1, 2) In the 11th year, on the first day of the month, the word of Jehovah came to me, saying: 2 “Son of man, because Tyre has said against Jerusalem, ‘Aha! The gateway of the peoples has been broken! Everything will come my way, and I will become rich now that she is devastated’;

  (Ezekiel 29:1, 2) In the tenth year, in the tenth month, on the 12th day of the month, the word of Jehovah came to me, saying: 2 “Son of man, turn your face toward Pharʹaoh king of Egypt, and prophesy against him and against all Egypt.

  (Ezekiel 29:17, 18) Now in the 27th year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, the word of Jehovah came to me, saying: 18 “Son of man, King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon made his army labor greatly against Tyre.. . .

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

  (Ezekiel 40:1) In the 25th year of our exile, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth day of the month, in the 14th year after the city had fallen, on that very day the hand of Jehovah was upon me, and he took me to the city.

 @Foreigner suggests that some of the literature on the subject is often unclear, such that the entire period from 597 to 587 is sometimes ambiguous when referring to the destructive events upon Jerusalem. The last reference above in Ezekiel 40 shows that the final destruction of Jerusalem did also become a point of reference, but it was not the one that continues to get the most attention in the scriptures.

There are a few other related subjects to the 607 date that we should not ignore. One is that the synchronisms  with Egyptian chronology create no conflict when tied to Assyrian and Babylonian chronology and true, sensible "Bible chronology." Yet when tied to the changes that the Watchtower Society has made to so-called "Bible chronology" in order for 1914 to work, not surprisingly, the synchronisms are all out of joint again. 

Here's a quick example:

• (2 Kings 23:31-24:1) . . .Je·hoʹa·haz was 23 years old when he became king, and he reigned for three months in Jerusalem.. . .  33 Pharʹaoh Neʹchoh imprisoned him at Ribʹlah in the land of Haʹmath, to keep him from reigning in Jerusalem, and then imposed on the land a fine of 100 silver talents and a gold talent. 34 Furthermore, Pharʹaoh Neʹchoh made Jo·siʹah’s son E·liʹa·kim king in place of his father Jo·siʹah and changed his name to Je·hoiʹa·kim; but he took Je·hoʹa·haz and brought him to Egypt, where he eventually died. 35 Je·hoiʹa·kim gave the silver and the gold to Pharʹaoh, but he had to tax the land to give the silver that Pharʹaoh demanded. He exacted an assessed amount of silver and gold from each of the people of the land to give to Pharʹaoh Neʹchoh. 36 Je·hoiʹa·kim was 25 years old when he became king, and he reigned for 11 years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Ze·biʹdah the daughter of Pe·daiʹah from Ruʹmah. 37 He continued to do what was bad in Jehovah’s eyes, according to all that his forefathers had done. 24 In Je·hoiʹa·kim’s days King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came against him, and Je·hoiʹa·kim became his servant for three years. . . .

Pharaoh Nechoh can only be Pharaoh Necho II who reigned from 610 to 595 BC between the reigns of Necho I (672-664) Psamtik I (664-610) and Psamtik II (595-589) all from Egypt's 26th dynasty. (Psamtik is Psammetichus, below)

The work "The Present State of Egyptian Chronology" by William A Ward says the following, related to the chronology of the 26th dynasty:

• The chronology of the New Kingdom has the advantage of much more Egyptian documentation, clear historical synchronisms with Western Asia, and it can be attached almost directly to the better established absolute chronology of the first millennium B.C.E. . . . For the New Kingdom, chronologists usually begin with the more verifiable dates of the late period. Psammetichus I, founder of the 26th Dy nasty, began his reign in 664 B.C.E.; Taharqa, last ruler of the 25th Dynasty, ruled from 690 to 664 B.C.E.; . . . These dates are well nigh universally accepted and can all be ascertained by synchronisms with Assyrian kings, . . .

So, if it is correct that Egyptian chronology syncs with Assyrian/Neo-Babylonian chronology, then Pharoah Necho ruled from 610 to 595. We know from the Bible that he made Jehoiakim the king, who ruled for 11 years in Jerusalem, then Jehoiakim must have ruled starting in 599. (This was at least 10 years before the final destruction of Jerusalem. So we already know that 607 is wrong by almost 20 years.)

Then we know that Jehoiachin reigned next for 3 months before the Nebuchadnezzar desolated the city in the 8th year of his reign:

• (2 Kings 24:8-12) 8 Je·hoiʹa·chin was 18 years old when he became king, and he reigned for three months in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Ne·hushʹta the daughter of El·naʹthan of Jerusalem. 9 He continued to do what was bad in Jehovah’s eyes, according to all that his father had done. 10 During that time the servants of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city came under siege. 11 King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came to the city while his servants were laying siege to it. 12 King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, along with his mother, his servants, his princes, and his court officials; and the king of Babylon took him captive in the eighth year of his reign.

So from the reference to Necho we can see that the "deportation to Babylon" (Matthew 1:11) took place between 599 (599 at the earliest and 584 at the latest). If Nebuchadnezzar's first year was 605 BCE, then by the reckoning of years in 2 Kings, his 8th year would be about 597. 597 is a perfect fit for the reign of Necho II who ruled from 610 to 595. It's also a perfect fit to the Babylonian Chronicles which mention it. (Keep in mind that this is the first major capture of Jerusalem about 11 years prior to it's complete burning and destruction in 587/6.) Whether it was 597 or 596 is also discussed in the following Wikipedia reference:

--------[remainder of post is the reference from Wikipedia article: "Siege of Jerusalem"] -------

Nebuchadnezzar soon dealt with these rebellions. According to the Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle,^[3] he laid siege to Jerusalem, which eventually fell on 2 Adar (March 16) 597 BC. The Chronicle states:

In the seventh year [of Nebuchadnezzar, 598 BC] in the month Chislev [November/December] the king of Babylon assembled his army, and after he had invaded the land of Hatti (Syria/Palestine) he laid siege to the city of Judah. On the second day of the month of Adar [16 March] he conquered the city and took the king [Jeconiah] prisoner. He installed in his place a king [Zedekiah] of his own choice, and after he had received rich tribute, he sent forth to Babylon.^[4]

. . .  Nebuchadnezzar installed Jeconiah's uncle, Zedekiah as puppet-king of Judah, and Jeconiah was compelled to remain in Babylon.^[10] The start of Zedekiah's reign has been variously dated within a few weeks before,^[11] or after^[12][13] the start of Nisan 597 BC.

The Babylonian Chronicles, which were published by Donald Wiseman in 1956, establish that Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem the first time on 2 Adar (16 March) 597 BC.^[14] Before Wiseman's publication, E. R. Thiele had determined from the biblical texts that Nebuchadnezzar's initial capture of Jerusalem occurred in the spring of 597 BC,^[15] but other scholars, including William F. Albright, more frequently dated the event to 598 BC.^[16]

^{------------- end of quote from Wikipedia --------------}

22 hours ago, Israeli Bar Avaddhon said:

From personal experience I know that this date is often mentioned to corroborate or invalidate an alleged calculation of the "seven times" of Nebuchadnezzar's dream. If this is the final purpose of this discussion, then I believe that there are much more important questions.

I would completely agree. The only reason that the WTS ever required the dates 606 and 536, was so that the Nebuchadnezzar's "seven times" of insanity could reach 1914. Those dates were later adjusted to 606+1 year, and 536+3years-2years so that 1914 could still be reached. There has never been any evidence for 606 or 607, so it had to be done through "pseudo-archaeology," pretending that all the evidence for 539 (which we liked) could be used separately from the rest of the evidence that 539 was based upon (which we didn't like).

9 hours ago, scholar JW said:

WT scholars have not been troubled by this supposed anomaly because we are able to assign a precise date for the event whereas most if not all other scholars are perplexed. The real answer is that it comes down to Methodology, plain and simple and confirmed by the pioneering studies of Rodger Young . . .

You have created an almost comical juxtaposition when you mention the idea that "WT scholars have not been troubled" along with the methodology of Rodger Young. The following is from the same source quoted above, p.38 of Young's article where he gives an almost perfect description of the problematic methodology of the Watchtower's hypothesis about 607.

• (6) None of these conclusions was arrived at by forcing presuppositions on the data found in the scriptural text received from the Masoretes, except perhaps the presupposition that when the data conflicted with one of our hypotheses, then any reasonable set of hypotheses which did not conflict with the data was to be preferred over the set which produced conflict. This approach may be contrasted with an approach which says that when a favorite set of hypotheses conflicts with the data, the data will be declared in error and no further effort will be expended to see if another set of hypotheses offers a better explanation.

He here shows how his methodology contrasts with the flawed and embarrassing "methodology" of the WTS which simply declares that all the data must be declared to be in error if it doesn't fit 607. More correctly, all the data must be declared to be in error if it does not fit 1914, because the WTS has even changed the date of the destruction of Jerusalem from 606 to 607 when they discovered that it didn't help them reach 1914 correctly. They changed the supposed "absolute" date for the first year of Cyrus from 536 to 538. Therefore, for the Watchtower, the only real "absolute date" is 1914, and all data must be declared in error if it conflicts with 1914.

9 hours ago, scholar JW said:

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

This is quite a surprising claim. I have looked through your comments on JWD and see that you have fared no better there than you have here. Also, what do you mean by saying that the studies of Rodger Young's "followed from observations" made by you? Not only does he not mention you, he completely disagrees with you about the date for Jerusalem's destruction. (For what it's worth, it turns out he agrees with me and thousands of others who have looked into the evidence.)

The remainder of this post is from the conclusion from his article "When Did Jerusalem Fall" (published 2004) as found here http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jerusalem.pdf

vi. conclusion

This study has examined all texts in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and 2 Kings that bear on the question, “When did Jerusalem fall?” Many side issues needed to be addressed to answer the question satisfactorily. A technique called Decision Analysis was used to ensure that all combinations of hypotheses were considered and that any hidden assumptions were brought out into the open. The analysis allowed us to rule out many presuppositions that were accepted in former studies and to replace them with presuppositions that do not contradict the data (the received text). The conclusions from the analysis are as follows.

(1) Jerusalem fell in the fourth month (Tammuz) of 587 bc. All sources which bear on the question—Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and 2 Kings—are consistent in dating the event in that year.

(2) Ezekiel consistently dated events from the time that Jehoiachin was taken captive in early 597 bc. He used Tishri years in all his reckoning.

(3) Similarly, 2 Kings 24–25 consistently used Tishri years and non-accession reckoning for Judean kings. For Nebuchadnezzar, non-accession years, starting in Nisan, were used.

(4) In the writings of Jeremiah (which excludes the fifty-second chapter), Jeremiah consistently used Tishri years for Judah, as did Ezekiel and the source for the last chapters of 2 Kings. This is in harmony with the usage of Judah throughout the monarchic period, in contrast to Thiele’s assumption that Jeremiah and Ezekiel used Nisan reckoning for Judah. Jeremiah used non-accession years for the kings of Judah and for Nebuchadnezzar. There is not enough information to determine if he started the years for Nebuchadnezzar in Tishri or Nisan; both assumptions fit the data.
 

30 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Another point about Thiele who is long deceased is that in his seminal writings he makes no mention of the 70 years, completely missing from his majestic MNHK.an important slice of the history of the very period that Thiele engaged with in his theses.

No need to. Jeremiah explained why the 70 years need not be related to the destruction of Jerusalem. It was pretty obvious, no doubt, that nations served Babylon over a period of Babylon's 70 years of domination. (Can I assume you might still get to that question I asked you about the explanation of Jeremiah 25 in the Isaiah book?)

Also, of course, Thiele takes Zedekiah's 11th year (and 4th month) as part of a Nisan-to-Nisan year which also influences his acceptance of 586 as the destruction of Jerusalem. I think Thiele is still an excellent resource for this time period. He is another good resource to show why 607 has no evidence behind it for Jerusalem's destruction.

On 12/12/2017 at 3:55 PM, scholar JW said:

Where matters are uncertain then the reader is advised

No, that's not true, and that's the problem. The reader is NOT advised. That's a form of academic dishonesty.

Here is one of literally HUNDREDS of examples of this in our literature:

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

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

You might know better, of course, but don't you think that some of the brothers will read this line in the "Insight" book under "Nebuchadnezzar" and get the impression that a well-researched resource about Babylonian texts indicates that Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year was 588 B.C.E.?

It's amazing (and shameful) that our publications still do this repeatedly. The referenced book by Pritchard is 100% aware that all the evidence consistently points to 568 for Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, and therefore 587/6 for his 19th year (not 607). There is only one reason that the Watchtower publications sneaks 588 in there without any explanation about how the book they referenced actually rejects this date. It's because 588 is the date that would allow 607 to work which would allow 1914 to work. We should not have to depend on dishonesty and slick tricks like this. If the evidence stood on its own, we would be happy to point to the evidence, instead of trying to denigrate the evidence, and then "dishonestly" forget to tell the readers that it's this same denigrated evidence that we rely on for 607.

24 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Max Hatton whom I have met in 1983 or thereabouts became a Seventh Day Adventist and was one of the earliest critics of WT Chronology on the world scene and  perhaps was influenced by a thesis written by a resident in Western Australia ,  G. Rogerson who wrote An Examination Of The Year 1914 In The Prophetic interpretation Of The Watchtower Society. I have copies  of all Hatton's correspondence to the Society and would need to compare its contents with Rogerson's treatise I should say rather than a thesis because Hatton spent his earlier days in Perth, Western Australia about that time..

I still have not read all of his story, but I find it amazing. The first letter admitted influence from a Seventh Day Adventist source. I'm surprised he became a Seventh Day Adventist himself, however. And yes I am impressed with Thiele at many points of his studies. He appears to have been able to resolve several chronological issues on the secular side, by using the Bible as a primary historical source.

21 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

I reject your claim that this book 'makes claims that are shamefully wrong'. The quotation from this book is correct both in fact and in history. Ptolemy's Canon has traditionally drawn much criticism over the centuries and even in Russell's day there was criticism of the Canon in the early WT.

That's my point about the shameful use of Ptolemy. He is relied on for 539 even though our publications tried to discredit Ptolemy in 1963 by saying his work was "exploded." It's shameful to be so certain about a chronological scheme, but not know what you are doing and at what points you are relying on the same types of sources. Not everything about the works Ptolemy passed on through his writings and collection of work is correct. I have read the criticism of Ptolemy from Russell's day. It was amazing that they thought they could just pick and choose without being careful. As I already pointed out from some older quotes, Russell also used Ptolemy's support as evidence for how accurate 536 was (even though we considered that a fuzzy date and changed it at a later point). Although I already mentioned that it was quite possible to also reach 539 through other lines of evidence -- these also support 587/6 for the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar.

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

A debate has two sides with opposing points of view, honesty is required by both parties so I call this a two-way street.

I will be honest in a debate whether any other party in a debate is honest or not. That is what I meant when I said it is not a two-way street, at least for me. Debates often end up highlighting the academic dishonesty or false foundations of another person's theory. Academic dishonesty can often be the result of giving too much weight to a certain interpretation and then using logical fallacies to bolster the false claims. So academic dishonesty is not always a "personal" dishonesty, but can come about through sloppiness in research, misuse of evidence, being fooled by someone else's mistakes, etc.

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

There is no Gap in the NB Period at this stage of our present knowledge

Thanks for admitting that.

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

but there is a difference of 19 years. when one compares WT Chronology with NB Chronology.

This is pretty much true. A lot of people make claims that turn out to be untrue, even if they make perfect sense to a lot of people. I have heard people who believe the chronology of the "Great Week" mentioned below (from http://prophecycorner.theforeverfamily.com/chron.html )

• Since it is thought that 6,000 years would go by before the sabbatical millennial Day of the Lord begins, some people have thought that the 6,000th year since Adam's creation would be about 2,000 A.D. I have heard it said that from Adam to Abraham was 2,000 years and from Abraham to Christ was 2,000 years.

Like the "Oslo" schema, it's more of a "scheme" than a chronology, but some will fight for it as if it were the only true Bible chronology, and anything different is just a secular falsehood. In the same way, some will also fight to make Cyrus' Edict begin around 460 B.C.E. so that they can make the 70 weeks of years match with their supposedly more "obvious" interpretation of Daniel. There are a lot of claims about Bible chronology, just like several of the old Watchtower claims, that have necessarily been abandoned by now for obvious reasons.

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The much earlier  Babylon the Great Has Fallen-God's Kingdom Rules , 1963, p. 138.

That book contains many claims that are shamefully wrong. Note this one on the page you quoted:

• It is because of making the mistake of dating the beginning of the seventy-year period for the desolation of Jerusalem and the land of Judah after King Jehoiakim reigned at Jerusalem but three years that the chronologers in Christendom throw their time schedule of history at least nineteen years out of order, shortening up the stream of time by that many years. They do this because of trying to harmonize the Bible records with the astronomical Canon of Claudius Ptolemy, an Alexandrian or Egyptian astronomer of the second century after Christ, but whose system of astronomy has long since been exploded. In this we do not go along with such chronologers.

For a time, the WTS had relied on the king list matching Claudius Ptolemy's to get 539. People noticed the mistake right away. In fact, one letter came in to the Watch Tower the year before the book came out. They should have known better than to print this nonsense.

For example, Max Hatton wrote the Watch Tower Society on June 10, 1962. This letter also contained information about an even earlier letter sent to the Watch Tower Society on July 9, 1959. The 1962 letter says in part:

• To date our arguments have been largely concerned with the 70 years mentioned by Jeremiah. I am confident that with the aid of the Societies [sic] publications and some private research I have and will have no real difficulties with this portion of the discussion. It seems that the next item for discussion will inevitably be whether the period of 70 years literal desolation can be accommodated by a Chronological arrangement for the period. As far as I have been able to ascertain the basis for the Chronology, popularly accepted, for the years 747 B.C., to the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C. and further on, is the Canon of Ptolemy. It therefore seems obvious that one cannot accept the record of the 70 year desolation and at the same time accept the Canon as being an accurate record. In rejecting the Canon completely, a problem seems to arise, because, as far as I am aware, the date for the destruction of Babylon in 539 B.C. per medium of the Chronological arrangement for which Ptolemy's Canon is the basis. . . . I would greatly appreciate your advice then, whether 539 B.C. can be accurately calculated by some other means entirely independent of the Canon, such as a continuous list of kings with their Accession years calculated by the length of their reign, based on some other evidence. (Either Bible or Secular.) I fully appreciate the advice in the Watchtower of 1st December, 1946 that an eclipse of the moon is not sufficient data by which to locate the year of a certain event, however the "Secretary of the Australian Institute of Archaeology" has advised me that "Ptolemy's Canon is based on a much wider range of astronomical data, the details of which are recorded in his Almagest. It is necessary to correlate the details he gives in his canon with dates he has calculated in other works. The sum result of this is that his canon appears to be accurate within all reasonable limits."  . . . Could I be advised please in what respects the Society considers the Canon to be in error and also reasonable grounds to substantiate such a claim?

That is only a small part of the letter, without the original paragraph breaks from the letter. The Watchtower wrote back to Brother Hatton on June 28, 1962. That letter gave some of the best evidence ever that the Society simply did not understand the claims they were making or that, less likely one hopes, they were willing to be very dishonest. Brother Hatton's next response naturally contained more questions, and even more research, and the Society's next letter, told him that they didn't have time to stop for such a research project with the current preparation for the 1963 "Everlasting Good News" assembly coming out (at which the Babylon book would be released). The following exchange of letters shows that the Society was now on the defensive with nowhere to turn. The Babylon book only made the matters worse because the Society was obviously "digging in its heels" on things they had no right to claim. They asked him to give less attention to chronology. The Society told him that if he didn't agree he could still point persons to the place in the Society's publications where such explanations were given, even if he had mental reservations. By July 1965, the Society had disfellowshipped both Brother Hatton and his wife for apostasy. His wife had possibly never said anything but it was suspected that she supported her husband. 

13 minutes ago, Anna said:

I have one question in the meantime, why is it that WT has no trouble accepting the 539 date but will not accept the 587 date? Besides the obvious reason, are both dates based on completely different historical sources?

In fact, both dates conform to the exact same set of sources. They are both part of the same NB chronology which is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence from all the archaeological and astronomical sources. You could use 8 sources and come up with both 539 and 587 as correct, and you use only four of those sources and still come up with both dates as correct. You could also dismiss those 4 you just used, and use the other 4 and still see that both dates are correct. You simply cannot accept the data for 539 without also accepting the data for 587.

This is a beautiful area. There are still places where you can get good land for just several hundred dollars an acre in upstate New York, but this area is gorgeous. I've stayed in the Mohonk Mountain House (resort hotel) for business conferences, and even went back up there once on my own to do research for an author at New Paltz. An elderly woman at the Historical Society up there is probably no longer alive, but was a walking, talking database of everything anyone wanted to know about genealogies of hundreds, maybe thousands of people from the 1600's through the 1800's in NY and environs. I asked her about an obscure name and she pulled out an old Bible that belonged to that family with the particular person's name in it. I was just amazed at her knowledge and her helpfulness.

8 hours ago, Kurt said:

Remember though that the Witnesses held firm in Brooklyn while the neighborhood around them was being left to decay.

Where did you get that from? From year to year, the Brooklyn Heights neighborhood has continued to be built up and get better and be made cleaner and more expensive than most other parts of Brooklyn for the last 100 years. The Watchtower Society was not the only entity that had been building up and investing in this area of Brooklyn. But the Watchtower kept its buildings and factories very clean and well-maintained, and made it a point to obtain empty lots for new buildings and to purchase buildings in need of renovation. The WTS generally had a very positive effect on the prices of Brooklyn Heights property, even though it produced a loss of tax revenue that the city would have obtained if those buildings had been owned by for-profit corporations. Then again, for profit corporations had a higher rate of failure and building abandonment during several periods economic depression and recession over the last 100 years -- so all in all, Brooklyn Heights was made much better for the time we spent there.

I have a feeling your numbers are a bit high from a true outside perspective. The real estate numbers might be correct, or they might be too high, but the value of the "commercial operations" is in an industry (primarily pre-press, printing, binding, shipping) which is not a function of the percent of the real estate owned. There is a value in non-depreciated equipment (laundry, printing presses, bindery equipment, computers, tractors, trucks). But its value must be measured on a case-by-case basis in each individual market. The range given above indicates that this portion could be anywhere from $75 to $300 billion [25% of $300B up to 50% of $600B]. My guess is that competitive valuations of these particular global assets could not total more than 1 to 2 billion, $US.

19 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Your claim that our theory is impossible is unclear to me because we accept the 43 years of Neb' s reign and have well described how this synchronizes with the reigns of the last Kings of Judah according to the biblical data.

You were claiming that our (WTS) theory was impossible when you tried to add another 20 years to the Neo-Babylonian timeline at a point during Nebuchadnezzar's reign. You suggested Zedekiah's 11th year. You create a contradiction for yourself precisely because the Bible synchronizes the reigns of the last kings of Judah in a way that fits Ptolemy's Canon, and the Babylonian Chronicles and the combined evidence from thousands of clay tablets, along with the astronomical diaries.

19 hours ago, scholar JW said:

If it does not fit certain data from the NB Chronology then that is not my problem. Just make the required adjustment based only on trusted biblical facts . If you have found a problem then why not try to solve it? DO YOU WANT ME TO SOLVE IT FOR YOU.

Actually it is your problem if you are the one interpreting an idea in a way that contradicts all the evidence. Especially since you already admitted that many lines of evidence and thousands of tablets already represent the NB chronology. It's the same as if you wanted to make World War 1 last for parts of 8 years instead of parts of 5 years. If you say that there are three years of history about WW1 missing, then you would have to be the one to figure out where these new years should be inserted.

There is nothing for me to solve here. I see that all the years are already accounted for, and that they already fit the Bible evidence very well. I am happy that the Bible account is corroborated by the historical accounts and evidence from archaeology.

19 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Already, there are other problems in connection with Jehoiakim's reign such as the 'third year of his kingship' in Dan. 1:1. and this is explained in the Insight article under 'Jehoiakim'. You will find the chart for the Reigns of Judah and Israel published in the Aid  book most helpful.

I never mentioned Jehoiakim. I only referred to Jehoiachin. (Also called Jeconiah) It's easy to confuse them.

19 hours ago, scholar JW said:

If you want me to solve your problem then present your question simply and clearly. Just present the facts, skip the references. Chronology is complex enough so simplicity works for me. You got it?  When I get a problem I usually get the solution even though it can be hard work.

I looked up several of your past discussions here and elsewhere. I have seen from these past discussions that you typically don't try to solve any of the chronological problems related to this matter. I have noticed a common pattern of trying to imply that it is the other person who has the problem to solve. You even do that in this very post I am responding to. Apparently, you also have made use of a tactic of abandoning a problem when it is clear that you have failed to address it, and then disappearing and coming back at some later point and claiming that you previously solved the problem or "won the argument" that you had abandoned. You seem to give the impression that everything must start all over "from scratch" even after the evidence against your position was already made clear in your last attempt.   

But evidently the most common tactic, and the one I am trying to understand in this current thread, too, is this tendency to offer completely illogical nonsense as if it is relevant to the questions and claims being made. There appears to be a lot of bluster and obfuscation and I can't always tell if it's on purpose. If it is, I don't know who you would be trying to bluster here.

But if you were truly looking for a simple and clear question, in a presentation of facts without references, then I could oblige that, too. But first I'd like to ask if you would address any of the very simple questions that have already been brought up.

One, for example, was:

• What is the year you get for the beginning of the 70 years of Babylonian domination assuming you agree with the Watch Tower Society's assessment about these 70 years that ended in 539 B.C.E.? (See the previous post for the references to Jeremiah 25:8-27 in chapter 19 of Isaiah's Prophecy.) If you still insist that this date is "nonsense," as you called it, then please explain why you think the Society's idea here is nonsense, and why it's still on JW.ORG?

18 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Yet you begin your diatribe with the astonishing statement that the Babylonian Empire began in 609 BCE. What nonsense for nothing of any historical significance occurred in 609 BCE.

Have you written the Watchtower Society to tell them that this claim is "nonsense"?

*** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***

• 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.

If you don't have the Watchtower Library CD/DVD installed just click the link to jw.org here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102000039 and scroll down to paragraph 21 (page 256) to see the same point.

So, are you saying you do not agree with the assessment of the Watchtower Society that the 70 years of Babylonia's greatest domination ends in 539 B.C.E.?  If Babylon's 70 years of domination ended in 539, then when did it begin? I get 539+70=609.

 Unless you can offer a different answer, I'll have to assume that you get the same thing. So why do you call this claim "nonsense"? Usually, you appear to be defending what's on JW.ORG.

18 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Carl Jonsson in the 2nd edn of his Gentile Times Reconsidered produced a Chart on p.235. This Chart presents a' fuzzy' statement that the 70 years began with the Assyria crushed with no historical data in support to support this assertion.

Yes. I see that JW.ORG also does something just like what you say Carl Jonsson did. Do you think that JW.ORG got this idea from Carl Jonsson? Jonsson wrote about 15 years before the "Isaiah's Prophecy" book was written in 2000?

18 hours ago, scholar JW said:

You only have to compare the different Chronologies for the Divided Monarchy and to examine the conflict over whether Jerusalem fell in 586 or 587 BEC.

You seem confused about the reason that there is any supposed "conflict" over whether Jerusalem fell in 586 or 587. The reason is explained on JW.ORG and it has absolutely nothing to do with different chronologies for the divided monarchy. The Bible lists both the 18th and 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar for what appears to be the same Jerusalem event. It can simply be a matter of whether the Bible is including Nebuchadnezzar's accession year when referring to the Jerusalem event.

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

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

The scriptures quoted are as follows:

• (Jeremiah 52:29) In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem.

• (2 Kings 25:8, 9) In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. 9 He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; . . .

I know you already knew this from a previous conversation.

20 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Honesty is a two-way street required by both sides in a debate therefore no need for any ;theocratic war strategy..

You were using the term "honesty is a two-way street" as if it were an excuse to explain why you made a false claim. In a "debate" you don't get to make false claims and then make excuses for it. You should be honest no matter what you think of the other person's evidence.

20 hours ago, scholar JW said:

If the Gap does not exist then how do you account for the 20 year difference between 586/587 BCE and 607 BCE for the same event? No need for circular reasoning here.

There is no gap in the NB evidence. You don't create a gap in another set of evidence by simply making a claim that one exists:

Let's say that I have a coin collection of all the different types of United States coins made during World War 1: a 1914 penny, nickel, dime, quarter, half-dollar, silver dollar, gold quarter-eagle, gold half-eagle, etc., etc., from each of the applicable locations where coins are officially minted. Let's say that  I have an entire set not just from 1914, but also from 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918. Now you come along and tell me that there is a three-year gap in my WW1 coin collection. But that doesn't create a gap in my collection. It does not create a gap in the evidence for when WW1 started and ended. It just creates a gap in your credibility.

If I ask you where this supposed three-year gap might be placed, you could say that the extra three years should be placed between 1916 and 1917. Again, this claim is only a gap in your own credibility and it has no effect on the evidence for what coins were made during World War 1 and it has no effect on the evidence for the actual years of World War 1. It's just a claim. Even if it came from your beloved grandfather who has never told a lie before, it still doesn't mean that the start of World War 1 must now be reset to 1911 instead of 1914.

You could insist that there must be a three-year gap because your grandfather actually told you that World War 1 started in 1911. He is so sure of it that he has also pushed back the beginning of the U.S. Civil war to 1858 instead of 1861, and the U.S. Declaration of Independence from Britain to July 4, 1773 instead of 1776. But this would only mean that you (and your grandfather) have a gap. It does not produce any gap in United States chronology or coinage.

20 hours ago, scholar JW said:

If there is no Gap then why or what are we discussing?

We are certainly not discussing any gap in the NB evidence itself, but a gap in someone else's claim about it. We are discussing the idea that you believe there is a gap somewhere in the NB, but you still don't even know exactly where that gap should be placed. We are in exactly the same type situation that would be created if you and your grandfather were claiming that World War 1 started in 1911 instead of 1914, assuming that you agreed that it ended in 1918, but that WW1 covered parts of 8 different years (1911-1918) instead of parts of 5 different years (1914-1918). But you still don't know where the current evidence for WW1 from 1914 to 1918 went wrong. Perhaps the three years of information you need to add should be inserted between the current evidence for 1916 and 1917. Or between the current evidence for 1917 and 1918. Or perhaps the three years should be added between February 3, 1915 and February 4, 1915.

20 hours ago, scholar JW said:

You talk honesty but your following comments replete with many references to earlier WT Publications finally concluding that some dates were or are fuzzy!

The history of these Watchtower dates that you are relying on is fuzzy. The reasons the Watchtower has needed them to be fuzzy becomes sharp and clear when you study the history of the Watchtower's chronology claims more closely. And you don't even need the older publications because the CURRENT "Insight" book admits that the two year difference between 539 and 537 is based on something that "is very probable." Current publications put the third year of Cyrus at 536, but the first year of Cyrus is pushed as closely as possible toward the spring of 537. Obviously, the WTS does this, even though Cyrus had the authority to release captives in 539 and 538, but we just don't want any Jews coming back in 539 or 538,  as that would throw off 1914 by throwing off 607 by a year or two. In the past, we allowed them to come back in 536 because we thought that was the first year of Cyrus (and therefore put Jerusalem's destruction in 606). If we were arguing for the same two-year-plus delay that we argue for now in the WTS publications, then the Jews might not be back home until 534 or even 533. The fuzziness has worked in favor of the WTS to keep 1914 afloat.

The WTS was always willing to re-adjust the old dates, although to be fair, the solution for a while was to change 1914 to 1915. Both Russell and Rutherford began using 1915 as the new end of the Gentile Times even until a few years after 1914.

• During the time of trouble, closing this age, they will be exalted to power, but their "reign" of righteousness over the world could not precede A.D. 1915—when the Times of the Gentiles have expired. (The Time Is At Hand, p.81.)

• the "battle of the great day of God Almighty" (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1915, with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced. (ibid, p.101)

Here's what we the WTS said when they were first learning about the "zero year" problem in the Watch Tower from December 1912. By 1914 the WTS "discerned" that there WAS a zero year, but still kept referring to October 1915 as the end of the Gentile Times when it looked like 1914 wasn't working out. Apparently, they misunderstood the quote in the Encylopedia Britannica, below, referring to a common misunderstanding that is still made today by amateur astronomers. Then in 1943, the WTS "discerned" that there was NO zero year.:

---------quote from Watch Tower, December 1912, p. 377 [new paragraphs shown as bullet points]---------------

• Whether Dionysius began his A.D. period January 1st, A.D. 1, or whether he began it January 1st, A.D. 0, we may not be sure; neither may we feel too certain whether he began the B.C. dates December 31st, B.C. 0, or December 31st, B.C. 1. For all ordinary purposes this question would be rather immaterial. But it has a very important bearing on our calculation of Gentile Times. . . .
• Coming now to a very critical examination of the date 536 B.C., there is an open question: Shall we call it 536 full years to A.D., or 434 [sic] full years? The difference in time between October 1st and January 1st would be the fourth of a year; hence our query is respecting 536-1/4 or 535-1/4 years B.C. What is the proper method of calculation, is in dispute. If we count the first year B.C. as 0, then the date 536-1/4 B.C. is the proper one for the end of the seventy years of captivity. But if we begin to reckon it by counting the first year before the Christian era as B.C. 1, then evidently the desolation ended 535-1/4 years B.C.
• As to the methods of counting, Encyclopaedia Britannica says, "Astronomers denote the year which preceded the first of our era as 0 and the year previous to that as B.C. 1--the previous year B.C. 2, and so on."
• Whichever of these ways we undertake to calculate the matter the difference between the results is one year. The seventy years of Jewish captivity ended October, 536 B.C., and if there were 536-1/4 years B.C., then to complete the 2,520 years' cycle of the Times of the Gentiles would require 1913-3/4 years of A.D., or to October, 1914. But if the other way of reckoning were used, then there were but 535-1/4 years of the period B.C., and the remainder of the 2,520 years would reach to A.D., 1914-3/4 years, otherwise October, 1915.