JW Insider

@BTK59 ( @George88 ) ( @BillyTheKid-55 ) ( @Allen Smith ) ( @AllenSmith35 ), etc., etc., etc., etc. --
and @Pudgy ( @James Thomas Rook Jr. ),
I once got in trouble from an Admin here for revealing that @TrueTomHarley was from Rochester, based on the assumption that I had used a moderator's ability to read I.P. addresses. I got out of trouble by showing that TTH had himself made posts claiming he was from Rochester.
It is considered very bad forum etiquette to reveal information or attempt to reveal personal information about a forum participant that isn't something they bring up about themselves. If it is specifically to reveal something negative, it is clearly malicious. Because it also goes against the rules of the forum, BTK59 and his cohorts might end up getting banned. I don't want to see BTK banned, for all the reasons I've stated before: 
Banning is meaningless on a forum like this one, because anyone can come back under a different name. Banning is a form of shunning, which can have serious and unintended psychological consequences. Banning can involve erasing all of a person's writing here, into which they may have put a lot of time and research. Banning a person who shows signs of maliciousness and viciousness and paranoia usually will motivate the person to come back only to seek vengeance on everyone they think was involved in their "excommunication" or "disfellowshipping" from the forum. In practice that has meant attacks on persons who were not even interested in the matter.  So, for these reasons, I recommend the following so that BTK and cohorts are not banned. I recommend that the posts related to the malicious attempt to expose personal legal issues and troubles be removed.
I will remove all related posts within 24 hours, unless both parties to this matter request that they remain. 

@BTK59 ( @George88 ) ( @BillyTheKid-55 ) ( @Allen Smith ) ( @AllenSmith35 ), etc., etc., etc., etc. --
and @Pudgy ( @James Thomas Rook Jr. ),
I once got in trouble from an Admin here for revealing that @TrueTomHarley was from Rochester, based on the assumption that I had used a moderator's ability to read I.P. addresses. I got out of trouble by showing that TTH had himself made posts claiming he was from Rochester.
It is considered very bad forum etiquette to reveal information or attempt to reveal personal information about a forum participant that isn't something they bring up about themselves. If it is specifically to reveal something negative, it is clearly malicious. Because it also goes against the rules of the forum, BTK59 and his cohorts might end up getting banned. I don't want to see BTK banned, for all the reasons I've stated before: 
Banning is meaningless on a forum like this one, because anyone can come back under a different name. Banning is a form of shunning, which can have serious and unintended psychological consequences. Banning can involve erasing all of a person's writing here, into which they may have put a lot of time and research. Banning a person who shows signs of maliciousness and viciousness and paranoia usually will motivate the person to come back only to seek vengeance on everyone they think was involved in their "excommunication" or "disfellowshipping" from the forum. In practice that has meant attacks on persons who were not even interested in the matter.  So, for these reasons, I recommend the following so that BTK and cohorts are not banned. I recommend that the posts related to the malicious attempt to expose personal legal issues and troubles be removed.
I will remove all related posts within 24 hours, unless both parties to this matter request that they remain. 

At the mid-week meeting we had the Bible reading that included Psalm 26. We also sang song #34.
It's a very beautiful melody, even though I have other favorites. What I like most about the song is that it follows the Psalm very closely. It's a good reminder that the words of the original Psalm 26 were also sung, even though we don't know the original melody. But the tune and music we use seem very appropriate for the tone of the Psalm itself. 
Last week, of course, we had this for the 23rd Psalm, too. And I think the same about that melody and how appropriate it is to the words of the Psalm. 

@BTK59 ( @George88 ) ( @BillyTheKid-55 ) ( @Allen Smith ) ( @AllenSmith35 ), etc., etc., etc., etc. --
and @Pudgy ( @James Thomas Rook Jr. ),
I once got in trouble from an Admin here for revealing that @TrueTomHarley was from Rochester, based on the assumption that I had used a moderator's ability to read I.P. addresses. I got out of trouble by showing that TTH had himself made posts claiming he was from Rochester.
It is considered very bad forum etiquette to reveal information or attempt to reveal personal information about a forum participant that isn't something they bring up about themselves. If it is specifically to reveal something negative, it is clearly malicious. Because it also goes against the rules of the forum, BTK59 and his cohorts might end up getting banned. I don't want to see BTK banned, for all the reasons I've stated before: 
Banning is meaningless on a forum like this one, because anyone can come back under a different name. Banning is a form of shunning, which can have serious and unintended psychological consequences. Banning can involve erasing all of a person's writing here, into which they may have put a lot of time and research. Banning a person who shows signs of maliciousness and viciousness and paranoia usually will motivate the person to come back only to seek vengeance on everyone they think was involved in their "excommunication" or "disfellowshipping" from the forum. In practice that has meant attacks on persons who were not even interested in the matter.  So, for these reasons, I recommend the following so that BTK and cohorts are not banned. I recommend that the posts related to the malicious attempt to expose personal legal issues and troubles be removed.
I will remove all related posts within 24 hours, unless both parties to this matter request that they remain. 

@BTK59 ( @George88 ) ( @BillyTheKid-55 ) ( @Allen Smith ) ( @AllenSmith35 ), etc., etc., etc., etc. --
and @Pudgy ( @James Thomas Rook Jr. ),
I once got in trouble from an Admin here for revealing that @TrueTomHarley was from Rochester, based on the assumption that I had used a moderator's ability to read I.P. addresses. I got out of trouble by showing that TTH had himself made posts claiming he was from Rochester.
It is considered very bad forum etiquette to reveal information or attempt to reveal personal information about a forum participant that isn't something they bring up about themselves. If it is specifically to reveal something negative, it is clearly malicious. Because it also goes against the rules of the forum, BTK59 and his cohorts might end up getting banned. I don't want to see BTK banned, for all the reasons I've stated before: 
Banning is meaningless on a forum like this one, because anyone can come back under a different name. Banning is a form of shunning, which can have serious and unintended psychological consequences. Banning can involve erasing all of a person's writing here, into which they may have put a lot of time and research. Banning a person who shows signs of maliciousness and viciousness and paranoia usually will motivate the person to come back only to seek vengeance on everyone they think was involved in their "excommunication" or "disfellowshipping" from the forum. In practice that has meant attacks on persons who were not even interested in the matter.  So, for these reasons, I recommend the following so that BTK and cohorts are not banned. I recommend that the posts related to the malicious attempt to expose personal legal issues and troubles be removed.
I will remove all related posts within 24 hours, unless both parties to this matter request that they remain. 

@BTK59 ( @George88 ) ( @BillyTheKid-55 ) ( @Allen Smith ) ( @AllenSmith35 ), etc., etc., etc., etc. --
and @Pudgy ( @James Thomas Rook Jr. ),
I once got in trouble from an Admin here for revealing that @TrueTomHarley was from Rochester, based on the assumption that I had used a moderator's ability to read I.P. addresses. I got out of trouble by showing that TTH had himself made posts claiming he was from Rochester.
It is considered very bad forum etiquette to reveal information or attempt to reveal personal information about a forum participant that isn't something they bring up about themselves. If it is specifically to reveal something negative, it is clearly malicious. Because it also goes against the rules of the forum, BTK59 and his cohorts might end up getting banned. I don't want to see BTK banned, for all the reasons I've stated before: 
Banning is meaningless on a forum like this one, because anyone can come back under a different name. Banning is a form of shunning, which can have serious and unintended psychological consequences. Banning can involve erasing all of a person's writing here, into which they may have put a lot of time and research. Banning a person who shows signs of maliciousness and viciousness and paranoia usually will motivate the person to come back only to seek vengeance on everyone they think was involved in their "excommunication" or "disfellowshipping" from the forum. In practice that has meant attacks on persons who were not even interested in the matter.  So, for these reasons, I recommend the following so that BTK and cohorts are not banned. I recommend that the posts related to the malicious attempt to expose personal legal issues and troubles be removed.
I will remove all related posts within 24 hours, unless both parties to this matter request that they remain. 

My overall point is that most Witnesses I know in the United States are very political and don't even know it. Often much more political than their neighbors who vote. There are certain limits to what we will say about our political views, but I think we don't recognize that those political views often come out inadvertently in other ways.
In fact, I've seen strong political views among Witnesses who only use the line "we don't take sides in politics" when they wish to shut down an argument they disagree with.
My parents and many relatives were of the type that said they wouldn't be fooled by all the lies and exaggerations from MS-NBC supposedly on the "progressive left." Nor the lies and exaggerations from FOX News on the supposedly "conservative right." But that didn't stop them from being fooled by thinking that CNN was not mostly "state-sponsored media" that would cherry-pick stories now and then to keep up the ruse that they weren't. As long as they continued to support corporate sponsors, including "Big Pharma" and "Big Military Industrial Complex," it was clear what side they were going to take. And although Trump was golden to all networks for his ability to spout controversy, one of his biggest sins for CNN was the fact that he went 4 years without getting the USA involved in any new wars. 
We were watching CNN once, not on purpose, and although many segments were introduced with "Brought to you by Pfizer" one was introduced "Brought to you by McDonnell-Douglas." As if any of us watching were about to go out and buy McDonnell-Douglas fighter jets and missiles for accessories. Of course, even the segments brought to you by Pfizer weren't really for any of us to be swayed in our pharmacy choices, either. As with all corporate media, those ads are really just payments to CNN; they are all just a way for corporations to PAY (bribe) the news writers and commentators to realize on which side their bread is buttered. They are merely buying influence.
----
All this was probably just my own rationale to excuse my own tendency to throw in opinions about politics, politicians, and the mainstream corporate media. There are no easy answers to how someone should go about getting their news, or how to feed their own opinions. But I would be happy to hear about the various sources people use when trying to find the "truth" about various world events. 

It doesn’t matter. No matter what the topic is or where it is, it always boils down to a squabble with George.

A brilliant analysis, TrueTom. Absolutely spot-on! Of course, all of your posts are and I have come to expect no less of you.

I always take a topic I'm reading, and if I want to share something about a related subject, I just click on "Create a New Topic" from there. If it was about music, I'll make the new topic about music; if it was about JWs, I'll make it about JWs. I don't usually care what Club it's in, if any. I must have been reading a topic about JWs and just clicked "Create a New Topic" without looking at the Club.
When I saw that the topic was not in the JW Closed or JW Open "Club" I tried to move it in the same way I can move a post to another topic. The pulldown menu I get for moving it allows me to move it to the "JW Topics" or JWs Only Topics." [farther down on the list]
I picked "JW Topics" but it didn't move it to the "Club."
Anyway, I wanted it in the Open Club because I wanted George/BTK/etc to feel free to complain openly about it. (I have to admit, this was my actual thought and reason before moving it, because I had referenced him obliquely in the opening paragraph. He has made so many specific condemnations of against Fox News and Trump, for example.)
 

 
 

This will be my last point on this topic here, unless you continue to make further references to me, as you have done so many times already. 
After what you have said above, this is a good place to summarize the most important points again. You say that the organization holds steadfast to the numbers in the Bible. This is true, because the Bible offers a fairly complete relative chronology with very few places where one must resort to interpretation to complete a relative chronology from Adam to Zedekiah, or even Jehoiachin's 37th year of exile, or at the very latest, 70 years after the destruction of the Temple, referenced in Zechariah 1:8 landing on the . . .On the 24th day of the 11th month, that is, the month of Sheʹbat, in the second year of Da·riʹus. . .). 
So there is a long stretch of relative dates. But there are no BC/BCE dates in the Bible. There is no Bible-based way to connect any BCE dates to our day, or even to the time of Jesus. There are no indications in the Bible that would give us the BC/BCE dates. Even the WTS relies both directly and indirectly on records from Babylonian/Persian/Greek ASTRONOMY to link the Bible accounts to any BCE date. If we claim they are from unreliable records, then that means that our own claims about any BCE dates are just as unreliable.
So it is wrong to say that the WTS stance is grounded in divine guidance. The Watchtower's BCE dates are grounded in Babylonian astronomy. However, the dates used by the WTS are cherry-picked so that astronomy-based BCE dates are accepted only as long they are AFTER about 560 BCE, and all dates PRIOR to 560 BCE only presented after adding 20 years to them.
Personally, I have no problem with the claim that the 70 years of servitude to Babylon ran from 607 to 587. That seems to be the right time period supported by astronomy. [And I have no problem with the astronomy evidence that says Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587, and the astronomical evidence that Darius' 2nd year was about 518, which would explain the other 70-year period mentioned in Zechariah 1:7-12] And if someone wants to start a 2520 year period from 607, that's just an interpretation. No harm done. But the astronomy evidence the WTS relies on to get 539 also shows that 607 was NOT the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar's as we claim, but points to a year in which there was no such thing as a King Nebuchadnezzar. He didn't become king for another two years. 
The claim that the astronomy evidence might be wrong or unreliable is one thing. But it's problematic to claim that only a tiny percentage of that data is correct. Especially because the part we accept is the part that is MOST prone to the errors the WTS makes use of to dismiss the much larger set of excellent evidence. We dismiss literally ALL the evidence which is not as prone to those same errors. We even say we can make "pivotal" dates from the more error-prone evidence, but that we must also ignore the better parts of that same "pivotal" evidence in places where we don't like what it tells us.
If we merely claimed that the WTS has divine guidance and that's what it completely relies on, then that might be a difficult concept for some, but it would not be so problematic. It only becomes problematic when we try to impeach the very evidence we make use of. The WTS uses WT articles that try to show that the same evidence might mean two different things. That shows that we somehow "need" the Babylonian evidence to support us. And we have even followed Furuli's folly in order to make a FALSE claim about VAT 4956. This was really disingenuous, not just because  the claims were 100% FALSE, but because VAT 4956 is only one of a dozen different completely independent sources for the entire set of astronomical dates for Nebuchadnezzar's reign. 
Of course, I can't fault any of us for not understanding this. Very few of us will try to look into it for ourselves. And I'm no expert, and I fell for the same bits of false reasoning that made me think we were right and the rest of the world was wrong. But it's those false claims that we are right because "the Bible tells us so" or that "divine guidance tells us so" that will continue to embarrass us for anyone who goes to the trouble to check out the evidence.
As I said, I'm no expert, but it doesn't take one. It's a very straightforward thing to look up the astronomical evidence for ourselves and tell others what we found. Any junior high school student could do it. You don't need that much education. You don't need to be an expert. So there is obviously a reason that almost no Witnesses will ever go to the trouble of looking up any of the Babylonian observations we pretend to rely on. You haven't done it, or if you have you won't admit what you found. Scholar JW won't do it. The GB won't do it. The GB Helpers won't do it.
JWs are intelligent. And yet almost none of them dare to do it. If they do, they don't dare admit publicly what they found out. There are just a couple of exceptions to that rule. And we see what happens to them.
As for me, I don't think it's right to learn something and not be able to share it. I think that if we love the organization, if we love the brotherhood, and if we love Jehovah who is a lover of truth, we would share our concerns. We shouldn't want the organization to be embarrassed by having made a man-made obsession about something so trivial and unnecessary. The WTS should never have made such a big deal out of a secular, man-made set of dates. 
As for me, I will follow Psalm 26:
26 Judge me, O Jehovah, for I myself have walked in my own integrity,
And in Jehovah I have trusted, that I may not wobble.
 2  Examine me, O Jehovah, and put me to the test;
Refine my kidneys and my heart.
 3  For your loving-kindness is in front of my eyes,
And I have walked in your truth.
 4  I have not sat with men of untruth;
And with those who hide what they are I do not come in.
...
 8  Jehovah, I have loved the dwelling of your house
And the place of the residing of your glory.
...
11  As for me, in my integrity I shall walk.
O redeem me and show me favor.
12  My own foot will certainly stand on a level place;
Among the congregated throngs I shall bless Jehovah.

Try not to manipulate my words with your usual tactics. I said: "I’m sure you know by now that there is absolutely nothing in the diary indicating the year 588."
I said this in direct response to your claim that the events on the tablet indicated 588. You said that the events on the tablet indicated 588. You said:
"You can reference VAT 4956." . . .  "Why is this so significant? Pay extremely close attention to the language inscribed on this tablet" . . . "Year 37 of Nebukadnezzar, King of Babylon. Month I," . .  "Additional reports in this Diary include . . . Borsippa, . . . .This indicates that the conflict in that region in 588 . . . "
No, you didn't actually say that. Besides I have no argument about 587. I only point out that ALL the astronomical evidence from the entire period shows that this was Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. You have never made an argument (either valid or invalid) that "my argument about 587 can also be interpreted as 588." 
Not that it matters in the least, but Borsippa is NOT way further in distance from Jerusalem. It's about 10 miles CLOSER "as the crow flies" and nearly the same distance using the usual travel routes of the time. Perhaps that's why no one mentioned it before. However, even here, I have already posted the entire contents of the tablet, including the reference to Borsippa. Not that it matters. 
I certainly hope so!

That's completely false.
You invariably attempt to weasel your way out of your false statements by claiming that someone has distorted your words. You make false claims about them and claim that they are the ones in the wrong. Then you bluster with some barely-related material hoping it impresses someone (or yourself) into thinking you are some kind of expert or authority. That barely-related material you make use of invariably says nearly the opposite of what you had claimed, which you should have known had you just read the context, or understood what you were reading. 
I'll get to the specifics at a later time on this particular point, but it is nearly the same as with almost all these matters. I have learned to expect you to NEVER admit an error, no matter how much evidence is shown. I don't expect you to admit your error on these recent points, but your "style" provides a revealing display of the lengths people will go to, in order to support a pseudo-chronology.   

Convoluted and muddy thinking again: You say that if we can assume the tablet was 568 this suggests that the king was in his palace to issue the order for Borsippa. But 20 years earlier, a runner would have to run for weeks or a month to get that order from Judah for 588, a date historically suggested for Nebuchadnezzar's army to be sieging Jerusalem. 
So your basic point is that, yes it might make sense for 568, the astronomical date for his 37th year, but if we want his 37th year to be twenty years earlier, in his 17th year in 588, when he might be there with his army at Jerusalem. And even though this is more difficult because a runner would have to take up to a month for the message (and a month to get back), then that means that his 37th year could also be his 17th year, and we can therefore use the 588 date for that same event.
 If anyone here believes that to be a valid argument, they simply have no business discussing the topic.
Besides, your only response always boils down to just name-calling, and flailing on about how I misrepresented your words, while ignoring your own words, and then (ironically) blatantly misrepresenting my words. And everyone can also see the immature "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I?" projection tactics. Typical. 

Lol, so true!
 
I always found it funny when we get articles about staying neutral, as if we must not get upset when governments do bad things.

We all know that ultimately all governments will be removed by Jesus,  but how should that stop us from voicing our opinion about certain current situations? It seems that the concern is that we don't get so involved, as to the point of taking sides, and forgetting Jesus's role in the future on the matter. But is that realistic? Would a Witness really do that? Forget? I know I wouldn't but perhaps some would? Then again with all the talk about Armageddon being just around the corner how could anyone forget?

Interestingly, the visiting branch Overseer that we just had at our assembly last weekend was going on about how bad all the governments are and that soon they will all be destroyed. My hubby whispered in my ear: "well that's going to endear us to them all" (he had in mind the situation in Norway in this instance). I thought maybe because this was just a small assembly there was no fear of a " little birdie" telling anyone how we can't wait for all the governments to be zapped. But then I started wondering how long will it be before some governments start getting irritated by that kind of talk? I mean isn't that what happened in Russia? We know Russia is no respecter of human rights and punish our people in a way Russians know best, but what about the more "civilized" nations that are becoming more and more "woke"?

I am thinking at this rate we may end up getting "attacked" first, before any other religions, lol. 

At the mid-week meeting we had the Bible reading that included Psalm 26. We also sang song #34.
It's a very beautiful melody, even though I have other favorites. What I like most about the song is that it follows the Psalm very closely. It's a good reminder that the words of the original Psalm 26 were also sung, even though we don't know the original melody. But the tune and music we use seem very appropriate for the tone of the Psalm itself. 
Last week, of course, we had this for the 23rd Psalm, too. And I think the same about that melody and how appropriate it is to the words of the Psalm. 

At the mid-week meeting we had the Bible reading that included Psalm 26. We also sang song #34.
It's a very beautiful melody, even though I have other favorites. What I like most about the song is that it follows the Psalm very closely. It's a good reminder that the words of the original Psalm 26 were also sung, even though we don't know the original melody. But the tune and music we use seem very appropriate for the tone of the Psalm itself. 
Last week, of course, we had this for the 23rd Psalm, too. And I think the same about that melody and how appropriate it is to the words of the Psalm. 

You might be right, but I have a feeling it was more of a carryover from the 1940's. This was a rough era for the Watchtower, and opposition could get crazy in some areas of the US. I don't know that they ever had much of a problem with intruders. The guards did their rounds at night, and couldn't turn on any lights, with just a flashlight through dark hallways and corridors. 
At Brooklyn Bethel, every four to six months, all single brothers (under 30, I think) would get an assignment for either night-time dish duty (to help out the overnight kitchen crew) or guard duty. I always traded my dish duty for night-time guard duty because it gave me the morning off the next day, and I hate doing dishes. But we had no weapons and were told never to approach an intruder, just call the police. In fact, it was just a matter of walking around with a key and turning it into a "time-clock" at a location on two ends of each floor, and making that round two or three times during the night. If we found windows open we were to close them, and if we found any lights left on we were to turn them off, of if we smelled an excess of 'flammables' we could turn on a light and investigate. I was told that making these rounds reduced our insurance rates considerably. The closest thing to an intruder I ever found was a Bethelite who had stayed in the Squibb factory building overnight to hide away in a dark place with someone I assumed was his girlfriend. 

I think we can take Geo Jackson’s words as a template. ‘You don’t want to take sides,’ he says, and to show the challenge of keeping neutral, he uses the example of contesting politicians in Australia, one of whom wanted to draft people of Jackson’s age into the military and one of whom did not. Now that would test your resolve to stay neutral, he said, nonetheless you must do it.
If he was as ignorant of politics as some seem to think is the gold standard, he would not have even known which politician’s views would be to his benefit and which one would not. Of course, I leaned into him on this point, informing him that:
I’m sure he gave my words all the consideration they deserved before instantly turning his attention to other matters.

I always get confused when a Subaru comes up behind me because in my rear view mirror it says U R A BUS. 

You might be right, but I have a feeling it was more of a carryover from the 1940's. This was a rough era for the Watchtower, and opposition could get crazy in some areas of the US. I don't know that they ever had much of a problem with intruders. The guards did their rounds at night, and couldn't turn on any lights, with just a flashlight through dark hallways and corridors. 
At Brooklyn Bethel, every four to six months, all single brothers (under 30, I think) would get an assignment for either night-time dish duty (to help out the overnight kitchen crew) or guard duty. I always traded my dish duty for night-time guard duty because it gave me the morning off the next day, and I hate doing dishes. But we had no weapons and were told never to approach an intruder, just call the police. In fact, it was just a matter of walking around with a key and turning it into a "time-clock" at a location on two ends of each floor, and making that round two or three times during the night. If we found windows open we were to close them, and if we found any lights left on we were to turn them off, of if we smelled an excess of 'flammables' we could turn on a light and investigate. I was told that making these rounds reduced our insurance rates considerably. The closest thing to an intruder I ever found was a Bethelite who had stayed in the Squibb factory building overnight to hide away in a dark place with someone I assumed was his girlfriend. 

It’s amazing how people like Joe Rogan have become better than most modern journalists. I’d listen to him more but his show is too long for me and I need a summary first.  I met Dr Peter McCullough in Tampa when he was staying directly across from my wife and I in our hotel room. My son and I talked to him in the lobby briefly. I am not quite as impressed with him now that he has tried some questionable methods to turn his own work into a money-making machine. But Rogan and McCullough were both very good sources about Covid. 

I am more and more impressed with Tucker on the majority of his current shows: Putin, covid, exposing the idiocy of Christian Zionist supporters, etc  He is going where no man with his popularity has gone before.
Alexander Mercurion is another example of the best news commentary on the Ukraine war but he is too detailed and will give a two hour program on the day's battles and predictions and comment on both sides of the news reports. You get a much better sense of who is doing more spinning and who is doing more straightforward reporting. It's useful, or at least interesting, but who can give 10 hours a week?
Scott Ritter does well with shorter summaries on shows with Danny Haiphong for example. But his own super-pro-Russian biases come through too often. 
There are a couple of excellent resources for Gaza-Israel reporting from people who have lived and worked in both Palestine and Israel. But people tend to defend the indefensible even if they are generally giving correct info. They try to read excuses into bad actions by Hamas. Scott Ritter does this too. 

Page 152 of the book Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, edited by Kathryn Bard has the following information. You quoted from this in the first post of this topic, as I just requoted above, and you said it should be marked as pivotal. 
I'm wondering why you consider a date to be pivotal when, if pivotal, it would completely demolish the "chronology" used by the Watchtower.  
/* Setting the table width to 100% of its container */ table { width: 100%; border-collapse: collapse; /* Collapses the border between cells */ } /* Setting each table header and data cell to take 50% of the table width */ th, td { width: 50%; text-align: left; /* Aligns text to the left */ } Your source for the "pivotal" timeline quote. Page 152.
Watchtower publications. Dates are 20 years different from your "pivotal" ones.


*** ad p. 325 Chronology ***
to synchronize Assyrian and Biblical history . . . particularly for the period . . . to 649 B.C.E [Assyrian power ends around 649 per WTS, not your pivotal timeline in 629]
*** ad p. 175 Babylon ***
Under the control of the Assyrian World Power, Babylon figured in various struggles and revolts. Then . . . Nabopolassar founded a new dynasty in Babylon about 645 B.C.E. [Note 645 here, not 625 when Nabopolassar began per your pivotal timeline in the fourth year after Ashurbanipal died in 629.]
*** it-1 p. 205 Assyria ***
. . . in the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.) [Note 632 here, not 612 per your pivotal information], Ashur-uballit II attempted to continue Assyrian rule from Haran as his capital city. This chronicle states, under the 17th year of Nabopolassar (629 B.C.E.): 
*** it-2 pp. 482-483 Necho(h) ***
A pharaoh of Egypt . . . Nechos (Necho) was the son of Psammetichus (Psamtik I) and succeeded his father as ruler of Egypt. Toward the close of Josiah’s 31-year reign (659-629 B.C.E.), [Note 630/629 here, not 610 per your pivotal information] Pharaoh Necho was on his way to help the Assyrians at the river Euphrates. 
 
*** it-1 p. 238 Babylon ***
In 632 B.C.E. Assyria was subdued by this new Chaldean dynasty, with the assistance of Median and Scythian allies. In 625 B.C.E., [note 625 here, not 605 per your pivotal information] Nabopolassar’s eldest son, Nebuchadnezzar (II), defeated Pharaoh Necho of Egypt at the battle of Carchemish, and in the same year he assumed the helm of government. 
 

 
    I find it a bit hypocritical when you attempt all this name-calling, and attempts to insult anyone who accepts the evidence for the timeline on the left. Yet you yourself call that timeline "pivotal."
If you accept that the evidence for it is pivotal, fine. But why insult and denigrate anyone else who happens to agree with that timeline?
You will note that 607 is PRIOR to the 605 battle of Carchemish by two years in your pivotal timeline. Yet the Watchtower publications put that 605 battle in 625. Therefore Nebuchadnezzar was not even a king in 607 BCE. (Per your own pivotal timeline.)

Okay, so I know this post is not addressed to me, having never been a Bethel member, but I did visit there once, as a young man, and dined with them. I quickly got the sense of the food-plate flow, that after prayer, everyone picked up the serving dish nearest him or her, helped themselves, then passes it around till all ten people had been served. So, when dessert came, strawberries, I saw the plate start with the person on my immediate left and head clockwise. When it finally makes its way to me, I knew everyone had had their shot, so what remained was mine. Alas—I did not realize that some postpone their desserts and have it later!
So here I am, munching away, when someone says, ‘Hey! Who took all the strawberries?!’ Whereupon, I looked up, strawberries hanging from my mouth, and made like Chuck Berry: 
“It wasn't me, Sarge. Uhm-uhm, Sarge, it wasn't me. It must have been some other body, Uh, uh, Sarge, it wasn't me.”
 

At the mid-week meeting we had the Bible reading that included Psalm 26. We also sang song #34.
It's a very beautiful melody, even though I have other favorites. What I like most about the song is that it follows the Psalm very closely. It's a good reminder that the words of the original Psalm 26 were also sung, even though we don't know the original melody. But the tune and music we use seem very appropriate for the tone of the Psalm itself. 
Last week, of course, we had this for the 23rd Psalm, too. And I think the same about that melody and how appropriate it is to the words of the Psalm.