Alphonse

Alphonse:
Having downvoted what I consider statements of irrefutable fact … please feel free to correct any and/or all points.
Otherwise, you prove yourself a Troglodyte.

I would never suggest blocking or banning The Vicar of Warwick, Wally McNasty and his doppelgänger minion troupe of whack-a-mole up and downvoting mute sock puppets.
It could only be better with recorded squirrel noises and rubber bulb bicycle horns in both hands.

Yes, you don't have to look hard to know I ignore fools, Pudgy, lol!
Isn't it fascinating when Pudgy starts denying any involvement in the banning process, only to enable it through an alternate persona? lol!

It seems that the individual now favors the use of BC, despite previously opposing it. I have no issue with employing BC, even though the ancients couldn't have linked it with "Before Christ" or "Before the Common Era," as they could not have foreseen that modern calculations would transition to "Anno Domini" or "Common Era." Therefore, I concur with the Watchtower's stance on historical chronology.
When were the tablets first recorded, and what additional information did newer scribes incorporate into previously documented tablets? If the original tablet was damaged, to what extent did scribes rely on interpretative translation to restore its content?
The Babylonian Chronicles are a good example that consists of tablets that were most likely recorded during the time of Darius.
However, that individual previously denounced the works of Raymond Philip Dougherty as flawed, yet now embraces them to support the destruction of Nineveh in 612 BC, quite the turnaround.
However, in A.K. Grayson's translation of ABC-7 (BM 35382), the inscription ceases in Nabonidus's 11th year and resumes in his 17th year. This contrasts with the Chronicles of Early (COJ) assertion, which inaccurately assigns the period as years 12 to 16.
The question arises: Without relying on the tablet itself, how is Nabonidus 14 calculated to correspond to 612 BC? In this case, I accept the advice of "Brinkman" and "Glassner."
Now scholars like "Beaulieu" reference the works of "Parpola" but he does mention the lack of the Neo-Babylonian period in Nineveh.
"Unfortunately, research on the Neo-Babylonian period is often hampered by the aridity of the sources. Building inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian rulers seem opaque and lifeless when compared to Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions and annals, which, despite their partiality and the need to use them cautiously, provide a chronological sequence of events and a wealth of information on NeoAssyrian political and military history. Research on the Neo-Assyrian period is further enhanced by the partial survival of the state archives of Kalhu and Nineveh, invaluable sources for the political structure of the Sargonid empire. The lack of equivalent source material for the Neo-Babylonian period—only a handful of documents have been discovered in the remains of the royal palace at Babylon—means that the political history of the Neo-Babylonian empire remains an enigma to historians. Nevertheless, a few areas for future research likely to produce outstanding results can be delineated."
Therefore, I fully support the Watchtowers chronology that begins in 4026 BC with that of the secular chronology that starts in 4004 BC.
 

I've just finished reading the email you sent.
Wow, I'm speechless. I understand you may be hesitant to share information you're certain of, but have you ever considered writing a book? Your examples are so clear, they make sense even if they aren't the final outcome of your deductions.
Also, I appreciate your mention in the email regarding the destruction of Nineveh in 625 BC. It is indeed perplexing. It also raises questions about how individuals who adamantly assert there is no mention of BC/BCE in the Bible can refute the year 607 when, by that logic, they should also refute 587. It's troubling to consider the mindset of such people, and even more so when others agree with this misguided notion.
Perhaps it's time to shift our focus and initiate a discussion on a different subject. Let’s explore how secular history often misinterprets various aspects or something along those lines.
I understand that we are both busy, but let's give it some thought. lol!

I’m fairly new here but this is the same person talking to themselves isn’t it? Hilarious. Very very weird but hilarious. 

Yeah … he also has other logins to upvote himself and other logins to downvote others …
…. he thinks no one notices ….

When I was a young man and the “end of the conveyor belt” was over the horizon I was intensely interested in such things. 
Now I am only interested in provable reality, as I can see the end of the “conveyor belt”, and everybody’s predictions have been 100% wrong, 100% of the time.
So ….. what’s the point?
I am sitting in my car outside WalMart, and I can look around and see the Great Tribulation has NOT OCCURRED.
I can look around and see Armageddon has  NOT OCCURRED.
I can look at the bag of pills on the front seat and see that God’s Kingdom ruling has NOT OCCURRED.
A thousand iterative calculations “PROVING” IT DID, and all the hopes and dreams, and wishful theories are wrong.
When it happens you will know it.
Really!
Really

Let's delve deeper into that idea. Who established the commandments that govern the obedience of Gods' followers? Who bestowed the instructions assigning the Levites the duty of the altar? Who determined the dietary restrictions that God's faithful should adhere to? By examining these aspects, it becomes evident that former members lack any sound basis for criticism, or do they think the GB was responsible?
Srecko, it's truly remarkable how you continue to display hypocrisy. In the past, you criticized Witnesses for not even saying hello to disfellowshipped or former members. Now that they can, you still find a way to criticize. This psychological aspect is truly fascinating and deserves attention.

This is why even witnesses who never understood the proper protocol on how they should conduct themselves with former members and disfellowshipped individuals can now clearly see the impact of these new provisions from the Governing Body.
Even as far back as 1952, there was an article that made a conscious decision on this matter. How many witnesses today still remember and believe these provisions are a step in the right direction, when in reality it has been feasible for a very long time?
*** w52 12/1 p. 735 Questions From Readers***
Is it proper for a Christian witness of Jehovah to have business relationships with one who has been disfellowshiped?—F. G., California.
The distinction between social and religious responsibilities has always been important. In my experience, I have interacted with many disfellowshipped and former members on a professional level. The recent clarification by the governing body serves as a social norm, shedding light on why public announcements are deemed necessary when it comes to individuals who have been critical of the Watchtower but have not fully comprehended its principles throughout their lives. This practice is sometimes misunderstood by uninformed witnesses as "shunning." Therefore, the latest developments regarding former members and the disfellowshipped are not surprising.
Hence, it is irrelevant how a critic may meticulously analyze this in an attempt to cater to their followers and distort the story; it is merely the same old tale. However, what truly holds significance? These provisions exist for those who have strayed from the path and desire to reconcile with God, providing them with the chance to do so through their genuine "repentance." The governing body also addressed the topic of individuals who are unwilling to repent and have chosen the path of betrayal. In light of this, what sort of connection should a faithful witness maintain with such a malevolent being? What does scripture say in this instance?
Those critics who selectively choose Watchtower articles and distort their meaning do a disservice to those who seek to obediently follow God. This is something that all witnesses should have been mindful of from the beginning.
Regarding the relaxed dress code, we are currently living in the 21st century, where dressing distinctively may lead some to be perceived as stuck-up and old school. For this reason, a casual look may be more appealing to the younger generation and could encourage them to open their hearts to God. 
In certain countries, this has already been accomplished, particularly in cases where persecution is rampant. In these circumstances, it becomes a necessity to prioritize the welfare of individuals. Think about it people instead of criticizing the decision of the GB. How do you fit in society?

Whose responsibility is it to understand if it's written in black and white? How many people do you believe Jesus guided by gabbing their hands to follow him and reject the unrighteousness of the Pharisees?
If people perished in the wilderness as a result of their sins, who should bear responsibility for it? Is it fair to attribute the removal of an entire generation before entering the promised land solely to the leaders? It appears as though you consistently shift the blame onto others instead of recognizing that true responsibility lies with free will.
Humanity is faced with only two fundamental choices, regardless of the justifications people use to navigate life's challenges or evade responsibility. Even in the face of personal imperfections and a desire to shift blame, these two choices remain constant, unaffected by any belief or restriction.
The Governing Body does not grant absolution for sins, unlike the Catholic Church, but it does provide a way for those who have been disfellowshipped or have left to return to God if they are truly repentant. Repentance is key, and the Governing Body has given clear guidelines for elders to assist those who demonstrate a genuine desire to return. This new understanding does not apply to diehard apostates or unrepentant individuals.
Let's avoid complicating the matter by engaging in another type of fallacious argument. Hence, it should be embraced when people show a willingness to return to God.
Your opinion is quite interesting, as it seems to contradict itself. On one hand, you criticize the Watchtower for not providing enough information, and on the other hand, you argue that it provides too much information that should be regulated by the government. This inconsistency may indicate an unsatisfiable attitude, which is often associated with diehard apostates.
 

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.

That would be like saying the full responsibility rests on Jesus. You are an original, or maybe not. I heard that one before by an atheist.
What aspect of free will, granted by God, do you not comprehend? Do not seek guidance from someone who has been expelled. Both of you are heading in the same direction.
It was Adam and Eve's prime duty to comprehend the first commandment bestowed upon them by God. It was not within God's realm of responsibility to prevent them from succumbing to the immense original sin. It was entirely their own responsibility, and the consequences of their mistake reverberated through us all. If our Creator desired mere automatons, He would have crafted us as such. However, seeing as He bestowed mankind with freedom of choice, we now bear the fruits of our own actions, much like that individual who has become ostracized.

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

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

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

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

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

I strongly suggest that you block him. It's clear that he's a chronic liar who is unwilling to change. He has spent a significant amount of time fabricating facts, much like Carl Olof Jonsson has done for years. It's evident that he can't bear the fact that his false claims don't stand up to scrutiny on an academic level. That's precisely why it's essential to let the professionals handle this matter and uncover the truth.
If you notice he is nitpicking the dates. What he needs to do is "disprove" those historical facts about the wars between the Medians and Lydians, and the Babylonians and the Egyptians around the time when supposedly Jerusalem was being destroyed by Babylon in 587 BC. 
He can't stand the fact that his famous astronomical tablets from 568 BC can be used to reflect those other conflicts not just his false narrative of Jerusalem.
Like the other fool before, who failed to disprove the significant events that occurred in 1914. You cannot deny that the destruction of Jerusalem was not the only conflict to take place. Moreover, it is evident that after Cyrus's decree in 538 BC, the Jews did indeed build an altar for worship in 537 BC, or can you disprove scripture here as well?
One important detail that is frequently overlooked and undisclosed to the public is that in 539 BC, Cyrus's wife passed away, prompting a period of mourning and another reason for his decree being issued in 538 BC, given the historical consensus of October 539 BC as the precise month and year when he entered Babylon.
He consistently manipulates the facts, manipulating dates that have no relevance just to support his version of events. You should critically examine and challenge this distorted interpretation of history that you believe exists. For instance, you could challenge the claim that there was no Eclipse War that intertwined in or around 587/586 BC, disprove the historical evidence of prolonged hostility between Babylon and Egypt during that period, and undermine the argument that the astronomical tablet in 568 BC can only indicate the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC, despite the existence of other conflicts and the tablet's lack of explicitly mentioning that destruction. It is imperative to expose the flaws and inaccuracies of those historical facts.
Go ahead, prove the world wrong and show that you are the only one who is right, genius! lol!

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)!!

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

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. 

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