JW Insider

Which is the most corrupt government in Europe? ChatGPT: . . .There are several organizations that rank countries based on perceptions of corruption, including Transparency International and the World Economic Forum. According to Transparency International's 2020 Corruption Perceptions Index, some of the countries in Europe with the lowest scores, indicating higher perceived levels of corruption, include Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus.

I asked a few of the questions above because I wanted to know how up-to-date ChatGPT is on certain current topics. The Ukraine situation is relevant for such an experiment because ChatGPT is still filled with a lot of older information, uncleansed, even though much of this information has already been removed from Wikipedia. And many Western media organizations have made their archive data more difficult to access on these topics. For example, Ukraine has often been listed as the most corrupt nation/government in Europe. But now this is a harder fact to discover because search words to find old articles in standard corporate media must now be much more precise if they contain words like Ukraine + Nazi or Ukraine + Corruption (or Puppet or US-backed coup, etc.). As of 2021, it was easy to find complaints of widespread corruption and anti-semitic nazi ideologies permeating the military ranks in Ukraine. But Twitter users are still being banned for mentioning this, even with Musk at the helm. YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram users are banned for the same, of course. (Although kudos for Musk removing some of the previously provided Space-X StarLink access in the wake of more claims of Ukrainians using it to carry out admitted chemical-attack war crimes.) When a major corporate media outlet in the U.S. promoted an upcoming "bombshell" report showing that only about 30% of the weapons the US sends to Ukraine ever make it to the front lines (because they are being sold to buyers on the black market) the US media outlet had to apologize and say they were re-evaluating the program. And then it was canceled. More CNN programs start with an announcement, "brought to you by Raytheon" even though no one in their audience has any interest in buying any products from Raytheon (except maybe stock). More typically, it's still: "brought to you by Pfizer." It's difficult to find out from major news sources these days that the Ukrainian government has been bombing its own people in the Eastern Ukrainian regions for 8 years, already killing 13,000 or 14,000 mostly civilians who have historically leaned more toward Russian customs and language, although wanting to be a part of a peaceful Ukraine. This was long before the war with Russia. In any other country this would be considered a "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing." But with the military forces of Ukraine, especially as represented by the right-wing nationalists (such as the pro-Nazi Azov Battalion), killing and even torturing civilians there, it gave Russia an opportunity to claim it is protecting the freedom of Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Even now, many of the continued bombings in the Donbass are blamed on Russia, but the Russian invasion has allowed for increased indiscriminate bombings of Ukrainian citizens in the region by Ukraine. Now Ukraine can kill even more of its citizens (adding to the 14,000 total since 2014). All they have to do now is blame it on Russia. This has already created embarrassing situations for Western media outlets interviewing Ukrainian citizens in the region when they ask how they feel about the Russian bombs, and the whole crowd starts deriding the interviewers and journalists for getting it wrong and telling them that these are Ukrainian bombs from Kiev not Moscow. This is one of the reasons that Zelensky had to suppress all media outlets and turn them into basically one single state-run media outlet.

Did Zelensky shut down all opposition media outlets in Ukraine? ChatGPT: No, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has not shut down all opposition media outlets in Ukraine. However, concerns have been raised about the state of media freedom in Ukraine under Zelensky's administration. In recent years, the media landscape in Ukraine has become increasingly polarized, and there have been instances of media outlets being shut down or facing other forms of pressure and interference. Some opposition media outlets have been critical of the Zelensky administration and have reported on corruption and other sensitive topics, which has led to concerns about media freedom and the protection of journalists in Ukraine. It is important to note that media freedom is a complex issue in Ukraine, and the situation is influenced by a range of factors, including the ongoing conflict in the Donbass region, the broader political climate, and the influence of media owners and other powerful actors. Nevertheless, the protection of media freedom and the rights of journalists are essential for a free and democratic society, and it is important to address any instances of interference and pressure on the media in Ukraine.

Compare the point about language with the following article snippets from a Google search for: law suppresses Russian language in Ukraine New Language Requirement Raises Concerns in Ukraine https://www.hrw.org › news › 2022/01/19 › new-langu... Jan 19, 2022 — The law aims to revitalize the Ukrainian language and is part of government efforts to reinforce national identity after the fall of the Soviet ... Ukraine passes language law, irritating president-elect and ... https://www.reuters.com › article › ukraine-passes-lang... Apr 25, 2019 — KIEV (Reuters) - Ukraine's parliament approved a law on Thursday that grants special status to the Ukrainian language and makes it mandatory ... New law stokes Ukraine language tensions - France 24 https://www.france24.com › France 24 › Live news Apr 1, 2021 — Lawmakers in 2019 passed legislation to cement Ukrainian as the country's primary language, ordering middle schools that taught in Russian ... The Ukrainian language is having a moment. To Putin's ears ... https://www.washingtonpost.com › world › 2022/02/08 Feb 8, 2022 — A language law, passed under Zelensky's predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, aims to establish Ukrainian as the country's dominant mode of ... Ukraine adopts language law opposed by Kremlin https://www.theguardian.com › world › apr › ukraine-a... Apr 25, 2019 — Ukraine's parliament has adopted a law that will require the use of the Ukrainian language in most aspects of public life, a decision ... Missing: suppresses ‎| Must include: suppresses Language Law For National Print Media Comes Into Force In ... https://www.rferl.org › ukraine-language-law-russian Jan 16, 2022 — A language law came into force in Ukraine on January 16 that requires all national print media to be published in the country's official ... Missing: suppresses ‎| Must include: suppresses Language issue in Ukraine becomes one of Russian ... https://df.news › Spiritual Front › Opinions Jan 28, 2022 — Now, starting January 16, 2022, national newspapers and magazines that had been published in non-state languages have to be published in ...

Q: Is it legal to speak Russian in Ukraine? ChatGPT: Yes, it is legal to speak Russian in Ukraine. The Ukrainian constitution recognizes Ukrainian as the official state language, but it also recognizes the rights of individuals to use other languages, including Russian. In recent years, there have been debates and discussions in Ukraine about the role of the Russian language in the country, but it remains a widely spoken and recognized language, especially in the eastern and southern regions of the country where many people consider Russian to be their native language. It's important to note that the use of language can be a sensitive issue in Ukraine, particularly in the context of the ongoing conflict in the Donbass region and the broader political tensions between Ukraine and Russia. Nevertheless, the right to use the Russian language is protected by the Ukrainian constitution, and individuals are free to speak Russian in their personal and professional lives.

Q: Are citizens in the Donbass region mostly Russian language speakers or Ukrainian language speakers? ChatGPT: The Donbass region in Eastern Ukraine is home to a diverse population of people who speak both Russian and Ukrainian, as well as other languages. Prior to the conflict, the majority of the population in the Donbass region considered Ukrainian to be their primary language, but many also spoke Russian as a second language. Since the outbreak of the conflict in 2014, the situation in the Donbass region has become increasingly complex, and it is difficult to determine the exact proportion of people who speak Russian versus Ukrainian. The conflict has resulted in large-scale displacement, and many people have been forced to flee their homes and resettle in other parts of Ukraine or Russia. It is also worth noting that the use of language can be politically charged in the Donbass region, and some people may choose to identify as Russian-speaking or Ukrainian-speaking based on their political views and affiliation, rather than their actual language use. Nevertheless, the vast majority of people in the Donbass region are fluent in both Ukrainian and Russian, and both languages continue to be widely used in the region.

Q: How many Ukranians were killed from Ukranian bombing of the Donbass since 2014? [before Russia ever got involved] Verbatim response from ChatGPT: It is difficult to determine the exact number of Ukrainian citizens killed as a result of the bombing of the Donbass region in Eastern Ukraine since 2014, as different sources provide different estimates. According to the United Nations, the conflict in eastern Ukraine has resulted in more than 13,000 deaths as of 2021. A significant portion of these casualties have likely resulted from the bombing of populated areas. ... Additionally, the conflict has resulted in a large number of civilians being displaced, and many have lost their homes and livelihoods. The human toll of the conflict in eastern Ukraine has been devastating, ...

Q: Is the Azov battalion in Ukraine really a Nazi-oriented group? Verbatim response from ChatGPT: The Azov Battalion is a Ukrainian far-right nationalist paramilitary organization that was formed during the conflict in Eastern Ukraine in 2014. The group has been accused of having links to neo-Nazi ideology and promoting ultranationalist and anti-Semitic views. Some members of the Azov Battalion have been known to display symbols and conduct activities that are associated with neo-Nazism, including giving Nazi salutes, wearing clothing with Nazi symbols, and engaging in racist and anti-Semitic rhetoric. Additionally, the group has been criticized by human rights organizations for its involvement in human rights abuses and acts of violence against civilians in eastern Ukraine. However, it's important to note that the organization is a complex and multifaceted group, and its views and actions cannot be reduced to a single ideology. The Ukrainian government officially recognizes the Azov Battalion as a component of the country's National Guard, and it has played a role in the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine. Nevertheless, the group's association with neo-Nazi ideology continues to raise concerns both inside and outside of Ukraine.

The most common explanation for how the number χξϛ would have been calculated as a man's number by Jewish Christians who heard or read Revelation is this: To see it, go to https://www.gematrix.org/?word=csr+nrn and type in the following if you have or can switch to a Hebrew keyboard and type this person's name: נרון קסר Calculate the man's number and it will show this: For fun, you can also type in the alternate spelling of the same name in Hebrew characters: נרו קסר You will get this: It just happens, of course, perhaps by coincidence, that those were the two most common ways to spell the name of the first "beast" said to "stand on land and sea" (from the city on 7 hills) who also persecuted Christians in the first century. He was the emperor who falsely blamed the Christians for the burning of Rome, and which resulted in the immediate persecution and torture and murder and burning alive of thousands of Christians. The two ways to spell his name were pronounced Caesar NERON (666) or Caesar NERO (616). [Compare "Solomon:" Hebrew SHLOMO and Hellenized form SOLOMON.]

It's a little easier for modern readers to accept our theory than it would have been for readers and listeners at the time Revelation was written. It's very easy for modern readers who use Arabic numerals like we do in Western and Arabic-influenced nations. In European languages or Arabic, the number six-hundred-sixty-six would look like this: 666. But in the Greek of Revelation the number was written to look more like χξϛ or in the oldest manuscript of Revelation and a couple of others the number is XIC. which is not 666 but 616. In Latin, just as an analogy, it would look like DCLXVI. One of the oldest Latin translations, however, has it as DCXVI. And to show that this wasn't just a copyist error, the number was also spelled out in the Latin words for "six hundred and sixteen" not just the Roman numerals for 616. Irenaeus knew about the 616 reading as early as 180 CE, which is even earlier than any known Bible manuscripts of Revelation, but he preferred the number 666, and considered 616 to be a copyist's error. 200 years later (380) Jerome made a new translation into Latin and "corrected" the DCXVI to DCLXVI. In Hebrew it could look like this: (MSV or TRSV). [Mem [600] Samekh [60] Vav [6] or Tau [400] Resh [200] Samekh [60] Vav [6] ] But what's even more interesting is that we can't take a number like 616 and make it mean the same thing no matter how we position the numerals. (661 does not equal 166 does not equal 616) But in Greek you could write the number as XIC, CIX, IXC, XCI etc, and it would always say 616. Same in Hebrew. In fact, in old Hebrew documents and even now, certain order exceptions are common or preferred. Note this from https://smontagu.org/writings/HebrewNumbers.html The numerical value of each letter is fixed and not determined by position, so reordering a number will not change its value. This may be done when a number spells out a word with negative connotations (e.g. 298: RESH TSADI HET is the Hebrew for “murder” so it is sometimes written as RESH HET TSADI), or when the reordered form has especially positive connotations (e.g 18: YUD HET is often written as HET YUD, the Hebrew for “alive”). Unlike the previous exception, using the regular form in these cases is not considered an error. If the last two digits of a number are 15 or 16, they should be expressed not as YUD HE (10+5) and YUD VAV (10+6), but as TET VAV (9+6) and TET ZAYIN (9+7). This is done to avoid a close resemblance to the Tetragrammaton (four-letter name of God) YUD HE VAV HE. Although this convention is originally derived from religious practice, it is universally used even in completely secular contexts. It's obvious, then, that readers of Greek and Hebrew were even more alert to recalculations of numbers, or the words that might be conveyed. After all, most words could also just be a more convoluted way to convey a number. For example, some say that Matthew is putting special emphasis on the Davidic line when he breaks up the generations from Abraham to Jesus into groups of 14. In Hebrew, the word "DAVID" is also a way to write the number 14. Other Jewish writers did this type of thing regularly. Here's some info from Wikipedia: ... the appearance of the figure 616 in the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C; Paris—one of the four great uncial codices), as well as in the Latin version of Tyconius (DCXVI, ed. Souter in the Journal of Theology, SE, April 1913), and in an ancient Armenian version (ed. Conybeare, 1907). Irenaeus knew about the 616 reading, but did not adopt it (Haer. V, 30). In the 380s, correcting the existing Latin-language version of the New Testament (commonly referred to as the Vetus Latina), Jerome retained "666".[13][14] Fragment from Papyrus 115 (P115) of Revelation in the 66th vol. of the Oxyrhynchus series (P. Oxy. 4499).[15] Has the number of the beast as χιϛ, 616. Around 2005, a fragment from Papyrus 115, taken from the Oxyrhynchus site, was discovered at the University of Oxford's Ashmolean Museum. It gave the beast's number as 616 (χις). This fragment is the oldest manuscript (about 1,700 years old) of Revelation 13 found as of 2017.[2][3]Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, known before the Papyrus 115 finding but dating to after it, has 616 written in full: ἑξακόσιοι δέκα ἕξ, hexakosioi deka hex (lit. "six hundred and sixteen").[16] Papyrus 115 and Ephraemi Rescriptus have led some scholars to regard 616 as the original number of the beast.[17] According to Paul Louis, "The number 666 has been substituted for 616 either by analogy with 888, the [Greek] number of Jesus (Gustav Adolf Deissmann), or because it is a triangular number, the sum of the first 36 numbers (1+2+3+4+5+6+...+36 = 666)".[18]

Sunday night, I started to watch this at about 2:30 am, while my wife was sleeping next to me. But the TV Soundbar speaker needs a high setting for regular TV and a low setting for Netflix. So when I switched between HDMI's to get to Netflix I forgot to turn down the volume, and got that 100-decibel GONG that introduces Netflix. She woke up and told me to turn the TV off, which I did. And then I saw your recommendation on Monday. So I watched it. Yes, it was an overused setup for that kind of detective movie, but quite entertaining. And somehow they worked in a James Bond style ending that we might associate with Daniel Craig. And the most unexpected ending with Ed Norton in blackface, and the Mona Lisa in blackface, twice (-- if you know what I mean).

And I bet they didn't serve children either.

I prefer leaving it here where people who have already read it and weighed in can continue to do so. Maybe just start another version of the same topic over there?

LOL. It wasn't too hard to predict that you would continue to dodge and then claim that I was the one dodging. Oh well. I've taken note that you must have thought this was just a game. Still playing the projectionist, I see. That was my point. I thought that you had apparently made the mistake of thinking that A.C. meant "After Christ." Now you have made your mistake even more apparent and explicit. It actually means the opposite of what you are saying. A.C. means BEFORE Christ, NOT After Christ. Note that the following can pop up at the top when you Google "what does the date A.C. mean?" AC in Medieval Latin means “ante Christum”, before Christ, Its equivalent in English is BC (before Christ) Now, perhaps, some of what Brown was saying will make more sense to you. Happy for the reinstatement. Sorry about the funeral.

This is an assumption of a missing jubilee. I had understood that you meant for 653 AC to be a missing Jubliee, because it was 49 years earlier than the 604 AC date that Brown uses. But that's why I asked how you know a Jubilee is missing, where is it missing from, why is it missing, and if it is missing, where would you put it back? You placed another Jubilee starting 49 years earlier than Brown's starting date. But that just makes Brown's end date (1917) end 49 years earlier: 1866. I highlighted your phrase above where you said "as indicated." This is why I said you made a mistake in the way you went about assuming a missing Jubilee. The 604 AC date you corrected to 653 AC does NOT indicate Muhammad. You might have misunderstood the term AC that Brown was using. It's just another term for BC. Therefore 604 AC had nothing to do with Muhammad; it's equal to 604 BC: the first regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar II. Not mine either. I never thought you accepted Brown's calculations. I always thought you were treating them as if they were examples of stepping stones that got closer and closer to what we accept today as the correct Watchtower teaching about the 2,520 years, the Gentile Times, and 1914. In this, we both agree (that this is what Brown did). His work was a stepping stone to where we are today on those topics. That's why we find the development of this teaching interesting, and why he is mentioned in the "Proclaimers" book. What does the word "terminate" to you? Yes or No. I see you have responded to part of question 3 but you are still dodging questions 1 and 2. In this context, "terminate" means "to end" or "bring to an end" and Brown definitely said the 4 Monarchies (4 Tyrannies) would end in 1917. But that wasn't the question. The question was: Did John A Brown EVER say that the Gentile Times would end in 1917? Yes or No. The answer to that is a definite "NO!" Of course he couldn't say they ended in 1844, and also ended again in 1917. If you had not dodged Questions 1 and 2, you would have noticed this yourself. Go back and try those two questions, and if you see the answer that Brown gave, you will then understand where all the confusion has come about. The quickest way, I think, is to search on the term "times of the Gentiles" since Brown does not use the shorter expression "Gentile Times."

Exactly. I don't think that can be justified unless the behavior is so outrageous that even you would want someone banned for unjustifiable personal attacks on yourself or calls for violence against your religion's leading representatives or some other outrageous forms of speech, imagery, etc. I don't think we should be dishing it out, but I think all of us should learn to handle some name-calling and ad hominem attacks. It's the nature of religious, political and otherwise ideological discussion these days. If we can't handle it, it's something we should discuss with others, because we're just going to see more and more of it in this world. I agree with this too. Although I would hate to be the one involved in meting out warnings and suspensions, I think that the worse that should happen is a temporary suspension for those who have OBVIOUSLY broken the rules. Perhaps the suspensions should get a bit longer if a person breaks the rules more often. But the problem is about being fair, because two people may cause just as must dissension and disruption, but one might be more liked or disliked and people would be quicker to suspend the one they dislike. I don't like the fact that a person who is banned forever can't get their posts back, and most of those posts just disappear. If only a couple of posts deserved warnings and suspensions, that's no reason to destroy a history of work by that person. The only kinds of accounts I would like to see banned are those that come on here like "bots" just to sell a product, where you can't interact with the person about their product. Some software bans them automatically, but a few have slipped onto this forum just to spam with links to advertisements of products. There's also the idea of private sub-groups. I like these, but they can be overused. I belong to a couple of small mostly JW Biblical discussion forums where you have to be invited. This is fine as far as it goes, and if someone could just come on there to disrupt it would make no sense to invite them. Like having a discussion forum about cats where someone comes on there just to talk about how they hate cats.

Yes. I don't think anyone else (who has watched multiple-page discussions with him) really doubts that they know him from previous accounts. But not me. I won't make a big deal about that any more. I told him I wouldn't. He has just as much right to post as anyone, under whatever account name he chooses. It's not like he's really fooling anyone anyway.

True. I used your number. Makes me wonder what date you thought your number would lead you? You might be able to see your mistake for yourself if you could answer that. Where did you think your 653 date would lead? It just means that either you can't see it yet, or if you can, you prefer to pretend that you can't see it so that you don't have to admit a mistake. You would probably get a better understanding of Brown's theory if you would try to answer any of the questions that have been raised. For example, try these three questions that can now be put in a simple YES or NO format: 1. Did John A Brown EVER say that the Gentile Times were of a length different from 1,260? Yes or No. 2. Did John A Brown EVER say that the Gentile Times were 2,520 years in length? Yes or No. 3. Did John A Brown EVER say that the Gentile Times would end in 1917? Yes or No. If you think the answer is YES to any question, then simply quote the reference. I suspect that you know the answer but will dodge the question and, if past is prologue, you might even claim that I'm the one dodging the question. Still, they are simple questions, and if you can't or won't answer, people can just make a note of that and move on. Perhaps more serious persons would be interested in the topic.

No. That was you. Perhaps you didn't realize you had done so when you said the following which I have marked in red, after your quote of Brown: Considering that he got 1917 by effectively subtracting 604(-1) from 2520, I merely plugged in your "correction" to see what year you were suggesting by saying he should have subtracted 653(-1) from 2520. YOUR suggestion is the same as saying he should have arrived at 1866 instead of 1917. So I wondered why you were suggesting numbers that would result in 1866. Then, when I asked what you thought happened of Biblical significance in 1866, you gave the following non-response: Rather than answer directly about 1866 or 1865, you added the following "explanation:" I could tell where you were trying to go with this, but you went about it in the wrong way. In Volume 2 of Even-Tide, page 152, Brown added an idea that he hadn't included in Volume 1. I'll attach the page where he does that at the end of the post. This idea is that if you start with the first year of the image's head of gold in Daniel 2 (Nebuchadnezzar, 604 BCE) then the year 1844 should land on the end of a Jubilee year, every 49 or 50 years. Maybe even a "Grand Jubilee" which is a Jubilee of Jubilees (sometimes considered to be 50x50 years, or 2,500 years. And if one uses 49 for the Jubilee calculations, or various mixed combinations of 49 and 50, then as you say, it can "change the game." There are Bible prophecy commentators who mix and match between 49 and 50 because it gives them more flexibility to play with. For example if you used 50x50, then 2500 - 604 is 1896+1 =1897. The Jubilee before would have been about 1847, and the Jubilee after would have been about 1947. The latter year, 1947, would have made for some headlines with respect to Israel. Also, it's possible to see your ultimate goal in "correcting" 1917 be the same as 1915 or even 1914 if you fudge at both ends. This is based on what you wrote as the examples, just after you said that you are always able to find a one or two year "play" in secular chronology dates. This is true. Fudging any date by a year or two when it doesn't land exactly where you want it to is not a very trustworthy method. But it's so common that it's been used by almost every significant prophecy interpreter in the last 3 centuries. Miller himself did it (1843 to 1844). Barbour did it (1873 to 1874). Russell did it several times. Rutherford did it. Franz did it. Watchtower chronology history is a series of 1914 to 1915 and back, 1918 to 1919, 606 to 607, 536 to 538 to 537, no zero year to zero year to no zero year again. We all know this game too well. gg

More or less what I expected you to say based on past experience in this type of a discussion. Reminds me of a scene from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie_the_Pooh_and_the_Blustery_Day OK, if there's a 1 to 2 year "play" then why do you prefer 1865 then? Are you able to answer that question, at least? Why would this be about the United States? What game?

Of course I don't accept what he wrote in his book. It all turned out to be wrong. For example, here are a couple of snippets in the paragraphs just following the page you quoted. And, as you must be aware, he interpreted dozens of political events, especially in Turkey and Europe, to be fulfillments of nearly every trumpet and vial and quake and beast and other symbol he could find in Daniel, Revelation and Ezekiel. All of them are to be rejected because none of his expectations about any of them turned out to be true. But I'm not in denial that J A Brown actually wrote such preposterous and presumptuous interpretations. What you posted twice is still part of the same valid evidence we have that J A Brown did NOT believe the 3.5 Gentile Times ended in 1917. He ended them in 1844. The entire history of all nations from the Head of Gold in the image of Daniel 2 down to the time when God's Kingdom would crush and put an end to all these nations would therefore start with Nebuchadnezzar's reign and end in 1917, according to Brown. Therefore, every political thing that ever happened after Nebuchadnezzar began his reign would have to fall somewhere between 604 BCE and 1917 CE. Therefore the 1290 years falls within that range of time, but that doesn't mean that the Gentile Times are the 1290 years. The 1335 years must also fall within that range and cannot extend beyond it, but that doesn't make the 1335 years the same as the Gentile Times either. The entire range of 2520 years must fall exactly within that same range from 604 BCE to 1917 CE, but that doesn't make the 2520 years the same as the Gentile Times either, according to Brown. The 391 year period that Brown speaks about, from (1453 CE to 1844 CE) must also fall within that same range, but that doesn't mean that those 391 years are the Gentile Times either. Same goes for the 2,300 days. In fact, only one of those periods, the 1,260 days, is the one that Brown said was the Gentile Times, because it was the 1,260 year period, he said, where the Mohammedan Abomination was standing where it ought not, around Jerusalem, and which therefore got in the way of Israel creating a nation. But there would be a first judgment upon the Mohammedan impostiture in 1844, at the end of the 1,260 "days" of the Gentile Times. (And Brown expected Jews to begin returning to Palestine in the 7 years leading up to that date, starting in 1837.) Then there would be a total extirpation of the Muslim presence in 1873, the 1290 days. Then of course, total "happiness" would come to all who are able to wait the 1,335 days to that final second judgment upon all nations. Notice that the parts you quoted from Even-Tide above is what I had pointed out before, that Israel can finally be established when the Gentile Times end in 1844, "the RISE of the Jewish kingdom." Then they become an Empire by 1873. Then they become the transcendent Glory of Israel in the world at the time of the last judgment in 1917.

Interesting that you mark this for the viewer, when you just denied J.A. Brown terminating the 2520 0n 1917 as described in his book. However, you seem to follow Brown's impression, while others prefer to add the missing jubilee. Either 49 or 50. That still doesn't explain what you think happened (or should have happened) in 1866. Also, you make a mistake in claiming that I denied J A Brown terminating the 2,520 years in 1917. That's always been exactly when he terminated that period of seven times. Brown made that clear. He also made clear that the Gentile Times (not any period of 7 times) terminated after 1,260 years in 1844. The Gentile Times are not connected to the 7 times according to J A Brown. They are separate periods, according to Brown. And why would anyone want to add a "missing jubilee"? And who says one is missing? From where? And why do you say that the missing Jubilee should have made him start the time period in 653 (which our publications would place in the 7th year of Josiah)? Did something prophetically significant happen then?

Yep. That's a big part of the point I was hoping to make. J A Brown was likely a strong influence directly or indirectly on William Miller who accepted the 1844 date. Miller was very influential on Nelson Barbour who had been a Second Adventist follower of Miller, and Barbour was the one who added 1873 and 1914 to Miller's mix, similar to how J A Brown had previously added 1873 and 1917. And Barbour was obviously very influential on C T Russell who admits that he learned his chronology from Barbour. And of course, Rutherford and Franz learned it from Russell. J A Brown is therefore clearly a part of our own JW history. Which reminds me: George Santayana: “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Karl Marx: "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce." (Romans 15:3, 4) . . .“The reproaches of those reproaching you have fallen upon me.” 4 For all the things that were written beforehand were written for our instruction,. . .