JW Insider

Red pill to go back in time to fix all my mistakes until I get right up to the very last mistake I had made before going back. That would, of course, be the time that someone offered me a blue and red pill, and I took the red one. I will then fix that mistake by taking the blue pill this time. This way I can have my cake and eat it too! Of course, that last step isn't even necessary because every mistake I ever made included all the days I sold stock or traded mutual funds a day too early or held onto them a day too long. Fixing those mistakes will easily produce the extra 10 million in cash.

If I'm reading this right, you are saying that we shouldn't think the study of end-times prophecies is not crucially important. These prophecies are crucial to our relationship with God, especially through guidance and correction we will find in such prophecies. Although few persons here will necessarily agree with the presentation of Biblical evidence in the way it was initiated in this discussion, I still agree 100% with that premise and the rest of your post. Agree or not, I am hoping some might recognize that this discussion is intended to defend the Bible itself, even against strongly entrenched traditions.

I think the best way is to reference a post by the date, but most topics don't go on for so many pages so it's not usually difficult. Anyway, as I read back through both of the posts that you edited post-posting, I realized that your points are very good, very interesting, relevant, useful, and that I had never actually tried to address them. So I should get back to them and I can probably find some time tomorrow to respond. Thanks for the heads up on the edit.

I hope no one felt slighted by Anna's remark about sparring partners. I certainly don't feel that anyone is at any kind of disadvantage, especially not you, or @AllenSmith, or @Gone Fishing (Eoin), or @TiagoBelager, and others. (The last is a new name to me who impresses me with his maturity, organized thoughts, and style.) Resources are so easily available to everyone. All this information is available on the Internet, in the Bible, in Bible commentaries, Bible dictionaries. Even a close study of the changes and contradictions over the years, using ONLY the Watch Tower publications could lead one to the same conclusions being discussed here. If this were some completely esoteric issue that very few people could know about, then it might be wrong to even question it in a forum such as this, because it would simply be a matter of someone pontificating about a belief with no fair opportunity for anyone to respond, add to it, or discredit it. If we don't bring it up, our Bible students will rarely bring it up. And our overall message has been simplified somewhat so that the appeal is less and less to persons with the kind of educational background who would care to question it, anyway. But on the other hand, it's dishonest to just make a claim that goes against the evidence without an explanation for WHY we are dismissing the evidence. It would be exactly as if there was a religion that started claiming that World War I started in 1894, not 1914. If we were in such a religion, we could claim it in 6,666 different places in various religious publications, and say that our Bible interpretation tells us this is true, so therefore we know it's true, and we could tell everyone who challenges it, that they are putting secular dates above the Bible dates. If someone were to challenge it with encyclopedias, coins, receipts, then they might be told they were being haughty. In religion, the leaders and members have the prerogative to do this. But what would we think if the religion just started publishing the dates of everything prior to World War 1 by adding 20 years to it, and didn't offer an explanation? That's pretty much what happens even to things like the date for the "Fall of Nineveh" in 612. Because for 1914 to work, the Watch Tower publications also need to change this to 632, adding 20 years to it. *** it-2 p. 505 Nineveh *** Therefore, the capture of Nineveh (about seven years earlier) in the 14th year of NabopolassarÂ’s reign would fall in the year 632 B.C.E. *** it-1 p. 205 Assyria *** The fall of the empire. The Babylonian Chronicle B.M. (British Museum) 21901 recounts the fall of Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, following a siege carried out by the combined forces of Nabopolassar, the king of Babylon, and of Cyaxares the Mede during the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.): “The city [they turned] into ruin-hills and hea[ps (of debris)].” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 1974, p. 305; brackets and parentheses theirs.) Thus the fierce Assyrian Empire came to an ignominious end.—Isa 10:12, 24-26; 23:13; 30:30-33; 31:8, 9; Na 3:1-19; Zep 2:13. According to the same chronicle, in the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.), Ashur-uballit II attempted to continue Assyrian rule from Haran as his capital city. This chronicle states, under the 17th year of Nabopolassar (629 B.C.E.): “In the month Du?uzu, Ashur-uballit, king of Assyria, (and) a large [army of] E[gy]pt [who had come to his aid] crossed the river (Euphrates) and [marched on] to conquer Harran.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 305; brackets and parentheses theirs.) There is no evidence to move this from 612 to 632, but the Watch Tower publications have no choice, because all these dates are tied together, and must be manipulated so that 1914 still works. Remember that it doesn't matter at all to me. It's our publications that say that the SECULAR date given for the end of the Babylonian empire in 539 is so accurate that they call it "assured" and even "absolute." That's the Watchtower that called this date "absolute." And therefore, our publications pretend that dates like 632 BCE for the fall of Nineveh are "set in stone." If you read the article on "Assyria" in the Insight book, you would even think that Babylonian Chronicle "21901" provides evidence for 632 BCE. You might also think that the same chronicle states that Haran was conquered in 629 even though all the archaeological evidence consistently points to 609 and no archaeological evidence points to 629. In fact, the publications continue to insist on these dates where they simply add 20 to the secular dates without any explanation in 99% of the cases. By the way, you might think that the Babylonian dates depend on the Assyrian (which depended on the Egyptian). But this isn't true. Those TEN THOUSAND pieces of evidence related to the Neo-Babylonian period include astronomical diaries and other interlocking tablet evidence that consistently supports, what the Watchtower calls the "accepted chronology." I'm not claiming that the Neo-Babylonian period is set in stone, but this would evidently have been the opinion of the Governing Body based on what the Watchtower, referenced in a previous post, has claimed here: INCONTESTABLY ESTABLISHED When a date is indicated by several lines of evidence it is strongly established. The scientific law of probabilities imparts a united strength to the strands of the cable of chronology far greater than the sum of the individual lines of evidence. This is a law which is implicitly relied upon in important affairs: viz., that when a thing is indicated in only one way it may be by chance; if it is indicated in two ways, it is almost certain to be true; and if in more than two ways, it is usually impossible that it is by chance or that it is not true; and the addition of more proofs removes it entirely from the world of chance into that of proven certainty. This is the actual level of independent lines of evidence behind the fact that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year should be dated to 587 instead of 607. According to the Watchtower's line of reasoning, therefore, 587 would be the proper date, even if you threw out the Egyptian and Assyrian dates. It is NOT dependent on those synchronisms. Based on the evidence, the Watchtower is inadvertently here stating that 607 must be wrong, and 587 is a "proven certainty." Of course, I don't believe it's a "proven certainty" any more than you do. But the problem is that anyone can look at this evidence for themselves. You do not have to be a specialist of any kind. Our methods of dismissing such evidence will come across exactly as dishonest as those who would argue that World War I started in 1894. That's an excellent point. Still plan on getting to that part of the discussion. Â

Nah! I'm sure Allen's already reached his limit of personality "states." I'd bet it's close to Erie* but not Scary. *Erie: the Lake, not the "state" of eeriness. [In other words, someone who has already stated that he lives near Lake Erie.

Who is the "Virginian"?

Thanks. I see nothing wrong with what you've said in most of this post (right up until near the end when you claim that: "a real 70-years absence of sacrifices had ended in 537 B.C.E. "). I also agree that 539 B,C,E, is the date for the fall of Babylon, and thus 537 is a very possible year for when the Jews were able to resume offering sacrifices. (The Watch Tower publications have also indicated that this 537 date is an assumption however, which is why there is a possibility of 538.) I also agree that the period of 70 years described in Jeremiah (70 years for Babylonian rule of the nations) ended around that same date. I also agree that the desolation of the land began around 607 (even though we cannot claim that Jerusalem was physically destroyed at that date). The desolation of Judah began at the moment that the Jews had to begin fearing the Babylonian power that began crushing nations all around them. (It's in a similar sense that Tyre was forgotten for 70 years, which, according to the Isaiah book, was due to the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy as predicted by Jeremiah.) Tyre was a powerful commercial trading and shipping center. But it could not continue to trade and make plans as it always had with the fear of Babylonian power threatening it for 70 years. The fact that only a small fraction of those years saw the complete fulfillment of the prophecy against Tyre does not mean that it was not "forgotten" for 70 years. Similarly, Judea and Jerusalem were already becoming desolated, not only by the actual sword, but even through the fear of Babylonian power. Babylon became the ruling power of the world when Assyria lost its place as that ruling power in about 609 B.C.E, therefore 607 must be very close to the actual date when Jerusalem began to tremble at Babylon, and ultimately would be desolated completely. (Leviticus 26:27-45) 27 “‘If in spite of this you will not listen to me and you insist on walking in opposition to me, 28 I will intensify my opposition to you, and I myself will have to chastise you seven times for your sins. 29 So you will have to eat the flesh of your sons, and you will eat the flesh of your daughters. 30 I will annihilate your sacred high places and cut down your incense stands and pile your carcasses on the carcasses of your disgusting idols, and I will turn away from you in disgust. 31 I will give your cities to the sword and make your sanctuaries desolate, and I will not smell the pleasing aromas of your sacrifices. 32 I myself will make the land desolate, and your enemies who are dwelling in it will stare in amazement over it. 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. 39 Those of you who remain will be left to rot in the lands of your enemies because of your error. Yes, they will rot away because of the errors of their fathers. 40 Then they will confess their own error and the error and unfaithfulness of their fathers and admit that they behaved unfaithfully by walking in opposition to me. 41 Then I also walked in opposition to them by bringing them into the land of their enemies. “‘Perhaps then their uncircumcised heart will be humbled, and then they will pay off their error. 42 And I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and my covenant with Isaac, and I will remember my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land. 43 While the land was abandoned by them, it was paying off its sabbaths and lying desolate without them, and they were paying for their error, because they rejected my judicial decisions and they abhorred my statutes. 44 But despite all of this, while they are in the land of their enemies, I will never completely reject them nor cast them away to the point of exterminating them, which would violate my covenant with them, for I am Jehovah their God. 45 For their sakes I will remember the covenant with their ancestors whom I brought out of the land of Egypt under the eyes of the nations, in order to prove myself their God. I am Jehovah.’” Leviticus puts no actual time period on the number of years of this. Russell once thought that the "seven times" mentioned here were the same as the 7 time periods in Nebuchadnezzar's dream, so that Leviticus was actually the first PRIMARY proof of the 2,520 years. When it was realized that the word "times" in Leviticus had nothing to do with time periods, the Watchtower dropped this idea. Besides, it's pretty obvious that this scattering among nations and eating of children includes the period of desolations and incursions and deportations and siege that began well before the final desolation -- including the fear that made them flee to Egypt and other nations, and the sieges that resulted in the eating of their children. (see Ezekiel.) This is a period of intensifying opposition, so that "seven times" refers to increasing, multiple times of hardships throughout all the years of Babylonian supremacy. Remember, for example, that Daniel and the 3 Hebrew youths must have been from at least one of several deportation from many years prior to the destruction: *** Bible Citations *** (Daniel 1:1-21) In the third year of the kingship of King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah, King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. And Jeremiah 52 mentions additional deportations. Back to these 4 fasts in the 4th, 5th, 7th and 10th month. Your depiction of their association with Temple sacrifices does not seem to match up with the Insight book's identification of each of them: *** it-1 p. 812 Fast *** Four Annual Fasts of the Jews. The Jews established many fasts, and at one time had four annual ones, evidently to mark the calamitous events associated with Jerusalem’s siege and desolation in the seventh century B.C.E. (Zec 8:19) The four annual fasts were: (1) “The fast of the fourth month” apparently commemorated the breaching of Jerusalem’s walls by the Babylonians on Tammuz 9, 607 B.C.E. (2Ki 25:2-4; Jer 52:5-7) (2) It was in the fifth Jewish month Ab that the temple was destroyed, and evidently “the fast of the fifth month” was held as a reminder of this event. (2Ki 25:8, 9; Jer 52:12, 13) (3) “The fast of the seventh month” was apparently held as a sad remembrance of Gedaliah’s death or of the complete desolation of the land following Gedaliah’s assassination when the remaining Jews, out of fear of the Babylonians, went down into Egypt. (2Ki 25:22-26) (4) “The fast of the tenth month” may have been associated with the exiled Jews already in Babylon receiving the sad news that Jerusalem had fallen (compare Eze 33:21), or it may have commemorated the commencement of Nebuchadnezzar’s successful siege against Jerusalem on the tenth day of that month, in 609 B.C.E.—2Ki 25:1; Jer 39:1; 52:4. If you admit that the fasts had continued beyond 537 right down until 518 then it seems impossible that you can claim that "these 70 years" really meant "those 70 years". The KJV had used the term "those" which might have helped create the initial misunderstanding, but since then the NWT has corrected the NW translation to refer to the "current" 70 years, by correctly translating the expression. The actual meaning of the Hebrew is what has moved so many scholars and translators to translate similar to the NIV: (Zechariah 7:3, NIV) “Ask all the people of the land and the priests, ‘When you fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh months for the past seventy years, was it really for me that you fasted? Both the books of Haggai and Zechariah show that the new era without the fasting was about to start now, at this time when the foundation for the Temple was being laid, 520 to 516. It was because of this very fact that, in 518, persons from Bethel (11 miles north of Jerusalem) came down to ask if the time of fasting was now going to be over: (Zechariah 7:2, 3) 2 The people of Bethʹel sent Shar·eʹzer and Reʹgem-melʹech and his men to beg for the favor of Jehovah, 3 saying to the priests of the house of Jehovah of armies and to the prophets: “Should I weep in the fifth month and abstain from food, as I have done for so many years?” I know that you already realize that they really had continued to fast for just about 90 years, and you have looked for a way to handle the contradiction. And, as I'm sure you know, the Watchtower has admitted the same, that this had actually gone on for 90 years (as required by Watchtower chronology), even though the scripture says 70 years (which matches the Bible chronology and the archaeological evidence). *** pm chap. 14 p. 235 par. 4 Fasting over God’s Executed Judgments Improper *** 4 Bethel was one of the towns that had been reestablished in the land of Israel by the Jews who returned from exile in Babylon. (Ezra 2:28; 3:1) When Sharezer and Regem-melech from there asked: “Shall I weep?” it meant every inhabitant of Bethel individually. For “O how many years” now the Bethelites had been celebrating a fast, an abstinence from food, in the fifth lunar month of each year. It was observed evidently on the tenth day of that month (Ab), in order to commemorate how on that day Nebuzaradan, the chief of Nebuchadnezzar’s bodyguard, after two days of inspection, burned down the city of Jerusalem and its temple. (Jeremiah 52:12, 13; 2 Kings 25:8, 9) But now that the faithful remnant of Jews were rebuilding the temple of Jehovah at Jerusalem and were about half through, should the Bethelites continue to hold such a fast? Since at least 1937, the Watchtower has said that this 70 years referred to the time period "during which Jerusalem and the land of Judah lay desolate while its former inhabitants were captive in Babylon?" (w37, p.317) Under Rutherford, not surprisingly, the Watchtower also said that this group of Bethelites was a prophetic picture of the cult of the Russellite "old-timers" who "doubtless, wore ... long beards and had a very solemn and sanctimonious air," and, in the case of those old-timers, still talked about their "hero," "a prominent servant of the Lord" who died in 1916. (Watchtower 1939, p. 302) Oddly enough, the Awake! magazine used Zechariah, written 90 years after 607 (in 518), as evidence that the 70 years was an actual literal period of 70 years ending not in 518, but in 537: *** g72 5/8 p. 27 When Did Babylon Desolate Jerusalem? *** When Did Babylon Desolate Jerusalem? SECULAR historians usually give the year 586 B.C.E. as the correct date for the desolation of Jerusalem. Why, then, do Jehovah’s Christian witnesses speak of this event as occurring in 607 B.C.E.? It is because of confidence in what the Bible says about the duration of Jerusalem’s lying desolate. The Scriptures assign a period of seventy years to the desolation of Judah and Jerusalem. . . . Additional evidence is provided in the book of Zechariah. We read: “When you fasted and there was a wailing in the fifth month and in the seventh month, and this for seventy years, did you really fast to me, even me?” (Zech. 7:5; 1:12) The way this question is framed, with reference to specific months, certainly indicates that a period of seventy literal years was involved. Since then, of course, the NWT has corrected the translation so that it now correctly refers to "these 70 years."

You might be right but here's why it doesn't make any sense to me. AC refers to "Accepted Chronology" and WT refers to Watch Tower Chronology. In the "accepted chronology" the indignities against Jerusalem had gone on for 69 years, or even 71 years if you start from the major events from the 18-month siege lasting from 589 to the destruction in 587. In the Watch Tower's timeline, these indignities had started 90 years ago. Zechariah supports the "accepted chronology" (or vice versa) when he says that mercy had been withheld from Jerusalem for only 70 years, not 90 years as the Watchtower timeline says: #AC [<-----------------about 70 years from 587 to 518------------------->] #WT [<--------------------------about 90 years from 607 to 518------------------------------>] ...6..6......6.........5..5......5.........5.........5.........5.........55........5.........5.5.......5 ...1..0......0.........9..8......8.........7.........6.........5.........43........3.........2.1.......1 ...0..7......0.........0..7......0.........0.........0.........0.........09........0.........0.8.......0 The Insight book says that Zechariah 1:7 is dated to about 519 BCE, right? That's near the end of the 2nd year of Darius. (Zechariah 1:7) . . .On the 24th day of the 11th month, that is, the month of Sheʹbat, in the second year of Da·riʹus, the word of Jehovah came to the prophet Zech·a·riʹah . . . (Zechariah 1:12) . . .So the angel of Jehovah said: “O Jehovah of armies, how long will you withhold your mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with whom you have been indignant these 70 years?” *** it-2 p. 1226 Zechariah, Book of *** About February 9, 519 B.C.E., the prophet Zechariah heard the words: “The whole earth is sitting still and having no disturbance.” (Zec 1:7, 11) This would mean that the statements in Zechariah 7 were in 518 (almost 517) being now in the 4th year of Darius. (Zechariah 7:1) . . .And in the fourth year of King Da·riʹus, the word of Jehovah came to Zech·a·riʹah on the fourth day of the ninth month, that is, the month of Chisʹlev. 2 The people of Bethʹel sent Shar·eʹzer and Reʹgem-melʹech and his men to beg for the favor of Jehovah, 3 saying to the priests of the house of Jehovah of armies and to the prophets: “Should I weep in the fifth month and abstain from food, as I have done for so many years?” 4 The word of Jehovah of armies again came to me, saying: 5 “Say to all the people of the land and to the priests, ‘When you fasted and wailed in the fifth month and in the seventh month for 70 years, did you really fast for me? (Zechariah 8:19) 19 “This is what Jehovah of armies says, ‘The fast of the fourth month, the fast of the fifth month, the fast of the seventh month, and the fast of the tenth month will be occasions for exultation and joy for the house of Judah—festivals of rejoicing. . . . You started out saying: "Zechariah 7:5 expressly relates that there were lamentations and fasts that the Jews had practiced in the 5th and 7th months of every year for 70 years." This reflects what we've been taught, that these lamentations and fasts had been practiced for 70 years, and the Watchtower suggests that these reflect the period of the 70 years between 607 and 537. Therefore the fasts would likely start on that first anniversary of 607 which would be the 5th and 7th month of 606, the following year in Babylon. They could end when the new foundation was laid in the 7th month of 537. (Ezra 3:1) This would mean that the fasting in the 7th month would likely have run from 606 to 538. A total of 68 or 69 years, i.e., about 70 years. But clearly, the fasting was still going on at the time of Zechariah's writing, 90 years after 607; it had not stopped 20 years earlier as the Watchtower suggests. There have been a couple of explanations for Jehovah's disapproval of these fasts. The explanation you gave is one of them. Also: *** w96 11/15 p. 5 Does God Require Fasting? *** Some fasts established by the Jews met with God’s disapproval right from the outset. For example, at one time the people of Judah had four annual fasts to commemorate the calamitous events associated with Jerusalem’s siege and desolation in the seventh century B.C.E. (2 Kings 25:1-4, 8, 9, 22-26; Zechariah 8:19) After the Jews were released from captivity in Babylon, Jehovah said through the prophet Zechariah: “When you fasted . . . , and this for seventy years, did you really fast to me, even me?” God did not approve of these fasts because the Jews were fasting and mourning over judgments that had come from Jehovah himself. They were fasting because of the calamity that befell them, not because of their own wrongdoing that led to it. After they were restored to their homeland, it was time for them to rejoice instead of bemoaning the past.—Zechariah 7:5.

That is absolutely correct. I hope no one misunderstands. @Annasince you asked about this: In the context of what @Arauna had said I was referring to the relative importance of being smart, scholarly or even RIGHT. We don't need to get all up in arms or push ahead. Knowledge is not the most important thing for Christians, as we both acknowledged. At the time, I was thinking of this Scripture, where the context ON BOTH SIDES OF THE VERSE makes it appear that humility is the factor that keeps us from stumbling others, and that humility is the factor that keeps us from creating divisions among sincere persons who want to do what is right. Even if they have a zeal for God but not according to accurate knowledge. (Mark 9:33-42) 33 And they came into Ca·perʹna·um. Now when he was inside the house, he put the question to them: “What were you arguing about on the road?” 34 They kept silent, for on the road they had been arguing among themselves about who is greater. 35 So he sat down and called the Twelve and said to them: “If anyone wants to be first, he must be last of all and minister of all.” 36 Then he took a young child and stood him in their midst; and putting his arms around him, he said to them: 37 “Whoever receives one of such young children on the basis of my name receives me also; and whoever receives me receives not me only but also Him who sent me.” 38 John said to him: “Teacher, we saw someone expelling demons by using your name, and we tried to prevent him, because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said: “Do not try to prevent him, for there is no one who will do a powerful work on the basis of my name who will quickly be able to say anything bad about me. 40 For whoever is not against us is for us. 41 And whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ, I tell you truly, he will by no means lose his reward. 42 But whoever stumbles one of these little ones who have faith, it would be better for him if a millstone that is turned by a donkey were put around his neck and he were pitched into the sea. (Luke 9:46-50) 46 Then a dispute arose among them about which one of them was the greatest. 47 Jesus, knowing the reasoning of their hearts, took a young child, stood him beside him, 48 and said to them: “Whoever receives this young child on the basis of my name receives me also; and whoever receives me also receives the One who sent me. For the one who conducts himself as a lesser one among all of you is the one who is great.” 49 In response John said: “Instructor, we saw someone expelling demons by using your name, and we tried to prevent him, because he is not following with us.” 50 But Jesus said to him: “Do not try to prevent him, for whoever is not against you is for you.” We expect the Governing Body to show the humility of the faithful discreet slave, not the idea that they should push ahead and claim things that they do not have knowledge of yet. As Arauna said, we (including the slave) must recognize Jehovah and the true channel, which is Christ the Head, our Exemplar, along with his Word and spirit so that we may have the same spirit and attitude of Christ Jesus. Jesus could have cleared up all questions of Law, but instead he focused on love, justice, and kindness. As long as everyone recognizes that this is the true channel, we will be blessed with more of Jehovah's spirit, stay connected with him, and stay in the truth.

Then why did the Watchtower ever change anything if everything was directly from scripture? Obviously you are saying that this might not have been true last year, because some things have already changed since then, but it must be true this year. But if it's true this year, then you are claiming that any changes made for next year are no longer directly from Scripture, unless of course you are arguing that the Scriptures contradict themselves. You are using cult-speak even though the Watchtower is not a cult. Obviously we need to question ourselves first, but to answer your first question, it's our Christian obligation to question the anointed ones. You've seen a dozen scriptures to this effect, and you evidently do not believe in them. By whose power and authority do you decide it's OK to go against the Bible, and not to question the anointed ones? (1 John 4:1) . . .Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, . . . (Philippians 1:8-10) . . .. 9 And this is what I continue praying, that your love may abound still more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment; 10 that you may make sure of the more important things,. . . (1 Thessalonians 5:21) 21 Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine. (2 Corinthians 13:5) 5 Keep testing whether you are in the faith; keep proving what you yourselves are.. . . (1 Corinthians 11:19) 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident. (Romans 12:2) . . .be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God. (2 Corinthians 10:4, 5) 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. 5 For we are overturning reasonings . . . (Philippians 4:5) 5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men.. . . (James 1:6) 6 But let him keep asking in faith, not doubting at all, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven by the wind and blown about.

Thanks for the correction. I have fixed the quote. I had left out the one I intended to put from 1924 first, also added below, and then fixed the one from 1922, which as you can see, is where the conflation was based upon: "The year 1925 is a date definitely and clearly marked in the Scriptures, even more clearly than that of 1914; . . ." — The Watchtower, July 15, 1924, p. 211. "The physical facts show beyond question of a doubt that 1914 ended the Gentile Times. . . . The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures [than 1914] because it is fixed by the Law God gave to Israel." — The Watchtower, September 1, 1922, p. 262. In the second quote I had also left out the brackets in the bracketed words "[than 1914]." This time, I added the prior sentence that made this point clear.

When evidence piles up against something very overwhelmingly, we really have no choice but to either accept the evidence or dismiss it. The easiest thing to do is to dismiss new evidence and go along as we always have. If we can dismiss evidence then we don't have to think about it. In this world, of course, especially modern news media and in social media, the most common method of dismissing evidence is to go after the person instead of the evidence. This is why you often see people making assumptions about motives. If you think I'm saying this is what you are doing, I'm not. You have gone beyond the idea of merely dismissing evidence. You are rightly concerned about the motive behind it, and you are rightly concerned about what it would really mean to us if the evidence were accepted. This is not a simple dismissal of evidence in your case. I can see that you are not simply bringing this up for a diversion to avoid thinking about it. So I'm glad you asked the questions: "Why spend hours trying to get someone to agree with you? What is the purpose of it?" Getting someone to agree is not the point. Many people already agree. But we learn not to worry when people don't agree with us in the field ministry. Yet our responsibility to present truth to the best of our ability does not change. (John 4:23) 23 Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him. Spending hours on a subject is not the preference for everyone, but there are persons for whom the opportunity for this kind of research is a joy and a privilege. For one thing, it helps me see first-hand the accuracy of the Bible, and how even secular sources of archaeology and history support the Bible account. Questions that produced contradictions in the past, now show the Bible to be harmonious, even on this very topic of chronology during the Neo-Babylonian period. And you get a better sense of the historical Babylonian world in which the Jews were exiled. There are about 4 of these questions that produced contradictions in the past. I've brought up 2 of them on the forum before, such as: (Haggai 2:3) 3 ‘Who is left among you who saw this house in its former glory? . . . (Ezra 3:12, 13) 12 Many of the priests, the Levites, and the heads of the paternal houses—the old men who had seen the former house—wept with a loud voice when they saw the foundation of this house being laid, while many others shouted joyfully at the top of their voice. 13 So the people could not distinguish the sound of the joyful shouts from the sound of the weeping, for the people were shouting so loudly that the sound was heard from a great distance. The question on these scriptures was about how many of these 95 to 105 year old people could have outcried the sounds of joy according to the Watchtower chronology? But the "accepted chronology" that fits both the Bible and secular evidence shows that this was the 75 to 105 year olds, not just those over 95 years old. Another question was the meaning of the phrase "these 70 years" at a time that was 90 years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and 92 years, at least, after the deadly siege against it: (Zechariah 1:12) 12 So the angel of Jehovah said: “O Jehovah of armies, how long will you withhold your mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with whom you have been indignant these 70 years?” (Zechariah 7:4, 5) 4 The word of Jehovah of armies again came to me, saying: 5 “Say to all the people of the land and to the priests, ‘When you fasted and wailed in the fifth month and in the seventh month for 70 years, did you really fast for me? Why does the scripture say they were fasting for 70 years if the Watchtower says that this was 90 years later? The "accepted chronology" answers that exact question. There are two more similar questions that I will get to later. Of course, some will probably end up believing in the evidence and in the Bible's support for that evidence based on what I have presented. But it won't be just because I said it. On the Internet people say whatever they want and pretend to be whoever they want, so no one is going to accept it because I presented it. They will only do so after evaluating the evidence for themselves, and I'm guessing that 99% won't look at the evidence anyway. Still, we don't impugn each other for spending hours trying to get someone to agree with us, if we are convincing them to believe in 1914. If we are doing this because we are passionate for truth, then we have an obligation to support what we know to be true, if asked. (Philippians 4:8) . . .Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are of serious concern, whatever things are righteous, whatever things are chaste, whatever things are lovable, whatever things are well-spoken-of, whatever things are virtuous, and whatever things are praiseworthy, continue considering these things. If hypothetically I agree with you - then what will the next step be for us? We go and make our own happy little group separate from other Witnesses - and pat ourselves on the back that we are smarter than the slave? or what? The next step is to continue to focus on all the things that Philippians 4:8 just mentioned. Nothing significant should change. One of the points of this is that we don't have to make our happy little group separate from other Witnesses. But, in time, as more persons are aware of the evidence, we won't have to be ashamed and cower at the idea of speaking out boldly and fearlessly about the things we have learned. Currently, most Witnesses, including myself, have to hold back from certain conversations even when they come up with other Witnesses we trust, for fear we will say something that will be interpreted as presumptuous, haughty, or stumbling. So in the meantime, there are 1,000 other true things we can focus on. 1,000 other serious concerns, righteous, chaste, lovable, virtuous, praiseworthy things that we can focus on. Against such things, there is no restriction. Also, this doesn't make us "smarter" than the slave. This is merely evidence, which is merely "knowledge." Knowledge pales into non-importance when compared, with love, justice, mercy, kindness, faith, hope, etc. In my own case, I learned about these things from members of the slave and members of the anointed who were just as concerned about truth, but had no way of presenting this information without getting into trouble from those who believed that nothing should be said that did not fully support the doctrines that Frederick Franz believed. (But it's also easy to understand why Brother Franz believed in the importance of this doctrine.) Several of these other brothers that I knew were concerned about losing their positions in Writing, and other positions of responsibility. Some have since died and some have evidently still not said much about it except to close friends. I don't think there is anything new here that the "slave" is not aware of. I don't know for sure, but I honestly guess that to many people in positions of responsibility in the organization, there just isn't a good way or opportunity to make adjustments yet. There is probably a fear that this will be very disruptive and may result in a great loss of publishers. I think the evidence shows that most of us would welcome the evidence if it were shown how it coincides with the message of Matthew 24, the stated meaning of Daniel 4, etc. And I would also guess that there are a few questions that remain that would be too difficult to answer immediately. This doesn't mean they can't be truthfully answered with "we don't know yet." The main thing is that I'm sure all of us would be more comfortable with humility and discretion in these matters as opposed to signs of presumptuousness and a tendency to claim full knowledge. That is absolutely correct. I hope no one misunderstands. WWI was definitely a major change in world affairs. And 537 is a reasonably good year for the building work to restart in Jerusalem. And 607 as the date of Jerusalem's fall (not Babylon's, of course) is not so far off either in the overall scheme of things, either (+- 20 years). Of course, there is no need to review why these ideas are never connected in the Bible. Even if Jerusalem fell in 607, the Bible does not connect a period to 607 as the start of the Gentile Times. Also, the Bible does not connect any period of 2,520 years to be counted from Jerusalem's fall. Then we still have to discuss the meaning of the sign. The Jews were looking for the Parousia to be a time when war, earthquake, fire and famine would bring destruction. You can see this in the books that the Jews were using at the time to prepare for the end of the age. But Jesus appears to tell his disciples that even though they have heard that it was said that these signs would help them recognize the end-time, Jesus said to them not to be misled by wars, earthquakes, and famine. So the one thing we would NOT want to look for as a sign of the end would be a major war of any kind, or major earthquakes, or food shortages. I won't go too far into that subject here, but we should at least be able to see that this is a possible way to read Jesus' words in Matthew 24. No argument was made that Jehovah will not use a wicked king and his 7 periods of madness as a symbol of the inhumane nations ruling the earth until Jesus kingdom starts to rule. In fact, I believe the dream can help to give us faith in exactly that prospect. After all, even though it was fulfilled in Nebuchadnezzar the point was that Jehovah is the universal sovereign and can repeat this any time, or as many times as he wants. No empire can overpower Jehovah's will. And we pray for that Kingdom to come and for God's will to be done as in heaven also upon the earth. I agree that it teaches exactly the lesson Daniel 4 says it teaches. But we do know that it creates a lot of contradictions to try to make a type/antitype illustration out of Nebuchadnezzar's experience. And the biggest contradiction is the one we rarely even think of, that if interpreted the way we do, that it provides a framework for the time-table of the parousia, something that only the presumptuous would try to figure out after Jesus said that the times and seasons were in the Father's jurisdiction, and after Paul said that about the Parousia and about the times and seasons we need nothing to be written to us, BECAUSE it is coming as a thief. Understood. I wasn't necessarily expecting a reply unless someone could think of a Biblical reason to dismiss any of the evidence anyway. If anyone thinks the subject is of serious concern and knows of a Biblical reason to dismiss any of the evidence, then I'll probably hear about it sooner or later. And besides, you did respond with some Biblical ideas about Daniel 4 that I am not dismissing at all. I appreciate this and all of the obvious truths that I didn't requote from you because I believe them just as you do. Naturally I disagree somewhat on our responsibility to present truth when we are asked. I don't think it gets us in trouble if we handle our responsibilities seriously. There is no need for any of this to cause disunity. It's just not that important. As you say the important stuff is all there and is understood. I sometimes wonder though, what a Bible Student should have done starting in 1919 and all up well into 1925 when Rutherford was embarrassing himself and the organization. (His own words about embarrassing himself.) What appears to be extreme haughtiness and presumptousness was amazing if you go back and read the words written back then. If you knew that 1925 was based on flimsy evidence would you have said something? Would you have written Rutherford or kept it to yourself? If you were an elder minding the congregation's business and keeping your concerns to yourself, yet you knew there was something wrong, how would you counsel someone else who came up to you for advice? What if that person was a lowly person who also knew exactly what was wrong with the reasoning behind 1925? Would you be humble enough as an elder to learn from that person and realize that these were serious concerns? As a matter of fact there were many Bible Students who went through exactly that back in 1925. And of course, the same goes for any who happened to see the weaknesses and problems with all the other dates predicted from 1881 through 1918, including 100% of the predictions made for the year 1914. Is it our responsibility to make sure and question or is it our responsibility to follow without questioning? I know your statement above is a way of answering that question, and up to a point I agree. I can even stay quiet in my congregation. But for me it's still a matter of understanding our true responsibility and our conscience. BTW, from what I know of you and your experience, (and yes I can read things about you in several places on the Internet), your book would be very interesting to many. I understand the hesitation, don't now if I would do it, even if I had your experiences. Would also be concerned about making money off the good news. But I know that you have some especially good ideas for the Muslim audience, for example, that you have some expertise at. And I do know that there are probably many ways to share good upbuilding thoughts and experiences in good conscience. Perhaps @TrueTomHarley has some ideas here.

OK.. done. I have read it again. As always, I deeply appreciate the good research that has gone into the Insight book. When this book first came out under the name "Aid to Bible Understanding" I was just as amazed, especially at the "Chronology" section. It took me nearly four years of scratching out an hour or so each day to completely read the Aid book while still at Bethel. I have never completed the Insight book yet, although I recognize that most of the old entries have remained intact, verbatim, from the older Aid book. That said, I would love to comment on many items of interest that I found in the "Chronology" article in Insight including everything I agree with and appreciated. First, I will try to limit my comments to those that are relevant to this discussion and the statements you have made above. So here goes . . . First, you said: "And -"NO"- the Sumerian, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronologies are NOT firmly established! ... There is too little reliable evidence for that." I can say that you have understood very well the basic premise of the the first half of the Chronology article. It is clearly intended to make us us think that the Babylonian Chronology is not firmly established, when it really is, as I said above, one of the MOST firmly established of all ancient timelines. By mixing the Neo-Babylonian in with the Sumerian and Assyrian chronologies, especially by mentioning the much earlier mythical portions of those chronologies, we can easily get confused into thinking the Neo-Babylonian is just like the others. It's always easy to think that if something is wrong with part of something then something must also be wrong with the whole. But we should keep in mind that the Watch Tower publications are so sure of the accuracy of the Neo-Babylonian chronology, hat they take ONE of the dates from it (539) and for many years called it an ABSOLUTE date, and used that date as an anchor for the 1914 doctrine that has been repeated over 6,000 times, according to the current updated WT-Library CD. In fact scholars refer to the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology as ABSOLUTE dates, therefore the Watch Tower publications now only refer to 539 as a "pivotal" or "assured" date, rather than an absolute date.. *** it-1 p. 448 Chronology *** The histories of the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, and others are, in the main, fragmentary; their earlier periods are either obscure or, as presented by them, obviously mythical. A true statement "in the main" especially about their "earlier periods" but we are interested ONLY in the Neo-Babylonian period. *** it-1 p. 448 Chronology *** What is known from secular sources of these ancient nations has been laboriously pieced together from bits of information obtained from monuments and tablets or from the later writings of the so-called classical historiographers of the Greek and Roman period. Notice that all these nations have still been mixed together, rather than marvel at the amazing completeness of the Neo-Babylonian period, based on literally THOUSANDS of interrelated, interlocking, dated tablets and monuments. It's true that it has been laboriously pieced together from bits of information. This is as we should expect, and it turns out that all these THOUSANDS of bits of information support the "accepted chronology." And we should note that the Watch Tower publications do refer to the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology as the "accepted chronology" -- not because one man named Carl Olof Jonsson accepts it, but because ALL the known Neo-Babylonian scholars accept the overwhelming evidence. Obviously, these experts don't accept it just because it supports the Bible's timeline, yet it is easy to show that it really does. And these same scholars are the ones that the Insight book relies upon for the 539 date. These THOUSANDS of pieces of evidence actually support the Bible's timeline much better than the Watch Tower's timeline. *** kc p. 187 Appendix to Chapter 14 *** Business tablets: Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets have been found that record simple business transactions, stating the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets of this sort have been found for all the years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in the accepted chronology of the period. This doesn't mean that the Watch Tower accepts the "accepted chronology," of course, but the reasons that the Watch Tower gives are not real reasons. It is very easy to show that they are just pretend reasons. The Insight book inadvertently admits that these are just pretend reasons, if you look at it closely enough. *** it-1 pp. 448-449 Chronology *** While archaeologists have recovered tens of thousands of clay tablets bearing Assyro-Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions, as well as large numbers of papyrus scrolls from Egypt, the vast majority of these are religious texts or business documents consisting of contracts, bills of sale, deeds, and similar matter. The considerably smaller number of historical writings of the pagan nations, preserved either in the form of tablets, cylinders, steles, or monumental inscriptions, consist chiefly of material glorifying their emperors and recounting their military campaigns in grandiose terms. Notice the contradictory reasoning here. TENS OF THOUSANDS of clay tablets bearing inscriptions are supposedly minimized for being religious texts or mundane business documents. Notice what is left out, however: they are EACH ONE DATED to the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Also, by throwing some Egyptian papyrus scrolls into the mix, it's possible to imply that many of the TENS OF THOUSANDS of business documents might be religious documents -- and this very likely makes us think they are reduced in value in determining a chronology. We are also supposed to get the idea that the historical writings are reduced in value because they glorify their emperors and military campaigns. We are supposed to think if "myth" and "exaggeration" here. These are the bad apples that are supposed to spoil the whole bushel. *** it-1 p. 449 Chronology *** Engraved in stone or inscribed in clay, some ancient pagan documents may seem very impressive, but this does not ensure their correctness and their freedom from falsehood. Not the material written on, but the writer, his purpose, his respect for truth, his devotion to righteous principles—these are the important factors that give sound basis for confidence, in chronological as well as other matters. The great age of the secular documents is certainly outweighed by the vastly inferior quality of their contents . . . Yes, these contemporary documents will never be the Bible. But let's at least admit to what they are. In fact, these TENS OF THOUSANDS of business documents about mundane matters do not contain any of "myth" or "religion" or "exaggeration" and they are all dated. Not only that, but these dates are interconnected not just through the year of each king, but they include a second name, the name of the current "company president" always including who his father was, and sometimes even who his son was who would become the next president when his father died or retired. In addition to a complete timeline of the kings, you can also double-check it with a complete timeline of the firm's presidents and their sons, grandsons, great grandsons, etc. Thousands of the tablets come from the largest "financial firm" of that time, which handled real estate, banking, loans, and commerce contracts. It's as if you had a great-grandmother you never met who claimed to live to be 120 years old, and then you went into an attic and found that she had left 10,000 checkbook receipts, loan receipts, deeds, etc., which are not only dated with the day and month, but she also added the year of each U.S. President to each check, so that they would say for example: Lincoln's 3rd year, Johnson's 1st year, Grant's 2nd year. But they also had the name of the bank president, and the bank president's son. So now you could see how long each U.S president served and even synchronize it with how long each bank president served. But the main thing is that she had several checks for each and every year of each president. And you would have no trouble putting them in order because she also had a memo on each check where you could double-check the father and son currently running the bank in every year, too. This way if there were two presidents named Johnson (Andrew and Lyndon) in her check receipts, you could know which was which. But there is one more thing about the TENS OF THOUSANDS of business documents -- not mentioned. There are enough of them to show exactly what month of the year a given king died, because whenever a king was living the month and day and year of that king's reign was inscribed, but when he died the new king was shown sometimes in tablets of the same month just days after the new king was inaugurated, and the new king would be inscribed as being in his "0" year, or "accession" year. There is one more point that is just as important. Some of these tablets match up with customer's names on preceding tablets, or some tablets refer to transactions that cut across the time period of two kings. This could be a loan made in the time of one king, but paid off three years later in the time of another king. Or it could be a payment for an item during the last months of one king, and another for the delivery of those items in the early months of another king. In every case, we not only have tablets for every year of the timeline, but there is no way to claim the kings are in the wrong order, or that one might refer ambiguously to a different king of the same name. (This actually comes close to happening when some usurpers named Nebuchadnezzar show up, but their attempts lasted only a few months at a time, and happened long after the dates we are concerned about between Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus.) Without mentioning any of these facts, the Insight book goes on with a quote from Ceran "The Secret of the Hittites." If you have the book you will know the true context of the quote. *** it-1 pp. 449-450 Chronology *** Well illustrating why secular histories do not qualify as the standard of accuracy by which to judge Bible chronology is this statement by archaeological writer C. W. Ceram, commenting on the modern science of historical dating: ". . .For as we examine the sources of ancient history we see how scanty, inaccurate, or downright false, the records were even at the time they were first written. And poor as they originally were, they are poorer still as they have come down to us: half destroyed by the tooth of time or by the carelessness and rough usage of men.” —The Secret of the Hittites, 1956, pp. 133, 134. There are so many things wrong with this type of quotation when you realize that it is almost all geared toward accepting 539 (capture of Babylon) and not accepting 587 (destruction of Jerusalem). Yet both dates are from the same experts. Also there is no conflict between the Neo-Babylonian dating and the Bible, the only conflict is the Watchtower's interpretation -- which was only found necessary as a way to reach the 1914 date. But this book is talking about the Hittites. In fact, in just the next couple of paragraphs he uses an example of King Menes in Egypt from 2900 BCE! The purpose appears to be in order to mix up the problems of the early Egyptian timeline with the Neo-Babylonian. But it also leaves out the very next paragraph after King Menes. In fact, back in a Watchtower article that tried to bolster more faith in the predictions made about the 1975 time period, it actually used this same book to say that 539 was "assured." *** w68 5/1 pp. 270-271 pars. 2-3 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time *** " . . . the book The Secret of the Hittites, by C. W. Ceram, in the chapter entitled “The Science of Historical Dating,” states: . . . “But as we go even deeper into the subject, our respect for the achievements of historical detective work returns. We learn that the scholars have been careful to distinguish between ‘assured’ and ‘assumed’ dates. And we discover that the chronological framework of ancient history rests upon at least a few firm points. Certain key dates, around which other dates are mustered, can be determined almost without error. They are ‘assured.’” 3 Hence, outside the Bible’s timetable, most dates set by historians are unreliable. Only a few “assured,” or absolute, dates, such as 539 B.C.E., . . . Ceram didn't mention 539 here, the Watchtower added that. As far as the Egyptian chronology goes, note that the Watch Tower is only pushing for about a 100 year difference through much of it, and only a 20 year difference by the time of Josiah. *** it-1 p. 450 Chronology *** The difference between the above dates and those generally assigned by modern historians amounts to as much as a century or more for the Exodus and then narrows down to about 20 years by Pharaoh Necho’s time. The following information shows why we prefer to hold to the chronology based on the Biblical reckoning. That 20-year difference was necessary in order to make Jerusalem's fall change from 587 (accepted date) to 607 (the date required for 1914 to work). It's not that there is any evidence for it. There is none. But what is extremely ironic is that the entire discussion of why the Egyptian dates are not accepted is almost a precise description of the same exact reasoning about why 587 is not accepted. But here's the real irony: every one of these factors that supposedly weakens the unaccepted dates are exactly the factors that were used in order to get the 539 date. In other words the Watch Tower Society doesn't really think these are weakening factors at all; we accept them all perfectly for 539, and even call 539 an ASSURED date because of the same factors. This is how we know that the reasons given are only "pretend" reasons. Under Assyrian Chronology no attempt is made to synchronize: *** it-1 p. 452 Chronology *** The information above points to the conclusion that Assyrian historiography either is not correctly understood by modern historians or is of very low caliber. In either case, we do not feel compelled to attempt to coordinate the Biblical chronology with history as presented in the Assyrian records. For now, we can leave it at that because nothing there is critical to the points of discussion under Babylonian chronology. Twice as much space is devoted to the Neo-Babylonian and Persian chronologies and the issues surrounding their accuracy. This is the most interesting to this discussion, so I will continue some comments for discussion in the next post.

I appreciate the opportunity to dialogue with you without all the unnecessary rhetoric. I understand your situation somewhat, if you actually believe I am espousing the equivalent of apostate ideas, and you wish to counter them, but also wish to keep reminding an "audience" somewhere that you know "from whence such ideas come from," and need to clarify your distance while still engaging in dialogue. And yes, I could tell that there is a bit of censorship going on here, (e.g. the "POSTER") although I figured it was self-censorship due to previous warnings about not directly calling a specific poster an "apostate" or reminding them of their "Satanic" roots, or effectively threatening people who merely "upvote" the posts of people you strongly disagree with. (I copied a few of those long topics to my hard drive, and several of them have your original posts in them, that have since been deleted from the current site. Those deletions all reflected problems like the ones I just mentioned.) Personally, I really don't care about being mislabeled as much as the site owners apparently do. I think that as long as we can share information, it's the Internet after all, and we can expect whatever gets thrown at us. But it does get to be a time waster for anyone who wants to wade through the debris. And I always assumed that's part of the reason why you and others have done this: it puts a protective wall of debris (anti-posts), so that people don't really get into the real [perceived] pile of garbage, the topic itself. That's actually the reason I've so often just ignored what you've said in the past. I think a lot of people confuse the meaning of ad hominem a little bit, too. If you think someone is terrible and you say why you think that they are terrible based on why their argument is bad that is NOT ad hominem. It's when you say why you think they are terrible INSTEAD of saying why their argument is bad; that is an ad hominem. It's only when calling names is merely a diversion so that you don't have to defend against the argument itself. That's why Jesus was not using ad hominem when he spoke against the Pharisees, scribes, etc. He said they are 'wicked' BECAUSE of specific things they did or practiced. I also agree that you (in all guises and names) have been generally peaceful, reasonable, and helpful in the majority of your posts, even where I disagree with the point. I also agree that when it comes to being purposely "obnoxious" (if that's the word) there have been others here who have taken the prize in that area. Of course, the lesson appears to be that if someone is trying to be both provocative and funny at the same time, then almost anything goes. But I can see why that looks hypocritical. Sometimes, the danger of not responding to you allows ideas like this to fester, and then be used again as if they were true all along. My approach might appear more reasonable to you because I am beginning to understand your argument a bit better, but there is nothing inconsistent with previous arguments, which is why you cannot find any arguments that are inconsistent. I think you might be referring to the fact that I am not quibbling over a year or two difference, but if you go back to any of the old discussions you will find that this has always been the case. (I was the one, who agreed that the 3 weeks for Neb to get back from Hatti-land to Babylon always seemed just a bit too fast, even if Josephus is right about the short-cut.) Although I prefer 587, I can see a good reason for 586. Although the 70 years should end in 539, I can see a reason to go for 538. (The Jews could have come back in 537, but that wouldn't change when the 70 years ended a year or two prior to that.) You should be able to find all of these arguments in past discussions because they are all still around. These are not new arguments for a new audience. You might have conflated what I said with others like Ann, or ScholarJW, or others. You have done that before. I have said that I could care less what Carl Olof Jonnson wrote. All he did is repeat the evidence that is agreed upon by nearly 100% of the experts and scholars on the subject. It has nothing to do with him. My own independent study, which I did because of a dialogue I was having with Rolf Furuli, convinced me that HUNDREDS of scholars were right and Rolf Furuli had used a lot of logical fallacies and outright intellectual and scholastic dishonesty in a book that he sent me personally (for free, at that!). So far, neither you nor ScholarJW or anyone else have been able to show otherwise. It matters not that COJ might have come to the same conclusion. I have never spoken with COJ, I have spoken with Rolf Furuli. I have never read all of COJ's book. I have read every word of the last two books by Furuli. I have not "stated" that COJ has more credibility than the Watchtower, which is why you will not find such a statement. Your claim that I stated that "COJ has more credibility than the Watchtower" reminds me of J.F.Rutherford. Rutherford was not impugning the credibility of the Watchtower itself just because he found more evidence for a new teaching. Was Rutherford saying that his doctrine of 1925 has more credibility than Watch Tower's doctrine of 1914 just because he said: [2nd quotation corrected in late edit. Thanks Allen Smith.] "The year 1925 is a date definitely and clearly marked in the Scriptures, even more clearly than that of 1914; . . ." — The Watchtower, July 15, 1924, p. 211. "The physical facts show beyond question of a doubt that 1914 ended the Gentile Times. . . . The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures [than 1914] because it is fixed by the Law God gave to Israel." — The Watchtower, September 1, 1922, p. 262. ". . . the dates impart a much greater strength than can be found in other chronologies. Some of them are of so remarkable a character as clearly to indicate that this chronology is not of man, but of God. Being of divine origin and divinely corroborated, present-truth chronology stands in a class by itself, absolutely and unqualifiedly correct. INCONTESTABLY ESTABLISHED. When a date is indicated by several lines of evidence it is strongly established. . . . when a thing is indicated in only one way it may be by chance . . . and the addition of more proofs removes it entirely from the world of chance into that of proven certainty. PROOF OF DIVINE ORIGIN. . . . this is proof of divine origin and that the system is not a human invention . . . — "The Strong Cable of Chronology" The Watchtower, July 15, 1922, p.217, 218. QUESTION AND ANSWER: Have we more reason, or as much, to believe the Kingdom will be established in 1925 than Noah had to believe that there would be a flood? [Answer] Our thought is, that 1925 is definitely settled by the Scriptures. . . we expect such a climax in the affairs of the world . . . He is already present. . . . He is dashing to pieces the nations. . . .As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon which to base his faith than Noah had . . . upon which to base his faith in a coming deluge." — The Watchtower, April 1, 1923, p.106 "When you take up a more advanced study of the Bible, you will find that the year 1925 A. D. is particularly marked in prophecy." The Way to Paradise, p.220 No, he was not disparaging the Watchtower for having taught 1914. He was not putting one person as more credible than the Watchtower, because he obviously still accepted the Watchtower, and even though all the expectations for 1914 had failed, he still thought that there was evidence that something about 1914 was still true. Was Rutherford really saying that 1925 was more credible than 1914, or just saying that there was more evidence for 1925 than for 1914? Similarly, I'm saying that there is more evidence against the 1914 doctrine than there is for it. Just like Rutherford, I think that multiple lines of evidence begin to make a proposition less an indication of chance, and more an indication of certainty. I am not using this to disparage the Watchtower in general which is right on many more things than it has been wrong about. Also, note that I am not even saying that the nearly 100% of experts (perhaps there are thousands) in the field of chronology need to be right. After all, Rutherford was not right about 1925 nor even about most of the other dates he referred to as "unqualifiedly correct." Nothing about my faith changes if secular experts show how the chronology corroborates the Bible (which it does) or if it supposedly "proved" the Bible incorrect (which it doesn't). Even if all the potential thousands of experts could prove it was 607 when Jerusalem was destroyed, it still would have no effect on my faith, for Biblical reasons. I have faith that Jesus was correct when he said that no one would be able to put a date on the parousia. I have never said it was a "PET" project. If I have a "PET" project, it has been to show that the Kingdom is one of the primary themes of the Bible, and that even the Hebrew Scriptures pointed to a Messiah who turned out to be identifiable in his day as Jesus Christ, and how this truth was revealed in such a way, even if it was a "sacred secret" that it was unavoidable and undeniable for the persons of his generation. But that is not a project that I have discussed much about yet on this forum. What I am doing here is sharing things I learned from other Witnesses years ago, didn't particularly want to believe, but which became undeniable to me after thorough study and prayerful consideration. It's not necessary that anyone follow it or believe it, but my conscience tells me that I should at least share in the things learned. New information is being found on this subject all the time, and I think some have had difficulty fitting this new cloth or new wine onto the old framework of the 1914 doctrine. I think the information shared might help these brothers and sisters. Others will have no use for it, which is OK, too: (Matthew 9:16, 17) . . .Nobody sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old outer garment, for the new piece pulls away from the garment and the tear becomes worse. 17 Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins. If they do, then the wineskins burst and the wine spills out and the wineskins are ruined. But people put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.” (Matthew 13:52) . . .every public instructor who is taught about the Kingdom of the heavens is like a man, the master of the house, who brings out of his treasure store things both new and old.” A research on this forum from other threads will definitely and consistently show this to be the case.

Your style of response is not clear. I'm not sure if that was on purpose, but I will do my best to comment by including comments interspersed within the quotation of your post below. Your comments are in blue, so mine will be formatted in black, primarily. I don't know who is doing the asserting of all the dates you quote, and I assume there may at times be more than one possible reading or supposition about certain dates. If I recognize the specific secular date as one in which research provides evidence that it is correct and that it also finds support in the Bible, I will label it "Bible-supported secular date(s)." 539 for the capture of Babylon is a Bible-supported secular date which you and others have agreed with, too. 607 for the destruction of Jerusalem is a non-Bible supported, non-secular date for that event. 607 for the rebellion of Jehoiakim might come within a year or so of the Bible-supported secular date synchronized with that event. (I have never worried about arguing over +-1 or even +-2 years in some cases.)

Yes, I believe the Bible to be correct, too, of course, and I agree that in the Insight book we have a wealth of excellent research. I am re-reading the Chronology article there and am looking at ALL the different reasons and calculations they use for getting to 539 BCE. I will go ahead and read the entire Chronology section again before I hit "Submit Reply." I will give it a completely open mind, and will only make notes that are positive and supportive of the article along the way. ... ... ... Not done yet! I have read it twice before, and very carefully at that! But I'm giving it another go and will not be done before tomorrow, perhaps noon. I did see your last post as a reminder.

As far as I know, this first sentence is not true. Whenever anyone wishes to confront a question you have all the leeway you need, exactly as everyone else does. It's always been up to you if you wish to respond to a question or not. When I re-read your post, I have the same question because you didn't answer it. It's not a problem if you don't wish to or even if you have some other agenda, like the one you point out below. I understand your concern. But if you are saying that the information I stated was a "past understanding" then I never saw or remember the place where this "past" understanding was ever corrected. I think I know of a couple of Watchtower articles that imply that there could have been a few different ideas in the minds of the disciples, but there has not been any clear statement that the disciples asked the question with the idea that these words about a parousia or a synteleia would refer to an invisible presence. Yet, we do have this clear statement that they had no idea about an invisible presence. If you are saying that your only concern or agenda here was some kind of obfuscation to highlight the idea that this kind of discussion reminds you of apostate content, then I can assure you that it is based solely on Biblical study, prayer, research, and reason, and a very strong attempt to give all possible "benefit of the doubt" to the Watch Tower publications first.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/

@AllenSmith, I appreciate the scriptures you quoted as they completely coincide with these same points already made. But I can't quite figure out why you also said the following at the top of your post before you mentioned the scriptural points: I already agree 100% with the portion I left out, [ . . . ] but I'm wondering what the remaining part means. Are you saying you just don't like the word "admitting," or are you saying that when the Watchtower said the following, below, that they were actually wrong or they were inconsistent with their own teachings? *** w64 9/15 p. 575 Questions From Readers *** At Matthew 24:3, when Jesus’ disciples asked him about the “sign” of his presence, what did they have in mind, since later events show that they did not at that time understand that it would be an invisible presence? . . . [Answer]. . . But not yet having received holy spirit, they did not appreciate that he would not sit on an earthly throne; they had no idea that he would rule as a glorious spirit from the heavens and therefore did not know that his second presence would be invisible If so, in what way were they wrong? In what way were they inconsistent? Is there a place where the Watchtower changed its view and said that the disciples actually were concerned about a possible invisible presence?

The part I highlighted is, unfortunately, a completely false statement. It's true, as you said before, that Egyptian and Assyrian chronology is not as well corroborated with astronomical data and other synchronizing evidence. But it's the entire period of the Neo-Babylonian empire which includes Kings from Nabopolassar to Cyrus which is probably the most well-corroborated of all the ancient chronologies. The first astronomical diaries which can produce "absolute dates" and can be corroborated with independent lines of evidence start becoming available in the 7th and 6th centuries B.C.E. But they become much more numerous after that. These continue well into the Persian and Greek kingdoms, even to the first century C.E. But it's the sheer number of dated tablets, astronomical diaries, and royal chronologies along with additional records by later historians that all work together to confirm the ENTIRE timeline. You could even lose some of the independent lines of evidence and still have enough evidence to completely piece together the entire Neo-Babylonian period. For example, you don't need "Ptolemy's Canon" at all anymore to know when Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year began, or when Cyrus' 1st year began, even though it was once considered essential. If anyone tells you that 539 is more accurate than any other date within the time period, then you should watch out for any of the following three possibilities: They are misinformed They are dishonest They are exaggerating a point because they are referring to the fact that there are very few major events recorded during this time period that are of much historical interest outside of the records themselves, and therefore the fact that Cyrus captured Babylon is one of those events of at last moderate outside historical interest. So, being able to attach an accurate date to this particular event is of some interest to scholars and historians, and therefore makes it one of most talked about dates of that period. But this does not mean it is any more accurate than the 8th year of Cyrus, or the 4th year of Nebuchadnezzar, or the 15th year of Nabopolassar, or the 2nd year of Nabonidus, etc. Based on point number 3, just mentioned, I would say that the secular date of 597 for the siege of Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, as mentioned in Jeremiah 52:28 and 2 Kings 24:11,12 and 2 Chronicles 36:10 is actually attested to (both directly and indirectly) by even more independent Neo-Babylonian and near contemporary sources than 539 is, but this still makes it JUST AS accurate, not MORE accurate than 539. It's all part of an interconnected chronology. (And, of course, using the Bible, it becomes easy to see that if 597 is accurate, then Jerusalem must have been destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E.) Actually, I'd have to say that even the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, 586, which you called "weak" is slightly better attested to, from more independent sources, than the 539 date. But again, this does not make it more accurate than 539. But it does not make it less accurate either. The Bible itself adds additional weight for each of these dates, 597, 587/6, and 539, and thus the accuracy of the Bible is here supported by archaeology and secular chronology. Once again we have evidence that the Bible harmonizes as a book of history. We often point this out when an archaeological discovery is made about a person or place named in the Bible. So, it's actually a shame that with all the overwhelming data available for the Neo-Babylonian period, we are just about the only Judeo-Christian religion that can't admit that the Bible's record is shown to be corroborated by secular, historical and archaeological records in this case.

@Arauna Thanks for responding. Daniel 9:2 fits the Biblical theory perfectly. (I haven't forgotten some of the previous points you have made that I haven't responded to yet, but I'll work backwards from this latest post of yours.) Daniel 9:2 references the book of Jeremiah directly. Since Jeremiah is the book that Daniel bases his statement on, we should look there first. Jeremiah was already quoted above where it says that Babylon would be given 70 years of rulership over the nations around them. We also know from the context that Jerusalem and other nations were going to be punished through this 70 years given to Babylon. As the Isaiah book said: not all nations would go through their punishments for the same numbers of year. (The "seventy years" for Tyre to be forgotten evidently turned out to be about 17 years.) Jerusalem was ultimately to be desolated per Jeremiah too. But Jeremiah does NOT put a specific number of years on Jerusalem's desolation. But it is still obvious that it is through those 70 years of Babylonian domination that Jerusalem would be desolated. Jerusalem's desolation comes through, or because of, the 70 years given for Babylonian domination. That might sound convoluted, but it's based on what Jeremiah says. Also, it might well explain why the statement in Daniel 9:2 is admittedly difficult to translate. But it's pretty clear that it means what it says, just what the NWT says. The meaning is probably more like: Daniel discerned by reading the sacred books that Jeremiah had mentioned "the 70 years" and that the end of these 70 years would fulfill the desolation of Jerusalem . . .[therefore now that Babylon has had her 70 years, it must now be time for Jehovah to fulfill his promise to look with favor again upon Jerusalem.] . . .therefore [quoting from the NWT] "Do open your eyes and see our desolate condition and the city that has been called by your name; for we are not entreating you because of our righteous acts but because of your great mercy. O Jehovah, do hear. O Jehovah, do forgive. O Jehovah, do pay attention and act! Do not delay, for your own sake, O my God, for your own name has been called upon your city and upon your people.” One way we know that this is the general meaning is that Daniel had just told Belshazzar: (Daniel 5:26-30) . . .God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end. . . . your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and the Persians.”. . . 30 That very night Bel·shazʹzar the Chal·deʹan king was killed. Recall that Daniel 7 goes back in time to Belshazzar's first year, chapter 8 starts out in Belshazzar's third year, and in Daniel 9 Darius has just started his reign. This is the first verse mentioned with reference to Darius: " (Daniel 9:1, 2) In the first year of Da·riʹus the son of A·has·u·eʹrus—a descendant of the Medes who had been made king over the kingdom of the Chal·deʹans— 2 in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of years mentioned in the word of Jehovah to Jeremiah . . . So this is the obvious time to realize that the 70 years should be up. 2 Chronicles, mentioned above, also said that the 70 years would continue right up until the time that "the kingdom of Persian began to reign." 70 years of Babylonian rulership was now fulfilled and it was now time for such a prayer as Daniel made to pray that the hearts of the Jews had turned back and Jehovah would fulfill his "good promise." (Jeremiah 29:10, 13 NIV) This is what the LORD says: “When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my good promise to bring you back to this place. . . . Then you will call on me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. That is quite possible. What I said was that the Bible never says to count back from 537. This is for THREE reasons. The Bible never says that the number of years given to Babylon (70) would continue for any length of time after a king of Persia began to reign. This very well could have been 539 the very year that Cyrus captured Babylon and killed Belshazzar. Even if the Jews had remained another 5, 25 or 75 more years in Babylon (many did), those 70 years would still have been completed back in 539. It's quite possible that the Jews weren't prepared to go back immediately, or there was a delay in the exact timing of the decree by Cyrus to release them. But even if this was true, it doesn't change the time when the Bible said the 70 years were completed. The other reason I mentioned that the Bible never says to count back 70 years from 537 is that the Bible never mentions 539, 538, or 537. Those are secular dates, not Biblical dates. The closest we can get to in the Bible is know that it was after a certain number of years during a certain king's reign and before a certain number of years of that king's or another king's reign. The only way you or I can state with any certainty that a number like 538 or 587 or 607 should be attached to one of those dates is through a synchronization with evidence provided through secular evidence OUTSIDE the Bible. Your point was that this was the method to reach the "true date" for the destruction of Jerusalem. The Bible never says that the 70 years start counting from the destruction of Jerusalem. So even if the 70 years turns out to start in 607, that doesn't mean that Jerusalem was destroyed in that date. (Besides, the same point made in the previous post still stands: if you believe you can put a number like 539 on the first year or "ascension year" of Cyrus, then this is the same as claiming that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 586. Otherwise you have no right to claim that 539 was that "ascension year" of Cyrus.) However, I would say that we have enough evidence to say that the 70 years most likely did end in 539 or possibly 538 at the latest. (Ezra 1:1) In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in order that Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah would be fulfilled, . . . (Ezra 3:1) When the seventh month arrived and the Israelites were in their cities, they gathered together with one accord in Jerusalem. The Jews could have returned in 539 or 538. (It's much less likely but you are right in that they COULD have even returned in 537.) It's not based on the time the Jews returned, but if the term "70 years" was meant to be an exact number, it's true that the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy could have started in 609 or 608. I could even accept that it started in 607 as long as we can accept that the 70 years could contain "parts of 70 years" just as Jesus was in the grave for "parts of 3 days" even though that can be accomplished, technically, in just over 24 hours . . . and we assume it was over 30 hours. So yes, based on evidence, 607 is a possible date for the beginning of the 70 years. Based on that same evidence, it is IMPOSSIBLE for 607 to be the date when Jerusalem was destroyed. But that is not important, because the Bible never said that Babylonian supremacy would start at that point anyway. Babylon began desolating the nations all around, which would include Judea, as early as 609, the year that the previous "world empire" (Assyrian) fell and began being absorbed into the Babylonian power structure. To keep each of these posts a bit shorter, I'll stop this one for now and pick up on your next points later. Thanks again.

Yes, but remember that the Bible never says to count back 70 years from 537. It says that the Babylonians would be given 70 years of rule over the nations around them. (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,Â’ declares Jehovah, ‘and I will make the land of the Chal·de?ans a desolate wasteland for all time. And Babylon was to be called to account at the end of those 70 years when Babylon was captured by Cyrus in 539. At that point there was no Babylon Empire anymore, it was merely a part of the Medo-Persian empire ruled by Cyrus. This is why the 70 years were never said to end when the Jews came back to Jerusalem, but when Cyrus captured Babylon. (2 Chronicles 36:20-23) 20 He carried off captive to Babylon those who escaped the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia began to reign, 21 to fulfill JehovahÂ’s word spoken by Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill 70 years. 22 In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in order that JehovahÂ’s word spoken by Jeremiah would be fulfilled, Jehovah stirred the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his kingdom, which he also put in writing, saying: 23 “This is what King Cyrus of Persia says, ‘Jehovah the God of the heavens has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has commissioned me to build him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever there is among you of all his people, may Jehovah his God be with him, and let him go up.’” So, this claim about 537 is actually just a necessary adjustment that is neither Biblical nor secular. It's just a way to work around the Bible's clear statement that the 70 years were over when Persia began to rule. We both agree that this was 539, but 539 would give us a starting date of 609. (Russell didn't have this problem because he thought Cyrus started in 536 and so Russell just counted back to 606 and left it at that. Of course, he also made the mistake of thinking that 606 was 2,520 years prior to 1914.) When I used the date 538 for the decree, I was using the last possible meaning of the term "first year of King Cyrus" (2 Chron 36:22). If the prior year 539 is meant, then it would be very likely that the Jews actually returned to Jerusalem in 539, not 538. (Unless we think that most of the Jews might just want to hang around an extra few months or up to two years after they were free to go.) Nothing in the Bible says they waited until 537 if the decree was made in 539. And if the decree was made in the first official FULL year of Cyrus (538) then there is still no reason to think that they waited until 537. 537, as I said, is just a necessary adjustment the Watch Tower publications are required to make in order for 1914 to appear valid. We don't know how much of that time period during Babylon's "70 years" that the land of Israel and Judah needed to lay completley desolate. Perhaps it was 7 times 7 years (49 years) or perhaps it was 70 x 7 years (490 years) or perhaps it was only that it needed to start paying off its sabbaths when desolations and deportations started at the very beginning of Babylonian rule nearly a full 70 years prior to 539, when Nebuchadnezzar was still "tramping about" in "Hatti-land" as a general under his father's rulership. No matter when it started, and for how many years it continued, we know it finally got to a point of such desolation that it therefore finally paid off its sabbaths. But we do know that any fulfillment of the sabbath on the land was only possible because Babylon was given 70 years of "Empire" to desolate the nations all around it. That "70 years of Babylonian Empire" is what fulfilled the word of Jeremiah, and what got Judah to a point where it paid off its sabbaths during the fulfillment of Babylon's 70 years. This point was made clear in the discussion of Tyre in the Isaiah's Prophecy book: *** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre *** 21 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 BabyloniaÂ’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. By the way, you can't say that 607 is the true date of the fall of Jerusalem by counting back from 539 either. You have to remember where you got this secular date of 539 from. You can't claim that Cyrus destroyed Babylon in 539 unless you are accepting the timeline that puts Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year in 586. Do you believe the Bible made a mistake when it identifies Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year as the time when Jerusalem was destroyed? By saying it was 607, you are claiming that it was in Nabopolassar's last two years, two years prior to Nebuchadnezzar's first full regnal year. You can't just say you want to select a portion of the timeline, because the timeline is completely interconnected, and every new piece of evidence, so far, has confirmed the correctness of the interconnected timeline. (And there have literally been THOUSANDS of pieces of interconnected evidence.) It's exactly the same as if you said that your great-great-grandmother told you that the "Civil War" in the United States lasted about 25 years. She says it was from 1840-1865. You could repeat 1,500 times that this means the civil war started in 1840/1841, but it wouldn't prove anything. (The Watchtower Library CD repeats the date 607 about 1,500 times.) You could always point to the "true and clear" secular, historical evidence that it ended in 1865 and show how you are counting backwards correctly. The problem is that you would be ignoring that the SAME sources of "true and clear" secular, historical evidence show that it started in 1861. So, if you really want your 25 years, what keeps you from claiming that 1861 is correct for a start date and that it must therefore have ENDED around 1885/1886? You are making the exact same mistake either way. This is why you can't use the date 539 as a correct date if you are going to say that 586 for Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year is incorrect. Once you change Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year you are no longer saying that 539 is correct. Besides, even after all this, 1914 would still be a murky date because there is no Biblical evidence that says that 7 times would pass after Jerusalem's destruction until the Messiah would reign again. Even if it did, you would not know if 7 times meant 7 360-day years. Even if it did, you would not know if 7 years meant 2,520 365.25-day years. These are all just guesses. If 1914 were so clear, why did the Watchtower begin saying that the Gentile Times ended in 1915 for a while? The following is the Watch Tower, January 1, 1916, p.4. Â

Several persons have weighed in already, and I'll be more than happy to discuss all these concerns and issues from a Biblical perspective. For now, it seems like a good idea to go ahead and get to the topic of parousia. PAROUSIA This is, of course, the word used in Matthew's account when the disciples were asking Jesus the question about WHEN the time would come for those predictions about the destruction of the Temple buildings. The earliest translations of the Bible, made back when koine Greek was still a living language, understood the "parousia" of Matthew 24 to be an event rather than a presence. The Watch Tower publications have said that the word parousia refers to both arrival and presence and that the more common use of the term referred more to the presence than the arrival. This is why the word is translated "presence." (Matthew 24:2, 3) "Truly I say to you, by no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 3 While he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately, saying: “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence [PAROUSIA] and of the conclusion of the system of things?” Clearly, the disciples wanted some advance warning about the time of this very visible, destructive event. They are basically saying: "WHEN? WHAT SIGN will you give us?" The Watchtower has already admitted that the disciples knew nothing about an invisible presence, so it makes sense that they would want to know when it was just about to happen, not when an approaching time period was already happening invisibly. Common sense also tells us that they were not thinking that the falling of these temple stones was going to be an invisible occurrence. It's also very easy to understand this if we understand that the terms terms PAROUSIA and SYNTELEIA refer to a final judgment event. However, if we think of BOTH these terms as referring to long periods of time of 100 to 150 years or more, then it might inadvertently give us the impression that the disciples were asking about how to identify a time period when Jesus might be present for some long period of time even well in advance of the temple stones falling. Of course, that wouldn't tell the disciples what they needed to know, or what they were immediately concerned about. So it's a good idea here to see what Mark and Luke report as the essence of the disciples same question, because neither of them use the term PAROUSIA. Did they want to know about the period of time before the destruction, or did they want to know the timing of the destruction? (Luke 21:6, 7) . . .“As for these things that you now see, the days will come when not a stone will be left upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 7 Then they questioned him, saying: “Teacher, when will these things actually be, and what will be the sign when these things are to occur?” It's already clear what they had in mind, and we should not expect the essence of what they were asking to be changed by the addition of the words parousia and synteleia in Matthew. Of course, a true understanding of those two words does not change the meaning of what Luke states and, in fact, makes it even more clear that Luke and Matthew are in complete harmony. The disciples were not asking: "In what generation will these things actually be and what will be the signs so we know we are in the generation when these things are going to occur?" Let's look at Mark: (Mark 13:2-4) . . .By no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 3 As he was sitting on the Mount of Olives with the temple in view, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked him privately: 4 “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are to come to a conclusion?” In the discussion of SYNTELEIA we already presented the evidence that the word "synteleia" rarely means conclusion, especially not in Biblical or religious contexts. In fact, the word "conclusion" used here is not even from the noun, but is taken from the verb SYNTELEO, which always has the meaning of to reach a final end, to finish, to destroy, to complete, to fulfill, to accomplish, etc. A more accurate way to translate the verse would be the same way the NWT correctly handles the same word in Luke 4:13: (Luke 4:13) 13 So the Devil, having finished [SYNTELEO] all the temptation, departed from him until another convenient time. Thus, the Revised Standard Version translates Mark like this: (Mark 13:4, RSV) "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign when these things are all to be accomplished?" The Watchtower has said that the two terms parousia and synteleia are "parallel." If this is really true, the disciples must have had in mind that parousia could refer to the same destructive judgment event that synteleia could have referred to. It is true however that "parousia" can refer to a simple "presence." Isn't there still a chance that this is what it refers to here? Well, we have already noted that this particular meaning would not have made as much sense in this context. And we have the evidence of that when we see that the parallel ideas in Mark and Luke show that it must have referred to the time when these events would come or arrive or happen or occur. We also must recognize that there was a special meaning of parousia when it was applied to a dignitary, king or emperor. When you spoke of the parousia of someone like Paul, Timothy or Titus, then you might be referring to their arrival and their subsequent presence. But when the word was used for a powerful person, the focus was on the "grand entrance" or the "parade-like" event that accompanied those events. This understanding explains why the earliest translations of the Greek Bible into Latin and Coptic and Syriac recognized that words like ADVENT and COMING and ARRIVAL were better than presence, even if presence was still the proper way to discuss the parousia of someone like the apostle Paul. Similarly, we commonly use the word "triumph" to refer to a big "success," or a "win." But the Romans used the word in a special sense of a "Victory Parade" and have made statues and carvings and coins that commemorate these events called "Triumphs" or "Triumph" processions. The Oxford English Dictionary offers it as the very first definition from the Latin "triumphus": 1.1 Rom. Hist. The entrance of a victorious commander with his army and spoils in solemn procession into Rome, permission for which was granted by the senate in honour of an important achievement in war. It's reflected in the name of the famous Arc de Triomphe in Paris. A "Triumph" is depicted in the famous "Arch of Titus" which looks like the one in Paris from the outside. Inside it shows Jerusalem's temple treasures being carried back to Rome: Similarly "PAROUSIA" had a special definition in the Roman world. It's alluded to in the Watch Tower Publications: *** it-2 p. 677 Presence *** Liddell and ScottÂ’s Greek-English Lexicon (revised by H. Jones, Oxford, 1968, p. 1343) shows that pa·rou·si?a is used at times in secular Greek literature to refer to the “visit of a royal or official personage.” *** Rbi8 p. 1577 5B ChristÂ’s Presence (Parousia) *** Also, Bauer, p. 630, states that pa·rou·si?a “became the official term for a visit of a person of high rank, esp[ecially] of kings and emperors visiting a province.” In Mt 24:3, as well as in other texts such as 1Th 3:13 and 2Th 2:1, the word pa·rou·si?a refers to the royal presence of Jesus Christ . . . The primary reason for the differences between more recent Bible dictionaries, and dictionaries and studies completed prior to about 1910 was because the work of Adolph Deissmann was not published in English until the early 20th century. At the end of this post, I'll copy-and-paste some quotes that were already presented in another topic, especially page 8 of this conversation: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/16699-gods-kingdom-rules/?page=8 [ I was going to make a part 2 of this PAROUSIA post, but most of the technical references were already given especially near the end of this linked topic below. Later, I'll just make another PAROUSIA post discussing only the Biblical uses of the word.] Deissmann had studied "New Testament" era papyri and coins that showed that a Parousia of a king or emperor was an event that could be like a parade or procession with fanfare, music, dancing, lots of people wearing white robes, and even a time for a visiting ruler to take on a seat of local judgment. Expenses for making the roads straight and smooth and cleaning up debris so that the king would be more impressed might even call for a special taxation in preparation for the parousia. Deissmann and others believed this is the reason for special "parousia" coins (Greek) or "advent" coins (Latin). https://www.cointalk.com/threads/advent.271544/ (a lot more examples) Also, in the 19th century, a few people realized that the simpler meaning of the word "parousia" gave support for their view of a two-stage parousia of Christ, including a potentially invisible stage. This was true of some Christadelphians, Plymouth Brethren and Second Adventists, too. It included persons like Benjamin Wilson who published the "Diaglott" and it was also true of W. E. Vine, the person who produced "Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old Testament and New Testament Words." (Both items are listed in the advertisement from @bruceq above.) Note, Insight: *** it-2 p. 676 Presence *** VineÂ’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1981, Vol. 1, pp. 208, 209) states: “PAROUSIA . . . denotes both an arrival and a consequent presence with. You might be fooled by the date 1981 used in the Insight book. W.E.Vine was actually born in 1873, died in 1949 and barely adjusted his early work on the word parousia after his work with C. F. Hogg between 1905 and 1914. He finished his commentary on Thessalonians with Hogg in 1914, where parousia was a key element. But even here, the two-stages of the Parousia referred primarily to the beginning of the Parousia which was a Rapture and therefore a short time when the saints would be with Christ in heaven during a time of persecution, followed by Armageddon which ultimately becomes the "Day of the Lord" which is the end event of the Parousia. Here is some of that reference information from the other topic mentioned above: --------------------------------------- [page 8] Several of the Liddell-Scott definitions are related to something more than a simple visit, including the "royal visitation": 2. arrival, ???? ????????? ?. S.El.1104, cf. E.Alc.209, Th.1.128 ; “??? ???????” D.H.1.45 ; esp. visit of a royal or official personage, ????????, etc., PTeb.48.14 (ii B. C.), IPE12.32A85 (Olbia, iii B.C.), etc.; of a god, IG42(1).122.34(Epid.). 3. occasion, v.l. in S. El.1251. 4. ?. ???? ????????? entertain them on their official visits, OGI139.9(Philae, ii B.C.). 5. in NT, the Advent, Ev.Matt.24.27, al.  [page 8] Better sources for the meaning would be contemporary sources to the Greek Scriptures. Therefore, a better set of resources to start with might be the ones referenced in this book which has a preview on Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=fj1R9Z4uIzAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false I might type out some of it, or at least I'll snap a screenshot of parts of page 150 and 151, another quote comes from page 158: A further source of background material that has bearing on our study is found when one explores the meaning and use of the term parousia before and during the New Testament period. The word means "presence" or "arrival." From the Ptolemaic period to the second century A.D. there is clear evidence that the term was used for the arrival of a ruler, king or emperor. The Latin equivalent was adventus. For instance, a third-century B.C. papyrus refers to a crown of gold to be presented to a king at his parousia.6 Or again a parousia of King Ptolemy the Second (circa 113 B.C.), who called himself soter, is expected and it is said "the provision of 80 artabae ... was imposed for the tou Basileos parousian...."7Such examples from both the Hellenistic and Roman periods could be multiplied. For example, in memory of the visit of Nero to Corinth, special adventus/parousia coins were cast that read Adventus aug[usti] Cor[inthi].8 These coins were cast during the general period when Paul was writing to Corinth (1 Cor 15:23). Equally interesting is the evidence G. D. Kilpatrick has collected showing that "parousia" often was the Hellenistic term for a theophany.9 For instance, in the Greek form of the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, at Testament of Judah 22:3(2) and Testament of Levi 8:15(11), we find it used to refer to the final coming of God. Josephus uses the term parousia for the divine appearances in the Old Testament theophanies (Ant. 3.80, 202-3; 9.55; compare 18.284).

You are apparently asking for a secular date: a date that requires the input of scholars who have studied the archaeology, astronomy, language and therefore, the chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period of history. The only way that we could attach a secular date to this event is if we accept the expert scholars' opinions about the chronology. Those experts tell us that it's part of a timeline that includes and is interwoven with all the lengths of the reigns of the kings of the period. The lengths of these reigns include kings well before Nebuchadnezzar back into the late Assyrian period through the kings well after Cyrus and on into the period of Greek kings. The lengths of all these kings tend to double-check each other and the synchronization with prior and later timelines is useful as a way to make sure the entire period is understood correctly. Otherwise, who is to say there were not several kings named Nebuchadnezzar, and several named Cyrus and Darius and Artaxerxes, etc. All the data must be placed into a schema and then that schema can be double-checked through several different independent lines of evidence to see if it is being understood correctly. So, to make a long story short, the Watchtower has admitted that it is estimating the year for the Judeans to return to Jerusalem as 537 BCE. This is based on the idea that we can confidently say that Cyrus first partial year over Babylon was 539 and therefore his first full regnal year was 538, which was therefore, the most likely time when the Jews returned. Biblically, it appears that the call went out in the first regnal year of the king called Cyrus. Putting the secular date of 539 or 538 on this year is only possible because the neo-Babylonian chronology schema allows us to know when Nabopolassar ruled, when Nebuchadnezzar II ruled, when Nabonidus ruled, when Cyrus ruled, and which astronomical sightings and other events help us to confirm each of these king's reigns and how they fit between and among the reigns of the other kings in the period. In other words, we can know that it was Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th years when he destroyed the temple. But if we are to put a secular date on them it's only because we can put a date on any other king's reign during this period. If we say that Cyrus' first full year was 538, it's because we can say that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th year was 587 and 586. All the dates are part of a whole. If we say that the Temple must have been destroyed in 607, for example, that's the same as saying that Cyrus' first full year started in 558. That would mean that the Watchtower would have to say that the Jews must have returned to Jerusalem in 558 or 557, instead of 537. Fortunately, we now have several independent lines of evidence that all show us that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year was 586, and therefore we can be sure that Cyrus 1st regnal year was 538. If we trust the astronomical diaries, we now have literally dozens of additional pieces of evidence to pinpoint secular dates at many points in the entire chronology. We also have the dated contract documents, thousands of them, that all confirm that these secular-astronomical dates are correct. These thousands of contracts show us that there are 48 years accounted for from Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year to Cyrus 1st. This is a perfect match to the other independent lines of evidence. Of course, all this is irrelevant, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, Thessalonians, 2 Peter and Revelation. There is no relationship between the time that the Jews returned to Jerusalem and the beginning of the Parousia.

Can we see the first 30% of her for free? It'd be like 'proof of life.'