Ann O'Maly

The 1968 WT quote wasn't clear enough? This was summarized in your preceding statement: "This is not an assessment that one of Jehovah's Witnesses would make." 'Rubber-stamp' - I meant it in the same metaphorical way as a wedding ceremony officially 'rubber-stamps' a relationship as being committed and permanent. 'Commitment': *** w79 10/1 p. 27 par. 20 “The Keys of the Kingdom” and the “Great Crowd” *** These [of the 'sheep' class] come under the obligation to commit themselves to Jehovah’s Fine Shepherd, Jesus Christ. They show their commitment by “consecrating,” or dedicating, themselves to Jehovah through Christ. Yes. You are playing with words.

Oh dear. If Bible truth does not depend on the corroboration of decaying artifacts, why do the Org. and other Bible believers go to great pains to provide historical evidence for biblical accounts and characters? See for example: http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2012403 - History, Not Myth. The Awake's 'A Book You Can Trust' series beginning 11/2010 And there are too many other examples to list. If the Bible is not true, faith in it will not lead to everlasting life either. I don't follow (again). You said that biblical interpretation is the gallows upon which faith hangs. I asked for clarification and if you thought interpretation kills faith. Now you've backtracked.

Stop playing. You know full well the answer to that question. How so? Technically neither.

I see my point hit home. Really? Doesn't baptism rubber stamp a vow with God to do His will and work along with the JW organization for life? *** w06 4/1 p. 22 ‘Go and Make Disciples, Baptizing Them’ *** The Two Baptismal Questions On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will? Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization? *** w68 5/15 p. 307 par. 16 “Fear the True God and Keep His Commandments” *** No dedication to Jehovah is acceptable with a time stipulation attached. One cannot say he will serve for a certain period of time only. Rather, it is a lifetime promise, and the one coming before Jehovah God is expected to keep that promise. Has this view about a lifetime commitment changed?

Surely, without artifacts to corroborate Bible history, you might as well have faith in Aesop's Fables, right? Bible interpretation kills faith? Is that what you're saying?

Questions (open to all): 1. If there were no artifacts to corroborate Bible history, on what would your faith be based? 2. Biblical interpretation is the scaffold upon which faith hangs, is it not?

Thank you, Hugh! The medal should really go to JW Insider, though.

Absolutely. Particularly in the JW faith, a baptism is a lifelong contract - not only with God, but with a religious organization. With contract law, generally speaking, a minor can void a contract without legal repercussions. http://contracts.uslegal.com/contract-by-a-minor/ There are also protections in law to prevent those lacking capacity to enter into long-term binding contracts, e.g. being able to marry. JWs have likened baptism to a kind of marriage and being far more important than the day of one's wedding. If dedication and baptism have this level of gravity, does a 12 year old, say, have the capacity and maturity to make so binding and irrevocable a commitment as this? The minor cannot void this contract without serious and traumatizing repercussions. Is that fair? Another consideration is that when one is disfellowshipped, the relationship with a religious organization is broken. The relationship with extended family and friends is a separate thing, no? To illustrate: Andre works at his local Walmart. His whole family shop there all the time and have done so for years. One day Sophia, his niece, is caught shoplifting. She's been going through a bad patch but this is her first offence. Nevertheless, Walmart press charges and she gets convicted of a misdemeanor. Walmart also bans her from the store for a year. For Sophia this is a wake-up call. She has grown up a lot and been acting responsibly. She shops at Target now. Andre and his family stop all contact with Sophia. They don't respond to her emails and texts other than that one time when they reminded her she is banned from Walmart and has a misdemeanor conviction so they are not supposed to communicate with her. When Andre and his wife had their wedding anniversary, they invited the whole family round to celebrate - except Sophia. Andre even invited some of Sophia's long-time friends. When Sophia asked why she wasn't invited, they said that, until the Walmart ban is lifted and she regularly shops there again, they cannot in good conscience associate with her. Have Sophia's family and friends acted reasonably?

Sure. If a child has misbehaved, he needs discipline/correction. Sometimes there need to be additional sanctions (e.g. grounding, withdrawal of his money allowance for a set time). That's normal, good parenting. If a child has committed a misdemeanor or felony offence, the justice system will mete out sanctions appropriate for the age and crime, perhaps restitution, and a program of rehabilitation so he doesn't reoffend. But in both those instances, extended family and friends can remain in contact with him. They can visit, write, and speak to him. If he's not in juvy, he can even socialize with them. A supportive network of family and friends can be invaluable in turning that kid around. Not so with a disfellowshipped minor. The 'sin' may not even be some contravention of biblical morality or a crime but only that his beliefs have changed - as they often do as children grow. Whatever the case, he is mixing with all the people he and his family know at the KH but, while they are enjoying free interaction with each other, he is being shunned. If this dynamic is psychologically damaging to an adult,* how much more so for a child? ---- * https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beyond-bullying/201309/the-silence-shunning-conversation-kipling-william

There is no speculation about 605 BCE being Neb's accession year. The year is supported by all the available evidence.

And now we're back to your mistaken understanding which I already corrected a few posts ago. We get it. There are no historians you can name who believe 603 BCE was Neb's accession year after all. I hope that was a typo, otherwise you're having Neb rushing home (not from Carchemish, but from 'the area of Hamath') to claim the crown a year before his accession year! Your screenshot of 'problems' with Jehoiakim's 3rd year and Daniel's 3 years training have long been resolved.

The question sets up a fallacy of the excluded middle. That's why I quoted Ps. 82. Here I'd like to acknowledge those who pointed out that 'gods' here refer to humans - you're right. I should have checked beyond my old, brief scribblings when looking for a quick reference to post.

I was referring to your unambiguous statement here: The assumption was yours. And I still would like you to name the historians who attest to Neb's accession year as being 603 BCE. I don't want to see wannabes. I want to see bona fide historians.

Psalm 82:1, 6 God takes his place in the divine assembly; In the middle of the gods he judges: ...  “I have said, ‘You are gods, All of you are sons of the Most High. Is the psalmist talking about false gods here? Are the angelic 'gods' legitimate or not?

Ecclesiastes 3:12, 13 - I have concluded that there is nothing better for them than to rejoice and to do good during their life, also that everyone should eat and drink and find enjoyment for all his hard work. It is the gift of God. Ecclesiastes 5:18 - This is what I have seen to be good and proper: that one should eat and drink and find enjoyment for all the hard work at which he toils under the sun during the few days of life that the true God has given him, for that is his reward.

I also would like Allen to name these historians who attest to Neb's accession year as being 603 BCE.

Well, it served to refresh my own memory, and in the process I found a couple of very useful articles on Jstor that I hadn't been able to access before, so it's all good.

It was an official statement to People. The journalist will have contacted the press office at HQ and received the official statement.

It says that he returned to Babylon in Ululu and he sat on the throne (i.e. the coronation) on Ululu 1st. There is no attested Ululu II for the year Nab 21/Neb 0 (605 BCE). There had already been an Addaru II 6 months earlier! No need for another intercalary month. The one that P&D slots into Nab 19 (607 BCE) is an error. The footnote on P&D p. 4 shows it was questionable as the king's name isn't mentioned on the tablet. There are, however, 4 tablets that clearly attest to a second Ululu in Nabopolassar's 18th year. Indeed. So what was Allen's point, again, in bringing up this objection about Neb's travel? I've lost track (pun intended).

You think they would have attracted less attention going slower? Hm. Do you have any real reasons why a horse couldn't cover about 30 miles a day? Regarding the water issue, the Ahal Tekke was reported to have covered over 200 miles of desert in 3 days without water in that 1935 race (that's about 70 miles per day!). It's likely the crown prince and his small military escort would have had the best, most suitable horses for so important a journey. You do make a fair point about traveling from Jerusalem. I only chose Jerusalem because Neb had taken Jewish captives so he must have been in the general area (and there's Dan. 1:1,2 to consider, although this may have been on his return trip after securing the kingship), and Jerusalem is an easy point of reference. However, the Chronicle does not say Neb traveled from Carchemish to Babylon - you are mistaken about that, and the rest of your arguments and non sequitors derive from that misunderstanding. The Chronicle does say Neb had just conquered the "whole area of Hamath" which is about 130 miles further south from Carchemish and less than 500 miles from Babylon in a straight line. Also Google 'Frank Hopkins.' In summary, back in 1886, Frank Hopkins, a military dispatch rider, rode a Mustang stallion named Joe 1800 miles from Galveston, Texas, to Rutland, Vermont, in 31 days (average 58 miles per day). Joe finished in excellent condition, after traveling no more than 10 hours per day. Jerusalem (or Hamath) to Babylon - 500 miles divided by 58 miles per day is nearly 9 days. So, without beating this horse to death (get it?), let's just leave it there by saying it is perfectly feasible for Neb to ride back to Babylon in the time frame the Babylonian Chronicle records.

Why? Show your working. Here's mine (and I get the feeling we've had this conversation before, many years ago, right?): A horse with outstanding endurance and speed that was around in antiquity (Alexander the Great is reported to have owned one) is the Ahal Tekke breed. In a famous 1935 race from Ashgabat to Moscow (2,600 miles, including desert terrain), it took these horses 84 days to complete their journey. (Google.) 2,600 miles divided by 84 days is approx. 31 miles per day on average. Jerusalem to Babylon, a straight line over the desert, is approx. 500 miles. 500 divided by 31 miles per day is 16 days. Enough time even with a slower horse. Pulling together all the information we have: The Babylonian Chronicle says Nabo died 8th Abu. Josephus' Babylonian source adds that the chief noblemen held the royal throne for him. The Chronicle says Neb returned to Babylon in Ululu (the very next month) and was pronounced king on the 1st of that month.

There's the context of Jer. 29 too. The letter was addressed to the captives taken 10 years before Jerusalem's destruction, i.e. the major exile* of 597 BCE (617, WT time). This means most Jewish exiles would have been 'at Babylon' 80 years - not 70. So this is another indication that 'for Babylon' is the more appropriate rendering here. * The numbers taken then were far greater than those taken at Jerusalem's destruction - 2 Kings 24:14-16; Jer. 52:28-30. The problem with identifying Darius the Mede with Ugbaru is that the latter died on the 11th of Arahsamnu - only a few weeks after Babylon fell. Gobryas was a different person entirely and was only appointed satrap of Babylonia in 535 BCE. So this guy remains a bit of a mystery.

Ooh. Scripture ping-pong! Proverbs 18:17 (RNWT) - "The first to state his case seems right, Until the other party comes and cross-examines him."

There are JWs I know who disbelieve Prince was a 'brother' so this official confirmation is welcome.

Yep. This is probably why the question hasn't yet been answered.