Pudgy

Me: No, if you remember what you drew in the very first picture. The man should have just hit his finger or thumb with a hammer while trying to hammer a nail in the wall. The woman should be next to the parrot. She should be pointing her left index finger at the parrot's ear, and she should point her right finger at the parrots other ear. But her index fingers should be close enough to be touching the parrot.

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

Me: Keep the same picture, but have the woman holding the index finger of each hand at both sides of the parrot's head as if she is trying to cover the parrot's ears to keep the parrot from hearing whatever the man is saying.

I've adjusted the scene according to your instructions. The woman is now holding her index fingers at both sides of the parrot's head, attempting to cover its ears.
Not quite. So I try again:

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


 Not terrible, but it didn't get the right idea about the parrot's ears being covered.
So I try again:
 

What is the use of comparing the decisions and actions of "perfect" people, Jesus, Adam and Eve with "imperfect" people, here and now? lol

All these problems can be solved if the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society administers Justice and policy as specifically outlined by Jesus in Matthew the 18th chapter.
Matthew 18:15 is a critical key element of that.
… so simple a solution.
So important it was recognized and incorporated into the Constitution of the United States.
All JWs know Matthew 18:15  is a command as important as Memorial attendance.
This creates a problem, though…….
It disenfranchises arbitrary use of power, to do arbitrary things.
….like ignoring Matthew 18.
 
 

…. For the agenda driven intellectually challenged people, what I have just recommended is only what the Bible specifically states.
Specific and direct instructions directly fromJesus Christ, on exactly how to run a Congregation.
…. specific and direct instructions from our King, Jesus Christ, on EXACTLY how to run a congregation.
Do we do that that way?
Not even close.

The lust for land, money power and real estate usurped the instructions of a man so poor, he didn’t even have a suitcase, and walked everywhere.
 
There is no record in the Bible of ANY Congregation ANYWHERE owning a building to meet in.

The lust for land, money power and real estate usurped the instructions of a man so poor, he didn’t even have a suitcase, and walked everywhere.
 
There is no record in the Bible of ANY Congregation ANYWHERE owning a building to meet in.

All these problems can be solved if the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society administers Justice and policy as specifically outlined by Jesus in Matthew the 18th chapter.
Matthew 18:15 is a critical key element of that.
… so simple a solution.
So important it was recognized and incorporated into the Constitution of the United States.
All JWs know Matthew 18:15  is a command as important as Memorial attendance.
This creates a problem, though…….
It disenfranchises arbitrary use of power, to do arbitrary things.
….like ignoring Matthew 18.
 
 

…. For the agenda driven intellectually challenged people, what I have just recommended is only what the Bible specifically states.
Specific and direct instructions directly fromJesus Christ, on exactly how to run a Congregation.
…. specific and direct instructions from our King, Jesus Christ, on EXACTLY how to run a congregation.
Do we do that that way?
Not even close.

Similar to the time when the generations of those who traveled in the desert died out and never saw the New World of the Jewish Paradise, so today there are generations of JWs who do not know what was taught in 1952, or before or after that year regarding those who cease to be JWs, as well as in other matters when it comes to dogma or administrative procedures.
You are now introducing the issue of business relations between former and current JWs. Your GB still needs to redefine the protocols with regard to the "new instructions" about dfd. As far as I understand, 3 categories of problematic JWs are mentioned. Excluded, apostates and minor baptized members.
The current practice does not mention the reason why someone was excluded or left the membership on their own. What are the reasons for not making it public?
If you can clarify for me and other readers, please comment and give source the information. Thank you!
Furthermore, in order for an ordinary JW to "decide independently" which person to say "hello" to, and which one not to, he/she must have enough information to make a decision. What information should there be about a dfd or diss person? May the elders and the congregation treat people who have committed the "same sin" but are not the same age, differently? How can this be explained through Jesus' teaching? No interpretations by GB, just the pure statement of Jesus, not the opinion of the WTJWorg administration and lawyers.
If it will be publicly announced in the congregation why someone is excommunicated, then this will cause some new elements that will not be "biblically justified", because the current practice shows that today's procedure carried out by the JC is "the only correct one". Abandoning the current procedure would mean that this existing practice is "unbiblical." "Shoot yourself in the foot." lol
Will reading names and revealing private information also be illegal due to existing regulations, laws on information that relates to individuals and should not be publicly available?
GB is starting to fear the effects of world courts, such as Norway, and these new changes are just a reflection of pragmatism, not genuine concern for the membership.

… and speaking of pathos … your sock puppet constructs are painfully transparent.
Without them, you would have NO audience.

BTK59
You better check my calcs TOoooOOoo…
…. I can see just with cursory inspection my A.I. is as nutty as YOUR A.I.
…… or is it?
(brouhahaHAHhaha)!!

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

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

These exchanges would be laughable if they weren't so . . . laughable. 
After my above counter to your claim of 589/8, I got this response although it wasn't a direct response about the eclipse. 
But then George immediately shows his BTK59 comment really was intended to refer to the eclipse in the next post:
So, George says I am inaccurate and my assertion that it didn't happen in 598/8 is an uninformed assertion. Then he himself admits the possibility of Sept 609, which I had already mentioned. George88 also says that he can demonstrate that the battle took place on Sept 30, 610. George is not telling the truth here. He can't demonstrate that. All he can do is find out that someone in the 1800's had tried to demonstrate that date, and it held for 40 years until someone recalculated and discovered his error. The person who had made the mistake of Sept 30 610 BC admitted that his calculations were worthless, and the same person who had made that mistake also then helped confirm the May 28, 585 date. Along with many others since then, including my own version of Stellarium and Sky5. 
Note: https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1901PA......9..376S/0000378.000.html

...

I'll explain why I have picked on this particular mistake of yours in a later post.
But I wanted to point out that my main point is still that no such eclipse happened in 589/588.  Your response inadvertently indicates that I was right. You tried to produce evidence for two other dates, but you also could not produce evidence for 589/8. 

Well said, imo. I have tried to remember to remove links that include an academic institution as part of the login. In the Joan Oates link I remember removing it and just including the JSTOR "stable" link. This might require an academic institution but JSTOR provides a way to download many files each month for free. Sometimes, when an academic journal is linked, you can find the gist of the article in a free review or find it was partially quoted elsewhere through Google Scholar, etc. 
I'd have to disagree with part of that. I think individuals are free to believe what they want, and that they are also free to either represent or misrepresent their views about the Bible or anything else. For example, I think you misrepresented you own views when you presented views via AI and calling them irrefutable, even though they turned out to be exactly the view I already held, and nearly the opposite of your own. No biggie. I even expect people to misrepresent the views of the Bible here. I've see it done quite a lot. But they should be willing to have that misrepresentation challenged rather than a flippant dismissal of ad hominem. But don't get me wrong, I think people are free to use ad hominems, logical fallacies, labels, misrepresentation of facts, etc. I just hope there is going to be someone to try to clear up any confusion those actions might cause. And the biggest thing about forums is that all of it is just opinion no matter how adamant we are about believing our own opinions and disagreeing with the opinions of others. But we are all free to handle those differences of opinion however we want. I may not like your response, you may not like mine. But big deal. Ultimately, it's just opinions. It's my opinion that certain parts of the evidence create irrefutable facts, but it's still just my opinion. 
 

I had a feeling you would merely try to distract and divert from your mistake.
My concern was that you didn't even notice that you posted my own perspective (via AI) as if it were your own unimpeachable, irrefutable perspective. But then to "LOL" about it, shows that you are not taking any of the material you are reading seriously. You pretend to rely on various authorities, pretending that even one of those authorities actually supports the actual chronology position you are proposing. The only reason to call you out on this is that it does nothing more than muddy the waters for anyone who might want to take the topic seriously. I suspect that this is the actual primary purpose. 
But overall, you have started a topic about uncovering discrepancies in secular history that mainly looks through books that discuss levels of accuracy and inaccuracy in astronomical readings, and which discuss the problematic timeline of late Assyria. Or even books from the mid-1800's when authors were still floundering and flailing about with data and evidence they obviously could not understand until more of it became available decades after they wrote. In the worst cases, you have referenced misinformation from Velikovsky, and completely obsolete information from the 1858 "Chronology" book by Franke Parker, likely because at the time he tried to combine several flawed sources, even though they result in contradictions. 
But then you (and George, of course) keep trying to tie all this supposed questionability to "18-year cycles," "19-year cycles," and "20-year" gaps as if there is going to be some magical reason that sows a seed of doubt about the standard chronology of the period, but magically moves the timeline according to some imaginary 18, 19, or 20 year adjustment. You imply in a later post that this might not be the ultimate goal, but then why pick a supposed 20-year gap when you can't point to any specific 20-year gap? Why speak of 18 and 19 year cycles pretending these irrelevant cycles might have some relationship to the chronology of any specific tablets in question? (The 20 year gap, plus or minus one year, is the same goal that Furuli worked on, same as the WTS, and the same as a previous "BTK" on this forum.)
I'm sure you know that I already understand why this attempt of yours is not really an honest one that tries to make real use of the evidence, and I'm sure that it merely confuses those who are just getting interested. I think your real goal is to make sure that no one looks too deeply into the actual evidence of the period. The way you quote long passages from books and then speak only in vague, teasing terms about what they might possibly mean to you, tells me that you don't understand much of what you are reading, or that you hope others are stupid enough not to check it out for themselves. I can't understand the ultimate goal of that type of behavior except that maybe you think it impresses people who you think are very stupid, or you really just don't understand it yourself.  

Your opinion carries no significance either. Feel free to have your own opinions, but please don’t impose your irrational views on the public.
Mathematics is indispensable when utilized correctly. It's not meant to distort the way non-Chritians or any other religious members would do.
A precise way to establish the association between battles and 588/7 BC is by employing accurate mathematical methods. By applying the 19/8-year cycle properly in our calculations, we can also determine that it leads to the year 607/6 BC. Time-lapse moves seamlessly from the start to the finish, rather than insisting that people accept it being presented in reverse.
You only want to see 568 BC, which is meaningless. In the past, there were individuals who not only observed omens, but also sought to understand the workings of celestial bodies over time. Why was it visible in the west for 10 months if it appeared in the east for only two months? Those calculations were purely celestial, unrelated to any earthly events.

That question is meaningless.
First, it is the conventional approach, the same approach used by 100% of all the current authors and authorities you have ever quoted. Even Furuli and the Watchtower and the transgendered Messiah have used this approach. It's the very reason Rolf Furuli himself tried so hard to move the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar from 568 to 588. Otherwise, Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year would be 586. have used, on the topic that you have ever quoted have used.
Second, if you keep going in that conventional direction you would continue to disprove, rather than prove, that 607 was Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year. 
Not really. Math works pretty much the same whether you are a Muslim, a Buddhist, Jewish, Moon-worshiper, or atheist.
I don't understand why you think this is an argument. If my own 37th year can be proven to be 1957+37=1994, then that alone proves that my 19th year was 1957+19=1976. Whether I had gone to battle in Viet Nam in 1976, or gone to Bethel in Brooklyn in 1976, the math would still work out.  

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

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

It appears that I have offended an excommunicated person who hypocritically claimed to rarely downvote. Could it be that the truth hurts? The next episode will provide a glaring example of meaningless rhetoric by such an individual. The resounding applause of the closed club reverberates through the bustling square. Join us in endorsing our esteemed community member, a true excommunicated trailblazer. LOL!
 
 
There it is, a deceitful falsehood coming from a dishonest individual who, despite being just as blatant in their wrongdoings as numerous others, managed to manipulate their defenders into ignoring the truth and banning those that defended God's truth in the past. They even go as far as using curse words but ** blocking a letter or two, falsely believing that the public would be unaware of their true intentions. The conduct exhibited by these Jehovah's Witnesses is truly disgraceful, tarnishing the reputation of God and the entire community of believers. 
You can downvote this one to pudgy.

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