Nana Fofana

I have pointed it out before that JWs  establishment of 537BCE is NOT based on the Babylonian chronicles but mostly on Persian sources.  Middle east chronology is synchronized with Egyptology dates - and Egyptology dates are out with 300 years - with less as we get to the Greek Ptolemaic kings. Recently watched an interesting lecture by David Rohl.... fascinating evidence that the exodus did take place ...... if one looks in the right period.
Persian dates are verified by Greek sources and also with Babylonian chronicles.  Persian dates are counted in Olympiads and since the games were held every 4 years they are very reliable. But people on this forum keep on hashing up these Babylonian chronicles of very old king lists as though they were inspired by God! But these ex-witnesses  have an agenda.... this is why they keep rehashing these unreliable old Babylonian king lists.  While these lists are helpful they are not to be trusted as the only source of information. 
Please read the insight book to see where the organization get their dates.  Some of the Babylonian chronicles were copies of copies and written 250 years after Cyrus died. The organization give several good reasons why they do not use the Babylonian chronicles.
The death of Cyrus  is given in Olympiads as 62, year 2. (531/530 B.C.E)  Cuneiform tablets give Cyrus a reign of 9 years which substantiates his year of conquest as 539 BCE. (handbook of biblical chronology by Jack Finegan 1964. ) The kings which come AFTER Cyrus are also dated by these same methods and therefore the persian dates of succession are much more reliable. 
Astronomical calculations can also be misleading because the most reliable information is only a 'total' eclipse ... because many eclipses occur in a 50 year period and many are not  properly described - which can be misleading such as in the case with king Ahab.....  Please read this information in the insight as well.  
I fear there are some people here who think that the organization spends their entire time thinking up plots on how to cover up the "mistake of 1914" so they can be important..... but I think the shoe is on the other foot.  There are people here who think they are smarter than Jehovah's spirit and smarter than the available written information on the middle east and persian dynasties.  They keep bringing up the same old rehash of these Babylonian dates which I call the typical OCD of those who have lost Jehovah's spirit.
 

A snitch at Bethel told me 47 of those Helpers were caught shoplifting from boutiques last month and that was the reason for the article.
Also, CNBC has reported, or should have, that over 6000 boutiques went out of business last year due to customer theft. It is a crisis rivaling the one of opioids. A spokesman for the industry said: "If only more religious organizations would talk about how the flying scroll of Zechariah condemns stealing instead of trying to spin it in airheaded ways."

That would be the point, wouldn’t it? VAT4956 doesnÂ’t “illustrate” which direction one needs to go with the 18-19 years. It works both ways. Unless, as you stated, one side is only looked at.
Ironically, I donÂ’t use 4+1=6. You are the one using such supposition to illustrate a formula not indicated by scholars or scripture. My comments are based on scholarly findings and scripture, not conjecture.
If Furuli expertise lies only with language, then it should be no surprise when he honestly doesn’t descend on an archaeological find. This is where “Theology” comes in. It receives the “best” of ALL expertise within knowledge. But, the BEST expertise comes from bible knowledge. Something, Fred Franz was great at. This would be the “BEST” for a Bible Student to learn.
I agree Disseminations give no value to bible understanding.
 
Of course. Then we would have to check how much of Bible understanding a scholar has to give an expert opinion on that subject matter.
Once again, wouldn't this be an attempt to justify how contradictory it would be to place the 18-19 year squarely where secular chronology would wish for it to be. Then we would also have to be satisfied by applying those years in the beginning reign of Nebuchadnezzar. 605-18=587BC, 605-19=586. Where does it indicate in VAT4956 where one should start to view 587BC specifically? VAT4956 605-37=568BC.
 
Then, does it really matter, who understands what? If secular chronology itself cannot justify its own findings that many people have gone to great lengths by rearranging scripture to meet their understanding and to discredit the WT Chronology? Then you are correct, why should it matter.
I will give you a personal view.
 
Theology works with the Babylonian Chronicle Series as a whole, not just beneficial parts.
T.G. Pinches
L.W. King
C.J. Gadd
S. Smith, probably an ancestor of ALLEN Sorry Allen, just joking!!
D.J. Wiseman
A.K. Grayson.
And since, D.J Wiseman sought to look at the book of Daniel with errors? Then we canÂ’t claim scholars are unbiased and look at scripture in a biased way.
If I mentioned that Abraham Lincoln “in his days” he was opposed, to slavery? Would this be true when he became President in 1861, or the proclamation in 1862-1863, or his ideology in 1854? So, “in his days” it becomes a general supposition, NOT indicative of a *specific* time. Therefore, Scripture would NOT be in error, 2 Kings 24:1, but rather the error would be in the interpretation of the READER.
Babylon Controls Jehoiakim
1: In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant for three years; then he turned and rebelled against him. 2The LORD sent against him bands of Chaldeans, bands of Arameans, bands of Moabites, and bands of Ammonites. So He sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the LORD which He had spoken through His servants the prophets.
At what point do you see King Jeroiakim being *PRESENT* if the destruction of Jerusalem, supposedly when it happened at the point where secular chronology and ex-witnesses imply in 587BC? This is the “pivotal” point in Carl Olof Jonsson’s argument. Why wait 18-19 years to punish the land and people of Judah for the sins of Manasseh. So, let’s continue to use his “pinpoint” ideology on this since King Zedekiah would have been on the throne on 587BC. Secular Chronology uses this text to corroborate the destruction of Jerusalem.
Can we use, this text to prove 598BC when King Jehoiachin was on the throne? According to secular chronology, as BEST we would have to conclude this happening in 605BC, three years later would be 605BC, 604BC, 603BC, or 603/2BC if you prefer.
Now verse two, stipulates God sent Bands of Chaldeans, and bands of Neighboring Kingdom’s to DESTROY the land of JUDAH. Jerusalem would be included. So, if that is the case. The “destruction of Judah (Jerusalem)” would have happened around the time of Nebuchadnezzar’s official reign 605BC, by God’s hand. Then what “destruction of Jerusalem” are scholars referring to in 587BC. Destruction on top of destruction? The land would have already been devastated by God’s judgment. So, 587BC might have included a specific destruction in Jerusalem, just NOT a “Complete” destruction that had already occurred. 2 Kings 25:10, 2 Chronicles 36:19
So, I place my *faith* in scripture, rather than secular chronology. Since secular chronology cannot use scripture to properly align and understand, Bible times.
 
 
 

Sure. Would a coin that had a date on both sides give you an accurate minting date?
This is exactly why I shouldn’t mean anything that doesn’t have the possibilities of having many alternative endings. However, this statement implies a heavy-handed use of having another view forced to be accepted.
Then with more of a confirmation, scholars view shouldn’t be heightened over one another. The credibility lies with those scholars that can find common ground with scripture, not those that make every attempt to “discredit” scripture.
Let’s look at this illustration with the eyes of Carl Olof Jonsson. Where does it in VAT4956 *pinpoint* the destruction of Jerusalem in 587BC in this tablet? Remember his argument is precision. Then, it became a relying point for ex-witnesses. His message was lost when he decided to rearrange scripture to fit secular ideology.
This implies as far as secular chronology has shown, the dates implied for his reign began in 605BC. Does that in itself mean its absolute? Where should the *faith* of a BIBLE STUDENT reside?
If this view is the case, then I hope those that argue against the WT chronology will understand, the Babylonian Chronicle tablets actually “help” to confirm certain pieces of an incomplete puzzle.
Then we can agree that the only cost associated with any presentation is the errors of secular scholars that don’t understand scripture. However, what would be another reason for people to call someone King? Seeing past posts for myself. I believe ALLEN SMITH and ALL those numbering accounts, possibly due to deletion as I suspect, was raised as well.
 
 
 
 
 

I truly didn’t know there was a Watchtower on this subject.
The article states:  “Usually, only one side of a scroll was used, so this scroll clearly contains a weighty and serious message.”
Is literal “stealing” from a clothing boutique weighty enough for such a vision? 
“Therefore behold, I am against the prophets,” says the Lord, “who steal My words every one from his neighbor. 1 Behold, I am against the prophets,” says the Lord, “who use their tongues and say, ‘He says.’ 32 Behold, I am against those who prophesy false dreams,” says the Lord, “and tell them, and cause My people to err by their lies and by their recklessness. Yet I did not send them or command them; therefore they shall not profit this people at all,” says the Lord.  Jer 23:30-32
The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. In fact, the Watch Tower Publications Index includes the heading “Beliefs Clarified,” which lists adjustments in our Scriptural understanding since 1870. Of course, Jesus did not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food. W/17/2
From the article:
However, the vision also reminded the Jews of their responsibility to maintain the purity of their worship. Wickedness cannot and will not be allowed to creep into and dwell among Jehovah’s people. After we have been brought into the protective and loving care of God’s clean organization, we have the responsibility to help maintain it.  Are we moved to keep our “house” clean? Wickedness in any form does not belong in our spiritual paradise.
I do hope you can see the whitewash.
Russian Ban   2 Chron 16:7-9
Hidden Pedophiles   Isa 1:17
Lawsuits   Rom 13:2-5
Expectations of full obedience without question   Acts 5:29
Disfellowshipping anointed and all who cannot accept the reckless lies, and “killed” for turning to Christ.    John 16:2; Rev 13:15; Rom 14:4; 1 John 2:3-6
This is what the Lord Almighty says:
“Do not listen to what the prophets are prophesying to you;
    they fill you with false hopes.
They speak visions from their own minds,
    not from the mouth of the Lord.
17 They keep saying to those who despise me,
    ‘The Lord says: You will have peace.’
And to all who follow the stubbornness of their hearts
    they say, ‘No harm will come to you.’
18 But which of them has stood in the council of the Lord
    to see or to hear his word?
    Who has listened and heard his word?
See, the storm of the Lord
    will burst out in wrath,
a whirlwind swirling down
    on the heads of the wicked.
20 The anger of the Lord will not turn back
    until he fully accomplishes
    the purposes of his heart.
In days to come
    you will understand it clearly.
21 I did not send these prophets,
    yet they have run with their message;
I did not speak to them,
    yet they have prophesied.
22 But if they had stood in my council,
    they would have proclaimed my words to my people
and would have turned them from their evil ways
    and from their evil deeds. Jer 23:16-22
 

Seemingly no. But within context, yes.
First of all, the scroll of Zechariah specifically condemns stealing - it is a full 50% of its message. You would think that a person who quotes more scriptures than every other commenter combined would have noted this.
This is too much - it really is. One wonders if Witness herself does not steal from boutiques, for she declares trivial and irrelevant the actual message of the scroll. Instead, she applies it to the theocratic organization that does not recognize her authority.
The context of the paragraph, which merely follows the lead of the Bible - offering a practical example of theft that young people especially will identify with - is the spiritual paradise that Jehovah's Witnesses enjoy. It does not take much to destroy a paradise. One sicko inserted one razor blade in one apple and the celebration of Halloween changed forever.
At the Regional Convention I can drop my wallet and be reasonably certain it will turn up at the lost and found. Can I do that outside of the spiritual paradise? There is a reasonable chance that the wallet will come back to me. But with the money within it? Unlikely. It may happen. But I will not hold my breath.
Teaching not to steal at a very mundane level is the very stuff of Christianity. It is what makes all the rest of it work. I both admire the GB (and also suspect they are naive) in that they teach what needs to be taught without regard for self-appointed experts who will invariably seize upon their material and try to beat them over the head with it. They need better PR. Or maybe they don't. Maybe it is just me who thinks they do. Jesus didn't seem too concerned about PR, either. 
 

Yes. If you are going to go hogwild over critical thinking, then go all the way. Turn it upon the Bible itself. The reason we can look at the Bible the way we do is because we have 'tasted and seen that Jehovah is good.' It is experience that determines how we look upon things. But if you hail from the world of criticism, you cannot conceive of unity. You have never seen it. Leave these people to their own devices and there is no Bible book written as presented. Every one of them is a hash of conflicting authors with warring agendas. It is the only reality these scholars have ever observed and it colors all of their scholarship.
Bethel will never let go of 607, I don't think, because it enabled them to hit the nail on the head. The entire world only goes to war for the first time ever once in all millenia and they hit the year. Other years are known for various world leaders losing their library cards. Nothing packs the punch of 1914. If the entire world going to war concurrently for the first time ever isn't peace being taken from the world, what is? 
Even if the overlapping generations threaten to separate - and I wouldn't hold my breath on that - they could simply say that a generation is a loose term of a certain time period - say, like the 'industrial age.' In 1974 a brief snippet in the Watchtower quoted some source with that outlook, and I recall thinking that that view might surface again some day. @JW Insider can find it, no doubt. It was in the Watchtower's equivalent of 'watching the world' - a series that ran for awhile of 3 items to a page.
A few weeks ago there appeared in the meeting the Kingdom Rules book on Isaiah 11.  Discussing the return of the Jews from Babylonian exile and how they would be encouraged by Isaiah's prophesy about the animals, it said: "The lion would eat straw in the sense that it would not devour the Jews' cattle." They didn't have to do it. They could have said "God will supply them with bales of hay in order to feed the lions." Okay? They are not hung up on whether words are literal or figurative. 'Generation' will go more unconventional yet if it has to.
I am handicapped in the 607 discussion by not knowing anything about it. But it is less of a handicap then one might think. @Ann O'Maly trots out the 100 year old quote that profane history cannot be trusted because it is written by men of conflicting motives in a Satan-controlled world. She hopes anyone reading the quote with think the GB stupid. The quote differs hardly at all with 'history is written by the victors,' which she probably quotes with an air of superiority in other discussions. @Arauna pointed out before what anyone with discernment knows already - that the land of scholarship is one of big egos (she was speaking Egyptology, I think, but it is across the board) where the 'victors' to all they can do discredit whoever they have temporarily out-argued - defunding them, even banning them from access to materials. 
You don't go slobbering over critical thinking as the be-all and end-all. It is too easily outmaneuvered by other interests. 
 
 
 
 

JW Insider
It is you who is guilty of 'sleight of hand'. The  acc. year of Cyrus is not in dispute for it is a date universally recognized dating the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE. The issue of the date for the Fall of Jerusalem in Neb's 18th/19th years come down to the same methodology, one recognizes the acc. year principle and the other, the regnal year principle. WT  Scholars have no problem with applying this principle to the regnal data for Neb's reign so as to fix a precise date as 607 BCE and not 586, 587, 588 etc. Why???
scholar JW 

This sounds ignorant.
"History is written by the victors." This sounds learned and it is accepted wisdom today.
How are the two statements fundamentally different?

My Mother used to try and explain Jehovah's desire for his favorite project, humanity, to be happy, with the scripture in 1st Corinthians 2:9:
1 Corinthians 2:9 New King James Version (NKJV)
9 But as it is written:
“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him."
Extrapolating on this, I have a deep yearning in my heart to see my dogs who have died before me, resurrected as a manifestation of Jehovah's mercy for we humans who love dogs. I hope there is something like a Rainbow Bridge where they are playing and having a good time, waiting for me to show up when I die, and together we will cross over the Rainbow Bridge to whatever it is that God has in store for those that love him.
There is nothing in the Bible to support this deep yearning ... but then again ... there is nothing in the Bible that speaks against it.
I suppose beloved family dogs already "know" ..... and soon ..... too soon ...... so will I.
 

Anna
You must not conflate the two dates 539 BCE and 587?BCE as to having the same accuracy. This would be a serious mistake.. The date 539 BCE is a Pivotal Date for the purpose of Chronology whereas 587 BCE is not and cannot be.such a candidate. Thus a different Methodology must be used by the Chronologist. The simple fact is that 539 BCE is universally accepted by scholars for the Fall of Babylon but there is no such consensus for a date for the Fall of Jerusalem so obviously, both events must be treated differently according to all available evidence. Therefore, this means that even 607 BCE cannot be treated as a Pivotal Date for it does not enjoy the same status as 539 BCE. It all comes down to simplicity and honesty and for this reason, 607 BCE is the only accurate date for the Fall of Jerusalem.
scholar JW

Anna
I enjoyed reading your comments and I agree with many of your observations and sentiments. Chronology is indeed hard work and beyond the capacity of most brothers and sisters not so much intellectually but that of resources. The beauty of WT  Chronology is that it is simple and clear and does not have the ambiguities found in all other Chronologies, therefore, our 'Cable of Chronology' is strong and able to resist the criticisms of apostates and scholars influenced by the school of Higher Criticism. It took COJ seven years to research and prepare a treatise to refute our Chronology but I believe he failed miserably.
I do not believe that our wondrous Chronology has a 'Archille's heel' by means of 607 BCE because it is based on solid Biblical evidence such as the '70 years', a firm Pivotal Date-539 BCE and has a meaningful prophetic outcome, 1914 CE the time of the Great War. It is no 'dead end 'date such as 586 or 587 BCE. In short, the beauty of our Chronology is that it is simple, easily explained and defensible going right back to Adam, the first Man. It works whereas others fail!
scholar JW

Then we can agree that this reference, would be “false* to claim 99.9999% certainty on ancient writings since no one was there to authentic what was “copied” didn’t have readjusted writings to boaster that kingdoms claims? Or for that matter, writing errors due to linguistic incompatibilities.

LOL! More of the same by this personal, sentiment.




Are we referring to the revisions *Grayson* admitted were mistakes? Or is this an attempt to hide the truth? Isaiah 29:15, 2 Corinthians 4:2

 
This opinion insinuates you were there to know the scribe (he didn’t) make any mistakes or received secondhand information for historical prosperity. However, was the VAT4956 tablet “tested” with carbon dating to know the proximate date the tablet was made? How about the Babylonian Chronicle, Tablets. Were they carbon dated?

This is a simple statement and really answers @Anna's question.
The debate is obviously far from over, but as an interim observation, from reading all the various arguments and responses to questions about the chronology endorsed by the Watchtower articles on this matter, two things are apparent (at the moment ) to me.
1. It is NOT posssible to reconcile the Bible Chronolgy used by Jehovah's Witnesses with all current attestations of secular history. This would appear to be the case for ALL interpretations of Bible Chronology. The torturous explanations I have seen presented arguing against JW Chronology are, for the most part, complex, lengthy, and tedious, similar to the kind of argumentation found in 19th and early 20th century Society publications . Also whilst purporting to be factual, both sides use the same liberal sprinkling of irrelevant terms such as "honest", "dishonest"; "most modern"; "reputable" and other irrelevant descriptors that would be more at home in an argument about the scientific basis for the theory of evolution.
2, The crux of objection to the Bible Chronolgy as used by Jehovah's Witnesses is a disagreement with the Witness view of the year 1914 CE as the time for the establishment of the Messianic kingdom in Jesus Christ's hands, in heaven, and the commencement of the "last days"  period of this current human system of government under the influence of Satan the Devil. Intertwined with this is a disagreement with the view that the period of time of 2520 years commonly termed the "Gentile Times", elsewhere the "appointed time of the nations", commenced in the year 607BCE and terminated in the year 1914CE.
I just do not believe that working out where we are in the stream of time has to be as difficult as objectors claim. None of the opposers arguments presented so far have the "ring of truth" about them. 
 

California Burning” ~ ????????
One of the largest wildfires in CaliforniaÂ’s history is still raging through the rugged coastal mountains near Santa Barbara.
A few nights ago the hills looked like a scene from the apocalypse as the flames were encroaching upon homes on the outskirts of town.
More than eight thousand firefighters from all over the American West are combating the blaze in an operation that is as massive as the fire itself. California is used to wildfires, but the ferocity and the magnitude of recent outbreaks is rattling people.
Governor Jerry Brown calls these megafires part of the “New Normal,” as the state is adapting to the consequences of climate change. Our local firefighters are heroes when it comes to battling the flames, but they can only address the symptoms of a planet under pressure.
We need a different and much bigger global force to address the root causes of the inferno that will impact all of us unless we act.
(Hint: Pray for God’s Kingdom, Matthew 6:9,10). Is 
Picture from  @FransLanting 

Actually, you must have misunderstood. Your claim is “false” if you think I was referring to the 1st edition of the book. Your own link shows where the author was going with the idea.


I understand the author’s adjustment, however, that doesn’t explain why you and ANN have assumed this interpretation of events no better than any other interpretation given out there. That’s the point, that has been alluded by the remarks given. Everyone is entitled to think and have faith in whatever standard they wish to apply without having it scrutinized by interpretations that have "faults" of their own by secular reckoning. Even "Grayson" readjusted some mistakes in his earlier work. BM21901 etc have unreadable areas. The Babylonian Chronicles don't tell a "complete" story. Was the scribe with Nebuchadnezzar when writing those events? or were they dictated after as a matter of history? NONE of these hypotheticals have a 100% certainty.

You're right, but of course that isn't the point being made.
All of Babylon the Great is "holy" from the standpoint of its supporters. All of Babylon the Great will be dismantled by the political entity of the day in harmony with Jehovah's expressed judgement.
And there is no need to bring Jehovah's estimation of what is Holy into the equation because, at the time of Jerusalem's penetration by the Roman army, he had long cast off the old temple arrangement with the success of Jesus mission to earth. In fact, the event described at Matt.27:51; Mk.15:38; Lu.23:45 33 years earlier indicated very clearly that Jehovah had stripped away the "Holy" status of that edifice. Jesus’ baptism, in 29 C.E., had already anointed, or set apart, that heavenly, spiritual reality originally represented by the Most Holy of the earthly tabernacle and of the later temple, (Hebrews 9:11, 12), and this is the temple sanctuary described at Rev 11:19 wher the missing "ark of the covenant" is finally located (figuratively of course).
So then, at the time of Jersusalem's end from 66CE to 70CE , the literal  "Holy" and "Most Holy" compartments of the temple were just relics of the past, "holy" indeed in the eyes of the adherents to the redundant Jewish religion of the time, but nevetheless as profane as any other religious eduifice of the day in the eyes of Jehovah God. Actually. it had been long marked for destruction as is Christendom and all of Babylon the Great today.

December 15, 20172:52 AM ET Heard on Morning Edition In a far-reaching report on child sex abuse in Australia, a government commission is recommending that the country's Catholic Church lift its celibacy requirement for diocesan clergy and be required to report evidence of abuse revealed in confession.
Those are among the 400 recommendations contained in the 17-volume final report of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sex Abuse, which is wrapping up a five-year investigation – the longest in Australia's history.
"We have concluded that there were catastrophic failures of leadership of Catholic Church authorities over many decades," the report said.
The Australian reports: "More than 15,000 people contacted the commission to share their experiences of abuse, more than 8,000 of them spoke personally with the commissioner about the trauma it caused, and approximately 2,500 cases have now been referred to police."
The commission said the church failed to properly address allegations and concerns of victims, calling the Church's response to them "remarkably and disturbingly similar."
The report also detailed abuse in churches of other denominations and at such institutions as schools and sports clubs. However, it concluded that the greatest number of alleged abuse perpetrators were found in Catholic institutions. The commission has concluded that 7 percent of priests who worked in Australia between 1950 and 2009 had been accused of child sex abuse.
    Among the report's recommendations:
— A national strategy to prevent child abuse, with a national office of child safety.
— Making failure to protect a child from risk of abuse within an institution a criminal offense on the state and territory level.
— Implementing preventative training for children in schools and early childhood center.
— A requirement that candidates for religious ministry undergo external psychological testing.
— Any person in a religious ministry subject to a substantiated child sex abuse complaint should be permanently removed from the ministry.
Currently, Australian law exempts confessional evidence from the rules that apply to other kinds of evidence in court, according to The National Catholic Register.
THE TWO-WAY
Vatican Cardinal Charged With 'Historic Sexual Offenses' In Australia
THE TWO-WAY
Prominent Cardinal Returns To Australia To Face Sex Abuse Charges
"We recommend that canon law be amended so that the 'pontifical secret' does not apply to any aspect of allegations or canonical disciplinary processes relating to child sexual abuse," the report said.
It said that "Religious ministers, out-of-home care workers, childcare workers, registered psychologists and school [counselors] should be brought into line with police, doctors and nurses who are all obliged by law to report sexual abuse," according to The Sydney Morning Herald reports.
"Without a legal obligation to tell police about abuses, many staff and volunteers failed to let anyone outside the institution know, the commission found," the Heraldreported.
The commission called for the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference to ask the Vatican to introduce voluntary celibacy for clergy. The commission found that clerical celibacy was not a direct cause of abuse, but that it increased the risk of abuse when celibate male clergy had privileged access to children.
In an official statement, Archbishop Denis Hart of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, apologized for past abuse, calling it a "shameful past" and said the commission's report "will be taken very seriously."
However, speaking to reporters later, Hart said the commission's report "hasn't damaged the credibility of the church" and called the recommendations on the confessional "a distraction."
"The seal of the confessional, or the relationship with God that's carried through the priest and with the person, is inviolable. It can't be broken," Hart told reporters.
"I think everyone understands that this Catholic and orthodox practice of confession is always confidential," he said.
Hart also pushed back on the subject of celibacy: "We know very well that institutions who have celibate clergy and institutions that don't have celibate clergy both face these problems. We know very well that this happens in families that are certainly not observing celibacy."
The commission's findings follow numerous allegations of sex abuse by Catholic priests in Australia in recent years. In June, Police in Victoria charged Cardinal George Pell, now a high-ranking Vatican official, with sex abuse dating to his time as a priest in Australia in the 1970s and 80s. Pell has denied the allegations.
The report concluded: "Tens of thousands of children have been sexually abused in many Australian institutions. We will never know the true number." the report concluded.
"It is not a case of a few 'rotten apples.' Society's major institutions have seriously failed," it said.

Shiwiii delivers his coup de grace (this time for sure!) and Witness immediately high-fives him! They are both so excited!
Both are either too stupid, too deceitful, or too blinded by hate to notice that the Watchtower's letter is exactly based on the scripture that is quoted in the same paragraph. In fact, the two are intertwined, so that they are seemingly impossible to separate save for someone with an 10-foot ax to grind with which to separate the bone from the marrow of those they cannot tolerate. Is it too harsh to say we are dealing with a couple of losers?
In fact, the Watchtower shows more consideration than Paul. Paul simply says 'I'm coming for it - have it ready!' without any detail as to what he will use it for. Why isn't there an account to keep him honest - as has been demanded repeatedly elsewhere?! The Watchtower simply says we can be instructed by Paul's letter - it doesn't twist the arm as he does - and, unlike Paul,  it gives the reason for monies needed: for rent and maintenance. 
Even @Witness, who knows the Bible better than anyone in the whole wide world, especially the Governing Body, and who cannot pour herself a bowl of Cheerios without citing five scriptures to justify it, misses this most obvious point in the world - collections in a congregation have full scriptural backing. 
Once again,we go back to the point already stated:  nobody is less intrusive about money matters than are Jehovah's Witnesses.
 

The days was going so fine until they had to spoil it with grubbing for money.
Four hours! That's how long the annual meeting lasted. Four hours of streaming all the latest. Four hours of of experiences and details and history of building the new headquarters. Then, four talks spreading new light so brilliant it made Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like an overcast day.
And then spoiling it all - I couldn't believe it - in the midst of it, 30 seconds of shameless groveling for money. They actually (brace yourselves) - they actually suggested that those present might donate if they wanted to!!!, and (GASP!) they even said where they could do it (at the contribution box)!!!!
30 seconds' mention of money in a four hour period! @Shiwiii is right. It's all about money with these guys.
Oh, and that letter Shiwiii spirited out, that he was so excited about sharing - almost wetting himself in excitement? That letter that extra contribution stations should be established? I looked and looked for ours (our meeting was at our Kingdom Hall) and I discovered it! That slot in the counter that used to be designated as the Kingdom Hall fund but was taped over when that fund was combined with the WWW? ... It was UNCOVERED  again!!!!! and also labeled Worldwide Work! 
I tell you, it made Joel Osteen look like Johnny Appleseed! What a shameless example of greed!!!

I've never thought of the verse that way. I like that take.

That's why Jesus told his disciples to sit on their rear ends. Anything they might do would be 'man's way,' they being men.

And please do not quote this cognitive dissonance nonsense, for it is no more than:
'You do not agree with me. Therefore you must be suffering massive cognitive dissonance.'

This is quite a surprising claim. I have looked through your comments on JWD and see that you have fared no better there than you have here. Also, what do you mean by saying that the studies of Rodger Young's "followed from observations" made by you? Not only does he not mention you, he completely disagrees with you about the date for Jerusalem's destruction. (For what it's worth, it turns out he agrees with me and thousands of others who have looked into the evidence.)
The remainder of this post is from the conclusion from his article "When Did Jerusalem Fall" (published 2004) as found here http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/jerusalem.pdf
vi. conclusion
This study has examined all texts in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and 2 Kings that bear on the question, “When did Jerusalem fall?” Many side issues needed to be addressed to answer the question satisfactorily. A technique called Decision Analysis was used to ensure that all combinations of hypotheses were considered and that any hidden assumptions were brought out into the open. The analysis allowed us to rule out many presuppositions that were accepted in former studies and to replace them with presuppositions that do not contradict the data (the received text). The conclusions from the analysis are as follows.
(1) Jerusalem fell in the fourth month (Tammuz) of 587 bc. All sources which bear on the question—Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and 2 Kings—are consistent in dating the event in that year.
(2) Ezekiel consistently dated events from the time that Jehoiachin was taken captive in early 597 bc. He used Tishri years in all his reckoning.
(3) Similarly, 2 Kings 24–25 consistently used Tishri years and non-accession reckoning for Judean kings. For Nebuchadnezzar, non-accession years, starting in Nisan, were used.
(4) In the writings of Jeremiah (which excludes the fifty-second chapter), Jeremiah consistently used Tishri years for Judah, as did Ezekiel and the source for the last chapters of 2 Kings. This is in harmony with the usage of Judah throughout the monarchic period, in contrast to Thiele’s assumption that Jeremiah and Ezekiel used Nisan reckoning for Judah. Jeremiah used non-accession years for the kings of Judah and for Nebuchadnezzar. There is not enough information to determine if he started the years for Nebuchadnezzar in Tishri or Nisan; both assumptions fit the data.