AlanF

Arauna said:
     
Same one who appointed your Governing Body.
Only to you. Not to me, because I have definite knowledge of the events I've described.
On the other hand you have nothing to dispute any of it.
Which is what the GB did to convict Leo Greenlees of being a pedophilic, homosexual child molester.
Your worship of the GB is so strong that even if Jesus himself told you that they are not what they claim, you wouldn't believe him. You're one those I had in mind when I mentioned self-righteous JW apologists.  
Wow! You actually learned something!
Except that the Old Testament relates that many miraculous events proved that Elijah and others were really appointed by God to do his bidding. What does the GB offer? Their word. And how valuable is that? The history of Watchtower leaders from before it even existed proves that not a single prediction they made came true, and that their false teachings make a pretty big pile of trash.
So are you claiming you don't worship the Governing Body? Don't let your fellows know, or you'll be disfellowshipped for apostasy.

César Chávez said:
No, "apologist" means someone who defends a position or organization. You're thinking of "critic". Your English is not a problem as long as you don't get self-righteous about it. I can read a bit of Spanish but would not do well writing in it.
 
The information about Jaracz comes from several ex-Bethelites who were in a position to know. You can read Franz's Crisis of Conscience for the information about Knorr's appointment of Jaracz.
     
Supporting evidence that would not hold up in court is what I have. It wouldn't hold up in court for the simple reason that all the GB members involved are dead, and so far, the molested boy has not come forward. But there is much circumstantial evidence.
According to several ex-Bethelites writing on various JW related forums since the mid-1990s, shortly after Greenlees was booted out of Bethel there were a lot of rumors ciculating. One morning at breakfast GB member Martin Poetzinger mounted the dais and announced something like, "The affair of Leo Greenlees is closed!"
From Jan. 1, 1986 Watchtower, p. 13:
<< Shocking as it is, even some who have been prominent in Jehovah’s organization have succumbed to immoral practices, including homosexuality, wife swapping, and child molesting. >>
That's an obvious reference to Greenlees, and probably Chitty.
During the 1990s I participated in several ex-JW forums. About 1994 the Society published some information about molestation victims that triggered much discussion over the next few years. Several people related stories of being inappropriately touched by Greenlees when they were 10-15 years old. Others related their personal stories of molestation at the hands of various JWs.
When I reconnected personally with Barbara Anderson in 1997, I mentioned the ongoing discussions about Greenlees. Her response was, "I'm glad you've been publicizing what that monster did!" Then she told me what Writing Staff member Ciro Aulicino had told her in 1991-1992.
Aulicino was the Bethel gossip accumulator, and for whatever reason, various Bethelites including GB members would tell him things that would ordinarily be called gossip. He relayed these things on to others. Around 1991 Aulicino learned that the Bethel Personnel director and GB member Daniel Sydlik had rejected an application for Bethel service by a young man. Why? Because he was the boy that Greenlees had molested, and Sydlik was afraid that the boy might tell of his molestation by Greenlees 7-8 years earlier. Aulicino was very bothered by the fact that the boy was being mistreated yet again by a GB member.
In 1998-1999 I participated in the now-defunct H2O ex-JW forum. There appeared a Bethel official who called himself 'Friend', and was assiduously anonymous. His main concern was to turn the Society around on the blood issue. I had many private email conversations with him, and in one I asked him how he could in good conscience remain a Watchtower official, considering that Greenlees was a GB-convicted child molester and all that implied. He became angry and asked, "Why are you bringing up that old stuff?"
In 2000 I had several conversations in person with another Watchtower official. At one point I asked him the same question I had posed to 'Friend'. He proceeded to excuse what had happened as the result of human imperfection, so I asked him about the question of "appointment by holy spirit". He opened up about various details of the Greenlees affair that I had not known about. This official was very much in a position to have certain knowledge of GB actions.In 2002 my JW parents learned of my involvement with Silentlambs. They disinherited me and in effect, disfellowshipped me from their 'family', which they informed me of by letter. I called them and spoke to my elder stepdad, finally asking him how he could in good conscience be an elder when the Greenlees affair proved that JW elders certainly are not appointed by holy spirit. He had no knowledge of Greenlees, so I explained. He didn't know what to say. Now, my parents had often entertained GB members, including Albert Schroeder and Daniel Sydlik. So I called them a couple of weeks later, and again challenged my stepdad about the Greenlees affair. This time he was knowledgeable, and did not dispute anything I said about Greenlees, which told me that he had consulted his GB friends and confirmed it all.
     
The information on Chitty came from several ex-Bethelites. I doubt they would want to come forward publicly at this time.
I was raised a JW, but gradually quit after the 1975 fiasco.I have submitted many talking points to AD1914.
     
You have only to look at the last 20 years' worth of accusations against the Society, and of course, the many court cases they've either lost outright, or settled out of court on.

The self-righteous JW apologists on this forum are pitiful. They're more than willing to condemn individuals in "the world" for wicked conduct, but just as willing to excuse similar conduct among themselves, and especially by their leaders the Governing Body. Mostly they simply deny that these charlatans did anything wrong at all. Much like Donald Trump's Republican defenders are doing in the current House impeachment hearings.
Let's watch as some JW apologists try to excuse their leaders for the conduct described below.
JW Insider mentioned a circuit servant in Australia who was removed and reassigned in the early 1950s. This was Theodore Jaracz, who later became a GB member (according to Raymond Franz he was appointed by Nathan Knorr as a slap in the face to the other GB members who had ousted Knorr from power; he was known for being unreasonably harsh). Jaracz eventually worked his way into the de facto position of 'supreme GB member' by force of personality, essentially replacing Fred Franz and becoming head of the Service Department. As such, and because of his temperament, he was feared and hated by many lower-order Bethelites. There is very good evidence that Knorr had removed Jaracz as a circuit servant in Australia for some sort of sexual misconduct with a minor(s), which is a smoking gun for his attempts to hide all mention of child sexual abuse from the JW rank and file, both in print and in dealings that appointed officials such as Circuit and District Overseers had with elders and the rank and file. If Jaracz was a child molestor 40 years earlier, it was a good bet that he retained a tendency to excuse them in the 1990s.
Jaracz was at odds with GB member Lloyd Barry, who by all accounts was a decent man.
As for other GB members, by far the worst I know of was Leo Greenlees, who was removed from the GB in late 1984 for sexually molesting a 10-year-old boy. The parents reported the molestation to the Society, and eventually the GB met as a judicial committee to deal with the accusation. They found Greenlees guilty, but judged him repentant, and assigned him to be a special pioneer, which entitled him to the usual SP stipend. This was obviously self-serving, since to expose Greenlees' misconduct to the public would have been fatal to the JW organization. After all, a homosexual pedophile does not develop those proclivities at age 72, but has been practicing such things since he was a young man, and Jehovah God would not anoint a homosexual pedophile as an elder, much less as a GB member. Furthermore, the Ray Franz incident was fresh in the GB's minds, and Franz had recently published "Crisis of Concience", and likely the GB wanted to take no chances of a repeat with Leo Greenlees. So they avoided disfellowshipping him and sent him off with a stipend.
This situation with Leo Greenlees is positive proof that "Jehovah God" has nothing to do with the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Another GB member wicked by JW standards was Ewart Chitty, who in the early 1980s was removed from the GB and reassigned to a lower level position in the UK Bethel. Chitty was, in modern parlance, very "flaming" (i.e., exhibited strongly stereotyped homosexual behavior). He seemed to prefer young men as roomates. Apparently there were accusations of inappropriate behavior by several young Bethelites, which caused his demise.
Once again we see behavior by a GB member entirely inconsistent with the Society's doctrine that elders and GB members are "appointed by holy spirit".
There is even evidence that Nathan Knorr was a closet homosexual. He did not marry until he was 48 years old, and his wife is reported to have told close friends that their marriage was never consummated. Knorr was obsessed with telling young men, especially new Bethelites, to avoid masturbation, which invokes clear shades of "methinks thou dost protest too much". And of course, his failure to remove Theodore Jaracz in the early 1950s as a Watchtower official but reassigning him to a lower position in the WTS organization strongly indicates that Knorr was soft on child sexual abuse.
Many Watchtower officials have traditionally been soft on child molestation. In the mid-1940s my own mother, in her mid-teens, was hit on by at least one prominent WTS official much her senior.
 

The self-righteous JW apologists on this forum are pitiful. They're more than willing to condemn individuals in "the world" for wicked conduct, but just as willing to excuse similar conduct among themselves, and especially by their leaders the Governing Body. Mostly they simply deny that these charlatans did anything wrong at all. Much like Donald Trump's Republican defenders are doing in the current House impeachment hearings.
Let's watch as some JW apologists try to excuse their leaders for the conduct described below.
JW Insider mentioned a circuit servant in Australia who was removed and reassigned in the early 1950s. This was Theodore Jaracz, who later became a GB member (according to Raymond Franz he was appointed by Nathan Knorr as a slap in the face to the other GB members who had ousted Knorr from power; he was known for being unreasonably harsh). Jaracz eventually worked his way into the de facto position of 'supreme GB member' by force of personality, essentially replacing Fred Franz and becoming head of the Service Department. As such, and because of his temperament, he was feared and hated by many lower-order Bethelites. There is very good evidence that Knorr had removed Jaracz as a circuit servant in Australia for some sort of sexual misconduct with a minor(s), which is a smoking gun for his attempts to hide all mention of child sexual abuse from the JW rank and file, both in print and in dealings that appointed officials such as Circuit and District Overseers had with elders and the rank and file. If Jaracz was a child molestor 40 years earlier, it was a good bet that he retained a tendency to excuse them in the 1990s.
Jaracz was at odds with GB member Lloyd Barry, who by all accounts was a decent man.
As for other GB members, by far the worst I know of was Leo Greenlees, who was removed from the GB in late 1984 for sexually molesting a 10-year-old boy. The parents reported the molestation to the Society, and eventually the GB met as a judicial committee to deal with the accusation. They found Greenlees guilty, but judged him repentant, and assigned him to be a special pioneer, which entitled him to the usual SP stipend. This was obviously self-serving, since to expose Greenlees' misconduct to the public would have been fatal to the JW organization. After all, a homosexual pedophile does not develop those proclivities at age 72, but has been practicing such things since he was a young man, and Jehovah God would not anoint a homosexual pedophile as an elder, much less as a GB member. Furthermore, the Ray Franz incident was fresh in the GB's minds, and Franz had recently published "Crisis of Concience", and likely the GB wanted to take no chances of a repeat with Leo Greenlees. So they avoided disfellowshipping him and sent him off with a stipend.
This situation with Leo Greenlees is positive proof that "Jehovah God" has nothing to do with the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Another GB member wicked by JW standards was Ewart Chitty, who in the early 1980s was removed from the GB and reassigned to a lower level position in the UK Bethel. Chitty was, in modern parlance, very "flaming" (i.e., exhibited strongly stereotyped homosexual behavior). He seemed to prefer young men as roomates. Apparently there were accusations of inappropriate behavior by several young Bethelites, which caused his demise.
Once again we see behavior by a GB member entirely inconsistent with the Society's doctrine that elders and GB members are "appointed by holy spirit".
There is even evidence that Nathan Knorr was a closet homosexual. He did not marry until he was 48 years old, and his wife is reported to have told close friends that their marriage was never consummated. Knorr was obsessed with telling young men, especially new Bethelites, to avoid masturbation, which invokes clear shades of "methinks thou dost protest too much". And of course, his failure to remove Theodore Jaracz in the early 1950s as a Watchtower official but reassigning him to a lower position in the WTS organization strongly indicates that Knorr was soft on child sexual abuse.
Many Watchtower officials have traditionally been soft on child molestation. In the mid-1940s my own mother, in her mid-teens, was hit on by at least one prominent WTS official much her senior.
 

Good one!
 

The JW Governing Body is no more "spirit directed" than the Pope is. They actually admit it from time to time, but express it by talking out of both sides of their mouth at the same time. This is so as to deceive Watch Tower followers who are too dumb to see through the subterfuge.
The term "spirit directed" implies active direction from the "spirit". Passive direction is meaningless, i.e., reading the spirit-inspired Bible and trying to apply its cousel does not in any way imply active direction from "Jehovah's holy spirit".
The GB's claims about being spirit-directed depend on a deliberate confusion between active and passive direction. Passive direction by the holy spirit means reading the holy-spirit-inspired Bible, and then interpreting and applying what it says. Active direction means that God actively causes one to perfectly interpret and apply what the Bible says, or that one is actually being inspired by God through God putting in one's mind information that did not originate in one's mind. Since no one can perfectly interpret and apply what the Bible says, passive spirit-direction is meaningless. And since the GB has repeatedly admitted that it is neither inspired nor infallible, they admit that they do not receive active spirit-direction.
The Watch Tower Society has repeatedly argued that the spirit-direction claimed by other Christian sects is faulty, and therefore is a faulty form of passive spirit-direction. Yet it also argues that the Governing Body (and earlier JW leaders) have always been spirit-directed, with the implied claim that this spirit-direction has been active and perfect. So, while condemning this claim by "Christendom", they embrace it for themselves -- even while knowing, and occasionally admitting, that their spirit-direction is passive and quite imperfect. That's how they talk out of both sides of their mouth.
AlanF

The JW Governing Body is no more "spirit directed" than the Pope is. They actually admit it from time to time, but express it by talking out of both sides of their mouth at the same time. This is so as to deceive Watch Tower followers who are too dumb to see through the subterfuge.
The term "spirit directed" implies active direction from the "spirit". Passive direction is meaningless, i.e., reading the spirit-inspired Bible and trying to apply its cousel does not in any way imply active direction from "Jehovah's holy spirit".
The GB's claims about being spirit-directed depend on a deliberate confusion between active and passive direction. Passive direction by the holy spirit means reading the holy-spirit-inspired Bible, and then interpreting and applying what it says. Active direction means that God actively causes one to perfectly interpret and apply what the Bible says, or that one is actually being inspired by God through God putting in one's mind information that did not originate in one's mind. Since no one can perfectly interpret and apply what the Bible says, passive spirit-direction is meaningless. And since the GB has repeatedly admitted that it is neither inspired nor infallible, they admit that they do not receive active spirit-direction.
The Watch Tower Society has repeatedly argued that the spirit-direction claimed by other Christian sects is faulty, and therefore is a faulty form of passive spirit-direction. Yet it also argues that the Governing Body (and earlier JW leaders) have always been spirit-directed, with the implied claim that this spirit-direction has been active and perfect. So, while condemning this claim by "Christendom", they embrace it for themselves -- even while knowing, and occasionally admitting, that their spirit-direction is passive and quite imperfect. That's how they talk out of both sides of their mouth.
AlanF

Quite right. "Heresy" is what the WTS ought to use instead of "apostasy", but for several reasons it does not.
Use of "heresy" generally pegs one as a narrow-minded, bigoted religious fanatic. The WTS knows this. All it really means is believing or teaching things at odds with some religious authority. JWs are heretics according to the Catholic Church, and vice versa. So what?
Because "apostasy" has several meanings, including and especially "giving up on God", the WTS takes advantage of these and teaches that disagreeing with its teachings is the same as disagreeing with God. Hence someone who merely quits being a JW is often called an apostate by virtue of "leaving God". One hears such sentiments expressed by JWs all the time when they describe disfellowshipped ones.
These are examples of the WTS's talking out of both sides of its mouth at the same time.
By the way, an excellent discussion of these ideas can be found in the small book Dissent and Order in the Middle Ages: The Search for Legitimate Authority by Jeffrey Burton Russell.
AlanF

Since the Bible does not mention dinosaurs, but only very general categories such as flying creatures, sea monsters and such, the best one can answer is: It says nothing about dinosaurs, so it neither harmonizes with nor contradicts science.
However, Genesis 1 quite specifically states the order of creation of life: plants; swimming and flying creatures; land animals. But this order is wildly wrong according to the fossil record. See my comments at The Librarian's link for more information.
AlanF

Fair enough. I'm looking forward to a substantive discussion when you get the time.
AlanF

For James Thomas Rook, Jr.:
More on quote-mining:
In 1978 evolutionary zoologist Richard Lewontin wrote a Scientific American article "Adaptation" ( https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwju752x5vHYAhVC-mMKHbJhBG0QFggpMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdynamics.org%2F~altenber%2FLIBRARY%2FREPRINTS%2FLewontin_Adaptation.1978.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2ZNdeinrKEjSk8hpWf9RcZ ). On the first page he wrote:
<< The manifest fit between organisms and their environment is a major outcome of evolution. . .
The theory about the history of life that is now generally accepted, the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection, is meant to explain two different aspects of the appearance of the living world: diversity and fitness. . . By the time Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859 it was widely (if not universally) held that species had evolved from one another, but no plausible mechanism for such evolution had been proposed. Darwin's solution to the problem was that small heritable variations among individuals within a species become the basis of large differences between species. . .
Life forms are more than simply multiple and diverse, however. Organisms fit remarkably well into the external world in which they live. They have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that appear to have been carefully and artfully designed to enable each organism to appropriate the world around it for its own life.
It was the marvelous fit of organisms to the environment, much more than the great diversity of forms, that was the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer. Darwin realized that if a naturalistic theory of evolution was to be successful, it would have to explain the apparent perfection of organisms and not simply their variation. . .
These "organs of extreme perfection" were only the most extreme case of a more general phenomenon: adaptation. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection was meant to solve both the problem of the origin of diversity and the problem of the origin of adaptation at one stroke. Perfect organs were a difficulty of the theory not in that natural selection could not account for them but rather in that they were its most rigorous test, since on the face of it they seemed the best intuitive demonstration that a divine artificer was at work. >>
A couple of years later the young-earth creationist author Gary Parker wrote an article in a creationist publication where he referenced Lewontin's Scientific American article:
<< As Harvard's Richard Lewontin recently summarized it, organisms ". . . appear to have been carefully and artfully designed." He calls the "perfection of organisms" both a challenge to Darwinism and, on a more positive note, "the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer." >>
My question is: Did Parker fairly quote Lewontin, or did he quote-mine Lewontin?
Please explain your answer.
AlanF

James Thomas Rook Jr. said:
 
 
Exactly.
You got it.
You'll note that nowhere in my original post did I state that JWs accept evolution. Rather, I asked leading questions that IMPLIED that something that is false is true. I also used the phrase "frank admissions" to describe the misquotes. Guess who I'm imitating here?
I think it has real pedagogical value. At least, it does for honest people.
Your above three points are very good, and your post shows proper righteous indignation at what appears to be blatant misrepresentation.
Exactly.
RationalWiki describes quote-mining ( https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining ):
<< Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize. It's a way of lying. This tactic is widely used among Young Earth Creationists in an attempt to discredit evolution.
Quote mining is an informal fallacy and a fallacy of ambiguity, in that it removes context that is necessary to understand the mined quote. >>
Now I'd like you to comment on this claim:
<< . . . as long as you quote or cite the source then if you find a comment that supports your argument even though the author of that reference may have an entirely different viewpoint then it is a legitimate academic practice to use that point accordingly. It is fair game as long as you cite or reference the source . . . >>
I think you'll appreciate this: With the help of my wife I posted the same stuff on Simon Green's board:
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5959384749309952/do-jehovahs-witnesses-accept-evolution
What do you think of the responses?
AlanF

But the earth IS flat! The Bible says so, and here's one of thousands of YouTube videos that prove it:
http://www.flatearthclues.com/video_listing/flat-earth-proof-by-jeranism/
As for these quotes, they simply repeat what the Watch Tower stated. So they are correct.
AlanF

Do Jehovah's Witnesses Accept Evolution?
Some people claim that JWs reject the Theory of Evolution in favor of the Bible's creation account in Genesis.
But is that really true?
Note these frank admissions in Watch Tower publications:
"Scientists have proved evolution to be true." -- Answers to 10 Questions Young People Ask (2016) p. 27
"Evolution is a fact." -- Answers to 10 Questions Young People Ask Work, Volume 2 (2016) p. 27; W13 10/15 p. 11; “Bearing Thorough Witness” About God’s Kingdom (2009) p. 141; G 9/06 p. 22; W04 10/1 p. 10; g90 1/22 pp. 8-10; g87 7/22 p. 10; Life - How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? (1985) pp. 26, 180, 181; G74 9/22 p. 26
"Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun." -- G 9/06 p. 13; Was Life Created? (2010) p. 18
"Evolution is as much a fact as the existence of gravity." -- Life - How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? (1985) p. 181
"Evolution is a fact; God is a myth." G90 1/22 p.11
"Evolution is a fact. It no longer needs to be proved. No competent scientist doubts it. All educated people believe it. Only the ignorant reject it." G87 1/22 p. 10
"There’s no question that evolution is a fact. We see examples of it every day. No responsible person questions it. It’s as much a fact as gravity and atoms!" -- G74 9/22 p. 17
"The Bible is a myth" and "evolution is true". -- W75 7/15 p. 443; W71 1/15 p. 48; G70 4/22 p. 3
"The theory of evolution is true". -- The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking (2010) p. 9
AlanF

scholar JW pretendus said:
A gobble-de-goop summary, so I won't comment further.
I'll just state for the record that Lewontin is CLEARLY an evolutionist and does not believe in a Supreme Creator. Any contrary claim is a lie.
His whole thrust was that organisms merely SEEM to be designed but are not -- and seem to be only to those who are naive and know nothing of, or do not accept, evolution by natural selection -- those who do not understand that "the manifest fit between organisms and their environment is a major outcome of evolution."
He further described that this was a mistake made by many 19th century scientists, who viewed that fit as evidence of a Supreme Designer. One of the goals of his article was to correct that mistake.
Lewontin did not say anywhere that HE viewed that fit as evidence for a Supreme designer, and you have failed my challenge for you to provide one. As usual, you lie and dodge and weave, such as repeating the Watch Tower's lie about Lewontin's personal view:
Again, Lewontin clearly explained that THIS WAS THE GENERAL VIEW OF 19TH-CENTURY SCIENTISTS, NOT HIS OWN VIEW.
True, but irrelevant, because Lewontin's point was that that mere appearance was a false appearance.
False. The book lyingly stated that it was Lewontin's view that such appearance of design was evidence of a Supreme Creator, whereas he clearly explained that this was NOT his view.
It's simply amazing how low one can go in trying to rationalize lies.
Yes, which means that the later revision said exactly the opposite of the original book: "He views them" was changed to "some scientists viewed them".
False. Again, Lewontin never stated what the Creation book claimed, and you have not produced a quotation where he states what the book claimed, namely, that HE -- Richard Lewontin -- views the marvelous fit of animals to their environment as evidence of a Supreme Creator.
The mere fact of printing certain words from a quotation correctly does not mean the quotation is correct. Any misrepresentation of the author's intent is called quote-mining. And that is exactly what the Creation book did, and you are now trying to rationalize.
If I state that the Watch Tower Society has finally bowed to the scientific evidence and admits that evolution is true, I can 'prove' it by noting these frank admissions in Watch Tower publications:
"The Bible is a myth" and "evolution is true".
"Evolution is true".
"Evolution is true . . . evolution is true . . . evolution is true".
"Evolution is true" and "The Bible is myth".
"The theory of evolution is true".
You don't accept it? By your standard, the quotations are correct. You can easily prove this to yourself by searching in a WT CDROM.
As I previously pointed out, Lewontin himself complained about the selective quoting done by creationists of his SA article:
<< Sometimes creationists plunge more deeply into dishonesty by taking statements of evolutionists out of context to make them say the opposite of what was intended. For example, when, in an article on adaptation, I described the outmoded nineteenth-century belief that the perfection of creation was the best evidence of a creator, this description was taken into creationist literature as evidence for my own rejection of evolution. Such deliberate misuse of the literature of evolutionary biology . . . >>
Lewontin also complained about the practice of misquoting scientists, in the magazine Creation/Evolution, Fall 1981, on page 35:
<< Modern expressions of creationism and especially so-called "scientific" creationism are making extensive use of the tactic of selective quotation in order to make it appear that numerous biologists doubt the reality of evolution. The creationists take advantage of the fact that evolutionary biology is a living science containing disagreements about certain details of the evolutionary process by taking quotations about such details out of context in an attempt to support the creationists' antievolutionary stand. Sometimes they simply take biologists' descriptions of creationism and then ascribe these views to the biologists themselves! These patently dishonest practices of misquotation give us a right to question even the sincerity of creationists. >>
It is one thing to cite and describe opposing viewpoints. It is something else again to repeatedly attribute those opposing views to an author or to a publication that merely describes them, especially when it is evident that the description is for the purpose of dismissing it.
So, scholar JW pretendus, not only have you proved nearly incapable of understanding scientific and historical material, but even though your misunderstandings have been clearly pointed out to you, you merely double down on defending the Watch Tower's lies.
Thus, you have no business trying to argue anything about Neo-Babylonian chronology.
AlanF

I see -- I think.
In any case, Jackson's duplicity being exposed on camera for the first time, for public exposure, might be called "new light", but this basic duplicity has been around a long, long time. More than 40 years ago, I complained to a Circuit Overseer about such with respect to the WTS's constant refrain that "elders are appointed by holy spirit". He admitted that that teaching was basically a lie, and literally hung his head when he admitted it.
AlanF

Do Jehovah's Witnesses Accept Evolution?
Some people claim that JWs reject the Theory of Evolution in favor of the Bible's creation account in Genesis.
But is that really true?
Note these frank admissions in Watch Tower publications:
"Scientists have proved evolution to be true." -- Answers to 10 Questions Young People Ask (2016) p. 27
"Evolution is a fact." -- Answers to 10 Questions Young People Ask Work, Volume 2 (2016) p. 27; W13 10/15 p. 11; “Bearing Thorough Witness” About God’s Kingdom (2009) p. 141; G 9/06 p. 22; W04 10/1 p. 10; g90 1/22 pp. 8-10; g87 7/22 p. 10; Life - How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? (1985) pp. 26, 180, 181; G74 9/22 p. 26
"Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun." -- G 9/06 p. 13; Was Life Created? (2010) p. 18
"Evolution is as much a fact as the existence of gravity." -- Life - How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? (1985) p. 181
"Evolution is a fact; God is a myth." G90 1/22 p.11
"Evolution is a fact. It no longer needs to be proved. No competent scientist doubts it. All educated people believe it. Only the ignorant reject it." G87 1/22 p. 10
"There’s no question that evolution is a fact. We see examples of it every day. No responsible person questions it. It’s as much a fact as gravity and atoms!" -- G74 9/22 p. 17
"The Bible is a myth" and "evolution is true". -- W75 7/15 p. 443; W71 1/15 p. 48; G70 4/22 p. 3
"The theory of evolution is true". -- The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking (2010) p. 9
AlanF

Nana Fofana wrote:
It's easy, if you do it properly. First, get yourself a decent Text Editor like NotePad+ (it's free). Then get the WT CDROM on your screen. Copy-Paste (Ctrl-C Ctrl-V) your text from the WT CDROM into your Text Editor. Edit as needed. Finally, Copy from NotePad+ (Ctrl-C) and Paste it into the Reply Box for this forum.
But you can read the CD ROMs, right? And I assume you have the hardcopy books, or can get them? If so, get hold of one published in 2003 or earlier, and compare it with one published in 2004 or later.
I'd offer to send you a photocopy of each, but you'd most likely claim that I altered them.
In the meantime, here are the texts taken from the 2003 and 2015 WT CDROMs:
2003:
<<
Chapter 11
The Amazing Design of Living Things
WHEN anthropologists dig in the earth and find a triangular piece of sharp flint, they conclude that it must have been designed by someone to be the tip of an arrow. Such things designed for a purpose, scientists agree, could not be products of chance.
2 When it comes to living things, however, the same logic is often abandoned. A designer is not considered necessary. But the simplest single-celled organism, or just the DNA of its genetic code, is far more complex than a shaped piece of flint. Yet evolutionists insist that these had no designer but were shaped by a series of chance events.
3 However, Darwin recognized the need for some designing force and gave natural selection the job. “Natural selection,” he said, “is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good.”1 That view, however, is now losing favor.
4 Stephen Gould reports that many contemporary evolutionists now say that substantial change “may not be subject to natural selection and may spread through populations at random.”2 Gordon Taylor agrees: “Natural selection explains a small part of what occurs: the bulk remains unexplained.”3 Geologist David Raup says: “A currently important alternative to natural selection has to do with the effects of pure chance.”4 But is “pure chance” a designer? Is it capable of producing the complexities that are the fabric of life?
5 Zoologist Richard Lewontin said that organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed.” He views them as “the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer.”5 It will be useful to consider some of this evidence.
>>
2015:
<<
Chapter 11
The Amazing Design of Living Things
WHEN anthropologists dig in the earth and find a triangular piece of sharp flint, they conclude that it must have been designed by someone to be the tip of an arrow. Such things designed for a purpose, scientists agree, could not be products of chance.
2 When it comes to living things, however, the same logic is often abandoned. A designer is not considered necessary. But the simplest single-celled organism, or just the DNA of its genetic code, is far more complex than a shaped piece of flint. Yet evolutionists insist that these had no designer but were shaped by a series of chance events.
3 However, Darwin recognized the need for some designing force and gave natural selection the job. “Natural selection,” he said, “is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good.”1 That view, however, is now losing favor.
4 Stephen Gould reports that many contemporary evolutionists now say that substantial change “may not be subject to natural selection and may spread through populations at random.”2 Gordon Taylor agrees: “Natural selection explains a small part of what occurs: the bulk remains unexplained.”3 Geologist David Raup says: “A currently important alternative to natural selection has to do with the effects of pure chance.”4 But is “pure chance” a designer? Is it capable of producing the complexities that are the fabric of life?
5 Evolutionist Richard Lewontin admitted that organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed,” so that some scientists viewed them as “the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer.”5 It will be useful to consider some of this evidence.
>>
Prove it by citing the originals, and point out where anything I said is misleading. Do it word by word, and sentence by sentence.
I posted the quotations in an above post to "scholar JW".
No it doesn't. If you disagree, then by all means let's see you prove it.
AlanF

This business of the 70 weeks is a great example of how Bible believers start with a premise -- the Bible is completely accurate as regards prophecy, etc. -- and then marshall evidence to make it seem to fit the evidence. But they filter out all evidence that does not fit, which is thoroughly dishonest. This is classic confirmation bias.
AlanF

scholar JW pretendus horribilis mendacious wrote:
This post of yours, to which I'm responding, is a fine example of your atrociously bad attempts at scholarship, of how you misrepresent source references -- even of yourself -- and of how you deliberately misrepresent your opponents' words.
And I will hold you to yours.
Here you're admitting, for the first time, that your bashing of COJ's work as unscholarly has been a straw man -- a fallacious argument that is also a red herring -- a false or irrelevant argument designed to throw naive readers off the track of the real argument. In other words, you've admitted to lying, fallacious argumentation, and deliberately trying to deceive your readers.
     
You ignore almost everything that you can't dismiss by handwaving or lying. I can give dozens of examples. Of course, we know that if I do, you'll ignore those, too.
     
More unevidenced handwaving. You can disagree all you like, but with no evidence for your disagreement, it's meaningless.
Good. Then both you and I can quote him on why WTS chronology is bogus.
Another example of your ignoring an essential part of an argument. Let's examine how you've done it.
You had said:
<< ... it is essential to look at all sides of the argument and realize that it is not an exact science but open to much interpretation. >>
To which I replied:
<< True in principle, but the devil is in the details. And when you personally deny that a clear scripture that reads "these nations" actually means "the Jews", we know that you're lying through your teeth. >>
So we both agree on my statement "true in principle", but that's a trivially obvious statement. The meat of my argument was "the devil is in the details" followed by my example of your lying about a Bible passage. You ignored the meat, and focused on the trivial.
You also invoke your standard bogus "different methodology" fallacy. A methodology different from that accepted by the world's best scholars is fine, as long as one can justify that it is valid. But what you call "WTS methodology" is not valid, as shown by the fact that it results in contradictions with the Bible and ancient sources, and is logically flawed. This "methodology" amounts to a circular argument, and deliberately ignores all evidence that does not support its pre-defined conclusion.
Of course it does. Without misrepresentation, it immediately falls apart, as has been proved by countless JW critics.
More to the point: you have acknowledged no such examples.
Do you want me to list them again?
Yes, evaluated and then ignored all that does not fit. Such as Jeremiah 27 and Daniel 5. And various passages in 2 Chronicles 36 and Jeremiah 25. Examples that you are well aware of, and routinely ignore when they're put to you.
LOL! "Simply"! That story, as you admit, is the sum of the best world scholarship.
Translation: "It's wrong because it contradicts Mommy Watch Tower's fairytales!"
     
More handwaving, disproved by many examples just in this thread. And by dozens of examples on other forums and in various critical commentaries over the years. You can offer no examples, aside from "It's wrong cuz it contradicts my Mommy!"
Some are, but "celebrated WTS scholars" ignore or misrepresent all that don't fit their narrative. This has been repeatedly demonstrated.
Correct.
Your problem is that these texts, interpreted properly in the manner summarized by COJ, are fully concordant with the most accepted secular evidence, whereas WTS chronology is not. Thus we have "two witnesses" for good scholarship.
But you're again ignoring the point: both are "methodologies", one of which you accept because it aligns with your preconceived beliefs learned along ago, and the other which you reject because it contradicts your preconceptions.
So what? One does not need to set forth a complete Theory of Cosmology to debunk a claim that the moon is made of green cheese.
     
So you now admit that you lied when you claimed that I have presented "no evidence". This has been noted in your "record of repentance".
"Dealt with"? Yes, waving your hands around is certainly "dealing with" evidence.
I'm perfectly well aware of the niceties of interpretation. WTS interpretation consists of sifting through the evidence and tossing out what does not fit with its traditions. Good, scholarly interpretation consists of dealing with ALL of the evidence, and honestly talking about the pieces that are problematic. "Celebrated WTS scholars" simply ignore the evidence problematic for their preconceived notions. Examples abound.
     
Of course it does, when supported by good evidence.
But you're showing your hypocrisy again, because the best that WTS fake scholars can do is say that it's "likely" that Cyrus issued his decree in late 538 or early 537 BCE -- based not on evidence, but speculation. Speculation required only by their need to support WTS tradition, and nothing else.
False. I have clearly stated that there is very good evidence for it -- not that it is a fact -- and presented charts based on that evidence.
No one -- not you, not Thirdwitness, or any other JW defender has ever attempted to present an alternate chart that supports WTS claims, despite my having asked for such many times.
Correct. Just as Cyrus' decree had to have been issued some time later for the WTS's theory to work.
False. We also have Josephus' testimony, which combined with Ezra and 2 Chron. is nearly definitive that the Jews returned in 538.
Once again, I challenge you to show why such combination does not result in a 538 BCE date. Your attempts at throwing cold water on the arguments have not addressed the basics, and I've shown why they're wrong.
You really are a moron. We both agree on either 538 or 537 as the year of the Return. We both know that Ezra did not specify a year. The point here is to determine whether Ezra's description refers to 538 or to 537.
Lying yet again. As I've pointed out, you yourself agreed that the evidence is consistent with either 538 or 537. Do I need to quote you again?
Very good! You admit that 6 comes before 7! Wowee!
Here is a diagram of what I said. Perhaps you can understand pictures.
||. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538 or 537 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .||
||. . . .  1st year of Return | 2nd year of Return . . . . .||
||. . . . Month 5 . Month 6 | Month 7 . Month 8  . . . . ||
||. . . . . . . . . . . . . Ab . Elul | Tishri . Heshvan . . . . . . .||
 
Correct, but irrelevant to this point.
     
The only thing I'm dogmatic about is that IF we combine Ezra and Josephus, and IF there are no disqualifying assumptons, THEN the only conclusion is that the Jews returned in 538 BCE.
Thus, the crucial question for my "thesis" is whether there are any disqualifying assumptions. I know of several possibilities, but I've looked into them quite carefully. You've listed three, which I've debunked.
Which I debunked, and you ignored.
Already done. This is more handwaving by you. You have never listed any specific disagreement you have with the details of my "thesis", such as any supposed misinterpretation of Ezra's words.
     
Exactly my point: assumptions are made, but not stated. Only a reader who is already cognizant of the details will notice the unstated assumptions -- and the typical JW reader is not cognizant of such details.
The standard example I give is that unstated assumptions are made by the WTS in assigning late 538 or early 537 for Cyrus' decree. Hardly any JW readers are aware of the historical details and scholarly discussions.
     
Excellent! You've proved my point: you are not able to detect misrepresentations in WTS literature.
Go back and carefully compare Richard Lewontin's statements with what the Creation book claimed. Answer these questions:
1. Did Lewontin say that he views the apparent design of organisms as the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer?
2. When Lewontin stated that organisms have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that appear to have been carefully and artfully designed, what did he mean by the word "appear"? Does the Creation book accurately reflect Lewontin's meaning?
 
I've already done that several times in several forums. What "scholarship" do you claim is missing?
False, as I've shown above and several other times.
     
LOL! You invoke "scholarship or research" as a bludgeon, but you fail to give any details. You cannot define either term in a way that makes sense, without exposing your underlying false claims.
In your world, "scholarship" means "whatever Mommy Watch Tower says." "Research" means "whatever Mommy Watch Tower prints and calls the results of 'research'."
 
Irrelevant. My research is valid on its own merits. And of course, as I've mentioned, even if COJ and the rest of the world of scholarship came down solidly on the side of my "thesis", you would reject it simply because it contradicts Mommy Watch Tower's tradition. Your above "argument" is a straw man.
     
Pure speculation, since Thiele wrote nothing about this.
Well then, why don't you quote what Thiele said? Oh yeah, likely for the same reason you refused to quote John Aquila Brown: Thiele's words most likely don't support your claims.
     
I learned that Steinmann is as good at speculation as other scholars are. And that his speculations are not convincing.
The same is true of 537. Such gross hypocrisy!
Not necessarily decisive, but given that it's the only statement from historical documents that connects the laying of the Temple foundation with Cyrus' 2nd year, and it perfectly jibes with Ezra's statements, it's pretty solid evidence.
And so far, you've been unwilling and unable to argue why combining Ezra and Josephus is a flawed way of pinpointing the events.
     
Not really. When one examines the arguments of Thiele and others, it's decisive. And again, such arguments are not the sort of bald assertions so dear to your heart, nor the mere parroting of claims of other authors.
If you think that the arguments Thiele and other top scholars make for Ezra's dating methods are wrong, then argue your case.
     
Misleading, revisionist gobble-de-goop. Here is what was said, from pages 21-22 of this thread:
<<
scholar JW: Alan F would have us believe that the six month interval from Nisan, 538 BCE month 1 until Tishri, 538 BCE, month 7 according to his tabulation would be of sufficient time for the Jews to return home with a four-month journey inclusive. Now if ones' imagination cannot accommodate such a hypothesis then it must also be considered that the Jews were prior to Month 1 would have been in an anticipatory or preparatory frame of mind with some preparations already in hand. Now, this of course is an interesting scenario but if Alan F demands such an indulgence proving 538 BCE for the Return then how is it the case that he refuses one to believe or to concede the possibility that the Jews could have more easily returned the following year in 537 BE.
AlanF: The Watch Tower Society would have us believe that the six or seven month interval from Adar or Nisan, 537 BCE month 12 or 1, until Tishri, 537 BCE, month 7 according to its tabulation would be of sufficient time for the Jews to return home with a four-month journey inclusive. Now if ones' imagination cannot accommodate such a hypothesis then it must also be considered that the Jews prior to Adar or Nisan would have been in an anticipatory or preparatory frame of mind with some preparations already in hand. Now, this of course is an interesting scenario but if the Society demands such an indulgence proving 537 BCE for the Return then how is it the case that it refuses to believe or to concede the possibility that the Jews could have easily returned the previous year in 538 BCE?  
scholar JW: Alan F is correct in that the scenarios for both 538 and 537 BCE are similar so in theory what works for one should work for the other.
>>
Clearly, both of us agreed that the scenario in question -- from about Nisan through Tishri, in either 538 or 537 BCE -- works for either year.
In a later post I said:
<< Here's your problem: since 538 and 537 have pretty much the same logistics, there is no way to decide between them based on those logistics. The ONLY way to decide is by OTHER information -- information such as provided by combining the accounts in Ezra and Josephus, as I have repeatedly explained. That information breaks the tie in favor of 538. >>
So what?
     
 
Well, 538 BCE is not 537 BCE. What's your point?
You've now conceded that the connection between Ezra and Josephus is their mention of the Temple foundations first being laid.
     
Obviously.
     
Why? If my not being in academia is evidence that my arguments are wrong, then it is far stronger evidence that Watch Tower arguments are wrong. Hypocrite! How are you to avoid the judgment of Gehenna?
     
More hypocrisy. The Watch Tower has for some 140 years come up with "novel theses" that were provably wrong at the time they were set forth, and certainly had no support from recognized scholars, nor were accompanied by sound scholarship. For example, while most proper historians were well aware that there was no "zero year" between 1 BCE and 1 CE, Russell was not, and his Watch Tower Society successors were not (at least, in print), until 1943. Talk about lousy scholarship!
     
Yes, and then reject it based on nothing more than that it destroys WTS chronology.
Already done.
     
I hope so too.
     
Exactly. Which means your point about amateurs is meaningless. Will you now stop making it?
     
What I've done is already online in various forums.
     
Good! Finally a clear and unambiguous admission. Yet you and other JW defenders have in past debates vigorously opposed this fact.
More revisionism -- even of your own words. See above.
As I have carefully explained several times, if we take the Bible at its word, the Jews were aware of Isaiah's prophecy that someone named Cyrus would free them. They were also aware of Jeremiah's prophecies that Babylonian supremacy would last 70 years and be terminated when other nations punished Babylon (Jer. 25) and ended Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty (Jer. 27). They also knew that Jeremiah foretold their return to Judah after 70  years of Babylonian supremacy (Jer. 29). Obviously this supremacy ended when Cyrus' armies, in October 539 BCE, conquered Babylon, killed its king of Nebuchadnezzar's line, Belshazzar (Dan. 5), and began ruling Babylon with Cyrus as the global king of the Persian empire and, apparently, Darius the Mede as his viceroy over the Babylonian territory.So the Jews would have been expecting a release from the date of Babylon's fall, leaving an additional six months before Nisan of Cyrus' 1st regnal year to prepare for their release. So their preparation time was a minimum of six to eight months before the journey home. That's plenty of time.
     
As usual, you're unwilling and unable to support your claims with actual evidence.
     
Whatever that means. But again you refuse to consider the actual evidence.
     
But dismissed with almost nothing but handwaving.
     
Meaningless gobble-de-goop without quotations from SDA sources.
     
When one compares your claims with reality, one immediately notices your deliberate distortion or outright misrepresentation of reality, and one notes clearly your attempts to obfuscate rather than clarify matters. That is the definition of lying, and your claims fit it perfectly.
AlanF

scholar JW horribilis pretentious wrote:
Your usual ad hominem dismissal of COJ's work. But as usual, you ignore the fact that COJ's work is a summary of the best of modern scholarship. So when you reject COJ's summary, you're rejecting that best scholarship. You, an amateur who admittedly shills for Mommy Watch Tower, and demonstrably lies for the same. And of course, Mommy Watch Tower has demonstrably lied in print about many things connected with chronology.
LOL! You ignore the scholarship and emphasize the insults -- all of which you deserve in spades. Of course, every JW critic you've battled has come to the same conclusion -- you're a thoroughly dishonest sham of a scholar.
     
Exactly what I said.
I don't care about what the Adventists say, largely because so far as I know, they make the same debunkings of WTS chronology as most other critics. I care about what modern, non-religiously-affiliated scholars have to say. Although on second thought, the handful of stuff from Adventists that I've read shows unequivocally why Watch Tower chronology is bogus, and how the Watch Tower has lied and misrepresented so much. For example, William MacCarty's 1975 booklet, 1914 and Christ's Second Coming.
It's the same attitude I always display.
Which is why you and Mommy Watch Tower fail so miserably.
True in principle, but the devil is in the details. And when you personally deny that a clear scripture that reads "these nations" actually means "the Jews", we know that you're lying through your teeth.
Yet another misrepresentation. You're just chock full of them.
I've never said there is no evidence for "WT chronology". I've stated clearly, and hundreds of times, that Watch Tower writers misrepresent evidence, ignore Bible passages, ignore all evidence they don't like from whatever source, and generally commit most every scholastic sin extant. Furthermore, I've carefully and with copious source references explained why various specific WTS claims about Neo-Babylonian chronology are wrong. So my claim is not that there is no evidence, but that some of the evidence for "WT chronology" is bogus.
Since you're lying again, all I need say is this: Many supposed WTS "facts", when fact-checked, turn out to be wishful thinking, misrepresentation, or outright lies. The WTS deliberately misrepresents much scriptural evidence, even going as far as quote-mining the Bible and ignoring texts that disprove its claims. As far as being an "established scheme", well, Bishop Ussher's chronology is an established scheme.
A total non sequitur.
     
You keep lying about this. You claim I've not provided evidence, even though I can point to many posts in this thread, and material on other forums, where I've provided lots of evidence.
The fact that you don't like the evidence, and are unable to disprove it, does not mean there is no evidence.
No, I've claimed that it is very likely that it was issued in the first month of the first year. There is no evidence for any other time. Watch Tower speculation is not evidence.
Wrong again. I've carefully explained that the Bible itself states that the Jews were back in their cities by the 7th month of 538 or 537, and therefore one of those years was the year of Return, simply because if they were in their cities by month 7, their return must have been before that, in month 6 or 5 or whatever.
No assumptions; the Bible explicitly states what I've explained. Oh yeah, you reject the Bible.
What do you disagree with about the above? I'm not talking about your misrepresentations of what I've said.
Quite right. But as we all know, the Watch Tower often fails to state such assumptions, and presents a glossed-over view of many facts, where the underlying assumptions are deliberately covered over.
     
Actually, all you need to read is the first page, and finding it is really not hard. Here's a link I found in a couple of minutes, to Scientific American, “Adaptation,” by Richard Lewontin, September 1978, p. 213:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwju752x5vHYAhVC-mMKHbJhBG0QFggpMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdynamics.org%2F~altenber%2FLIBRARY%2FREPRINTS%2FLewontin_Adaptation.1978.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2ZNdeinrKEjSk8hpWf9RcZ
Good. But no one will be holding their breath waiting for your response.
     
I have indeed -- sufficient for anyone with at least half a brain to evaluate. What do you want? A 10,000 page dissertation?
The facts are entirely clear. The few assumptions needed are perfectly reasonable, but until now you've not argued against them because you have not even stated them.
Look at https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/ again and tell us again that I failed to research the matter. Looking carefully at Ezra and Josephus, and compiling timelines is not research? LOL!
So what? I told you many times: this is new information that I've only recently seen mentioned elsewhere. And hypocritically, you reject all sources that disagree with the WTS.
What alternative views? Give references. No, you can't; you're just blowing smoke.
So far as I know, Thiele doesn't comment on any specifics of my "thesis" in "Mysterious Numbers". If you have comments from him, let's hear it. Otherwise, this is another red herring.
I have now. I've been out of the loop for nearly ten years.
Steinmann comments that 537 is usually given as the date of the Return, but also that it is "usually offered with some reservation". Furthermore, he argues that the Return was in 533. He says nothing about Josephus.
Non-accession-year, Tishri dating. Many scholars, including Thiele, agree.
Nonsense. You've already admitted that the necessary time for a Return in 538 is almost the same as for a Return in 537 -- a difference of one month out of 7 or 8.
Sure, and based on his speculation, the Return was in 533, which does you no good at all.
The connection is trivial: they both talk about the Temple foundations first being laid.
     
Exactly what I said, you moron. Can't you read?
Yes, which emphasizes your hypocrisy, since I'm not in academia.
So you admit it's new. Why then, do you demand support from recognized scholars?
I might just do that. And if they agree with it, what will you say then?
COJ is ill and not writing any more.
Material written by amateurs is not necessarily amateurish. Of course, you are an amateur, but you don't automatically consider your writings amateurish. Even though pretty much everyone else consider them outright dishonest.
Wrong. Einstein and Newton were amateur physicists when they published the first of their seminal papers.
     
Not "many times". Only above, and for the first time, except for the business about six months not being enough for the Return travel -- except that you forgot that you already ageed with me that it was sufficient.
 
Generalities are meaningless without specifics. Since you really don't have any valid specifics, your claims aren't worth a toot.
More meaningless and irrelevant generalities.
No. I've requested such for more than a decade, with no results.
Already done. See my ad1914 website material, and see if you can locate our old debates on the JWD website.
Try reading the previous posts.
     
Whatever. Without specifics, one can only conclude that you're misrepresenting SDA sources. Especially since SDA William MacCarty debunked Watch Tower chronology back in 1975.
     
Neither he nor anyone else needs to be an old campaigner in the battle against Watch Tower lies in order to notice your lies. All one needs to do is read your material, compare it with reality, and there you have it.
AlanF

In the Watch Tower, October 1909, Russell continues the same thinking about the "parallels" but never even mentions Daniel 4 or Nebuchadnezzar in the discussion. In fact, he defends the use of "seven" in Leviticus to mean "seven times" even though, by now, it is clear that Russell has heard the argument about the actual meaning of the Hebrew words. The Hebrew in Leviticus 26 was about as helpful in creating "time periods" as saying that Naaman bathed 7 times in the Jordan, or that the three Hebrews of Daniel 3:19 were thrown into a furnace heated "seven times" hotter. Instead, Russell, "digs in his heels" and mixes the two meanings together to create a "continuous" period of seven times to mean 2,520 years.
God foretold that if Israel would be faithful he would bless them in every sense of the word, but that if they would walk contrary to him, he would walk contrary to them and chastise them "seven times for their sins." (Lev. 26:28.) This expression in this connection is, with variations, repeated three times. In one instance the word "MORE" is used. "I will chastise you seven times more for your sins." The Hebrew word rendered more, according to Strong's translation, would properly be rendered "continuously." This threat of punishment we interpret to mean, not that the Lord would give Israel seven times as much punishment as they should have, but that he would punish them seven times (seven years) more (continuously) for their sins. These seven times or seven years were not literal years surely, for they received more punishment than that on numerous occasions. The seven times we interpret as symbolical years, in harmony with other Scriptures--a day for a year, on the basis of three hundred and sixty days to a year. Thus the seven times would mean 7 x 360, which equals 2520 literal years. And the word more or continuously would signify that this period of 2520 years would not be the sum of all their various years of chastisement at various "times," but this experience of 2520 years of national chastisement would be one continuous period. Next we should ask, Has there been such a continuous period of disfavor in Israel's national history? The answer is, Yes. In the days of Zedekiah, the last king to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord, the Word of the Lord concerning the matter was, "O, thou profane and wicked prince, whose time has come that iniquity should have an end: Take off the diadem! Remove the crown! I will overturn, overturn, overturn it [the crown, the kingdom] until he comes whose right it is, and I will give it unto him." (Ezek. 21:25-27.) This period of 2520 years, or seven symbolic times, will expire, according to our reckoning (DAWN-STUDIES, Vol. II., Chap. IV.) in October, 1914. In other words, the period of Gentile times, of Gentile supremacy in the world, is the exact parallel to the period of Israel's loss of the kingdom and waiting for it at the hands of Messiah. In the "Studies in the Scriptures" series, Russell, also focuses on Leviticus 26:28 first, and then Ezekiel 21:25-27, but there he does include brief references to the tree dream of Daniel 4. When he wrote Volume 2, he was still concerned about the differenes in the Hebrew between Leviticus and Daniel and made a statement about the Hebrew word prior to the statement quoted above which was false (understood better in 1909, but never fixed in future printings of Volume II itself):
 All these periods being far longer than "seven times" or years literal, yet the "seven times" being mentioned as the last, greatest and final punishment, proves that symbolic, not literal time is meant, though the Hebrew word translated "seven times" in Leviticus 26:18,21,24,28, is the same word so translated in Daniel 4:16,23,25,32, except that in Daniel the word iddan is added, whereas in Leviticus it is left to be understood. It's like saying, it's the same Hebrew word, except that it's different. But he is still consistent that there are two parallel time periods: the "chastisment [trampling] of Israel" and the "time of the [domination by the] Gentiles." This is from Vol 2, "The Time Is At Hand," page 192, 193:
In the same chapter in which he tells them of the punishment of seven times under Gentile rule, he tells them, also, that if they would neglect the year Sabbaths he would punish them for it by desolating their land. (And, as a matter of fact, the seventy years desolation was also the beginning of the seven Gentile Times, as already shown.) The Lord's threatening reads thus: "Your land shall be desolate and your cities waste. Then shall the land enjoy her Sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate and ye be in your enemies' land,...because it did not rest in your Sabbaths when ye dwelt upon it." Lev. 26:34,35,43 . . . The entire number being seventy, and nineteen of these having been observed in a half-hearted way by Israel before the desolation, it follows that the remaining fifty-one (70-19=51) mark the period from the last Jubilee which Israel imperfectly observed, down to the great antitype. Notice, as an aside, that Russell comes 'curiously' close to finding a solution for the supposed "20-year gap" when he mentions that it was intended to cover for Jubilees observed in a half-hearted way for 19 of the 70 years, and failing completely for 51 of the seventy years. Just above this in the same article Russell had highlighted the connection between the separate phrases about a usual reference to the "70 years of captivity" as perhaps different from the "Biblical" reference to the "70 years of desolation." It's a side point, but might indicate that the "wheels were turning" to discover a way to push the 606 reference back to the actual chronology proposed by Seiss, instead of the 19 to 20 year mistake Russell had accepted through N.H.Barbour. (Seiss had recognized 606 as the first year of captivity and exile, referring to Daniel and others, from the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar, not the 18th/19th year when Jerusalem was destroyed. For that matter, so had E.B.Elliott.)
But back to the point at hand.
Russell showed again and again that his primary source for the 7 times, even the "seven Gentile Times" was Leviticus 26, not Daniel 4. Without further quoting long passages, we can see this in several more places, in no particular order. The following is a fairly comprehensive list of every time the period of "seven times" (as 2,520 years) was mentioned by Russell in the Watch Tower magazine:
The Watch Tower article in July 1915, supports the "seven times" only with Leviticus, not Daniel. The February 1892 Watch Tower, page 61 also only uses Leviticus, not Daniel, and states the prediction for "1915" instead of 1914:  Seeing Israel's kingdom cut off, and finding themselves for centuries uninterfered with in ruling the world, they conclude that it shall so continue always, and know not that their days of empire are limited to "seven times" or 2520 years, which will end in A.D. 1915 The June 1912 Watch Tower still speaking of the literal, physical nation of Israel only uses Leviticus 26, not Daniel. as a nation, they have for centuries been receiving the very "curses" specified under their Covenant. (See Deut. 28:15-67.) Verses 49-53 describe the Roman siege, etc.; verses 64-67 describe the condition of Israel since. As shown in previous writings the Lord (Lev. 26:18-45) declared the symbolical "seven times," 2,520 years, of Israel's subjection to the Gentiles, and their deliverance--A.D. 1914. The October 1909 Watch Tower is quoted earlier in this post, and only uses Leviticus, not Daniel. The December 1912 Watch Tower is actually about the potential problem with the potential existence of the "zero year" between BC and CE, and the article also makes a point that even back in 1904 the Watchtower had already hedged toward 1915 anyway, just in case. The parallel time periods are mentioned, without any mention of either Daniel or Leviticus, however: "We find, then, that the Seven Times of Israel's punishment and the Seven Times of Gentile dominion are the same; and that they began with the captivity of Zedekiah, and, as will be seen from the Chart, they terminate with the year 1915. In the November 1914 Watch Tower,  the Times of the Gentiles is still being discussed with only references to Leviticus, and not Daniel. Just as in the Seiss publication, the primary references are to Leviticus 26 and Ezekiel 21, and the only reference to Nebuchadnezzar is to Daniel 2 where he is called the "head of  gold:" Through our Lord Jesus Christ, God has mentioned the Gentile Times (Luke 21:24), and now in the Old Testament we find out how many Times there are-- how many years; for in Scriptural usage a Time means a year. As we studied the subject still further, we found that God had told the Israelites that they would come under His disfavor for Seven Times. (Leviticus 26:14-28.) . . . each symbolic "Time" would be 360 years. So then, this period of Seven Times must mean 7 x 360 years, or 2520 years. Thus we found that this was to be the period of time during which Israel was to be overturned (Ezekiel 21:25-27) --to have their kingdom and their government subject to the Gentiles.
So, it turns out that Daniel 4 might never have been used as a proof text for the 2,520 years in the Watch Tower itself during Russell's lifetime. It was in Volume II of Studies in the Scriptures, but even there it was not used much, but was discussed in a section more than two-thirds of the way into the article, after 20 pages, under a subheading of the chapter on the Gentile Times, called "Another Line of Testimony." So even here, it was considered to be an additional perspective, treated as secondary, after the Leviticus 26 explanation had been given as primary.
Another side point I found interesting is that there are several phrases that echo Seiss's publications, even though it may have been Barbour who had already provided the direct conduit to Seiss, and Russell's references are perhaps only through Barbour. But it's also true that when Seiss published this work in 1870, that it didn't actually quote Ezekiel 21:25-27, per se, but quoted the exact same verses from Ezekiel 21:30,32 using Leeser's Reading, which renumbers some verses. The Watch Tower began selling Leeser's translation as a recommended study aid back in 1884, but rarely quoted from it in the Watch Tower. The first quote from it that I have found was in February 1884, and the second quote from it was 8 years later in the same article mentioned above from February 1892, and the quotation is from Ezekiel 21:31,32, just as Seiss had published this passage (and only this passage) from Leeser's in 1870.

We can find out whether Russell really ever rejected this reasoning. We can trace his discussions of the topic from the very first to the very last. When Russell first wrote about the Gentile Times it was in the October 1876 Bible Examiner (published by George Storrs).
*** jv chap. 10 pp. 134-135 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth ***
Shortly thereafter, in an article entitled “Gentile Times: When Do They End?”, Russell also reasoned on the matter from the Scriptures and stated that the evidence showed that “the seven times will end in A.D. 1914.” This article was printed in the October 1876 issue of the Bible Examiner. The entire article is at:  https://archive.org/stream/1876BibleExaminer/1876_Bible_Examiner_Russell#page/n0/mode/2up.  Here is some of what he said: 
We believe that God has given the key. We believe He doeth nothing but he revealeth it unto His servants. Do we not find part of the key in Lev. xxvi. 27, 33? “I, even I will chastise you seven times for your sins: . . ." In explaining the "Gentile Times" of Luke 21:24, this is the first scripture he quotes, Leviticus 26:27,33. [Actually, Russell only quotes from Levitius 26:28,32,33.] Then he quotes from Ezekiel 21:26-27 ("Remove the diadem, take off the crown, . . . I will overturn, overturn, overturn it, . . . until He comes whose right it.") Leviticus 26 is no longer part of our 1914 doctrine, but Ezekiel 21:25-27 is still a key part of it. Then he references Daniel 2:38 about Nebuchadnezzar:
"Further, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, the head of gold, is recognized by God as the representative of the beast, or Gentile Governments." So far, all of this perfectly echoes the publication by Seiss nearly six years earlier. ("Prophetic Times" Dec 1870). There, the 2,520 years was also mentioned in connection with Leviticus 26:18,21,24,28, after which the 1870 article goes on to make the same point from Ezekiel 21:25-27. The only mention of Nebuchadnezzar in the "Seiss" article is a similar reference to Daniel 2 as just quoted from :
. . . with the corresponding investiture of Nebuchadnezzar, with as absolute dominion as God has ever delegated to man, as the "head of gold," contemplates the commencement of the "times of the Gentiles," which points to A.D. 1914 as the "time of the end" . . . Of course, they both are saying the same thing about Nebuchadnezzar which would appear to preclude making Nebuchadnezzar represent the non-Gentile government, if he is such a perfect representation of the Gentile governments!
So, the publication by Seiss never attempts to bring in Daniel 4, but Russell follows Barbour's lead here and attempts it anyway. Russell seems to be only slightly aware that his thinking is getting terribly muddled here, about who Nebuchadnezzar represents. Using some long and convoluted sentences, in his 1876 article, Russell says:
. . . as in the case of Israel, their degradation was to be for seven times, so with the dominion of the Image; it lasts seven times; for, when in his pride the “Head of Gold” ignored“ The God of heaven,” the glory of that kingdom (which God gave him, as a representative of the Image,) departed, and it took on its beastly character, which lasts seven times. Dan iv:23 – and, (prefigured by the personal degradation for seven years, of Nebuchadnazzar, the representative) until the time comes when they shall acknowledge, and “give honor to the Most High, whose Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom.” Russell's point is NOT that Nebuchadnezzar represents the Messianic Kingdom, as the Watch Tower publications tell us today. Instead, Russell is arguing that there is a "parallel" in the length of punishment because the two "events" are parallel periods: "trodding of Jerusalem" and "times of the Gentiles." The first single sentence quoted above in its entirety actually said the following:
God had taken the crown off Zedekiah and declared the Image, of which Nebuchadnezzar is the head, ruler of the world until the kingdom of God takes its place (smiting it on its feet); and, as this is the same time at which Israel is to be delivered, (for “Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled”), we here get our second clue, viz.: these two events, noted of the Scriptures of truth-“Times of Gentiles,” and “Treading of Jerusalem,” are parallel periods, commencing at the same time and ending at the same time; and, as in the case of Israel, their degradation was to be for seven times, so with the dominion of the Image; it lasts seven times; for, when in his pride the “Head of Gold” ignored“ The God of heaven,” the glory of that kingdom (which God gave him, as a representative of the Image,) departed, and it took on its beastly character, which lasts seven times. Yes that was only one sentence. But the point is that there are two periods of seven times: seven times of degradation for Israel (Treading of Jerusalem), and seven times for the dominion of the image (Times of the Gentiles). They will run in parallel. The first of those periods about the punishment of Israel/Jerusalem is from Leviticus 24 and the second of those periods is about the dominion of the Gentile nations and is from Daniel 4.
Of course, Russell's overall point was that by 1914 "the Jew" would be delivered because "the nations" would be "dashed to pieces" (smashed as with an iron rod) , and 1914 would be the time when the nations would therefore acknowledge God as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. There would be no more Gentile governments as they would collapse in chaos, and only Israel's government (assumed to be from the physical city of Jerusalem) would now have power.
". . . the seven times will end in A.D. 1914; when Jerusalem shall be delivered forever, and the Jew say of the Deliverer, “Lo, this is our God, we have waited for Him and He will save us.” When Gentile Governments shall have been dashed to pieces; when God shall have poured out of his fury upon the nation [sic], and they acknowledge, him King of Kings and Lord of Lords.  If the Gentile Times end in 1914, (and there are many other and clearer evidences pointing to the same time) and we are told that it shall be with fury poured out; at time of trouble such as never was before, nor ever shall be; a day of wrath, etc. So was Russell consistent about this reasoning or did he reject it as stated in "Proclaimers"?

Fixed that for you. 

I think that by now, even the dumbest JW can see how you dodge and weave, evade questions, challenges and arguments, and generally try to obfuscate rather than enlighten.
Just like Mommy.
AlanF