JW Insider

17 hours ago, JWthedeceiver said:

LOL! You banned me from using vulgar and stupid language, that YOUR own rules claim, and you personally said, you don’t tolerate in your forum, LIBRARIAN. Yet you allow this A**HOLE to continue.  Hey, a**hole, cut your s**t off already. You’re making WHITE PEOPLE look like trailer tr*sh.

You miserable sack of sh*t!!!!! O’MALY B**ch!!!!!!!!!

Before you start insulting people for their English skills? And take shots at the Spanish language, Learn, English first. You miserable lowlife, rat! B*st*rd?

Librarian, STOP supporting O’Maly’s Alter Ego, alanF, F-for, **** you too!!! Moron.

A Jehovah’s Witness website Ha! Ha! Ha

Goodness gracious, AllenSmith28 (I assume). There are better ways to argue your case.

You (or at least, AllenSmith) were not banned for using foul language, but for making it personal. This is what is being done again again here. What AlanF did is point out what foul connotations Foreigner was likely intending with the "P*ND*JO remark. This is quite different from using foul language just to call people names. That's what got Allen Smith banned and disciplined so often he parodied his own case by creating AllenSmith20-something through AllenSmith28, to go along with a small army of other names to play various characters [and voting blocs]

But I agree that AlanF should get a second warning even if he pointed out the fouler connotation of a word that someone else used. But I don't think anyone should be banned. We can all decide to avoid seeing someone's comments by blocking them if we are sensitive to that kind of thing. And a warning is available so that others can be aware that they may not wish to read what any certain person is saying. In a discussion like this, as I've said, it's much more useful to get warnings about logical fallacies, and warnings about the difference between depending on facts and depending on speculation. Misuse of language is a trivial matter to me.

22 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Let us leave unchallenged, for the moment, your 'thousands.'

I don't think it does much good to challenge it. There are nearly 120,000 congregations in the world. The first time I ever heard of a "pedophile database" was not when I was at Bethel, but near the end of the  following decade, around 1998. A couple years later, when ex-JWs were beginning to make a big deal out of it, my uncle (circuit overseer) and I called a friend in the Service Department to clear up what we should say if asked about it directly. He said that although it sounds high, it averaged out to "just a little less" than one person in every congregation, but that these were mostly USA/North America figures, and he couldn't say how this might compare to the rest of the world. Also, anecdotally at least, a large number of them had been disfellowshipped and were showing no interest in coming back.

We have about 120,000 congregations in the world, and I don't think we catch all the child abusers. Perhaps some want to become JWs to help overcome their problem. Based on the impression I got in 1998, that might translate to somewhere on the order of 50,000 abusers from the 80's through 2000. And perhaps another 100,000 from 2000 through 2017/8. This sounds way too high, 150,000 in aggregate, but is still less than one every two decades, per congregation. I don't believe it's even half that, but wouldn't be surprised if an up-to-date worldwide database contained a number like 1% of current publishers.

1% of 8 million is 80,000. Most of these would no longer be associated with a congregation anyway. But the other thing is that a high number of child abusers abuse more than one child, and continue to find persons to abuse all their life.

I recently found out that the brother who married my sister, and who was a physical abuser (over which my sister left him to remarry) was a victim of something like this when he was younger. I think we'll find out that it is much more common than people have let on. My sister was instructed not to inform the hospital workers or police under threat of disciplinary action, losing her pioneer "status" and TMS privileges. Her husband, a ministerial servant, was apparently barely talked to, and continued to advance to a position as elder. The thing is, I don't think anyone outside our own family and a couple of elders every really knew about this. My parents are of the sort that believe it shames the family to admit that my sister married such a man, and would rather only talk about his success as an elder. (I was at Bethel when this was going on.) So how much do we know about our own congregations unless we are on the judicial committee, or it blows up into the newspapers, or an Australian Royal Commission?

Another person in our congregation was an elderly special pioneer who started to get in trouble for sleazy behavior with younger sisters, mostly pioneer sisters, who were between 18 and 24 or so. Not "child abuse" and no crime of any kind, but also an issue of not disciplining him because he would lose his special pioneer stipend, and his son already had a very high position at Bethel. My father was one of the elders who talked to him, and I was a "second witness" to corroborate one of the sister's stories. I had evidently caught him improperly touching/groping on only one of many occasions.

I mention this because it was easy for me to think that one abuser per congregation is not that unlikely. Therefore 1,000s of victims who suffered from "cover-up" is not that unlikely.

From what I can tell, they are not even in the same Zip Code.

Society's Branch:

Saksi-Saksi Yehuwa Indonesia

Central Park APL Office Tower, Floor 31

Jl. S. Parman Kav. 28

Jakarta 11470

INDONESIA

Stock Exchange:

1st Tower, Jalan Jend. Sudirman Kav. 52-53,

Senayan, Kebayoran Baru,

RT.5/RW.3, RT.5/RW.3,

Senayan, Kby. Baru, Kota

Jakarta Selatan, Daerah Khusus Ibukota

Jakarta 12190

1 hour ago, The Librarian said:

Was he considering himself ready to go to heaven and prepared in his white robes for his salvation?

@JW Insider might remember the story of A.H. Macmillan standing on the bridge in his white robes ready to be raptured. I forget the details though.

The robes story may have shown that A.H.MacMillan was a good story-teller, but didn't care so much for research. He says there was a newspaper story about the occasion in Pittsburgh, but was probably confusing this with a story of some non-Russellite Second Adventists in Philadelphia. All the major Pittsburgh and Allegheny newspapers from the time period still exist and nothing like this was reported in Pittsburgh. The other thing is that the original "white robes" or "ascension robes" stories were probably made up out of whole cloth by non-Adventists making fun of Adventists, continuing since the Great Disappointment of 1843 and 1844, and repeated on a smaller scale among "Barbourite" Adventists in 1873 and 1874, with some Barbourite/Russellite Adventists trying again in 1878 and 1881.

But "ascension robes" were not a real, confirmed part of any of these stories. Biblically, it was the "Lord" who was going to give the robes. Boston newspapers made up stories about clothes manufacturers working overtime to create these robes in time, but there was never any evidence. 

By 1916 however these stories of white "ascension robes" had become an accepted part of the supposed culture of Second Adventists, from outsiders, but had become "true" through repetition. So it's possible that Russell believed they were a useful symbol of his true faith in his imminent ascension. And it's possible that MacMillan writing in the 1950's was recalling events through those later "filters." But at the time, Sturgeon and Rutherford made an effort to distance the "toga" from that interpretation. 

I think it was possible that Russell's mind was gone by then. The type of sickness he had was the close equivalent of being poisoned to die slowly until the mind goes, too.

Just to make it easier to read page 2:

On 1/15/2018 at 7:16 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

The death was an accident. The city of refuge was a place where one might live a normal, productive and rewarding life. It was not a prison. But suppose the manslayer refused to go there, insisting he didn't have to, insisting he was 'guiltless' because he didn't mean to do what he did?

My father was in one of the assembly dramas back in 1967. Brother Glass had worked out this "play" with the Gilead students and produced the one-hour skit that was recorded by him and the Gilead students and a couple of other Bethelites with good voices (especially from the other primary instructors: Maxwell Friend, Harold Jackson, Karl Adams, Bert Schroeder). I remember that we attended two assemblies that year because of the drama. I was baptized at the first one.

Those dramas had just started in '66 (Aachan and the theft of contra-"ban" at Ai) and that year they had learned that subtle gestures don't show up well in large stadium audiences, so they taught everyone to over-gesture (and gesticulate) so hard that everyone was karate-chopping the air with every syllable so you knew who was speaking.

But the only thing I remember from the content was that it was used to show that everyone should stay in the protection of Jehovah's arrangement for security (the organization) or they would die. That we are all blood-guilty even if just "accidentally" so, through the sin of Adam, and that we must remain until the "high priest dies" but that he already died in 33 CE, so we are no longer bloodguilty, but we need to stay put anyway.

Of course, that wasn't the whole story, but it definitely was NOT mined for treasures or gems the way that more recent discussions have done (including yesterday's WT study).

I was also thinking that it highlighted safety issues, and it also did something else that isn't mentioned anywhere as far as I know. It's not just to provide a cooling-off period for the avenger who would be tempted to avenge potentially innocent manslaughter ("innocent" in the sense of unintentional). It's also a loving provision for the families who would have to continue to live and work next to the person responsible for such trauma and pain. Defending honor has developed into some terrible practices around the world, including Hatfield and McCoy style feuds that can go on for a century or more. I saw the play Hamilton last year which means I know even less about U.S. History now than I did before, but it showed a facet of dueling that I wasn't aware of, wherein, persons could use it for personal revenge, or purposely arrange to "miss" so as to forgive.

Last year, I spent several days over the course of a week at the British Museum and asked if I could find information on other nations that were known to have sanctuary cities or cities of refuge. The answer was surprising, and got to read one of the recent books they had from David P. Wright and a couple articles in the JBL, including Jeffrey Stackert. 

• Why Does Deuteronomy Legislate Cities of Refuge? Asylum in the Covenant Collection (Exodus 21:12-14) and Deuteronomy (19:1-13) Author(s): Jeffrey Stackert Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 125, No. 1 (Spring, 2006), pp. 23-49

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

4 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

O’Maly and JWinsider should be aware of these new finds of Filip Vukosavovic 2015, at the British Museum.

4 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

It’s futile to argue against any skeptic, since 2015, recent Babylonian tablets, found, indicate 3 exiles NOT 2, meaning 3 points of interest. . . .

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.

4 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

So, those 3 years I keep referring to, remain WITHIN the same archeological EVIDENCE, which COJ and Raymond Franz FAILED to take into account. So, once again, COJ’s book is a contradiction unto itself and a FAILURE.

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.

4 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

So, those 3 years I keep referring to, remain WITHIN the same archeological EVIDENCE, which COJ and Raymond Franz FAILED to take into account. So, once again, COJ’s book is a contradiction unto itself and a FAILURE.

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:

4 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

when people can’t compete honestly, they resort to vices of deceit and pretend it never happened by changing the subject to distance themselves from such an absurd attempt.

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.

25 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

What part confuses you, that Jesus only meant 1260?

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.

28 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

So, how is this not placing ideologies that aren’t referenced in scripture?

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.

35 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

Once again, stick to the question of why you don't believe scripture by giving a false claim, that Jesus Said, ONLY 1260?

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.

12 minutes ago, Queen Esther said:

Maybe, the sister and all others see it different.

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.

1 hour ago, Foreigner said:

I believe the confusion is coming from you. This subtle attempt to reverse what you are denying by Jesus own words is a good example of deceit that Witnesses shouldn’t conduct. But, until your willing to be honest with your answers instead of deflecting on the issue? Then there is no real dialogue. Remember itÂ’s NOT ME denying Jesus words, ITÂ’S YOU.

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.

1 hour ago, Foreigner said:

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.

47 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

https://www.academia.edu/35554936/Judeans_in_Babylonia_A_Study_of_Deportees_in_the_Sixth_and_Fifth_Centuries_BCE

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.

18 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Hmm! Ok. Let’s let’s pretend that you know exactly what Jesus thoughts were, by putting words into his mouth,

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,. . .

18 hours ago, Foreigner said:

and he didn’t consider the prophecies of the Old Testament.

Again, I don't know why you would pretend this was true either. Revelation contains many references to prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures.

18 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Do you believe in the Gentile Times as Jesus did? If so, where would you place this infamous 1260?

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.

2 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

My goal is to one day place $1.00 into the outstretched hand of @The Librarian

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.

6 hours ago, Queen Esther said:

Thank  you

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."

5 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

I would agree Jerusalem Temple was burned in 586BC

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.

8 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

A hilarious example by AlanF!!!

http://www.biblehistory.com/map_babylonian_captivity/map_of_the_deportation_of_judah_treatment_of_the_jews_in_babylon.html

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.

8 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

The gobbledygook and ignorance belong to Alanf supporters. By the way. This website is structured by the ideology of an American Scholar Edward Robinson Born in 1794AD. If this website is going to be used as proof of something, then 19-century ideology is PROOF of ancient events, as well. Try showing some coherency. Keep learning Junior, you have a long way to go before you can understand scripture like a 6-year-old.

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.

11 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

This is what it all boils down to, doesn’t it? The Rejection of 2520.

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.

37 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

Start by reading: The-Pedagogy-of-Shalom-Theory-and-Contemporary-Issues-of-a-Faith-based-Education 2017

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?

9 hours ago, Foreigner said:

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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?

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.

10 hours ago, Foreigner said:

So, what would be the reason to use 609BC if you want to be precise? 608BC, then, you end up in 538BC, 1 year after the fall of Babylon. So, what would be the reason to use another speculative view about Isaiah’s Prophecy, if this claim can’t be added, either? Don’t you think, you are attempting to make things fit, just as the Watchtower is being defamed for?

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?

11 hours ago, Foreigner said:

This whole time, COJ proved nothing since the GENTILE TIMES would have started with the death of King Josiah in 609BC.

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."

11 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Then why single out one person, when others like ALANF AND SCHOLAR JW have the same perception of calling themselves within the same level of expertise and portray that same intellectual perception.

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.)

11 hours ago, Foreigner said:

I believe, the POSTING on the MAIN PAGE of this WEBSITE, shows what you are attempting to single out one person with your statement.

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. 

11 hours ago, Foreigner said:

So, either you are deliberately being selective, and hate this person, which is against all that Jesus taught?

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.

11 hours ago, Foreigner said:

or you are defending those that reject the Watchtower chronology, Which is another view Jesus taught against.

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.

11 hours ago, Foreigner said:

You can’t imply, you have no problem with the WT chronology, and then reject the WT chronology and allow your views of rejection be POSTED in AD1914, as though, it is something, factual.

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.

11 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Many scholars agree, those that present an objection, are obligated to show SOLID proof of their objection. Thus far, the objections have been met with speculation, where’s the intellectual mind?

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.

11 hours ago, Foreigner said:

You are confident that 607BC in NOT the correct year for the destruction of Jerusalem, and have cited with, secular chronology, of 587BC, yet you give a vague response that it COULD VERY WELL BE?

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.

11 hours ago, Foreigner said:

If 607BC is farfetched

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.

11 hours ago, Foreigner said:

then 609BC is FAR WORSE

Not at all. 609 is not more than 2 years off, either, in my opinion.

1 hour ago, Nana Fofana said:

If it's "Babylon's domination" you really, really  think we must fulfill according to scripture . . .   that Jerusalem came under siege in 609, and remained under siege until it fell in 607?

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?

1 hour ago, Nana Fofana said:

And then, for fulfilling the 70 years of desolation during which the land kept Sabbath to fulfill the 70 years, during the 70 years it was desolated, what if we considered 607 until 537 for that time period?

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.

31 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

everyone can drop the sarcasm about being intelligent, when they show the contrary?

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.

2 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Therefore, wouldn’t it be conceivable, those who boast about their intelligence, are simply playing to an empty room?

The room is actually pretty empty no matter who is playing. Perhaps we can all be thankful for that.

31 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

By that logic, then we could agree that 609BC would be worse of a probability than 607BC.

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").