Anna

But today becomes tomorrow and one day we may be calling this the the manna of old. So really, what you are saying is that what we have now is good enough for the present time, but it could be replaced by something else in the future. In that case, it would be more truthful to call this spiritual food speculations, ideas and conjecture rather than facts and truths. 

I would also guess that 1914 is here to stay because 
1. WW1, which is "on the ground" evidence as Arauna calls it, (even though originally it was supposed to be Armageddon).
2. Jesu's enthronement was invisible, so can't be disproved.
3. Most Witnesses don't have a clue about how we arrived at 1914 and of those who do, have no clue how we arrive at 607, and the few of those who do, have no clue as to why historians arrive at 587....and those even fewer who do, well...they are too few to make a difference...

I would also guess that 1914 is here to stay because 
1. WW1, which is "on the ground" evidence as Arauna calls it, (even though originally it was supposed to be Armageddon).
2. Jesu's enthronement was invisible, so can't be disproved.
3. Most Witnesses don't have a clue about how we arrived at 1914 and of those who do, have no clue how we arrive at 607, and the few of those who do, have no clue as to why historians arrive at 587....and those even fewer who do, well...they are too few to make a difference...

VAT4956 illustrates exactly what direction one needs to go to get to exactly the 18th and to get to exactly to the 19th year. That's the thing about an astronomical diary that tells you what year aligns to Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year. From there you know what direction you need to go to reach the 18th and 19th years or any other prior year in his reign. And it does this from the front side. It does this from the back side. And it does this from both sides.
If you go back to the post you made here on Saturday, 12/23, the one with the Map of the Ancient Near East, you can see that you went from a mistaken or unproven premise and then said that this [false premise] was why VAT4956 tells us nothing about the 18-19 years, and that VAT4956 can only be used to show what his first (accession) year was. As you said:
While it's true that knowing his 37th year was 568 will also tell you that his accession year was 605, it ALSO tells you that:
his first year was 604 and his 18th year was 587 and his 19th year was 586 and his 36th year was 569 and his 35th year was 570. It pinpoints which year matches every regnal year from 605 to 568. Claiming otherwise is a math mistake just as false as claiming that 4+1=6, or worse, really. It is the same as saying: If 568+37 = 605, then 568+36=0 [nothing] and 568+1=0[nothing] and 568+19=0[nothing]. You made an incorrect conjecture, rather than basing what you said on scholarly findings or scripture or simple math.
This is "word salad" with non-sequiturious dressing. 
We can if it will help. But for nearly half its existence the Watchtower, along with educated people like Fred Franz, believed and promoted a "Bible" chronology that we now admit is false. Franz, Russell, Rutherford all had plenty of Bible understanding, yet two of them taught a Bible chronology until they died, that the Watchtower now considers to be false. They used the term "absolute" and "God's dates, not ours" incorrectly. An archaeologist can correctly make use of the term "absolute" even if they are talking about a style of canoe made in New Guinea. They need absolutely no Bible understanding to use the term with its correct scholarly meaning.
Quite the opposite of justifying how contradictory it would be. You are veering off into bad math again. VAT4956 tells you to start . . .
his 17th year in 588, his 18th year in 587 his 19th year in 586 his 20th year in 585 his 27th year in 578 his 37th year in 568 If you really can't see where it does "indicate in VAT4956 where one should start to view 587 BC specifically," then you shouldn't be  talking about contradictory evidence or what VAT4956 does and does not indicate. Secular chronology does not place the 18th and 19th year where it "wishes."
More word salad.
This is irrelevant to the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. Would you say that the Watchtower publications are biased because they look at the books of Kings and Chronicles with errors? Note, how the Insight book inserts the bracketed words "actually, the fifteenth" instead of "the thirty-fifth" year of Asa. If you read "Insight" you will see that it suggests that the Bible contains scribal errors in several other books, too.
*** it-1 p. 184 Asa ***
So, too, the apparent difference between the statement at 2 Chronicles 15:19 to the effect that, as for “war, it did not occur down to the thirty-fifth [actually, the fifteenth] year of Asa’s reign,” It is not necessary to read the rest of this post, but it covers not even half of the potential scribal errors that the Watchtower publications have made reference to in the attempt to correct errors in the Bible text. I'm sure you are aware that there is even a chronology "glitch" in the book of Daniel that the Watchtower publications have discussed at length so that the meaning we give this verse is quite different from the actual statements in Daniel.
*** it-1 p. 412 Capital ***
(1Ki 7:15, 16) In view of the passages indicating that the capitals were five cubits high, a number of scholars have concluded that the reference to “three cubits” in 2 Kings 25:17 is a scribal error. That is why some Bible translations (for example, JB, NAB) have replaced “three cubits” with “five cubits.” *** it-1 p. 570 Daleth ***
The fourth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. There is considerable similarity between the letters daʹleth [ד] and rehsh [ר], allowing for possible scribal errors in copying. This may account for various differences in spelling, such as that of the “Rodanim” at 1 Chronicles 1:7 and the “Dodanim” at Genesis 10:4. *** it-1 p. 619 Deuel ***
In the Masoretic text and the Syriac Peshitta, he is called “Reuel” at Numbers 2:14. This may be due to a scribal error, since the Hebrew letters for “D” and “R” are very similar and the name “Deuel” does, in fact, appear at Numbers 2:14 in the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Latin Vulgate, and over a hundred Hebrew manuscripts. *** it-1 pp. 626-627 Dimon ***
. . . Dibon did not stand by any large “waters,” it being a considerable distance from the nearest wadi, the Arnon. They suggest, therefore, that Dimon may be a scribal alteration of Madmen, mentioned in Jeremiah’s condemnation of Moab (Jer 48:2), and usually identified with Dimna, about 4 km (2.5 mi) WNW of Rabbath-Moab, on a height dominating the waters of the ʽAin el-Megheisil to the SE.  Both views are conjectural, the latter having in its favor identification with a site associated with waters, which the context seems to require. *** it-1 p. 706 Elhanan ***
In 2 Samuel 21:19 Elhanan is identified as “the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite,” and it is said that he struck down Goliath. However, many scholars think that the original reading of 2 Samuel 21:19 corresponded to 1 Chronicles 20:5, the differences in the two texts having arisen through scribal error. *** it-1 p. 718 Elishama ***
This Elishama is listed as Elishua in 2 Samuel 5:15, in 1 Chronicles 14:5, and in two Hebrew manuscripts at 1 Chronicles 3:6. Elishua is generally considered to be the correct name, as the name Elishama appears again in 1 Chronicles 3:8 and therefore could easily have crept into verse 6 through a scribal error. *** it-1 p. 929 Gibeah ***
The Hebrew spellings of Geba (masculine form of the word meaning “Hill”) and Gibeah (feminine form of the term meaning “Hill”) are almost identical. Many believe that this has resulted in scribal errors in the Masoretic text and therefore recommend changing certain scriptures to read “Geba” instead of “Gibeah,” and vice versa. *** it-1 p. 1015 Hadadezer ***
This could account for their being called “horsemen” at 2 Samuel 10:18 and “men on foot” at 1 Chronicles 19:18. The difference in the number of Syrian charioteers killed in battle is usually attributed to scribal error, the lower figure of 700 charioteers being considered the correct one. *** it-1 p. 1015 Hadadezer ***
The variation in the enumeration of these at 2 Samuel 8:4 and 1 Chronicles 18:4 may have arisen through scribal error. In the Greek Septuagint both passages indicate that 1,000 chariots and 7,000 horsemen were captured, and therefore 1 Chronicles 18:4 perhaps preserves the original reading. *** it-1 p. 1145 Horse ***
However, David’s son and successor, Solomon, began to accumulate thousands of horses. (1Ki 4:26 [here “forty thousand stalls of horses” is generally believed to be a scribal error for “four thousand”]; compare 2Ch 9:25.) *** it-1 p. 1166 Ibleam ***
. . . (Jos 21:25) reads “Gath-rimmon” instead of “Bileam” or “Ibleam.” Generally this is attributed to scribal error, “Gath-rimmon,” the name of a city in Dan, probably having been inadvertently repeated from verse 24. *** it-1 p. 1239 Jaare-oregim ***
A name appearing only at 2 Samuel 21:19. It is generally believed that scribal error has given rise to this name and that the correct reading is preserved in the parallel text at 1 Chronicles 20:5. “Jaare” is considered to be an alteration of “Jair,” and “oregim” (ʼo·reghimʹ, “weavers” or “loom workers”) is thought to have been copied inadvertently from a line below in the same verse. *** it-2 p. 87 Johanan ***
Grandson of Eliashib, the high priest contemporary with Nehemiah. His being called Jonathan in Nehemiah 12:11 is probably due to a scribal error, as the names “Johanan” and “Jonathan” are very similar in Hebrew. *** it-2 p. 113 Josheb-basshebeth ***
There are other scribal difficulties with the text in 2 Samuel 23:8, making it necessary for the obscure Hebrew in the Masoretic text (which appears to read, “He was Adino the Eznite”) to be corrected to read “He was brandishing his spear.” (NW) Other modern translations read similarly. (AT; RS; Mo; Ro, ftn; JB) Thus Samuel is made to agree with the book of Chronicles and with the construction pattern in this section of material. It is “the three” that are being discussed, but to introduce another name, Adino, makes four. *** it-2 p. 177 Kite ***
The Deuteronomy list contains ra·ʼahʹ in place of da·ʼahʹ, as in Leviticus, but this is considered to be probably due to a scribal substitution of the Hebrew equivalent of “r” (ר) for “d” (ד), the letters being very similar in appearance. And then there are more complicated errors to deal with when the text that is preferred for the NWT Hebrew Scriptures is based on the Masoretic text which makes changes from phrases like "Jehovah cursed" to "Jehovah blessed," and even makes changes like the following one:
*** it-2 p. 307 Manasseh ***
. A name appearing in the Masoretic text at Judges 18:30, because of scribal modification. The account concerns Danite apostasy, and the New World Translation says that “Jonathan the son of Gershom, Moses’ son, he and his sons became priests to the tribe of the Danites.” (See also AT; Mo; Ro; RS.) Jewish scribes inserted a suspended letter (nun = n) between the first two letters in the original Hebrew name so as to give the reading “Manasseh’s” instead of “Moses’,” doing so out of regard for Moses. The scribes thus sought to hide the reproach or disgrace that might be brought upon the name of Moses because of Jonathan’s action. In addition to the altered Masoretic text, “Manasseh’s” appears in the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209 of the Greek Septuagint and in the Syriac Peshitta. However, “Moses’” is found in the Alexandrine Manuscript of the Greek Septuagint and in the Latin Vulgate at Judges 18:30. *** it-2 p. 349 Mash ***
At 1 Chronicles 1:17 the Masoretic text reads “Meshech” instead of “Mash.” But this is probably a scribal error since Meshech is listed as a “son” of Japheth.—Ge 10:2; 1Ch 1:5. *** it-2 p. 396 Michmas(h) ***
According to 1 Samuel 13:5, the Philistine forces at Michmash included 30,000 war chariots. This number is far greater than that involved in several other military expeditions (compare Jg 4:13; 2Ch 12:2, 3; 14:9), and it is hard to imagine how so many war chariots could have been used in mountainous terrain. For this reason 30,000 is generally viewed as a scribal error. The Syriac Peshitta and the Lagardian edition of the Greek Septuagint read 3,000, and numerous Bible translations follow this rendering. (AT, JB, Mo) However, even lower figures have been suggested. *** it-2 p. 398 Mijamin ***
He may have founded the paternal house of Miniamin mentioned at Nehemiah 12:17 (where the name of the head of that house appears to have been an inadvertent scribal omission in the Hebrew text).  
*** it-2 p. 938 Shuppim ***
Since the last three characters of his name in Hebrew (Shup·pimʹ) are identical to the last three characters of the previous term (behth ha·ʼasup·pimʹ), scholars suspect that it is a dittograph (an unintentional scribal repetition), therefore, in this verse, not the name of a person.—Compare 1Ch 26:10, 11. *** it-2 p. 1112 Tob-adonijah ***
(2Ch 17:7-9) Reference to Adonijah and Tobijah in the same verse leads some scholars to believe this name is a scribal dittograph, that is, an inadvertent repetition. And of course there are other issues with the variations in manuscripts. The NWT shows "18 years" for both of the following, but several major texts actually show 8 years in 2 Chronicles 36:9 and 18 in 2 Kings 24:8.
(2 Kings 24:8) 8 Je·hoiʹa·chin was 18 years old when he became king, and he reigned for three months in Jerusalem. . . . (2 Chronicles 36:9) 9 Je·hoiʹa·chin was 8 years old when he became king, and he reigned for three months and ten days in Jerusalem. So the Watchtower publications speak very appreciatively of the critical textual studies by scholars that have helped to identify some of these scribal errors and correct them.
*** it-2 p. 313 Manuscripts of the Bible ***
Despite the care exercised by copyists of Bible manuscripts, a number of small scribal errors and alterations crept into the text. On the whole, these are insignificant and have no bearing on the Bible’s general integrity. They have been detected and corrected by means of careful scholastic collation or critical comparison of the many extant manuscripts and ancient versions. Critical study of the Hebrew text of the Scriptures commenced toward the end of the 18th century. Where possible, the Watchtower publications seek to avoid admitting scribal errors even if we have no better explanation currently:
*** it-2 p. 489 Nehemiah, Book of ***
However, there are differences in the numbers given for each family or house, and the individual figures in both listings yield a total of far less than 42,360. Many scholars would attribute these variations to scribal errors. While this aspect cannot be completely ignored, there are other possible explanations for the differences. It may be that Ezra and Nehemiah based their listings on different sources. -----------NOTE------------
For anyone just scanning quickly across this  post and wondering why there is so much about scribal errors here, it's because I'm responding to Foreigner's assertion that if one looks at Scripture as if it might have error in it, then their scholarship cannot be trusted. Yet, there are literally more than a thousand places where the Watchtower believes that errors have crept into the Biblical texts that are relied upon to translate the NWT or any other Bible translation. This is one of the reasons the persons who have worked on scholarly Bible dictionaries and Bible translation itself have expressed appreciation for scholars who have looked into errors and potential errors. The assertion is therefore not true that just because a scholar might look into potential errors that this makes their scholarship automatically unstrustworthy.
 

But today becomes tomorrow and one day we may be calling this the the manna of old. So really, what you are saying is that what we have now is good enough for the present time, but it could be replaced by something else in the future. In that case, it would be more truthful to call this spiritual food speculations, ideas and conjecture rather than facts and truths. 

A snitch at Bethel told me 47 of those Helpers were caught shoplifting from boutiques last month and that was the reason for the article.
Also, CNBC has reported, or should have, that over 6000 boutiques went out of business last year due to customer theft. It is a crisis rivaling the one of opioids. A spokesman for the industry said: "If only more religious organizations would talk about how the flying scroll of Zechariah condemns stealing instead of trying to spin it in airheaded ways."

Yes. In my imaginary illustration, a coin that had the same date on both sides is giving the accurate minting date on both sides.
That's because I was making an illustration to match VAT 4956 which, on both sides, references the exact date on which the original observations were made. In the case of VAT 4956 it refers specifically to the same date of 568/7 for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar on both sides. The coin illustration was not really about coins, of course, it was an illustration about how honest you might consider me to be if I tried to pass off a coin that clearly said 587 as if it were a coin from 607 using the kinds of tactics I described. In real life, of course, an ancient coin cannot contain a B.C. date, and VAT 4956 is not a coin; it's a "text" or "diary" about a couple dozen astronomical observations. In fact, it's a later copy that has at least one minor error in it (which is one day off). 
VAT 4956 has a couple dozen observations on it, and all of them fit a specific year. It just so happens that all the other observations from Nebuchadnezzar's reign and the observations from all other Neo-Babylonian kings give us the same exact date. So we really don't even need VAT 4956 to see the chronology, but it's nice to know that it's further evidence and none of the evidence contradicts any of the other evidence.
You shouldn't say something like 2+1=4; and then "This" is why 2 dogs +1 dog = 4 dogs. It's true you could claim all kinds of possible alternative endings based on the premise that 2+1=4, but I mean that if your premise is unproven or false, then you should do the opposite of drawing a specific conclusion based on such a premise. Saying "this is why" or "therefore, this is true" after an unproven premise is "heavy-handed."
This can depend on the topic and the level of experience each scholar has in that particular topic area, whether it's the physics of making clay tablets, experience with hundreds of astronomical readings, Assyrian/Mesopotamian linguistics, paleography, etc. If none of the scholars have made any attempt to "discredit" scripture then this other point about finding "common ground" will be meaningless. Wiseman and Grayson have, evidently without even trying, translated documents of the Neo-Babylonian Empire that just happen to contain evidence for a Babylonian chronology that has a common ground with the scriptures. There is no contradiction between the secular chronology of Babylon and the Scriptures. In fact, it is the Watchtower chronology that creates more problems against the Biblical evidence. In effect, then it is the Watchtower chronology that, by comparison, attempts to "discredit" scripture, although I'm sure it's not on purpose. It's just that a higher priority is given to making 1914 appear to be right, than in being concerned about how the theory tends to contradict scripture. I think past posts in this thread and others on the same topic have already highlighted about 5 ways in which this has happened.
VAT 4956 pinpoints Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year to be 568/7. If you can pinpoint his 37th year then you can pinpoint his 18th to be 587/6, right? If you can pinpoint that my 37th year of life was in 1994, then you can also pinpoint that my 18th year was in 1975, right? If you don't know how to do this, you should admit this right away, and someone can always draw a chart.
So your only question is whether you believe that the destruction of Jerusalem was in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, or his 19th year, or some other year if you prefer. No matter which year you prefer, you can pinpoint it to a calendar year in the same way you can pinpoint his 37th year to be 568/7 from VAT 4956.
Outside of that, why should anyone care what Carl Jonsson says? Why should anyone care what any ex-JWs say? There are probably a MILLION ex-JWs (literally) who don't even know who this Carl Jonsson is, and could rightly care nothing about 607 or 587. What Carl Jonsson says is no different than what every other modern Neo-Babylonian scholar says about Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. It just depends on whether you choose Nebuchadnezzar's year 18 or 19 for the destruction of Jerusalem. Which year do you choose, by the way? For some reason this was a difficult question for 607 promoters when it came up the last few times.
Of course, the reason is obvious why someone should need to try to tie something to a specific person known as an "apostate" even if a million other non-religious persons and all other Neo-Babylonian scholars believe the same thing. Just for fun, everyone should look at a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Notice especially the ones under "Red Herring" and "ad hominem" including these, like, "poisoning the well":
Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument. Poisoning the well – a subtype of ad hominem presenting adverse information about a target person with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says. Abusive fallacy – a subtype of ad hominem that verbally abuses the opponent rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument. Appeal to motive – a subtype of ad hominem that dismisses an idea by questioning the motives of its proposer. Traitorous critic fallacy (ergo decedo) – a subtype of ad hominem where a critic's perceived affiliation is seen as the underlying reason for the criticism and the critic is asked to stay away from the issue altogether. Appeal to fear – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side Appeal to spite – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party. Judgmental language – insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment Good point. The FAITH of the Bible Student shouldn't depend on secular chronology. Yet, so many Witnesses think that the secular date 607 must somehow be "credited" to be true -- yet 607 is completely dependent on SECULAR chronology. To be sure, it requires that we use secular chronology and then requires that we make a mistake in the way we use it, but we can't get anywhere close to 607 without depending on secular chronology. The Watchtower even uses the premise that 539 is a kind of ABSOLUTE secular date from which we then count 70 years farther back to get the secular date for the time period starting 70 years earlier. Yet, you are right in your implication that no true Bible Student should need such secular dates like 539 and 607 for his faith.
The term "absolute" is used by archaeologists and astronomers who study historical texts like these to describe the ability to tie this entire period from Nebuchadnezzar's father, Nebuchadnezzar and down to Cyrus and beyond to specific years or ranges of years in our calendar, such as, 587, 597, 607, 617, 539, 529, etc. They do not use the term "absolute" because we need to put "faith" in it. The Watchower, on the other hand, has used the term "absolute" "reliable" and "pivotal" with respect to such secular dates like 539 with the idea that we should have "faith" in them -- that we have reason to "believe" in them.
You or Allen may have to come out of the tentative zone then and just explain clearly what it is you are trying to say. I believe I caught some of it from a set of previous posts, and Allen agreed to that part that I said I understood, but he also said he wasn't ready to present the entire theory yet. I can respect that, but it's not useful to make guesses here, because the entire thing could become a moving target until the theory is "nailed down" so to speak.
It's possible that Allen once thought of "scholar JW" as someone with the background to help validate or invalidate the theory through shared resources. If so, I can see another reason for a further delay. If asked, I'll be glad to see if I can help, as I have offered before. But otherwise I'll have no more to say on those ideas until the theory is spelled out. I should also mention again that I am offering to look up resources, test astronomical data, help look up variations in published translations, or any number of things. And as several others here can attest, I have had such conversations "on the side" completely in private, completely confidentially, without ever publicizing names or any of the content of those conversations. One such side conversation on this forum now contains 203 private posts as of today.

I know some who don't, but it is not a rule. I for one would never miss the Sistine chapel! 
While out on the ministry in England, as teenagers, we would sometimes stop and go inside a church and look for God's name in the big Bible by the pulpit. We would leave it open at Psalms 83.
 

I've had my own comments disallowed specifically for discussing moderation policy, which is often a sensitive subject for moderators. And some for engaging with a poster who appears bent on spamming his or her own blog address, and I'm inadvertently helping them out by discussing their blog.
And of course, that might mean that this very response won't last long. But I bring it up anyway because it was in this very thread where @allensmith28 (##?) was minding his own business and got an earful from @tromboneck. (I say, "earful" because it had somethng to do with a corn cob, if I remember correctly.) So, allen was actually the one being "protected" by the moderators. Not that allen needs protecting -- he can handle himself -- and not that tromboneck had really pushed the envelope as far as others have, either. Moderation can never be totally fair, and this is one of the reasons that I often wish it had never been used. When the topic of a discussion forum takes a turn toward the totally absurd, as this one nearly had, it often just means that some people are just too tired or too uncomfortable to deal with it seriously. Silliness sometimes sends a serious message.

No, it doesn't tell them that - how can you be such a child?
Still, I will concede that it is a bit, um - not subtle. But it teaches a lesson that adults have hammered at children since the beginning of time - pay attention. If you don't despise the cause you will have no problem with it.
The zealots of New York State bombard me with a host of PA's that regularly spoil my mood. One emphasizing the value of school shows  a little girl hopelessly lost in class because she missed some school. She can't even make out the teachers voice, which is muffled to her, as though she was underwater.  The concluding logo reads 'every minute of school matters.'
The poor child missed a few minutes of school and now she is dumb as a fence post. You should hunt up that video so you can complain about it.
 

Hi Shirley,
I'm not sure if you are still around given the sideline responses from the men who are prolific commenters but I thought I would respond since I'm a single sister over 50yo and can feel your pain.    
As we are all aware, Jehovah created men and women to have companionship and have an intimate partner to share our deepest feelings with, find support when we "fall" and some to share our joys and happiness.   However, right from the "get go", that purpose was thwarted by Satan and human selfishness.   That said, I know that lonely feeling and desire for close companionship, intimacy and a sense of security.    My experience and observation is that marriage isn't necessarily the cure for the void one feels as a single person so caution is necessary.   My moto is:  Men are like parking places, the good ones are taken and the rest are handicapped (-:    Don't get me wrong, I do think there are good single men out there but they are rare.   Personally, I have accepted the fact that I won't find that "rare" one, however, I know sisters (over 50yo)  who have found good partners and seem happy (but not problem free).   My cynicism is obvious I know, but it helps me focus on outward things instead of inward feelings.  I have a full life as a servant of Jehovah and have many interests that fill the "quiet times".   I accept that statistically my chances of finding a compatible mate are slim to none (Satan has done a great job of culling the male gender through ions of wars causing an uneven number of males to females), therefore, I refuse to let feelings of loneliness consume me.   
I hope I don't come across as lecturing you or seeming insensitive, but I  wanted you to get an idea of where I'm coming from.  I do understand your deep feelings and know we all cope in different ways.   As sisters, we can support each other by honestly sharing those feelings (which I'm glad you did), having a good cry and a good laugh ( I can be more humorous than I'm being right now).   So I would say, "Hang in there sis! "   - Agape - your sister in the Truth

True. If they had submitted to Babylon and paid their dues as they were supposed to, the city would have been left alone. Jer. 27:6-14.
--------------------------------------------------
But 597 BCE can be. This is where a dated event in the Bible and the same event dated in the Babylonian Chronicle coincide. The BCE year can be derived from dated astronomical tablets - the same method used for pinning BCE years on kings' reigns, Babylon's fall, and Jerusalem's destruction.

As a rule, I am neither obtuse or acute, but that doesn't mean I am always right. By any measure, however, it's always good to try angles of all kinds. I can even try scalene new heights!

Fortunately for her the old boy is married at the moment, hopefully for good.

Bored today JWI ? 

Yes, it is simple and clear, but I wish I could agree with you that it is also correct. I cannot logically reconcile the fact that WT agrees on 539, but has a problem with 587, if I am to believe that both dates are derived from the same sources. Why would one be false and the other true? It seems as illogical as saying 587 is a correct date, but 539 is a wrong date,  so we will count forward 70 years from 587, and insist that 517 is when Cyrus conquered Babylon.
 

Yes, it is simple and clear, but I wish I could agree with you that it is also correct. I cannot logically reconcile the fact that WT agrees on 539, but has a problem with 587, if I am to believe that both dates are derived from the same sources. Why would one be false and the other true? It seems as illogical as saying 587 is a correct date, but 539 is a wrong date,  so we will count forward 70 years from 587, and insist that 517 is when Cyrus conquered Babylon.
 

Yes, it is simple and clear, but I wish I could agree with you that it is also correct. I cannot logically reconcile the fact that WT agrees on 539, but has a problem with 587, if I am to believe that both dates are derived from the same sources. Why would one be false and the other true? It seems as illogical as saying 587 is a correct date, but 539 is a wrong date,  so we will count forward 70 years from 587, and insist that 517 is when Cyrus conquered Babylon.
 

Nothing against men, but women tend to be more humble, one of the prerequisites of being a follower of Christ. There are a host of other qualities that women posses in greater measure than men which make them better candidates, and there are some qualities that are typically more dominant in men that make them less likely candidates.
I don't think I have ever seen more men than women get baptised at any given convention or assembly that I have attended  in 30 years. Which obviously confirms my theory  

There are no rules of any sort.
Except for a family head who is authorized to set rules for his family. And since Bethel is a 'family' - many persons living in voluntary close quarters for a specific reason - there are quite a few rules there. But they do not carry over into the general congregation (though there are always some who would have it otherwise).
There is counsel and peer pressure. It will be (relevant to this thread) based on the concept many have noticed that men and women are attracted to each other, yet cannot enjoy the intimate closeness of sex relations unless married so it is best not to allow themselves to get all pumped up. The counsel varies from place to place and culture will have something to do with it.
If you enjoy privileges in the congregation - servant, pioneer - you will find that you are expected to be an example and you can lose privileges by flying in the face of such counsel as to what is locally acceptable or has been published. Otherwise, no.
Jehovah's people are not belligerent or headstrong and are not inclined to blow off counsel as nothing. Elders are not control freaks or micro-managers, though some are - in about the same proportion as the general population, I would guess. Efforts are made through training so as to get those ones to be less that way.
There is such a thing as 'brazen conduct' - it used to be translated 'loose conduct.' It has the air of contempt & outrageous disregard of customary standards & an in-your-face attitude. That can get a person in trouble. Since it is more vague than outright immorality, it will not always be applied consistently. But always it is associated with persistent defiance of accepted conduct - just look up the word 'brazen' to get a sense for it.
But it is never a matter of petty rules enforced by people who just like to meddle. Anyone like that jeopardizes his reputation as a reasonable person - one of the criteria for serving as an older man.
 
 

True. One big US insurance company calls itself The Rock. (and some actor does too)
They could have redeemed their policy.
(Psalm 78:35) 35 Remembering that God was their Rock And that the Most High God was their Redeemer.  

SPOING !

I don’t think trying to discredit 1914 is the reason. Not among serious Bible students and seekers of truth anyway. As for secular historians and scholars, logically, why would they be interested in discrediting 1914? Why should they care? I would think it’s only ex witnesses who would be happy to throw 1914 under the bus.
Personally, I have no interest in discrediting 1914, but I am interested in truth. Unfortunately, and this is the part that raises suspicions in my mind (regrettably), is that  607/1914 is going to remain an unverified subject, and because of that it will be accepted by most JWs without question. What I mean by that is how many JWs are in the position where they are able to investigate anything like this at more than a cursory level? Honestly? When someone starts to study the Bible with JWs and begins to investigate the Trinity, Hell fire, immortality of the soul etc. easy! But 607 is a whole different kettle of fish!
I would hazard a guess, and someone might have a better idea, but I think there can’t be more than 10% of JWs who are interested in Bible chronology to a deeper level. I personally know of no one, except maybe one brother, but I was a teenager at the time so I didn’t really pay much attention, but I know his library was full of history and scholastic books on the Bible and the Middle East. Thinking about it now, maybe the 10% is being generous; the real number might be nearer 1%. Chronology can't be everyone's hobby.  I don’t think this has anything to do with the level of intelligence of the friends but rather their focus. The average Witness just does not have the time to devote to researching this very involved subject. And most don’t have the desire. I wonder, how many have thoroughly read “When was ancient Jerusalem destroyed?”  part 1& 2 in the WT 11/10/1*  Probably a very few. And out of the very few, how many actually bothered to look up the references and do further research?  
I for one find it frustrating because I know I cannot contribute to this discussion in any meaningful way because I just do not have the time to acquire all the background knowledge I would need in order to do so. I mean, how many years did it take COJ to write his treatise? I can only do this in snippets of maybe an hour every other day, (if that) making notes and drawing diagrams. I know what it’s like to study a subject, but you have to be young free and single and living with your parents, or a guy and retired (women still have to cook and clean, generally).
So I think 607 will remain WT’s well hidden Achilles heel for a long while because of the majorities’ lack of interest, and those who might have interest; with work, taking care of family and all the theocratic activities, when would they find the time?
*  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011736
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011810

I don’t think trying to discredit 1914 is the reason. Not among serious Bible students and seekers of truth anyway. As for secular historians and scholars, logically, why would they be interested in discrediting 1914? Why should they care? I would think it’s only ex witnesses who would be happy to throw 1914 under the bus.
Personally, I have no interest in discrediting 1914, but I am interested in truth. Unfortunately, and this is the part that raises suspicions in my mind (regrettably), is that  607/1914 is going to remain an unverified subject, and because of that it will be accepted by most JWs without question. What I mean by that is how many JWs are in the position where they are able to investigate anything like this at more than a cursory level? Honestly? When someone starts to study the Bible with JWs and begins to investigate the Trinity, Hell fire, immortality of the soul etc. easy! But 607 is a whole different kettle of fish!
I would hazard a guess, and someone might have a better idea, but I think there can’t be more than 10% of JWs who are interested in Bible chronology to a deeper level. I personally know of no one, except maybe one brother, but I was a teenager at the time so I didn’t really pay much attention, but I know his library was full of history and scholastic books on the Bible and the Middle East. Thinking about it now, maybe the 10% is being generous; the real number might be nearer 1%. Chronology can't be everyone's hobby.  I don’t think this has anything to do with the level of intelligence of the friends but rather their focus. The average Witness just does not have the time to devote to researching this very involved subject. And most don’t have the desire. I wonder, how many have thoroughly read “When was ancient Jerusalem destroyed?”  part 1& 2 in the WT 11/10/1*  Probably a very few. And out of the very few, how many actually bothered to look up the references and do further research?  
I for one find it frustrating because I know I cannot contribute to this discussion in any meaningful way because I just do not have the time to acquire all the background knowledge I would need in order to do so. I mean, how many years did it take COJ to write his treatise? I can only do this in snippets of maybe an hour every other day, (if that) making notes and drawing diagrams. I know what it’s like to study a subject, but you have to be young free and single and living with your parents, or a guy and retired (women still have to cook and clean, generally).
So I think 607 will remain WT’s well hidden Achilles heel for a long while because of the majorities’ lack of interest, and those who might have interest; with work, taking care of family and all the theocratic activities, when would they find the time?
*  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011736
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011810

I don’t think trying to discredit 1914 is the reason. Not among serious Bible students and seekers of truth anyway. As for secular historians and scholars, logically, why would they be interested in discrediting 1914? Why should they care? I would think it’s only ex witnesses who would be happy to throw 1914 under the bus.
Personally, I have no interest in discrediting 1914, but I am interested in truth. Unfortunately, and this is the part that raises suspicions in my mind (regrettably), is that  607/1914 is going to remain an unverified subject, and because of that it will be accepted by most JWs without question. What I mean by that is how many JWs are in the position where they are able to investigate anything like this at more than a cursory level? Honestly? When someone starts to study the Bible with JWs and begins to investigate the Trinity, Hell fire, immortality of the soul etc. easy! But 607 is a whole different kettle of fish!
I would hazard a guess, and someone might have a better idea, but I think there can’t be more than 10% of JWs who are interested in Bible chronology to a deeper level. I personally know of no one, except maybe one brother, but I was a teenager at the time so I didn’t really pay much attention, but I know his library was full of history and scholastic books on the Bible and the Middle East. Thinking about it now, maybe the 10% is being generous; the real number might be nearer 1%. Chronology can't be everyone's hobby.  I don’t think this has anything to do with the level of intelligence of the friends but rather their focus. The average Witness just does not have the time to devote to researching this very involved subject. And most don’t have the desire. I wonder, how many have thoroughly read “When was ancient Jerusalem destroyed?”  part 1& 2 in the WT 11/10/1*  Probably a very few. And out of the very few, how many actually bothered to look up the references and do further research?  
I for one find it frustrating because I know I cannot contribute to this discussion in any meaningful way because I just do not have the time to acquire all the background knowledge I would need in order to do so. I mean, how many years did it take COJ to write his treatise? I can only do this in snippets of maybe an hour every other day, (if that) making notes and drawing diagrams. I know what it’s like to study a subject, but you have to be young free and single and living with your parents, or a guy and retired (women still have to cook and clean, generally).
So I think 607 will remain WT’s well hidden Achilles heel for a long while because of the majorities’ lack of interest, and those who might have interest; with work, taking care of family and all the theocratic activities, when would they find the time?
*  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011736
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011810