Leaderboard

@BTK59 ( @George88 ) ( @BillyTheKid-55 ) ( @Allen Smith ) ( @AllenSmith35 ), etc., etc., etc., etc. -- and @Pudgy ( @James Thomas Rook Jr. ), I once got in trouble from an Admin here for revealing that @TrueTomHarley was from Rochester, based on the assumption that I had used a moderator's ability to read I.P. addresses. I got out of trouble by showing that TTH had himself made posts claiming he was from Rochester. It is considered very bad forum etiquette to reveal information or attempt to reveal personal information about a forum participant that isn't something they bring up about themselves. If it is specifically to reveal something negative, it is clearly malicious. Because it also goes against the rules of the forum, BTK59 and his cohorts might end up getting banned. I don't want to see BTK banned, for all the reasons I've stated before: Banning is meaningless on a forum like this one, because anyone can come back under a different name. Banning is a form of shunning, which can have serious and unintended psychological consequences. Banning can involve erasing all of a person's writing here, into which they may have put a lot of time and research. Banning a person who shows signs of maliciousness and viciousness and paranoia usually will motivate the person to come back only to seek vengeance on everyone they think was involved in their "excommunication" or "disfellowshipping" from the forum. In practice that has meant attacks on persons who were not even interested in the matter. So, for these reasons, I recommend the following so that BTK and cohorts are not banned. I recommend that the posts related to the malicious attempt to expose personal legal issues and troubles be removed. I will remove all related posts within 24 hours, unless both parties to this matter request that they remain.

At the mid-week meeting we had the Bible reading that included Psalm 26. We also sang song #34. It's a very beautiful melody, even though I have other favorites. What I like most about the song is that it follows the Psalm very closely. It's a good reminder that the words of the original Psalm 26 were also sung, even though we don't know the original melody. But the tune and music we use seem very appropriate for the tone of the Psalm itself. Last week, of course, we had this for the 23rd Psalm, too. And I think the same about that melody and how appropriate it is to the words of the Psalm.

Here is the material for weeks of April 22-28 and April 29- May 5, 2024.. tb Meeting Workbook and CBS week of APRIL 22-28, 2024.doc Meeting Workbook and CBS week of APRIL 22-28, 2024.pdf Meeting Workbook and CBS week of APRIL 29–MAY 5, 2024.doc Meeting Workbook and CBS week of APRIL 29–MAY 5, 2024.pdf Watchtower April 22-28, 2024.doc Watchtower April 22-28, 2024.pdf Watchtower April 29, 2024–May 5, 2024.doc Watchtower April 29, 2024–May 5, 2024.pdf Additional Highlights -APRIL 22-28, 2024.doc Additional Highlights -APRIL 22-28, 2024.pdf Additional Highlights -APRIL 29–MAY 5, 2024.doc Additional Highlights -APRIL 29–MAY 5, 2024.pdf

It doesn’t matter. No matter what the topic is or where it is, it always boils down to a squabble with George.

He even says he drives a Subaru: I’ve never heard a Tucker excerpt I didn’t like. That said, I haven’t heard too many. None of those other people do I know. In the early days of Covid, however, I forwarded a Joe Rogan interview with Dr. McCullough to HQ, hoping that if they found it as informative as I did, they would overlook Joe’s explosion of profanity towards the end. Probably, I put myself on their radar screen as much as you during your recent visit, during which they said to themselves, “What is it this politician would like to tell?” Others: “He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign deities.”

My overall point is that most Witnesses I know in the United States are very political and don't even know it. Often much more political than their neighbors who vote. There are certain limits to what we will say about our political views, but I think we don't recognize that those political views often come out inadvertently in other ways. In fact, I've seen strong political views among Witnesses who only use the line "we don't take sides in politics" when they wish to shut down an argument they disagree with. My parents and many relatives were of the type that said they wouldn't be fooled by all the lies and exaggerations from MS-NBC supposedly on the "progressive left." Nor the lies and exaggerations from FOX News on the supposedly "conservative right." But that didn't stop them from being fooled by thinking that CNN was not mostly "state-sponsored media" that would cherry-pick stories now and then to keep up the ruse that they weren't. As long as they continued to support corporate sponsors, including "Big Pharma" and "Big Military Industrial Complex," it was clear what side they were going to take. And although Trump was golden to all networks for his ability to spout controversy, one of his biggest sins for CNN was the fact that he went 4 years without getting the USA involved in any new wars. We were watching CNN once, not on purpose, and although many segments were introduced with "Brought to you by Pfizer" one was introduced "Brought to you by McDonnell-Douglas." As if any of us watching were about to go out and buy McDonnell-Douglas fighter jets and missiles for accessories. Of course, even the segments brought to you by Pfizer weren't really for any of us to be swayed in our pharmacy choices, either. As with all corporate media, those ads are really just payments to CNN; they are all just a way for corporations to PAY (bribe) the news writers and commentators to realize on which side their bread is buttered. They are merely buying influence. ---- All this was probably just my own rationale to excuse my own tendency to throw in opinions about politics, politicians, and the mainstream corporate media. There are no easy answers to how someone should go about getting their news, or how to feed their own opinions. But I would be happy to hear about the various sources people use when trying to find the "truth" about various world events.

Here is the material for weeks of April 8-14 and April 15-21, 2024. TB Watchtower WEEK OF April 8-14, 2024.pdf Additional Highlights -APRIL 8-14, 2024.doc Additional Highlights -APRIL 15-21, 2024.doc Meeting Workbook and CBS week of APRIL 8-14, 2024.doc Meeting Workbook and CBS week of APRIL 15-21, 2024.doc Watchtower April 15-21, 2024.doc Watchtower WEEK OF April 8-14, 2024.doc Additional Highlights -APRIL 8-14, 2024.pdf Additional Highlights -APRIL 15-21, 2024.pdf Meeting Workbook and CBS week of APRIL 8-14, 2024.pdf Meeting Workbook and CBS week of APRIL 15-21, 2024.pdf Watchtower April 15-21, 2024.pdf

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.

You got me curious, since I honestly had never even skimmed this portion of COJ's book. I noticed a footnote, on the same page you pointed to, about the famous eight-UK-clergymen December 1917 Manifesto, from their "prophets" conference. This manifesto has been referenced in the WTS publications several times. *** nc pp. 20-21 pars. 36-37 When All Nations Collide, Head On, With God *** Dr. G. Campbell Morgan, Dr. F. B. Meyer, and six other well-known clergymen of England, issued a Manifesto, which was republished throughout the earth and which declared: 37 “(1) That the present crisis points toward the close of the times of the Gentiles. . . . (5) That all human schemes of reconstruction must be subsidiary to the second coming of our Lord, because all nations will then be subject to His rule. . . .”—Current Opinion, for February 1918. I had already seen this same referenced Manifesto nearly 10 times in different WTS publications. But I had never realized that these "Gentile Times" were not really about 1914, but more specifically about the events of 1917. I hadn't noticed that the context in the WT about the 2520 years, really had nothing to do with this "Gentile Times" manifesto, because it was really more about the supposed fulfillment of the 1,260 days (years) of Revelation 11, which J.A.Brown had predicted 90 years earlier for 1917. (J.A.Brown never connected the 7 times, or 2,520 years, with the Gentile Times.) So I looked up the phrase "present crisis points toward the close of the times of the Gentiles" in Google. Mostly it came back with Watchtower Library and jw.org links. And I found a lot of links that showed other religions had used the same Manifesto to show that their prophets were just as good or better (Mormons) and other religions used it to show just how useless and irrelevant those predictions had already become. But the most curious use of the manifesto was from Rutherford, who used it as "proof" that the world noticed the "beginning of the end of the world" in the 1920 book "Millions Now Living Will Never Die," page 40. Rutherford quoted from the Manifesto, and had only good things to say about these particular preachers. He called them honest and faithful and good, as compared to so many other clergymen: Even then, in 1920, it was rare to hear a good word about another preacher from Rutherford. But did he really think they were good, or did he change his mind about them? A TALE OF TWO FCC's [The Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Council of Churches] Well, I checked another link, this time to the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, which printed the entire speech of Rutherford in 1926, here, page 339. The speech follows the same logic and context of the 1920 "Millions" book treatment, still pointing out the Zionist fulfillment of prophecy. But this time he points out that "these very distinguished men who signed the manifesto have vehemently spoken against present truth and the Lord's kingdom." https://www.google.com/books/edition/Federal_Communications_Commission/UAwvAAAAMAAJ What is his evidence of the signers of the above showing vehement opposition to "present truth" since then? It is that a different group of clergymen, who did NOT sign the above manifesto, had signed on to the proposal for the U.S. to join the League of Nations. So in January 1919, the executive committee of the Federal Council of Churches, had made a "blasphemous" statement in that proposal about the League of Nations, hoping it represented a means to peace in the world: The proposal was drafted by the executive committee of the FCC, and by December 1919 had become a petition to send to the U.S. Senate, where it failed. The proposals even contained wording that might remind you or Rutherford's own words about war. This is found in "Internationalizing the Social Gospel: The Federal Council of Churches and European Protestantism, 1914-1925 Author(s): Ralph L. Pearson" But, naturally, Rutherford doesn't admit that the Watchtower itself had offered the same optimistic idea about the same League of Nations, following some of the same wording of the FCC: One month after the statement of the FCC in January 1919, the February 15, 1919 Watchtower spoke in similar terms: “We cannot but admire the high principles embodied in the proposed League of Nations, formulated undoubtedly by those who have no knowledge of the great plan of God. This fact makes all the more wonderful the ideals which they express. For instance, it has been made plain by President Wilson and the advocates of his ideas that the proposed League of Nations is more than merely a league to enforce peace. They would not have us consider it to exclusively from the standpoint of politics or of military relations. It should be considered as fully from the economic and social points of view. The President’s idea seems to be that the League of Nations which he proposes would stand for world service rather than mere world regulation in the military sense, and that the very smallest of nations shall be participants in its every arrangement. In other words, his idea undoubtedly is that the league shall not be established merely for the purpose of promoting peace by threat or coercion; but that its purpose, when put into operation, will be to make all nations of earth one great family, working together for the common benefit in all the avenues of national life. Truly this is idealistic, and approximates in a small way that which God has foretold that he will bring about after this great time of trouble.” — Watch Tower, February 15, 1919, p.51 [Reprints page 6389].

A brilliant analysis, TrueTom. Absolutely spot-on! Of course, all of your posts are and I have come to expect no less of you.

I think we can take Geo Jackson’s words as a template. ‘You don’t want to take sides,’ he says, and to show the challenge of keeping neutral, he uses the example of contesting politicians in Australia, one of whom wanted to draft people of Jackson’s age into the military and one of whom did not. Now that would test your resolve to stay neutral, he said, nonetheless you must do it. If he was as ignorant of politics as some seem to think is the gold standard, he would not have even known which politician’s views would be to his benefit and which one would not. Of course, I leaned into him on this point, informing him that: I’m sure he gave my words all the consideration they deserved before instantly turning his attention to other matters.

Well, whose fault is that? Next thing, you will be calling me a cult leader for having manipulated you into spilling it. It is not shocking to be informed, though neither is it a sin to opt out. One firebrand brother on X stated emphatically, straight out of the blue, “Jehovah’s Witness are NOT INTERESTED in politics!” Well, actually some of them are, I told him. ‘I think what you are looking to say is that they do not take sides. ‘They are NOT INTERESTED IN POLITICS!’ he roared back and then blocked me.

I always get confused when a Subaru comes up behind me because in my rear view mirror it says U R A BUS.

It’s amazing how people like Joe Rogan have become better than most modern journalists. I’d listen to him more but his show is too long for me and I need a summary first. I met Dr Peter McCullough in Tampa when he was staying directly across from my wife and I in our hotel room. My son and I talked to him in the lobby briefly. I am not quite as impressed with him now that he has tried some questionable methods to turn his own work into a money-making machine. But Rogan and McCullough were both very good sources about Covid. I am more and more impressed with Tucker on the majority of his current shows: Putin, covid, exposing the idiocy of Christian Zionist supporters, etc He is going where no man with his popularity has gone before. Alexander Mercurion is another example of the best news commentary on the Ukraine war but he is too detailed and will give a two hour program on the day's battles and predictions and comment on both sides of the news reports. You get a much better sense of who is doing more spinning and who is doing more straightforward reporting. It's useful, or at least interesting, but who can give 10 hours a week? Scott Ritter does well with shorter summaries on shows with Danny Haiphong for example. But his own super-pro-Russian biases come through too often. There are a couple of excellent resources for Gaza-Israel reporting from people who have lived and worked in both Palestine and Israel. But people tend to defend the indefensible even if they are generally giving correct info. They try to read excuses into bad actions by Hamas. Scott Ritter does this too.

Just once I’d like to see a Pharma ad in which the actors, rather than acting out the touted benefits of the drug, instead act out the side effects of the voiceover—gasping, clutching their throats, turning blue, hair falling out, doubling over, dropping dead, straining on the toilet to ‘go’, swiveling about in dizziness.

Here was the general conversation, skipping a part where I had just explained how 30,000 Palestinians, largely women and children, had been killed, and the majority of major news outlets were still equivocating about whether Israel had gone too far. But when half-a-dozen mostly "white" aid workers were killed, suddenly Nancy Pelosi (friend of the aid organization founder), Joe Scarborough, Elizabeth Warren, and a bunch of others turn on a dime to stop giving Israel a free pass -- embarrassing their own man Biden. THEM: Well, anyway, we don't take sides about literal Israel, and we don't discuss political sides of who supports whom. ME: But that last part is just information, even history. THEM: History is one thing but the Bible says don't speak against the King. What's that it says in Ecclesiastes? (Ecclesiastes 10:20) . . .Even in your thoughts, do not curse the king, and do not curse the rich in your bedroom; for a bird may convey the sound, or a creature with wings may repeat what was said. ME: Yeah. That's where we get the expression: "a little birdie told me." Basically, it means that someone on Twitter will turn you in. Or all the government agencies will be listening in on Twitter. THEM: Very funny. You mean "X." ME: Yeah, but they still call them "tweets." THEM: But still we don't take sides, we don't even say anything against any ruler, whether he's good or bad. We only pray that they make decisions that are good for us. ME: I don't think it's wrong to say something against a ruler. Don't you think Hitler was a bad ruler? THEM: But he's not a king now is he? He's dead. ME: I mean even when he was alive. THEM: Well, of course, because he was attacking Jehovah's people. ME: But it would have been wrong to say he was bad while he was attacking millions of Jews? THEM: [changing subject] But look how respectful Paul was talking to Felix, he never said a word against him. ME: Maybe not, but Luke tells us he was probably looking for a bribe. That's pretty negative. ME: continuing . . . And Jesus called Herod a fox. THEM: Well maybe he was "foxy" -- "crafty" not always a bad thing. ME: You don't believe that . . . and even if it was a good thing, then Jesus was taking sides. THEM: Anyway . . . it's wrong.

The last time I was here, they were more ambiguous about taking pictures and sharing them with friends, so I literally took a picture of just about everything and I even posted a set of pictures here. But this time they give stricter unambiguous instructions about the personal and family use of pictures taken, even when you can take a still picture vs a video. And the instruction is now explicitly that they cannot be shared on any social media platform. Sorry. The 4 "museums" at Warwick are still about the same as before. With a few updates and a few older things cut out. The Bible museum is still the best. Probably the best of its kind anywhere. There is a separate segment on the use of the Divine Name in Bible translations, and it's very good. There are several bits of interactive equipment that were working perfectly in 2018 and 2019 but are now giving trouble. For example, touchscreens that take your input about all kinds of things, such as whether you have worked on a WTS construction project, or which book you studied in preparation for baptism [e.g., Let God Be True, What Does the Bible Really Teach, Truth that Leads to Eternal Life, Paradise ...Regained, etc.] and then it gives statistics on many of these things for everyone to see. [e.g. 68% of all visitors this week have worked on a WTS construction project, etc.] One thing that bothered me a bit was the reduction of material in a special "Watchtower History" museum that had a lot of pre-1919 information about the persecution mostly starting with the 1917 Finished Mystery book. They changed the name and now start it mostly in 1919. And then cut out a large percentage of interesting stuff. Also, they have the big wall-sized "Chart of the Ages" in one of the rooms highlighting Russell's early work. And another wall-sized chart called "Bible Chronology" that Russell's early followers also used in their meeting places. Those charts have the dates on them -- even if some of those dates appear to be embarrassing today. But now there is a new "Chart of the Ages" I have never seen before in the Patterson museum on a similar historical subject but it seems like the dates have been removed. The chart is still titled "CHART OF THE AGES" and the museum label below it says: How was the training provided [in Russell's time]? The "Chart of the Ages" was used as the primary basis for practice talks. It's evidently a wall sized blow-up of a page from one of the publications, because it still has the pictures of the pyramids on it, but on the chart itself, in says in fine print (on the side): "For Explanation see The Plan of the Ages published by Bible and Tract Soc'y, Brooklyn N.Y." Also odd that they left out the word "Watchtower," just Bible and Tract Society. I could be wrong, but it looks like it was edited to remove the embarrassing dates that are on the large one at Warwick. If I remember, I'll look it up unless someone here already knows if there was a "generic" chart of the ages.

lol. Why do you think I’m attracting attention to this forum through their internet network right after making a donation?

I'm not surprised about anything any more. When I see the scope of the evil that humans have brought to life on this planet I'm at a loss as to why Jehovah hasn't ended this nonsense a long time ago. I can no longer even imagine a series of events which would lead me to conclude that the end was something I should be expecting, as in the manner normal humans have as to expectations. All I can say is that the end will happen at an unexpected time, which could mean that my expectations based on events have to be thoroughly exhausted and then when it is no longer even possible to expect anything, then the end will come. But I say hasn't this already come to pass for many, many thousands upon thousands of people besides me and my puny thoughts? So even if I might contingently be exhausted as regards my expectations, then the end isn't anything contingent on anything any one of humanity might be expecting.

You should not post such things in the open club. Try the closed club, where every sort of riff-raff abounds.

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."

He’s mine. We manipulators in the closed club drew straws for him, and I won.

Perles spirituelles - Semaine du 25 Mars - Psaumes 22.docx Perles spirituelles - Semaine du 25 Mars - Psaumes 22.pdf Perles spirituelles (10 min) : Psaume 22 Psaume 22:22 : Cite deux façons d’imiter le psalmiste à notre époque (w06 1/11 29 § 7 w03 1/9 20 §1) « Je veux annoncer ton nom à mes frères ; au milieu de l’assemblée, je te louerai.» Aujourd’hui, comme par le passé, des dispositions sont prises pour que chaque croyant puisse exprimer sa foi “ au milieu de la congrégation ”. Une possibilité s’offre à tous, celle de répondre aux questions posées lors des réunions. Ne sous-estimons jamais l’effet de ces commentaires. Par exemple, en montrant comment surmonter des problèmes ou les éviter, nous renforçons la détermination de nos frères à suivre les principes bibliques. En expliquant des passages de la Bible simplement donnés en référence ou en mentionnant des idées trouvées au cours de nos recherches, nous encourageons les autres à de meilleures habitudes d’étude. - w03 1/9 p20 §1 Il existe des façons concrètes de montrer du respect pour nos réunions. L’une d’elles consiste à être présent pour le chant des cantiques du Royaume. Les paroles de beaucoup de ces chants sont des prières et doivent de ce fait être chantées avec révérence. Citant le Psaume 22, l’apôtre Paul a attribué à Jésus ces mots : “ Je veux annoncer ton nom à mes frères ; au milieu de la congrégation je veux te louer par des chants. ” (Hébreux 2:12). Dès lors, nous devrions prendre l’habitude d’être à notre place avant que le cantique ne soit annoncé et de chanter en nous concentrant sur le sens des paroles. Que notre façon de chanter manifeste les sentiments du psalmiste qui a écrit : “ Je louerai Jéhovah de tout mon cœur dans le groupe intime des hommes droits et dans l’assemblée. ” (Psaume 111:1). Oui, chanter les louanges de Jéhovah est une très bonne raison d’arriver en avance à nos réunions et de rester jusqu’à la fin. - w06 1/11 p29 § 7 Chante de tout cœur. Quand nous chantons des cantiques, c’est avant tout pour louer Jéhovah Quelles perles spirituelles as-tu tirées de la lecture de la Bible de cette semaine en rapport avec Jéhovah, la prédication ou un autre sujet ? Le Messie semblait abandonné par Dieu. (Psaume 22:1 « Mon Dieu, mon Dieu, pourquoi m’as-tu abandonné ? Pourquoi restes-tu loin, sans me sauver, loin de mes cris de détresse ? » Marc rapporte : “ À la neuvième heure [3 heures de l’après-midi], Jésus cria d’une voix forte : ‘ Éli, Éli, lama sabaqthani ? ’ ce qui, traduit, signifie ‘ Mon Dieu, mon Dieu, pourquoi m’as-tu abandonné ? ’ ” (Marc 15:34). Jésus n’avait pas perdu foi en son Père céleste. Il savait que Dieu lui retirerait Sa protection au moment de sa mort et que son intégrité serait ainsi pleinement mise à l’épreuve. En reprenant les paroles de Psaume 22:1, Jésus a accompli la prophétie. Nous pourrions parfois nous demander si Jéhovah écoute nos prières. Cela a même été le cas de certains de ses fidèles serviteurs du passé comme David (Ps. 22:2 « Mon Dieu, pendant le jour, j’appelle sans relâche, mais tu ne réponds pas ; pendant la nuit, il n’y a pas de silence chez moi ». Qu’est-ce qui peut te convaincre que Jéhovah répondra à tes prières Il promet d’écouter nos prières. Jéhovah réfléchit à la manière dont nos demandes se rapportent à son objectif général. Jéhovah peut répondre de différentes manières à des demandes similaires. Jéhovah nous soutiendra toujours et il veillera à ce que nous ayons la force de rester intègres. – TG2023/11 p21§3 Psaume 22:1, 2 « Mon Dieu, mon Dieu, pourquoi m’as-tu abandonné ? Pourquoi restes-tu loin, sans me sauver, loin de mes cris de détresse ? 2 Mon Dieu, pendant le jour, j’appelle sans relâche, mais tu ne réponds pas ; pendant la nuit, il n’y a pas de silence chez moi » - Pourquoi David a-t-il pu avoir l’impression que Jéhovah l’avait quitté ? David subissait une telle pression de la part de ses ennemis que ‘ son cœur est devenu comme de la cire et qu’il a fondu tout au fond de lui ’. (Psaume 22:14.) Peut-être lui a-t-il semblé que Jéhovah l’avait abandonné. Sur le poteau, Jésus a éprouvé les mêmes sentiments (Matthieu 27:46). Les paroles de David expriment la réaction d’un humain dans une situation désespérée. Cependant, la prière qu’il a formulée en Psaume 22:16-21 montre clairement qu’il n’avait pas perdu sa foi en Dieu. Il est intéressant de noter que Jésus a cité un extrait de ce psaume avant de mourir sur le poteau de supplice. En demandant “pourquoi?” il exprimait l’intensité des tensions auxquelles il était soumis, et il affirmait en même temps qu’il était innocent des fausses accusations qu’on avait portées contre lui pour le mettre à mort. Jésus n’avait pas perdu foi en son Père céleste. Il savait que Dieu lui retirerait Sa protection au moment de sa mort et que son intégrité serait ainsi pleinement mise à l’épreuve. En reprenant les paroles de Psaume 22:1, Jésus a accompli la prophétie – TG2006 15/5 p18 Nous rencontrons tous des problèmes. Par exemple, peut-être qu’un membre de notre famille nous a déçus d’une façon ou d’une autre. Peut-être que nous avons de graves ennuis de santé qui nous empêchent de servir Jéhovah autant que nous le voudrions. Ou peut-être que nous sommes persécutés en raison de nos croyances. Face à ce genre de difficultés, il peut nous arriver de nous demander : « Pourquoi est-ce que cela m’arrive à moi ? Ai-je fait quelque chose de mal ? Est-ce que cela veut dire que je n’ai plus l’approbation de Jéhovah ? » T’es-tu déjà posé de telles questions ? Si oui, ne te décourage pas. Beaucoup de fidèles serviteurs de Jéhovah ont eux aussi été troublés par ce genre de questionnement comme David Psaume 22:1, 2 « Mon Dieu, mon Dieu, pourquoi m’as-tu abandonné ? Pourquoi restes-tu loin, sans me sauver, loin de mes cris de détresse ? Mon Dieu, pendant le jour, j’appelle sans relâche, mais tu ne réponds pas ; pendant la nuit, il n’y a pas de silence chez moi » Jéhovah nous encourage à penser avant tout au magnifique avenir qui nous attend, à la vie dont il veut que nous profitions pour toujours et que nous connaîtrons bientôt. En attendant, il nous aide à aller de l’avant jour après jour - TG2023/4 p14§2 Peu avant de mourir, Jésus a crié : « Mon Dieu, mon Dieu, pourquoi m’as-tu abandonné ? » (Mat. 27:46). La Bible n’explique pas pourquoi Jésus s’est exprimé ainsi. Mais voyons ce que ces paroles nous apprennent. Tout d’abord, en les prononçant, Jésus a réalisé la prophétie que l’on trouve en Psaume 22:1 « Mon Dieu, mon Dieu, pourquoi m’as-tu abandonné ? Pourquoi restes-tu loin, sans me sauver, loin de mes cris de détresse ? » Jésus avait compris que son Père permettait que ses ennemis lui fassent subir les pires épreuves — des épreuves qu’aucun autre homme ne subirait jamais. Enfin, ces paroles confirmaient qu’il n’avait commis aucun crime qui méritait la mort. Quelles leçons pouvons-nous tirer des paroles de Jésus ? Une première leçon est que nous ne devons pas nous attendre à ce que Jéhovah nous protège de toutes les épreuves. Comme Jésus, nous devons être prêts à rester fidèles même si notre vie est menacée. Bien sûr, nous savons que Dieu ne permettra pas que nous soyons éprouvés au-delà de ce que nous pouvons supporter. Une autre leçon est qu’il peut nous arriver de souffrir alors que nous n’avons rien fait de mal. Si certains s’opposent à nous, c’est parce que nous ne faisons pas partie du monde et que nous défendons les vérités bibliques, et non parce que nous avons commis quelque chose de mal. Jésus comprenait pourquoi Jéhovah permettait qu’il souffre. Par contre, d’autres serviteurs fidèles de Jéhovah se demandent parfois pourquoi ils subissent des épreuves (Hab. 1:3). Mais Dieu est miséricordieux et patient. Il sait qu’ils ne manquent pas de foi ; ils ont simplement besoin du réconfort que lui seul peut apporte TG2021/4 p11§9,10 Jéhovah nous accorde sa direction de plusieurs façons, et nous avons tout à gagner à la suivre. À propos de l’époque où la nation d’Israël s’était montrée fidèle, le roi David a déclaré : “ En toi nos pères ont eu confiance ; ils ont eu confiance, et tu les faisais échapper. Vers toi ils ont crié, et ils s’en sont tirés sains et saufs ; en toi ils ont eu confiance, et ils n’ont pas eu honte. ” Psaume 22:3-5. Si nous suivons la direction de Jéhovah en toute confiance, nous non plus nous ‘ n’aurons pas honte ’. Notre espérance ne sera pas déçue. Si nous ‘ roulons notre voie sur Jéhovah ’ au lieu de nous appuyer sur notre propre sagesse, nous serons abondamment bénis, et ce dès à présent. Si nous persévérons fidèlement, ces bénédictions seront même éternelles. David a écrit : “ Jéhovah aime la justice, et il ne quittera pas ses fidèles – TG2008 15/4 p11§19 David avait prophétisé que le Messie essuierait des insultes. (Psaume 22:7, 8 « Tous ceux qui me voient se moquent de moi ; ils ricanent et secouent la tête en signe de dérision : « Il s’en est remis à Jéhovah. Qu’il le secoure ! Que Dieu le sauve, puisqu’il lui est si cher ! » Jésus a été insulté tandis qu’il souffrait sur le poteau de supplice. Témoin les paroles de Matthieu : “ Les passants se mirent à parler en mal de lui, hochant la tête et disant : ‘ Ô toi qui voulais démolir le temple et le bâtir en trois jours, sauve-toi toi-même ! Si tu es un fils de Dieu, descends du poteau de supplice ! ’ ” Les prêtres en chef, les scribes et les anciens se sont eux aussi moqués de lui, disant : “ Il en a sauvé d’autres ; il ne peut pas se sauver lui-même ! Il est Roi d’Israël ; qu’il descende maintenant du poteau de supplice et nous croirons en lui. Il a placé sa confiance en Dieu ; qu’Il le délivre maintenant, s’Il veut de lui, car il a dit : ‘ Je suis le Fils de Dieu. ’ ” (Mat. 27:39-43). Jésus a enduré cette épreuve avec dignité. Quel magnifique exemple pour nous ! – TG2011 15/8 p15 “Lorsqu’une mère entoure de soins les enfants qu’elle nourrit”, ils sont sécurisés, ils se sentent aimés - Psaume 22 :9 « Tu es Celui qui m’a fait sortir du ventre, Celui qui m’a rassuré quand j’étais sur les seins de ma mère » Peu de mères résistent au besoin impérieux de consacrer de nombreux soins à leurs enfants. . La mère joue donc un rôle important dans le développement affectif des enfants. Il n’empêche que le père joue également un rôle important dans ce domaine. Il est dès lors essentiel que les pères chrétiens veillent à entretenir des liens d’amour avec leurs enfants – TG1994 15/7 §6,7 Dans les temps bibliques, Jéhovah a pris soin de nombreux jeunes, qui sont devenus ses amis. Une bonne éducation doit commencer aussi tôt que possible, dès la première enfance. Parce qu’il avait été éduqué très tôt, David put dire dans un de ses psaumes: “Sur toi [Jéhovah] j’ai été jeté dès la matrice; dès le ventre de ma mère tu as été mon Dieu.” (Ps. 22:10). Jéhovah peut aider aussi nos enfants à grandir spirituellement, si c’est ce qu’ils désirent. Même si nos enfants semblent s’éloigner de la vérité, sois sûr que Jéhovah gardera un œil bienveillant sur eux . Il peut te donner la sagesse de dire la bonne chose au bon moment, c’est-à-dire au moment où tes enfants ont le plus besoin de l’entendre. Ou il peut pousser un frère ou une sœur à s’intéresser à eux avec beaucoup d’amour. Même une fois qu’ils sont adultes, Jéhovah peut leur rappeler une pensée biblique que tu leur as enseignée. En continuant de former nos enfants, que ce soit par nos paroles ou par notre exemple, nous donnerons à Jéhovah quelque chose à bénir. – TG2022/4 p21§18 Qu’a dit Jésus ? (Jean 19:28 « Après cela, quand Jésus sut que désormais toutes choses s’étaient accomplies, afin que le passage des Écritures se réalise, il dit : « J’ai soif. ». Pourquoi Jésus a-t-il dit : « J’ai soif » ? C’était « afin que le passage des Écritures se réalise ». Le passage dont Jean parle, c’est la prophétie de Psaume 22:15 : « Ma force s’est desséchée comme un tesson de poterie ; ma langue colle à mes gencives. » Mais en plus, après tout ce qu’il avait subi, comme ces abominables souffrances sur le poteau de supplice, il devait bel et bien avoir soif. Il avait besoin qu’on lui donne à boire. Quelle leçon pouvons-nous tirer des paroles de Jésus ? Jésus ne considérait pas qu’exprimer ce qu’il ressentait était un signe de faiblesse. Nous devrions l’imiter dans ce domaine. Nous n’aimons peut-être pas faire part de nos besoins aux autres. Mais il arrive des moments dans la vie où il ne faut pas hésiter à demander de l’aide. – TG2021/4 §11-12 Des sentiments négatifs ont tourmenté de fidèles serviteurs de Jéhovah à toutes les époques. Êtes-vous accablé de difficultés, tandis que vos compagnons semblent profiter de la vie, insouciants et heureux ? Pensez-vous alors que vous n’avez pas l’approbation de Jéhovah et que vous ne méritez pas son attention ? Ne tirez pas trop vite ce genre de conclusions. La Bible nous donne en effet cette assurance : “ [Jéhovah] n’a ni méprisé ni eu en dégoût l’affliction de l’affligé ; il ne lui a pas caché sa face, et quand il a crié au secours vers lui, il a entendu. ” (Psaume 22:24). Ces paroles, qui se sont réalisées sur le Messie, attestent que Jéhovah ne se contente pas d’entendre ses fidèles, mais qu’il les récompense – TG2005 8/1 §2 Jéhovah voit souffrir ses serviteurs, qu’il aime tant. Jéhovah est un Dieu compatissant. Il a de la peine quand il nous voit souffrir, que ce soit à cause de la persécution, de la maladie ou de nos défauts (Psaume 22:23, 24 « Vous qui craignez Jéhovah, louez-le ! Vous tous, descendants de Jacob, glorifiez-le ! Révérez-le, vous tous, descendants d’Israël. Car il n’a eu ni mépris ni dégoût pour la souffrance de l’opprimé ; il n’a pas détourné son attention de lui. Quand l’opprimé a crié au secours vers lui, il a entendu ». Il ressent notre douleur ; il veut la faire disparaître, et il le fera. Un jour, « il essuiera toute larme de [nos] yeux, et la mort n’existera plus ; il n’y aura plus ni deuil, ni cri, ni douleur » (Rév. 21:4). – TG2021/7 p10§10 Psaume 22:27 annonce l’époque où “toutes les familles des nations” s’uniront au peuple de Jéhovah pour louer Dieu. Aujourd’hui, une grande foule internationale adore Dieu aux côtés des frères de Jésus (Révélation 7:9). Il nous faut rester attachés à cette organisation divine – TG1986 15/8 p21

Here is the weekly material for weeks of March 25-30 and April 1-4-7, 2024. TB Additional Highlights -APRIL 1-7, 2024.doc Additional Highlights -MARCH 25-31, 2024.doc Meeting Workbook and CBS week of APRIL 1-7, 2024.doc Meeting Workbook and CBS week of MARCH 25-31, 2024.doc Watchtower April 1-7, 2024.doc Watchtower March 25-31, 2024.doc Additional Highlights -APRIL 1-7, 2024.pdf Additional Highlights -MARCH 25-31, 2024.pdf Meeting Workbook and CBS week of APRIL 1-7, 2024.pdf Meeting Workbook and CBS week of MARCH 25-31, 2024.pdf Watchtower April 1-7, 2024.pdf Watchtower March 25-31, 2024.pdf

Do you understand English along with your fan base? Why do you persist in distorting the Watchtower articles like any other apostate? 1950_Awake In this book the author sets forth the novel theory that millenniums ago a skyroving comet the size of the Earth was cast out from Jupiter's molten mass; that this comet almost collided with the earth and Mars on several occasions; that finally this wandering offspring of Jupiter found an orbit of its own around the son and has since been known as the planet Venus. Throughout the book the attempt is made to prove that when this comet passed within the vicinity of the earth it caused the great catastrophes that befell this globe in times past. Out of the ancient folklore of Arabia, India, China, Tibet, North and South America, and Scandinavia, from accounts found on ancient Egyptian papyri and Babylonian tablets of clay, as well as the record contained in the Bible, links of circumstantial and direct evidence are connected together to make a binding chain for supporting the theory. The intention behind the Watchtower article does not seem to embody kindness or generosity, as far as I can tell. It is imperative that you cease your behavior and confine your foolishness to the confines of the closed club. The question, then, is what theory they used, with reference to Immanuel Velikovsky's book, not the Watchtower.

I didn't expect the 1950 Awake! article to be as supportive as it was. The entire article gives him the benefit of the doubt, right up to finally including a statement that it includes speculation and unproven ideas. Here is the first part, and I have included the conclusion above.

Yeah, you probably are still cowering in the basement from Orson Wells reading War of the Worlds. Lions and tigers and Martians—oh my.

But you seem to forget that NO ONE relies on VAT 4956 as authoritative evidence. It's just one part of a puzzle made up of at least 50,000 pieces of evidence. And all 50,000 pieces just happen to consistently fit with all the other pieces of evidence. And all 50,000 pieces mitigate against the WTS publications' timeline of Nebuchadezzar and the other 5 Neo-Babylonian kings. It's the sum total of several completely independent lines of evidence --at least a dozen independent lines, where the 50,000 business tablets is counted as only one of those lines of evidence. It's not about any ONE piece of evidence for the Neo-Babylonian timeline. But most people would think it's akin to a game of foolishness to think of Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky as providing authoritative evidence, as you have referenced him above. I have the book "Worlds in Collision" on the shelf behind me and I have skimmed it. You can verify in the May 8, 1950 Awake!, page 27,28, that his ideas were wildly speculative and completely unsupported by evidence. *** dx30-85 Worlds in Collision *** WORLDS IN COLLISION book by Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky: g50 5/8 27-28 [moved to the end of the post] That article was overly generous to him because he tried to support Biblical miraculous events with cosmic events in our solar system. Wikipedia gives a good summary of his ideas, some of which were published in "Worlds in Collision" some in "Ramses II and His Time," etc. The causes of these natural catastrophes were close encounters between the Earth and other bodies within the Solar System — not least what are now the planets Saturn, Jupiter, Venus, and Mars, these bodies having moved upon different orbits within human memory. To explain the fact that these changes to the configuration of the Solar System violate several well-understood laws of physics, Velikovsky invented a role for electromagnetic forces in counteracting gravity and orbital mechanics. Some of Velikovsky's specific postulated catastrophes included:[citation needed] A tentative suggestion that Earth had once been a satellite of a "proto-Saturn" body, before its current solar orbit. That the Deluge (Noah's Flood) had been caused by proto-Saturn's entering a nova state, and ejecting much of its mass into space. A suggestion that the planet Mercury was involved in the Tower of Babel catastrophe. Jupiter had been the prime mover in the catastrophe that saw the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Periodic close contacts with a "cometary Venus" (which had been ejected from Jupiter) had caused the Exodus events (c. 1500 BCE) and Joshua's subsequent "sun standing still" (Joshua 10:12–13) incident. Periodic close contacts with Mars had caused havoc in the 8th and 7th centuries BCE.

The closed and open club.

Imagine, then, that approved association with Jehovah's people MUST include acceptance of a mix of secular chronology and "Bible" chronology!! *** w86 4/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers *** Approved association with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses. What do such beliefs include? . . .That 1914 marked the end of the Gentile Times and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the heavens, as well as the time for Christ’s foretold presence. *** w83 1/1 p. 12 par. 5 The Kingdom Issue to the Fore! *** Properly, then, the ending of the Gentile Times in the latter half of 1914 still stands on a historical basis as one of the fundamental Kingdom truths to which we must hold today. Rather than: (2 Timothy 3:15-17) . . .. All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

World Wide 2024 Declare the Good News! Sample Convention Invitation Letters and Telephone Scripts World Wide 2024 Declare the Good News! Sample Convention Invitation Letters and Telephone Scripts.pdf

I pay $20 a month to OpenAI to play with their 4.0+ version of ChatGPT. It's not really an expense because I still do some remote consulting for a tech company in Ohio. Today, I decided to try out its ability to draw pictures on demand. I wanted a picture of a man about to curse because he just hit his thumb with a hammer, and I want his wife, to put her fingers in the "ears" of their pet parrot, so that the parrot doesn't pick up any bad words to repeat. So here goes: Prompt: I need a New Yorker style cartoon containing man hammering a nail in the wall and accidentally hitting his thumb. At the same time a woman, presumably his wife, is standing next to a tall perch where a parrot appears oblivious and she, the wife, is putting her fingers in the ears of a parrot. Not terrible, but it didn't get the right idea about the parrot's ears being covered. So I try again:

It's time to ignore those people and their distractions. Let's refocus on making constructive observations. In certain instances, I concur with "Thiele" regarding the need for chronological adjustments concerning the Babylonians and Judeans, particularly in using the Nisan calendar for references in the Bible and the "autumn calendar" for the other. Variations in timing, even if only by months, and in some cases by a year, may occur depending on when a scribe commenced the chronicle or if any errors were made by copyists due to missing pieces in original or copied tablets, leading them to make judgment calls. It also agrees with "Kitchen's" observation on calendars. The same can be said about who and how ancient scribes used their interpretation of seasons and the stars to make calculations. In some cases, even the kings had an influence. You can also observe a similar discrepancy in the Battle of Megiddo. This particular author suggests that it occurred in 609 BC, while others place it in 608 BC. Can I confidently assert that this individual is mistaken, spreading falsehoods, and lacks knowledge, much like an authoritative thug? Absolutely not! I am unaware of the research undertaken by this person or the documents they may have examined or accepted as factual. However, when someone draws conclusions based on flawed research, deliberately restricting or selectively choosing their sources, it is appropriate to challenge such nonsensical claims. Such a case is Carl Olof Jonsson's research. The same theory holds true for ancient historians and scholars as well. While they may have had other reference sources for their work, much of that information has been lost over time. Now, we are faced with newfound knowledge. However, this does not diminish the validity of information from the past. If I were to have a negative mindset, I might assert that the author's description of Megiddo in 609 BC is false, and wrong, as a shameless thug. However, is it? ABDULLAH OCALAN Hamma Mirwaisi · 2020 - Page 83 "In 609 BCE at the Battle of Megiddo, an Egyptian force defeated a Judean force under King Josiah and managed to reach the last remnants of the Assyrian anny. In a final battle at Hanan in 608 BCE, the Babylonians and Medes defeated the Assyrian-Egyptian alliance, ending its existence as an independent nation. Still supporting the Assyrians, another Egyptian force was sent in 605 BCE, which met with failure at Carchemish in the same year. Whether Ashur-uballit II was killed at Harran or Carchemish, or even if he survived the battles is not known, but nothing more has been discovered about him. One hundred and seventeen years later, Assyria made a final attempt to regain independence with a large-scale rebellion against the Achaemenid Empire in 482 BCE, but King Darius lI suppressed it. " On the contrary, some argue that the battle occurred in 608 BC, resulting in the fatal injury of King Josiah. However, it is important to note that this hypothesis would need comprehensive research to validate its accuracy. [History of the Jews - 6 volume _6] Graetz, Heinrich - History of the Jews (1898, Cosimo, Inc.) "Hardly had Necho and his army reached the middle of the plain of Jezreel, than the army of Judah barred his way at Megiddo. The Egyptian king, it is said, assured Josiah that his campaign was not directed against the land of Judah, but against more distant territories. Notwithstanding this, Josiah compelled him to do battle. The result was disastrous to the king of Judah, for his army was beaten, and he himself was dangerously wounded (608)." Edgar Thorpe, Showick Thorpe - The Pearson General Knowledge Manual 2016-Pearson Education (2015) "Battle of Megiddo 608 bce Necho of Egypt and Josiah of Judah; Egyptians victorious." Now back to Nineveh, I found this fellow who claims Nineveh was destroyed in 613 BC, and he's not alone. This person also has a book called Norway's Peace Policy: Soft Power in a Turbulent World 2014, lol! Genocide, mass atrocity, and war crimes in modern history_ -- Taulbee, James Larry, Volume 1, 2017-Page 2

Me: Draw a normal human response of a person monitoring George 88 and JWI going at it for days and days in the open club over some point of chronology that neither yields an inch on. ChatGBT: Okay, I’ve considered your request and I believe the following fills the bill

Well, I suppose it’s okay for the open club but I wouldn’t put it in the closed one.

This site is clearly designed to cater to false witnesses and apostates, and it's important for people to be aware of this. That's your loyal fan base in the closed club. If it weren't for apostates and the disfellowshipped, where would you or he find yourselves? lol! If you are using "AI," I suggest you use it correctly.

Your assertion is only proof of your misconceptions and lack of understanding regarding secular history. Your subtle insults are just as noticeable as anyone's straightforward responses of nonsense when you persist in your deceitful ways to win over your ignorant audience. Visitors should embody a different mindset than dissatisfied witnesses such as yourself. If you strongly disagree with the Watchotwer, it might be best to part ways with it. You are free to depart at any time, and it is unnecessary for the organization to have a Pharisee in its midst, for God does not require it. Be careful not to mistake the truth for insults, as some people here are accustomed to doing. This is why people like you often ban others because the truth can be painful. God feels equally pained when individuals like you mislead others and steer them away from His path, causing His flock to go astray. Who do you believe would gain God's approval more readily? Your counterargument appears to be a smokescreen, masking your inability to defend the falsehoods you have presented.

LOL again. I know that you have opinions that I don't accept as true, and I have opinions that you don't accept as true. But that's no reason to rely so much on the ad hominem as your primary response. We see this type of behavior from you on any point where it can be shown that you claim was wrong, or that you misunderstood something you read. You've already done it whenever a false claim you have made is countered by someone else. I found about 10 such items of misinformation just on the first page of this topic. But you don't merely disagree, or claim that I have misunderstood. Instead, you go right for the name-calling: "he's a chronic liar" "he's a friend of apostates" "he's considered by some to be a false prophet." Obviously it does no good to point out errors to you. If the error is subtle or requires a more complex explanation you usually just deny and give fairly low-key insults. But when the error is easy to spot, and blatant and obvious to anyone, you appear to double down on the insults and ad hominem speech to a much higher degree. Case in point. Here's a recap of just that one minor point about the Battle of the Eclipse: You claimed: "Remember By retracing your steps, you will arrive at the epic 'Eclipse War' that occurred in 589/8 BC." I responded that the battle of the eclipse did not occur in 589 but [if it's truly based on a solar eclipse], then it's identified as May 28, 585 BC:. [I'm sure that doesn't seem like such a big deal, but I mentioned it because I know why you specifically chose the year 589 and I wanted to discuss that choice in a separate post.] I also gave possible dates if it had been confused with a lunar eclipse. (Personally, I think the war and this particular battle happened and so did a total solar eclipse in 585, but I don't trust that Thales actually predicted it. It's the kind of thing that a story could easily be made about after the fact. But that's not pertinent to the point here.) Instead of acknowledging that the term "Eclipse War" or "Battle of the Eclipse" was indeed most likely named after a solar eclipse in 585 per MOST historians, and perhaps offering an explanation as to why you chose to highlight 589 as a possibility, you decided to go with the ad hominem insults and attacks. You said: That I was indulging in childish games. [FALSE]. That I was referring to Rawlinson's interpretation. [FALSE] That I was selectively choosing items to inaccurately oppose. [FALSE] That I was simply making an uninformed assertion. [FALSE] That YOU, George88, can also demonstrate that the battle took place on September 30, 610 BC [FALSE] That it does not seem to be inherent in my genetic makeup to have an honest debate. [FALSE] So, I picked one of the two false claims from above that doesn't look like an ad hominem. I picked the one where you falsely claim that you can demonstrate that the battle took place on September 30, 610. It was obvious that you can't because the very person who had attempted that date admitted that it was a mistake, a "worthless" date, and he was one of the first to realize that the date in 585 was the one that actually fit the historical situation. And even you admitted that the dates for this war primarily included the years 590 to 584. I can see how that particular mistake could be embarrassing: you making a false claim about a date that was long debunked by the very person who came up with it. But when you make a more blatant mistake that anyone can understand (just by reading a paragraph or two) you tend to always go even more wild with the accusations, insults and ad hominem attacks. So instead of trying to explain the mistake you went with the following: That I engage in consistent deceit and twisted storytelling. [FALSE] That I hypocritically persist in distorting the truth. [FALSE] That I pretend that any honest researcher opposing me would succeed [FALSE ????] That I'm a chronic liar who is unwilling to change. [FALSE] That I have spent a significant amount of time fabricating facts [FALSE] That I can't bear the fact that my false claims don't stand up to scrutiny on an academic level. [FALSE] That I am nit-picking the dates. [TRUE, for a specific reason I'll explain later] That I can't stand the fact that my famous astronomical tablets from 568 BC can be used to reflect those other conflicts not just my false narrative of Jerusalem. [FALSE on multiple levels] That I consistently manipulate the facts, manipulating dates that have no relevance just to support my version of events. [FALSE, again, on multiple levels] I point this out as hopefully useful counsel to you. I don't expect you to ever admit a mistake here, and that's OK. That's a "given" with your history here. But I'm not the only person here to have noticed that when your error is easier for anyone to understand, the more you double down on the insults and false claims about the person who points it out, with little to no effort to address the points made, or issues raised. And by the way, I realize I have made many mistakes here. I try to fix them as I learn more about the topics, but some of mine have also been embarrassing. But that's a part of how I learn. I put an opinion out there and those who know better can correct it. I would appreciate any corrections even from persons where I would heretofore have expected no more than a litany of insults.

Me: I like the black and white version better, and the parrot should be back on a perch which should be just like the first picture you drew, but with the pole a bit shorter so that the women is just slightly taller than the perch, and can more easily put her fingers at each side of the parrots head, but touching the parrots head at each side so it appears that she is trying to stop the parrot from hearing

Me: Keep the same picture, but have the woman holding the index finger of each hand at both sides of the parrot's head as if she is trying to cover the parrot's ears to keep the parrot from hearing whatever the man is saying. I've adjusted the scene according to your instructions. The woman is now holding her index fingers at both sides of the parrot's head, attempting to cover its ears. Not quite. So I try again:

Your consistent deceit and twisted storytelling, JWI, are truly laughable. We are discussing the conflict between Babylon and Egypt, which took place around 589/588 BC or 588/587 BC. The Eclipse War, also known as the Halys War, began around 590 BC and may have ended around 584 BC. This individual hypocritically persists in distorting the truth and pretending that any honest researcher opposing him would succeed, even though he is evidently facing defeat. At this point, it seems that he is renowned for his skill in manipulating words and is considered by some to be a false prophet.

You're absolutely right. JWI has become too distracting, making it difficult to have an honest debate. It does not seem to be inherent in his genetic makeup. I am considering using "Xero's" insightful words about people who have nothing meaningful to say in this situation. lol!

I dunno. From this perspective it appears that glue could not stick to them any tighter.

George/BTK/Alphonse, Don't worry about responding. I'm just presenting a perspective on some of the things you said for the benefit of others who might be interested. No they are not. Not even one of the 13 readings of VAT 4956 indicates the commencement of any specific kings' reigns. Secular history does not record the burning of the temple. Bible history tells us that this happened in the 18th or 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. So far, without a direct reference to the burning of the Jewish temple in any surviving or discovered Babylonian Chronicles, all the secular evidence can tell us is that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE, and that his 19th year was 586 BCE. (And that his 37th year was 568 BCE.) It makes no sense to say that because the temple was burned down in 588 BCE that there is some "cycle" to follow that makes clear that the destruction of Judah, including Jerusalem happened 19 years earlier, in 607. The only known astronomical cycle that is about 19 years long is the Metonic cycle, and it is never used to shift a date by 19 years, Also, it is not exactly 19 years so you can't even use it to claim that lunar positions seen 19 years earlier or later would be the same. People don't confuse lunar readings from other points on the 19-year cycle because they don't match. Besides, most opposers of the tablet evidence, like Furuli, have tried to move the date exactly 20 years, for which there is no known cycle. <PTW> The only opposers of the tablet data I know of are Furuli, the Watchtower Society, and a person online who presents himself online as Jesus Christ, the Messiah, although he appears to also present himself as transgendered. </PTW> Velikovsky is very wrong about this. The Babylonian Chronicles for one attribute quite a lot of historical content directly to Nebuchadnezzar for his first 10 or 11 years. And many of the temple inscriptions contain historical content, and there are thousands of secular tablets that contain bits of history about others during his reign that are recorded in terms of the specific years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. The "brick"on its own doesn't prove that. But thousands of other bricks along with astronomical data and links to similar data linked to the Neo-Babylonian kings and others for the next several hundred years do indeed prove that his reign started in 605 and the 37th year was 568 BC. I don't consider evidence as "proof" but it this brick, as you say, "proves" that his 37th year is 568, then it PROVES that his 18th year is 587 BCE. I hope others understand this. True, but it would then provide evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year is 587 BC. Then it just becomes a matter of whether you trust these particular verses in the Bible. (Jeremiah 32:1, 2) . . .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. At that time the armies of the king of Babylon were besieging Jerusalem. . . If as you say, the "Brick" provides evidence that Nebuchadnezzar, in his 37th year, in 568 BC, took part in a significant battle, then you have just admitted that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BC, and that his 19th year was 586. If you believe the Bible, then you are saying that Nebuchadnezzar burned the temple of Jerusalem in 586 BC. (2 Kings 25:8-10) . . .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. 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.  And the walls surrounding Jerusalem were pulled down by the entire Chal·deʹan army that was with the chief of the guard. So your claim about 568 as year 37 puts you in agreement with all the living Babylonian historians you have ever quoted in your entire life. All of them would say that if 568 is his 37th then 586 is his 19th. Therefore, it also puts you in agreement with COJ.

It no longer holds true since it has been demonstrated that the evidence in question is not relevant. Apostates are now attempting to distort the narrative when they did rely on it in the past, such as the COJ. The 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar can indeed have significance, but it should not be limited to your incorrect assumption that it represents 587 BC. By recognizing the consistent 19/8 cycle which you deny, we can also interpret it as 607 BC. Twisting words and making false presentations to create a senseless argument is nothing short of foolishness. It would be disappointing if the closed club continues to engage in such behavior. There are numerous publications and reference books available that we can utilize, instead of selectively cherry-picking references to support our unfounded claims. The topic here is: Uncovering Discrepancies in Secular History Not what your false narrative thinks about the Watchtower's 20 years. Keep that in the closed club where it belongs. Or you can argue it in Xero's topic. Hence, that reference book is perfectly aligned with the themes of the narrative, since I'm presenting the discrepancy with the destruction of Nineveh in 608 BC, not what the reference book says, or you think about what it says about the destruction of Jerusalem in the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar in 629 BC.

Even if you deny it, you still adhere to it as your constitution. How can someone who claims to be a righteous clergyman and yet behaves like a Pharisee still be seen as trustworthy and sincere? There are many individuals here who strongly embody that statement. Bringing up the reference book "Millions Now Living Will Never Die" is nothing more than empty talk with no real significance. How do your previous posts relate to the 1914 closing of the Gentile Times, apart from criticizing Rutherford, a Bible Student at that time? What sets your discussion apart from COJ's criticism and deceptive portrayal? I am curious to find out. I am willing to entertain your misguided notions, although it is regrettable that promoting dissenting opinions only serves to confuse the public, rather than benefit them. Your criticism of Rutherford's stance towards false religion fails to address the crucial question: Why didn't he speak favorably about it? This point deserves the public's attention. Rutherford was falsely imprisoned due to religious persecution. So, what was the Catholic Church that imprisoned Rutherford trying to do with the FCC hearing? Federal_Communications_Commission Mr. MONAGHAN. May I ask a question ? The CHAIRMAN . Mr. Monaghan. Mr. MONAGHAN. We Members of Congress-I know I have— have received petitions with thousands of signatures from people who are followers of the radio broadcasts of Judge Rutherford . I would be interested in knowing whether this amendment would help out in that situation . Would it create that liberty of the radio, in all channels , small radio , National Broadcasting Co. , and every sort of company, that has the use of facilities of the air ; would it create that degree of freedom which he desires ? Would it enable Judge Rutherford , in other words , to broadcast ? Father HARNEY. Why, Judge Rutherford , I think- now, I am open to correction- but, I think that Judge Rutherford already owns, or his own organization owns or controls two or three broadcasting stations , and they broadcast on forty or fifty. But, this amendment would leave it open to Judge Rutherford and his crowd to get a franchise to broadcast , provided the Commission could be convinced that their broadcasts are for human welfare and are in the public interest , convenience, or necessity. Not every man that wears the garb of religion even is entitled to talk religion, or talk for religion on any subject. There have been some men who have utilized the radio simply to sling mud . You can refer specifically to our friend Frank Ford-gone , but not forgotten-whose pièce de résistance and every broadcast was simply sending out calumny against the Catholic Church . He was greatly worried, very much disturbed , because we at WLWL would not pay any attention to him. He called me up, pretended to be somebody else , and called me on the telephone and wanted to know why I did not answer this, that, and the other. An effort was made to silence him by blocking his access to an FCC license for broadcasting. Wanting to prevent Rutherford from boldly exposing the truth about deceitful religious practices. However, all of these irrelevant matters have no connection whatsoever to the year 1914, except for you presenting them as a spectacle for your misguided audience.

"The manna was synthesized out of the residue of the comet's elements left in the earth's atmosphere" 😀

Velikovski’s book “Worlds in Collision” came out about 1950. I read it in the 7th grade. Even at that young age I knew it was total crap. …. the cover illustration and title suckered me in.

@BTK59 I believe Pudgy may have lost his composure and is now engaging in a self-debate, quite amusing!

Exactly on each point!!! Now imagine Jehovah telling a "faitfhul slave" or pre-cursor of that "faithful slave" that the only way Jesus is going to distinguish between the 5 wise virgins and the 5 foolish virgins (in our time period) is based on their acceptance of a specific mix of secular chronology and "Bible" chronology. And it's a chronology that started out as: Oh look how great Ptolemy is; all astronomers agree that his dates are perfectly well-established! Which soon turned into: Look how terrible Ptolemy is; his chronology is suspect because he gives different dates than the ones we need prior to 539. Let's go so far as to highlight a book that calls him a "criminal." Which turned to: Oh look how great the Nabonidus Chronicle is; it proves that Cyrus overtook him in his 17th year. Which turned to: Oh wait, let's stop mentioning the Nabonidus Chronicle; turns out that the number 17 was added by expert secular authorities, and that the same chronicle links him directly to the full length of Neriglissar's reign, which is the one tiny window of vulnerability we still need to raise suspicion about a possible 20 year gap!! Which turned to: Oh look how great Strm. Cambyses is, it tells us directly that 539 is the only absolute date in ancient history!! Which turned to: Whoops! Now we have to admit that this only works if we accept the authority of secular experts to correct numerous known mistakes and copyist errors on that same tablet, the astronomical tablets' understanding, and ancient tablet methods for measurements of two eclipses, and the authority of modern experts to date those eclipses taking into account the slowdown of the earth by about 16,000 seconds, and a non-contemporary King's list (like Ptolemy's) that is assumed to be correct, and some secular business contract tablets that help establish the length of the reign of Cyrus and Cambyses, (and which we reject when used elsewhere) and some [hi]stories by much later Greek historians that we don't really trust on most other matters. Which turned to: Look how great the Olympiad dating system is; if we accept that it has been properly tied to the current BC/AD eras, it appears to tells us that the dates for Cyrus are accurate. Which turns to: Oh wait! We reject the same Olympiad dating system even from much more recent times when it conflicts with our theory of Artaxerxes which we would like to say is 10 years off.