Pudgy

Over the years, I bought several hundred of these at only a nickel apiece. Placed them for 25 cents apiece. Every two placed was another gallon of gas for pioneering. Only have about 2 left.
I was baptized the year before it was released.
Since this came out in 1968 it pushed the 1975 date in a couple of places, as a time when the world would reach a peak of crises and catastrophes.  The book was updated in 1981 to get rid of the 1975 date.
This was an excellent style for studying. We didn't spend too long on any subject, and there were a lot of scriptures packed into the material that were just cited and not quoted. So a study could go long or short and still cover the material depending on the preference of the person we were studying with. Millions became Witnesses based on this book, especially former Catholics. But I think it had about equal appeal to people of many backgrounds.

I hate to say it, but I think of the TV series "Breaking Bad" every time I hear that song.
But I pioneered with a good friend during the years 1973-1976 when this book (1968 edition) reached its peak circulation. The brother was a Led Zeppelin fan, to the consternation of most of us who shared a car group with him. He always tried to convince people that their 1971 song "Stairway to Heaven" was written because someone from the group knew about the "Truth" book. The only words that partly fit were the following, assuming that the book was the "piper" and that "soon" there would be a "new day dawn" and there's still time to "change the road you're on" and get on the road that leads to eternal life, to paradise earth when "forests will echo with laughter."
Quite a stretch, imo, because I figured the song was completely unrelated to "truth."
And it's whispered that soon if we all call the tune
Then the piper will lead us to reason
And a new day will dawn for those who stand long
And the forests will echo with laughter
. . . 
Yes, there are two paths you can go by, but in the long run
There's still time to change the road you're on
 

This is what I was told when I was younger and I think about it every time I hear this song.....
".... peace and good, brotherhood...."
Agape
The Librarian

Everything you have just said, Georgie, is based on false premises, and personal delusion, and predilection for irrelevancy.
Do you even READ this stuff after you write it?
 

My observation refers to;
- court cases in which "tactics" of deliberate "deception" are applied that are unworthy of those who claim to be bearers of the Divine Light,
-some theological "nonsense" that GB produces as "errors", but many of which have very serious consequences,
- other theological moves as an attempt to justify and support what is "unbiblical teaching", but trying to maintain "reputation",
etc.

Some of them even identify as dogs. This is indeed both perplexing and disturbing.

JWs members are media dependent on only one source and that is WTJWorg. This means that they are  subject to the influence of one (only) current opinion (read misinformation) that occurs within the WTJWorg Information Department (superior to them is the Ministry of Truth managed by the GB).
As for "fake news" or misinformation (and sometimes disinformation), WTJWorg is full of it. What to call all abandoned dogmas, changed theses and teachings? Simply. Misinformation! (.., and occasionally disinformation)

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
(… that really is pushing the limits of absurdity, but it’s  standard salutation …)
Please note that Georgie was challenged to PROVE his assertions …. or by default, prove that he himself was lying and deceitful by not being able to show where ex-witnesses or the Norwegian Government were deceitful.
NOT A SINGLE EXAMPLE.
That makes HIS status for credibility self evidently ZERO.

Posting three completely unrelated links about Covid and elections, etc. is only an attempt to be deceitful, assuming your audience is stupid, gullible, and easily hypnotized by many words.
It is EXACTLY the same thing as DELIBERATELY LYING.
It assumes Georgie thinks he is lying to idiots and fools, who will never catch him in his lies.

… if you cannot supply specific examples of ex-witnesses AND the Norwegian Government using deceptive practices, then it is YOU Georgie, who is using deceptive practices.
 

What deceptive practices?
Specifically?

What deceptive practices?
Specifically?

… if you cannot supply specific examples of ex-witnesses AND the Norwegian Government using deceptive practices, then it is YOU Georgie, who is using deceptive practices.
 

OOOooo00°°°ooo goodie!!
… a contest to see who can use the most words to say absolutely nothing !!!
… good thing it’s not on a JW site.
HERE, people care not at all!

This is headline news on the most watched cable news in America. 
America is doomed. The inmates are running the Insane Asylum.

 
 

How could the Watchtower deceive its followers when both ex-members and the Norwegian government have revealed its deceptive practices? It seems the real issue may be with ex-members and Norway are spreading misinformation to the public.

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

This is headline news on the most watched cable news in America. 
America is doomed. The inmates are running the Insane Asylum.

 
 

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

Or… as Abraham Lincoln once said, “ Never trust any historical dates you get from the Internet”.

Or… as Abraham Lincoln once said, “ Never trust any historical dates you get from the Internet”.

I have no expectation that my posts should matter to anyone. But I should make clear that I don't assert that 587 BCE is "correct," only that all the available evidence, so far, points to 587 BCE as 18th year of the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar. I'll leave it to the Bible to assert whether anything significant is associated with Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign.
And I would say the same for 539 BCE as the year Cyrus conquered Babylon. I don't assert that 539 BCE is "correct," only that all the available evidence, so far, points to 539 BCE as the accession year of Cyrus over Babylon. Of course, since this is about the preponderance of evidence, it is also good to point out that, compared with 539, there is at least 10 times the evidence for 587 being the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar. 
As to 612 BCE for the Fall of Nineveh, I couldn't say it's correct either. But I do know that the best evidence does show that 612 BCE is the 14th year of Nabopolassar's reign. 
They offer a certain convenience, but I still don't think we really need to know any of the BCE dates. They can't be determined without astronomy anyway. Were the apostles supposed to learn astronomy or trust in someone else's claims about astronomy to understand Bible prophecy? It's like someone in service once said about the King James Version Bible: "If it was good enough for Saint Paul, it's good enough for me."

Speaking of humor. I like this guy and I learned some things at the same time.
 

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

I think I did speak to the actual reason. I mentioned that you must have thought this was about the best you could do in finding fault. And in that attempt you utterly failed, and actually showed COJ to be 100% correct. So the actual reason, I must assume, is that you have an unrequited desire to find fault, and this has frustrated you to the point where you merely throw up anything and hope it sticks. In this case you show that COJ was correct about something (years 12 to 16 missing) and say that this is wrong because the chronicle stops at 11 and picks up again at 17. In other words, you are simply showing that COJ was absolutely correct: that 12 to 16 are missing. Then you went ahead and embarrassed yourself by proving him right, quoting his exact words:

You highlight that the supposed problem where COJ mentioned that the portion containing the words for 17th year is damaged. His wording here is perfectly in line with scholars, and the WTS accepts the exact same thing. In other words, the Watchtower Society agrees with COJ here. Note:
COJ: “. . . and the portion where the words for "seventeenth year” no doubt originally could be read, is damaged." p.102 
Now the agreement with the WTS publicaitons. Here is "Insight" making the same point:
*** it-2 p. 459 Nabonidus ***
It may be noted that the phrase “Seventeenth year” does not appear on the tablet, that portion of the text being damaged. This phrase is inserted by the translators because they believe that Nabonidus’ 17th regnal year was his last. So they assume that the fall of Babylon came in that year of his reign and that, if the tablet were not damaged, those words would appear in the space now damaged
It is becoming more clear why genuine scholars have had only good things to say about COJ's work, and no genuine scholars have said anything about it being flawed in any aspect. You yourself have just shown it to have been careful and accurate. even in the one spot where you had hoped to point out a mistake. 
Therefore, I do believe your real concern is that "deep down" you probably know it is accurate and are just lashing out aimlessly.

That's odd. You find something accurate in COJ's book and then declare it inaccurate. You make me wonder if you have ever found anything inaccurate in COJ's book anywhere. Not that it matters, but have you actually ever found an inaccuracy in COJ's book? 

If that feeble attempt was any indication of the "best you could do" to find something inaccurate, it comes across as an admission that perhaps COJ's entire book is also accurate.
Maybe, as a challenge, you could find something that really is inaccurate, and if you can't find it and produce it here, I will just assume that "deep down" you believe his book is accurate and you are only flailing against it out of some kind of temper tantrum, or something like that. Something like the way you keep making up false information about me.