BTK59

Does it matter if people are tuning in to a news source known for its shameful content? I only watch it for the humor.
Does that discount the fact that Pudgy, this disfellowshiped Republican registered voter and Racist tried to influence his political agenda here?
If it was truly disheartening for him to post it now, in a presidential election year, Pudgy and FOX NEWS would have shown outrage in 2021. Why didn't FOX NEWS mention it in 2021, the outrage felt by those Confederate white supremacist Republicans, MAGA, attempting to influence and corrupt our nation?
This is why Witnesses shouldn't engage in politics, which is precisely why they should abstain from it. Now Pudgy, can you genuinely refute Biden's 2021 declaration? Avoid distorting, manipulating, or twisting your words. Provide concrete evidence that he did not make that declaration in 2021, rather than in 2024, a presidential election year?

If there had been witnesses in Washington's time, they would not have paid attention to Paul Revere. lol!
One of the concerns they should be vigilant about is identifying apostates.

LOL! That's hilarious how O. Neugebauer mentions: (B) “‘diluvium’’: actually Kaliyuga 1, Chaitra 1 = —3101 Febr. 17 = julian day 588,465 
I'm still working on the hypothesis.
Diluvium: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diluvium
I wonder what he meant by this, since -3101 corresponds to the year 880 BC, during Asa's and Zimri's reigns.
Kali Yuga, also known as Kaliyuga, refers to the concept in Hinduism that signifies the impending destruction of the Earth or humanity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali_Yuga
According to Hindu cosmology, it is predicted that at the end of the Kali Yuga, Lord Shiva will destroy the universe and the physical body will undergo a great transformation. After the dissolution, Lord Brahma will recreate the universe, and humankind will become the Beings of Truth once again.
I am curious about the time period we are discussing. I cannot recall any catastrophic events mentioned in the Bible around 880 BC, unless it was intended to illustrate the story of how Zimri annihilated the entire family of Baasha.
Can he have meant 588 BC, if so, he's off since it is placed in -3393
The puzzling thing, is: Febr. 17 = julian day 588,465 
If I use 588.465,
The calendar date for 588,465 is 12:0:0.00 UT on July 5, -4711.
If I use 880 BC as a reference point, I get 1400050.2933
It's not a match. Perhaps I too should embrace a skeptical mindset! lol!

No need to apologize. I understand that it wasn't your fault, so there is no forgiveness required. However, I do appreciate you considering me important enough to apologize to. Allow me to assure you, "They call me Mister Nobody" - just a little humor!
As can be seen, ignorance is bliss when the same information from scholars that supports the argument for 587 can also be applied to any other date, such as 607. This is the essence of cherry-picking, based on a false assumption much like relying on the words of scholars regarding assumptions.
These behavioral patterns merely serve as an illustration of ignorance by an individual who openly admits their lack of expertise. Quite contradictory. Once again, such a mindset should be disregarded by a genuine researcher.

I apologize for any confusion my previous statement may have caused. After carefully reviewing the evidence you shared with me via email, it has become clear to me that your point is valid.
Then the question revolves around the proficiency of the scribes and astronomers in mathematical calculations. The Babylonians utilized a base-60 computation system, which is a stark contrast to the binary 1's and 0's we employ for coding purposes. It's important to note that the concept of zero did not exist for them. They used 1 and 10.
"There was no zero employed in the system and there was no decimal point (no ‘sexagesimal point’), and therefore the context was essential."
"The example above illustrates the cuneiform notation and represents the number 60 + 10 + 1 ¼ 71. The Babylonians used the base 60 system for computation, and this base is still in use today in the division of hours into minutes and the division of minutes into seconds. One possible explanation for the use of the base 60 notation is the ease of dividing 60 into parts. It is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20 and 30. They were able to represent large and small numbers and had no difficulty in working with fractions (in base 60) and in multiplying fractions. The Babylonians maintained tables of reciprocals (i.e. 1/n, n ¼ 1, . . . 59) apart from numbers like 7, 11, etc. which cannot be written as a finite sexagesimal expansion (i.e. 7, 11, etc. are not of the form 2a3b5g)"
Did this mean that they had a mathematician with them wherever they went, or did observers return to the palace and inform a mathematician, saying, "This is my observation, now work your magic?" I can foresee errors occurring in either of these scenarios.
Also, thanks, I'll check out Professor O. Neugebauer works.

It is truly disheartening to witness how individuals exploit tablets as a way to validate their assumptions regarding the year 587. However, the evident error within the Lachish tablets serves as a confirmation. Nevertheless, apostates relentlessly strive to manipulate the actual content of these tablets in order to portray a disheartening scenario of their own fabrication. The chronological order they employ, such as 605, 598, 587, and 568, is completely misplaced.
But, as you mentioned, they do serve a valuable purpose when the information is used correctly. However, in that regard, the Babylonian Chronicles, along with the Ostraca Tablets, fall short. I also understand what you mean about the similarity of language, as historians want us to believe that these items, although separate, relate to the destruction of Jerusalem in 587. Yet, there is no indication on them to support this claim, especially the Lachish letters, which scholars have clearly misinterpreted and falsely adapted to scripture.
Perhaps we could refer to 559 BC, when the books of magical arts were reportedly seized by Croesus and subsequently burned, as documented by historians of the time, but that might invoke the melancholic accounts of the Elcipse War, lol!
This is precisely why we should conduct our own research and not depend on someone else's skewed perspective. Now, I truly appreciate the meticulous research that the Watchtower has conducted.
However, in this case, I can also appreciate the words of Professor Richard F. Stephenson's words.
"Babylonian astronomical records come from two distinct periods— a short interval covering the reign of a single king during the first half of the second millennium BC, and an incomplete span of about 600 years between 650 and 50 BC"
Well I'm off to see today's Solar Eclipse, have a good day!

GB decide to give permission.  lol
 
 
 

Why do you complain about revisions then? I can't remember a time when a recommendation turned into a license.
I have never given you that much credit. The same goes for Pudgy. I don't care for that person at all. What I truly appreciate is your nonsensical way of thinking and how you contradict yourself with every post.
When did you come to the realization that the Watchtower organization has attained perfection and is able to safeguard individuals from making misguided decisions due to their mental state? Like any other institution, the Watchtower provides guidance and suggestions, and it's important for you to analyze your own thoughts more critically. Are you implying that you yourself are flawless and have never committed any sins whatsoever? I'm not referring specifically to pedophilia, but rather speaking in general terms.
The Watchtower's expectation is for everyone to embrace a Christian life and follow the teachings of God. It is a personal choice if someone falls short of that. Elders cannot prevent someone from engaging in private and secret activities as they cannot read minds. Why not ask your good friend this question? Discover what kind of response you will receive.

You got it! That would imply that official Joash lived simultaneously during the reigns of King Jehoash, and King Zedekiah reigns. It seems highly unlikely that an individual could have lived for approximately 240 years, unless people are extremely credulous. Therefore, it is evident that there are inaccuracies in the chronology of those tablets, as is the case with any historical artifacts.
The only way to consider this official Yoash is if it refers to the Kings of that time like Jehoash (Joash) of the house of David, and in a similar understanding to King Josiah's reign. Alternatively, it may all pertain to the reign of King Joash.
Was the scribe referring to King Jehoash (Joash) as Lord Joash in tablet #2, and was tablet #6 referring to King Josiah as Lord Joash?
In order to verify this information, it is necessary to identify the official referred to as Joash, as there is no known official with this name other than the King of the House of David in scripture.
If tablet #6 were to be positively identified as belonging to King Josiah, it would unequivocally establish that the destruction of Jerusalem occurred in 607, regardless of the claims made by Israeli antiquities. Moreover, it would confirm that the fall of Lachish took place in 606. In light of these historical facts, any revisions or alterations become inconsequential; what is required instead is a resolution to the perplexing 240-year discrepancy.
Yet, scholars haven't given this discrepancy a second thought since they continue to assert the years 589-587 for these tablets. This is just another example of how scholars don't understand scripture as much as they think they do. Therefore, you are absolutely correct; this belongs to the realm of conspiracy theories.

I understand now. I can clearly see the illustration you provided for Lachish Ostracon #2 as being manipulated.
The inscription reads as you mentioned:
“To my lord Joash 1: May Yahweh give you good news at this very time. Who is your servant [but] a dog 2 that my lord should remember his servant?"
The_Kings_of_Israel_and_Judah
"Each successive monarch of the house had, in fact, protected and encouraged the calf-worship (2 Kings x. 29–31 ; xiii . 2 , 6 , 11 ) ; it remained for the third king, Joash , openly to proclaim his adherence to it by showing that the name of its founder was that which he most delighted to honour. Jeroboam succeeded to the throne " in the fifteenth year of Amaziah " (2 Kings xiv. 23) , very shortly after his father's great victory over Judah . The military successes of his father against Benhadad (ibid . xiii. 25 ) , and against Amaziah ( ibid .xiv. 11-13 ) , naturally led him to raise his thoughts to greater enterprises than even his father had attempted ; and it appears to have been not long after his accession that he commenced that series of wars which covered his name with glory, and cause modern historians to recognize in him the predestined "deliverer " of the Israelite nation (ibid . xiii . 5) , and to speak of him as 66 the greatest of all the kings of Samaria." pp.140-141
2 Kings 13
13 Jehoash slept with his fathers, and Jeroboam [II] sat on his throne. Jehoash was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel. 14 Now Elisha [previously] had become ill of the illness of which he died. And Jehoash king of Israel came down to him and wept over him and said, O my father, my father, the chariot of Israel and the horsemen of it! [II Kings 2:12.]
2 Samuel 9:8 New International Version
8 Mephibosheth bowed down and said, “What is your servant, that you should notice a dead dog like me?”
I see the similarity in language with the phrase, "your servant [but] a dog" with that in 2 Samuel "What is your servant, that you should notice a dead dog like me"
Lachish Ostracon II
To my lord Yaosh: May Yahweh cause my lord to hear tidings of peace this very day, this very day! Who is thy servant (but) a dog that my lord hath remembered his servant? May Yahweh afflict those who re[port] an (evil) rumor about which thou art not informed! (II Sam.. 9:8)
Lachish Ostracon VI
To my lord Yaosh: May Yahweh cause my lord to see this season in good health! Who is thy servant (but) a dog that my lord hath sent the [let]ter of the king and the letters of the prince[s, say]ing, “Pray, read them!” And behold the words of the pr[inces] are not good, (but) to weaken our hands [and to sla]cken the hands of the m[en] who are informed about them [ . . . And now] my lord, wilt thou not write to them, saying, “Why do ye thus [even] in Jerusalem? Behold unto the king and unto [his house] are ye doing this thing!” [And,] as Yahweh thy God liveth, truly since thy servant read the letters there hath been no [peace] for [thy ser]vant. . . . (Jer. 38:4)
I also see the text where it states  "Lord Joash" for the year 589, but it is worth questioning who exactly this person is that is being honored. There is no record of a Judean king with that name during that specific period unless that person was referring to King Josiah.
Furthermore, there is no known governor either. It is important to note that priests were not referred to as lords as far as I can tell for that period.
Then as you claim, these tablets date back to an earlier period, and are not specifically for the year 589. Even if an official has been identified by a subordinate speaking to a general Yaosh, the timeline is off, since 2 Samuel 9:8 and Jeremiah 38:4 can't be true at the same time for "Lord Yaosh" and therefore would have no relevance to 587.
Now you mention that some scholars interpret these tablets in the time of Jeremiah and King Zedekiah in Jeremiah 38. As you conclude, King Zedekiah was never called Joash. The only official called by name in that passage is Ebed-Melek, a Cushite. 
Then, you are right. These passages don't align with the timeline, and these, Ostracons must have been in a storage room when they were found but from an earlier date.  It seems like this one belongs in the other topic about conspiracies, lol!

Your credibility to discuss ad-hominem attacks is nonexistent, given your recent statements. Look up the facts about the ARC and Australia, as they speak for themselves. And as for you, the mugshot tells its own story.
You want to continue to post more lies and rants, go ahead, knock yourself out, lol!
Oops! I completely forgot to mention something. The phrase "ad hominem" The phrase ad-hominem is a code phrase for you people to get people banned. You can't deny it anymore, your false claims about never having anyone banned are inexcusable if your demand is met.

Of course, I can. Is that your bias speaking, or are you open to other perspectives?
In a courtroom, the pressure to tell the truth is immense. Some succumb to the temptation to lie in order to protect themselves. However, the brother, who was not facing charges, answered sincerely and directly. Why would he even bother if it doesn't meet your expectations?

Absolutely, they have a deep understanding that God is always there to support them.

@BTK59
In response to your email, the Ostraca Tablets can be classified in the same category as the Babylonian Chronicles. They share a common language, but offer a unique Jewish perspective. Interestingly, archaeologists rely on the same dating system to reach a consistent conclusion. It is no surprise, then, to them, that Jerusalem fell in 587. The irony lies in the scholars' endorsement of this date, as it bolsters the modern-day legitimacy of Israel.
I have always been skeptical about the authenticity of the Babylonian chronicles since Gadd's time, and the same applies to Jewish antiquity. There have been several documented instances in the past where forged items have been discovered, casting doubt on their validity.
Anyway, the process of calculating the year 587 has been extensively debated for about a decade here. People have firmly embraced the incorrect interpretation, while those with faith in God understand the simple calculation of subtracting 70 from 607 to arrive at 537 the desolation period on judgment, just as critics do with 568 to 587. They cannot insist that their decision is right while dismissing the same formula for other dates. Such a stance is ridiculous and unfounded.
When were the Lachish letters written? There are different theories regarding the timing of their creation. Some argue that they were originated during the actual occurrence of the events, serving as firsthand accounts. On the other hand, there are those who suggest that the letters were compiled retrospectively, once the observation of certain signals, like communication through fire, ceased. If individuals failed to witness a signal fire, it was an indication that something unusual was taking place. It has been concluded by some scholars that certain tablets were written prior to specific events taking place. Therefore, we can't place an "absolute" on these tablets either.

the lachish letters -- Volume 1, 1971
"The documents forming this “dossier”’, and brought to the court, possibly cover a period of a few years. Some of them, as Letter IV, telling that Azeqah, the great sister-fortress of Lachish, no longer sends signals, can date only a few weeks before the fall of Lachish, while other messages were written probably months or years before this time. Letter IV also brings definite proof that Tell ed Duweir is the site of ancient Lachish."
Would it truly be astonishing if Nebuchadnezzar were to appoint or assume control of a city while he carried out his military campaign elsewhere? Absolutely not! In that era, numerous monarchs were known to task their esteemed field commanders, regardless of their hierarchical position, with the responsibility of maintaining order within a city or completing post-battle operations. The Bible itself speaks of such matters.
The Ostraca Tablets and the Babylonian Chronicles pose the same dilemma as they are in the same language. The mention of the year of the King's reign becomes the obstacle, leading to ambiguity.
If we consider 625 as the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar's reign instead of 605, we are faced with the notorious 20-year gap. Let me provide you with an example of another researcher who is diligently attempting to prove the significance of 587, much like many others. However, what they fail to consider is the crucial aspect of linking dates together to support their interpretation.
When considering a dating system, a decisive choice arises: sticking to the Babylonian timeline or following the Judean timeline. Scripture maintains a clear distinction between them, offering consistency, while secular history interweaves them.
Either we start with 605 for everything, or we use 610 for everything under secular rules, not scripture. I commend this person for giving their best shot. It's worth noting that 610 marks the reign of the King who was elected by the people, after the death of his father, following his deposition by King Necho II. His reign actually began in late 610, not 609.
610: After King Jehoahaz (Judah) was taken captive to Egypt by Pharaoh-necho in the year 610 BC, there were actually six different groups taken captive by Babylon at different times.

ME: Missing timeline of Riblah

610/609: King Jehoiakim, The first group was taken when Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in the third year of King Jehoiakim (610-3 = 607), and the captives of Judah which were taken included Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (Daniel 1:1-6).

ME: Missing Battle of Megiddo King Josiah

606: The captives were not actually taken to Babylon until the fourth year of Jehoiakim (610-4 = 606), after Nebuchadnezzar had defeated Pharaoh-necho at Carchemish up by the Euphrates river (Jeremiah 46:1-2). 

599: The second group taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar in his seventh year of reign (606-7 = 599 BC) and during the reign of king Jehoiakim were three thousand and twenty­ three Jews (Jeremiah 52:28; 2 Kings 24:1-6; 2 Chronicles 36:1-6).

598: The third and largest group was taken captive in Nebuchadnezzer's eighth year of reign (606-8 = 598 BC) during the three month reign of Jehoiachin, and at that time he carried away over ten thousand captives (2 Kings 24:12-16; Jeremiah 24:1). DJ Wiseman Babylonian Chronicle can be used as well.

588: The fourth group taken into captivity by Nebuchadnezzer was taken in his eighteenth year (606-18 588 BC) during the reign of King Zedekiah (Jeremiah 52:29). The fifth captivity occurred when Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in the ninth year of Zedekiah (598-9 = 588 BC), and then afterward destroyed it in Nebuchadnezzar's nineteenth year (606-19 = 587 BC) and carried away the remainder of the people except certain of the poor which he left for vine-dressers and husbandmen (Jeremiah 39:6-10; 52:1-17).

583: There was one more group of people taken, but that took place four years later in the twenty-third year of Nebuchanezzar (606-23 = 583 BC) when the last seven hundred and forty-five people were taken (Jeremiah 52:30).

However, this researcher declares the following:

 ANTICIPATED DIFFICULTIES
Even though we confidently believe the scriptures to have been without error, in their original form, it is obvious that a few errors have been introduced into nearly all versions available today. The possibilities for error fall into four main categories, and each must be addressed.
Do the errors lie in scripture itself or in the people attempting to interpret scripture? It is evident that he mentions the year 607 and makes use of the correct Judean starting point. However, the lack of wisdom here is: why would Nebuchadnezzar wait until 589 to lay siege to Jerusalem once more, only to destroy it in 587, when he already had control of Judah and Jerusalem in 607?
Misinterpreting Scripture is a common mistake that can lead many astray. Those who do not seek a deep understanding of the mysteries of Scripture may struggle to find true faith. God desires us to seek knowledge with diligence and humility, for only then can we grasp the profound wisdom hidden within the sacred texts.
God's judgment against Judah and Jerusalem was pronounced while King Josiah was still in power, so there's no clear rationale for Nebuchadnezzar's execution of that judgment 23 years later. This suggests that Nebuchadnezzar was defying the God of Israel. Why, then, would God instruct Jeremiah about a Babylonian king who would defy His will? Some may argue God's judgment over Nebuchadnezzar's actions drove his madness, but did it stem from defying God over Judah, or was it simply personal arrogance?
This raises another question: if Nebuchadnezzar was aware that his madness was a result of God's judgment upon himself, and he had not yet destroyed Jerusalem, why would he proceed to do so? If he intended to defy God, why not defy God through the entire course of his reign. Therefore, did he destroy Jerusalem out of spite? If that were the case, we would have to dismiss scripture altogether.
 

When the United Nations was approached with the dilemma of child abuse in 2013 by addressing the many aspects of child abuse, which included child labor, child trafficking etc., it became evident that these problems, which had been largely ignored by societies, was gaining greater visibility. As governments began to shift their attention towards religious institutions, the Vatican emerged as the most suitable target due to their visible documented incidents.
I cannot deny the existence of pedophilia, especially when it involves someone accused of it and is well-known and supported by you. Speaking out against denying pedophilia in this situation is irrational and contradictory coming from you.
It is not just the information itself, but the act of singling out that renders it hypocritical and misleading. You are aware that this is a global issue, one that affects all institutions around the world, including those located in your own country or place of origin as well.
Post all of those incidents from all world's institutions and ensure consistent adherence to proper protocols. Has the issue been resolved with the AU commissions inquiry? I have noticed statistics indicating that the problem has escalated since 2015. Has the government taken measures to address it effectively?
Have you truly convinced yourself that over the course of a decade, you have managed to make a positive impact despite your distorted views?
Let's expose the hypocrisy of governments like Australia, Canada, Britain, and Norway who seek selectivity for doing the devil's bidding. We must also address the hypocrisy of those who present secondhand information as fact.
The lack of presence during an incident introduces bias. I've encountered situations where women falsely accused her lover of rape out of vengeance for being dumped, and justice was nowhere to be found for the guy that was arrested and humiliated before the prosecution tossed out the arrest. Such incidents, some involving children, are far too common.
There was another incident where an 11-year-old girl approached a complete stranger and threatened to scream and accuse him of molestation in a mall if he didn't give her 20 dollars. It appears that the misguided perspective lies with you and your friends, who continuously dwell on the same topic without realizing you have no positive impact.
Do those incidents make the news? Are they being tracked by anyone? Should these situations be exaggerated to the point where no single person in society can be trusted? That is exactly what the devil wants. Why are you helping?
I have experienced similar incidents, not only concerning worldly society but also within the Watchtower community by sisters. I could share some noteworthy events, but it would be unkind to engage in gossip and slander. Why should I tarnish the name of God in that manner? Merely to gain friends here, laugh out loud! 
 

Don't you start sounding like others, hear, lol!
Do not misunderstand my words. The answer is simple: the scribes did not operate using a parallel calendar year system like the one we are familiar with today.
This does not imply that scribes did not record a year. They would record the year of the King's reign, but not in the way we understand it today. They did not use a calendar system like "14/10/587 Jerusalem was destroyed" (Day/Month/Year).
Hence, if an event corresponding to Jerusalem had occurred, a scribe would have likely documented it as follows: "on the 14th day of Tašrîtu in the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign," based on an observation from the walls of Lachish, witnessing a raging fire in our neighboring city, Jerusalem. In this context, the year 587 is nonexistent. Therefore, it could easily be interpreted as 607, if there were a specific secular inscription supporting it, which unfortunately does not exist.
For millennia, archaeologists, historians, and scholars have speculated about what a concurrent year system might have looked like. They eventually settled on the flawed system that we use today, despite its inherent limitations. So, we work with what we got.
Why Lachish? How likely is it for a scribe or anyone, for that matter, to stop in a burning city and record the events with such detail? One would assume that they would have escaped the city first and then written about it once they were safe elsewhere. Providing that was their intention to document the event, bible or secular.
Nowadays, the vast majority of tablets and parchments available were recorded long after the actual events or are copies with added information to highlight more recent events.
An example is: 6th day Adar 37th year:

Now, let me clarify that there is no "exact" formula that all scribes used. Some scribes would write the year first, followed by the day and then the month. However, there were also those who didn't adhere to this specific order. For instance, they might write "On the 6th day of Adar, in the 37th year of King So and So's reign..." during this time, the cost of barley was high due to conflicts along the trading routes.

 

Here we witness the distortion spread by Srecko and Pudgy, endorsed by a renowned apostate known as "witness" who overlooks the absence of the word "apology" in the argument. This misrepresentation is a classic example of cherry-picking and distorting information to fit a particular narrative. It's important to consider the entirety of the document from the AU and the context in which it was written before drawing conclusions. 
In the Australian case, a Governing Body member showed empathy towards a victim who was identified as BCG. He acknowledged that more should have been done to support that individual and repeatedly aligned himself with the stance presented by BCG's lawyer. Therefore, attempting to create a negative impression from apostates only serves to provide further grounds for governments to resist being influenced by them.
"I don't know your client, but please, could you convey an expression of my love and concern and reassure her that obviously she has had an opportunity to speak about how she feels, and hopefully this will help the policies and procedures to improve."
Someone who shows this much empathy in their heart definitely feels sorry for the victim. I can sense a hint of remorse for the fact that more hadn't been done. 
The question is: Who wrote the government's privacy laws that the branch office had to rely on?
The GB member even went as far as suggesting that if the AU government made it mandatory for all accusations to be reported to the police, regardless of how trivial they may seem, it would be more advantageous for the Watchtower. This would effectively remove the responsibility from their hands entirely.
What was the Australian government's response? We will make some adjustments to our laws, but we will uphold the clergy privilege, and any form of reporting needs to be proven factual first. What sets apart the burden of proof standards between the Watchtower and the standard placed by the AU?
 
What about the sheer hypocrisy displayed by that commission when they initially "rejected" the idea of investigating the Australian Detention Centers for child abuse? It is truly astounding to think that even the prime minister at that time had passed a new law, forbidding doctors, nurses, or employees from speaking out against these horrific acts.
This flawed attempt to mislead others by the uneducated is yet another example of falsehoods being spread due to the omission of just one word, according to them.
I find it disappointing that some here misrepresent the facts presented by apostates and endorsed by witnesses.

You mentioned no one can tell BC, therefore the years cannot be applied, why is that?
 

I never pay any mind to ex-witnesses, hence they simply do not bother me. When it comes to their lies, my focus lies on emphasizing the undeniable truth, completely detached from the former members' inclination to twist it to their advantage.
So, why does it matter if a Catholic lawyer is supporting the Watchtower? Are you suggesting that they shouldn't? Religion stands strong in the face of manipulative governments and the spread of falsehoods and exaggerations by former members, especially when it's time to take a stand.
Remember, there are people here who identify themselves as witnesses and are willing to embrace your perspectives, even if they may be biased. Why? Because some of them, especially females, possess a misguided loyalty. Instead of recognizing the ways in which Satan manipulates humanity through the suffering of children, they become fixated on their own personal emotions.
If someone truly grasps the essence of scripture, it would be a misguided loyalty to turn a blind eye to the devious manipulation of Satan and the individuals he employs to sow division among God's people. No matter how strongly someone believes they are a devout Christian, if they fail to recognize this larger scheme, they cannot consider themselves faithful followers of Christ, let alone true witnesses.

It is concerning that governments are swayed by the testimonies of former witnesses, leading to the overturning of decisions made by lower courts, as seen in the case of Cardinal Pell in Australia, along with dozens of others.
No true witness should be swayed by negative comments from former witnesses and their agenda along with any disfellowshipped. That's no better.

I never pay any mind to ex-witnesses, hence they simply do not bother me. When it comes to their lies, my focus lies on emphasizing the undeniable truth, completely detached from the former members' inclination to twist it to their advantage.
So, why does it matter if a Catholic lawyer is supporting the Watchtower? Are you suggesting that they shouldn't? Religion stands strong in the face of manipulative governments and the spread of falsehoods and exaggerations by former members, especially when it's time to take a stand.
Remember, there are people here who identify themselves as witnesses and are willing to embrace your perspectives, even if they may be biased. Why? Because some of them, especially females, possess a misguided loyalty. Instead of recognizing the ways in which Satan manipulates humanity through the suffering of children, they become fixated on their own personal emotions.
If someone truly grasps the essence of scripture, it would be a misguided loyalty to turn a blind eye to the devious manipulation of Satan and the individuals he employs to sow division among God's people. No matter how strongly someone believes they are a devout Christian, if they fail to recognize this larger scheme, they cannot consider themselves faithful followers of Christ, let alone true witnesses.

Oh, no! Srecko, how will you explain your egregious stance to other religions that don't visit this site? Or is the hypocrisy of former members limited, lol!


Does God have standards for the way Christians should behave and dress? The fashions of the world come and go. Many people become slaves to these fashions and to keep up with the fashion of the time, will sacrifice their time, money, and even their health.
Many of these fashions do not promote the principles of the Bible on dress. The wearing of tattoos, jewelry, saggy or tight “revealing” clothing has become very widespread even among professed Christians. But do these fit the standard that God requires? Let’s see what the Bible says about God’s standards on the Christian’s presentation to the world.

Tom just pulls out his hair and screams, like the guy from Planet of the Apes, ‘It’s a madhouse! A madhouse!’’
Then he retreats to the sanctity of the closed club, its atmosphere as restful as an undiscovered tomb.

I believe that God may share the same sentiment when individuals who claim to be peaceful reveal their inner turmoil and secrets to the public. The recent display of hypocrisy from this group is troubling, with someone expressing goodwill towards an apostate who writes about child abuse within the Watchtower, instead of addressing the larger issue of global child abuse. Furthermore, the endorsement of such a book alongside spiritual content is disheartening. This place seems to epitomize insanity.
Why bother coming up with excuses that only you convince yourself are true?

Don't give it a second thought. Joe the plumber will never have the intelligence for a meaningful conversation. As he himself states, his limitation is common sense, which he lacks.
This just proves a Republican affiliation and a track record of deceit, along with his obvious political driven agenda that has fallen flat, it's easy to dismiss his meaningless tirade. It's this pattern of repeatedly being proven wrong that truly frustrates people. However, it's no surprise that James has been rightfully disfellowshipped, providing him ample opportunity to unleash his tirades as he pleases.