ANOTHER Difficult Doctrine. With a less complex explanation.

[JW Insider]

19 hours ago, César Chávez said:

I didn’t understand how conflicted some people are here to try to use disingenuous calculations to subvert the Watchtower understanding about the 2520 years and the 1914 completion of the gentile times.

The Watchtower theory on the 2520 evidently conflicts with the Bible, reason and logic, and also conflicts with the same secular support the Society depends upon for 539 BCE. You didn't even try to show that any calculations were disingenuous. And I'm only showing evidence that the calculations the Watchtower used about the 2520 contained a couple of obvious mistakes. I'm not claiming that Watchtower writers were necessarily disingenuous, even where they sometimes appear to be.

If the calculations I am showing are wrong, please show me where and I will correct them immediately.

19 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Especially when 11 years are added to 1260 when the Watchtower doesn’t subvert that calculation.

You seem confused. The Watchtower does not add 11 years to the 1260 days. The Watchtower adds 11 days, not years. It uses 1260 days+11 days=1271 days, to get from 12/28/1914 to 6/21/1918. The Watch Tower publications never turn them into years, as your own references have done. The Watchtower just keeps it in days, and never uses the supposed "day for a year" principle on the 1260 days.

19 hours ago, César Chávez said:

I am not sure by making an illustration of the 2520 prophecy now becomes contentious to those bent on using an erred calculation to demonstrate their own falsehood.

That sentence appears too convoluted. I'm guessing it's another attempt to insult something you can't defend, but you are not clear about what that is.

19 hours ago, César Chávez said:

That means, people are grasping at straws to substantiate their own conflicts with a well-established and recognized prophecy which is my point about these examples of the 2520 prophecy.

You used one example that had nothing to do with the seven times of Daniel 4. Later in the post you used an example from Walter Chamberlain that does reference Daniel 4, and does associate the 2520 with the Gentile Times, similar to Faber but with adjustments. You might even go on to J.A.Brown and a few others who worked with a 2520 prophecy ending not far from 1914. (Although J. A. Brown held the Gentile Times to 1260 years, not 2520).

But you might already know that Chamberlain, Campbell, Cuninghame, J.A.Brown, Elliott, Faber, Thomas, Miller, Barbour, and many others were never completely original. They all worked from, and added to, the ideas of persons who came before them. More recently, some scholars have tried to go back over the history of these "historicists" to understand their methods instead of just as defenders of their overall religious viewpoints. This has resulted in the uncovering of a common theme. Even B. W. Schulz noticed it in researching Watch Tower history. What they've noticed is that many of these persons wouldn't give credit to the person(s) from whom they were borrowing and plagiarizing. Persons like N.H.Barbour and E.G.White were even beginning to gain a status of "prophet," or dropping hints that they were the "faithful and wise servant," the channel through which persons needed to receive proper spiritual food.

Miller himself has been noted for a similar method of passing himself off as mostly just a self-taught farmer, yet he borrowed from persons before him without crediting them. B.W.Schulz defends the practice as common in those days. But it was extremely common among would-be Bible prognosticators. There is a well-researched, well-footnoted, 238-page paper on Academia.edu that says the same thing about Miller, that has been said about Barbour, White, and Russell. (https://www.academia.edu/1035050/_A_Feast_of_Reason_The_Roots_of_William_Miller_s_Biblical_Interpretation_and_its_influence_on_the_Seventh-day_Adventist_Church😞

p.205 says:

The view espoused by some Seventh-day Adventists that Miller’s Bible study was conducted in isolation and that his “Rules of Interpretation” were developed completely independently is unsustainable when the historical evidence is examined. Miller’s hermeneutics were in fact, not particularly original, innovative, or new—they bear, for example, a great similarity to the methods used by his contemporary Alexander Campbell.

p. 188 says:

Consequently, unlike Miller, White makes no systematic explanation of her principles of biblical interpretation. In fact, her most complete presentation on the topic is a simple reiteration of Miller’s views—some forty-four years after they were first

p. 105 even implies that Faber, who you quoted earlier, has been indirectly handed down through Miller and White.

White’s phrasing in these passages brings to mind Miller’s statement previously mentioned: .  .In fact, in reference to Miller, White explicitly makes use of such phrasing:. . . While it is unlikely that White read George Stanley Faber’s The Sacred Calendar of Prophecy, her use of these phrases clearly echoed that of Faber and other early historicists, as well as Miller himself.

You go on to quote "Isaiah's Call to England: being an exposition of Isaiah the eighteenth" by Walter CHAMBERLAIN. This work is a little more scholarly in that it mentions the position of Faber, Elliott, Thomas, etc, and you probably recognize more than a few similarities to J.A.Brown, and other earlier works.

Chamberlain's argument is similar to yours. He says (p.348) that these persons before him were wrong in many of the details and exact dates they used, but the very fact that several of them discussed the possibility of using a period of "7 times" as 2520 years, shows that there must be something to it. Therefore he went on to predict his own false alarm for the restoration of Israel within that same range of dates limited to 1864 up to 1914, because "end of Gentile Times" referred to the restoration of the physical nation of Israel in Jerusalem.

And these few examples only indicate that people had trouble making use the actual number that the Bible associated with the "Gentiles Times" and they were so anxious to prove themselves right that they ignored the counsel of Jesus. The evidence that these included examples of persons being blinded by their own egos is clear from some of the things that many of them said about themselves, and how so many didn't have the humility to credit their sources, but wanted credit for themselves.

Edited to add: If anyone cares to read the work (Anatolia) by Thomas that Chamberlain referenced, it's here: https://books.google.com/books?id=rCBcAAAAQAAJ  Chamberlain says " But I entertain no doubt that they can, and was agreeably surprised to find that this very thing has been done by an American author, named Thomas." I have seen phrases like this so often, that I have come to see them as code for: "This is one of the places I got the idea from, but even though he already wrote it first, I want people to think I found this on my own, and that this other person just happened to agree with me by coincidence. Even if it was many years before me."

 

 

[JW Insider]

On 12/20/2019 at 12:10 AM, César Chávez said:

I believe, the one that has a problem with the Watchtower implementation of 1914 is you here. I don't find the watchtowers' explanation difficult nor does it have an erred understanding.

I don't have any problem understanding it, or even seeing its "intellectual" appeal to those who still believe Jerusalem was destroyed around 607 BCE. It's not even difficult to explain, if you are willing to cut a few corners scripturally. The difficulty is not with the doctrine, which I believe is simply wrong, it's with resolving the contradictions between the 1914 tradition and the scriptures.

20 hours ago, César Chávez said:

My post simply demonstrate that the 2520 years has been around for a long time.

Yes, that's why I have often referred to this teaching as a long-standing tradition, a lofty, strongly entrenched thing.

(2 Corinthians 10:4, 5) . . .but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. ⁵ For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God. . .

20 hours ago, César Chávez said:

It was not an Adventist calculation made by “Miller” that JWinsider contends.

2520 was not an Adventist calculation. I never contended that it was "made" by Miller. Miller might have used terminology that made it appear that he came up with it himself, but I dealt with that kind of egotistical presentation earlier. Here's a site that contains a lot of quotes directly from Miller on the subject:

https://the2520.com/william_miller.htm

"I WILL NOW BRING FORWARD SOME PROPHECIES WHICH REMAIN TO BE FULFILLED, OR WHICH HAVE RECENTLY BEEN ACCOMPLISHED"

The editor of the site above takes that as evidence that Miller got there first:

William Miller was the first person in modern times to have discovered the 2520, below are some of his thoughts on the subject

It's true that Miller was fairly early among those who discussed 2520 from some potential 7 times prophecies. Maybe as early as 1818, about 10 years before the 1828 work of Faber that was quoted in the 1830 periodical you already referenced about Faber. (Your other quote was from Chamberlain around 1860, about the time Barbour was readjusting some of Miller's starting points for the 1260, 1290, 1335, etc.)

But if you read Barbour and Russell closely, you will notice that they make the same mistakes that Miller made, and they highlight the points with the same priorities as Miller and those who communicated with Miller. (For example, notice how closely the priorities of this work match Russell's by Miller's associate, Hiram Edson, as found in a series of articles from the Review and Herald, starting in January 3, 1856. The articles are called the Times of the Gentiles, and it matches several points that Russell uses in his 1876 article contributed to The Bible Examiner (published by George Storrs). The Times of the Gentiles by Hiram Edson 

Although it's not true of the more sophisticated (more scholarly) sources, Miller-related sources use Leviticus 26 as a more important source of the 7 times than Daniel 4, as did Miller and Edson. (And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.) This was also true of Barbour and Russell. Russell also admitted that the even better source for calculating 1914 would be "Israel's doubles" by which he meant the "parallel dispensations" that mapped the same number of years to fleshly Israel as to events for "spiritual" Israel. Hiram Edson used the same scriptures (like Isaiah 40:2) to "double" the 1260 to 2520.

Also, it's not true of the more scholarly sources (like Faber) to make a mistake with the zero year inclusion. Adventist sources that had been based on Miller and Barbour had made this mistake. The sitehttps://the2520.com/william_miller.htm includes this admission:

At the time William Miller wrote the above quotes, he did not understand the transition between B. C. and A. D.  Therefore his dates are off by one year at the beginning or the end of the his understanding of the 2520.  This was because of a simple mathematical error; in math, when we go from a negative number to a positive number zero will count as one position.  In chronological year dating, to go from B.C. to A. D. you have to add one to your total because there is no year zero.

20 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Russell didn’t use a “former” Adventist member, Barbour when Russell meet him as basis for Russell’s own calculation but used them as a historical fact.

Russell admitted in the Watch Tower that he pretty much just accepted Barbour's chronology lock, stock and barrel, or maybe I should say, "hook, line and sinker."

20 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Ex-witnesses and opposers alike accuse Russell of being and Adventist.

Russell admits that he was influenced by Adventists, and the influence is obvious. That doesn't mean he was an Adventist. But if you look closely at his doctrines, even more than just Barbour's chronology, he shows much more Adventist's influence than he appears to admit.

 

[JW Insider]

22 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Some scholars have updated their chronology, just like some scholars noticed the errors in "Wiseman" and "Grayson's" linguist interpretation. Even Grayson corrected his works. Why haven't you updated yours. Some of Wiseman's tablets were "reconstructed" but to what end? Meaning, having to add your own notches to complete an interpretation. To some, doing that is called guessing.

I guess I should respond to this point too, since you added "Some scholars have updated their chronology . . . Why haven't you updated yours?"

First of all I don't care about Wiseman and Grayson or your COJ references. I believe Jesus was right when he said chronology is in the jurisdiction of the Father, and that it does not belong to us to get to know the times and the seasons. Paul said that as for the times and seasons brothers you need nothing to be written to you.

So while I don't have any personal interest in even trying to see how a secular chronology might match the Bible, I am only concerned that we aren't getting overly concerned about certain specious claims that turn out to be untrue, and have already resulted in expectation postponed that makes the heart sick. One of our responsibilities as Christians is to encourage one another and build one another up. If false stories and genealogies are likely to end up disturbing our brothers in the long run, our obligation is to make sure of all things so that we can hold fast to what is fine.

To that end I've read some of Wiseman and Grayson and Delitzsch, etc. I've checked out several of the major books they've produced, especially to read parts on the Neo-Babylonian period. The NYPL allowed me to make hundreds of pages of photocopies of some of these books that are only allowed for reference. And, of course, these days it's easy just to take a smartphone snap every relevant page.

But I don't know why you think these particular adjustments are important. You didn't even say for sure which adjustments you were referring to. May I assume you didn't give details because it has absolutely no effect on the date for the destruction of Jerusalem. Most of the adjustments I know of in Wiseman and Grayson are about the Assyrian period: Assurnasurpal, Shalmaneser, etc. There have also been typos in Babylonian tablets, even by trained scribes of the time. And sometimes the typos might have been in an original that was not corrected when copied. And sometimes the scribes made a note when they were making a correction of a previous typo when copying. None of this surprises me.

But even a dozen corrections of the sort I've read about could never override the evidence of hundreds, even many thousands of tablets that give us the entire picture of the Neo-Babylonian period. Even if there were only 7 lines of independent evidence, you could prove that 3 of them were complete frauds, and it would still not overturn the remaining lines of independent evidence. For a long time, the Watchtower publications hinted that Ptolemy was wrong and therefore they can claim anything they want about how to cherry-pick dates for a chronology and reject others. This turned out to be a fantasy, because no one needs Ptolemy at all to understand the overwhelming evidence for the neo-Babylonian chronology.

For evidence of what I am saying, I'll just ask you to share how these supposed adjustments in Grayson and Wiseman would have any effect on the date for Nebuchadnezzar II's 18th and 19th year. If you are are anything like the predecessor accounts you have emulated, I'm sure you won't oblige.

[TrueTomHarley]

There is an expression in math:

“Divergent series are the work of the devil.”

Maybe the same is true of chronology.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

How about " Pi are round ... cornbread are square". ?

 

[JW Insider]

9 hours ago, César Chávez said:

It seems you are now trying to distance yourself from false claims you started with exactly those people mentioned.

No, not at all. The claims I made so far have been shown to be correct, not false.

9 hours ago, César Chávez said:

However, I don’t expect you to agree with the Watchtower as a conflicted witness. You haven’t for over seven years. Why start now.

Most everything the Watchtower teaches agrees with the Bible, therefore there is no conflict. I agree with almost every explanation, except for some problems with secondary interpretations of prophecy. The original, primary interpretations (fulfillments) are nearly always correct, in my opinion, but the Watchtower has had the most problems with trying to push for a secondary interpretation (a "larger" fulfillment) that is usually applied to Bible Students or Witnesses in more modern times, and these are ones we've most often had to drop or modify. And of course, we rely too much on secular chronology for the major prophecy about 1914. And then the WT finds that it must cherry pick which parts of the secular chronology it needs, and which parts to reject.

However, if the WT could show evidence that these explanations are correct and Biblical, I'd go back to those explanations immediately.

9 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Trying desperately to dismiss structured historical facts will never be discredited by one single person. People give themselves too much credit if they think they can.

The Watchtower does dismiss structured historical facts. And it's a shame because this is done for the purpose of creating a doctrine that appears to defy the counsel of Jesus and Paul about chronology. From what I can tell, if the Watchtower accepted structured historical facts about Neo-Babylonian archaeology, they could use these facts to help show how well it aligns with the Bible's record, the accuracy of Bible prophecy in Jeremiah, Daniel, and Zechariah, for example. And it would show that the Bible has more historical credibility than many unbelievers will give it credit for. But as persons who walk by faith, we personally shouldn't need to concern ourselves too much with either support or possible discrepancies with the secular record, because we shouldn't need to rely on the secular record to interpret prophecy. Yet the Watchtower relies on the secular record to come up with the 1914 date, doesn't it?

Paul said that "regarding chronology, brothers, we need nothing to be written to us."

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

9 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Reasoning with historical facts the proper way is intellect. Carl Olof Jonsson is NOT intellectual or a scholar. He is a, disgruntle ex-witness that used the Babylonian chronicles deciphered by “Wiseman” and Grayson” to criticize the Watchtower’s chronology

Why is Carl Olof Jonsson so important to you? It doesn't matter in the least if this one person is right or wrong or intellectual or a scholar. The evidence against the Watchtower tradition on 1914 does not come from one man, it can come from any of the thousands of persons who have seen the overall picture from tens of thousands of Neo-Babylonian tablets. Every one of those dated tablets adds to our picture in support of the facts. Every one of them therefore detracts from the 1914 tradition.

9 hours ago, César Chávez said:

I recommend you divert your attention away from your friend COJ and do proper research. Right now, I can only see what TTH claims!

Carl Olof Jonsson is not my friend, and he never was. When I first knew about the "hot potato" manuscript at Bethel, I thought I might even be given an assignment to help counter it. I wasn't. But COJ himself was not my friend, except in the sense that he was, at the time, one of our Christian brothers. But I never spoke with him. Also, no one needs his research. You don't even need Wiseman and Grayson any more to decipher the chronicles. I think that there are now hundreds or even thousands of researchers and scholars who could do an adequate job. The fact that nearly all of them agree completely with COJ doesn't mean that COJ is important to this discussion. It just means that COJ discussed the same relevant evidence about the Neo-Babylonian chronology, just like all the others. And I'm sure you know that no one has found any evidence supporting the Watchtower's view of 607 yet. And every new piece of evidence continues to support the previous evidence and shows how foolish the Watchtower has been for trying to hang onto this 1914 tradition so long. And you can also see from various articles that the Watchtower has gone so far as to misrepresent the evidence instead of celebrating how this evidence supports the Bible.

So far, EVERY piece of Babylonian archaeological evidence HURTS 1914. None of it helps 1914. And there are literally TENS of THOUSANDS of relevant tablets. And I'm sure you know that the Watchtower Society is well aware of this, too.

In another post, I'll look into the references your are quoting from. For now I notice that you have not addressed my request about pointing out which corrections of Wiseman and Grayson you were referring to. And more importantly, whether those corrections have had any effect on the dating of Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year.

Also, I'm not sure why you bring up Nebuchadnezzar's speed between Babylon and Hatti-land. I don't care how long it took him, and don't see why anyone should care. Whatever year the Babylonians thought best to call his regnal year and his first year or his 18th or 19th year is fine with me. Let's say he didn't get back in time for the new year after his father died, or some similar quirk of fate. If he had become so important that they shaved off a year from his father's reign to start counting his own, then what difference does this make in the long run. Even if such a situation could potentially shift a date by a year, we already know which year was his 19th or 37th, just as well as we know Cyrus' 1st or 8th. So why fret over a difference of a couple weeks based on the speed of his horses or his traveling entourage?

Anyway, I said I'd wait and do this later, so I'll stop for now.

[Srecko Sostar]

On 12/17/2019 at 7:27 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

Child sexual abuse is the premiere export of the planet, No group is unaffected.

Then, it would be correct to notice how JW organization is not enough separated themself from this old world wicked system. Because evil thing founded its way how to spread spirit of this world into congregations and to win over spirit of Organization (whatever name to spirit you would give to be behind Organization) . 

So much about self praise WT Society making as the only true organization (religion) that is not "dirty" as rest of the world. For sure, JW's want to be as much is possible approved by God. But this individual intention not making Organization to be "clean".... or to be the cleanest organization in the world.

[TrueTomHarley]

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

[CC]: Right now, I can only see what TTH claims!

Well, he DOES raise an excellent point here.

On 12/20/2019 at 11:41 PM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

How about " Pi are round ... cornbread are square". ?

How about “Math is a subject as easy as pi”

[JW Insider]

21 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Historical Context of the Neirab Archive

As argued by I. Eph’al, deportation is the most likely hypothesis to explain the presence of a community of Syrian natives from Neirab in Babylonia.23 Their deportation could have taken place sometime towards the end of Nabopolassar’s (626–605 B.C.E.) or the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar II’s reign (605–562 B.C.E.).

This matches what the Babylonian Chronicles have said about Nebuchadnezzar tramping about in Hatti-land very early in his reign, and even near the end of his father Nabopolassar's reign. Some have wanted to say that Hatti-land included Palestine, but limiting it to Syria has always proved a better match. A parallel trip to Palestine/Judea at that same time is only a plausible assumption, and it is based partly on dates given in Daniel, which some have considered a reference to the first of FOUR Judean deportations. Historians only focus on the two deportations acknowledged by Babylonian sources.

Anyway, from what I have read, the Neirab archive is related to a Syrian settlement in Babylon. This new settlement reflected the old Syrian settlement which had been a center to the worship of the moon, "the god of Neirab."

I notice you avoided showing your source again. It was Exile and Return: The Babylonian Context edited by Jonathan Stökl, Caroline Waerzeggers. p.63.

21 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Passage 5 : from an inscription of Nebuchadnezzar (king of Babylon 605 – 562 bc). The passage is reproduced from H. C. Rawlinson and E. Norris, The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, vol. 1

Here, again without referencing your sources, you jump in this very next sentence to a completely different book and context: [Teach Yourself] Complete Babylonian: A Comprehensive Guide to Reading and Understanding ... by Martin Worthington.

Without saying why, you have highlighted the following by underlining it.

21 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Note how, in their efforts to use second-millennium grammar, the authors of the inscription put mimation on masculine plural nouns, where it does not belong (e.g. in line 14).

I love this stuff. It's pretty interesting to be able to watch language change over time. You see it in Hebrew, with the development of certain exceptions to the usual suffixes for masculine (-im) and feminine (-ot) noun plurals. And it's so interesting that the same types of changes in a language (morphology) will have parallels in many languages. (e.g., majuscule vowels in both Korean and Hebrew texts.) Although mimation and nunation technically refer to M and N case suffixes being added in Akkadian, similar things happen in Hebrew and Arabic too. You can look at old texts in Hebrew like the Dead Sea Scrolls and see the same texts from just a few hundred years later with contractions and abbreviations that reflect how language was spoken, and influences from other languages that had influenced speech. (Old English, for example, once had different case and gender endings for nouns and the accompanying adjectives. But these have been completely dropped, too.)

Wikipedia says:

In the later stages of Akkadian the mimation (word-final -m) - along with nunation (dual final "-n") - that occurs at the end of most case endings has disappeared, except in the locative. Later, the nominative and accusative singular of masculine nouns collapse to -u and in Neo-Babylonian most word-final short vowels are dropped. As a result, case differentiation disappeared from all forms except masculine plural nouns. However many texts continued the practice of writing the case endings (although often sporadically and incorrectly). As the most important contact language throughout this period was Aramaic, which itself lacks case distinctions, it is possible that Akkadian's loss of cases was an areal as well as phonological phenomenon.

The practice of Neo-Babylonians trying to use their own archaic language in a contemporary inscription to give it a more authoritative, religious or legalistic feel, sounds similar to the use of "King James" style language 400 years later. However, it's also possible that some of these might be explained by the fact that the difference in the interchange of use of the NI sign with the NIM sign, for example, could be based on various regional dialects which changed in both directions over time. It's also possible that Martin Worthington has made a mistake in picking this particular example, because masculine plurals kept their original case endings in both archaic Babylonian AND Neo-Babylonian.

Of course, what you highlighted has nothing to do with the 1914 doctrine, nor does it answer the question raised about Wiseman and Grayson, which I didn't expect you to answer.

It looks like you are diverting to a subject that Allen Smith argued with Ann Omaly several years ago. Something about how later historians spoke of a direct route over the desert ("a way of thirst"), and I I always wondered whether this would really have been any quicker than the long way around taking the "Crescent" route by the rivers. But I still haven't changed my mind on this. You don't know how long that one particular trip took, and neither do I. For me it makes no difference, because the only date that is used for the destruction of Jerusalem is called, in the Bible, Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year or his 19th year (no doubt based on the two different counting systems which we have often discussed.) A difference of a few weeks travel time way back near or before the official start of Nebuchadnezzar's reign is meaningless in the overall picture.

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

“Math is a subject as easy as pi”

I hoped you meant that "Math is a subject as e to the pi (e^πi)." Which, coincidentally, as a function of the number "e" produces a sine of the times. (especially  π times i ) So we've now come full circle back to the topic, and back to square one at the same time. [Get it? "square one"? Because i is the square root of -1]

But the best part of this is that you can resolve it all to e^πi = -1 which proves, in effect, that two wrongs can make a right. (Similar to a thing that F.W. "Time Parallels" Franz started to prove in 1944, when he finally accepted the proof that "1 minus -1 = 1" where two eras made an error.) More specifically, it can prove, as Euler did, that two irrationals (e and π) can make a rational (-1). But the devil is in the derivatives, as you implied in an earlier post.

And there has already been a post of unknown derivation that came close to this topic but never touched it.

I know we're just plane around in this space, but diversions are beside the point and that's where I draw the line. 🙄

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

I know we are diverging from the tangent to  transition spiral, so just for yuks, I typed into Google "minus 8 pi alpha", and looky what I found!

 

It looked VERY familiar, so I followed the link and VIOLA! ( pronounced WA-LAH!), and here is what popped up.

The whole thing is a .jpg, so you can click on it to either download and frame for your wall, or enlarge to read it better, and wallow in it's intrinsic wisdom, like a pig in mud.

[JW Insider]

42 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

You seem to avoid how one deportation is included in or around 607BC,

Are you kidding? I've always discussed the possibility of a deportation in or around 605 or so. That's close enough, right? Most historians don't think this one specifically concerned Palestine or Judeans, but some believe the evidence for it is in Daniel, because it might have included Daniel. It's also possible that Daniel is using an alternate dating system to refer to the one in 597. Ezekiel uses a dating system where nearly everything is now based on 597 as a pivotal year.

42 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Therefore, if you don't post your source, why should I. I know your source, COJ's book,

You are wrong. And you probably know that it's dishonest to claim that COJ is the source of the evidence that hurts the Watchtower's 1914 tradition. You would like to pretend that it's just one person's claims. Turns out it is every single scholar of Neo-Babylonian chronology. No exceptions! And it's clear that you don't want people to see that your OWN sources hurt the Watchtower's theories and traditions.

42 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

mine come from established scholars and historians.

All of these established scholars and historians of yours agree that 607 is a false date for the destruction of Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. All of them would put that year in either 587 or 586. There is no question about this any more because just as your own source "Exile and Return" says: 

"During the Neo-Babylon and Persian periods, the time of the Exile, Babylonia produced extraordinarily rich deposits of cuneiform texts, making it one of the very best documented epochs of ancient Mesopotamian history."

This is what dozens of others say about the ease with which the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology is reconstructed, year by year, king by king:

42 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

However, Nebuchadnezzar didn't need to take control of Palestine. Now you're trying to muddy the waters as usual.

I never ever said or even implied that he did. So who is trying to muddy the waters, as usual? The "projection" is still strong with you.