JW Insider

Yes. There have already been quotes and links in this topic to discussions of these 200 or so Babylonian tablets "since 2015" that shed more light on the Jewish exiles in Babylon. The primary exhibit is still at the BLMJ ( blmj.org ). It's in Jerusalem with only a few artifacts that overlap with the British Museum. But you are "flailing wildly" with these false accusations again. How many times have you done this now? Every time you have brought up COJ it's to make some wild claim about what he failed to do in his book. Every time you have been shown to have made a false claim. Worse than that, every time, you have never acknowledged that you made a false claim. And even worse than that, you usually go out of your way to use words that make it seem like it was others were wrong and you were right all along. I can understand a person who misunderstands what they read, or makes a claim they are pretty sure about based on something they read or heard from a trusted source. But "chronology" has always seemed to be to be one of the worst topics to attract people who just hope to bluster and pretend and distract. I hate to say it but I think it's because the pretender is pretty sure that his or her words will be liked and defended if they at least appear to support the Watchtower's view. Beyond that it seems like the blusterers just hope that others haven't studied the issues very well yet. Those three different exile years mentioned with reference to these tablets are the same ones I have mentioned, and so has Ann and AlanF. And of course we all know that COJ has discussed and accounted for them. (I sometimes mention a fourth round-up of exiles in Nebuchadnezzar's 24th year.) But what's even more interesting, is that the Watchtower rejects the earliest one of these exiles in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar. So it's as if it's the WTS that you are really considering to be your biggest skeptic. I really can't understand why you (and others) have continued to make this same type of mistake with respect to COJ. It must be some kind of reflex. Let's just hope it's NOT supposed to be explained in the way you have projected onto others: Anyway, I enjoy the banter, but the bickering gets old in a hurry. In a discussion as important as this one (according to the Watchtower), however, this type of error needs to be pointed out in fairness to any who are really interested in truth, and not opposed to it.

It's not confusing at all that Jesus said only 1260. If you are saying that Jesus meant something else, just go ahead and clear up why Jesus would only mention 1,260 when he meant something else. This is what I said from the very start of bringing this up. That if we wish to contradict Jesus, we should at least be able to explain why. This is how people "twist" the scriptures, by claiming that just because Jesus only mentioned 1260 in connection with the Gentile Times, that he meant to say something more than what was mentioned in Scripture. All one has to do is add something to the scroll that isn't there. But is this something you really want to do? (Revelation 22:18, 19) 18 “I am bearing witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; 19 and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things that are written about in this scroll. Jesus spoke of the nations trampling the holy city, Jerusalem, for "appointed times." How long were those appointed times? Jesus connected 1,260 with these appointed times for the trampling of the nations. Jesus didn't mention another length of time. But your argument is that Jesus didn't say ONLY 1260, so that we should conceivably add another length, or lengths of time that we find in other prophecies. Is there some scripture you have in mind that gives you permission to change times and seasons like this? Should you add lengths of time you find in all other prophecies, or only the ones in Daniel? Since Jesus said ONLY 1260, I suppose by your logic you could add, 1,260 + 1,290 + 1,335 + 2,300 + 2,520. Of course, you really only mean that we should subtract the 1,260 from what Jesus said and add just one of those time periods, to replace it with. No matter how you wish to manipulate what Jesus said, it's still true that Jesus ONLY connected one time period to the Gentile Times. It would be false to claim otherwise.

Maybe "all others" see it different? We know that the Watch Tower Society sees it different from the poster. The Watch Tower used to say that Russell was the ONLY faithful slave, but he was "demoted" from even being a part of the slave, when the WTS changed the definition about five years ago. The slave now started in 1919, per the current view, and no members of the anointed who died before 1919, not even Peter and Paul themselves, were a part of that slave. Russell died in 1916. I'm not explaining my own view here, which has come up elsewhere. I'm only referring to the WTS view.

I never mentioned confusion or being confused. If you are confused, you'll have to explain what confused you then. I have to admit that I have no idea what you mean by an "attempt to reverse what [I was] denying by Jesus own words. To be more honest, I know exactly what the words mean, but I also know from your further statements that you don't likely really mean what your words mean. "Reversing what you are denying" would mean no longer denying, therefore "accepting." Thus, this subtle attempt to accept Jesus' own words is somehow a deceitful thing. If you will look back at the conversation you will see their was no deceit, just an attempt to give and get honest answers, and no deflection on my part. If you want real dialogue perhaps you can be clearer about where you thought there was deflection. I am guessing that this accusation wasn't based on anything, as is usually the case, and it's just a need to blame-shift and project back onto me what probably "hit a nerve" when I pointed out that I am accepting some words of Jesus that you appear to be rejecting or denying. This has become such a predictable form of deflection that it was already anticipated. It's exactly how several other persons have already avoided honest dialogue on this topic. I noticed that you didn't explain at all what you meant by adding these excerpts from an article on the day-year principle. Yes, some explain it as 538 (AD not BC) to 1798 as your accompanying charts show, from the "beginning" to the "end" of papal power. I think this is ridiculous, but Charles Taze Russell agreed with it. Russell used an adjustment to it: 539 AD to 1799 AD, pointing out that 539 was a midpoint between Constantine and Charlemagne (328 to 800). -- Thy Kingdom Come, Studies in the Scriptures [Millennial Dawn], Volume III, p. 67-69. Of course, we don't use the Day-Year principle for any of these prophecies, not the 1260, 1290, 1335, or even the 2300 any more. We only use that principle for the period of 2,520 days that we now derive from the 7 "times" of Daniel 4. Can you explain why you included this information about 1,260 years? I assume it is not something you believe, is it?

No trouble for me in Chrome, but Firefox doesn't display them.

Makes some sense. There seems to have been mix of "city" and "rural" life for the exiles: (Jeremiah 29:4-7) 4 “This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, says to all the exiled people, whom I have caused to go into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon, 5 ‘Build houses and live in them. Plant gardens and eat their fruit. 6 Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Become many there, and do not decrease. 7 And seek the peace of the city to which I have exiled you, and pray in its behalf to Jehovah, for in its peace you will have peace. Also see: https://www.timesofisrael.com/by-the-rivers-of-babylon-exhibit-breathes-life-into-judean-exile/ which includes information that probably helps explain why so many Jews stayed in Babylon and didn't come back when they were released by Cyrus: Each document catalogs when and where it was written and by whom, providing scholars with an unprecedented view into the day-to-day life of Judean exiles in Babylonia, as well as a geography of where the refugees were resettled. The earliest in the collection, from 572 BCE, mentions the town of Al-Yahudu — “Jerusalem” — a village of transplants from Judea. “Finally through these tablets we get to meet these people, we get to know their names, where they lived and when they lived, what they did,” Vukosavović said. The texts help dispel the misconception that the Judeans in Babylon were second-class citizens of the empire, living in ghettos and pressed into hard labor. While some toiled in base drudgery, others thrived, owned property, plantations and slaves, and became part of the Babylonian bureaucratic hierarchy. “It teaches us that we weren’t slaves, like we were slaves to the Pharaoh,” Vukosavović said. “It teaches us that we were simply free people in Babylon, living not only in Al-Yahudu, but also in a dozen other cities where Jews either lived or did their business.” I apologize if this has already been referenced. I still have a page worth of the comments to catch up on. However, the idea of "captivity" which was what many Jews feared, did not match up with Jeremiah's prophecy that things could go well with them. Yet, here we have a collection of about 200 texts that helps confirm or corroborate that Jeremiah was right.

(Proverbs 18:13) . . .When anyone replies to a matter before he hears the facts, It is foolish and humiliating.

Why would you want to pretend that? Are you saying you don't believe that the book and visions of Revelation came from Jesus? Here are the first 5 words of the book in the NWT: (Revelation 1:1) A revelation by Jesus Christ,. . . Again, I don't know why you would pretend this was true either. Revelation contains many references to prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures. Evidently. But why do you denigrate Jesus' words by calling his words "infamous"? Jesus said there will be appointed times for the nations to trample Jerusalem in both Luke 21:2 and Revelation 11:2. If you don't like the number, 1260, that Jesus connected with those Gentile Times, it's not me you need to take this up with. Since Jesus, around 33 CE, said that these Gentile Times were still future, I would place them some time after 33 CE. I think you are probably on the right track with your reference to Romans 11.

A better idea is to quickly change the title of all your books to "The Fire and the Fury." An old book called "The Fire and the Fury" by Randall Hansen from 2009 (about Allied bombing in WWII) has suddenly become a best seller in Amazon, in spite of languishing sales for many years. I heard an interview with Hansen where he says he should send a bottle of champagne to Michael Wolff.

The picture is misleading. It makes it look like Jesus thought of Charles Taze Russell as the "slave" or as part of the "slave" class. Do people think of Russell as included in the faithful and discreet slave? Do people think that the items shown on the right, that issue of the "Bible Student's Monthly" or "Zion's Watch Tower" were produced by the "slave"? According to the current teaching, Russell was NOT part of the 'faithful and discreet slave' and no issue of "Zion's Watch Tower" was produced or written by the "faithful and discreet slave."

That's progress! I can see 586 as a strong possibility too. Of course, most of the fake controversy between 586 and 587 is presented as a way to try to trick those who haven't studied the subject yet. The ruse is used to trick fellow JWs and others into thinking that the secular evidence for this period is just so faulty (over a one year difference!). When in fact the "Insight" book has admitted that this is not really a controversy at all. It's not the secular dating that is questionable here, it's an inconsistency in the Bible's reference to the date. But it's easily explained, as is done here in Insight. *** it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar *** on Tammuz (June-July) 9 in the 11th year of Zedekiah’s reign (Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year if counting from his accession year or his 18th regnal year), a breach was made in Jerusalem’s wall. Zedekiah and his men fled but were overtaken in the desert plains of Jericho. Since Nebuchadnezzar had retired to Riblah “in the land of Hamath,” Zedekiah was brought before him there. That's because it's the Bible that says these events happened in his 19th year: (2 Kings 25:8, 9) . . .In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. 9 He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; he also burned down the house of every prominent man. And the Bible refers to several of these events happening in his 18th year: (Jeremiah 52:29) In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem. There are also some very similar Biblical references to the year of the Judean king, Zedekiah, for example. There is absolutely no issue at all identifying Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year in secular chronology, nor is there any problem identifying his 19th year. From the perspective of studying chronology, the entire Neo-Babylonian period is just as "absolute" as is the Persian period. The idea some have tried to promote (that this controversy is due to a weakness in the secular sources) is a hoax.

I think that when someone is raptured, all earthly references to them disappear.

I see you made a mistake here @allensmith28in the transcription of the URL that @AlanF gave. I clicked on your "typo" URL that you created when you left out the hyphen. I'm sure this was an accident on your part, but I was surprised that it linked to a Bible timeline that put the Exile from 585 to 487 and ended the Divided Kingdom in 586. I thought it an interesting coincidence that both sites would have such similar URLs. But it turns out that even if you had accidentally made further adjustments to the link, even with your own name in it, for example: http://www.biblehistory.com/ALLEN_SMITH_28.htm . . . that it also would have taken you to the same page with the 586 date on it. You can try it by clicking above. In fact, you did originally use the actual link AlanF's provided, on which you based your comments, just as you claimed. AlanF was wrong to offer only those three choices about you personally in response to your simple mistake. AlanF was also mistaken in not recognizing that you had gone on to criticise other parts of the page/site, beyond the point he was using and quoting, to point out the chronology information from the map found on this page and other parts of the same website -- which contained information not consistent with AlanF's views. Of course, even so, your only salient point is that there is some stuff on the site where AlanF's link came from that AlanF clearly doesn't believe in. We've been through this same type of logical fallacy before, where just because a site or page has something wrong on it that other things on the same site or page can't be useful. (Often a "composition" fallacy, sometimes a "poisoning the well" fallacy. Don't know the Latin for @TrueTomHarley's collection.) You had a chance to leverage the mistake to your own advantage, but then you went off and made some more serious logical blunders of your own. Yes. Someone used a word like "gobbledygook" with reference to ideas you have promoted or defended, so naturally you have no choice but to blame-shift and redirect that word onto those you oppose. Logically, however, there is no reason to push these words onto "AlanF supporters," whoever they may be. Also you point out that the American scholar, Edward Robinson, was born in 1794 and that this site is structured by his ideology. Is this really a problem to you? It has already been pointed out, even by you yourself, that we can expect some issues with the chronology of scholars who worked so early in the 19th century, but no one says that this means everything they say is to be under suspicion. After all, the WTS still prefers the support of 19th century scholars over 20th and 21st century scholars. It's off topic, but I have a couple in mind in case you doubt this. Also, guess who quotes Edward Robinson himself. Yep . . . here's the Awake! magazine, and it's only one of at least a dozen more times he is quoted, especially for Biblical language studies: *** g80 5/8 p. 17 A Book That Tells What the Future Holds *** What is the condition of ancient Edom today? “Around us were the desolation of ages; the dwellings and edifices of the ancient city [Petra, the former capital city, carved out of the mountain crag] crumbled and strewed in the dust.”—Edward Robinson, in “Biblical Researches in Palestine.” Then you say, "If this website is going to be used as proof of something, then 19-century ideology is PROOF of ancient events, as well." I think you are making the same mistake that Arauna made in misunderstanding the different uses of evidence, when 'proof' is not part of the equation. Besides, your statement is completely illogical on many levels. As far as the "Junior" and "6 year old" I think AlanF deserves to be treated just as he treats others, and I'm as entertained as anyone by the back-and-forth slinging. Although, I must say that those particular attempts sound like desperate shifting projections.

If Jesus rejected the 2,520, then who am I to say Jesus was wrong? Note, as I said above, that I have no problem with accepting the WTS view of most doctrines, even if they are not based on evidence. The vast majority of doctrines are absolutely correct from a Biblical point of view. I think they should be given the benefit of the doubt as respected teachers. (1 Timothy 5:17) 17 Let the elders who preside in a fine way be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching. It is only where the evidence is contradictory that there would be any real reason to be concerned. In this case, I think we should at least have a good reason why Jesus himself said that the Gentile Times were 1,260, if we still wish to contradict him. (Revelation 11:2, 3) . . .because it has been given to the nations, and they will trample the holy city [Jerusalem] underfoot for 42 months.” I don't think anyone can doubt that Jesus is referring here to the trampling of Jerusalem by the nations [gentiles] for the appointed times [42 months; 1,260 days; 3 and 1/2 times]. Do you really doubt that this is a reference to the appointed times of the nations? Compare the red-highlighted words if you have any trouble with this question. (Luke 21:24) . . . and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. I agree with the significance of Josiah's time and even the possible importance of his death in 609 to the prophecy about Babylon's 70 years of dominating rule over the other nations. Josiah has already been discussed in this context. But I have to say that I found this particular reference you just gave to be about the least valuable and least informed of all the books I have ever seen that reference Josiah and Jeremiah. BTW, do you think that dating Josiah's death to about 609 BCE is correct?

This, of course, would be on how you wish to view history. Technically, Babylon subdued King Jehoiakim in 605BC So it seems you would allow, potentially, that Babylon's 70-year domination of these nations around them could start when Babylon subdued King Jehoiakim in 605 BCE. That's a pretty late start, and if you take it down to 537, then you are already including parts of 69 years. 605, 604, 603, 602, 601, 600, 599, 598, 597 . . . that's 9 different years, so on to 587 represents 19 different years, 577 represents 29 different years, etc., etc., until 537 represents 69 different years. We also have another potential year or so, based on how we read Daniel 1:1, which would represent 70 years. And this is only referring to how Babylon affected Judea. Jeremiah doesn't say that the 70 years started only with Judea, did it? (Jeremiah 25:11, 12) 11 And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’ 12 “‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,’ declares Jehovah, ‘and I will make the land of the Chal·deʹans a desolate wasteland for all time. The desolation that occurs upon the land of the Chaldeans (Babylonians) was not to be inflicted by Judea, but by the nations around Babylon, just as the servitude of the nations to Babylon was not dependent on when the punishment on Judea would begin or end. (Jeremiah 25:14) 14 For many nations and great kings will make slaves of them,. . . And, as "Arauna" has already pointed out, this word "desolation" which is said here to come upon Babylon at the end of their 70 years does not necessarily refer to literal absence of all inhabitants, either. In fact, Babylon remained a metropolis into Christian times. But other nations dominated over them, just as they had once dominated over other nations, including Judea. You think the Watchtower's view about Isaiah's prophecy is speculative? Do you think it's wrong? Do you think they were just trying to make things fit in those statements from "Isaiah's Prophecy"? It's curious that the Watchtower publications would perfectly agree with Carl Jonsson in this regard, but they did not change it in the online version, or the Watchtower Library CD, the way the "Insight" book has already been changed in several online articles. As far as I can tell, this is still the WT view, and I happen to agree with it -- not because Carl Jonsson agrees -- but because it fits the Bible's evidence. If you think you have a better explanation and this is only WT speculation, then please share your ideas. Also, why do you think that proposing a correction to the current doctrine is the same as defaming the WT? Isn't it true that if you see someone taking a false step, the loving thing to do is to speak up. otherwise you are complicit in the error, right?

That makes no sense. Just because the 70 years of Babylonian domination started in 609 (or 608, or 607), what does that have to do with the Gentile Times? Jesus said the Gentile Times were "1,260 days" long, and that they would start AFTER Jesus gave the "Olivet Sermon" about the end (the PAROUSIA, the SYNTELEIA) as recorded in Luke 21. If they started some time after 33 CE and lasted 1,260 days, what does this have to do with the death of Josiah? This is off-topic of course, but there have already been topics on the "Gentile Times."

I checked back into the topic and noticed that no one singled anyone out until "scholar JW" came onto the topic to complain about Carl Jonsson. I can't tell what you mean when you say that "others like ALANF AND SCHOLAR JW have the same perception of . . . intellectual perception." It seems to me they don't, but why would it matter? Remember, again, that no matter who anyone says they are or what they claim about themselves, that a discussion forum should be about evidence, and a Bible discussion usually gives additional weight to Bible evidence if there is a contradiction. (I don't see a contradiction, so I'm happy with the Bible evidence, and happy that it is corroborated by archaeological and historical evidence, too.) That does not follow. I didn't concern myself with the particular section I posted in. I just found a similar topic and clicked on "create new topic." That way you don't have to got through the entire menu to post. I definitely was not attempting to single out one person, because I remember what made me think of starting this topic. I don't get this idea of singling out someone. (Nor do I know how it goes against all Jesus taught. Surely you are not saying that Jesus hated those whom he selected to speak with.) Surely not "scholar JW" as he wasn't involved in this back in April when I first posted this. As I recall, it was out of respect for something that "Arauna" had said, claiming basically the same thing she has repeated more recently: that those who argue against our chronology (like me) do so, not out of respect for the Bible itself, but out of a desire to embarrass the "slave" or to discredit 1914. I wanted to show that it's the Bible verses themselves that we need to respect on this topic. This is why the first page touches on several Bible passages that still have not been addressed by opposers of the ideas found in these scriptures. Hardly, I have rejected dozens of ideas from those who reject the Watchtower chronology. I certainly do not accept all that Carl Jonsson has written, and I thought immediately that AlanF goes "beyond the things written" to try to pin down a specific 6-month period for the Jews to have returned and laid the temple foundations. (Although in reading more carefully I see that he was actually OK with a limited range of dates, too, but was explaining why he had a preference that came down on the side of 538 vs 537 for this event.) I freely admit that AlanF and Carl Jonsson and Ann O'maly clearly have much more knowledge of the ancient astronomy and artifacts that I do. I will learn and be corrected from any and all resources who offer better evidence than what I have seen, JWs, ex-JWs, non-JWs, experts. But I trust that the Bible is correct about these 70 years, even if we must admit that we don't really know every detail about the month it started and the month it ended. Also, where does it say that Jesus taught against defending those who reject Watchtower chronology? Jesus himself rejected Watchtower chronology well in advance of its appearance. In fact, he seemed to anticipate its appearance. Almost the entire 24th and 25th chapter of Matthew is a rejection of Watchtower chronology. We've covered this before and for here, it's off topic. But, out of respect for these important words of Jesus himself, I'd be happy to start another topic on whether Jesus anticipated Watchtower-style chronology and eschatology in Matthew 24. I can if I'm honest. I have no problem with the 70 years running from 607 to 537, nor do I have a problem with them running from 608 to 538, or 609 to 539. I don't know for sure if they need to total exactly 70 years, but this is very likely, and the evidence we know about, including the Bible evidence, makes it very possible. I don't even reject the portions of our chronology that are stated without any evidence. The only portions of our chronology that I reject are those where the Bible evidence creates a very probable contradiction with the secular dates the WT has promoted. And for anyone who asks I always give permission that anyone can share my opinions; you don't even need to credit me. After all, I'm semi-anonymous, and anyone has a right to share the opinions of others. You could even write a book if you wanted based 100% on my opinions and I couldn't care less if you credit me or not. You could accept 25% of my opinions and mix them with 75% of your own. Why should I worry how and why opinions get shared on the Internet. I'm not trying to control anything. There is a much better chance of someone correcting my opinions if they are shared, than if I keep them to myself. Of course, I'd still have to say that Ad1914 has tried to do something very un-smart with my posts. Looks like they stopped re-posting when they finally noticed that they'd have to actually read through 1,800 long and repetitive posts to find things they'd be willing to use. I agree that it's always best if one has solid proof for an objection. Sometimes however we find ourselves weighing one person's speculation against another person's speculation, and the goal is "best evidence" because "solid proof" does not exist. Best evidence sometimes shows up when we begin to remove conclusions that were based on contradictory evidence, logical fallacies, false premises, etc. Still, I'll look back through your posts (and you-know-who's posts) and see if I can see if there are any resources I can bring to bear that are relevant to your ideas and objections, which you might think have only been met with speculation. Don't know if my input can help much, though. Now I see where you misunderstood me. Yes, we can be very confident that 607 BCE is NOT the correct year for the destruction of Jerusalem, but this does not mean it can't be the start of the 70 years of Jeremiah's prophecy. That's because there is nothing in the book of Jeremiah that says that the 70 years must start with Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. It makes more sense that it starts with his accession year at the very latest, and just as likely that it started under his father, Nabopolassar, when Babylon began a domination that replaced Egypt and Assyria. It's not farfetched. At most I'd say it can't be more than 2 years off. That's pretty good for a date that more than 2,600 years in the past. Not at all. 609 is not more than 2 years off, either, in my opinion.

After removing your parenthetical statements, I think this was your question, right? This question appears to be your response to my question about what you would give as a beginning [and ending] of the 70 years of Babylonian domination that would affect nations all around, including Tyre, for different periods of time over that 70 years given to Babylon. You imply that the 70 years could start between 609 and 607, but then you connect this to the time when Jerusalem was under siege and fell, which the Bible ties to the period from about Neb's 17th on up to his 18th/19th year. You should please correct me if I'm wrong, but I take it that, even though you phrased it as a question, you are accepting the secular dates of 609-607 as the start of the 70 years for TYRE, and other nations, specifically because Jerusalem came under it's greatest domination at that time. But wasn't this supposed to be the 18th/19th year of Nebuchadnezzar? Are you saying that the period of Babylon's domination of the nations all around Babylon could not start prior to the 18th/19th year of Nebuchadnezzar? I don't think too many would question the idea that the end date must fall very close to 537, at least within a year or two. Of course, then we're back to the problem, that you can't use the date 537 unless you mean a date that would fall a full 20 years after Babylon was destroyed -- if you use 607 as the date of Jerusalem's final fall. This is, of course, because you are using 607 as if it is the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar. You can't mix and match secular dates within the Neo-Babylonian period because they are so tightly intertwined with each other.

I'm fine with that. That's why I have never bragged about intelligence or even claimed intelligence. You will never see me calling myself "scholar" or referencing titles from college degrees in Theological studies, or speaking about two PhD's as Allen Smith has mentioned multiple times. If a person says something that doesn't stand up to evidence, then it should be questioned. It doesn't matter who says it. The room is actually pretty empty no matter who is playing. Perhaps we can all be thankful for that. Could very well be. I'm not married to any of these secular dates. I think what favors the beginning in 609 is the idea that 2 Chronicles 36 seems pretty clear about ending it in 539, with the fall of Babylon at the hands of the Persian. (2 Chronicles 36:17-22) So he brought against them the king of the Chal·deʹans, who killed their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary; he felt no compassion for young man or virgin, old or infirm. God gave everything into his hand. All the utensils of the house of the true God, great and small, as well as the treasures of the house of Jehovah and the treasures of the king, and his princes, everything he brought to Babylon. He burned down the house of the true God, tore down the wall of Jerusalem, burned all its fortified towers with fire, and destroyed everything of value. He carried off captive to Babylon those who escaped the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia began to reign, to fulfill Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill 70 years. In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in order that Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah would be fulfilled, Jehovah stirred the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his kingdom. . . It would be difficult to conceive of continued Babylonian domination in a literal sense when Babylon was no longer a world power. They stopped being a world power around October 539. But you could claim, as some have, that it waited until the proclamation, which could have happened within days, or months. The "first year" by some reckoning could have been during those last 3 months of 539. But maybe it was a couple more months, or perhaps it waited a year or so. There's a minimum that can fit the scriptures, but there is also a maximum. A good chronological methodology considers all the possibilities. We can have a preference based on the weight we give various bits of evidence, but there is still a minimum and maximum range at which we might begin and end the period. How would you answer the question, based on the Isaiah's Prophecy book about the 70 years of Babylon's greatest domination? Would you start it in 607? Do you think that Babylon's domination continued after 539? That's about 68 years, and for me it fulfills the Bible prophecy from Jeremiah. If you believe the 70 years to be a little more literal, I can see why you might choose 609 to 539, or 608 to 538, or 607 to 537. Of course, parts of 72 years can include 70 full years, and parts of 70 years can include 68 full years (in the same sense that Jesus was in the grave for parts of three days to fulfill "three days and three nights").

Not so sure why you wanted to pick me out of the crowd. I think it was 605, immediately after his father died. He did manage to get back home probably faster than anyone had ever managed that trip before him. Both dates are secular chronology. But again, I have no problem with 607 being the start of the 70 years. I never have. I have always thought that it was close enough, within a year or two, and that even the term "70 years" need not have ever meant an exact number, to the very month, or even the very year. In fact, the expression was already previously in use by Isaiah: (Isaiah 23:15) . . .seventy years, the same as the days of one king. . . Whether this meant "lifetime" as in "lifespan" of a king, or the span of the Babylonian period of greatest domination, as the "Isaiah's prophecy" book points out, it doesn't have to mean that the prophecy fails if that period of greatest domination was 67 to 69 years, instead of 70 exactly. *** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre *** “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble. What years would you @Foreigner or perhaps @scholar JW or @allensmith28 use to date that 70 years of Babylon's greatest domination as applied to Tyre? Would you start it with the fall of Jerusalem's Temple, or does it make more sense to start it with the earliest years when Babylon was tramping about in the region, beginning to prove its dominance as the next world power in the region? Besides, you don't know just how long Nebuchadnezzar was the king's representative in Hattu. At what point did Babylon begin controlling Tyre's economy by taking control of key trade routes? (Isaiah 23) At what point did Babylon begin dominating economic and political decisions made in the Hattu region (Syria/Israel/Judah) simply through fear even before the first physical depredations of the land and people were made? I don't think we need to look for a specific event that begins the 70 years of domination, and no specific event that ends the domination. It's pretty easy to get the general time period. (And 2 Chron 36:21 seems to pinpoint the end.) It certainly makes sense that the prediction of the imminent fall of Nineveh would have been the end of the Assyrian power in the eyes of Jerusalem/Judea. Did it wait until the final and actual fall? And you are right, there appears to be a couple of years when the Egyptian power seemed on par with Babylon's. Egypt was the king of the south at the same time that Babylon was the king of the north. Judeans would continue to choose between them for many years. But even Egypt and Assyria together couldn't stand up against Babylon at Carchemish, as proven in 605. Was Jehovah able to discern the dominance of Babylon even a couple years before 605, while Nebuchadnezzar was still a prince and general? We could even ask if the devastation and desolation of a city needed to be literal in every respect. Or did prophecy often use poetic language, even poetic hyperbole, in making memorable warnings? Was it even necessary that Nineveh, Jerusalem, Tyre, or Babylon ever be completely desolated? Or was it a warning of what Jehovah was capable of doing as the true sovereign (king) of the world? For example, In his pronouncement against Assyrian Nineveh, Nahum includes "fear" as part of what devastates and desolates her, yet we know that Nineveh was never totally depopulated: (Nahum 2:8-11, NWT) 8 And Ninʹe·veh, from the days [that] she [has been], was like a pool of waters; but they are fleeing. “Stand still, YOU men! Stand still!” But there is no one turning back. 9 Plunder silver, YOU men; plunder gold; as there is no limit to the [things in] arrangement. There is a heavy amount of all sorts of desirable articles. 10 The city is empty, desolate, devastated! Their hearts melt in fear, their knees buckle, their hips tremble; (NWT 2013) All their faces are flushed. 11 Where is the lair of lions, and the cave that belongs to the maned young lions, where the lion walked and entered, where the lion’s cub was, and no one was making [them] tremble? Just as we often must do with other prophecies, I sometimes put a softer edge on the chronology in prophecy (unless the prophecy itself tells us otherwise). Dates and numbers can be rounded, just as this has often been explained for other prophecies discussed in our publications.

Just read these through. It took 2 hours to do them justice. Sometimes you get angry and hope it's righteous indignation. But it is easy, even through emotion, to see that much of what transpired with the victims should be expected if not inevitable. Both daughters were both accusers of their father. And another young girl in his congregation also made another accusation of sexual abuse. The fact that the accusers both remained as sisters, married, one even serving with her husband at Brooklyn Bethel, and the other one married and continuing to serve as a pioneer, makes the case even more interesting when dealing with issues of credibility, reluctance to come forward, congregational privileges, etc. There were many disturbing elements to the correspondence. One was the cold, dismissive way in which almost nothing could be done, for years, until both of the rape/abuse victims were able to meet face-to-face with their rapist father. (Yes, I'm taking the side of the girls and the elders who met with both of them, not the father and perhaps a circuit overseer who seems to take his side.) There seemed to be almost a sense that there must be a scripture somewhere that a land-line telephone can also count as "face-to-face" meeting, but nothing less can count. (Later, of course, [2004] even a phone "face-to-face" was questioned as inadequate if the elders didn't get a chance to ask their own questions.) For years, the father makes the most of the inability of the daughters to prove their accusations, although they had thought about recording the audio from their abuse on a hidden cassette recorder under the bed, but I can't tell for sure what might have happened to the referenced tape, or if it ever existed, or worked. Still one of the most disturbing aspects with respect to the judicial handling of such cases is the idea that comes through from the viewpoint in a letter from the elders, and which pops up again in the correspondence. It helps explain why this has been such a pervasive problem in Witness sexual-abuse cases all over the world. Letter from body of elders in a Windsor, CT congregation to body of elders in Ware, MA congregation. [9/23/04] "We have had some concerns regarding [the rape victim's] seeming obsession in filing charges against [her rapist father] from the start of the long ongoing investigation into this matter." But I see a kernel of this same type of thinking, pop up several times in the correspondence, and even when one reads between the lines of the Society's correspondence, too: CCoJW [WTBTS/Patterson] to the Accused [8/18/05] ". . . her only option was to report this to the elders. . . . It is regrettable that [victims] discussed these accusations with others who were not in a position to address these charges in harmony with our theocratic arrangements." There were places that showed just how regrettable it was that the victims, for so long, discussed these accusations ONLY with those who were in a position to address them in harmony with our theocratic arrangements. Much of what the elders and the WTS did here, was handled evidently with best intentions, but you can see so many times where early age-appropriate training of young persons from professionals and intervention/investigation from professionals would have had much better effect that "theocratic arrangements" alone. A father-daughter(s) rape/incest case is the worst of all worlds from the standpoint of preparing the very young and vulnerable, but professionals are making progress here too. As a school principal, now retired, my wife has had occasion to be impressed with the methods used by CPS, psychologists, and Police investigators into such issues. Of course, being professionally trained is not just for non-Witnesses. (In the leaked correspondence, one of the victims was, at a much later time, seeing a JW professional as a counselor.) Even the accused was evidently able to "score points" by claiming that the accusations against him brought reproach on the organization. The unprofessional methods of trying to find holes in the victim's story was just the kind amateur behavior to expect from elders who are not trained in these matters, and who, deep down, wish that accusations, especially against brothers who serve as elders or m.s., would just go away due to the reproach issues. If they don't go away, at least they should be handled internally, as far as possible. But they did their investigation under the limitations of their experience, their training, and the imposed limitations of the theocratic arrangement. One of the most poignant moments is when elders seek out the sister at Bethel to help verify the accusations from her sister who is a pioneer in her congregation. The Bethelite sister is very reluctant to speak, but when the elders convince her that she should speak up, she finally tells her own story, at the hands of her rapist father, which is as bad or even worse than the experience of her own sister.

Better safe than sorry.

Not using malwarebytes, but I have 3 equivalents running and updated. None of them said anything, and the files came over just fine. Sites like this are often used for sharing files, of course, and by hundreds of different users, under different subdirectories of the primary domain. The ones that "Jay Witness" shares are under jw.servehttp, where servehttp is the domain and "jw" is the subdomain. I'm guessing that the site has been flagged for having had bad files in other subdirectories like marketing.servehttp and xwqwralq.servehttp, etc Just look up "servehttp.com malware" on Google to see the types of problems that have been served up from other files on that domain.

Didn't want this to get lost in the shuffle. Early in the morning yesterday, I mentioned the book from which you just quoted those several pages [pp.404-408] Of course, it is quite supportive of the historical Seventh Day Adventist (and Second Adventist) emphasis on their own chronology, but is well researched. I think we can find a better place to discuss just how, why or why not this might have influenced Russell, but I would agree with you, @allensmith28, that there was no direct impact on Russell. However, it looks like Froom, the author, was not trying to make the same point about JQB's agenda. Froom is saying that although JQB recognized 1844 very early on, that his specific scheme continued on into the future beyond 1844 without giving enough focus on the importance of 1844, and as he says, undermining it. Also, it might be useful to notice that there were MANY points of convergence between Russell's chronology interests and J.Q.Brown's. Including Russell's acceptance of 1844 as a prophetic date, and even Russell's concern about the Mohammedan problem.

What if you took a stack of coupons for the book(s) and attached them to small pieces of gum, and then surreptitiously stuck them to the bottom of every chair in the hall, repeating this process in 100 or 200 Kingdom Halls in the next year? Over the following year, the gum would lose its gumminess (Mt 5:13?) and then your coupon would be picked up by hundreds of different people over time. It'd be like a silent book tour where most of your effort is spent chewing and sitting down, and shifting your seat more often than most.