# Allymom's K.I.S.S. 607 vs. 587: now available at WT Quotes website

by Quotes 20 Replies latest watchtower bible

• ##### Alleymom

Hi ---

After some initial comments, I'm going to suggest a method of presenting the K.I.S.S. material orally. This is also something which could be turned into a Power Point presentation.

Once again, my suggestions are based on some reading I've done about the cognitive processes involved in mathematics, as well as some experience I've had in tutoring math-challenged adults.

COUNTING:

Counting is a fairly straightforward operation, especially in the range of the smaller numbers. But as you get into larger numbers, people tend to count as if they are counting from 0 to 9 over and over.

For instance, listen to a child counting aloud to 100 while playing hide-and-seek, and you may notice that when he gets to the larger numbers, there's an emphasis on the final digit of the number:

Forty-SIX, forty-SEVEN, forty-EIGHT, forty-NIIIIIIIIIIINE, FIF-ty.

Fifty-ONE, fifty-TWO, fifty-three ... fifty-NIIIIIIINE, SIX-ty.

It's as if he's using an odometer, and counting from 0-9 over and over.

When it comes to counting backwards, people can do a countdown from 10 very quickly. 10... 9... 8... 7... 6... 5... 4... 3... 2... 1 ... BLAST OFF!

But ask them to count backward ten steps from 3,841 and see how long it takes.

COUNTING BACKWARDS IN TIME:

Now, with regard to the material on the WT chronology:

You are going to ask people to count backwards in time through some years in the BCE era.

In my experience, there are some people who would have to stop and think for a minute just to understand the previous sentence!

If I were going to present the K.I.S.S. material to someone who did not have much math background, I would remind them that when you count backwards in time in our modern era, you go from LARGER numbers to SMALLER numbers.

I would demonstrate with a few easy numbers. It's important for them to hear it as well as see it:

2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000.

I'd say it with the emphasis on the last digit:

Two-thousand-FIVE, two-thousand-FOUR, two-thousand-THREE ...

Then I might say:

"But when you count backwards through time in the years Before Christ (the era which is called B.C. or B.C.E.) you count from smaller numbers to LARGER numbers."

1 B.C., 2 B.C., 3 B.C., 4, 5, 6 B.C. ...

I'd put the stress on the number:

ONE B.C., TWO B.C., THREE B.C., 4, 5, 6 BC, etc. ...

"Now we're going to jump to the 500's B.C. (B.C.E.) and we're going to be counting backwards in time from 539 B.C.E., which is a very important date in WT chronology."

[At this point, you might consider saying something along the lines of: "539 B.C. is the year when the neo-Babylonian empire came to an end, when Babylon was captured by the Persians. According to the Bible, this took place on the night of Belshazzar?s feast, when the finger wrote the words on the wall, MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN." If you are dealing with someone who knows this Bible story, it will help him picture that this was the end of the Babylonian empire. Just keep it short. ]

Now demonstrate how to count backwards in time starting with 539 B.C. (B.C.E.):

539 B.C.
540 B.C.
541
542
543 ...

Say:

"Five-thiry-NINE B.C., Five-FORTY B.C., Five-forty-ONE, Five-forty-TWO, Five-forty-THREE ...

Remember, the numbers get bigger. Just as we counted 1 BC, 2 BC, 3, 4, 5, 6 BC, now we are counting 539, 540, 541, 542, etc."

Help them tie that together. It's easy to count 1 BC, 2 BC, etc., but, once again, when you jump to larger numbers, it's not as easy to process.

This should all be done with the tables of numbers in front of the person.

SAY the number and POINT to the number as you move down the list.

[Remember, this may all seem waaaaaay too easy and baby-like to all of you, but we are using the K.I.S.S. approach for people who may have math phobia, people whose eyes may glaze over when they hear the word "chronology".

Chances are, the person may be apprehensive about the presentation itself. They may be afraid that you are going to give them information they do not want to hear, that may conflict with what they believe to be the truth. All of this sets up an obstacle to comprehension, so you want to make it as easy as possible. There are valid reasons for SAYING the number, POINTING to the number, and REPEATING the counting sequence. ]

That about wraps up my thoughts on COUNTING.

In a day or so I hope to write up some thoughts about how I might do an oral presentation of the information on how long each of the neo-Babylonian kings reigned.

3... 2... 1... Good night!

Marjorie

• ##### Alleymom

Ian ---

Thanks for the "btt" which brought the KISS thread back.

Marjorie

• ##### GetBusyLiving

Alleymom, you are a Godsend to this board! Thanks so much!

GBL

• ##### Alleymom
Agree with all of the above. Have posted it at www.theWatchtower.org as well.

Many thanks, Nicolaou! And thanks for the credit to alleymom! Marjorie

• ##### Cygnus

Had a JW in yahoo chat the other day try to defend the 1914 chronology. He quoted the Insight book where it says historical scholars pin down the 539 date as the end of the Babylonian rule and when I asked him why do historical scholars also say 586/7 for the fall of Jerusalem and Zedekiah's death he said YOU CAN'T TRUST HISTORIAL SCHOLARS THEY ALSO SAY MAN EVOLVED FROM MONKEYS. Most JWs simply don't care and thats why a few years ago the WT said chronology is not the main reason we believe we're in the last days, Jesus' composite sign is. I think they themselves know it's indefensible.

• ##### Alleymom
Can Alleymom now be elevated to rockstar-like status? Can she be worshipped or just her kick-ass timeline research product? I think it needs addressing...

Robert-----

Positively roaring with laughter! I just HAD to send that comment to my sons and nephews!

Errrr .... I do hasten to add that NO, NO, NO you mustn't worship me!

I wouldn't want to end my career here with an Acts 12:23 ...

"And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost."

Smiles,

Marjorie

• ##### Alleymom
Quotes said: Be warned: as AlanF pointed out in the original thread, WT inconsistently claims there were missing kings and/or years to account for the missing 20 years. However, the WT material presented in the thread leaves no room for this nonsense; they make a strong case for the accuracy of the regnal dates and the succession of kings, and leave no room for adjustment (even by themselves). Then, right at the end of the research, the 18th regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar magically moves to 607 BCE instead of 587 BCE. Any missing kings or dates would have to disagree with WT's own authoritatively stated words in the above quotes. ("A house divided can not stand")

In my first message in the KISS thread, I said:

Note: Perhaps you are thinking, "But does the WTS agree with the list of the kings and the lengths of their reigns?" The surprising answer is YES! I recently bought a Watchtower Library 2001 CD and found quotations from WTS articles and books which show that the WTS itself has agreed with secular historians regarding the names and lengths of reign of the 5 kings listed below.

(There are also articles which try to dance around this, but the fact remains that in their own literature at various times they have agreed with the length of each king's reign. I will provide the quotations in my next post.)

The crucial article is the one from 1965. I have repeated asked Scholar (in other threads) whether or not he accepts the six statements in that passage as completely accurate.

He has refused to give me a direct answer. I'll go look up the most recent exchange we had and add a link.

Marjorie

• ##### Alleymom

The last exchange I had with Scholar regarding the accuracy of the 1965 WT article was in VM44's "Babylonian Business Records" thread.

Here's one of the messages from that thread:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/85117/1403036/post.ashx#1403036

Hi, Neil ---

Could you please tell me whether or not you believe the following information from the January 1, 1965 WT is accurate?

*** w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived *** Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months. Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar's favorite son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.

Thank you!

Marjorie Alley

Scholar replied:

Broadly speaking I exclaim Yes! YES! Why did you appeal to such an older Watchtower for this information? If you are a sincere person why do you not consult the Insight Volumes on information for those Babylonian rulers?

I am a sincere person. And I quoted from the Insight volumes in message #2 of the KISS thread back in 2003.

I did not do so this time because I wanted to know whether you believe the specific information I posted from the January 1, 1965 WT is accurate.

You replied: "Broadly speaking I exclaim Yes! YES!"

I am puzzled by the qualifier you have added. Does "broadly speaking" mean that you agree with most, but not all, of the information?

Is there a statement in that passage with which you disagree? If so, could you please tell me which one? I have numbered the statements for your convenience.

#1 --- Evil-merodach reigned two years

#2 --- and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar

#3 --- who reigned for four years ...

#4 --- [Neriglissar's] underage son Labashi-Marduk, a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months.

#5 --- Nabonidus, who had served as governor of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar's favorite son-in-law, took the throne

#6 --- and had a fairly glorious reign until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.

Are all six of these statements true?

Thank you,

Marjorie Alley

• ##### Dansk

This is the first thread I looked at this morning. Marjorie, you've done it again! Absolutely brilliant!!

Alleymom,