JW Insider

38 minutes ago, Witness said:

Thanks, JWI, I didn’t know you had corrected me before.  Note taken.

I wasn't stating it that way to complain that I had corrected you before. After all, no matter how strongly worded anything comes out in a discussion, these are all just our opinions. What I was saying was that when I gave my previous opinion, I was stating that Russell absolutely did not get the date 1914 from the pyramid. The reason I revisited the topic was that I didn't provide much evidence for my opinion that last time. It was just an assertion, mostly.

This time I wanted to offer some of the evidence for that position, but also to soften it somewhat by noting that there could have been a little more to Russell's thinking than what shows up in the usual evidence. That's why I wanted to bring Seiss's influence back into it, because we can't know for sure how much Seiss influenced Russell to solidify his view of 1914. Of course, it was possible to see a number extending out past 1874 in Seiss's charts, but for a while Russell still used the pyramid only to point to 1874, not 1914. You can see this from the link already mentioned above: https://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/davinci-freemason.php

3 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

A point about C.T. Russell and Adventist, influence. I’ve heard this countless of times, not just from opposers, and Nebuchadnezzar IV members of the Watchtower, but from within the confines of active members of the Watchtower.

LOL! What is a "Nebuchadnezzar IV member of the Watchtower"?

It's a good point that a lot of JWs and non-JWs alike just sort of assume that Russell was under the complete influence of Second Adventists, or they even assume that all of Russell's close associates were Second Adventists. I think several of the major influences on Russell came throught the writings of Joseph A Seiss, who was not a Second Adventist, nor were several of the other people who clearly influenced Russell. Russell himself had never been a Second Adventist either. He understood that there was a lot of shame among Second Adventists (especially because of the "great disappointment" of 1843 and 1844). Russell spoke about that shame. He did not want to be associated with it and sometimes spoke of his disdain of their chronology. Yet, in spite of his progress in some doctrinal areas that progressed beyond the doctrines of Second Adventists, he never totally gave up on their chronology.

3 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Just because garbage has flooded the internet about the Bible Student Movement under the direction of Pastor Charles Taze Russell, in an endless smearing campaign to satisfy the status quote, about the Watchtower?

Whenever there is a tendency to elevate a man for the purpose of elevating a religion or a body of men who claim to be his "legacy," there will likely be:

1. "creature worship,"
2. a personality cult,
3. cover-ups,
4. false claims by the contemporary followers,
5. false claims and presumptuous behavior by the leader himself, and
6. dishonest historical revisionism by later followers.

To avoid this dangerous and unscriptural tendency, an honest assessment of the man himself should be promoted. To the extent that a man is elevated above what faithfulness and discretion would call for, it's a good thing when people tell the unvarnished truth about the man himself. This is no doubt why we know the unvarnished truth about the guilt of King David: a murderer, adulterer, and a man whose actions resulted in the unnecessary deaths of thousands of his own people. If someone knows that Russell was dishonest at times, or manipulative, or haughty, or egotistical or unfaithful, then this would normally not be important, since love covers a multitude of sins. But if he is being promoted as the primary fulfillment of a Bible prophecy such as the "angel to Laodicea" or "the messenger" of Malachi 3:1, then it becomes proper to consider the Bible's priority here:

• (Romans 2:29-3:4) . . .That person’s praise comes from God, not from people. . . . 3 What, then, is the case? If some lacked faith, will their lack of faith invalidate the faithfulness of God? 4 Certainly not! But let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar. . .

Rather than a smearing campaign, I would recommend a historical honesty campaign.

3 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

This ridiculous notion, that Pastor Russell was “influenced” by ADVENTISM is the most irresponsible narrative any “WITNESS” can consider.

It's false, in my opinion, to take it that far. Russell was highly influenced by Adventism, just as he was also highly influenced by persons who were not Adventists. But there were more Adventists among his formative associates than non-Adventists. His own views adjusted somewhat over time, too, which creates a complexity here. Also, Russell wasn't completely honest about his own avoidance of Adventism. It was apparently wishful thinking on Russell's part that he would differentiate himself far enough from the shame of Second Adventism. It's also my opinion that even careful historians like, B. W. Schulz, have gone too far in positioning Russell's doctrinal eclecticism as far away from Adventism as possible. I think it's partly in order to hold a more unique contrary position that Schulz emphasizes the differences instead of the similarities.

Pre-1876, and post-1909, one could argue with some good evidence that Russell held more non-Adventist positions than Adventist ones. But he continued to give great importance to the teachings that were most influenced by Adventists, until his death. Also, from 1877 to nearly 1909 he was constantly working through (and sometimes out of) these Adventist influences.

@Space Merchant, I hate to admit it, but I have never really read any of your comments on the forum until this morning. Now and then I read some of the posts by @Witness, but the only reason I ended up in this thread was because JTR is one of the persons I follow, and a notification came up, when he asked a question about the Masonic-related speech. I immediately pointed him to a link that debunks the Freemason membership. I hadn't seen that Witness already gave a link to the entire sermon/talk. I knew that the pdf on my hard drive had the talk, but it was a large pdf to post for just a few pages inside it.

So I wanted to apologise for not taking note of your previous posts. I ended up overlapping a bit with yours, mostly on the Great Pyramid.

I just wanted to say, too, now that I have read many of your posts, I really liked them. I found them to be well-informed and relevant.

Thanks.

On 2/3/2018 at 11:12 PM, Witness said:

If God was setting up an organization to restore true worship, it would not begin with falsehood and several changed dates each taught as facts with divine blessing.   From the outset, the Wt. had its foundation on lies, and lies shift to make room for more lies.

. . . The organization is Satan’s testing ground for the remaining anointed, and all others who fall into his trap.

@Witness, I know I've asked you this before and I have read your answer, but this still doesn't make sense. You are saying that God had nothing to do with setting up the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, YET somehow the same organization is Satan's testing ground for all the remaining anointed? (Note that I added the word all, to see if this is where I needed clarification.)

So, are you saying that God had nothing to do with setting it up? Or is it that God had nothing to do with setting it up to restore true worship, but set it up as Satan's testing ground? If Satan set it up, how is it that every one of the remaining anointed ended up in Satan's organization? What is it in the organization that drives all the anointed into the organization?

And assuming you were somehow correct on this point, then all the anointed remnant would somehow recognize this and leave the organization. So none of the anointed remnant is allowed to recognize this in advance of being baptized into this organization, but all of them can only recognize the need to leave after they are blinded in order to get in?

On 2/3/2018 at 11:12 PM, Witness said:

It is apparently acceptable that Russel established 1914 on the measurements of the Pyramid of Giza.

You said this in the past, Witness, and I flatly denied then that Russell established 1914 on the measurements of the Pyramid of Giza. This is because it was clear that Nelson H. Barbour, a Second Adventist and former "Millerite" had already become convinced of the 1914 date even before Russell began working with him to help promote Barbour's work. The chronology that Barbour utilized to come up with 1914 was not based on the Pyramid at that time, but mostly on some now obsolete ideas about parallel dispensations with Israel. Several other commentators on Bible prophecy --even before Russell was born-- had already toyed with dates that came close to 1914, and these other commentators also did not base their chronology on the Pyramid.

Russell's first known writing about the year 1914 made use of the 2,520 years of Israel's punishment found in Leviticus (7 times)  Russell also considered this 2,520 years of Leviticus to run parallel with another period of 7 times which were represented by the period of "insanity" suffered by King Nebuchadnezzar based on Daniel 4. Both these periods were eventually merged into one period called, in effect, the "7 Gentile Times."  But even at that time, Russell indicated that there were better and clearer methods of getting to this 1914 date. That was back in 1876, before Russell had said anything about Pyramids -- and the better and clearer methods were likely based directly Russell's knowledge of the adjustment to Millerite chronology that Barbour and several other Second Adventists had accepted.

Joseph Seiss didn't write about the Pyramid until 1877. It had been written about (with a view toward "pyramidology") before, by John Taylor in 1859, by St.John Vincent Day in 1870, and Prof. C. Piazzi Smyth between 1864 and 1874 when he produced the first two versions of "Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid" respectively.

From comments that Russell made in the Watch Tower and from the the fact that the subject wasn't treated in Russell's works until the 1880's, shows that Russell had not used the Pyramid to obtain the date 1914. The "Plan of the Ages" book has indications that Russell was already interested in the Pyramid, but it didn't come out until 1886. The first real treatment of the Pyramid was clearly "plagiarized" from Joseph Seiss' book: "Miracle in Stone" (1877) but Russell didn't copy these ideas from Seiss until he added them to the book "Thy Kingdom Come" in 1891.

However, I have just completed "Miracle in Stone" for the first time a few weeks ago, and I realize now that Russell probably did use it as if it were an important, independent verification for 1914. This is because Seiss played a "teasing" game as if he had learned something from the Pyramid that he was holding back because it would come across like a prediction of the "end." He teased his readers by showing a picture of the pyramid passages he had measured, but then avoided explicitly telling the readers what that last measurement really was, because of the implication that it revealed knowledge of the actual "end." It was the same as saying, "I know something and you don't, but wisdom and prudence is keeping me from telling you, even though you could easily make a guess for yourselves by looking at the chart."

Of course what he actually said was worded differently:

• And because of this strangely feverish disability to deal with ordinary soberness respecting even the most guarded presentations on this subject of the time, when the length of the Pyramid's Grand Gallery, viewed as a symbol of our dispensation, was touched in the preceding Lectures, I purposely left the figures far in the background, couching the statement in indefinite terms . . .

Russell, of course, presented all the same information but tried to measure out those last "guarded" "indefinite" time periods as a method of trying to predict the end in 1914 and 1915.

Just how much importance Russell actually gave to the evidence is not possible to say. He never acted like the Pyramids were one of the most important pieces of evidence for 1914/1915, but he did go back to previous arguments he had made about chronology, and he began to add the Pyramid evidence as if definitive, or as if it made other arguments more sure.

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Witness is attempting to *criticize*, symbolism of the Bible Students, that have NOTHING to do with JW’s, after having a better understanding about those thing such as the pyramid that Rutherford stopped endorsing, since there was no longer a need to meticulously, prove 2520, which was the bases for the pyramid,

1. You say that the symbolism of the Bible Students included the pyramid [Great Pyramid of Giza].
2. You say that this symbolism has nothing to do with JWs
3. You say that meticulously proving 2,520 was the basis for the pyramid

I daresay that meticulously proving 2,520 does have something to do with the JWs. However, you are completely wrong about proving "2,520" as the basis for the pyramid anyway.

The pyramid calculations had nothing to do with 2,520 or 607 (606) or 7 times, or even the Times of the Gentiles. Yes, it was utilized to focus attention on 1915 and 1914, and 1874 but it never had anything to do with 2520.

52 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

When you make a BOLD statement like JWfacts is a good source for debunking?

Goodness. You think you can backpedal full circle and get right back where you started? That's almost always a sign of dishonesty. I said that you implied jwfacts was lying about Russell and Free Masons. So I pointed out that you were wrong and that jwfacts. In fact, I said:

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The jwfacts.com site is actually another excellent site for debunking the idea that Russell was a Freemason.

So, this is still absolutely true. jwfacts.com is an excellent site for debunking this particular idea. You see how that might be different from saying that jwfacts.com is simply a good source for debunking? You left off the only important part no doubt to imply that I thought the sight was good for debunking anything. It seems that you must have understood this, otherwise you wouldn't have said it. Then you prove that you understood that this logical fallacy needed just one more little piece to be fully dishonest. You made the fallacy explicit when you said:

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

Then you would have to admit JWfacts is anything but a good source for anything.

Would you? Is that really how you think? That if something is good for one thing, then it's not good for anything?

• (Philippians 4:5) . . .Let your reasonableness become known to all men.. . .

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

So, one right doesn’t make up for 1000 wrong, just because they got caught.

That's correct as a general statement, although I have no idea if the person(s) responsible for the jwfacts.com site ever had this wrong. It seems to me that the site treats a lot of areas of controversy, and that this is not the only controversy over which the correct and reasonable approach is taken to a particular criticism. I think you are probably wrong in your claim that "they got caught." I also suspect that Barbara Anderson would have learned this at Bethel while she worked on the "Proclaimers" book, unless she says otherwise somewhere.

It's also possible that the first ones to claim that Russell was a Mason were not outsiders, but Witnesses skimming through old books and looking at the pyramids and symbols. When I was about 8, I remember looking at the pictures of pyramids in the old books in our KH Library and wondering why Russell marked various stone levels of the pyramid along an angle like 20th, 30th, 36th, 40th, and 60th -- with the word MASONRY next to the 50th. Later, of course, I heard people out in service mention that so-and-so at this or that door was a 40th degree Mason or a 50th degree Mason related to the "90 Degrees of Egyptian Freemasonry." http://exposemasonic.blogspot.com/2011/08/freemasonry-above-33-degree-to-90.html That made sense, but it didn't bother me any more than the pictures of the Pyramids themselves bothered me (which they did at the time, less so now).

48 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Well, maybe I should have been clearer.

Yes, you should have been clearer. You should have been honest. And you should not have put yourself in a situation where you have to backpedal. By the way, this is about the closest thing I've ever seen to an apology from you. I'm impressed. I do think you kind of ruin it later, by claiming that I'm the one doing the backpedaling, however. I didn't have to backpedal at all because I still stand by exactly what I have always said about it, since 1977.

48 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

These opposing sites of FALSE narratives are the ones that started that nonsense and ended up looking foolish like they have been for about a quarter century now.

True. I don't know for how long the claim has been so common, but I agree that it's nonsense to think this Free Mason idea is true. He wasn't one, but so what if he had been? He had obviously found a new set of teachings to live by. Turns out it was likely through his mother's brother that he could easily learn about them, and I'm sure Russell was the kind who would have been curious to learn.

48 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

A good researcher doesn’t go directly to the source of the criticism, but to the actual source where the “truth lies beneath”.

You're right, that's always the first and most important place to start. Personally I learned that the Mason claim wasn't true because the Convention Reports were included in the material I read from 1977 through 1982 which finally included just about everything Russell, Bible Students and the WTS published from 1876 to the present. The actual source is the real foundation of truth, but I didn't know at the time that this particular question or claim had ever come up. So for me it was already pre-debunked by Russell's own words. But, on the other hand, a good researcher, I would think, could also take note of what persons admit  about someone when they would otherwise love to find fault with that person.

The same goes for either side of an argument. If you were an Israelite in David's day and heard that David had a man murdered so he could steal his wife you might be inclined to defend David against an "apostate" lie. But if your own prophets and holy books admitted it, then there was a good chance it was true. If only your enemies admitted it, you would need more evidence. If, in the days of Jesus, his enemies claimed many false things about him, but also claimed that they couldn't understand why such a "false prophet" was able to perform wonderful miracles, then this provides some evidence about Jesus' miracles to others critics who might not accept a Christians word for it.

48 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

So, when you start suggesting thereÂ’s an article out there to show all Christians are masons and then try, backpedaling your statement as youÂ’re accustomed, of doing? Who are you trying to fool? You're not even trying anymore to keep the context, honest!!

No need for backpedaling. That's why I have never needed to backpedal. I still stand by exactly what I said. But you implied that the jwfacts.com site said the opposite of what it really says, and now you have backpedaled regarding that claim. This is at least a measure of progress. Normally you merely claim that you were right all along, and that it was the person who was right who was really wrong. So for your own case, I applaud that you at least had the decency to backpedal.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

Anyone can see the argument put forward on unscrupulous sites like JWfacts. Russell, 33 degrees Freemason.

You are not telling the truth here. Again. What you are implying appears dishonest or appears to show a complete inability to do research -- or perhaps you can explain if there was some other reason you are reporting this idea incorrectly. The jwfacts.com site is actually another excellent site for debunking the idea that Russell was a Freemason.

An important statement from the page on the subject is here:

• Whilst these symbols are used by Freemasonry, Russell's usage is not evidence he was a member. These symbols are not exclusive to Freemasonry, and were in common usage amongst a number of nineteenth century Christian groups, such as the Adventist movement from which Russell drew many of his teachings.

The conclusion presented on the site includes this as one of the final statements:

• To believe Russell was a Freemason implies a conspiracy to hide his involvement that is both pointless and devoid of any evidence. Russell was neither a Mason, pagan or Satanist, but simply a religious leader stealing ideas from those around him to found his own religion.

What should have given it away is the very title of the page, which I assume you somehow misread:

• https://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/blog/russell-not-a-freemason.php

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

By the Way JWinsider. Your friend “Barbara Anderson” also debunked that theory as a researcher and posted it on her site. Why haven’t you figured that one, out? Didn’t you say, you’re, also, a GOOD, RESEARCHER?

What happened to you AllenSmith? No, I did not ever say I was a good researcher. I said I was a researcher because that was my assignment. Also, I already debunked this same claim to my own satisfaction years ago, while I was still in Bethel. If you recall, I was the one on jw-archive who not only pointed to debunking material about this topic, but if you recall, I even found the original photo from which the photoshopped picture came from of Russell as a supposed Mason. (See another post by The Librarian on this subject.) 

I was the one who quoted the 1913 convention report as a primary source in debunking the theory, the same as you do above.  Also, in my post above I pointed to a very fair treatment of the subject that also claims the same primary thing you are claiming.

From what I could gather the writers at the "survey" blog seem to say that there are 7 specific issues that the WTS is opposing in the book. I count 6 from the linked article. Perhaps there are more details in the author's own blog about what's happening with his book. So far it looks like the following items are part of the suit:

1. Privacy issue related to collection of data on persons who are studying with JWs
2. Privacy issue related to collection of data on the activities of JWs (voluntarily reported hours, placements, etc.) and the use of that information to review the potential congregational status of the JW
3. Portrayal of the Governing Body as having any type of control over the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society
4. Research quoted from Marvin Shilmer where he claims that more than 50,000 Witnesses have died over blood transfusion issues
5. The suggestion that the WTS might try to control the type of music a Witness listens to
6. That Witnesses believe and share potentially embellished experiences as fact

Did I miss one that someone else saw?

On 2/7/2018 at 1:51 PM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Who is the speaker in the above quote ... and WHEN and WHERE was it spoken? 

2.) Where is a reference that we can look up to check it?

I have it somewhere. Hopefully someone has a link to it online.

It's from a speech by Russell, as reported in the 1913 Convention Report of the International Bible Students.

The commentary here: https://mmoutreachinc.com/jehovahs_witnesses/russell_mason/wasrussellmason.html is as good a place as any to start. The portion above is Russell's long, drawn-out analogy and comparison to show how true Christians are really "Masons" only in a scriptural sense even though they don't belong to any Masonic Order. It's curious that he spent so much time accommodating the Masonic philosophy into his speech. I'm assuming he knew that Masons were in the audience, or he had been recently questioned about his choice of Masonic symbols and language.

On 5/15/2016 at 10:40 PM, Jesus.defender said:

Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur’an has held as permissible."

About the same with Judaism. The usual arguments from early rabbinic leaders and commentators within Judaism point to the same thing. Most discussions of approved marriage age for girls in early Judaism considered the time of menses (sometimes age 8 or 9) to be most appropriate. Some discussions pointed to age , or 12 or 12.5. However, since the Bible doesn't forbid marriage and sex with prepubescent children and therefore, the argument was advanced that no Jew has the right to forbid a thing which the Torah has held as permissible. Rabbinical leaders even looked to the Bible for the earliest possible years of marriage and found that there was evidence that Rebekkah may have married Isaac at age 3. (Whatever evidence this was is either too obscure or non-existent in current Bible texts.)

The discussions about age 3 as opposed to menses which rarely occurs even as early as 8 or 9, is actually found in Midrash/Mishnaic writings of Judaism. Here's a portion of the discussion as found here, where the source quotes primarily from quoting from Teugels and Peeters:

• “Conversely, if a girl is three years and one day, she can be betrothed by sexual intercourse.” He continues writing, “Obviously, the Mishnah does not say that a woman should be betrothed at the age of three or hat this is a standard age to do so. It is, rather, mentioned as the minimal age.” (Teugels, L. M. (2004). Bible and Midras: The Story of ‘The Wooing of Rebekah’ (Gen. 24). Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan. pp. 218-220)

• Teugels in his discussion on the subject also cites Judith Hauptman who writes: “After three, if a man has sex with a girl, not only does he cause her to lose her virginity permanently, but also- and precisely because of this-the sex act has a variety of legal consequences for both of them: for him, if she were forbidden to him, he will be punished in the same way as if she were a mature woman; for her, if the sexual relations were for the sake of marriage, they will make her a married woman.” (Ibid. pp. 218-219)

Of course, women were considered property in Biblical Judaism, which is one of the reasons that even in the Christian Bible, it is mentioned that a man could get a legal divorce, not a woman. But Jesus mentioned that at least one portion of the Law was given by Moses, not because the Law was righteous in that place, but was a compromise out of regard for the hard-heartedness of the people.

• (Matthew 19:8) . . .He said to them: “Out of regard for your hard-heartedness, Moses made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, . . .

Surely, it was a level of hard-heartedness --lack of love-- that would start men thinking about marrying a girl at age 8 or 9. Or men (fathers) giving away their daughters in marriage at age 8 or 9. How much worse was it for men to be discussing the potential Biblical acceptability of age 3? And the discussion was not just about marriage, but about sexual intercourse (consummation). This is obvious from the discussion of the ensuing flow of blood, and if there were a difference between this flow of blood and that which might occur at a later time in the same girl's life. 

As property, however, a wife did have some additional rights over a foreign slave, and over a Jewish slave. Under the Mosaic Law, a man could beat his slave girl to death and there would be no punishment as long as it took the girl more than a day to die. (Exodus 20:20,21).

• (Exodus 21:20, 21) 20 “If a man strikes his slave man or his slave girl with a stick and that one dies by his hand, that one must be avenged. 21 However, if he survives for one or two days, he is not to be avenged, because he is someone bought with his owner’s money.

But other places, even the very next verse shows that a wife has more value. Also, if a Jewish man under God's law were to sell his daughter as a slave (even a concubine, which is a type of sex slave) that daughter has some ccompensaory rights if she is dismissed that a male slave would not have. 

• (Exodus 21:7-11) 7 “If a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not go free the same way that a slave man does. 8 If her master is not pleased with her and he does not designate her as a concubine but causes her to be purchased by someone else, he will not be entitled to sell her to foreigners, for he has betrayed her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he is to grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife for himself, the sustenance, the clothing, and the marriage due of the first wife are not to be diminished. 11 If he will not render these three things to her, then she is to go free without paying any money.

There are problems for all religions in areas where they show themselves unwilling to progress away from the ancient written laws towards a law of love.

7 minutes ago, DefenderOTT said:

We have erred in both instances under your understanding. I, however, don’t make it a habit of advocating someone abuse copyright material, which under Christian life is against bible law, Exodus 20:15 and Caesar’s law.

Then you and I agree completely. I don't think anyone should make a habit of advocating that someone abuse copyright material. And I agree that many people abuse "fair use" guidelines, or don't understand them. It's fairly easy to comply, although it requires a bit more work than a lot of people want to put into their posts. It's easy to get lazy or in a hurry, and I've done this too. I've seen whole articles posted many times. A good rule of thumb is to keep quotes under 3 lines at a time from any article, and keep excerpts down to less than a paragraph or two from longer works. If anyone thinks I have advocated for abuse of the law, they are mistaken either about what I said, or about the law.

8 minutes ago, DefenderOTT said:

Perhaps, you see a “little white lie” acceptable, but it shouldn't be, to a Christian. What part of “misrepresentation of facts” is tripping you that you find it hard to accept, JTR simply made an error?

You are misrepresenting me again. I agree that JTR made an error. I almost pointed it out before you did, but had to go somewhere and didn't see any notifications from the forum pop up for a couple hours. 

27 minutes ago, DefenderOTT said:

That in itself makes no sense, especially if you are referring to this site as, academic. What are you TEACHING then?

The rules should be kept MORE strictly if this were an academic site. This is NOT an academic site. But there are parts of the site that tend toward being academic in the sense that they are about religious doctrine and they discuss and quote from the academic or scholarly research of others. They are often discussions and critique of doctrine. Doctrine means teaching. Discussions about teachings and critique of teachings is essentially going to categorized as "academic." When you quote from sources to open up a discussion or refute another persons opinion about copyright law, you are teaching something about copyright law. The person presenting material need not be correct in all aspects, but that's the nature of a forum. It's a mix of teaching and questioning and learning and discussion and controversy and disagreement and social banter and parody and jokes and entertainment. But we should still be able to LEARN from anyone who offers a point of view.

On 2/5/2018 at 12:04 PM, Foreigner said:

Since this forum is hypothetically anything but an academic forum, Copyright rules apply.

This makes no sense. If this forum were hypothetically an academic forum, copyright rules would still apply. And I suspect they would also be adhered to more closely.

1 hour ago, DefenderOTT said:

I’m glad there are people like you that are advocates for breaking the law.

I figured that your moniker meant that you wanted to represent yourself as a "defender of the truth." If that misrepresentation was on purpose, I guess it stands for something else.

1 hour ago, DefenderOTT said:

What does that have to do with the fact that this artist did ask for permission from Michael Jackson, and JTR misrepresented that fact, that you are poorly attempting to defend for him, now?

I think you can see that it is perfectly relevant to the point that JTR was making, even though JTR used a fat bad example. He will have to eat Humble Pie. (Humble Pie also had a song called "Eat it!" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eat_It_(Humble_Pie_album) )

1 hour ago, DefenderOTT said:

Is this an author thing? Defend each other’s mistakes?

I have defended your mistakes, too. I'm not an author, however, and have not tried to be one. I have worked as a researcher for authors.

19 hours ago, Foreigner said:

So, this infamous ideology that JWI keeps suggesting, what is “fair use” will be a thing of the past. So, gear up folks, Web sites are included in this battle. Yes, that also applies to archives of published works without the expressed permission or consent of the owner.

"This infamous ideology that JWI keeps suggesting . . . "

LOL. I think that you have made such a habit of looking to find fault with so many things I have said, that you probably don't realize that, up until your most recent comments here, I have generally agreed with everything you said about copyright law. The only problem is that you have likely obscured what I have said, either on purpose, wishful thinking, misunderstanding, misquoting, or false assumptions.

To repeat, my position is still as I have stated previously : that there have been many instances on this site of people breaking copyright law, and breaking the "Fair Use" guidelines of copyright law. There are hundreds of sites discussing JW teachings from JWs, non-JWs and ex-JWs that break the copyright laws. At the end of this post I'll point to the previous things I have said about copyright law and fair use law. If you know of other things I have said, please point them out, especially as you seem to think that I have said something about this site being exempt because it is an academic site.

You should know that I have never made such a claim, and even if I had, this wouldn't change a thing about "Fair Use" guidelines. The point I recall making was that in places where subjects are discussed for academic purposes (and that includes criticism) you will often find that a corporation or publishing company will allow more leeway because it is easy to create a measure of "bad will" instead of "good will" when fighting for legal rights. It will end up highlighting the fact that the publishing company is afraid of criticism. Scientology created a lot of bad will for itself many years ago when it bought up an entire large site where religion was discussed just so it could crush the site. Scientology discussion was only a small part of the site, but it crushed the entire site. After that BeliefNet became much bigger, but they were hassled by religions and corporations over copyright issues, too.

Fair Use guidelines of the copyright law will not change; they don't have to. They have always been vague enough, and many years of precedent in prosecuting these laws has not resulted in specific definitions. Here is a quote about them from a typical site where people try to make sense of it for practical purposes:

http://www.booksandsuch.com/blog/fair-use-and-asking-permission/

-------------------

• Fair Use  The U.S. Copyright Office Fair Use Guidelines, Section 107, lists six purposes for using a particular work that are considered fair: For “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.”  It goes on to list four factors you need to consider in deciding whether your intended use can be considered fair:

1. “The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.”

.     The Section goes on to state that the boundary between fair use and infringement is unclear.

• “There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission”

-----------------------

The problem is that the lack of a specific number of words or lines "that may be safely taken without permission" will cut both ways. If a publisher is strict they can come after you for very little, if a publisher is not strict, or even perhaps "happy" about the quotes, they would be happy if even more had been quoted. (This has actually happened in context-related issues, where the publisher claims that MORE context should have been quoted to avoid misleading the reader.)

These issues are very relevant to the WTS-owned content. It's easy to take something out of context. Also, the WTS always prefers that a school, for example, take 200 copies of the entire Awake! magazine, rather than just a reprint of an article. The reason is probably obvious.

In areas where our work is banned, brothers and sisters have been encouraged to copy entire magazines by hand.

Entire magazines are often given away not just to interested persons, but (especially-pre jw.org) have even been left in the door of a 'not at home' or mailed to an address where prospects of interest were high. Entire magazines have been left in beauty shops, "laundry mats," and elsewhere with no instructions as to who can share the publication.

The WTS would not want to be considered hypocritical for wanting the books and magazines (or at least entire articles) copied in areas where the distribution was banned, but then turn around and cry when the WTS itself tries to ban the distribution of its own publications through unauthorized channels. If it's obvious that the unauthorized channel is not presenting itself as the proper channel from which to receive the original and/or current information, then it is probably obvious that the unauthorized channel is presenting the material in order to teach, promote, or criticize the material. Fair Use requires that only excerpts be used for this purpose. But how long can those excerpts be?

Some precedent has indicated this for example: " In all the editorial sources I have researched, the consensus is that 275–300 words can be extracted from a book-length work without seeking permission. . . " (taken from the site just quoted above.)

But is a quote from one article a quote from a book-length work? Not normally. But what if the publication of a bound volume is considered to be the work of one author (WTS) for that year, or what if an entire indexed CD-ROM or DVD or archive on wol.jw.org full of publications that are all presented as the current "single" body of work from the same "author"? What is the number of words or lines or percentage that could be appropriate. Would the publisher be happier if more or less was quoted to avoid items being taken out of context? Is there any indication that the publisher merely wishes for nothing to be quoted unless it is fully supportive? 

*** w18 April p. 30 par. 2 Questions From Readers ***

• But if we knowingly allow people, even our brothers, to post our digital content on other sites or to use the jw.org trademark to sell merchandise, the courts may not support our efforts to deter opposers and commercial enterprises.

It appears that deterring opposition is high on the list. Will the WTS decide to ban its own literature from all places they oppose? Will this be considered a type of persecution? Those are the questions that are going to be asked. That's why I think that the WTS will be hesitant to go after those who break copyright law when it comes to mere criticism. They don't want to position themselves as not being able to stand up to criticism, as this is a sign of fear that they will be exposed for weaknesses.

---------------------------

For some reason, someone moved a post on mine on this subject to a new topic, making it look like I started a new thread on the topic here, which might be a fair place to move this current discussion.

I believe those comments must have been moved from another topic, probably this one:

https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/50868-is-it-time-for-this-forum-to-close-its-doors/?page=5

2 hours ago, DefenderOTT said:

JTR. You fall short on your facts.

The first time I met him in person was long after I had gotten permission to do "Eat It" back in 1984.

A lot of people think that Weird Al went too far in asking or permission before making his parodies. The law would likely have been on his side if he had not requested permission, but that doesn't mean he wanted the legal hassles. The best treatment I found regarding the copyright issues with respect to the Weird Al parodies is here:

http://thelearnedfangirl.com/2014/07/the-continuing-influence-of-weird-al-on-law-especially-copyright-law/

I'll quote two entire paragraphs below to present the context of the sentence I have highlighted :

• Weird Al or his works have been cited by a large number of legal scholars in almost seventy-five law review articles over the years, including in at least six articles by at least three of the top 30 IP scholars — Mark Lemley (Mark Lemley & Stacey Dogan, Parody as Brand, 47 U.C.D. L. Rev. 473, 503 (2013); Mark Lemley, Should a Licensing Market Require Licensing, 70 Law & Contemp. Probs. 185, 191 (2007)); Jonathan Zittrain (Jonathan Zittrain, Privacy 2.0, 2008 U. Chi. Legal F. 65, 83 (2008)) and Rebecca Tushnet (Rebecca Tushnet, Payment in Credit: Copyright Law and Subcultural Creativity, 70 Law & Contemp. Probs. 135, 161 (2007); Rebecca Tushnet, My Fair Ladies: Sex, Gender, and Fair Use in Copyright,  15 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 273, 297 (2007); Bruce P. Keller & Rebecca Tushnet, Even More Parodic than the Real Thing: Parody Lawsuits Revisited, 94 Trademark Rep. 979, 985, 996, 997 (2004)) and many others, including Kembrew McLeod & Peter DiCola, Non-Infringing Uses in Digital Sampling: The Role of Fair Use and the De Minimis Threshold in Sample Clearance Reform, 17 Deakin L. Rev. 321, 329 (2012).
• But his influence isn’t just in rocking the possibly non-existent borderline between parody and satire – let alone tribute, takeoff, and more, but has been cited in law reviews to talk about topic from racial profiling (Nancy Leong, The Open Road and the Traffic Stop: Narratives and Counter-Narratives of the American Dream, 64 Fla. L. Rev. 305 (2012)) to the RIAA (Vincent J. Galluzzo, When Now Known or Later Developed Fails Its Purpose: How P2P Litigation Has Turned the Distribution Right Upside-Down,  61 Fla. L. Rev. 1165 (2009)) to defining what goes into Spam – the meat product (Pamela C. Chalk, A Pig by Any Other Name Would Smell as Sweet, 12 J. Contemp. Legal Issues 340 (2001)).

On 1/29/2018 at 2:10 AM, Queen Esther said:

 

( Nehemia Gordon )

Queen Esther,

I don't know if it was you who edited the title of this thread, but that's quite a change! I was expressing an opinion, and I still hold to it 100%, but the new title might make others uncomfortable, especially if they were only intending to responding to the thread under it's original title. Thanks for the vote of confidence to you, or whomever made the change. If the "hype" in some of the articles were reworded to a more rational presentation there would be dozens of little changes to make, and I'm not trying to be that picky. But Gordon's site does have several comments on it from Jehovah's Witnesses, too, and they are quite supportive of course. This was one of the reasons to be careful.

If I get time, I'll present some of these other problems for those who might be interested.

I just noticed that even Nehemia Gordon himself didn't like the new title of this thread. See?

On 1/26/2018 at 11:25 PM, Queen Esther said:

THE WHOLE WORLD WILL KNOW JEHOVAH,  AND THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING !

This whole claim is being oversimplified nearly to the point of dishonesty.

First of all, "Jehovah" is a perfectly acceptable English name for the Tetragrammaton as long as we admit that it is not intended to match the original Hebrew pronunciation. We have admitted this multiple times:

*** nwt p. 1735 A4 The Divine Name in the Hebrew Scriptures ***

• He said: “Modern grammarians argue that it ought to be read Yahveh or Yahaveh; but JEHOVAH seems firmly rooted in the English language, and the really important point is not the exact pronunciation, but the recognition that it is a Proper Name, not merely an appellative title like ‘Lord.’”

Earlier versions of the NWT were very clear that the name "Yahweh" was considered by the NWT translators to be closer to the original Hebrew pronunciation, but chose to use "Jehovah" because it was better known in the English-speaking world. Non-English translations of the NWT are based on this same assumption made for the English translation. The following is from the Foreword of the NWT as published from 1950 through the 1960's:

• While inclining to view the pronunciation "Yahweh"' as the more correct way, we have retained the form "Jehovah" because of people's familiarity with it since the 14th century.

None of this takes away from the point being made in Bible that the whole world will know Jehovah. This is a correct Bible statement even if the original pronunciation was actually YA-HU or YA-HO or YAH-VEH or even a dialectical pronunciation of I-O. The Biblical phras. e was obviously not intended to refer to a specific pronunciation, but a refers to specific actions from God.

Next, the initial video is from Michael Rood. Rood is a prophetic "crank" (crack-pot) who continues to use prejudice and misinformation to push his own "End of the World" routine because clearly an end of the world agenda attracts a lot of people and produces a lot of sales activity for his books and DVDs. Perhaps the beard makes one think of a Hebrew scholar, but he is a "Neo-Christian" doomsday preacher. Note the comments here: http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/spl_rood.htm His first major prediction was for the end of the world in 1999, and of course most predictions since then are tempered by using questions and inexact wording instead of direct statements. For example, notice how this video of his is sub-themed: "The Rapture: 2017?"

Now it's not fair to associate Nehemia Gordon directly with Rood. But Gordon has now been seen to use many such promoters of "crack-pot" end-times religions to help promote his own work. He may be a good scholar, but he participates in hyping it with people like Rood. I have already found several interviews with and about Nehemia Gordon where this method is obvious, and Gordon plays along with those like Rood and his competitors.

I am not saying it's exactly the same thing, but there have been several persons from academia who have worked on niche books and articles and then found a way to promote these through the support of religions whose members are expected to want that scholarly or academicc information to support a "niche" religion. People have even written articles in defense of "cults" like Scientology (using euphemisms instead of cults, like "new religions") and then used well-publicized "academic" seminars to their publicize information that they hope will be desired by members of the "cult."

This doesn't mean that Nehemia Gordon is wrong, but we should always be careful when we see anything hyped up using such methods. But we should also notice that a lot of information is being left out in order to lead people to the same conclusion that Nehemia Gordon has made.

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

You would not know anything about scholarship and what qualifies one as a 'scholar'.

Anyone who can read can learn exactly what qualifies one as a "scholar." You don't have to be a scholar to know what qualifies a person. I think that even you yourself probably know what qualifies one to be a scholar. 

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

Further when it comes to honesty perhaps you should examine yourself. Are you a genuine Witness? I ask this question because you promote views that could be regarded as apostate especially in the field of Chronology.

Yes, in previous topics, I've already explained the difficulties I go through from the perspective of what I can and can't teach in the congregational setting. I don't get into trouble in the congregation, but it would be very easy for this to happen, and a few people are well aware of my conscientious stance on a couple of subjects. Naturally, I don't consider my views to be "apostate," as they are based on prayer, study, conscience, the Bible, and a desire to be honest in all things. I probably would only be aware of these differences between the Bible view and the Wathtower's view because several persons in the Writing Department and even a couple people on the Governing Body were helpful and instrumental in pointing out some of these things to me while I was at Bethel. Based on their own example and recommendations, I held back from speaking about the wonderful things I was learning, and it was not until just the last few years that I realized I should not hold bak due to fear of men, fear of loss of position, or attachment to traditions.  I still think that discussing such things in a congregational setting could be damaging to unsuspecting and unwary ones, but, like you, I find persons in this type of online environment to be much better prepared for controversial subjects and I find it to be a fairly good venue to be always ready to make a defense and let our reasonableness be known to all.

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

Believe me, he is a mysterious fellow!

I guess I'll have to take your word for it.

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

I am very much on top of the Jer.29:10 debate and already I have a Witness Hebrew scholar that has informed me of certain facts relating to this matter and I will be mentioning these in due course. Whether you think my posts are a parody of scholarship means nothing to me because I will match your arguments anytime, anywhere.

That would be nice. Any idea of a time frame for mentioning these "in due course"?

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

I have found WT publications invaluable and accurate in relation to Chronology but in addition I also pay careful attention to scholarship as well. Do you?

Only to the extent necessary to keep strict watch over my teaching, and thereby keep a clean conscience:

• (1 Timothy 4:15, 16) . . .. 16 Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. . . .

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

You are talking nonsense. You do not know anything about what constitutes a scholarly paper because you have never read one.

I've said all I need to say about your own scholarly issues, but I can see you know nothing about mine.

1 hour ago, scholar JW said:

You talk gibberish. I believe in context, exegesis and linguistic analysis and apply these to the interpretation of Jer. 29:10 which you do not. Go away!

I hope so. I'd sure hate to see a rehash of the gibberish I've already seen on this subject.

6 hours ago, scholar JW said:

I am not into dishonesty which as an insult is easily thrown around by those who resist sound argument, provide no evidence for their claims and are unable to accept opposing views.

Perhaps it is too easy to throw it around as an insult. I don't plan on dealing with the question of honesty or dishonesty at much length, especially not on a personal level with you, but I thought that something should be said, especially because some persons here have probably not had the pleasure of reading the long history of comments you have left at various places through the years. And some persons have made comments here which clearly show they haven't looked into any specifics of your claims. If they had, I'm sure that some think your comments are probably well-researched, but if they would look at them carefully, the same people might be appalled at the both the inanity and sometimes even the insanity of many of your comments.

But I've also noticed that dishonesty invariably becomes a part of all Bible chronology discussions, especially from those groups, including our own, that came out of the "Great Awakening" after Miller promoted a preview version of the Watchtower's first chronology. I've now read much of the Second Adventist writings, Seventh Day Adventist writings, Barbour's, Russell's and other Bible Student writings --even John and Morton Edgar. They all lead me to believe that a study of the differences among all of the following should be a prerequisite:

• dishonesty,
• insincerity,
• wishful thinking,
• shallow thinking,
• logical fallacies,
• shoddy scholarship

6 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Further, I am not a Troll but the real deal.

There is absolutely no doubt that you are, by definition, a troll. Repeatedly calling yourself a "scholar" while simultaneously showing a complete disregard for scholarship, and an unwillingness to provide anything of any scholarly value is, in itself, a provocation. For example, going onto sites where non-JWs and ex-JWs frequent, and where you repeatedly refer to "celebrated WT scholars" can have only one purpose, especially if you have also gone to some lengths elsewhere to show why these same scholars have supposedly remained anonymous specifically so that, as they claim, they will not become "celebrated" or "celebrities" in any way.

6 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Scholar, however is mysterious I grant you that!

Strange, maybe, but hardly mysterious to me.

6 hours ago, scholar JW said:

No problem but that really ignores our critics because scholar has stumped them.

That makes no sense. Perhaps you meant "that really annoys(?) our critics." At any rate, you didn't stump anyone, and I'm sure I have now completed all the "Jeremiah 29:10" discussions on the previously referenced forum where you are (or were) involved. In fact, it is easy to show you made many false statements, made many logical fallacies, acted like the opposite of a scholar, indicated that you had not read or had not comprehended any sources that anyone was quoting, made the flimsiest of excuses, asked other people to do more work when they had already demolished your argument, showed yourself unwilling to present any information that would have been easy for you to see or find, would evade instead of answering questions, or claim you had proven a point by merely asserting that another person was wrong. I could go on and on. Your posts read like a parody of scholarship. 

6 hours ago, scholar JW said:

My position on the seventy years as outlined is correct and remains my considered opinion if that sounds dogmatic then it should not be taken as such but simply a considered or firm opinion.

As you already admitted: it will remain your considered opinion until the Watch Tower publications tell us to consider another one. Obviously, that will instantly become your new "considered" opinion.

6 hours ago, scholar JW said:

What I write here is not what I would write in a scholarly paper where the language must be tempered and unemotional.

You could not begin to write a scholarly paper with the complete lack (or even disdain) of scholarship that you have shown. It doesn't matter how tempered and unemotional it is; it would need more than just your empty claims that you are right to accept an interpretation based on little to no evidence and that everyone else is wrong to accept an understanding based on most or even all the best evidence.

6 hours ago, scholar JW said:

There is always a need for alternate views and that is what drives scholarship forward and your above quote is out of context.

That's a much better view. Although I linked to the entire context and merely included a statement you made just in front of your Jeremiah 29:10 quote and a statement from just after that Jeremiah 29:10 quote. I added your own context specifically so that you couldn't honestly make a claim that it was out of context.  But you did anyway. Feel free to explain, and I hope your explanation is NOT simply that everything you have ever said has been out of context.

6 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Not interested in your silly observation for I care nought for the opinions of others but only good, sound scholarship.

Since it was an observation that explains so much to anyone who might find you "mysterious" I thought it worth mentioning. But I won't make any more claims about what you have said elsewhere. You may have the last word in your own defense if you wish, and I will definitely attempt to only respond to the specifics of any claims you have made here. I'm happy to look at any good, sound scholarship related to the points of this topic.

17 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The context of Jer.29:10 suggests 'at' and not 'for'. The matter is open to the opinion of the translator and interpretation of the 70 years so there is no room for your dogmatism which always gets you into trouble.

I just read several threads on this exact topic over on another forum that you have frequented in the past, such as this one:

Jer. 29:10 -- Dr. Ernst Jenni replies to Leolaia and Scholar

I know it's not fair to call you dishonest here just because you have been dishonest on other forums. And I am not doing that. You have already left a trail of dishonesty here, too. But I'm still marveling at how you appear to have learned nothing in the 13 years since that particular topic was discussed in such detail. Your method has not changed either. Much more scholarly persons than you summarized your own method there so perfectly by saying things like this about you:

• Read all about it! Read all about it! - "Knocked Out Boxer Claims Victory".
• modus operandi is basically bluffing and saying anything in favor of the NWT and seeing whether it would stick.
• record of unfulfilled bluffs and false claims

And then after several of these completely false claims were summarized for you, you immediately went on to make another ridiculously false claim which you could have easily looked up for yourself, as any true scholar would have. 

I notice that you claim above in your discussion with AlanF that you have always argued undogmatically for a range of meaning for Jeremiah 29:10. You have an odd method of doing this which involves 2 steps. Your argument is that, yes, there is a range of meanings in the lexicon, but then you move on to arguing that "therefore" the NWT is absolutely right in the meaning they give it in the context of Jeremiah 29:10. It's a simple assertion until you are pressed to add some evidence, and then you just literally make stuff up.

You try to play this one out of both sides of your mouth however. You claim that others cannot be dogmatic, but then go on to dogmatically claim that this means that only the NWT here is correct. Just as you already said on a forum 12 years ago: (Last quote of yours from another forum, I promise.)

• There is no need to offer an alternative Neo-Babylonian chronology because the date is incomplete or unreliable, if that position is altered by new research then celebrated WT scholars will be pleased to devise a new constructed scheme.  Jeremiah 29:10 is translated accurately by the NWT and refers to all of those exiles living in Babylon up until their release. . . .  There are no other views other than that of celebrated WT scholars that provides a consistent, holistic account of the seventy years based upon the Bible.

That is such a good summary you made of your own views: There is no need to offer an alternative to the WT view unless the celebrated WT scholars devise a new scheme for you. Jeremiah 29:10 is accurate in the NWT. And then, most dogmatically of all, "There are no other views other than that of the celebrated WT scholars. . . "

Based on all that you have said here, I can see that your modus operandi is also to be purposely unscholarly so that the hypocrisy of calling yourself a "scholar" drives people to expose you. You admitted that the average Witness is uninformed on these matters, and you are therefore able to count on them to see you as "persecuted for righteousness' sake" instead of noticing that your dishonest method was easily exposed by more honest minds.

1 hour ago, Nana Fofana said:

I don't know which commentators had to adjust after secular data got in the way, but I see WT's 70 weeks begins at the same time as Ussher's  date that he established in 1613.-

Exactly! It's very useful to look at all the various ways that this time period was interpreted prior to Ussher. And after Ussher, more and more evidence continues to show that Ussher's date was not based on any evidence, either secular or Biblical. It was merely based on counting backwards from the secular date he preferred to use for the major events in Jesus' ministry. And, of course, there have been many attempts by Jewish persons going back to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Josephus and several more attempts among Jewish scholars and commentators and the dates are all over the place. Of course, even though we generally keep to the explanation from the Watch Tower you quoted, this particular theory for the date has had even more damaging evidence against it which continues to pile up. What some other Bible commentators have done is to keep a similar set of dates and count them with 360 day years. Some allow them to land closer to 70 C.E., and some still look for ways to dismiss the Persian chronology to start the 70 weeks closer to 539 B.C.E as seen in sources that AllenSmith has repeatedly posted.

9 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

What I don't understand [oh, wait...maybe I do?] is why, if 607 is the year, as I believe, of wall breached , Zedekiah escapes, is caught, blinded, after seeing his sons killed, taken into exile, and temple , houses, and almost everything in Jerusalem leveled, two months prior to the last Judeans going to Egypt, leaving land desolated,  -why 609, Zedekiah's 9th year, the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem that had parents eating their children, yet most starving to death anyway [as an example of how horrible], until 539, can't be the 70 years of Babylon's DOMINATION some are so dead keen on, and insistent over?

By your words here you appear to misunderstand WHY you believe 607 is the year the wall was breached, and the temple burned, etc. You believe Zedekiah's 9th year was 609, and was the beginning of the siege, and that 607 was his 11th year. So then you question why the 70 years of domination would not run from 609 to 539. You seem to forget WHY you believe in 539. How did you get that 539 date? If you would ever look into it and admit WHY you personally concluded that it's a reasonable date, then you would immediately realize why 609 could NEVER be the 9th year of Zedekiah.

Any of us who admit that we think that Jerusalem could have been destroyed in 607 or that the preceding siege started in 609 are inadvertently admitting that we have never looked into the matter of why we accept 539. EVERYONE who knows why we accept 539 knows that it is dishonest to accept 607 and 609 for those particular events that came upon Jerusalem. This is how and why it is instantly possible to tell that someone who claims to have truly looked into the matter is being dishonest if they still insist that both 539 is correct and this view of 607 is correct. This is why someone who has claimed to study the issue for several decades and who touts their secular degrees and scholarship should be immediately called out for hypocrisy, sloppiness, or dishonesty. You can see on this very thread that those claiming to be scholars, but who have accepted 607 to 537, have learned to avoid evidence altogether. 

ON THE OTHER HAND. . .

I think that 609 to 539 is perfectly adequate as the secular timing of the 70 years of Babylon's domination, although I have no real use for the specific secular years. I think that 607 to 537 is also an adequate secular timing of the 70 years of Babylon's domination since the greatest effect upon Judea from Babylon was likely felt from about 606 to 538, which includes about 69 years. Now that I have looked into it carefully I see it would be dishonest for ME to attach the same events to those years as you attach to them, but of course, I can see your reasoning. You would claim, as most all Witnesses have claimed at some point, that this period of greatest desolation on Judea in particular could be Biblically dated from about the 18th year of Nebuhadnezzar to the accession year of Cyrus. It could be tempting to name this period as the same as the 70 years of Babylon's greatest domination, and several commentators, especially in previous centuries did just that. In the same way, several commentators thought that the beginning of the 70 weeks of years (Daniel) must have started with Cyrus' decree, rather than in the years of Artaxerxes. Secular data got in the way and commentators had to adjust. It turned out not to be what had seemed like the simplest and most obvious interpretation.

But it can also be shown that we should have questioned this "most simple and obvious interpretation" even without the secular data, but just on Bible data alone.