BTK59

LOL! 
I expect nothing more than deflection coming from an "inane" and clueless person, lol!

I saw your rant on the other post as well. The only logical conclusion here is that your racism and arrogance is foolish. No wonder you and Srecko get along so well. 

… and anticipating accusations of “racism”, I assure you I am not, as my three children are mixed race, by deliberate design.
…. and may I remind you that the Roman Centurion Army Officer Cornelius, sworn to the service of the RomanEmpire, was described as a man of exceptional faith inJesus, and as a man specifically approved by God.

A recap on the topic of those who were outraged by Biden mentioning Transgender Day of Visibility in and around Easter Sunday, a traditional Christian holiday. The driven agenda centered in how politically inappropriate it was, despite the fact that Witnesses should have no voice in political matters since they don't vote or at least by true Christian ethics should not have the capacity to vote in such matters.
Why was a disreputable media outlet like FOX NEWS chosen to make this point when it was broadcast on many other outlets? The concern arises from the conservative values that people believe they have, despite their behavior lacking Christian ethics, as most of Christianity does.
Now that the dust has settled, the unfortunate aspect of that argument was its erroneous assumption. One compelling reason why witnesses should refrain from involvement in politics is their lack of understanding regarding the underlying political dynamics. 
That declaration is just one example of the misrepresentations made by those seeking to deceive the public. Therefore, the lie comes from the poster not facts in wanting to twist and shift the focus like a sad Republican.
Biden, while providing a slightly different description of the event, was referring to an occasion that originated in 2009 under the name "International Transgender Day of Visibility." This event was initially initiated by President BARACK OBAMA, not Biden. Biden proclaimed March 31, 2021 as " Transgender Day of Visibility" Therefore, it was not meant as a formal declaration but rather a recognition for the progress made by the movement.
Where was the outrage in 2021 that is so visible now in 2024, an election year? The stark contrast says more about the hypocrisy of the conservative Republican Party than the actual issue at hand. Why wasn't this brought up in 2021 to elicit the same level of response as we see now?
Did he choose a controversial time for Christians, being one himself (Catholic)? Perhaps, but then witnesses can remind themselves that the majority of Christianity is a false religion with no underlying surprises.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Transgender_Day_of_Visibility
Remarks posted elsewhere. Only a disgraceful disfellowshipped white person from the South would have the audacity to shamelessly display their racist beliefs. It's appalling to know that this individual is a registered voter.

Here is another example where the Bible and secular history can agree if you honestly place the historical facts in the right context.
As previously mentioned, the most straightforward method to establish the 70 years of desolation is by starting with the presumed year 539. This choice is justified by its proximity to the year 537. To simplify the process, we can look to history for answers. It is a historical fact that Cyrus issued his decree for the Jews in 538. How can this be proven by biblical facts, Ezra 1. Upon reflection, we might wonder why he waited instead of immediately commanding the Jews to depart. The delay can be attributed to his need to be convinced and shown that a higher power was at work.
Furthermore, in addition to the devastating loss of his wife, another blow struck our protagonist when a loyal confidant and trusted subject passed away right after 539. In the midst of such heart-wrenching circumstances, one can't help but ponder the appropriate duration of mourning that our protagonist endured. Historical records indicate that his wife's mourning period spanned until approximately March 538. Henceforth, it is plausible to assume that the implementation of the decree took place shortly thereafter, as the weight of sorrow started to lift.
(The Cambridge Ancient History 4) John Boardman, N. G. L. Hammond, D. M. Lewis, M. Ostwald - The Cambridge Ancient History Volume 4_ Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean, c.525 to 479 BC
"lf Ugbaru and Gubaru in the Chronicle are identical, then this personage (presumably the figure from which the Gobryas of Xenophon (Cyr. 1v.6.1) is ultimately derived) is definitely not the same person as the later governor (also named Gubaru) of'Babylonia and the Land Beyond the River' (below. pp. 125-8), since his death on 6 November 539 is reported by the chronicle (col. iii.22). Immediately after Ugbaru's death the death of the king's (i.e. Cyrus') wife is reported; the mourning for her death lasted into the next year (Cyrus' first regnal year) until 26 March 538." p.122
Critics tend to avoid discussing this factual aspect and often assert that the number 539 can only mean 539, offering a misrepresentation of the facts. However, following the edict and the necessary preparations for the Jews to return home, which would have taken about 5–6 months, it is reasonable to conclude that the year would have been 537 when the altar of God was erected in Jerusalem, regardless of critics' and former members' acceptance.
Simply by identifying the conclusion of the time of desolation in 537, we can easily backtrack the 70 years, just as has been done with the astronomical tablet for 568.
History has clearly demonstrated the events following Cyrus after 539. What does VAT 4956 prove? It proves to be "The earliest observation of the Aurora Borealis." Wow!
What is the relevance of these observations to 587, and particularly 539, when tracing back from 568 to 587 is too short of time for the 70-year desolation, and according to historical events leading to 537 can be traced back to 607 according to the accurate timeline provided by scripture and supported by historical facts?
If critics truly value scholarly works, then they should undoubtedly extend their respect to the works of John Boardman, N. G. L. Hammond, D. M. Lewis, M. Ostwald as well. Have I adequately addressed your inquiry?
Proving the year 607 through 539 is easier for me than 530. It's perplexing that no one can align historical facts for 607.

😂
I understand the point. If King Zedekiah and King Jehoiachin's reigns overlapped or ran concurrently, their proximity in age could have influenced the chronology. In essence, ancient scribes may not have provided an accurate account of history due to assumed dates, according to secular reckoning. Dates that are calculated and asserted without certainty of their accuracy.
A Bible scribe may have incorporated a birthdate or significant biblical event that warranted attention, whereas secular scribes would document specific events occurring at a given time. By merging these sources, errors inevitably arise. Given the absence of a detailed daily account of King Josiah and Prophet Jeremiah, it is possible that certain scribal interests went undocumented, but perhaps they were utilized to peak an interest in time.
This person's method is certainly an unexpected choice for the calculation.
Why the Bible Is Historically Accurate (2nd Ed.) -Darren Thompson · 2007-Page 35
"It would appear that after documenting the timeline through the period of the kings of
Judah to 390 B.C. (the end of the reign of Zedekiah, 3577 M.)"
He mentioned 3577 M., which I believe refers to Anno Mundi. This places King Zedekiah's reign in 404 BC in the reign of Darius. Therefore, according to the language in his book, this is likely the beginning of the reign. Despite this, he mentions 390 BC, although 11 years would actually end in 393 BC.
He also doubts the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/586. I guess he is either a JW or an Adventist, lol!
"chronologists believe that the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar occurred in the year 586 B.C. This time is partially based on tracing the reigns of the kings of the Persian and Babylonian empires as outlined in Ptolemy's book Almagest. The Almagest was written to describe a mathematical model for predicting the motion of heavenly bodies. This book documented eclipses that occurred during the reigns of Babylonian and Persian kings that Ptolemy used to demonstrate his model. Therefore Almagest was not so much a history book as it was a book on mathematics."
I have come across other references elsewhere, even coming close to that date 404 BC. I believe the title does not align with the theology. lol!
This one definitely falls into the controversial category. I decided to try it with "AI" and this was the response I received. It's quite amusing!
This content is discussing the potential inaccuracies in historical accounts due to assumptions made about the ages and reigns of ancient kings. In this case, the reigns of King Zedekiah and King Jehoiachin are being examined, and it is suggested that their close proximity in age could have influenced the chronology of their reigns. The content suggests that ancient scribes may not have provided an accurate account of history because they made assumptions about dates without certainty of their accuracy. This highlights the importance of critically analyzing historical sources and considering potential biases or inaccuracies in chronologies. 😂

I just wanted to make it abundantly clear you would receive it. 
If the assumption remains consistent with the secular pattern, then it is logical. However, those who engage in critical thinking may arrive at a different consensus, suggesting 597/596 instead of 598/597.
These researcher's charts make it possible for C1-B1 to align those tablets. Here's a sample. I won't use any of the information, as I don't want an unscrupulous person to falsely claim that these individuals are a "Witness, Adventist, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Martian" or any other ridiculous notions, since I'm relying solely on the information presented by the individuals.
Given that other educators have cited these individuals in their work, I see no issue with including them in my own.
Book of Zephaniah completed - 648
Jeremiah commissioned as prophet Jeremiah - 647
Nebuchadnezzar becomes king of Babylon - 625
Jehoiachin becomes king of Judah - 618
What is the question, then? Did ancient historians utilize King Zedekiah's birthdate as a chronological reference?
I can easily find at least 12 other works that reference King Jehoiachin in 618 BC without even making an effort.
I hope this provides clarity on any concerns you may have. One person may share the same chart and results, while others may concur with these interpretations by using the same dates.
 

The email discussion was very productive. I don't have a problem posting this portion.
Look at the following?
Consult the book "Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910-612 BC" by Alan R. Millard for information about the top generals and governors. Afterward, compare the findings with Glassner's work.
There is a discrepancy regarding Aššur-etel-ilani and Sin-šumu-lišir, according to Glassner.
This is why I accept Glassner's view.
EPONYM LISTS
Assyria was distinctive in that it invented its own dating system, which it maintained faithfully for a millennium and a half: the “eponym” system. In this, years were named after high officers of state. Drawn at first by lot, they were later determined according to a strict hierarchical order, which, however, kings might sometimes change. Eponym lists were drawn up as chronological reference works but were no more exempt from error than Babylonian lists.75
KING LISTS
These made it possible to fix the order of succession of kings and generally went beyond the span of one dynasty. However, the mention of royal names alone was insufficient to make them useful for chronographers, and historians wishing to locate events in time and to find a way to date them added the number of years of each reign. The king lists stretched from the end of the third millennium to the Seleucid era. Among them, synchronous lists set the reigns of Assyrian and Babylonian kings in parallel.76
The key issues here are, first who is ( Aššur-etel-ilani) and is it Ashurbanipal or a relative of his and what was his age and did Sin-šumu-lišir appoint himself as King, just like Nabopolassar did. However, he is listed as having been a "General." Therefore, it raises the question: who truly held the crown between 631-627 when Jeremiah began prophesying in 629?
You can consult the works of Frame, Grayson, and Parpola for further information. However, for the sake of simplicity, I would recommend looking into the works of Potts.
It is important to acknowledge that Ashurbanipal's ascension to the kingship was a transformative event, marked by a civil war and internal conflicts. However, we must also consider the subsequent reign of Kandalanu, which adds another dynamic to this narrative.  We also have evidence showing that Aššur-etel-ilani was a young son of Ashurbanipal, but he allowed himself to be manipulated by his advisor Sin-šumu-lišir, the chief eunuch. Who among them assumed the role of acting king, Sin-šumu-lišir or Aššur-etel-ilani? Therefore, it would be misleading to make absolute assertions without compromising the integrity of legitimate research.
"Sin- šumu- lišir, the chief eunuch, [one who had deserved well] of my father and be[getter, who had led me constantly like a father, installed me] safely on the throne of my father and begetter [and made the people of Assyria, great and small, keep] watch over my kingship during my minority, and respected my royalty.350"
Why is all of this important? It calls into question the true reign of Nabopolassar amidst such confusion. Did he take on the mantle of kingship while serving as a general or governor around 648/647 BC, at a time when internal strife was tearing apart the bonds between brothers and family members?
What makes people question whether a person highly esteemed by the King would not be considered a king, especially since a king had the authority to appoint anyone he desired to delegate the affairs of the state to anyone in his absence? Furthermore, one must consider whether anyone with enough courage to take the throne just as Nabopolassar did. I will subsequently send you the result of that secular discrepancy, which poses another method to disprove 587, bringing it into alignment with both secular and biblical occurrences, by utilizing the same historical information.
You might want to take into consideration the works of Finkel, Reade and I already mentioned Parpola. as well. So, the answer again is yes! Secular history has merits for those that wish to view it correctly.

The email discussion was very productive. I don't have a problem posting this portion.
Look at the following?
Consult the book "Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910-612 BC" by Alan R. Millard for information about the top generals and governors. Afterward, compare the findings with Glassner's work.
There is a discrepancy regarding Aššur-etel-ilani and Sin-šumu-lišir, according to Glassner.
This is why I accept Glassner's view.
EPONYM LISTS
Assyria was distinctive in that it invented its own dating system, which it maintained faithfully for a millennium and a half: the “eponym” system. In this, years were named after high officers of state. Drawn at first by lot, they were later determined according to a strict hierarchical order, which, however, kings might sometimes change. Eponym lists were drawn up as chronological reference works but were no more exempt from error than Babylonian lists.75
KING LISTS
These made it possible to fix the order of succession of kings and generally went beyond the span of one dynasty. However, the mention of royal names alone was insufficient to make them useful for chronographers, and historians wishing to locate events in time and to find a way to date them added the number of years of each reign. The king lists stretched from the end of the third millennium to the Seleucid era. Among them, synchronous lists set the reigns of Assyrian and Babylonian kings in parallel.76
The key issues here are, first who is ( Aššur-etel-ilani) and is it Ashurbanipal or a relative of his and what was his age and did Sin-šumu-lišir appoint himself as King, just like Nabopolassar did. However, he is listed as having been a "General." Therefore, it raises the question: who truly held the crown between 631-627 when Jeremiah began prophesying in 629?
You can consult the works of Frame, Grayson, and Parpola for further information. However, for the sake of simplicity, I would recommend looking into the works of Potts.
It is important to acknowledge that Ashurbanipal's ascension to the kingship was a transformative event, marked by a civil war and internal conflicts. However, we must also consider the subsequent reign of Kandalanu, which adds another dynamic to this narrative.  We also have evidence showing that Aššur-etel-ilani was a young son of Ashurbanipal, but he allowed himself to be manipulated by his advisor Sin-šumu-lišir, the chief eunuch. Who among them assumed the role of acting king, Sin-šumu-lišir or Aššur-etel-ilani? Therefore, it would be misleading to make absolute assertions without compromising the integrity of legitimate research.
"Sin- šumu- lišir, the chief eunuch, [one who had deserved well] of my father and be[getter, who had led me constantly like a father, installed me] safely on the throne of my father and begetter [and made the people of Assyria, great and small, keep] watch over my kingship during my minority, and respected my royalty.350"
Why is all of this important? It calls into question the true reign of Nabopolassar amidst such confusion. Did he take on the mantle of kingship while serving as a general or governor around 648/647 BC, at a time when internal strife was tearing apart the bonds between brothers and family members?
What makes people question whether a person highly esteemed by the King would not be considered a king, especially since a king had the authority to appoint anyone he desired to delegate the affairs of the state to anyone in his absence? Furthermore, one must consider whether anyone with enough courage to take the throne just as Nabopolassar did. I will subsequently send you the result of that secular discrepancy, which poses another method to disprove 587, bringing it into alignment with both secular and biblical occurrences, by utilizing the same historical information.
You might want to take into consideration the works of Finkel, Reade and I already mentioned Parpola. as well. So, the answer again is yes! Secular history has merits for those that wish to view it the correct way.
 

I am fully aware of their contradictions and your tendency to go off-topic just to make feeble attempts at derailing a meaningful discussion about historical chronology, not someone's interpretation of chronology.
Using someone else's charts in support of a debate does not imply that an agreement has been reached by anyone, as you are so disgracefully trying to do.
Share your own ideas and express any falsehoods that you desire on your own topic. Is this what TOM upholds in place of God?
I don't care about the specific religious affiliations or beliefs. However, since you have decided to remove the clause allowing a person to close a discussion, I request that you close this one. I have no interest in sifting through pages of nonsense.
Your methods of challenging historical chronology by using nonsensical strategies to discredit and muddy the waters are misleading. Instead of accepting the established historical dates, you personally refute as alternatives without considering the evidence, then your dismissal of the well-documented secular history that refutes your 587 BC is a meaningless endeavor to erase it, since it has been established by various means and your stand on 587 BC which has been established and proven wrong time after time by the very secular chronology you embrace is just more defiance of an unwilling heart.
I see no value in your information, nor do I appreciate your effort to manipulate the topic to please a select group.

I have rarely seen a better example of blame-shifting and "projection."
I'll leave the topic open unless another moderator wishes to close the topic to further comments. After all, it's an open discussion forum. You made some public claims on a discussion forum about chronology, some of which are correct, and some of which don't fit any evidence, as far as I can see. I countered with some evidence that hasn't been responded to yet. I never expected you to respond, but someday others might wish to have a chance. Perhaps there is something somewhere someone can find that can still defend your claims. You never know. 

I never thought you fully agreed with them, but I agree that bringing the chart into the topic was useful, as it provides a good reference to the standard chronology and shows how one can fit the reigns of the Assyrian and Babylonian kings under discussion.  
I didn't know that you could no longer close a discussion. But my comments were not added for you. I think most people here know how you have always responded to evidence. They are intended for your benefit, of course, but I mostly added the comments for anyone who might have become confused by certain claims. 
And I was commenting because I appreciated the opening statement in this topic:
I took that to mean that you should be willing to welcome any responses to false claims and misinterpretations.

I received your email regarding your inquiry. Absolutely! Secular history is indeed trustworthy. There exists ample evidence to validate the accuracy of many historical events mentioned in the Bible. When these events are properly contextualized, they undeniably bear a striking resemblance to reality. The seeds of doubt have only been sown when researchers inadvertently muddle up the dates, leading to understandable uncertainty.
Have you delved into the underlying factors of the events in 629 BC? There are no records of a solar eclipse being sighted in Jerusalem that year.
"In 629 BC, the Babylonian king, Nabopolassar, drove the Assyrians out of Babylon, and two years later Ashurbanipal died." p.152
This should be marked as pivotal.
The Babylonian records document a solar eclipse sighting in -625 BC, but the sighting from 629 BC is still missing.
The same thing can be said about Memphis, Egypt. The same goes for Thebes.
Therefore, solar eclipses are not suitable for that purpose.
In the realm of lunar events, there was a remarkable occurrence - a lunar eclipse. Back in the year -627 BC, to be precise. Hence, when looked upon through the lens of secular history, it is more fitting to refer to this event as taking place in the years 629/628 BC.
Were the biblical scribes truly captivated by secular kings or by Jeremiah's or Habakkuk's profound message of God's judgment? If the scribes' fascination lay with the kings, it would have commenced with King Josiah, not the Assyrian or Babylonian monarchy, only acknowledging them in scripture when absolutely essential.
Dictionary of the Bible
"The conclusion at which he arrives is that Habakkuk delivered his prophecy about the 12th or 13th year of Josiah (B. C. 630 or 629), for reasons of which the following is a summary." p.972
Let's delve into the matter at hand. While it is true that some Bible scholars may find themselves mired in confusion when it comes to pinpointing dates and events, one must question the accuracy of placing the date as 629 BC to Kings versus God's messengers. Yet, among these scholars, there are those who steadfastly cling to the notion of three deportations that commenced in 605, 598, 587 BC. The Babylonian Chronicle mentions 598 BC.
The question arises: given the historical pattern of besieged kingdoms or cities being destroyed or sacked, why did Nubechadnezzar II not follow his natural inclination after the first siege? If Judah and most of Jerusalem had already been destroyed, then the only thing left would have been the deportations.
People cannot simply cherry-pick evidence to fit their narrative, even though historical records have definitively settled on 587 BC. There are no ancient tablets containing year references to support the claim that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in that specific year. The attribution of 587 BC has been added retroactively by later interpreters of historical data.
Ancient historians made calculations based on the resources available to them during their time—a luxury that we no longer possess. Dismissing the ancient historians as flawed simply because modern scholars, driven by ambition, have revised those calculations does not automatically make the revised data more accurate. In fact, the ancient historians were in closer proximity to the events they studied than we are today.
Secular history often lacks the depth and clarity that scripture provides. However, there is a possibility of giving the benefit of the doubt in some cases. Can secular history be proven wrong? The straightforward answer is yes, if one comprehends the Bible and secular history in the manner they were meant to be understood.
The end result is as follows: King Jehoiakim ruled for 11 years, and King Zedekiah also ruled for 11 years, leading to the year 607 BC. When the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar is combined with the old tabulated chronology and supported by the solar eclipse in -625 BC, it leads to the same conclusion of 607 BC. This is the rationale behind the Watchtower's stance and why they also reference 618 BC. It involves utilizing the reigns of Judah's kings and the Babylonian kings from their own Bible perspective.
Do eclipses provide evidence for these events? Yes! Does historical records provide support for them? Yes! Can we accurately establish the chronology, even without combining sources? Yes, if we approach it carefully. Can the year 607 BC be demonstrated using secular history alone, without depending on scripture or the Watchtower's interpretation? YES!

Then you have this kind of modern gem.
Israel God's Ensign to Nations Dickson Agedah · 2014
THE FALL OF ASSYRIA, THE RISE OF BABYLON 
The seizure of the Babylonian throne by Nabopolassar in about 645 BC marked an end of Assyrian suzerainty over Babylon and the establishment of a new dynasty, generally known as the Neo-Babylonian or Chaldean dynasty. Although the Assyrian military machine continued to be highly effective instrument for almost two decades, Nabopolassar successfully defended Babylonian's independence. p.8

Are you suggesting that the criticism you're expressing is baseless and without merit? If you question my right to use scripture, what entitles you to desecrate it? Your accusation is unfounded; no one holds anything against me. That's a laugh.

All you must do is knock it off with the incessant holier-than-thou jabs at them, oozing with self-righteousness, and they will leave you alone. It’s not as though anyone there has anything against you.

That game only makes sense to people like you, James. It's a clear example of how the "inane" are still hard at work.

Your opinion, whether from your perspective or that of your closed club members as compared to that coming from a higher power, is inconsequential to me, as I could reciprocate the sentiment towards all of you in the closed club. lol!

Regrettably, I have been branded as the bogeyman here, while the devil remains concealed there. But has anyone taken the time to genuinely question why I am still here? None here can extinguish the indomitable spirit of God, no matter how tenaciously they attempt to, whereas the spirit of man can be shattered by God.
When Christians finally understand how the scroll of life works, they will realize that their actions, behavior, and misdeeds determine whether their name will be included in it. This highlights the importance of words and the impact of ideology, as mentioned in scripture.

First, we would have to acknowledge that some witnesses may be too naive to know who the puppeteer is, pulling the strings on global governments. Can true witnesses really be that gullible?
This ideology raises a significant question: was homosexuality prevalent during the time of Jesus, under the influence of the Greeks and Romans? Furthermore, did Jesus use political satire to address this issue, making it a recurring point for governments within the newly formed religion of "Christianity"? Alternatively, does scripture serve as a warning for true Christians to be cautious in their lives, with how God considers such behavior unacceptable for those who are truly devoted to Him?
In my view, it appears that the wrong question is being asked and overlooked by a 'trained" witness here and the intention or focus is being incorrectly projected for the true brotherhood. However, I don't see where the devil's driven perspective should be a surprise for a conscious person.
Should a true witness truly feel obligated to appreciate the satirical nature of the opinions of former members, even though they comprehend the entities behind the worldwide political influences? It is argued that remaining vigilant and abstaining from political agendas is most effectively achieved by diligently observing scripture.
That's the type of ideology that should prevail in your closed club. How can a true Christian lead a quiet life? Where do Christians get that advice from?
 

It's unfortunate that dogs have a tendency to relieve themselves in someone else's yard, instead of utilizing their own space to vent their frustrations. lol!
What topic has elicited sympathy from the closed club known for their high standards? THIS IS DEMENTED INSANITY ON PARADE from the "inane", lol!

Even though witnesses may feel helpless about matters beyond their control and lack the ability to counteract Satan's influence, delving into political motivations does not serve the true spirit of brotherhood. As we approach the day of reckoning, it is likely that additional matters will incite outrage. This should alarm engaged observers, although the individual in question may not share this concern.

It's unfortunate that dogs have a tendency to relieve themselves in someone else's yard, instead of utilizing their own space to vent their frustrations. lol!
What topic has elicited sympathy from the closed club known for their high standards? THIS IS DEMENTED INSANITY ON PARADE from the "inane", lol!

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.

Once more, we encounter the perspective of someone consumed by hatred. I can't help but question whether this person would have objected if Jesus and his apostles had confronted the unjust actions of the ruling authorities of their time. In this instance, I am inclined to support the GW translation. Mark 11:27-33, Luke 20:1-8

However, I believe that certain discussions will inevitably transform into more malevolent subjects. These may pivot towards debates on Malawi or another political event, often dominated by individuals within the closed club who, possessing an excess of leisure, seek to reframe the same baseless arguments through varied avenues, solely to perpetuate their critiques of the Organization. Lacking a receptive audience, they persist in their disparagement in one guise or another, driven by an appetite for discord, which, unmistakably, is the work and influence of Satan.
Former members, or the disfellowshipped, establish the argument. Then, those supposed witnesses jump in to defend the former member's position. It becomes too predictable after a while.