31 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

In other words, the Bible shows that your theory is impossible because the Bible confirms that the secular tablets are correct in giving Nebuchadnezzar only 43 years. You can't squeeze out more than 43 years in his reign, if Evil-Merodach became king in the 37th year of Jehoiachin's exile. The Bible also, therefore, agrees with "Ptolemy's Canon" and the evidence from all the astronomical tablets here, too.

Again, I will quote from a source that attempts to support the Bible, but evidently with no particular stake, one way or another, in the Watchtower's version. Below I am quoting two paragraphs from http://bibletruthsandprophecies.com/index.php?title=Jeconiah

Jeconiah is of course the same as Jehoiachin:

-------------- start of quote from website ---------------

Reign

Jeconiah reigned three months and ten days, from December 9, 598 to March 15/16, 597 BC. He succeeded Jehoiakim as king of Judah[2Ki.24:6] in December 598, after raiders from surrounding lands invaded Jerusalem[2Ki.24:2] and killed his father. It is likely that the king of Babylon was behind this effort, as a response to Jehoiakim's revolt, starting sometime after 601 BC. Three months and ten days after Jeconiah became king, the armies of Nebuchadnezzar II seized Jerusalem. The intention was to take high class Judahite captives and assimilate them into Babylonian society. On March 15/16th, 597 BC,[5]:217 Jeconiah, his entire household and three thousand Jews, were exiled to Babylon.

Release from captivity

According to 2 Kings 25:27, Jeconiah was released from prison "in the 37th year of the exile", in the year that Amel-Marduk (Evil-Merodach) came to the throne. Babylonian records show that Amel-Marduk began his reign in October 562 BC.[8] According to 2 Kings 25:27, Jeconiah was released from prison "on the 27th day of the twelfth month", during March of 561 BC. This indicates the first year of captivity to be 598/597 BC, according to Judah's Tishri-based calendar. The 37th year of captivity was thus, by Judean reckoning, the year that began in Tishri of 562, consistent with the synchronism to the accession year of Amel-Marduk given in Babylonian records.

------------- end of quote from website --------------------

17 hours ago, scholar JW said:

After I had made a post to you this morning I was sitting on the throne whereupon much inspiration and meditation can be entered into for knows how great minds have constructed ideas which have altered the course of history or civilization. . . . See, I have most dutifully corrected the problem.

Well, I'll look into how dutifully the problem has been corrected. Let's hope it's duty-free, considering where you've been.

17 hours ago, scholar JW said:

I thought of you and your need for some insertion regarding the 20 years Babylonian Gap. So, I propose that in view of the fact that NB Chronology is silent regarding Neb's 18th year when he destroyed Jerusalem and King Zedekiah's 11 th year that it should be at that time and event the 20 years could be inserted thus altering the traditional 587 or 586 BCE to 607 BCE.

So, you are saying that the 20 years can be inserted altogether in one piece starting in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, which was also the same point as King Zedekiah's 11th year. This would, of course, mean that Nebuchadnezzar did not just rule for 43 years, but for 63 years. This is where those 10,000 tablets could really help out your theory. There are plenty of tablets representing every year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign from his first to his 43rd, but you have absolutely zero for every one of these extra 20 years.

The evidence from thousands of tablets is actually definitive enough. But you would also have an  bigger problem, the Bible itself:

Notice that if your dates were correct then Jehoiachin would have surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar in 597 which you would call 617, assuming this 20-year gap theory was correct. This is admitted in the "Insight" book:

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

• It appears that Jehoiakim died during this siege and Jehoiachin ascended the throne of Judah. His rule ended, however, a mere three months and ten days later, when he surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar in 617 B.C.E.  . . . 

  In fulfillment of Jehovah’s word through Jeremiah, he was taken into Babylonian exile. (Jer 22:24-27; 24:1; 27:19, 20; 29:1, 2) Other members of the royal household, court officials, craftsmen, and warriors were also exiled.—2Ki 24:14-16;

• (2 Kings 25:27) 27 And in the 37th year of the exile of King Je·hoi?a·chin of Judah, in the 12th month, on the 27th day of the month, King E?vil-mer?o·dach of Babylon, in the year he became king, released King Je·hoi?a·chin of Judah from prison.

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

• In the fifth year of JehoiachinÂ’s exile, Ezekiel began his prophetic work. (Eze 1:2) About 32 years later, evidently in 580 B.C.E., Jehoiachin was released from prison by NebuchadnezzarÂ’s successor Evil-merodach (Awil-Marduk) and given a position of favor above all the other captive kings. Thereafter he ate at Evil-merodachÂ’s table and received a daily allowance.—2Ki 25:27-30; Jer 52:31-34.

In other words, the Bible shows that your theory is impossible because the Bible confirms that the secular tablets are correct in giving Nebuchadnezzar only 43 years. You can't squeeze out more than 43 years in his reign, if Evil-Merodach became king in the 37th year of Jehoiachin's exile. The Bible also, therefore, agrees with "Ptolemy's Canon" and the evidence from all the astronomical tablets here, too.

On 12/10/2017 at 3:02 PM, scholar JW said:

Honesty is a two-way street.

No. Honesty is NOT a two-way street. I hope you are not thinking of "theocratic war strategy" when you consider it OK to be dishonest if you consider someone to be an enemy or not entitled to honesty.

*** w57 5/1 p. 286 Use Theocratic War Strategy ***

• So in time of spiritual warfare it is proper to misdirect the enemy by hiding the truth.

*** it-2 p. 244 Lie ***

• ". . . saying something false to a person who is entitled to know the truth . . ."

On 12/10/2017 at 3:02 PM, scholar JW said:

Thus, the NB Period is falsified by this Gap of twenty years so to ignore it is dishonest.

This is misdirection through circular reasoning.

If Bob says 20+30=70, and Jim says 20+50=70, Bob can't say Jim is dishonest because Jim is ignoring Bob's 20-integer Gap.

On 12/10/2017 at 3:02 PM, scholar JW said:

for in any event Chronology is personal,

No. Chronology is not "personal."

On 12/10/2017 at 3:02 PM, scholar JW said:

If you choose to ignore the historical reality of the 70 years then also there is no Gap

This is part of the false, circular reasoning. I find no Gap, and yet I choose NOT to ignore the historical reality of the 70 years. I find all 70 years perfectly accounted for.

On 12/10/2017 at 3:02 PM, scholar JW said:

Whitewashing history is dishonest and trivializing the period by adopting 'fuzzy' beginning, 609 BCE and a 'fuzzy' end, 539 BCE is also dishonest. Perhaps now you should make that insertion at a point of time within the NB Period!!!

I have already stated my acceptance of making the insertion point of the 70 years of Babylonian "empire" from 609 to 539. But I am not against someone accepting a "fuzzy" beginning or end to this period -- within reason. I know, for example, that the Watchtower teaches a "fuzzy end" of this period that admits that the Babylonian empire ended in 539 but also admits that we are only guessing when we say that the Jews returned to end this period in 537. I am not concerned about the 2 years of the Watchtower's "fuzziness" as you would call it. There was a time when the Watchtower accepted 536 as the first year of Cyrus - and not only the first year, but the year of the Edict itself. If there were good reasons to accept that this "70-year period" was shorter, or longer by a few years, or even symbolic, I'd have no problem with it, and I therefore have no problem with a date near 537 as the end of the period. (And I'd have no problem with a date like 607 as the beginning of the 70 years.) But you will see why I consider "honesty" to be an integral part of the discussion when we look more closely at how the Watch Tower publications have "toyed" with this time period.

*** it-1 p. 458 Chronology ***

• During Cyrus’ first year his decree releasing the Jews from exile was given. And, as considered in the article on CYRUS, it is very probable that the decree was made by the winter of 538 B.C.E. or toward the spring of 537 B.C.E. This would permit the Jews time to make necessary preparations, effect the four-month journey to Jerusalem, and still arrive there by the seventh month (Tishri, or about October 1) of 537 B.C.E.

*** w07 9/1 p. 19 par. 9 Highlights From the Book of Daniel ***

• The year is now 539 B.C.E. Babylon has fallen, and Darius the Mede has become ruler over the kingdom of the Chaldeans

*** w05 5/1 p. 12 par. 18 The Resurrection—A Teaching That Affects You ***

• he received a vision in 536 B.C.E., the third year of Cyrus, king of Persia. (Daniel 1:1; 10:1) Some time during that third year of Cyrus, Daniel received a vision of the march of world powers

So Babylon fell in 539, and Cyrus therefore had the power and authority to declare Babylon's captives to be free immediately: in 539. In fact, one Biblical meaning of "first year" as you know (and as you yourself have pointed out previously) can refer to the accession year, which in this case would be 539. But notice that the "Insight" book, in the first of the three quotes above, pushes his "first-year" decree all the way out into 537 or "toward" 537, but in the last quote his third year is 536.

Older Watchtower publications placed Cyrus first year in 536, or even his accession year when Babylon was destroyed, in 536. So in Watchtower terms, both his first year and his third year have, at times, been stated to be 536.

*** Watch Tower, 6/1/1905, p.183

• In accordance with the Edict of Cyrus (536 B.C.) many of the Israelites returned from Babylon and laid the foundations of the Temple. Ezra 4:24, however, states that the work then "ceased unto the 2nd year of the reign of Darius, king of Persia." The length of time from the Edict of Cyrus in 536 B.C. . . .

Throughout all of the earlier publications the statements were always consistent with these examples below:

• All students of chronology may be said to be agreed, that the first year of Cyrus was the year 536 before the beginning of our Anno Domini era. (Watch Tower, 5/1896, p.113)
• With these facts before us, we readily find the date for the beginning of the Gentile Times of dominion; for the first year of the reign of Cyrus is a very clearly fixed date--both secular and religious histories with marked unanimity agreeing with Ptolemy's Canon, which places it B.C. 536. (The Time Is At Hand, p.79-80)

So the THREE YEARS of "fuzziness" in the Watchtower's explanations of this date have all been necessary in order to keep 1914 afloat. At first, it could have been that the Jews began returning in the year of the Edict, 536, back when all students of chronology supposedly agreed that the first year of Cyrus was 536. Then, when all students of chronology must have supposedly realized that "Ptolemy's Canon" actually would have placed the destruction of Babylon by Cyrus in 539, that's when some scrambling began. The solution was to try to push the Edict as close to 537 as possible (see "Insight," above) nearly two years after Cyrus had destroyed Babylon.

Then we still needed an extra year for 1914 to work, so we thought there would have to be a few months of preparation time, and then about 4 more months of travel. Perfect!! We resolved the three years of fuzziness with some conjecture.

You already know that something very similar happened when it was discovered that "all students of chronology" realized that there was no ZERO year. The destruction of Jerusalem had to be moved from 606 to 607 in order for 1914 to work. So it was a "fuzzy" date anyway, and moving it just one year was not a problem.

Therefore in Watchtower chronology, BOTH ends of this period were considered very fuzzy and flexible.

@Anna ,

I think that the following explanation offers a good start for discussing the points in a well organized manner. It's well written, easy to understand, and I don't think it comes from anyone who has a biased stake in the current Watchtower explanation. It's just another person trying to grapple with the same Bible verses that we are, and trying to defend the Bible against Bible detractors. From here to the remainder of the post, it's all a quote from an article at http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/years.htm

-----------beginning of quote, through end of this post -------------

Seventy years of Babylonian rule: A detailed look at Jeremiah 25:9-12 and some objections that skeptics have

Many people have questioned the accuracy of Jeremiah's prophecy about a 70-year period during which Babylon would dominate Judah and hold Jews as captives in Babylon. These questions, in my opinion, are based on a mistaken belief that the captivity was supposed to last 70 years. My response is in three parts:

• Part 1. Summary of my understanding of the prophecy
• Part 2. My explanation of when the 70 years ended.
• Part 3. My theory on when the 70 years began.

Part 1. Summary of my understanding of the prophecy:

1. Jeremiah 25:9-12 said that Judah would serve Babylon for 70 years.

2. Jeremiah 29:10 makes it clear that Babylon's domination of Judah would include a captivity during which Jews would be taken as captives to Babylon.

3. Jeremiah 29:10 said that the captivity would end when the "70 years" ended.

4. But Jeremiah never said that the captivity itself would last 70 years. He only said that Babylonian rule would last 70 years.

5. Babylon's rule lasted 70 years, from 609 BC when the last Assyrian king, Ashur-uballit II, was defeated in Harran, until 539 BC when the Medo-Persians conquered Babylon.

Part 2. My explanation of when the 70 years ended:

The people who have questioned the accuracy of this prophecy are, as far as I have been able to determine, are correct in that the captivity Jews in Babylon did not last 70 years, if the commonly assigned dates for the captivity are taken seriously. Most historical sources that I have seen state that 539 BC was the year that Babylon was conquered by the Medo-Persians. And that would seem to be a reasonable ending date for the captivity. But when did the captivity begin? Some say it began in 597 BC, when Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem. If this date is accepted, then the captivity spanned no more than 59 years. So how does or 59 years equal 70 years? It can't and it doesn't.

Believers, including myself, often point out that the book of Daniel states that there was an earlier taking of captives from Judah to Babylon, in either 605 BC or 606 BC, depending on which source of information is used. And, the believers often point out that although Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BC, he didn't release the Jews until the following year, in 538 BC or even 537 BC. And some believers have assigned the actual year in which the Jews of Babylon did begin to return to Judah was 537 BC or 536 BC. Using the two extremes as the starting and ending points, one could arrive at a 70-year span. But, in my opinion, none of this is even necessary because Jeremiah never said that the captivity would last 70 years. He only said that Babylonian rule would last 70 years.

In Jeremiah 25:9-12, it said that Judah and the surrounding nations would serve Babylon for 70 years. But, Jeremiah does not say that the forced deportation of Jews from Judah would last 70 years. The captivity is something that grew out of Babylon's domination of Judah. The domination was supposed to span 70 years, but Jeremiah never said that the captivity itself would span 70 years. Below is the NIV translation of Jeremiah 25:9-12:

Jeremiah 25:9-12

9 I will summon all the peoples of the north and my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon," declares the LORD, "and I will bring them against this land and its inhabitants and against all the surrounding nations. I will completely destroy them and make them an object of horror and scorn, and an everlasting ruin.

10 I will banish from them the sounds of joy and gladness, the voices of bride and bridegroom, the sound of millstones and the light of the lamp.

11 This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years.

12 "But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation, the land of the Babylonians, for their guilt," declares the LORD, "and will make it desolate forever.

But, in Jeremiah 29:10, Jeremiah does clearly say that the captivity will terminate at the end of the 70-year period. Below is the NIV translation of Jeremiah 29:10:

Jeremiah 29:10

This is what the LORD says: "When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my gracious promise to bring you back to this place.

In Daniel 9:1-2, the prophet Daniel refers to the 70 years in that "the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years." But he too does not state that the captivity was supposed to last 70 years. What did he mean by "desolation?" Some might argue that he meant "captivity." But that would be an assumption, and nothing more than an assumption. And, in my opinion, given the fact that Daniel is probably referring to the Jeremiah prophecy, it would be a weak assumption to think that he meant "captivity" when he said "desolation." The desolation could simply refer to Babylonian domination, lasting from 609 BC to 539 BC. Others might claim that the "desolation" that Daniel referred to might actually be a reference to the 70 years in which the Temple had been destroyed. The Temple, and Jerusalem, were destroyed in 586 BC by the Babylonians. The Temple, which was rebuilt, was consecrated in 516 BC, 70 years after its destruction. Below is the NIV translation of Daniel 9:1-2:

Daniel 9:1-2

1 In the first year of Darius son of Xerxes (a Mede by descent), who was made ruler over the Babylonian kingdom--

2 in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the LORD given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years.

In 2 Chronicles 36:19-21, the Bible refers to a 70 year period during which the land of Judah enjoyed its Sabbath rests. This Bible passage begins with a reference to the 586 BC destruction of Jerusalem, during which the Temple was also destroyed. If it specifically meant to apply Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy to the destruction of the city, then that application could find fulfillment in that the Temple remained destroyed and non-operational for 70 years, from 586 BC to 516 BC. After the Jews rebuilt the Temple, it was consecrated in 516 BC. But regardless of how the 70 years reference is being used in this passage, it does not say that the captivity itself would last 70 years. Below is the NIV translation of 2 Chronicles 36:19-21:

2 Chronicles 36:19-21

19 They set fire to God's temple and broke down the wall of Jerusalem; they burned all the palaces and destroyed everything of value there.

20 He carried into exile to Babylon the remnant, who escaped from the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia came to power.

21 The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested, until the seventy years were completed in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah.

In Zechariah 1:12, the prophet Zechariah makes a passing reference to a 70 year period. But that passage also does not in any way contradict my contention that the 70 year prophecy of Jeremiah refers to Babylonian rule and that Jeremiah never said that the captivity would last 70 years.

Part 3. My theory on when the 70 years began:

When did Babylon begin its domination of Judah? We know that there are historical records that claim that the Assyrian Empire dominated Judah, and many other nations. And we know that the Assyrian Empire was conquered by the Babylonian Empire.

In 612 B.C. the Babylonians and the Medes conquered Nineveh, which at that time was the capital of the Assyrian Empire. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica: "…Nineveh suffered a defeat from which it never recovered. Extensive traces of ash, representing the sack of the city by Babylonians, Scythians, and Medes in 612 BC, have been found in many parts of the Acropolis. After 612 BC the city ceased to be important…"

After the defeat of Nineveh, the last of the Assyrian kings, Ashur-uballit II, fled to the west with members of his army. Most online historical references that I have been able to find state that the reign of Ashur-uballit II ended in 609 BC. My sources for this are the two Web site addresses below, the first of which is a page from the Missouri Western State College web site:

http://crain.english.mwsc.edu/Jonah/assyrians.htm

The conquest of the Assyrian Empire allowed Babylon and the Medes to divide the empire amongst themselves. The Babylonians chose a vast area of the Assyrian-controlled territories, including Judah and the surrounding countries.

Using the 609 BC date for the demise of the Assyrian Empire and for the rise of the new Babylonian Empire, and using the 539 BC date for the end of the Babylonian Empire, we end up with a 70-year span of Babylonian rule. That, for the reasons described above, is what I believe is the 70-year period referred to in Jeremiah 25:9-12 and Jeremiah 29:10.

----- end of quote from http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/years.htm

@scholar JW,

At least you have admitted that your claim was totally FALSE. Thank you.

Let's review:

• I said that we [in the WT publications] have absolutely no idea at what point between 607 and 539, for example, that we have actually added the 20 years that we needed. We just say that it's in there somewhere, and maybe someday maybe some evidence will turn up for it.
• You said, that's nonsense. More specifically you even said: "Your claim that 'we have absolutely no idea at what point between 607 and 539 for example, that we have actually added the 20 years that we needed' is simply nonsense."
• I said: there is a simple way for you to show whether you are telling the truth. If you actually do have an idea at what point between 607 and 539 you have added the 20 years, simply tell me where it is.
• Then you admit that you have still FAILED to identify the point in question. You said that you can INSERT the 20 years anywhere between 587/586 and 539 BCE.

Your last statement is so patently false. It's such an admission of failure that I'm surprised you ever bothered to call something I said "nonsense" and then so clearly showed that it was correct all along.

As I said, it's a matter of honesty.

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

During the Neo-Babylonian Period alone there is found to be a Gap of 20 years

Not true. There has never been found to be a 20 year gap. That's the problem. And it really is a problem of honesty. No one has found one, no one has seen any hint of one. No one would even know where to look for such a gap because each and every year is completely accounted for.

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

WT Chronology only uses the secular date for the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE for all other dates are based on the biblical narrative counting backwards or forwards in order to construct a scheme of Chronology

As I said, it is a matter of honesty. Although merely highlighting the word "scheme" here would be a cheap shot. The real problems were already discussed and you (scholar JW) already failed to provide any evidence for your claims, even though you gave the impression you have been looking for evidence even among scholarly circles for many years now.

It's almost like you have come into a room with 100 people to claim that 20+30=70, while 99 others are saying that 20+50=70. You can't find your evidence, but say it exists, then you go away for a time but come back saying the evidence exists, but you still can't find it.

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Your claim that 'we have absolutely no idea at what point between 607 and 539 for example, that we have actually added the 20 years that we needed' is simply nonsense.The fact of the matter is that period, the Neo-Babylonian Period parallels Biblical Period of Jewish history and contains events that are or can be synchronized between both schemes. It is proven that there is a 20 years gap which floats between the two because of the '70' years missing from the NB Period historically, therefore, any interpreter, Chronologist or scholar needs to make an adjustment or corrective in order to harmonize the two systems. This is what scholars call -METHODOLOGY!!!!! This represents sound academic practice.

As I said, it is a matter of honesty. You don't have any idea at what point between 607 and 539 where you have added the 20 years. It's as if you think it just floats somewhere between the two dates. Then you say it is proven, but you still say that you have no idea where the point is. You even admit the words that:

• "there is is a 20 years gap which floats between the two because of the '70' years missing from the NB Period historically."

What does that even mean? That you actually do know the point because it floats somewhere at some unknown point? As I said, it's a matter of honesty. What you have done here is what scholars call a lack of methodology. It's completely unsound academic practice. Sorry, but it sounds like pretentiousness in the hopes that no one will read what you just said very carefully.

7 hours ago, scholar JW said:

According to at least not half a dozen as you say but there are 17 lines of evidence which would corroborate NB Chronology along with thousands of clay documents

Yes. There are even more lines of secular evidence that corroborate a timetable which is also confirmed by the Bible. And this overwhelming evidence is no challenge at all to the Bible's chronology. The Bible chronology works just fine with the secular chronology here. The 70 years of Jeremiah is a nearly perfect fit, as a matter of fact.

But there is a simple way for you to show whether you are telling the truth. If you actually do have an idea at what point between 607 and 539 you have added the 20 years, simply tell me where it is. You have the secular dates, nearly a 50 year period from 587 to 538, and you know the names and length of reigns of each of the know Neo-Babylonian kings in this period that have even been admitted by the Watchtower publications. So just tell us where the extra 20 years fits into that secular chronology. Show us at what point the secular chronology went wrong, and then we'll know if what you said was true, or nonsense.

On 12/8/2017 at 9:31 PM, Melinda Mills said:

and would have been considered a pagan practice.

Agree 100%. In fact, the Christians would probably not have considered birthdays a pagan practice as much as a "impractical" practice. It was usually only the very rich who could afford to give a feast on birthdays, so it became the purview of kings and persons of high station. Christians, like Jews, would have had no problem with excuses to enjoy a feast. Jesus participated in marriage feasts that lasted several days. He also used feasts in his illustrations. (Matt 22)

Jesus even went to a "tax collector party":

• (Luke 5:27-30) . . .Now after this, he went out and saw a tax collector named Leʹvi sitting at the tax office, and he said to him: “Be my follower.” 28 And leaving everything behind, he rose up and began to follow him. 29 Then Leʹvi spread a big reception feast for him in his house, and there was a large crowd of tax collectors and others who were dining with them. 30 At this the Pharisees and their scribes began murmuring to his disciples, saying: “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”

Jesus even gave instructions for feasts that had no specific reason behind them.

• (Luke 14:12-16) 12 Next he said also to the man who had invited him: “When you spread a dinner or an evening meal, do not call your friends or your brothers or your relatives or your rich neighbors. Otherwise, they might also invite you in return, and it would become a repayment to you. 13 But when you spread a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind; 14 and you will be happy, because they have nothing with which to repay you. For you will be repaid in the resurrection of the righteous ones.” 15 On hearing these things, one of the fellow guests said to him: “Happy is the one who dines in the Kingdom of God.” 16 Jesus said to him: “A man was spreading a grand evening meal, and he invited many.

Since feasts were expensive, it appears that Christianity itself made it easier to afford feasts as part of the meeting arrangements, probably because it no longer depended on the generosity of a single rich person, but the sharing among all of them.

• (Jude 12) 12 These are the rocks hidden below water at your love feasts while they feast with you, shepherds who feed themselves without fear; . . .

And of course, even Jesus refers positively to the feast that took place on the 25th of the winter month that usually corresponds with December. (Kislev 25) Jesus went up to Jerusalem during the Hanukkah celebration, on the 25th of the month, even though Hanukkah was a feast that was not commanded in the Bible but was initiated during Maccabean times. (See John 10:22 in the NWT Reference Bible)

9 hours ago, Anna said:

To get the 609 and 605 dates for the two battles what source was used? I calculated it comes to those dates using VAT 4956, but were there any other sources for dating those two battles? How come  WT dates it earlier by 20 years? 

It's pretty simple. The Watchtower merely relies on secular dating to get all dates during this period.

To get any date up to and prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, they merely take the secular date and add 20 years:

• 587+20=607
• 605+20=625
• 609+20=629
• In effect, this would have to have gone all the way back to Adam, if there had been an unambiguous timeline going all the way back.

In fact, it averages out to something similar when comparing to Bishop Ussher's numbers which put Adam's creation at 4004 BCE and we effectively add 22 years to that (4004+22=4026).

For any date after and including the destruction of Babylon in 539, the Watchtower relies completely on this secular date. They merely take the secular date and add 0 years:

• 539+0=539

There is an exception made for the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus, but only so that we can make the 70 weeks of years fit an interpretation that is easier to explain.

*** it-1 p. 182 Artaxerxes ***

• Artaxerxes Longimanus, the son of Xerxes I, is the king referred to at Ezra 7:1-28 and Nehemiah 2:1-18; 13:6. Whereas most reference works give his accession year as 465 B.C.E., there is sound reason for placing it in 475 B.C.E.—See PERSIA, PERSIANS (The Reigns of Xerxes and of Artaxerxes).

At this point, with Artaxerxes, we are moving back from the secular dating by 10 years, not 20, but that was after accepting the secular dating as exactly correct in 539. The reason is always to make our interpretations work.

The embarrassing part of all of this is that we have absolutely no idea at what point between 607 and 539, for example, that we have actually added the 20 years that we needed. We just say that it's in there somewhere, and maybe someday maybe some evidence will turn up for it.

Remember that the WT had to add 20 years to the Neo-Babylonian calendar to push the destruction of Jerusalem far enough back so that 2,520 years would end in 1914. In effect, then, the WT must add 20 years to every secular date. The WT is forced to break not just one line of evidence for 587, but at least half-a-dozen lines of evidence, plus the evidence derived from LITERALLY!! ALL of more than 10,000 clay tablets and literally ALL the evidence from Babylonian, Assyrian and Persian sources in the relevant time period.

if you look too closely at this, be prepared to become ashamed or become [academically] dishonest. It's just my opinion, but I see no other choices.

5 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

staring at me now

Send it to paradise!

As a follow-up on my last post, it's important that this speculation was considered appropriate for SERIOUS Bible students.

• WHAT about all this talk concerning the year 1975? Lively discussions, some based on speculation, have burst into flame during recent months among serious students of the Bible. Their interest has been kindled by the belief that 1975 will mark the end of 6,000 years of human history since Adam’s creation. The nearness of such an important date indeed fires the imagination and presents unlimited possibilities for discussion.

My father was counseled by a District Overseer in front of the Circuit Overseer for "toying" with Jesus' words at Matthew 24:36 when he added the verse to an assembly talk along with a sentence about not getting too carried away. The counsel was based on this same article quoted above:

*** w68 8/15 pp. 500-501 par. 35 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***

• This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end.

1 hour ago, DefenderOTT said:

The evidence just isn’t there that the watchtower coerced anyone to speculate. But, everyone is entitled to their opinion…

Thanks for providing what you did. You left a few relevant things out, which would give the fuller picture, but what you included was especially interesting in the change from 1962/3 to 1968. Suddenly in 1968, speculation was encouraged as a sign that a Bible student was serious. And that approved speculation was expected to spread like wildfire among serious Bible students because it about something so important.

1 hour ago, DefenderOTT said:

Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975?

WHAT about all this talk concerning the year 1975? Lively discussions, some based on speculation, have burst into flame during recent months among serious students of the Bible. Their interest has been kindled by the belief that 1975 will mark the end of 6,000 years of human history since Adam’s creation. The nearness of such an important date indeed fires the imagination and presents unlimited possibilities for discussion.

² But wait! How do we know their calculations are correct? What basis is there for saying Adam was created nearly 5,993 years ago? Does the one Book that can be implicitly trusted for its truthful historical accuracy, namely, the Inspired Word of Jehovah, the Holy Bible, give support and credence to such a conclusion?

The answer to those questions from paragraph two became the conclusion of the article:

*** w68 8/15 p. 499 par. 28 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***

• Thus, through a careful independent study by dedicated Bible scholars who have pursued the subject for a number of years, and who have not blindly followed some traditional chronological calculations of Christendom, we have arrived at a date for Adam’s creation that is 22 years more distant in the past than Ussher’s figure. This means time is running out two decades sooner than traditional chronology anticipates. . . .

  That means, in the fall of the year 1975, a little over seven years from now (and not in 1997 as would be the case if Ussher’s figures were correct), it will be 6,000 years since the creation of Adam, the father of all mankind!
  ADAM CREATED AT CLOSE OF “SIXTH DAY”
  30 Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man’s existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ. If these two periods run parallel with each other as to the calendar year, it will not be by mere chance or accident but will be according to Jehovah’s loving and timely purposes. Our chronology, however, which is reasonably accurate (but admittedly not infallible), at the best only points to the autumn of 1975 as the end of 6,000 years of man’s existence on earth. It does not necessarily mean that 1975 marks the end of the first 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh creative “day.” Why not? Because after his creation Adam lived some time during the “sixth day,” which unknown amount of time would need to be subtracted from Adam’s 930 years, to determine when the sixth seven-thousand-year period or “day” ended, and how long Adam lived into the “seventh day.” And yet the end of that sixth creative “day” could end within the same Gregorian calendar year of Adam’s creation. It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years.

It's the textbook definition of a call for speculation. No one was "coerced" to speculate. But they were told that it was the appropriate thing to be doing if you were among "serious Bible students" This very material was admitted to be "fuel" for the imagination that produced speculation like a wildfire.

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

Let us be perfectly clear. The 70 years of Jeremiah cannot refer to Babylonish domination alone as . . .

At least we should be able to agree that the 70 years that Jeremiah mentions is always about the length of time of Babylonian domination though, right?

Jeremiah mentions the 70 years in three different places and ALWAYS with reference to Babylon's time of domination:

• (Jeremiah 25:11, 12) 11 And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’ 12 “‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,’ declares Jehovah, ‘and I will make the land of the Chal·deʹans a desolate wasteland for all time.
• ^{(jw.org Byington,Living Bible)}  (Jeremiah 29:10, from JW.ORG) For Jehovah says, As soon as Babylon has had a full seventy years, I will look after you and keep my good word for you, bringing you back to this place.
• ^{(jw.org American Standard Bible)}  (Jeremiah 29:10, from JW.ORG) For thus saith Jehovah, After seventy years are accomplished for Babylon, I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place.

Clearly, those involved in developing the Watchtower's doctrine were not too pleased with the fact that the Hebrew says "for Babylon" here, so without any authority from the Hebrew language manuscripts or Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. The NWT decided to translate this as "at Babylon" which gives a slight different idea, as if it might refer to 70 years of Judea's affliction in Babylonian captivity, which of course doesn't even make sense, since people were taken both before and after the time of Jerusalem's destruction.

• (Jeremiah 29:10) . . .For this is what Jehovah says, ‘When 70 years at Babylon are fulfilled, . . .

The other two translations available on the JW.ORG website, Byington and American Standard, both match the Hebrew by translating the equivalent of "for Babylon." I think the best translation is actually this one:

GOD'S WORD® Translation

• (Jeremiah 29:10) This is what the LORD [Jehovah] says: When Babylon's 70 years are over, I will come to you. I will keep my promise to you and bring you back to this place.

For a time, when a couple of the NWT Bibles in other languages began to translate from the Hebrew instead of the English, they actually began using the term "for Babylon" instead of "at Babylon." Currently, with the 2013 NWT, I believe we are back to translating the other languages from the English rather than the the Bible manuscripts.

So I hope you can at least agree about what these 70 years refer to. Do you agree with the Isaiah book where it references Jeremiah's 70 years with respect to Tyre?

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

• “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) . . . 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.

33 minutes ago, Noble Berean said:

Good point. "Rank and file" has bee a common expression within Bethel for the publishers outside the Bethel headquarters.

• Sometimes F.Franz used the term "rank and file" and sometimes just "the publishers" as in "the publishers don't always know what they need until they see it."
• Assembly talk in 2014 spoke of how the faithful slave is producing material and that "You, the rank and file take it from door to door." (He was a circuit overseer, so I remember wondering if he should have said "We, the rank and file . . .")
• A member of the Governing Body speaks of the "rank and file" witnesses in the 2011 video "Jehovah's Witnesses -- Faith in Acti0on."
• Also the Watchtower has used it a couple of times:

*** w86 9/1 p. 28 Must You Be in the Limelight? ***

• A similar situation exists in the Christian congregation. Some individuals are used quite prominently, but others play rather inconspicuous roles as rank-and-file publishers of the Kingdom message. Should these ones feel, however, that they are somehow less important because they are not in the limelight?

But it's true isn't it, that each of these "prominent ones" should also be considering themselves to to be the "rank and file" at least on weekends.

6 minutes ago, Noble Berean said:

It's dishonest for the organization to suggest that 1975 enthusiasm was generated by some rank & file JWs.

Just because something is not true does not strictly mean it is dishonest. I have honestly seen perhaps dozens of people who knew all about the publications drumming up speculation about the 1970's but who were then very quick to blame themselves or decide that they weren't at all affected when they were. What I think I have seen is that blaming individual Witnesses instead of the publications for the speculation became a mental rite of passage for all those who lived through it but didn't exactly know what to say afterward. In 1976 we got the message that it was our own fault, and I think this came at the peak time to settle any confusion about what just happened. I remember thinking that this was easier if all of us just saw it as our own weakness because we don't have to worry about the reputation of Jehovah's organization, and we are all humble enough to take the blame. It seemed to me that whole congregations were breathing a sigh of relief that this was the solution. I think that most of us (I'm guessing 66%) were thoroughly convinced that it really was our own fault. Those who didn't fall for it were given a chance to judge themselves as slightly superior to those who did.

And the reason it worked is that it was partly true. While the WTS had requested that we speculate about 1975, and it drove the parameters of that speculation so that we would see a high probability of end-time events taking place that year, we were never told specifically that Armageddon would come that year. Yet this was exactly what people were thinking. That was improper, individual speculation. The closest the Watchtower had said was that the 1970's would see end time events. The events would begin, not years, but only months from 1975. This is really the equivalent of saying, before October 1977, (because that would be "years" not just "months"). But there was enough looseness to the language and the tie in with expectations for the 1970's so that we should not have been surprised if the end took until 1979. But it was almost surely going to happen prior to 1979.

In 1976 we really had been speculating about a specific year (1975) and we were never told to do that, per se. Yes, we were told to speculate, but there really were unwarranted conclusions being drawn from the speculation. It seems curious how even the internal speculation at the Society's headquarters was not going to wait until 1977 to see if it really would be only months, not years from 1975. They understood that when 1975 was only a few months behind us, that the whole speculation had to be put to bed. In fact, they put the brakes on the speculation beginning in the summer of 1974, as I recall.

So all the initial enthusiasm had been generated by the WTS publications, but only up through 1973, and even then the most important enthusiasm had been at assemblies between 1968 and 1971. I think that HQ knew that there was something wrong with the 1975 thing in late 1973 and early 1974. They probably felt that after the counsel beginning in the summer of 1974, any individuals who still pushed 1975 with the same enthusiasm were on their own.

18 minutes ago, Anna said:

So is it wrong to say that the dominance given to Babylon started with the destruction of Jerusalem?

I think so. The dominance given to Babylon would have been when Babylon became the obvious ascendant heir to the Assyrian Empire. Egypt had dominance when they were the "world empire" then Assyria had dominance when they were the "world empire." Therefore, it would start around 609 BCE and end in 539 BCE, when Babylon was the "world empire." It's the exact same time period given to the 70 years of Babylon over Tyre.

1 hour ago, DefenderOTT said:

Then it bottoms out at 0.2% + 2.... Whether it makes any difference when speaking of speculating...To the masses that didn't get it.

It might be that low, assuming you don't trust the Watchtower's own reports. But if you're right, it means 98% of us were not obedient when we were asked to speculate in 1968 through 1973. This might give us a better picture of why the WTS brought the subject of 1975 up again, and it might answer @Anna's question about the lesson to be learned. 

Here's what I think it is:

1. The WTS has been highlighting the idea of obedience and following any and all instructions even if asked to follow a course that does not seem reasonable or rational. This idea, spelled out in 2013 below, has been repeated again this year.

*** w13 11/15 p. 20 par. 17 Seven Shepherds, Eight Dukes—What They Mean for Us Today ***

• At that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not. (4) Now is the time for any who may be putting their trust in secular education, material things, or human institutions to adjust their thinking.

2. But someone will point out that when asked to follow instructions in the past, such as when we were told to speculate in the late 1960's and early 1970's, many people ended up doing things that were considered wonderful at the time (like selling your home) but irrational upon looking back on that time.

3. To answer this objection, the WTS knew it had to address the 1975 issues again, but remind us that this was the fault of individuals speculating on their own, and not the fault of the WTS.

So I'm thinking that some brothers put the 1975 skit together specifically as a way to clear up that particular objection about the past, so that we are better prepared to be obedient without objections in the future. We don't want to be overly concerned with reasonableness. If we feel always tied to a reasonable, practical, sound or strategic instructions, we will need to adjust our thinking because these could be a hindrance to following instructions. Some would say this is similar preparation given to the soldiers in the poem "The Charge of the Light Brigade" by Alfred Tennyson:

I'm not saying this is all bad advice. Egos get in the way of progress when one always relies on the absolute best solution. There is paralysis through analysis. Perfect becomes the enemy of good. People who are not humble need to leave well enough alone. But in trying to prepare people for the likely needs during such a time, which is based on speculation anyway, it's probably best to start with reasonable suggestions rather than telling everyone to prepare to follow advice that may sound unreasonable. If you are gong to speculate on what the advice could look like, then speculate on some specific scenarios so people know what you are thinking. Otherwise we are asking for a different type of follower than the ones that Jesus and the apostles asked for.

• (Philippians 4:5-7) 5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men. . . . 6 Do not be anxious over anything, . . .  the peace of God that surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and your mental powers by means of Christ Jesus.

2 minutes ago, DefenderOTT said:

It hasn't been *Proven* why 0.2% of people "chose" to speculate in 1975 and 99.8% of people didn't with the same information given...

What does the JWfacts angle offer that the simple truth doesn't? I think the GB, might be is asking the same question now.

And it hasn't been proven whether 99.8% chose to speculate and only 0.2% chose not to speculate. Unless you are referring to all the people in the world, most of whom never saw the information given.

My guess, no better than yours, is the following -- referring not to persons at HQ, but to those whom the Watchtower refers to as "rank and file" publishers.

• 33% chose to speculate that Armageddon was likely due in the 1970's  but without taking any specific actions
• 33% chose to speculate and took specific actions based on a belief that Armageddon was due in the 1970's
• 33% chose NOT to speculate, due to either apathy, spiritual weakness, lack of faith or obedience in the instructions of the WTS, a haughty feeling that they were above the silliness of date-setting, or a presumptuousness that their own view of Matthew 24:36 for example, was better than that being presented by the WTS --or hopefully,-- because they were spiritually mature, and had wisdom of experience, foresight, and an understanding of the unimportance of such speculation.

My roughly estimated numbers only admit to about 66% in total speculating for various reasons, but I can easily show why these persons, whatever their actual number,  might have decided to speculate. It's because they were ASKED to speculate. They were given questions that called for speculation.

For example, if I put these questions in front of you asking: "IS IT LATER THAN YOU THINK?" "Is Time Running Out for this Generation?" "What will the 1970's bring?" Then I am clearly asking you to speculate.

If I then later had to admit that "considerable expectation was aroused regarding the year 1975" . and that "there were other statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility."  Then how could I claim that later that I wasn't ASKING 100% of people to speculate.

We should really be focusing on why some chose NOT to speculate when 100% of us were asked to speculate. What were our personal motives?

As to the actual numbers, I base some of it on adding up the yearly increase numbers to nearly 43% in the 6 years leading up to and including 1975 and adding up only about 9% in the 6 years following (including a couple years of actual losses). The difference is about 33%. For multiple years, the pre-1975 baptisms had spiked to double and triple their later averages in the years following 1975. The KM reported tens of thousands more people who had joined the ranks of pioneers in the years just prior to 1975. This appears to show that the speculators were much more responsive to WTS calls for speculation than you might guess.

17 hours ago, Anna said:

Do you have any concrete evidence for that?

Looks like some of the items I responded to under this topic were moved to the following two topics: (The first of the two was the one intended to answer this question about concrete evidence.)

 

 

9 hours ago, Anna said:

So basically, from what I can see, the difference between the two dates is this:

The 607 calculation is based on 70 years of desolation to the START of rebuilding the temple in 537/8

The 587 calculation is based on 70 years of desolation to the END (completion) of the temple in 516

Sort of. That sounds simple, but I think that it could cause some confusion, too. 

The 607 calculation is based on claiming that 70 years ended in 538/7 and it is a CORRECT calculation of the 70 years. (plus or minus one or two years)  It's just that it has nothing to do with the date of the destruction of Jerusalem. It's a very good calculation of the 70 years of dominance given to Babylon. And of course, we know that the 70 years of Babylonian dominance would result in a corresponding desolation to be fulfilled upon Judea. It is possible to interpret it, but there is no specific Bible statement that the years of Judean desolation would have to also last exactly 70 years, but there would be a definite correspondence, because the 70 years for Babylon would PRODUCE the years of desolation for Judea to fulfill its sabbaths. Also, there is no specific Bible statement that  period of complete and utter desolation for the entire 70 year period that was given to Babylon for dominance. If we looked for that literally we would probably never find proof of an exact period of full and complete desolation. It appears to refer to 70 years that started with a paralyzing fear of Babylon, followed by desecrations by Babylon, deportations to Babylon,  death and destruction by Babylon, and ultimately resulting in a destruction of the capital and temple, the further fleeing of inhabitants, and a near desolation of Judea lasting for nearly 50 years until Jews returned in 538 or so. That 70 years of dominance by Babylon resulted in 70 years of desolation of Judea from about 609 when Babylonian domination began to 539, when Babylonian domination ceased as Persia came to power. The 607 calculation can be made this way, but it is impossible to date the destruction of Jerusalem and it's temple by using this calculation of the 70 years. The Bible does not say that there was a specific point starting from the destruction of the temple, for example, which is the unique point from which to start counting a period of 70 years of desolation of Judea.

Then this is compared with a 587 calculation based on 70 years to a temple completion milestone dated to 516. This is just another period of 70 years, but it is not another way to calculate the first period of 70 years, which was 70 years of Babylonian domination according to Jeremiah. It is another period of desolation of the Temple site, but was defined as a period of 70 years of mourning and fasting and wailing over the events involved in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Therefore they could have started with the siege more than a year before the actual burning of the Temple. So this period could be called a period of 70 years as early as 518, for example.

So while you present both calculations as DIFFERENT ways to figure the date for the destruction of Jerusalem, they are both CORRECT calculations for different periods, only the latter of which is closely related to the date for the destruction of Jerusalem.

Just an aside as a postscript:

Of course, there are others who would make the latter 70 years from about 587 to about 517 refer to THE 70 years of desolation, explaining, perhaps, why Daniel asks about the end of the 70 years as soon as the 70 years for Babylon are completed, but Daniel gets an answer that he has to continue to wait past 7 weeks of years (49 years) and then another 62 weeks of years for a real fulfillment. If those two periods are broken with a gap in the middle, then they could represent the time from 588 to 539 (49 years) and another period that might lead to the Messiah or a Messianic event. I don't buy the complication this causes.  

12 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Every day I write several pages for the World News Forum. My wife always cuts it down to a line or two.

Ahhh! So that's what I need. A wife as editor. Actually she cuts it down to ZERO lines when she catches me looking at this site while sitting at a convention. Between talks of course.

12 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Why couldn't you have gotten married at the Justice of the Peace and spared this poor brother?

LOL. Of course, this brother should have told me he might be in trouble. He had written a commentary on Ecclesiastes that was really good and had also given a version of it as a non-outline talk in several congregations. The portion on marriage was so good that I have used it myself for wedding talks even in the last few years. (Nobody ties it to this poor brother anymore.) Fortunately my wife had the sense to balance the portion of the talk he gave with that of another brother from Writing who remained on good terms with the Writing Department until his death just a couple years ago.

7 hours ago, Jay Witness said:

---- So @Brother Rando..... what source in Hebrew did you consult for the Hebrew reading at the end?

I see you cited 4 books above it..... but the last rendering is missing a source. Thx.

Apparently the original paragraph is a summary of the preceding evidence quoted, and relies especially on Euseubius:

https://jehovahwitnessqhub.wordpress.com/2017/07/20/the-scripture-that-trinitarians-falsified/

is the link given above and is also the only place that Google returns for me when I look up that paragraph. (other than the discussion here.)

13 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

(This, of course, got the writer, R.L., dismissed from Bethel, even though he continued working for the Writing Dept.)

This makes no sense to me. If he was dismissed for his renegade writing, why was he retained as a writer?

Rumor was that he "knew where the bodies were buried" as JTR stated. Of course, that's not a literal expression, unless it included the old controversy about supposedly breaking California law with respect to the burial of J.Rutherford's body.

I think the explanation was in the fact that he (RL) was a good friend of R.Franz, and had been one of the primary Aid Book authors. Brother Schroeder wanted to discredit the Aid Book as part of the process of raising himself up as the next "Oracle" after F.Franz. Only one of the major Aid Book writers survived. And even this survivor was also considered discredited, but these were days when you could save your hide by turning others in for their non-standard beliefs even if your own were exactly the same. Brother Swingle barely survived, some would say, only as a discredited curmudgeon. He lost his responsibility for the Writing Department having produced so many renegades, blamed on allowing too much freedom of research on the Aid Book. Brother L.Barry took over. But Swingle still had to complete his projects, and when Barry took the reigns, he found that most of the Writing Department could not produce the output of those who had practice on the Aid Book and similar projects.

A presentation given by K.Klein, in mid-1980, at "morning worship" was revealing. He was trying to show how brothers in Writing must be the most humble people in the world because their work that they worked on for so long, could be torn apart by editors. He showed on the TV screen, a three page article, with marks all over it. Bad enough.  But he showed an earlier version of it with twice as many red marks and x's all over it, with notes in the margins, all from a big red marking pen, as if it were a school paper receiving and "F" that had to be redone almost from scratch if it were to pass even with a "D-minus"  I asked RL about this later, and he laughed about it, saying that Klein was especially dramatic about how his own work got torn up because he just couldn't write without making dozens of logical, scriptural and doctrinal mistakes. He didn't keep up, and he made no sense. His were the worst examples, so he thought that it was kind of funny that Klein would choose the topic for "morning worship." He told me about a time just a bit earlier when L.Greenlees came to him (RL) and raised his voice about something he disagreed with in an article. RL asked him to point out something specific that was wrong so he could change it, and this made Greenlees turn red and furious because, I'm guessing, it was about what he was leaving out, not what he was saying. RL said he just took the article, and said OK, and rewrote it from scratch on the spot -- in one take --but that it was rare for an editor to even make a single mark on his work, which was true of several of the brothers who had learned to work under the time pressure of large projects.

I think that was the key. Another brother who had come to the Aid Book project team late in the process, was a bit slower and more meticuous, but his work on the Sermon on the Mount articles and similar "Bible gems" style articles were always very well-received and, I'm told, rarely got an editorial mark on them. (He was one of the brothers who gave my wedding talk.) He was dismissed from Bethel about a year after he gave my wedding talk.

So the real problem, I think, was the level of production and speed, that the remaining brothers could muster up. The brothers from the Aid Book team had written most of the last few convention releases for the last few years. (Is This Life All There Is? Life Does Have a Purpose. Choosing the Best Way of Life. Commentary on the Letter of James. The majority of "study articles" in the Watchtower. All the convention talks presenting the various books. Articles in the Watchtower explaining Biblical matters and doctrine.) They hadn't just cut out 20% of the Writing Dept, they had cut out 85% of the production capability, and 95% of the research capability. They still needed them. Otherwise all new convention releases would have to be re-hashes of prior releases. Swingle never really thought that the dismissed persons had done anything wrong. Even Lloyd Barry still liked them and appears to have believed they were right about many of their concerns. Besides, they had given RL, for example, a "special pioneer" stipend and (I assume) he could count his hours spent continuing to write.

On 12/6/2017 at 5:21 PM, Anna said:

Do you have any concrete evidence for that?

No. [on the topic of never wanting to admit fault]

That comes from R.Franz in CoC. But nothing in CoC has ever been rebutted, and I have spoken to one member of the Governing Body who said that just because everything he said in the book was true, it's still poison, because the intent is to expose weakness, while love covers a multitude of sins. Two members of the Writing Department, not Governing Body, have said approximately the same thing. One said he never should have written the book, even though everything in it was true. Based on these words of people who worked with him, I find the book to be very credible from a factual standpoint. Also a "Public Relations" office person at Bethel, and personal friend of mine, has talked to me about things he said to outsiders (related to slight admissions of guilt on the part of the WTS in the past) that resulted in problems for himself among "higher-ups" at Bethel.

Also, the person supposedly behind this idea in R.Franz' book is the same person behind the exact same sentiment on never admitting a mistake in the area of child abuse, and I do know for a fact that he, this same GB member (Jaracz),  pulled an article from a magazine on the subject after it had gone to the presses, resulting in a delay for the final publication of that same issue with the article replaced.

Also, I was a "special request" tour guide for Bethel tours requested by outsiders who were not JWs, and who therefore might have included reporters unbeknownst to us. Therefore, I was personally given instructions by D.Sydlik and D.Songer and G.Couch about how to respond to questions that might seem like they are coming from someone who has no right to the answer. These included questions about an expensive press that had lost us millions of dollars and which we had finally decided to scrap, a similar situation with the early computer expenditures, and some bad press that the local Brooklyn Heights civic associations were evidently spreading about pollution fines we had to pay. When such questions came up, I was to say I didn't really know anything about these, even if I did, and if they came up more than once, I was to ask the appropriate persons mentioned above if there was a better answer. On the topic of paying fines for pollution from factory smokestacks, I was to say according to one of the brothers mentioned, that all factories, no matter how careful, will go over the limits now and then, but that the Watch Tower Society was scrutinized much more closely because there are those who are looking for bad press to pin on us. (I had no personal knowledge of any pollution, but I had heard the rumors, and the question was actually being asked.) But another person who was on the GB (Sydlik), when he heard about the suggested answer, was livid that it admitted error of any kind.

And, of course, I have previously mentioned an experience, in a rehearsal for Bethel's "Family Night," while sitting approximately between Bert Schroeder and Merton Campbell, when they decided to make an old brother change the quote in his experience from many years earlier when he said that Bethel factories were once given an award for having the second cleanest factories in Brooklyn, with only Squibb Pharmaceuticals coming in first place. For the actual Family Night production, Schroeder had it changed to: "Both factories received a rating of 100%."

The last two or three paragraphs just go to the credibility, in my opinion, of the tendency not to want to admit even the slightest error. This also fits the sometimes comical ways in which we "adjust" and "clarify" past doctrines so that they are more correct, even if they were ridiculously false in prior explanations. In an article about why we were completely dropping over one-hundred former doctrines, the Watchtower described it in typical fashion:

*** w15 3/15 pp. 8-10 pars. 6-10 “This Is the Way You Approved” ***

• Third, consider some of our recent refinements in understanding. For example, our clarified understanding of “the faithful and discreet slave,”. . . . As we might expect, over the years Jehovah has helped “the faithful and discreet slave” to become steadily more discreet.

1 hour ago, Anna said:

I was hoping that the reason why 1975 was brought up again (at convention) was because it was a reminder that the Slave err, and that some of the new things i.e. the OVERLAPPING GENERATION theory was perhaps to be treated with caution.

I have my doubts that this was the lesson. But you never know. The apology that appeared in the 1980 Watchtower over 1975 was actually as good as written back in 1976, and should have been the idea included in that same 1976 issue. But some brothers on the Governing Body were very vocal that you never admit a mistake because it will be used against you. (R.Franz wrote the 1980 apology but admits that he had to keep it weak because it had to be approved by those same brothers who would not agree to a stronger, clearer apology.)

Even the following portion of the "Choosing" book caused no little skirmish, because it claims that "many stumbled" and blames it on looking to a particular period or year, but didn't clearly blame it on the individuals themselves, which could have implied guilt on the part of the WTS. I'm including the surrounding context only because I like it for the fact that it finds a way to discuss the "presence" and still ignores 1914. (This, of course, got the writer, R.L., dismissed from Bethel, even though he continued working for the Writing Dept.)

*** bw chap. 10 pp. 169-170 pars. 41-43 Safeguard Your Christian Hope ***

• Like Peter, the other faithful apostles taught their fellow believers to keep ever before them the certainty of Christ’s coming to execute judgment and to reward his loyal disciples. A prime objective of such teaching was to aid Christians to be found approved on the Son’s arrival “with power and great glory.” (Matthew 24:30) As Jesus had done, the apostles continued to emphasize the importance of proving faithful to the end. That end could come either at their death or at “the presence of the day of Jehovah.” (2 Peter 3:12) Since even the resurrection of Christ’s joint heirs is linked in the Scriptures with his return, the hopes of all true disciples are bound up with the arrival of the Son of God in the capacity of a glorious heavenly King. (Matthew 10:28; 24:13, 36-44; 1 Thessalonians 1:9, 10; 4:14-17) Thus, during the entire history of the Christian congregation, unshakable faith in the Master’s coming “with power and great glory” has been an aid in a person’s proving loyal to him.  42 Partly because of eagerness to be alive when Jesus Christ reveals himself in glory, there have been believers throughout the centuries who began looking to a particular period or a year for the windup of the ungodly system of things. This has happened right down to these “last days.” Since certain expectations were not realized, many stumbled and returned to the ways of the world. In fulfillment of Peter’s words, even today we hear the voice of ridiculers. (2 Peter 3:3, 4) In effect, they say: ‘What reason is there to believe that the Son of God is going to execute the ungodly and to reward his disciples? Why, nothing has changed since the time of creation. The original processes of life are continuing and give no indication of coming to a disastrous end in the near future. Men are marrying, and women are being given in marriage, babies are being born, and men continue to grow old and die.’ Thus they imply that the Lord Jesus Christ never will come to execute judgment or that this event is so far off in the future that it is of no immediate concern.  Such ridiculers have totally lost sight of the fact that either death or “the day of Jehovah” will inescapably overtake them. In either event, they will have no further opportunity to lay up treasure in heaven in the form of fine works. (Luke 12:15-21, 31, 33-40) Hence, for disciples of Jesus Christ there has never been a period of history when they could afford to be neglectful of their responsibilities. Certainly, the risk in doing so is even greater in our time.

14 minutes ago, Anna said:

So what IS the lesson?

We can't know exactly what the writer was thinking, but we can all see ways in which the scenario ties back to the theme "Don't give up!" One of the worst things you can do to a child waiting for a reward is to make promises about the time and place and then when you get there, reset the goal line, as they say. Going back to the illustration of running toward a final goal in Sinutko's talk, imagine if you were promising your child that if he could run a mile, you would buy him an ice cream cone. He had never run a mile before, and he struggled especially in the second and third quarter-mile lap. But seeing the goal ahead, he puts on that final burst of speed, amazingly, through pain and sweat, in the final lap -- and succeeds in running a mile for the first time!

Then you tell him he needs to run another mile.

• (Proverbs 13:12) . . .Expectation postponed makes the heart sick, But a desire realized is a tree of life.

The idea or lesson is that this "expectation postponed" became a trial, a sickness. It could even be traumatic in the illustration of the running child.