JW Insider

11 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

. . . haven't read anything by him except something I quoted here.  This 'something', I believe, showed deliberate-looking re-arrangement of WT quotes to make their conclusion -that he was supposedly 'correcting'-  look illogical.  You told me I was mistaken , but I didn't understand your explanation of why.

If you didn't understand my explanation then I was either wrong or I did a lousy job explaining, or something somewhere in between. I looked back through about 10 pages, and didn't find the content from COJ that you quoted. Perhaps you can tell me where it was, or how far back in this thread you think it was. I'll be happy to look at it again. As I recall, you had brought up some scriptures from Jeremiah that might have been "addressed" to me and I know I hadn't responded to all of them yet.

11 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

And at the risk of being thought to habitually "rail and froth" over an issue, I will again simply state that I would *prefer* that "C.O.J." weren't so very often the wall to wall search result of so, so many  searches (o.i.) undertaken!

Does "o.i." mean "on the Internet"? In Google there's a trick that lets you "subtract" out searches that contain an emphasis on a certain term. For example, I just searched on "587 607 Gentile Times" and got mostly pages that mentioned Jonsson due to the key words. Then I redid the search as "587 607 Gentile Times -Jonsson" and most of those pages were no longer on the first two pages. Some were, especially those that spelled Jonsson wrong, but at least it gave me a new set. Also, if you've looked up Jonsson before, and you're logged in, Google skews the links to include pages and subjects you have looked at before. The best way to get new and interesting material however is to leave out the words that tie it back to jw.org and discussions about JWs. How about the following Google searches:

• "Neo-Babylonian chronology and artifacts" [or "artefacts"]
• "cuneiform tablets that help to date Nebuchadnezzar"
• "site:wikipedia.org Nabonidus and Cyrus"
• "Jeremiah and Babylonian hegenomy"

Not saying you didn't already try these things already, but there are just so many options and variables to choose from.

6 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

I rest my case!!! Thank You for proving my point.

I am amazed at how easy it was to predict this.

4 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

For academic research, then the originals have more weight than those editions that have been revised. I believe you are a stickler for criticizing the Watchtower for their revisions by setting examples of past information and century-old ideology from the Bible Students.

I can't really see why you think originals carry more weight than revised editions. If you, Allen, were to write a book and then you discovered you had made some mistakes that needed to be revised, which of your books would you think carried more weight? Do you really think that scholars believe their mistakes carry more weight then the corrections? Does Furuli think everyone should give more weight to the first version of Volume II of his work on chronology, before he made the revisions to Volume II? Do you think that anyone in the Writing Dept at Bethel thinks that the commentary on Revelation or Ezekiel that was written in 1917 ("The Finished Mystery") carries more weight than our current writings on these books?

I know you very likely won't even answer these questions, without the typical evasion you've always utilized in the past, which tells me you know the real answer.

Also, you have seen me praise the Watchtower for the greater number of things that I appreciate and about which they must surely be correct. I will never criticize our publications for revisions, only for errors that contradict the Bible,  contradict facts, or make false or misleading claims. If we love the Bible, we should all be doing this. It's part of our obligation as Jehovah's Witnesses and as Christians to be humble and admit our faults. To make sure of all things, and hold fast to what is fine. To be noble-minded and "carefully examine" like the Beroeans. To try to be shining examples of honesty and truth. The test the inspired expressions. To make a defense of our hope to anyone who asks. To make our reasonableness known to all men.

As you already know, I don't criticize for revisions. Revisions are a good thing.

15 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Sorry, JWinsider. I would think you would have Raymond Franz book as well.

I accept your apology. Yes, I have 2 books by Raymond Franz. CoC and iSoCF. I assume they are the latest editions. I also purchased a copy of GTR4 a few years ago, but this was after Rolf Furuli sent me his two books. He sent me Vol II for free, after I discussed some issues with Vol I with him. When I worked in Manhattan for 25+ years it was in midtown, just a few blocks from the NYPL research library at 42nd & 5th, where I made photocopies of entire books or at least key pages from almost every reference work that the WTS has quoted from Assyrian/Babylonian/Persian tablets. (Parker & Dubberstein, Sachs & Hunger, etc., etc.) Many of these had to be ordered from different libraries around the country. They never could get me a copy of JQB except on microfilm, and I never ordered it. All of this was well-before Google Books and the availability of so many works on PDF.

15 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

A lot of what you have said indirectly in the past has the same theme. So, you know very well, Raymond Franz was *influenced* by COJ, and his faulty book. Why would you dispute the obvious?

I don't know that Raymond Franz was ever influenced by COJ, but I have never disputed that he wasn't. Did you make that up - that I had disputed this somewhere? I could not have said either of them were or were not influenced by each other, because I don't know. If either one of them claimed to be influenced by the other, that doesn't change a thing. Whenever you, Allen, read something by anyone, I assume you are 'influenced' in some way, but it doesn't mean that you necessarily believe everything you read. I wouldn't doubt at all that there are faults in their books, but you haven't shown any. And your track record has been something like ZERO so far on being able to back up what you say with facts when it comes to these books. I have never yet heard you make a true claim about the books, and yet I have heard you make false claims about them several times. So I have my doubts you'll finally come through this time, but it still wouldn't make a difference to me. I don't depend on anything in any of their books.  (But I do appreciate them for their candor and accuracy in everything I've been able to check out so far.)

4 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

I was impressed by how deeply he had gone into the matter, also by the completeness and factualness of his presentation.

So am I. So were many others, including persons who are experts in related fields. So should you be.

20 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Well, if you got volume 2 of John Q. Browns Even-Tide, I'm sure, you can get ahold of a copy. I was basing my comment, on ideologies made about 3 years ago.

I was never that concerned about JQB, and I'm not really that interested in getting volume 2. "Scholar_JW" already proved to me that COJ was correct in his assessment when "Scholar_JW" (Neil) admitted that the best evidence against COJ's summary was in Vol 2, p.208, but wouldn't dare show it. There was already plenty of evidence on the Internet that "Scholar_JW" was not telling the truth, because he had already been thoroughly embarrassed over a decade ago when he attempted that same dishonest claim. I'm also not so concerned about COJ. I don't know what you mean by ideologies, but I absolutely know that your claim about a copy never came from me, whether three years ago or at any time, because I never had a copy, and was never that concerned about it. There are dozens of Biblical reasons to reject the 1914 ideology, I don't need secular reasons. But I know that other people should see the secular reasons, too, because they honestly believe something about the secular evidence that isn't true. I'm also willing to share what I have learned about all the evidence because of how important this idea is, and how dangerous it can be from a Christian's perspective. (see Matthew 24, etc.)

Any nitpickers for accuracy might have wondered why this article in 1990 (among others) claimed something different from the above.

*** w90 3/15 pp. 16-18 pars. 8-13 Cooperating With the Governing Body Today ***

• Looking back in this “time of the end,” we are not surprised that the members of the Governing Body were at first closely identified with the editorial staff of the Watch Tower Society. . . . For years, the visible Governing Body came to be identified with the seven-member board of directors of this corporation established to publish the Bible study aids needed and used by the Lord’s people earth wide. The Society’s seven directors were faithful Christians. But their role in a legal corporation might have suggested that they owed their positions on the Governing Body to their being elected by legal members of the Watch Tower Society. Furthermore, by law such membership and its voting privileges were originally granted only to certain ones who made contributions to the Society. This arrangement needed to be changed. This was done at the annual meeting of the Pennsylvania corporation of the Watch Tower Society held on October 2, 1944. The statutes of the Society were amended so that membership would no longer be on a financial basis. Members would be chosen from among faithful servants of Jehovah, and these have come to include many serving full-time at the Society’s headquarters in Brooklyn, New York, and in its branches throughout the world. Reporting on this improvement, The Watchtower of November 1, 1944, stated: “Money, as represented in financial contributions, should have no determining voice, should in fact have nothing to do with the filling of the governing body of Jehovah’s witnesses on earth. . . . The holy spirit, the active force which comes down from Jehovah God through Christ Jesus, is that which should determine and guide in the matter.” . . . Until 1971 those of the Governing Body were still identified with the seven members of the board of directors of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.

At the same time that the "governing body" was over 400 members --during those years from 1944 to 1972-- something termed a "central governing body" or sometimes "spiritual governing body" were terms that began to be associated with the decision makers in Brooklyn, New York.

5 hours ago, Jay Witness said:

A big thanks to @Atlantis4

I remember pointing this out previously in a discussion of whether Sirhan Sirhan's father had a relationship with the Witnesses. (He didn't.) In the letter that the Watch Tower Society sent out to provide to newspapers who requested it, the letter made it clear that (in 1968) the governing body was the "Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society."

So notice that the Watchtower was consistent in this claim for many years. Even back 15 years earlier, in 1953, the same idea showed up here. Note that the Governing Body had 402 members. That was the number of [voting] members of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.

5 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

I remember you mentioning, that YOU copied COJ's treatise COLLECTING dust after it was discarded as meaningless. What good will a copy of the same has, from the one you already, have?

No, you don't remember that at all, because nothing like it was ever said. Not by me, nor anyone else that I can remember.

The closest thing I said was that two members of the Writing Department (who shared an office) were discussing it with me, and said that it still remains on a shelf, collecting dust, because everyone in Writing considered it a "hot potato." No one wanted to be assigned to respond to it, because that would be a lose-lose situation. You couldn't respond honestly, and if you couldn't respond you'd be considered a potential apostate.

I never saw it at all until a few months later. Brother Schroeder had a small portion of it photocopied, and he took it with him when we traveled together on a trip to Europe in 1978. He did not allow me to read any of it and I never asked. I never had a research assignment related to it. I didn't see the manuscript at all until early 1980 when Brother Rusk and I were going over my wedding plans in his office and he needed to take about an hour to respond to a phone call (regarding a blood issue) while I sat in his office. While I waited, I grabbed a book from his library, and I also looked around and saw that he had the manuscript open in about three stacks on his desk, but again I never read more than the pages on top of the stacks.

I doubt it was ever discarded. It seems probable that what Fred Rusk had on his desk was already a photocopy.

1 minute ago, Anna said:

But apparently (according to the WT) some Jewish sources say the fugitive could bring his family with him/her.

There are many Jewish sources which are merely additional types of speculation. The speculation is perhaps a bit more likely to be of interest because Jewish sources have often been speculating on such things for a much longer period of written history than any so-called Christian sources. Many, historically, have had the advantage of speculating in the same language the Bible was written in and therefore have noticed nuances of language that most of us would miss. Often the same so-called advantages have led them astray, too. Looking through the Babylonian Talmud for early commentary on various subjects, for example, one might find answers relying on numerology and/or gematria. One also finds pure contradiction in some of the ancient Jewish traditions. For example, paraphrasing (but not by much):

• Rabbi so-and-so said this means one thing, and Rabbi thus-and-such said this means the opposite.

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I always thought - dare I say it? - that Friend's voice distracted in that it was so Shakesperian. 

I was IN his congregation for 3 years. I had originally been assigned to the Bronx which I loved, but when I had extra assignments at work, I was ultimately transferred to the BH congregation where he also attended. I once interviewed him (taped) for about an hour with a list of questions that he mostly wrote himself. I liked him, but I agree that his voice was over-the-top. I mentioned Harold Jackson in my list of drama voices. He actually was rarely used due to a "country" accent. Sydlik had the kind of voice for dramas and he was often used alongside Maxwell Friend. People thought Sydlik was too much "Brooklyn" for doing the voice of God. I heard someone make fun of his drama voice once saying: "Hey youz gize down thayer!"

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

On 1/15/2018 at 12:11 PM, JW Insider said:

The book by Wright would be very controversial for most of us.

Why?

Wright and Stackert, too, saw the same thing that G.Fishing mentioned. There is very little actual information about how this was put into practice. Because of this, in large part, they considered it to be an idealized legal concept that had solely a literary source, but may not have been practiced. I don't buy this completely because the ideal city locations were designated for an obvious practical purpose, along with the reminder to keep roads clear for the practical purpose of getting there. I also think it was practical in the sense that it didn't waste tax dollars for jails. The taxes were given to the priests, and the priests were given walled cities and farmland. The six cities of refuge were also chosen from the priestly cities, 5 Levitic, and 1 Aaronic, if I remember correctly. Instead of a local judge who had a higher likelihood of being related to one of the families involved in the manslaughter dispute, a priest was also educated, knew the law, had extra room, for a "jail," and could always use extra help. To me, all this goes to practicality, and therefore I suspect, something that was at least sometimes put into practice.

Of course, this isn't proof. It's hardly evidence for that matter. Also, there is nothing wrong with a law that was included because it showed the best way to handle justice for accidental manslaughter, even if the Jewish nation themselves didn't take advantage of it.

Wright was the one who found some additional material that I can't explain within our current perspective about the Mosaic Law. I'll go on if someone asks.

31 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

By the way, JWinsider, COJ’s opinion was NOT based on the Al-Yahudu Tablets

Thanks for the information, but I never thought he did. That might help explain why I never said anything similar.

31 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

As I said, how does this NOT contradict COJ’s own assessment for the DESTRUCTION OF JUDAH AND JERUSALEM EARLIER?

This wasn't to me, but you mentioned me elsewhere, so I'll jump in, too. I'm sure AlanF can respond to the COJ / RFranz information if he wishes. I couldn't care less if COJonsson was wrong or RVFranz was wrong. I'm sure they were both wrong on lots of things, lots of times. But I am interested in whatever problem you see in it, because I will try to keep some of these issues in mind if I get a chance to finish reading the whole book this year.

31 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

A vast contradiction from his “ORIGINAL” treatise that Raymond Franz accepted as true when it was a lie!

I didn't see your source on what R.Franz accepted as true. Can you give a source? Also, I see that you are mostly comparing GTR-2004 with an original treatise. But you also didn't quote here from the original treatise for comparison. Did you quote from it elsewhere? If so, I missed it. I see that AlanF has said that his revisions added to his original work rather than contradicting it. I saw you try this same type of claim earlier and it turned out you would never provide any evidence. I'll assume this is more of the same, at least until I see your evidence. 

36 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

having people POST copyrighted material from COJ, Alanf, since he allows, that, for the Watchtower Copyrighted material.

When a discussion is for academic or learning purposes most authors give a lot of leeway with respect to copyright law and on "fair use." for discussion.

11 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

typewriter

I'm going to remember this one in PERPETUITY !!!

Good to see you back. Catch anything?

33 minutes ago, Anna said:

Someone also made a point that if the accidental manslayer was a son, still living at home, who killed his brother, then the next of kin to be the blood avenger would have been the father of the two boys. However, the whole family of the "guilty" son could go with him to the city of refuge, including the father of course.

Sounds interesting, but isn't it all just speculation?

18 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

ARC proves that JW children are 10 times Safer

. . . Bottom line - Jehovah's Witness children 10 times less likely to be sexually molested than the rest of the Australian population.

I thought I saw that article you quoted come up some months ago in a Google search about ARC. At the time there was another claim going around that was supposed to show that the ARC statistics showed the opposite. I don't believe either of them are correct. But I would never claim that the problem is much worse among JWs than all other religions. I do think that we could still do much better.

But the ARC did supply some simple statistics that fit the numbers I had heard previously about the USA. Note that these were the most common statistics that were reported by the commission:

• There are currently 817 congregations in Australia with more than 68,000 active members”
• Despite the Jehovah’s Witnesses receiving more than 1000 allegations of child abuse since the 1950s, not one perpetrator was reported to authorities, the Child Abuse Royal Commission heard.

Going back to the 1950's, 1960's and even  the 1970's, is a bit anomalous because any such reports prior to when attention was first given to the problem are obviously "statistical outliers." However the main point is that Australia had records of over 1,000 child sexual abusers, representing even more instances of abuse, since abusers who are caught, are usually found to be multiple offenders. This turns out to be:

• more than one abuser per current number of congregations, over several decades
• and about two victims per congregation, over several decades.

Extrapolating would still imply the same "order of magnitude" I heard a couple decades ago. In other words:

• 1000 abusers in 817 congregations (AU) is 122.4% and over 1500 reported victims.
• 122.4% of 120,000 congregations (worldwide) works out to 146,880 abusers, which implies about 220,000 victims. That's based on numbers over many decades, of course.

Although I can't believe it's as high as the ARC numbers for Australia alone would imply, it still shows a potentially huge problem that we should do everything we can to mitigate. Whether it's 220,000 victims as ARC implies, or 10% of that which is still 22,000 victims, or even 1% which is 2,200 victims.

The video in the last post is just over 3 minutes long, and doesn't get into any specifics about the archaeological evidence. For those who can't see the video, the image below presents the basic claims for the dates of the period in question. Persian rule actually goes on until about 330 BCE. Also note that the dates below include the actual first year that the king acceded to the throne (accession year) even if it was not his first, full year as king (regnal year). Also, the tablets and cuneiform inscriptions were picked to indicate variety, not necessarily their importance to the chronology of each king.

The basic idea of the video is the following, mostly taken straight out of the video:

The entire Neo-Babylonian  and Persian time periods are interlocked and intertwined.

30,000 dated tablets cover the Neo-Babylonian period.  Each is dated with the current king’s year, month & day.

Also, there are contemporary astronomical diaries, king lists, letters and royal inscriptions that perfectly interlock with these 30,000 dated tablets.

There is no difference in the evidence for each period: the The Neo-Babylonian and the Persian.

You canÂ’t accept one date and reject another. All the dates are from the same evidence:

• 539 is just as accurate as 626, 587, or 598. 
• If you accept one, you are accepting them all.

So, 539, the start of CyrusÂ’ rule over Babylon, is no more or less accurate than:

•        626 for the start of Nabopolassar

•        587 for Nebuchadnezzar’s 18^th year, the destruction of Jerusalem’s temple

•        537 for Cyrus’ 2^nd full year over Babylon

Accepting 539 is the same as accepting that there were 50 years from NebuchadnezzarÂ’s 18^th-19^th year to CyrusÂ’ 2^nd-3^rd year.

Yet, a certain Bible interpretation [the "607 Theory"] requires that we, instead, count a 70-year period that must run from NebuchadnezzarÂ’s 18^th-19^th year to the 2^nd-3^rd year of Cyrus.

 

I just made a video that expresses my current general overview of the secular evidence. If it's not totally accurate, I can make appropriate changes to it.

Here it is...

7 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

This is hilarious. My old account is still, blocked!!!!!!!!!

If you’re going to allow lewdness, then do the right thing and *UNBLOCK* my old account,

As you probably know, I was given some moderator functions in order to keep some level of control over my own topics/threads which tend to go on about as long as my individual posts. I still don't think you should have been deleted in the first place, and have made that known to @The Librarian. I'd be happy to see you back, in your original avatar.

I don't have the power to do it myself, but consider this as another request to the Librarian or admin to get your original account back online. After all, what's the difference between the original account and all these dozens of alternate accounts that are even messier, especially when it becomes a useful part of a discussion to quote a previous post?

Of course, my own reasons might have initially been more selfish than altruistic because your particular brand of abusive behavior made it so much easier to point out when an argument had finally boiled down to "Evidence vs. Ad Hominem." Some people don't notice the more subtle forms of "ad hominem" but have no problem identifying it in its more extreme forms.

54 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

8 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

This is the reason, that, Carl Olof Jonsson FAILED to disprove the time of the Gentiles that was distant by . . .  the freedom of the Jews once again in 1914AD.

Allen, you have brought this up at least twice before, mentioning in one earlier post that Russell was amazingly accurate in predicting that the Jews would gain their freedom in 1914. You associated this with Zionism in 1914. Based on the above statement, it appears you are still standing by this belief. How do you square it with the Watchtower's presentation of the belief, which now denies that any freedom for the Jewish nation in the 19th or 20th centuries is unrelated to the Gentile Times?

Perhaps you still plan to answer the question, although I noticed you requoted the question but didn't respond to it. As a reminder, it could be worded many different ways, but the basic question remains as follows: Do you think that Russell proved himself accurate in predicting 1914 as a time when the Jewish nation gained their freedom?

A recent topic about whether the Watchtower view of 607 BCE is SCRIPTURALLY supported is linked below. This new topic should provide a better place to discuss the SECULAR evidence. I also think it would be useful to discuss the methodology that the Watch Tower Society has historically used to treat this evidence.

I would hope that we can do this without so much side discussions of unrelated topics. To avoid another topic that goes on for 30+ pages where only half of them were on-topic, I would suggest that if we get enough off-topic posts, we merely move them to another more appropriate topic.

The link to the most recent topic on a similar subject is here:

On 1/8/2018 at 3:18 PM, allensmith28 said:

A good example is “THE EGIBI TABLETS” For a long time, this became indispensable for opposers to use these tablets to refute the WT Chronology. Then it became a problem because on the tablets it indicates Nebuchadnezzar III starting reign in 604BC. This BANKING HOUSE is a reputable banking institution, but all of a sudden, it became a 19-century mistake.

This was from several pages back in this thread. Page 20, I think. I could be wrong but I don't think anyone addressed it, although it was addressed the previous time you brought it up. (If you recall, you were shown to be wrong, and your 19th century source had made the error. It was not related at all to the original tablets.) This particular thread/topic was initially intended to discuss the scriptural reasons why the WT chronology doesn't match all the Bible evidence very well. We need a new thread on the secular evidence itself. For me, this thread has become too unwieldy to try to cover both perspectives. I'm happy to continue using it for posts related to the Biblical evidence for the events we have tied to the year 607, however.

22 minutes ago, allensmith28 said:

Nice try, attempting to twist words as usual, when you DON'T  have a leg to stand on anymore. You were wrong 3 years ago, and your still wrong 3 years later.

OK. I'm not saying your belief is "apostate" but we know it is different from the Watchtower's current view of the matter. But would you be willing to answer the question? @Arauna already pointed out that this is not part of our current teaching (in this topic/thread a few pages back when John Aquila Brown was the side-topic-of-the-day here).

7 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

This is the reason, that, Carl Olof Jonsson FAILED to disprove the time of the Gentiles that was distant by . . .  the freedom of the Jews once again in 1914AD.

Allen, you have brought this up at least twice before, mentioning in one earlier post that Russell was amazingly accurate in predicting that the Jews would gain their freedom in 1914. You associated this with Zionism in 1914. Based on the above statement, it appears you are still standing by this belief. How do you square it with the Watchtower's presentation of the belief, which now denies that any freedom for the Jewish nation in the 19th or 20th centuries is unrelated to the Gentile Times?

You appear to be disagreeing with the Watchtower again.

1 hour ago, allensmith28 said:

I believe you people are BIG in criticizing the Watchtower for their revisions

I have never criticized the Watchtower for their revisions. Revisions are the way to improvement and correction. I have criticized the Watchtower for "revisionist history" and making false claims about history, archaeology, scholarship, doctrines. The only revisions I would dare to criticize the Watchtower for are those revisions that create confusion and contradictions with the Bible. Most revisions, especially since around 2000 have been honest and have been encouraging and welcome.  

Claims related to chronology, early organization history, and the "generation" for example have been notable exceptions. Hopefully, this will help you understand why I started this topic.

1 hour ago, allensmith28 said:

So, if the date 605BC is attested to now, for an exile? 67 years have gone by, and you JWinsider, O’Maly are still splitting hairs over 3 years, period.

Exactly! I've said this many times myself. Long before I read anything about the 200-tablet exhibit at the BLMJ. I don't know if you noticed, but this particular exhibit of "new" tablets you have been talking about is only strengthening the same evidence that Mason and COJ and O'maly and Jeffro and AlanF and others have been pointing out for many years.

In fact all "new" archaeological evidence that comes to light, invariably continues to strengthen the general Biblical description of events and continues to weaken the claims that the Watchtower has been asking us to believe. I suspect that the frustration arising from such evidence is where the repetitions of nonsensical arguments, distractions, and temper tantrums are coming from.