JW Insider

There may be better and clearer alternatives to the idea from Daniel 9:1-2, but I don't believe anyone has found any major problems or discrepancies with the WTS understanding. (Daniel 9:1, 2) 9 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 the prophet to fulfill the desolation of Jerusalem, namely, 70 years. (Daniel 1:1) 1 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. (Jeremiah 52:28-30) 28 These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile: in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews. 29 In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem. 30 In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people.. . . Based on the fact that Daniel's had discerned the 70 years of Jeremiah and that this is juxtaposed with the fact that it is now the 1st year of Darius, it seems safe to assume the following: The Chaldeans/Babylonians have been just very recently been conquered by the Medo-Persian Empire. History & Archaeology puts this event at about 539 BCE, and it appears consistent with Biblical evidence. Accepting 539 BCE is the same as accepting the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology. (Otherwise it would be like accepting that the U.S. Civil War ended in 1865 but you won't accept that it started in 1861.) Therefore, accepting 539 BCE means that Assyria fell in 609, Nebuchadnezzar became ruler in 604, numerous incursions around Judea, and exiles of prisoners from Judea were known from around 605 (months before Neb was ruler), 598/7 (Neb 7th yr. non-accession), 587/6 (Neb 18th yr), 582/1 (Neb 23rd yr) -- Jer. 52:28-30. Since Jeremiah had spoken of 70 years given to Babylon so that Babylon could rule and wreak havoc over the nations for that length of time, Daniel must have known that the 70 years was up due to the fall of Babylon. (This matches 2 Chronicles that stated that the 70 years would be up when the Persian king began ruling.) Daniel indicates that the 70 years were somehow also a part of the fulfillment of the desolation of Jerusalem, and that it was now time for the punishment to end and the restoration to Judea. But we know that Daniel would not likely be of the opinion that this meant 70 years of total desolation, since the first physical "desolations" (through incursions, battles and exile) evidently didn't start counting until about 605 and ended about 5 years after the final desolation of Jerusalem, per Jeremiah 52:30. It had been about 66 years since the first exiles. Daniel never mentions the decree of Cyrus. In Daniel 10:1 he mentions the 3rd year of Cyrus while Daniel is evidently still in Babylonia, but with no specific historical event tied to it. It seems impossible that Daniel wouldn't have known about the decree of Cyrus, but Daniel is apparently looking beyond just the return, to the actual re-inauguration of the Temple, which wouldn't start for another 20 years, and wouldn't be ready for dedication until the next century. So Daniel receives a different kind of answer about the 70 years. For the "real" fulfillment, it wouldn't be 70 years, but 70 times 7 years. This uses not a "day-for-a-year" rule but a "7-years-for-a-year" rule. Something like this rule is mentioned a couple other times in the Bible. Exactly when to start the 70 x 7 = 490 years, I wouldn't know. But it seems that Daniel is now to look far off into the future for the true Temple fulfillment. Every Christian-oriented commentary makes sense of this by having it point to Jesus as the true Temple, but this produces a couple of chronology issues, too. And our solution (WTS) doesn't do anything with the 62 weeks, or the 7 weeks, it merely combines them. We also don't have Jesus "cut off" at the 69th week. (We use the 69.5 weeks instead of the 69.0 found in Daniel 9:26 “And after the 62 weeks, Mes·siʹah will be cut off, with nothing for himself." So I wouldn't say our explanation is complete or perfect, yet, but I can't see any real evidence against it. There are other explanations that account for the 7 and the 62, but these have their own problems. This is really no different from the WTS, it would still start very close to 607 BCE (+/- a year or two) and end just as close to 539 BCE. The only thing it can't do is start at the very time of the temple destruction, but our own WTS argument also (inadvertently) argues against starting it them, because it is supposed to start at a time of full and complete desolation, which obviously didn't happen at the time of the temple destruction anyway. (Jeremiah 52:15, 16) 15 Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took into exile some of the lowly people and the rest of the people who were left in the city. He also took the deserters who had defected to the king of Babylon as well as the rest of the master craftsmen. 16 But Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard left some of the poorest people of the land to serve as vinedressers and as compulsory laborers. And as already quoted above... (Jeremiah 52:28-30) 28 These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile: in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews. 29 In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem. 30 In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people.. . .

Thanks for these references. Your reference to R.P.Dougherty from http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/607-587.php is utilized to show that the knowledge of the reign of these kings is based on about two thousand dated cuneiform documents. That was in 1929. Today there are thousands more of these documents that have been discovered and/or translated. They merely add to the weight of the evidence against the 607 theory. Imagine still trying to support the 607 date with 10,000 pieces of evidence all conspiring against it. What the ex-witness DOESN’T mention is, the same author had another book called “Records from Erech, time of Nabonidus (555-538 B.C.) / By Raymond Philip Dougherty” that shows the ending date of 538BC. Differences of a single year, as explained in a post above, should not bother us at all. This particular case of 538 instead of 539 is nothing to worry about, not worth mentioning, and it does not effect the identification of Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th year. Remember, that the real problem is that the WTS has dated the destruction of Jerusalem in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar to a year when Nebuchadnezzar hadn't even started his first year of reign, much less his 19th. You also said: Now we cannot take it upon ourselves to suggest that when the king gave the decree to the Jews, they all of a sudden packed it all up and left. If that’s the insinuation? Then it’s wrong according to other scholars. So the Statement “must be accepted as the ultimate criterion in the determination of Neo-Babylonian chronological questions." Is highly flawed. However it appears to coincide with your ideology doesn’t it. For me, it makes absolutely no difference if some left immediately, and some waited, or some never left Babylon at all. (Which we already know is true, btw.) If scholars don't know, let them take their best guess. We do know when some of them were back in Jerusalem because the Bible tells us this. We also know that it takes a minimum of a couple months, perhaps longer if it's a large group at once. There is nothing in the chronology that depends on whether they left right away or not. Also, there is no flaw in the statement you say is highly flawed. 2,000 dated documents must be accepted as the ultimate criterion is correct from the viewpoint of the evidence on the ground. If someone argued that we need an extra 20 years in this period, so maybe Nebuchadnezzar ruled for up to 63 years instead of 43, then let them argue. (Furuli toys with this same argument.) But the Bible says it was 43. For archaeologists and historians who do not rely on the Bible, however, the "ultimate criterion" is that there are 10,000 translated tablets from this period, and NONE of them indicate that Nebuchadnezzar ruled more than 43 years. *** w11 11/1 pp. 23-24 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two *** What have experts said? R. H. Sack examined numerous business tablets from the Neo-Babylonian period. In 1972, Sack wrote that new unpublished British Museum texts placed at his disposal “completely upset” previous conclusions regarding the transition of rule from Nebuchadnezzar II to his son Amel-Marduk (also known as Evil-merodach).6 How so? Sack knew that tablets showed Nebuchadnezzar II to be still ruling in the sixth month of his last (43rd) year. But these newly deciphered tablets from the accession year of the following king, Amel-Marduk, were dated to the fourth and fifth months of what had been assumed to be the same year.7 Clearly, there was a discrepancy. What do the documents show? There are further discrepancies in the transition of one king to another. For example, the documents show that Nebuchadnezzar II was still ruling in his tenth month—six months after his successor is assumed to have begun reigning.8 Imagine! Even the Watchtower (because of Furuli's book) decided to publish information that clearly attempted to chip away at faith in the Bible's evidence. Among all of the following verses it's pretty obvious that the Bible already clarifies that Jehoiachin's first year in exile started in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, so that the 37th year of Jehoiachin's exile would have been about 36 years later, and could not therefore go beyond Nebuchadnezzar's 43rd year -- when the Bible itself says that Amel-Marduk began to reign after Nebuchadnezzar. (2 Chronicles 36:9) 9 Je·hoiʹa·chin . . .8 Je·hoiʹa·chin was 18 years old when he became king, and he reigned for three months in Jerusalem. . . .11 Zed·e·kiʹah was 21 years old when he became king, and he reigned for 11 years in Jerusalem. (Jeremiah 52:28) 28 These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile: in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews. (2 Kings 25:8, 9) . . ., in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. 9 He burned down the house of Jehovah,. . . (Jeremiah 52:31) 31 Then in the 37th year of the exile of King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah, in the 12th month, on the 25th day of the month, King Eʹvil-merʹo·dach of Babylon, in the year he became king, . . . So these texts that supposedly "completely upset" previous conclusions hadn't actually changed a thing. The Bible was still correct according to ALL the archaeological evidence. Remember that, even after Nebuchadnezzar stopped ruling in his 43rd year (44th year counting his accession year), there is nothing wrong with continuing to call the remainder of that year either by the year of the King who started that year, or as the "0th" year of Evil-Merodach (Amel-Marduk). It's the exact same year for chronological and financial contract purposes. You added: Not to mention if the WTS held 539BC absolute instead of an approximation, it would lead to 48 years not 50, and that would led you to 609BC. There is nothing wrong with the year 609 BCE for the beginning of Babylon's 70 years. It's the year that Assyria fell. The Babylonian Empire follows the Assyrian Empire. Also, as you and others have speculated, the real rule of Cyrus, at least over the destination of the Jewish nation, may not have started until the time of the actual decree which could have delayed until 538 BCE. We really can't tell absolutely if Babylon was fully conquered in a single night, even if the effect of the conquest started then. I would not personally quibble about a few months, just as I would not quibble about the months it took Babylon to take advantage of the fall of Nineveh/Assyria 70 years earlier in 609 BCE. You also said: Another fallacy you have is not to see the revisions that even A.K. Grayson has made to his chronology. I don't care of A. K. Grayson had to correct an error or not. Obviously it didn't make a difference to the years of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty. It's not a fallacy because I don't rely on it. If a person looks for credibility in their logic, then depend on evidence, and don't use the word "fallacy" incorrectly about another person. If someone has pointed out a true "fallacy" and then you keep trying to use the word incorrectly, it comes across as blame-shifting, instead of reliance on evidence. (I think it was Pee-wee Herman who satirized blame-shifting with the children's expression: "I know you are but what am I?") Also, for interested readers, the correction to Grayson is not really a change in his chronology. It should also not be confused with the way the WTS seems to make it appear that he agrees with the WTS "chronology" in the Insight book: *** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar *** The inscriptions further show that news of his father’s death brought Nebuchadnezzar back to Babylon, and on the first of Elul (August-September), he ascended the throne. In this his accession year he returned to Hattu, and “in the month Shebat [January-February, 624 B.C.E.] he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 100) When you actually look up Grayson's book, you can see that the bracketed information within the quotes is not there. It was added by the WTS. It might even make it appear that Grayson supported 624 BCE as the year of Nebuchadnezzar's father's death or Nebuchadnezzar's accession year. In fact Grayson, EVERYWHERE, supports the same years that the evidence points to: 587/586 as the year of Jerusalem's destruction. There was no change by Grayson to any of this. So in all honesty, 587BC is NOT absolute. And if you bother to look into what was going on between 539BC to 537BC you would understand that 537BCE is more viable than 587BC 587 is not supposed to be "absolute." But I have no trouble with the slippage of a couple of few months between 539 and 538. But using the WTS preferred years, there is no Biblical reason to move the end of Babylon's 70 years to 537, because the WTS does it for reasons related to the word "desolation" which is not a part of the 70 years for Babylon. That's because there is no Bible verse that demands that the desolation start counting exactly from the time Jerusalem is destroyed. The "desolations" as Daniel calls them could include the exiles and depredations against the Jews that started as soon as they began "shaking like a leaf" in fear of the Babylonian Empire all the way up until Cyrus decreed their release. (Leviticus 26:34-38) 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. Nations have long known that you begin killing your enemies when you make them afraid enough to pick up and move. Often, many more of them die in the "trek" than would ever be killed through warfare. Jeremiah says that some were already fleeing to Egypt for example, when it wasn't even necessary and wasn't going to save them. Also, the number of years of sabbaths to pay off are not necessarily 70 years, anyway, but whatever number they were could be completed because of the 70 years that was given for Babylon to become the dominant empire. Your statement that 537 is more viable than 587 is not correct. In fact, accepting 537 for a Jewish restoration on their own land can only be done if you are also accepting 587 as the date for the destruction of Jerusalem. 587 is still part of the same chronology as 537. This is not just seen by the chronology, but it even makes more sense from the Bible account. It's seen in the words of Zechariah about how long they have wailed over the Temple. Because if you accept 537, you are also accepting 519/8 for the 70 years of wailing between 587 and 518. It also makes more sense of the fact that several of the Jewish captives in Babylon made the trek back to Jerusalem and remembered the first Temple. The WTS chronology accepts 518, which requires 587, but if there was evidence of Jerusalem's destruction in 607 it would mean that these people who remembered what they had seen may have been teenagers in 607. That means that they ranged in age from 102 to 108 years old. That kind of lifespan was a rarity according to both Biblical and Babylonian records. You would think it even less likely of people kept in captivity, and forced to take the long trek back to Jerusalem at an elderly age. Not only does the 607 date make very little sense from an archaeological perspective, it makes very little sense from a Biblical perspective, too. Also, the only reason we, as Witnesses, make a big deal about it, is because we require it as the only evidence for 1914. But from a Biblical perspective, the 1914 doctrine also creates unnecessarily contradictions for all the scriptures about the following topics: The Kingdom The Generation The Sign The Gentile Times The Parousia Jesus' instruction about not knowing the times and the seasons and not to follow anyone who says the due time has approched Paul's instruction that about the times and seasons we need nothing to be written to us

Blame is easy; truth is hard! Thanks for providing some real information in this post that is relevant to the discussion. I noticed that none of those sources you mentioned does anything except show that there is sometimes a one year difference among scholars, historians, and archaeologists. And among religious commentators and religious ideologies there can be any number of differences, because the all-too-common practice among religious writers is to accept an arbitrary secular date as true and then interpret prophecy in such a way that other dates are rejected. Or they push a specific interpretation of prophecy that tells them they must simply reject any secular dates, and then they decide that their religious ideological study has just become a "chronology." You may easily find scholars and other specialists who accept dates with a one year difference from each other, there are several good reasons for this: A king's reign is sometimes counted from the year he began ruling (as Year 1), and sometimes the remaining months in the first year are called the "accession year" or "Year 0" as it were, and only the start of the following year is called the first year. We have a similar linguistic issue in different English usage when we speak of a baby's first year: A baby born on July 1, 2015 might be said to be in his or her "first year": only until December 31, 2015 only after January 1, 2016 only until June 30, 2016 only after July 1, 2016 Sometimes that following year starts in the Spring in some calendars and sometimes in the Fall, and the Jewish writings sometimes use either one, because they started their secular year in the Fall and religious year in the Spring. The remaining months of the "accession" year might continue to be listed on dated financial documents and contracts for the previous ruler, especially if a transition is taking place, or if word of a ruler's death or removal has not reached all parts of an empire. (Similarly, in the US, J.F. Kennedy was killed in late November 1963, and some "remote" citizens in Appalachia and Alaska for example, didn't learn of it until after the Kennedy half-dollar coin circulated in 1964.) Astronomers, for example, consistently refer to dates like 607 BCE as -606, or 587 BCE as -586. or 4 BCE as -3. It's because they use the dates in mathematical calculations, and adjust this way for the zero year problem. (This was one of the methods that appeared to confuse Russell when he said he wasn't sure about the zero year problem.) Our current calendar years that are identified from January 1 to December 31 do not map directly to ancient years that could run from Spring to Spring or Fall to Fall. This means that historians may speak of a specific year as 587/586, for example. They are still referring to a single year, but it maps across parts of two ancient years. One of the most dishonest arguments I have seen in these discussions is the idea that scholars mention both 587 and 586 for the destruction of Jerusalem, therefore if they can be off by one year, then this is a reason to consider that the WTS may be right when they need the evidence to be off by 20 years. The reason is usually related to #1 above, and sometimes #4 and sometimes #5. (#1 and #2 together could potentially create a difference of 18 months which could appear to be a two-year discrepancy, even though it really is not.) Again: "Blame is easy; truth is hard." When the Biblical evidence for anyone's religious belief turns out to be weak, we should know. It should be our habit to know about these things because this is also how we convince people in our ministry that or own beliefs are worth changing their life about. Of course, you also know that these ideas are not merely my own beliefs, they are the beliefs based on nearly 100% of Bible scholars and 100% of Neo-Babylonian historians and archaeologists. That is the reason to consider the evidence. Not because someone has strong beliefs. Based on previous discussions, most Witnesses, I'd guess, do not believe you are correct, but I agree with the first part. The WTS gives a lot of evidence that they have not factored the probabilities. You are absolutely wrong on this point. The Bible Student chronology is completely irrelevant and meaningless to the actual evidence. It has nothing to do with the evidence from the Bible, history, and archaeology. I brought it up earlier because we can learn from past mistakes. We can see a "paper trail" that shows how and why some of these mistakes were made. And I think the most important lessons we can learn from those mistakes is that neither 606 nor 607 was ever considered to be a strong argument for 1914. That's because 1914 had already been determined through about 7 other methods that had nothing to do with the "7 times" of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4. All the other methods were considered definitive because all of them focused on 1874, plus a 40 year harvest. It was already a solid date due to its relationship with 1874. Russell wrote an article for George Storrs "Bible Examiner" in 1876 admitting this when he said: "If the Gentile Times end in 1914, (and there are many other and clearer evidences pointing to the same time) and we are told that it shall be with fury poured out; at time of trouble such as never was before, nor ever shall be; a day of wrath, etc." - Russell, 1876. His article made use of Daniel 4, but only in conjunction with additional reasons which we currently reject. (7 times in Leviticus, for example). Because this was true, it's one of the reasons that it should not surprise us that the actual Biblical-historical-archaeological date for the destruction of Jerusalem was never that important. What was important was only that the period ended in 1914. Only the period from 1874 to 1914 was "absolute" and the Jerusalem date would be "interpreted" from there. The way he handled the mistake over the zero-year issue was just one of those evidences. The method of measuring the pyramids to reach 1914 was another evidence. (BTW, Russell's 1876 article in Bible Examiner also made it very clear that he didn't know the truth about the zero year.) You said: "The ONLY thing that LINKS the Bible Students with Jehovah’s Witnesses is the SAME PUBLISHING HOUSE. That’s all. So when you state the term US to link two different ideology’s it becomes hypocritical." That's a pretty strong statement, which we often hear from JW opposers, and while your position has some merit, it has been difficult for most Witnesses to accept. But it's not hypocritical to use the same terminology that the Watchtower uses about Bible Students and Witnesses. If you don't think it makes the WTS look hypocritical, then why does it make me look hypocritical? I'm sure you know there are several quotes similar to the one below that links the two groups with a type of equivalence: *** w06 2/1 p. 24 par. 12 “A Witness to All the Nations” *** During the latter part of the 19th century, after a long period when religious apostasy prevailed, pure worship was reestablished. The Bible Students, as Jehovah’s Witnesses were then known. I doubt that I understood either of these last two paragraphs correctly because every meaning that I can derive from either one is incorrect. There is no chronology anywhere that includes 606 or 607 for the destruction of Jerusalem. There is just its use in our prophetic theory that Nebuchadnezzar somehow pictures the Jewish Messianic Kings, including Jesus. But you can literally look at 1,000 different references from history, archaeology or chronology, and you will NEVER read about Jerusalem's destruction in 606 or 607, with the exception of some discussions influenced by Second Adventists, Seventh Day Adventists, or Witnesses. I do not consider 587 BCE to be an "absolute" date. I only say that all of the evidence for the Neo-Babylonian period is very consistent and permits us to understand how long all the Babylonian kings ruled from the accepted dates from prior to Nebuchadnezzar's father all the way through the accepted dates for Nabonidus/Belshazzar, Cyrus, etc. Therefore, it also includes the accepted date for the 18th and 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. These dates can be discovered through several independent methods. We don't have to rely on the mouth of "one witness" because we have several independent lines of evidence. It's not "abolute" but, so far, it fits all the known lines of reliable evidence. You also said: "So if you accept 587BCE then you have to consider 586BCE. The same can be said about 597BC, and 606BC. We would have to consider the alternatives. 598BC and 605BC. The abstracts of those dates would be 607BC, 599BC, and 536BC." Yes, of course they are considered. That's how we know which alternatives are best, and we know that we can reject the wrong ones. That's how we know there is no evidence for those alternatives. Of course, as stated before, variances of a year or so, are usually not relevant. The one difference you mentioned 587BCE and 586BCE. That particular one is often brought up dishonestly by other Witnesses. It's due to the following minor discrepancy, where Jeremiah calls it the 18th year, but apparently Ezra called it the 19th year. But this has already been satisfactorily explained in the Watchtower and our other publications: (Jeremiah 32:1, 2) 32 The word that came to Jeremiah from Jehovah in the 10th year of King Zed·e·kiʹah of Judah, that is, the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar. 2 At that time the armies of the king of Babylon were besieging Jerusalem. . . (Jeremiah 52:12-14) 12 In the fifth month, on the tenth day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, who was an attendant of the king of Babylon, came into Jerusalem. 13 He burned down the house of Jehovah. . . *** kc p. 186 Appendix to Chapter 14 *** The Bible reports that the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in his 18th regnal year (19th when accession year is included). *** w11 11/1 p. 25 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two *** Scholars say that all these positions occurred in 568/567 B.C.E., which would make the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar II, when he destroyed Jerusalem, 587 B.C.E. It would be dishonest to try to make it seem like all these scholars have trouble identifying the chronology that places Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year (including accession year) as 587 BCE, or his 18th year (without accession year) as 587 BCE, (or his 19th year, without accession year, as 586 BCE). The only reason some might place the Jerusalem destruction in 586 BCE, is because they read Jeremiah 52 as if it did not include the accession year. Again: blame is easy; truth is hard. There are thousands of persons who have studied the chronology and all of them come up with the exact same conclusion, and most of them never knew about Doug Mason or Carl Jonsson. They have no concern with the WTS. Yet, even evidence from the WTS indicates that Carl Jonsson's initial need was to prove the Watch Tower right, not to disprove it. This makes perfect sense to me, because this has always been my own reason to study it carefully, too. I also suspect that the reason you are taking an interest in chronology that does not mesh with the WTS is because you also originally intended to defend it. (I don't remember if any documented evidence indicates Doug Mason's motive. I suspect that he was once a believer in 607, too.) I agree that there are some non-Witnesses and ex-Witnesses, and maybe even some Witnesses, who promote the Biblical-Historical-Archaeological date of 587 BCE to embarrass or provoke of "expose" the WTS. But this fact apparently escapes your notice, that literally thousands of archaeologists, historians and authors who have no interest in JWs accept the same chronology that Jonsson presents. Because it's not his chronology. He is just presenting the evidence. I'm not advocating for Parker & Dubberstein or Jonsson, or Sacks, or Mason, or Ptolemy. I think you are claiming that it evidence of apostasy that someone would go on a public forum to discuss evidence that the Watchtower might have made a mistake. This was a personal decision. It was a difficult decision for many years and then Rolf Furuli made it easier. I never mentioned my own work on this subject for nearly 30 years. I never revealed what had happened inside Bethel until I spoke with Rolf Furuli, and realized his plan. I don't know what you believe about whether we have a personal obligation to preach what we know, or if you believe we have an obligation to hide what we know. But an Internet forum might give some ability to discharge our Christian obligation from Matthew 18. In this way, I can tell the truth in public, and need not offend anyone who had not already made a choice to potentially expose themselves to difficult and controversial evidence. If a person is willing to go on an Internet forum, then they have already made a decision that they will expect the possibility that they may run across information that might be true, might be interesting, or might be complete garbage. They know the counsel that they should be ready to filter what they look at, what they read, and what they think about. For those who need the ability to easily dismiss evidence for fear of being stumbled, it is easy to dismiss, because no one needs to believe the claims of a nearly anonymous Internet poster. Yet, if I feel I have some obligation to lay bare a fault in front of the congregation, after having tried to address the problem between me and him alone, then I can at least state the evidence. I am not concerned about what ex-JWs believe. Depending on how you interpret Jeremiah 35 or Jeremiah 52, there is nothing wrong with identifying the destruction at the 18th year or the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, accession or non-accession. There is chronological evidence that helps us identify both the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar and the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. As I said before, it would be dishonest to try to use this minor discrepancy in Jeremiah as a way to create uncertainty and doubt. It's just a matter of interpretation, and the Watchtower has already explained Jeremiah's discrepancy in a way that makes sense. It has nothing to do with the chronology, as I'm pretty sure you already were aware. To avoid writing too long a post, I'll handle your "clippings" from other sites in the next post. Again, thanks for engaging with information, reasoning and evidence.

I think it's pretty clear that there are NO dates that are Biblically supported if they are connected to the letters BC, BCE, CE, or AD. Those very terms always refer a secular support. (In some cases dates are made up that don't have any secular support or any Biblical support, either.) Evidently, it's also pretty safe to say that 607 BCE is NOT Biblically supported, if we assume that 539 BCE is correct. (Based on what the Bible says about the "70 years" in at least 4 different places. There is the additional Biblical issue of a 70-year period that starts at the commemoration of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and coming to a close at a period nearly 20 years past the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus. (Zechariah 1:12) . . .“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 7:5) . . .‘When you fasted and wailed in the fifth month and in the seventh month for 70 years. . . (Zechariah 8:19) . . .‘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. . . *** w96 11/15 p. 5 Does God Require Fasting? *** 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) According to our current understanding of the chronology that includes the supposed destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE, then this produces a contradiction, because we date the book of Zechariah as follows: *** nwt p. 1662 Table of the Books of the Bible *** Zechariah Jerusalem rebuilt 518 520-518 [BCE] If Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE, then 518 BCE is 69 years later, and therefore matches Zechariah's theme of 70 years of withheld mercy and indignities, and wailing and fasting over Jerusalem, which is now being rebuilt. If Jerusalem had been destroyed in 607 BCE, then by Zechariah's time, in 518 BCE, it would have been 89 years of wailing and fasting. Neither date is "Biblical" and neither date should really matter that much, but it is curious that 607 BCE is totally impossible from the perspective of secular evidence, and it becomes very difficult from the perspective of Biblical evidence. Yet 587 BCE is totally supported from the perspective of secular evidence and provides an excellent match to the Biblical evidence. There should really be no reason why we are not rejoicing that secular, historical, archaeological evidence for 587 BCE once again shows the Bible to be accurate and sound from a historical perspective.

I appreciate all the points you made in your comment. This was surely the same point being made in 2 Peter. This is the point that I think Allen Smith might not have realized he was making for many Witnesses when he spoke of how "the fine work is to READ it for ourselves to SEE if it harmonizes with scripture and accept it as correct and holy." I think that most Witnesses will avoid doing this out of the fear that it leads to apostasy. But Witnesses who have done what Allen recommends are becoming troubled by how difficult it really is to harmonize it, and we should be concerned about what is happening to them and why. Many are leaving the organization specifically because of these troubles harmonizing these teachings with the Scriptures. For example: We say that wicked king Nebuchadnezzar who killed and enslaved God's people pictures the Messianic Kingdom through Jesus Christ. We say that the break in this Gentile pagan's rulership pictured the break in the Jewish non-Gentile rulership. Daniel says the "Tree Dream" was fulfilled in Nebuchadnezzar's lifetime, and we say it was not fulfilled in his lifetime. We say that the "Gentile Times" ended at a time when the "Gentile Times" apparently became stronger and more troublesome than ever. Jesus said the Gentile Times will begin in the near future after the time he spoke, not that they will begin in the past. (Luke 21:24) . . .Jerusalem [the holy city] will be trampled [underfoot] on by the nations [Gentiles] until the appointed times of the nations [Gentiles] are fulfilled. The only time the Bible ever repeats Jesus expressions in Luke 21:24 about the Gentile Times is in Revelation 11:2,3 when it ties it to a time period of 1,260 days, not 2,520 years. (". . . the nations [Gentiles]. . .will trample the holy city [Jerusalem] underfoot for 42 months . . . 1,260 days. . . .) We say that the eyes of faith saw the unmistakable sign of Christ's presence begin in 1914 when the Watchtower kept saying it was 1874 until about 1930, and didn't officially change the 1874 date until 1943-4. We say the "Kingdom" began in 1914 when the Bible says it began when Jesus sat at God's right hand. We say the generation of anointed that could lift their heads up because they would not pass away until they would see all these things occur has mostly passed away in the 102 years since 1914. Obviously, this could go on and on. But the important thing is that all these contradictions clear up when we accept Jesus words about not being concerned about the times and seasons.

The date doesn't matter, it's the fact that we are now living in the time when the Scriptures say that these events have occurred. I don't really attach a specific date to the beginning, but I assume our dates for the events the Bible describes are accurate. It seems likely that the enthronement would have happening around the same time that the Bible tells us that Jesus began to "rule as king." Paul used this expression (1 Cor 15:25) as an exact synonym for "sit at God's right hand" which was as soon as he was raised to heaven and began sitting at God's right hand of the throne of Majesty. Before this time, Jesus would have been the "king-designate" during his ministry, but after his resurrection when "all authority had been given to him in heaven and on earth," since that time he is called the "King of Kings." So the Scriptures seem to tie the event of Jesus' resurrection to his enthronement. (Acts 2:30, 31) . . .God had sworn to him with an oath that he would seat one of his offspring on his throne, 31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ,. . . (1 Timothy 6:15) . . .He is the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords, (Hebrews 8:1) . . .he has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens. . . (Matthew 28:18-20) . . .: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. . . . I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.” (1 Peter 3:21, 22) . . .through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 22 He is at God’s right hand, for he went to heaven, and angels and authorities and powers were made subject to him. et cetera. Every use of the term "last days" [Gk: eschatos hēmera ] in the Bible also appears to fit a similar time period. Peter gave evidence that the "last days" were already upon them at Pentecost. (Acts 2:14-17) 14 But Peter stood up with the Eleven and spoke to them in a loud voice: “Men of Ju·deʹa and all you inhabitants of Jerusalem, let this be known to you and listen carefully to my words. 15 These people are, in fact, not drunk, as you suppose, for it is the third hour of the day. 16 On the contrary, this is what was said through the prophet Joel: 17 ‘“And in the last days,” [Gk: eschatos hēmera ] God says, “I will pour out some of my spirit on every sort of flesh,. . . And Paul explained to Timothy that the reason he should expect to suffer adversity and meet up with persons "not favorably" disposed, is because this is what they should expect now that they were living in the last days. (2 Timothy 2:2-3:14) . . .. 3 As a fine soldier of Christ Jesus, take your part in suffering adversity. . .10 For this reason I go on enduring all things for the sake of the chosen ones, . . .12 if we go on enduring, we will also rule together as kings; if we deny, he will also deny us; . . .14 Keep reminding them of these things, . . .16 But reject empty speeches . . . . Hy·me·naeʹus and Phi·leʹtus are among them. 18 These men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred, and they are subverting the faith of some. . . . 23 Further, reject foolish and ignorant debates . . .24 For a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, showing restraint when wronged, 25 instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed. Perhaps God may give them repentance leading to an accurate knowledge of truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the Devil, seeing that they have been caught alive by him to do his will. 3 But know this, that in the last days [Gk: eschatos hēmera] critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, . . . 7 always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth. 8 Now in the way that Janʹnes and Jamʹbres opposed Moses, so these also go on opposing the truth. Such men are completely corrupted in mind, disapproved as regards the faith. . . . But you have closely followed my teaching, my course of life, my purpose, my faith, my patience, my love, my endurance, 11 the persecutions and sufferings such as I experienced in Antioch, in I·coʹni·um, in Lysʹtra. I endured these persecutions, and the Lord rescued me from them all. 12 In fact, all those desiring to live with godly devotion in association with Christ Jesus will also be persecuted. 13 But wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled. 14 You, however, continue in the things that you learned and were persuaded to believe, . . . I left a lot of the context there because it makes it clear that Paul was not saying: "Hey, you think you have it bad now, just be glad you aren't living in the last days. They start nearly 2,000 years from now and when those times get here, things will really be bad." Paul is clearly saying that the kinds of things that were currently happening in their own day were surely to be expected now that they were living in the "last days" The same point is made in the context of 2 Peter when Peter uses the expression "last days." (2 Peter 2:17-3:12) 17 These are waterless springs and mists driven by a violent storm, and the blackest darkness has been reserved for them. 18 They make high-sounding statements that are empty. By appealing to the desires of the flesh and with acts of brazen conduct, they entice people who have just escaped from those who live in error. . . . 3 Beloved ones, this is now the second letter I am writing you in which, as in my first one, I am stirring up your clear thinking faculties by way of a reminder, 2 that you should remember the sayings previously spoken by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles. 3 First of all know this, that in the last days [Gk: eschatos hēmera] ridiculers will come with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires 4 and saying: “Where is this promised presence of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep in death, all things are continuing exactly as they were from creation’s beginning.” 5 For they deliberately ignore this fact, . . . 8 However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 9 Jehovah is not slow concerning his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance. . . . 11 Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 as you await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah,. . . Again, they were to be prepared in Peter's time for these ridiculers who had already come to ridicule the fact that the parousia had obviously not begun yet. In fact, the parallel to this chapter in Jude makes the point even clearer. The application was to the fact that they were in the "last days," or "last time." (Jude 17-21) 17 As for you, beloved ones, call to mind the sayings that have been previously spoken by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, 18 how they used to say to you: “In the last time there will be ridiculers, following their own desires for ungodly things.” 19 These are the ones who cause divisions, animalistic men, not having spirituality. 20 But you, beloved ones, build yourselves up on your most holy faith, and pray with holy spirit, 21 in order to keep yourselves in God’s love, while you await the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ with everlasting life in view. It also turns out that the exact same expression "the last days" is used in the following verses in Hebrews 1. Although the NWT is usually very careful to present a consistent translation, the translators chose to change the expression from "the last days" to "at the end of these days." (Hebrews 1:1, 2) 1 Long ago God spoke to our forefathers by means of the prophets on many occasions and in many ways. 2 Now at the end of these days [Gk: eschatos hēmera] he has spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things. The problem, is of course, the fact that the verse says that we were "now" already at that time, in the "last days" [Gk: eschatos hēmera]. Of course, the expressions the "last day," the "last days, the "last hour," etc., could also refer to the very end at the time of judgment, too. (John 11:24) . . .Martha said to him: “I know he will rise in the resurrection on the last day.. . . (James 5:2, 3) . . .. 3 Your gold and silver have rusted away, and their rust will be a witness against you and will consume your flesh. What you have stored up will be like a fire in the last days. So the expression does not seem to be reserved for some unique special use just to refer to a special 102-year-plus time period near the end of the last days.

That's pretty easy to answer. You don't seem to put much reliance in the date 539 BCE, that the Watchtower promotes as the accurate, pivotal point. Yet, the older publications even called this an "absolute" date. 587 BCE does NOT supersede all these "variables." It does not supersede them because it is based only on the same lines of evidence for which we base 539 BCE. In fact, it's accuracy is merely a question of finding out what made 539 BCE an accurate, pivotal point. What made it so accurate as to once be called an "absolute date"? *** w68 5/1 p. 268 par. 20 Understanding Time a Help to True Worshipers *** 20 For calculating Hebrew Scripture dates, the absolute date of October 5 to 6 in the year 539 B.C.E. is essential. So, it turns out that we don't need any "divine intervention." If we take an interest in what made 539 BCE so accurate, that by itself, turns out to be the same information that makes 587 BCE not MORE accurate, but exactly the SAME in accuracy as the so-called absolute date of 539 BCE. It turns out to also be the same information that indicates the level of inaccuracy of 607 BCE. So if you trust that 539 BCE is accurate, and I understand that you might not, but if you did, then you would see that it's everything the Watchtower ever said about 539 BCE which is the source of evidence to correct 607 BCE. From that perspective it is the Watchtower publications that are, in effect, declaring 587 BCE as accurate as 539 by pointing us to the types of evidence that make 539 BCE so accurate. The 539 evidence pointed to is the same evidence that makes 607 inaccurate. No one's knowledge is greater than God's. But as you have also said "the fine work is to READ it for ourselves to SEE if it harmonizes with scripture and accept it as correct and holy." You are right, and this is the ONLY reason to still be concerned about it. We should see if it harmonizes. It turns out that 607 BCE does NOT harmonize with scripture. It creates contradictions. It just so happens that the sources that make 539 BCE so accurate and absolute ALSO are the sources for the evidence for 587 BCE instead of 607 BCE. And coincidentally, 587 BCE just happens to remove the Bible contradiction that 607 BCE causes. This doesn't mean that 587 BCE is terribly important to me. Our core doctrines work perfectly well without 587 BCE and without 607 BCE. This is also why in a local congregational setting, I never bring it up. My personal conversations have always been with friends and brothers from Bethel on this subject. I've had Bible studies where we discuss this particular doctrine and I merely say that this is the Watch Tower Society's current view on the subject. I admit that there have been various views on the subject of chronology and that some of the brothers take a very keen interest in these dates. But I add that we don't serve specifically for dates; the important thing is that we realize we are in the last days, that Jesus Christ is enthroned, and we still pray that this Kingdom will come and God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven. That should be enough to motivate us to show love and concern for all, but especially toward those related to us in the faith. I don't tell anyone else that they should minimize these dates. It's just my own conscience. We've had several Bible studies reach the point of baptism, over a dozen through the years, and only once has a Bible study questioned why I don't emphasize the dates the same way that other brothers do. These views, to me, are not so divergent that they need to interfere with the ministry. To you, it sounds like they are. But that's your own conscience. I have to pay attention to my teaching, you have to pay attention to yours. The main thing is not to misrepresent scripture. We have a wide array of spiritual food, and a wide range of ministries. We are not all obligated to focus on the exact same ministry and teaching as the person next to us. (1 Corinthians 12:4-11) 4 Now there are different gifts, but there is the same spirit; 5 and there are different ministries, and yet there is the same Lord; 6 and there are different activities, and yet it is the same God who performs them all in everyone. 7 But the manifestation of the spirit is given to each one for a beneficial purpose. 8 For to one is given speech of wisdom through the spirit, to another speech of knowledge according to the same spirit, 9 to another faith by the same spirit, . . . 11 But all these operations are performed by the very same spirit, distributing to each one respectively just as it wills. If I'm not good at accepting 607 BCE, why not just consider it a weakness on my part. (1 Corinthians 12:22) 22 On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are necessary, But there is never a reason to use such disagreements to produce divisions and sects in the congregation. But that doesn't mean that we should be silent if we see a problem, and neither can I conscientiously remain silent when a problem such as this one has been brought to my attention.

For many years now, the Watchtower has actually been consistent in acknowledging that Ptolemy's canon "may" be accurate, but that we might not be able to rely on it for everything. Almost every reference to Ptolemy, especially in the Insight book, has a somewhat negative side added to it: *** it-1 p. 456 Chronology *** Finally, as in the case of Ptolemy, even though the astronomical information (as now interpreted and understood) on the texts discovered is basically accurate, this does not prove . . . *** it-1 p. 456 Chronology *** These astronomical diaries contain references to the reigns of certain kings and appear to coincide with the figures given in Ptolemy’s canon. While to some this might seem like incontrovertible evidence, there are factors greatly reducing its strength. Following up on the point I was making about 539 BCE, 607 BCE, 29 CE, etc, all being secular dates, this is admitted under that same topic heading in the Insight Book: *** it-1 p. 458 Chronology *** To make the count in terms of modern calendar dating, we must use some fixed point or pivotal date with which to commence, that is, a date in history that has sound basis for acceptance and that corresponds with a particular event recorded in the Bible. From this date as a pivotal point we can figure backward or forward and assign calendar dates to many of the events referred to in the Bible. One such date, harmonizing with both Biblical and secular history, is the year 29 C.E., the early months of which were in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar, who was named emperor by the Roman Senate on September 15, 14 C.E. (Gregorian calendar). It was in the year 29 C.E. that John the Baptizer began his preaching and also when, perhaps about six months later, he baptized Jesus.—Lu 3:1-3, 21, 23; 1:36. Another date that can be used as a pivotal point is the year 539 B.C.E., supported by various historical sources as the year for the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus the Persian. (Secular sources for Cyrus’ reign include Diodorus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Ptolemy, as well as the Babylonian tablets.) Of course, someone could read that, especially the last paragraph, and think that 539 BCE for the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus is somehow more supported by various historical sources than is 587 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem. In fact, 587 BCE for Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year is part of the same Neo-Babylonian chronological system, supported by the same sets (and types) of sources. If the first year of the conquest of Cyrus is a pivotal date, then so is Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year -- for the same reasons. The quote that Eoin included was: *** it-1 p. 454 Chronology *** The date of 539 B.C.E. for the fall of Babylon can be arrived at not only by Ptolemy’s canon but by other sources as well. This is very accurate, of course, but It would have been exactly as accurate for the Insight book to have said this: The date of 587 B.C.E. for the fall of Jerusalem can be arrived at not only by Ptolemy’s canon but by other sources as well. As it turns out, in fact, there are additional sources that add to the evidence for Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year (587 BCE), so that the evidence for 587 BCE could even be said to be a little better than the evidence for 539 BCE, but it doesn't matter because both are equally accurate. Of course, the only reason we focus only on 539 BCE is because we reject 587 BCE. This argument is equally true in the opposite direction. Both 587 BCE and 539 BCE are also supported by "astronomical diaries" which evidently contain sometimes daily observations of priests or astronomers of the royal court. A specific diary that supports 587 BCE has sometimes been criticized by the WTS for 4 major weaknesses. Without even mentioning the details of those weaknesses, it turns out that all 4 of them are the exact same weaknesses for the diary that supports 539 BCE. For anyone who might not be aware, these astronomical diaries contain information that can look something like the following: 10th Year of King "So-and-So" On the night of April 13, Saturn passed within 3 fingers of the moon as it disappeared at the horizon On the night of April 15, the upper star of the head of the Scorpion passed within 2 fingers of the moon. On the morning of April 16, this is the last day this month when the moon set before sunrise. The Euphrates River was at a height of 4 today. On the evening of April 19, there was a lunar eclipse. In 10 degrees of the night it made an eclipse of 4 fingers, 2 fingers remained to totality, it was obscured on the northeast side when it began. It usually turns out that various abbreviations had developed for many of the astronomical phrases. But the main point is that sometimes there was not enough information for a specific day, and sometimes there was plenty of information, but when all of the recorded data was put together, it could often be matched to a certain year where such phenomena would not be repeated again for a thousand years. What's more important is that all these diaries that contain enough information not only fit the time period that is already known about the various kings identified, they also match the exact year already identified from other sources. Also, they fit each other. There are sometimes two known diaries for the same king, covering separated years. It's as if the example above called: "10th Year of King So-and-So" was identified as 405 BCE and then another diary was found for the same king and it was called "15th Year of King So-and-So" and its astronomical phenomena exactly matched 400 BCE. Unfortunately there aren't so many of these detailed diaries from the time of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus, but the ones we do have can still be matched to their year both from the astronomical data and what we already know about their chronology from other sources. Also, even if we could completely discredit Ptolemy's canon, which we can't, we don't need it anyway for either the 539 BCE date or the 587 BCE date. We get good evidence for both those dates, even without Ptolemy. There is no such evidence from any source that supports 607 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem.

Just to be clear, I support the fact that all the evidence, so far, points to 587 BCE, and because this is inconsistent with what I have been asked to teach as Witness, then I am under obligation to "make sure of all things and hold fast to what is fine." If you think we are supposed to shirk our responsibilities just because something is inconsistent with the WTS then that is up to your own conscience. For me, I believe that if we truly respect the GB, then I believe we should follow the counsel given by the GB: (1 Timothy 4:16) 16 Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. Persevere in these things, for by doing this you will save both yourself and those who listen to you. *** w00 6/1 p. 16 par. 11 ‘Save Yourself and Those Who Listen to You’ *** 11 How can you convey Jesus’ message more effectively? To begin with, familiarize yourself with what the Bible says about the topic under consideration. You have to understand a subject yourself before you can teach it to others. *** w99 3/15 pp. 11-12 pars. 5-11 Pay Constant Attention to Your Teaching *** 5 True Christianity thus stands in stark contrast with false religions, many of which seek to control the thinking of their members. . . . 6 True worship, however, is “sacred service” that we offer with our “power of reason.” (Romans 12:1) Jehovah’s servants are “persuaded to believe.” (2 Timothy 3:14) . . . “to distinguish both right and wrong.” (Hebrews 5:14) . . . 8 Nevertheless, it takes concerted personal effort to become “a workman with nothing to be ashamed of, handling the word of the truth aright.” (2 Timothy 2:15) Paul urged Timothy: “Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. . . . 11 Are you an avid reader of God’s Word? Digging into it is the means by which “you will understand the fear of Jehovah, and you will find the very knowledge of God.” (Proverbs 2:4, 5) So develop good study habits. . . . Learn to do careful research. By learning to ‘trace all things with accuracy,’ you can avoid exaggerations and inaccuracies when you teach.—Luke 1:3. Recall, however, that my conscience is my own. I am not asking you to follow my conscience. My conscience was trained to speak up when we see a problem. I must live with a clean conscience. This does not have anything to do with yours. But another part of my obligation is to always defend the Bible and the good news. (Matthew 12:37) "For by your own words you will be justified, and by your own words you will be condemned." You said: "Once again, you have settled in a one dimension way of viewing chronology. People like me, look at ALL the evidence including the new evidence submitted a day or so ago. The examples I submitted was just to show the depth of how inconsistent and WRONG you are, and how you support apostasy." Ironically, if you accepted those examples you just submitted, it would make you an brother. Even worse, some examples you included developed due to lack of faith in the Bible. The ones I am concerned with are questions for me because they are more aligned with the Bible, and show a greater respect for the truth and accuracy of the Bible.

[Part One - Just a little more background] The Bible contains no dates, at least not anything like the dates we use today. There is no such thing as a date like 539 BC, or 607 BCE, or 29 CE, or AD 33, or 70 CE, or 1914. The only types of dates that the Bible uses are expressions like: (Genesis 5:21-27) 21 Eʹnoch lived for 65 years and then became father to Me·thuʹse·lah. 22 After becoming father to Me·thuʹse·lah, Eʹnoch continued to walk with the true God for 300 years. And he became father to sons and daughters. 23 So all the days of Eʹnoch amounted to 365 years. 24 Eʹnoch kept walking with the true God. Then he was no more, for God took him. 25 Me·thuʹse·lah lived for 187 years and then became father to Laʹmech. 26 After becoming father to Laʹmech, Me·thuʹse·lah lived for 782 years. And he became father to sons and daughters. 27 So all the days of Me·thuʹse·lah amounted to 969 years, and then he died. (1 Kings 15:25-34) 25 Naʹdab the son of Jer·o·boʹam became king over Israel in the second year of King Aʹsa of Judah, and he reigned over Israel for two years. 26 He kept doing what was bad in the eyes of Jehovah . . . . . . 33 In the third year of King Aʹsa of Judah, Baʹa·sha the son of A·hiʹjah became king in Tirʹzah over all Israel and reigned for 24 years. 34 But he kept doing what was bad in the eyes of Jehovah, and he walked in the way of Jer·o·boʹam and in his sin that he caused Israel to commit. A portion of the Bible therefore includes a chronology system, that appears to track the number of years from Adam to Noah (and the Flood). Another portion appears to track the number of years from Noah (through Shem) to Abraham. Other sections track the time from Abraham to the Exodus. Then it gets a bit murky. Even so we know we are not too many years off between the Exodus and the Judges and then to King Saul and David. There is a also a lot of information to help track the time from David through the last Judean King Zedekiah. But even these "synchronisms" between the lines of kings leaves several open questions, which can be interpreted in various ways. Of course, not long after Zedekiah and the return of the Jews from Babylon to Judea & Israel, it gets murky again. And we have no chronology to track the time from, say, Zedekiah until Jesus is born. In other words, you could know that Methuselah was born a certain number of years after Adam was created, or even that Shem or Abraham was born a certain number of years after Adam was created. but you would still have no idea when Adam was created, or what year the Flood arrived. We also have those murky or incomplete portions. That means that we know, for example, that Jereboam's son Nadab became king over Israel in the second year of King Asa of Judah, but we don't know how long that was after Adam or Noah or Abraham. Still, the main point is that even if we did have a perfectly linked chronology from Adam through Zedekiah, such as the one seen in Genesis 5 or 1 Kings 15, above, we would still have no way to tell how long ago that time period started or ended. We would not be able to identify specific years, only relative years. The only way we can start attaching specific years, like 4 BCE, or 70 CE, or 539 BCE to any of these "relative dates" is if we decide that we will accept non-Biblical dates, otherwise known as secular dates. 4 BCE is not a Biblical date, it's a secular date. 33 CE is not a Biblical date, it's a secular date. 607 BCE is not a Biblical date, it's a secular date. 587 BCE is not a Biblical date, it's a secular date 539 BCE is not a Biblical date, it's a secular date. The reason that is important is because the question about whether Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE or 587/6 BCE is often framed as if one of those dates is Biblical and the other is secular. They are both secular! Everyone in the world, incluing historians, scientists, archaeologists, Bible scholars, the Watch Tower Society and the Governing Body must rely completely on secular dates to figure out how many years ago a Biblical event might have happened. So what do we do? We need to pick a secular date that we think we can trust and begin trying to link Biblical events to it. Then we see if we can't create a chain of linked events backwards and forward from there. In fact, we need to pick several secular dates because the Bible's relative chronology does not really link the time around Adam, Noah and Abraham all the way through the time of the Judges and Kings. And after the Temple is rebuilt after the time of Ezra, the timeline stops again, so we'd need to find another secular date to see if we can match the time of Jesus birth, baptism, death, and any other events in the Christian Greek Scriptures. We need to find some secular dates that we can trust! This is exactly where 539 BCE becomes so interesting. That's the time when Cyrus conquers Babylon, right? Yes, and it seems to be a perfectly good secular date for that event. If we accept it, we also get a pretty good idea when Jerusalem was destroyed. In fact, by accepting 539 BCE we ARE accepting the same secular chronology that pinpoints the destruction of Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year. (2 Kings 25:8, 9) 8 In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. 9 He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; he also burned down the house of every prominent man. This is the whole problem! We like 539 BCE, as the final year of a Babylonian king, but don't want Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year to be 587 BCE. We want his 19th year to be 607 BCE, instead. But we have a lot of trouble taking one without the other. In fact, if we say that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year must be 607 BCE, then that's the same thing as saying that Cyrus conquered Babylon in 559 BCE instead of 539 BCE. It makes no sense to say one is Biblical and one is secular. They are both secular and if you say you trust that 539 BCE is correct, then that's also the same as saying you accept that 587/6 BCE, NOT 607 BCE, is the destruction of Jerusalem. Therefore the WTS has always been looking for a way to try to accept one part of the secular chronology without accepting another part of the same chronology. Those attempts have never worked out, but this is what we'll need to discuss next.

(Introductory Comments) Although the Watchtower article says that we should take an interest, some JWs believe that questioning the 607 date is tantamount to apostasy. We shouldn't question the Governing Body or the "faithful and discreet slave." If we question the 607 date we are, perhaps, showing too much pride in our own understanding. These are legitimate concerns for all of us. And it's one of the reasons that very few of us even understand the reason that such a question might come up in the first place. A discussion was already begun on the subject, but it quickly devolved into a discussion that showed more concern about the questioner(s) rather than the evidence itself. I take my own share of the blame for that problem. That's why, I'm restarting the question again, but this time we'll keep the focus only on evaluating the evidence, both Biblical and archaeological. I hope more people join in, and everyone is welcome, of course, but this time I think we can keep it moderated so that only comments about the evidence remain in the discussion.

The October 1, 2011 Watchtower says this date is important for two reasons. *** w11 10/1 p. 26 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One *** But why be interested in the actual date when Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II razed the city of Jerusalem? First, because the event marked an important turning point in the history of God’s people. . . . Second, because knowing the actual year when this “ultimate catastrophe” began and understanding how the restoration of true worship in Jerusalem fulfilled a precise Bible prophecy will build your confidence in the reliability of God’s Word. So why do Jehovah’s Witnesses hold to a date that differs from widely accepted chronology by 20 years? [Emphasis added]

My job allowed a lot of international travel. I retired, but still get called back as a consultant once in a while. Also, something we, as a family, enjoyed doing for many years now, is stopping in to visit a local congregation on every vacation. Hawaii, Costa Rica, Belize, Mazatlan, Oaxaca, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, etc, we look up some local congregation or Witnesses, and we know that a donation here goes a lot further than back home. (If you give $100 in some places it's like giving $2,000 in the USA.) Not everywhere is so poor, but we are going to Milan, Italy in a few weeks (in May) and it adds an interesting dimension to any visit to take some time away from the beaten tourists paths. It's amazing how quickly the roads from the coastal resorts turn to poverty just a few miles inland. So it also provides a perspective that no vacationer should miss.

I will be creating a new 607 topic. You are welcome to join in the discussion, as is anyone else, of course. However, as I said, I will be deleting all points that make use of the ad hominem tactic. We can practice over here, and I'll get to some of your very interesting points. But first I'd like you to notice the yellow areas highlighted above. I won't explain how each of those highlighted phrases contains at least one element of "attacking the person." With nearly a dozen bits of innuendo and false assumptions and false characterizations in a single opening paragraph, I'm thinking you'll have some trouble with the idea of merely presenting evidence so that we can compare it with the Bible and evaluate it against accepted evidence. I'm quite willing to look into researching this "new chronology." I like the phrase you used "True Christians accept a Chronology driven by Gods Holy Spirit, Not Men." That idea is related to the entire reason for bringing up the discussion. What should we do if we find out that we are accepting a chronology driven by men, not by the Bible? To me, that's the most important thing. Obviously, I would have no interest in Neo-Babylonian and Persian chronology if it weren't part of our doctrinal system. I read Raymond Franz' book "Crisis of Conscience' but I never, ever noticed him harping about his mistreatment. I don't even know what worldly view you are talking about. From what I can tell there were never any repeated attempts to bring him back from his Bible understanding, but only attempts to get him to admit out loud that he didn't believe in one or more of the unique Watchtower teachings. Once they could get him to say one of those things out loud, they could have him disfellowshipped. He apparently kept his ideas to himself, except for private discussions with two or three close friends who wanted to discuss some alternate ideas with him (primarily a Circuit Overseer, Rene Vasquez and the Gilead Registrar, Ed Dunlap). It was because they didn't have any real evidence of exactly what he had discussed that they finally had to disfellowship him for having lunch with his employer, a friend who would give him employment who was also disfellowshipped. I understand that all the repeated attempts were to make sure they could find a reason to push him out, never any attempts to bring him back. If you found a reference for something different, I'd be interested. I'm sure COJ spent a lot of time making that argument, but not all his time. I read the book and learned a lot about chronology, that helped a lot. It helped me understand the Watchtower's references a lot better. I didn't know enough about Berossus, or Ptolemy, the Hebrew calendar, or even how these astronomical tablets worked. I even used to think that Jerusalem must have fallen in October since 2,520 ended in October 1914. Somehow I hadn't even noticed that this idea wasn't Biblical until reading another perspective. His book was very deep reading for me, and I had to do a lot of research on my own. I spent the equivalent of weeks in the New York Public Library at Bryant Park requesting reference only materials regarding the Babylonian tablets, chronicles, their astronomy, etc. What you are saying about the 587 being driven by a Jewish Hope to legitimize their nation reminds me of what I have read several times. But what this was about was critical of the Bible's account, saying that the Bible accounts were "falsified" or at least greatly exaggerated to set up the idea that whoever remained on the land after the final deportations was illegitimate and from a Biblical perspective "were not even there" because of the totality of the desolation and deportation. It's an old theory, but I think you should be careful with it because if true you saying the Watchtower is wrong to accept the idea of total desolation. Fortunately, we already have enough repetition in the Bible about what happened so that we know the intent of Biblical view, but we can also realize that we don't need to denigrate and criticize the Bible to understand what happened. The Biblical view does not require a total 70 years of absolute desolation anyway. The exiles occurred over a period of nearly 70 years, and Daniel speaks of desolations (plural) which clearly refer to the several different events. Daniel was in a very early deportation. Ezekiel speaks of the exile as happening 10 years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. Even after Jerusalem was destroyed, we still have another gathering (and chasing) of the few remaining ones. So the Bible itself shows that there were multiple, ongoing desolations of the land. We don't need to resort to the anti-Biblical theory that distorts the Bible's account. Samaritans and others (likely poorer "itinerate" Jews, and a few struggling Northern Israelites filled the vacuum, as it were). But, yes, I understand that even during the so-called "total desolation" there is supposedly evidence that some Jewish settlements remained undisturbed and inhabited continuously throughout the entire 70 years of desolation. This may or may not be true. I don't know how they would even prove such a thing. But if they can, it doesn't negate the grave punishment that Jerusalem and Judea suffered. I'll look up later if this is the idea you refer to, because that's the one where I have even heard rumors of dismissal (destruction?) or minimizing of such evidence, based on the claim that rich people returning from exile wanted their land back from poorer Jews and others who were claiming "squatter's" rights for continuing to work the land all those years. I'll just make some of those yellow marks again I have already pointed out the logical fallacy you used that matched what the Awake! said about logical fallacies. So, based on those circumstances, you'll have to tell me if you intended these highlighted ideas as more "ad hominem" or just simple "blame-shifting" or something else, perhaps. Who uses this "new ridiculous time table"? I can see it's not the Watchtower, or you, or COJ, or R.Franz. I know who uses it, and they are not scholars. There is no evidence for it being correct, although they claim the Bible is the authority for this "ridiculous" chronology (your word). The whole table you reference is also found here: http://www.letgodbetrue.com/reference/biblechronology.pdf Still, you show a lot of interest in this "new chronology" where the "corrected" date includes the 83 year expansion. This would place the "pivotal" date that the Watchtower has called an "absolute date" of 539 BCE all the up 83 years later in 456 BCE. The 2520 years from events this chart ties to 607 would end in 1996, and 2520 years from its date for the destruction of Jerusalem would end up being within a year of 2007. I can guess the real reason you point it out: I don't think you are promoting this new chronology as much as just trying to use it to show that there are variations being examined that go outside the bounds of "Ptolemaic" chronology -- which is the one that the WTS relies on for 539 BCE. If this variation is even remotely possible within the realms of the evidence at hand then Furuli's theories are not so far-fetched. (That idea would probably be argued thus: Because Furuli's theory and this "new corrected" chronology will both require that we accept that something is completely wrong with the evidence we have relied upon for the Neo-Babylonian period. Both Furuli and promoters of this 83-year expanded theory, they BOTH require that we consider the possibility that some of our famous cuneiform documents are forged, or badly misunderstood, or mislabeled, misidentified, etc.) I already know of one proponent of this "new chronology" and I know why they follow this chronology and I already know what "fallacy" they have fallen for in order to promote it. Here's how it goes. Daniel 9:25 seems to be pretty clear that the Messiah will arrive in 70 weeks of 7 years each, or 490 years, and this 70 years starts at the time the "command to go forth and rebuild Jerusalem" occurs. If that command is considered to be the command by Cyrus one year after Babylon is destroyed, then it's about 538 BCE. Therefore Jesus arrived in 48 BCE. Only he didn't. So now what they need is an excuse to say that Cyrus REALLY destroyed Babylon around 455 BCE. Now, voila! Jesus first presence as Christ starts around 29 C.E, he dies around 33 C.E. and the final week ends around 36 C.E. Much simpler than trying to figure out what happened in the REAL 455 BCE. You'll notice that this is exactly what happened when Nelson Barbour and then the Bible Students figured out that 2,520 years from Jerusalem's destruction in 587 BCE didn't land on 1914. 1914 was already determined to be correct, so all they had to do was theorize a new, unsubstantiated date for the destruction of Jerusalem: 606, then 607. Their fallacy is the idea that only one method of determining the year 539 or 587 existed. This is one of the big flaws in Furuli's books, too. He focuses on Ptolemy when it turns out that we could now throw away everything Ptolemy collected about chronology and we could still discover that Cyrus destroyed Babylon in 539 and therefore that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 (not 607). By the way, you will probably also notice that the date you highlighted in Zechariah was 520 BCE from the Enc.Judaica. Curious, isn't it? That Zechariah speaks of memorial dates for Jerusalem's destruction that are just then going on 70 years? 520 is 67 years from 587 BCE. It's 87 years from 607. Which date is closer to the 70 years that Zechariah speaks about? If the evidence for 520 is viable, and the Watchtower agrees that it is, then which date is more Biblical according to this evidence? It's not 607, it would be 587. 587 would not produce a Biblical contradiction, yet 607 creates a Biblical contradiction. When you say that earlier historians align 605 BCE as the first conquest of Judea, this is NOT about the destruction of Jerusalem but the first incursions of the Babylonians when they began taking exiles such as Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. This was very early in the process of Babylon bringing desolations upon Judea. Ezekiel was part of a group that was taken about a decade later, and about a decade after that, Nebuchadnezzar sieged the city, removed the last Messianic King from the throne and burned Jerusalem. More desolations and capturing of prisoners followed. So you are speaking of the first years of Nebuchadnezzar around 605, which would make the destruction of Jerusalem 18 years later, in 587 BCE. You are referring to what you called the chronology of Carl Jonsson and Ray Franz. (It's really not theirs at all, but the same chronology of every serious historian who studies Neo-Babylonian evidence.) By not giving your source you have obfuscated the point. In fact, your chart with the triangle (based on Charlie H Campbell's work) is also the exact same chronology that the WTS rejects. (His website rejects the Watchtower, too, of course.) For Watchtower chronology, that 605 would be about 625, Jeremiah would minister beginning around 647 BCE. Ezekiel would begin closer to 613. http://alwaysbeready.com/prophecy-eschatology And your clip from Cameron correctly confirms 539 BCE. However, if we accept the evidence confirming 539 BCE, then we have just accepted evidence that also confirms 587 BCE as the destruction of Jerusalem, not 607 BCE. His mention of 2,510 years is another way of saying he wrote that part of the book in about 1972, even though published in 1974, right? (2510-539=1972?)

I made that comment under the heading about the article you were quoting. The October 1, 2011 Watchtower. The article on when Jerusalem was destroyed (pp. 26-31). That's the same article I was referring to. Seems like the most appropriate article.

Eoin has included a great scriptural passage relevant to the verse. With the bolded emphasis on the third verse it might be a bit confusing, though. (Romans 12:3-8) 3 For through the undeserved kindness given to me, I tell everyone there among you not to think more of himself than it is necessary to think, but to think so as to have a sound mind, each one as God has given to him a measure of faith. 4 For just as we have in one body many members, but the members do not all have the same function, 5 so we, although many, are one body in union with Christ, but individually we are members belonging to one another. 6 Since, then, we have gifts that differ according to the undeserved kindness given to us, if it is of prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; 7 or if it is a ministry, let us be at this ministry; or the one who teaches, let him be at his teaching; 8 or the one who encourages, let him give encouragement; the one who distributes, let him do it liberally; the one who presides, let him do it diligently; the one who shows mercy, let him do it cheerfully. Highlighting verse 3 only might imply that the seven or so persons on the current GB have 'thought more of themselves as is necessary to think' in the sense that have changed the doctrine to apply only to themselves when it once applied to over 100,000 different persons. I don't think this is what he intended, although Eoin should certainly correct me if I am wrong. A better support for the practice of accepting that only a few should become teachers (James 3:1) is found in verse 8. The expression "the one who presides" actually means the same in Greek as "the one who takes the lead." One could argue that this is true in every congregation, not at a global level. The type of ministry that we, as JWs, specialize in, however, is an international evangelizing and teaching work that apparently requires a higher level of taking the lead over the entire worldwide congregation. (At least it can produce much more consistency and efficiency.) Also, the implementation of a "Governing Body" is apparently paralleled by the idea of the apostles staying together in Jerusalem to focus on prayer and teaching, while selected "ministerial servants" managed the food distribution. That group of apostles evidently "morphed" into a "council of elders" at Jerusalem which included more than just the apostles. Prior to that, Luke says that they began a process of the 11 apostles voting to replace Judas with a replacement to keep the number at 12. Although this was done, it doesn't mean it was the "right" thing to continue doing. Similarly with the "council of elders," we don't know if this was something that would be required for all time. But even without those precedents from Jerusalem in the book of Acts, we have Paul's word in Romans about different members having different functions. I don't think one can make a strong argument against having 'leaders who take the lead' both at a local congregation level and at a overall congregational level.

Recopied and reformatted from the answer previously written here: http://www.jw-archive.org/post/117698071183/idea-daniel-121112-the-daily-sacrifice-will-be Most of the prophecies that we have said were fulfilled on specific dates between 1919 and all the way up to 1942 have been less emphasized in the last few decades, but were never explicitly changed. (The recent change in type-antitype explanations refers to parables and narratives, not prophecies themselves.) ... For about half-a-century the Watchtower taught that the 1,335 days, for example, ended in 1874. (1,335 years from 539 C.E. to 1874 C.E.) After several adjustments over the years, the most specific explanation (that is still consistent with the current teaching) was in the book by F W Franz in 1977, "Our Incoming World Government - God's Kingdom." (A revision of the earlier "Your Will Be Done On Earth.") In this book: The 1260 days ran from December 28, 1914 to June 21, 1918. (1271 days) 1260=1271 The 1290 days ran from January 18, 1919 to September 9, 1922. (1330 days) 1290=1330 The 1335 days ran from September 14, 1922 to May 19, 1926. (1343 days) 1335=1343 This period is considered one of the most important in BS/IBSA/JW/Watchtower history. The book shows how the calculations started with the importance of June 21, 1918. That's the date that the Governing Body was imprisoned under the 1918 Sedition Act for what was considered anti-draft propaganda. Working backwards from June 21, 1918 (the pivotal date) 1260 days would bring us back to date in January 8, 1915 when "nothing" happened. To bring this back into the year 1914, Franz needed at least 9 more days, so he used some possible adjustments by translating 1,260 days to one of many ways to calculate 3 lunar years and 6 lunar months. This offers a lot more flexibility because 7 out of every 19 lunar years have 384 days, and 12 out of every 19 lunar years have 354 days. And even a 6-month period, if it includes the "spring" season, might be 177 days, or might be 207 days. This flexibility is what resulted in the 1,290 days being closer to 1,335 days. (The 1,290 days ended, in our explanation, actutally ended up being closer to 1,335 days, which is, in fact, closer to 1,335 than our explanation of the ACTUAL 1,335 days). So he squeezed a 1914 date out of the 1260, but It still doesn't land on any special day in 1914. That didn't matter so much because significance was seen in the fact that the Photo-Drama of Creation was still being shown for most of that year. The 1,290 days started on one of the "formation" days of the League of Nations. This is also a significant time, because many religions had spoken of the League of Nations as the political expression of God's kingdom on earth. (Detractors have noticed that the Watchtower also supported the League of Nations using this same type of language, but only for a short period of time.) By using the peace conference in Versailles, France as the event that paved the way for the League, we have the January 18, 1919 date. Using one of the lunar methods, mentioned, the 1,290 days can be stretched to 1,330 days so that it lands in the middle of the famous 1922 Cedar Point, Ohio convention that gets mentioned a lot in JW history. If the 1,335 days can start the day AFTER that same assembly was over, then the lunar method can stretch it to 1,343 days. That doesn't land it in the middle of a major USA convention, but at least it manages to land right between two of the European conventions -- just a few days after the German convention is over and a few days before the London convention would start. Here's the quote: *** go chap. 8 pp. 140-141 pars. 43-44 Marked Days During the “Time of the End” *** The second Cedar Point convention ended on September 13, 1922. If, now, we count from the next day, September 14, or, Elul 21, 1922, Bible calendar time, when would the 1,335 days end? As the 1,290 days amounted to three lunar years and seven months, so the 1,335 days would amount to three lunar years, eight months and fifteen days. Counting now from Elul 21 (or, September 14), 1922, we find that three lunar years from that date would end on Elul 20 (or, September 9), 1925. To this we add eight lunar months and fifteen days and arrive at the date Sivan 6 (or, May 19), 1926. That day was the 1,893rd anniversary of the happy day of Pentecost of 33 C.E., when the holy spirit was poured out upon Jesus’ disciples at Jerusalem. Just prior to this, on May 13-16, 1926, a general assembly had taken place in Magdeburg, Germany, at which the president of the Watch Tower Society had addressed a public audience of 25,000 on the subject “Comfort for the People.” Now, on May 19, preparations moved ahead for the holding of the outstanding international convention of 1926, that at Alexandra Palace, London, England, May 25-31. Many happy delegates came from distant lands. *** end of quote *** The more recent explanations continue to acknowledge the same years but say less and less about the specifics days. By 1993, the months were kept but the exact day of the month was not mentioned except for the pivotal date, the date of federal imprisonment. In 1993, it was also the first time that the happiness was tied to not looking forward to specific dates any more, and the fact that the "Deliverance" book was released in 1926, one of many that would soon replace the "Studies in the Scriptures."

I think I have a good solution for this problem. Actually, I still have most of those past conversations saved, but you seem to have forgotten that you provided no evidence, then. You spent so much time creating personal attacks, that you apparently forgot to offer any evidence or counter-evidence. This time you have actually included some information for discussion. And I thought we were beginning to discuss it. But you have evidently stopped discussing it as soon as you were shown that your first point was incorrect. I'm sure you already know this, but being found wrong on a single point is not necessarily important to the overall discussion. If the past is any indication, I will obviously be making many mistakes along the way, but this is how we learn. I'm sure you would agree that we should handle this type of discussion in a peaceful and orderly fashion. This doesn't mean that your personal attacks will just be allowed to stand without response, especially since they are nearly always false. So here's the plan. Let's present the evidence for and against the 607 BCE date, perhaps under a new heading. I see that Anke has moderator status to maintain the daily text postings. I'll contact the moderators and see if they'll let me use moderator status, to maintain this particular discussion and I will use it only to remove the personal attacks. We can leave this current thread here as a place where you can put all the personal attacks you want, that way you won't feel that your contributions are being censored. (I will only ask to delete personal attacks that you attempt to insert into the wrong topic areas. I had to mention that because you did that a lot on "jw-archive" and have already started doing it here at "worldnewsmedia." I should also mention that a lot of people obviously caught on to your trick of using several different names to post under. I hope you won't do that here. --- Now, just for old times sake, I will respond here to what you just said in your previous post. My communication with Furuli was, over several months, to talk to him about his first two books and his plans for a third. By the way, he sent me his third book for free, and I hadn't even asked for it. (By "third book" I'm referring to Furuli's second one on chronology.) Therefore, Furuli can probably tell you who I am. We also had several discussions on the B-Greek (Biblical Greek) forum for several years prior to his books. With only a few exceptions, Furuli added a lot of good points in those discussions, too. I thought his first book on Bible translation was good. I thought his first book on chronology was awful. Why? Simple. Because I didn't, and it therefore would be a lie for anyone to try to suggest that I did. No problem. Sounds good. Yes. Everything that was new in that article was based almost entirely on Furuli's book. Everything else in that article tacitly admits that have no real evidence, which is true. What the article doesn't address is the fact that there is also overwhelming evidence against the WT theory that has never been addressed. Perhaps that's the article we should start with. I have respect for the GB, and I also have respect for the truth and the Bible. I do not disrespect any by making it appear that they can only be defended by ad hominem attacks. I prefer a discussion of the Bible and the evidence. If there is real evidence that the GB might be making a mistake and we have a opportunity to help, then what should we do? We could choose to hide the evidence or obfuscate through a pattern of ad hominem tactics. But any person who did that would be hypocritical if they also claim that they obey God as ruler rather then men.

We (WTS) used to think that 6,000 years of man's existence ended in 1873 and thus 1874 was the beginning of the thousand years. This is why the primary books of that time period were called "Millennial Dawn." The 1,000 year "day" had just dawned, and "we" were in the early morning of that day. The fact that so many Bible chronology "proofs" led to the year 1874 was the reason that we kept that date "on the books" as significant for so many years. Up until around 1930. Changes became official for removing 1874 from our chronology "portfolio" in 1943/1944. After that, we kept 1878 as a significant prophetic year "on the books" even up until past when I was born (1957). So, although I don't remember it, we still studied that date at our "Congregation Book Study" in my lifetime.

That seems right. It's logical for the bowls to be sequential since they are numbered and the plagues on Egypt were in a certain order. But I agree that it's reasonable that the 6th bowl (16:12) is only a more imminent gathering towards Armageddon, not the actual battle. But the 7th bowl is "final" and even if only a brief summary, 16:17-21 does refer to the actual fall of Babylon. We also know it's the "kings of the earth" who are the primary focus of Armageddon: (Revelation 16:14-16) . . .they go out to the kings of the entire inhabited earth, to gather them together to the war of the great day of God the Almighty. . . . 16 And they gathered them together to the place that is called in Hebrew Armageddon. And after the more detailed look at what happens to Babylon . . . (Revelation 17:1, 2) 17 One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me: “Come, I will show you the judgment on the great prostitute who sits on many waters, 2 with whom the kings of the earth committed sexual immorality. . . . . . note who are still looking on to see her fall: (Revelation 18:9, 10) 9 “And the kings of the earth who committed sexual immorality with her and lived with her in shameless luxury will weep and beat themselves in grief over her when they see the smoke from her burning. 10 They will stand at a distance because of their fear of her torment and say: ‘Too bad, too bad, you great city, Babylon you strong city, because in one hour your judgment has arrived!’

3 (I think it's in the book of Job, somewhere)

Interesting question. It was a custom up until the last 10 years or so to handle this inconspicuously. In NYC it was usually possible for almost any congregation to invite a brother from Bethel who professed to be of the anointed to give our talk, if we got the request to him in time. They usually, not always, took a seat first. But more often, the brother will now handle it from the stage. Saw this in 2013 and last year, but this year that brother didn't give the talk. It looks odd when they handle it so formally. It reminds me of the movies where you see the Catholic priest take the bread and wine with an assistant up there with him, and a lot of exchanging of items and words back and forth. Looks a bit pompous, which is probably what we were trying to avoid.

True. You could have numbers ranging from 30 to 40 to 50-something. This 4 generations in 400 years seems like a maximum, but the Bible explicitly lists about 8 generations during that time (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Joseph's children, Joseph's grandchildren, the generation that died out in the wilderness so as not to see the promised land (a "40-year generation" as Allen pointed out), and also the youngest generation that did see the promised land. Those 8 generations could cut the average down to 50 years. We studied this several times at Bethel back in the 1970's and 80's. And I know that others were given the same research task long before and long after. The most interesting thing I remember about that research is something that really surprised me when it hit me: Jesus said it would NOT be one generation. His point contrasted with 40 year generation that died out in the wilderness. So Jesus point was NOT so that we could speculate that, for example, a generation can be up to 50 years and therefore 50 years from that point would be the Jewish "Armageddon" in 70 AD. His point was that most of them would live to see it. Jesus knew that it would be much less than 50 years. If it would be 50 years, then most of them would NOT see it, and there would be no reason for anyone to lift up their heads because their deliverance was getting near. So evidently the expression "this generation will by no means pass away" was nearly the equivalent of saying: (Luke 9:27) "But I tell you truly, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death at all until first they see the Kingdom of God.” Of course, that particular verse can be tied the fore-glimpse of the Kingdom that some apostles received just days after Jesus said it. What happened in Jerusalem's great tribulation, was also only a glimpse of what would happen in the world's great tribulation. The Christian community received a powerful lesson that we can also learn from. But if we start calculating the maximum length of a generation and use it to determine the farthest range of time for which God Kingdom "will be done on earth" then we have missed the point.

The Awake! magazine on logical fallacies included the idea that innuendo is also a form of "attacking the person" instead of the evidence. I'll mark in blue each place where you included innuendo.as part of your tactic. You are obviously pretty good at what you do. So, if you are done with those tactics, I am happy to get back on track, here. You asked "what proof do you have 607BCE is NOT a viable date"? Good question, remember, that the WTS does not claim "proof" that their use of 607BCE is viable. This is a discussion of evidence and patterns of evidence. Our concern should be about what patterns of evidence support the Bible. We already started this discussion, and I hope we can keep it reasonable and rational. My first point that you already began a response to was that the WTS gave evidence that it didn't really matter when Jerusalem was destroyed, because the primary concern was to start with the acceptance of 1914 and just count back 2,520. One evidence of this was the fact that when they were not sure of the "zero year" problem, they used 606 (2520-607=1914). You said they were always sure of the zero year. I responded that Russell admitted he wasn't sure and he even gave the new outcome if it was true. (1915) The fact that he ultimately went back to 1914, and that the WTS later merely changed the date to 607 when they formally accepted the truth about the zero year. I offered evidence that your claim was wrong. So my first point is still valid. Correct? Your response?

Yes. Excellent points in the study article. We already dealt with the first point you make about association when you confused Rolf Furuli with COJ. And when you made that same mistake before I reminded you that it made you look like you were accusing Rolf Furuli of apostasy. Perhaps you never understood the point of that. No matter anyway; it's not relevant. Just something you still needed to be corrected on because you continue to spread the same untruth no matter how times you have been corrected. The same article included: *** w14 7/15 p. 10 pars. 15-16 “Jehovah Knows Those Who Belong to Him” *** Should we, however, be suspicious of our fellow Christians, second-guessing the genuineness of their loyalty to Jehovah? Absolutely not! It would be wrong to entertain baseless suspicions about our brothers and sisters. (Read Romans 14:10-12; 1 Corinthians 13:7.) What is more, having a tendency to distrust the integrity of others in the congregation would be harmful to our own spirituality. 16 Each Christian should “examine his own actions.” (Gal. 6:4) Because of our sinful inclinations, there is always the potential for inadvertently adopting traits that are less than sincere. and the next article took some of those same themes further: *** w14 7/15 p. 14 par. 12 Jehovah’s People “Renounce Unrighteousness” *** The Bible encourages each individual to train his “powers of discernment . . . to distinguish both right and wrong.” (Heb. 5:14) The Scriptures set forth basic principles that a Christian can weigh when selecting entertainment. In all areas of life, our goal should be to “keep on making sure of what is acceptable to the Lord.”