Jump to content
The World News Media

About This Club

News and discussion regarding JW.org, Watchtower, IBSA including current events and historical items of interest

Location

  1. What's new in this club
  2. @xero, I don't know if you are still interested in the question, but I figured out a way to arrive at the answer without making use of any astronomy. I started a thread where I was looking at starting from scratch and just using the Bible at first to figure out the relative chronology that the Bible gives, and using the Bible's synchronisms with Babylonian kings. Basically, you probably worked this same out for yourself already, based on statements in the Bible that say things like: the battle of Carchimish was in the 4th year of Jehoiakim the first year of Evil-Merodach was in the 37th year of Jehoiachin's exile etc. So I come up with the following, which makes no mention of any BC/BCE years, but still gives the relative points in time for Josiah's death at the end of his 18 year reign, Carchemish, Nebuchadnezzar's first year and last year, the beginning of Jehoiachin's exile, the beginning of Evil-Merodach's reign. I didn't have room to tie Manasseh's reign all the way back to it's beginning, but this becomes interesting when we learn that secular inscriptions show Ashurbanipal claiming to take tribute from King Manasseh. But we don't know how long Cyrus ruled, and how long Evil Merodach ruled and we don't know the exact number of years between his reign and Cyrus conquering Babylon. The test will require only 3 or 4 steps. The next step would make use only of the secular, clay business/contract tablets to fill in the known kings of Babylon over this same period shown above. That turns out to be fairly easy because there are thousands of them, and they interconnect and show the order of each king and the lengths of their reign, including their accession year. And then a third step will be to look at any other single inscription, or subset of the tablets, that might verify the record we would get from the overall set of Babylonian contract tablets. Turns out there are about 3 ways to do this, none of which will involve astronomy, or the need to identify any BCE dates. Then the fourth step, after the relative timeline is complete, just pick any ONE date you think is confirmed. Could be 539 BCE, could be the Watchtower's date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, could be a date for Josiah's death, or the fall of Nineveh. Just choose any source you think might be viable, because choosing any one will fill out the rest. Then you can check if the date chosen makes sense for the entire timeline.
  3. If the above claims of R.R.Newton were all true, it would have a devastating effect on the Watchtower's chronology for the events reported about 539 BCE. To avoid the admission that the 539 evidence also lands Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year on 587 BCE, the WTS is forced to ignore most of the evidence data that would easily confirm 539 BCE and instead specifically makes use of the supposedly "fabricated" eclipse from Kambyses 7, listed above. (Note that this is one of only 3 that Newton considers fabricated.) The term "may be fabricated" can also mean the same as "may be genuine" but Newton applies a different percentage of probability to that possibility. Note the use of this very eclipse from "Insight:" *** it-1 p. 453 Chronology *** A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. This tablet contains the following astronomical information for the seventh year of Cambyses II son of Cyrus II: “Year 7, Tammuz, night of the 14th, 1 2⁄3 double hours [three hours and twenty minutes] after night came, a lunar eclipse; visible in its full course; it reached over the northern half disc [of the moon]. Tebet, night of the 14th, two and a half double hours [five hours] at night before morning [in the latter part of the night], the disc of the moon was eclipsed; the whole course visible; over the southern and northern part the eclipse reached.” (Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon, by J. N. Strassmaier, Leipzig, 1890, No. 400, lines 45-48; Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, by F. X. Kugler, Münster, 1907, Vol. I, pp. 70, 71) These two lunar eclipses can evidently be identified with the lunar eclipses that were visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E. (Oppolzer’s Canon of Eclipses, translated by O. Gingerich, 1962, p. 335) Thus, this tablet points to the spring of 523 B.C.E. as the beginning of the seventh year of Cambyses II. Keep in mind of course that -522 is 523 B.C.E. But also note that while R.R.Newton actually does prove (to my satisfaction) that Ptolemy basically copied a lot of previous information without actually working out the math for himself. He gives himself credit for work that others had already confirmed before him, and in some cases proves his "fraud" by making the same mistakes that others made before him. He did not personally work out all the mathematics or observations found in Almagest. But only two of the eclipses above have any bearing on the discrepancy between Watchtower chronology and the standard chronology of the Biblical accounts. And usually, the only reason we (Witnesses) take much interest in chronology is to help understand the chronology of Biblical accounts. So the only two that are both highly questionable and related to the Biblical accounts are these, below, which he says are fabricated: -620 Apr 22 Nabopolassar 5 Fabricated -522 Jul 16 Kambyses 7 Fabricated Fortunately, we know that the second one was NOT "fabricated" because it's also on an old copy of a clay tablet from years prior to Ptolemy (as quoted in "Insight"). The "Insight" book is correct. One of the most thorough reviewers of the book said this about it: https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1980JHA....11..133M/0000134.000.html SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) Title: Book-Review - the Crime of Claudius Ptolemy Authors: Moesgaard, K. P. Journal: Journal for the History of Astronomy, Vol. 11, pp. 133-135, 1980 Bibliographic Code: 1980JHA....11..133M
  4. @George88 I understand your perspective on referring to certain individuals as authoritative figures who act oppressively. Professor Newton epitomizes this description. He dismissively claims that Ptolemy was essentially a fraud, suggesting we disregard all of his observations. It's clear how interpretations can distort the foundation of historical facts. I also appreciate the enclosure, which could indeed find the VAT 4956 tablet useful if we apply not merely the observations but certain claims and the date of the tablet itself. I also understand why you might find the language used here reminiscent of Carl Olof Jonsson. At least he dared to stand behind his identity before becoming an apostate, unlike another who, acting both cowardly and a clown, employed similar rhetoric regarding the 20-year gap in his presentation to the Watchtower. Robert R. Newton - The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy-Johns Hopkins University Press (1977) LUNAR ECLIPSES FOR WHICH PTOLEMY GIVES THE BABYLONIAN YEAR Date King Year Authenticity -720 Mar 19 Mardokempad 1 May be fabricated -719 Mar 8 Mardokempad 2 Fabricated -719 Sep 1 Mardokempad 2 May be fabricated -620 Apr 22 Nabopolassar 5 Fabricated -522 Jul 16 Kambyses 7 Fabricated -501 Nov 19 Darius 20 May be genuine -490 Apr 25 Darius 31 May be genuine Now let us see what happens to a modern historian or chronologist who studies Ptolemy's eclipse records. He sees that there is a list of kings and their reigns. He also sees that Ptolemy dates a lunar eclipse in the first year of Mardokempad, for example, on a certain month and day in the Egyptian calendar, t at a certain hour on that day, and he states the fraction of the moon that was shadowed during the eclipse. The historian uses Ptolemy's king list to find the year in our calendar and he uses the Egyptian month and day to find the complete date in our calendar. He then finds by astronomical calculations that there was an eclipse on that date, that it came close to the hour that Ptolemy states, and that the stated amount of shadowing is also close to correct. This agreement between Ptolemy The historian or chronologist naturally concludes that there is overwhelming evidence confirming the accuracy of Ptolemy's king list, and he proceeds to use it as the basis for Babylonian chronology. Yet there is no evidence at all. The key point is that there may have been no Babylonian record at all. Ptolemy certainly fabricated many of the aspects of the lunar eclipses, and he may have fabricated all of them. When he fabricated them, it did not matter whether he used a correct king list or not. Any king list he used, regardless of its accuracy, would seem to be verified by eclipses. p.374 If we operate under this assumption, it would allow anyone to input any date and time to achieve their desired outcomes, effectively rendering the results counterfeit. Under such a premise, modern software could be deemed obsolete by Newtonian standards, facilitating the manipulation of "facts" by individuals aiming to distort them for personal gain and disseminating their flawed agenda to the masses. I think I like Newton, lol! However, in addressing this sad professor's assertions, I question whether his conviction pertains to the validity of the King's List or the lunar eclipse observation associated with a particular monarch. Ptolemy's Canon places Nabopolassar's reign between 625 and 605 BC; hence, the relevance of a lunar eclipse observation in 620 BC to Nabopolassar's reign is unclear. In light of contemporary astronomical data, Ptolemy's account could be inaccurate by one year, yet this discrepancy allows room for interpretation when distinguishing between an accession year and a regnal year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_of_Kings However, if we embrace this controversy, we must also accept it for all historical records, including those inscribed on parchments and clay tablets and interpreted through modern translations, since it makes no distinction. I believe Newton discarded logic and common sense in an attempt to establish his reputation, a downfall you suggest affects many seeking recognition. This includes authors, undisciplined bloggers with an abundance of time, and promoters of division and conflict. This unidentified individual, who corresponded with the Watchtower in the year 2000, not only referenced Newton but also, with authoritative audacity, demanded the retraction of Ptolemy's kings list from their publications. Ironically, this clown also employs the language of the 20-year gap, just as it's demonstrated here, frequently. It's unlikely that this correspondence is associated with Jonsson, as he typically had no issues with self-identification, and it is probable that he was already disfellowshipped at that point. In contrast, this clown did. "It is true that secular historians generally date the destruction of Jerusalem and the beginning of the Babylonian captivity at 586 or 587 B.C.E., and we do not hide this fact. But we do challenge the veracity of their evidence for producing this date. The appendix to chapter 14 of the book "Let Your Kingdom Come," which you have referred to, discusses this matter in some detail. Of course, our understanding of the chronology involved is guided by God's Word, which is very specific about the time involved and what would occur during that time. (2 Chronicles 36:20-23; Jeremiah 25:8-11; Daniel 9:2) Therefore, we believe the chronology we present is in harmony with Biblical timing rather than somewhat problematic secular dating that disagrees with the Scriptures, as explained in the "Kingdom Come" book. Pages 461 to 466 of Insight on the Scriptures, Volume E, also provide some background for this chronology. Additionally, the section "Chronology" beginning on page 447, as well as "Appointed Times of the Nations, on pages 132 to 1.35, covers these subjects in depth. This date of 586 B.C.E. is by no means as well attested to as the pivotal date of 539 B.C.E. for the overthrow of Babylon. Given the pivotal date of 539 B.C.E. and the subsequent release of the Jews in 537 B.C.E., then, with the clear Biblical references to a seventy-year period of desolation of Jerusalem, we are brought to the date of 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem's destruction. A principal source for accepting the date 586 B.C.E. is the second-century Greek scholar Claudius Ptolemy. Recently, Robert R. Newton of Johns Hopkins University offered proof that many of Ptolemy's observations were "deliberately fabricated." Scientific American magazine noted that "Ptolemy's forgery may have extended to inventing 1he lengths of reigns of Babylonian kings. Since much modern reconstruction of Babylonian chronology has been based on a list of kings that Ptolemy used to pinpoint the dates of alleged Babylonian observations, according to Newton *all relevant chronology must now be reviewed and all dependence on Ptolemy (king) list must be removed."-Issue of October 1977, page 80. Thus, as to the difference in approximately 20 years between the Bible's chronology and that based principally on secular evidence, we choose to be guided primarily by God's Word. As the Kingdon Come book on page 189 comments: "Hi seems evident that the easiest and most..." In summary, no one here is interested in learning; their only goal is to gather more information to deepen their criticism of the Watchtower, which ultimately will be judged by God.
  5. Or… as Abraham Lincoln once said, “ Never trust any historical dates you get from the Internet”.
  6. I have no expectation that my posts should matter to anyone. But I should make clear that I don't assert that 587 BCE is "correct," only that all the available evidence, so far, points to 587 BCE as 18th year of the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar. I'll leave it to the Bible to assert whether anything significant is associated with Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign. And I would say the same for 539 BCE as the year Cyrus conquered Babylon. I don't assert that 539 BCE is "correct," only that all the available evidence, so far, points to 539 BCE as the accession year of Cyrus over Babylon. Of course, since this is about the preponderance of evidence, it is also good to point out that, compared with 539, there is at least 10 times the evidence for 587 being the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar. As to 612 BCE for the Fall of Nineveh, I couldn't say it's correct either. But I do know that the best evidence does show that 612 BCE is the 14th year of Nabopolassar's reign. They offer a certain convenience, but I still don't think we really need to know any of the BCE dates. They can't be determined without astronomy anyway. Were the apostles supposed to learn astronomy or trust in someone else's claims about astronomy to understand Bible prophecy? It's like someone in service once said about the King James Version Bible: "If it was good enough for Saint Paul, it's good enough for me."
  7. Speaking of humor. I like this guy and I learned some things at the same time.
  8. How do other religions that justly adhere to the "law of nature" differ in their practices, and what significance does a beard and dress code have in this context? I can comprehend how heretics, such as certain Orthodox followers in Russia, might suspend their worship of God to appease a murderous dictator. However, fundamentally, those religions that adhere to scripture correctly, if one can indeed find such, stand apart. Therefore, the challenge is, how to remove the "law" from scripture, and from reasonable human beings. LAW 1. The "Law of Nature" is the will of God relating to human actions, grounded in the moral difference of things, and, because discoverable by natural light, obligatory upon all mankind (Rom 1:20; 2:14,15). This law is coeval with the human race, binding all over the globe, and at all times; yet, through the corruption of reason, it is insufficient to lead us to happiness, and utterly unable to acquaint us how sin is to be forgiven, without the assistance of revelation. This law is that generally designated by the term conscience, which is in strictness a capacity of being affected by the moral relations of actions; in other words, merely a sense of right and wrong. It is the judgment which intellectually determines the moral quality of an act, and this always by a comparison with some assumed standard. With those who have a revelation, this, of course, is the test; with others, education, tradition, or caprice. Hence the importance of a trained conscience, not only for the purpose of cultivating its susceptibility to a high degree of sensitiveness and authority, but also in order to correct the judgment and furnish it a just basis of decision. A perverted or misled conscience is scarcely less disastrous than a hard or blind one. History is full of the miseries and mischiefs occasioned by a misguided moral sense. (from McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia)
  9. No. We’re about to throw him out of there, too, and into the open club. That’s nothing. You should see how bad he gets when he’s challenging ME!
  10. When the same principle was applied in ancient times by the Apostles and then by Paul to the various congregations, why was it deemed necessary to remind the congregation of where their loyalty should lie, and whom they should serve? You seem to give the impression that the Bible lacks importance merely because it holds no personal significance to you. What does Scripture say about such people and this particular mindset? lol!
  11. JWs have always had and will continue to have, as can be seen from everything, problems to harmonize the so-called "biblical principles", "lists of rules" and "bible-trained conscience". Basically, it turns out that it's best for JWs "to stick" to what GB says, because that way they won't "make mistakes" and won't "stumble" anyone. lol
  12. You have demonstrated, JWI, that your perspective aligns more with personal apostasy, catering only to the closed club of like-minded individuals, and those who have been disfellowshipped for frivolous reasons. Your recurrent attempts to distort the truth, especially when confronted with your errors in challenging me, highlight a stubborn resistance to acknowledgment. The judgment of our discourse's merit lies with the public, not within the biased confines of your fellowship, which, regrettably, has separated from the guiding principles of the Watchtower, despite your previous association as a Bethelite. Your words or posts have never mattered to me because your assertion of 587 BC will always be incorrect, even by secular standards. Should you fail to provide evidence to the contrary, it reflects poorly on your integrity rather than on the validity of the facts presented in a coherent story that even a six-year-old could understand. Nevertheless, you seem aware of this and yet persist in trying to divert attention from your erroneous perspective, attempting to persuade others that your stance—akin to arguing with a phantom—is of greater significance. How amusing!
  13. He’s mine. We manipulators in the closed club drew straws for him, and I won.
  14. I think I did speak to the actual reason. I mentioned that you must have thought this was about the best you could do in finding fault. And in that attempt you utterly failed, and actually showed COJ to be 100% correct. So the actual reason, I must assume, is that you have an unrequited desire to find fault, and this has frustrated you to the point where you merely throw up anything and hope it sticks. In this case you show that COJ was correct about something (years 12 to 16 missing) and say that this is wrong because the chronicle stops at 11 and picks up again at 17. In other words, you are simply showing that COJ was absolutely correct: that 12 to 16 are missing. Then you went ahead and embarrassed yourself by proving him right, quoting his exact words: You highlight that the supposed problem where COJ mentioned that the portion containing the words for 17th year is damaged. His wording here is perfectly in line with scholars, and the WTS accepts the exact same thing. In other words, the Watchtower Society agrees with COJ here. Note: COJ: “. . . and the portion where the words for "seventeenth year” no doubt originally could be read, is damaged." p.102 Now the agreement with the WTS publicaitons. Here is "Insight" making the same point: *** it-2 p. 459 Nabonidus *** It may be noted that the phrase “Seventeenth year” does not appear on the tablet, that portion of the text being damaged. This phrase is inserted by the translators because they believe that Nabonidus’ 17th regnal year was his last. So they assume that the fall of Babylon came in that year of his reign and that, if the tablet were not damaged, those words would appear in the space now damaged It is becoming more clear why genuine scholars have had only good things to say about COJ's work, and no genuine scholars have said anything about it being flawed in any aspect. You yourself have just shown it to have been careful and accurate. even in the one spot where you had hoped to point out a mistake. Therefore, I do believe your real concern is that "deep down" you probably know it is accurate and are just lashing out aimlessly.
  15. Actually, I have never seen a person who worked so hard to prove someone wrong, but at the same time, inadvertently confirm that what I have been presenting here is relatively accurate -- so far. Given time, and given the amount of effort you evidently put into finding fault, I assume that someday you really will find something that I am presenting incorrectly, and then I'll be able to learn something useful from it and make the necessary correction. In the past, under other names, you've presented some resource material I hadn't seen before, and I found it very interesting. I'm a patient person. Happy to keep waiting for something useful again. Even if it means putting with all those lies and nonsense from you about banning persons. I'm also happy for the entertainment value, and revelations about human nature, etc. Even if you don't come through again. I have no interest in banning you, nor do I even know for sure if I have that authority as an assigned moderator. If I do have that ability, I have never used it.
  16. Indeed, your distorted perception is peculiar. However, as usual, you focus on the incorrect aspects by manipulating the context or making unwarranted additions, much like a subpar researcher. This is a feeble attempt to undermine my post, resulting in a disappointing outcome. I encourage you to present to the public the actual reason for my inclusion of 12-16 in my remarks. Carl Olof Jonsson wrote about it, even though the tablet clearly states the 11th year and the 17th year, not referring to 612 BC as you claim. Are you dismissing his words while simultaneously defending him vehemently? Is this the diversion you're aiming for? I guess I'll post that part you forgot to include. The Gentile Times Reconsidered -- Jonsson, Carl Olof -- 4th ed., rev. and exp, 2004 "The last chronicle (B.M. 35382), the famous Nabonidus Chronicle, covers the reign of Nabonidus, who was the father of Belshazzar. This chronicle unfortunately is damaged. The portion covering Nabonidus’ twelfth year to his sixteenth year of rule is lacking, and the portion where the words for “seventeenth year” no doubt originally could be read, is damaged." p.102 Nevertheless, we have the option to review whatever remains from the seventeenth year under Grayson. Additionally, one could regard the statement from COJ as dubious. Shall we? https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-7-nabonidus-chronicle/ Of course, in my opinion, COJ's work is fundamentally flawed in every aspect. I could even argue that he, his research, and his book are a mockery and an insult to genuine scholars. Have you reached the point where you're considering banning me, as you have done with many others in the past while claiming that I have multiple accounts like those individuals? lol!
  17. That's odd. You find something accurate in COJ's book and then declare it inaccurate. You make me wonder if you have ever found anything inaccurate in COJ's book anywhere. Not that it matters, but have you actually ever found an inaccuracy in COJ's book? If that feeble attempt was any indication of the "best you could do" to find something inaccurate, it comes across as an admission that perhaps COJ's entire book is also accurate. Maybe, as a challenge, you could find something that really is inaccurate, and if you can't find it and produce it here, I will just assume that "deep down" you believe his book is accurate and you are only flailing against it out of some kind of temper tantrum, or something like that. Something like the way you keep making up false information about me.
  18. I'm sure you recall that I never denounced Raymond Philip Dougherty. But I would also not use his works to support the destruction of Nineveh in 612 BCE. Besides here is what Dougherty said about Nineveh: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/008910332 Archives from Erech, 1923 That was his writing in 1923. It was common during the late 1800's and early 1900's to assign the capture and destruction of Nineveh to 606, the year before Carchemish. Evidence from the Nabopolassar Chronicles ("Fall of Nineveh") changed the view to Nabopolassar's 14th year, even though the tablet is not perfectly explicit about exactly what happened then because there is a lot of damage to the tablet at that point where the 14th year would be found. But 6 years later, he wrote: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015004069087&seq=164&q1=612 I never denounced him. And i never used him to support 612 BCE. But I think you already knew that. I used the astronomical evidence for the years of Nabopolassar's reign, and tied that to the strong probability that the "Nabopolassar Chronicle" is referring to Nineveh as the destroyed city in his 14th year of reign. I couldn't care less about Dougherty himself, though. There is no "certainty," it's just a matter of working with what is usually considered "best evidence" so far, but always ready to adjust if even better evidence comes along.
  19. There is good evidence that the original was recorded much closer to the actual time of the events being chronicled. Copyists/scribes/scholars were making copies of the tablets as they became too worn out or cracked. The British Museum in the Assyria section has a display of an actual tablet library which shows how they stored the tablets much like we would store books on a bookshelf, complete with the edge marked with the "title" of the tablet, so they could be kept in order. Similar to VAT 4956. But they were as fragile as iPhones, and would have to be recopied when they cracked. You are reading too much into my use of the term BCE/BC. I never opposed it. I only said I preferred the Watchtower's reasons for using BCE instead of BC.
  20. It seems that the individual now favors the use of BC, despite previously opposing it. I have no issue with employing BC, even though the ancients couldn't have linked it with "Before Christ" or "Before the Common Era," as they could not have foreseen that modern calculations would transition to "Anno Domini" or "Common Era." Therefore, I concur with the Watchtower's stance on historical chronology. When were the tablets first recorded, and what additional information did newer scribes incorporate into previously documented tablets? If the original tablet was damaged, to what extent did scribes rely on interpretative translation to restore its content? The Babylonian Chronicles are a good example that consists of tablets that were most likely recorded during the time of Darius. However, that individual previously denounced the works of Raymond Philip Dougherty as flawed, yet now embraces them to support the destruction of Nineveh in 612 BC, quite the turnaround. However, in A.K. Grayson's translation of ABC-7 (BM 35382), the inscription ceases in Nabonidus's 11th year and resumes in his 17th year. This contrasts with the Chronicles of Early (COJ) assertion, which inaccurately assigns the period as years 12 to 16. The question arises: Without relying on the tablet itself, how is Nabonidus 14 calculated to correspond to 612 BC? In this case, I accept the advice of "Brinkman" and "Glassner." Now scholars like "Beaulieu" reference the works of "Parpola" but he does mention the lack of the Neo-Babylonian period in Nineveh. "Unfortunately, research on the Neo-Babylonian period is often hampered by the aridity of the sources. Building inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian rulers seem opaque and lifeless when compared to Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions and annals, which, despite their partiality and the need to use them cautiously, provide a chronological sequence of events and a wealth of information on NeoAssyrian political and military history. Research on the Neo-Assyrian period is further enhanced by the partial survival of the state archives of Kalhu and Nineveh, invaluable sources for the political structure of the Sargonid empire. The lack of equivalent source material for the Neo-Babylonian period—only a handful of documents have been discovered in the remains of the royal palace at Babylon—means that the political history of the Neo-Babylonian empire remains an enigma to historians. Nevertheless, a few areas for future research likely to produce outstanding results can be delineated." Therefore, I fully support the Watchtowers chronology that begins in 4026 BC with that of the secular chronology that starts in 4004 BC.
  21. Yes, you don't have to look hard to know I ignore fools, Pudgy, lol! Isn't it fascinating when Pudgy starts denying any involvement in the banning process, only to enable it through an alternate persona? lol!
  22. I would never suggest blocking or banning The Vicar of Warwick, Wally McNasty and his doppelgänger minion troupe of whack-a-mole up and downvoting mute sock puppets. It could only be better with recorded squirrel noises and rubber bulb bicycle horns in both hands.
  23. Can I just check if both of you have blocked me or just this identity? You really should write a book someday. Wow. I’m speechless.
  24. @Miracle Pete Thank you for participating. I've now added both you and Pudgy to my "Ignore" list, haha!
  25. It's rather amusing to observe how individuals such as Pudgy, Tom, JWI, Many Miles, Xero, or members of the closed club are compelled to support apostates here through alternate accounts. Quite humorous, indeed! In this case, it appears you are Pudgy's or Many miles, maybe even Tom's sock puppet as they like to refer to it, and since you have posted it, PROVE IT, don't just make accusations, lol! Please refrain from engaging in verbose rhetoric, discussing login, timing, or infringing upon others' privacy rights, as done by moderators like JWI as proof. Let's avoid any further nonsense if that intent is going to be applied. This type of behavior typically emerges right before they expel someone, primarily because they cannot tolerate being proven wrong. They resorted to using sock puppets for hurling insults, and carrying out their malicious deeds. Consequently, they deceive people by claiming that no one has been banned due to their actions, which is not only false but also an outright lie. So, I'll just block you right now, you can speak with your other self at will.
  26.  




  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

    • e.garcia

      e.garcia 4

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Janice Lewis

      Janice Lewis 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Donna Mosteller

      Donna Mosteller 1

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • larryjohnson

      larryjohnson 42

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Wolf T

      Wolf T 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.