Jump to content
The World News Media

Recommended Posts

  • Member

Governing Body member Leo K. Greenlees was forced to resign and leave Bethel in late 1984. He entered the Toronto, Canada Bethel in 1936, eventually becoming treasurer of the Canadian branch and of the IBSA of Canada. In 1964 he went to Brooklyn Bethel, and in 1965 was elected as a director of the Society's New York corporation. As a director Greenlees automatically became a "governing body" member when that body was formally instituted in 1971. He often spoke at Gilead graduations, and was the concluding speaker for the day at the Watchtower Centennial business meeting at Three Rivers Stadium in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on October 6, 1984. A 1982 Watchtower mentions him as being on the Teaching Committee of the Governing Body. Greenlees' last mention in Watchtower publications is in the December 1, 1984 Watchtower where he is said to have passed out diplomas at the September Gilead graduation.

In late 1984, Greenlees was allegedly convicted by the rest of the Governing Body of molesting a ten year old boy. My information is that the boy's parents had complained to the Society and it took action. Greenlees was a friend of the family and often visited them. After leaving Bethel Greenlees served as a Special Pioneer and eventually an elder in the "Downtown" congregation in New Orleans, Louisiana. He died in the late 1980s.

Interestingly, the boy who Greenlees molested applied for Bethel service a few years later, around 1991, and was rejected. Watchtower leaders apparently feared that other Bethelites would tell him the 'rumors' about Greenlees, not knowing that he was Greenlees' victim, and cause the young man to know that justice had not been done. He might then have confirmed the rumors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 27.1k
  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Brother Greenlees and Brother Chitty are not mentioned in the Proclaimer's book. Interesting that Percy Chapman (included in the picture above) is still mentioned now and then, often in the same conte

I can respond to that since you appear to be drawing assumptions without having all the facts. I completely agree that one should go to the police when dealing with such issues involving a minor. In f

With regards to "being appointed by 'holy spirit,' a few things to keep in mind. A recent "Treasures From God's Word" stated: "The stars are under Jesus' full control, power, and direction." That COUL

Posted Images

  • Member

You told some of his story... here is more about the ending and a couple photos:

Leo Kincaid Greenlees

Birth: 06 June 1911 (It states " Other Country")

Death: 17 Feb 1988

SS# 081445620

SS Death Index states:

Last residence Brooklyn, Kings, New York USA

Burial: Modesto, Stanislaus County, California USA 

56e4cc3b6c543_ScreenShot2014-07-29at14.5

56e4cc3a9b6d6_ScreenShot2014-07-29at14.5

Leo Greenless, W. Glen How, Nathan H. Knorr, Percy Chapman

Governing Body member Leo K. Greenlees was forced to resign and leave Bethel in late 1984. He entered the Toronto, Canada Bethel in 1936, eventually becoming treasurer of the Canadian branch and of the IBSA of Canada. In 1964 he went to Brooklyn Bethel, and in 1965 was elected as a director of the Society's New York corporation. As a director Greenlees automatically became a "governing body" member when that body was formally instituted in 1971. He often spoke at Gilead graduations, and was the concluding speaker for the day at the Watchtower Centennial business meeting at Three Rivers Stadium in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on October 6, 1984. A 1982 Watchtower mentions him as being on the Teaching Committee of the Governing Body. Greenlees' last mention in Watchtower publications is in the December 1, 1984 Watchtower where he is said to have passed out diplomas at the September Gilead graduation. In late 1984, Greenlees was allegedly convicted by the rest of the Governing Body of molesting a ten year old boy. The boy's parents had complained to the Society and it took action. Greenlees was a friend of the family and often visited them. After leaving Bethel Greenlees served as a Special Pioneer and eventually an elder in the "Downtown" congregation in New Orleans, Louisiana. He died in the late 1980s. Interestingly, the boy who Greenlees molested applied for Bethel service a few years later, around 1991, and was rejected.


Note how Greenlees for instance, just disappeared from mention in Watchtower literature after 1984, and a January 1, 1986 WT article (p. 13), soon enough after that to be extremely suggestive, commented that: "Shocking as it is, even some who have been prominent in Jehovah's organization have succumbed to immoral practices, including homosexuality, wife swapping, and child molesting."

If someone calls Brooklyn Bethel and asks the Public Affairs Office about Chitty or Greenlees, it’s likely that the response will be, “We cannot comment on such personal matters.” However, if one were to make inquiry about someone who has never been accused of such bad conduct, and who is unlikely to be so tainted because of their general reputation, the PA Office’s response would be outright denial.

 


Obituary:
Note that the obituary does not include the fact that Greenlees was one of the Governing Body of JWs "at the World Headquarters" for over 20 years. 

GREENLEES, Leo Kincaid - Unexpectedly at his home in Ceres, California, died of a stroke. He was hospitalized at Modesta for only one day before passing away the 18th of February, 1988. He was born in Glasgow, Scotland 77 years ago but immigrated to Canada in 1929. In 1931 he took up the full-time Ministry as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. His ministry extended across Canada including many years at the Branch Office of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in Toronto. For over 20 years, he served at the World Headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses and travelled extensively around the world in an official capacity. He continued in the full-time service until his death. He leaves two sisters and two brothers and several nephews and nieces. He was well loved and appreciated by all he touched in his life. A memorial service will be held in Modesto, California on Saturday, February 20, 1988.
 



Greenlees had moved to the San Diego area after being quietly ousted from the Governing Body.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Brother Greenlees and Brother Chitty are not mentioned in the Proclaimer's book. Interesting that Percy Chapman (included in the picture above) is still mentioned now and then, often in the same context with Brother Greenlees. He was more "openly homosexual" to the dismay of Brother Knorr who continued to work with him anyway. I never knew that Brother Ewart Chitty was homosexual and assumed it was a rumor although I was told it was a fact by several. People also told me that Brother Greenlees was homosexual. In his case, there was good reason to believe them. But I never heard any facts for sure about the molestation charges, although it was a well-known rumor.

I should add, however, that there may be nothing wrong with trusting a homosexual brother to handle high levels of responsibility. The predisposition of someone should not disqualify them from responsibility as long as they can handle the responsibility without bringing reproach on Jehovah, on themselves, or others, and/or scandal upon the congregation. If a brother has already proven himself faithful and morally clean for many years, even if he struggles with sinful thoughts, then he is probably not so different from anyone else who was on the Governing Body at the time, even if these particular sins seem much more unexpected. Paul spoke of struggling with sin even as an apostle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Brother Greenlees and Brother Chitty are not mentioned in the Proclaimer's book. Interesting that Percy Chapman (included in the picture above) is still mentioned now and then, often in the same context with Brother Greenlees. He was more "openly homosexual" to the dismay of Brother Knorr who continued to work with him anyway. I never knew that Brother Ewart Chitty was homosexual and assumed it was a rumor although I was told it was a fact by several. People also told me that Brother Greenlees was homosexual. In his case, there was good reason to believe them.

I should add, however, that there may be nothing wrong with trusting a homosexual brother to handle high levels of responsibility. The predisposition of someone should not disqualify them from responsibility as long as they can handle the responsibility without bringing reproach on Jehovah, on themselves, or others, and/or scandal upon the congregation. If a brother has already proven himself faithful and morally clean for many years, even if he struggles with sinful thoughts, then he is probably not so different from anyone else who was on the Governing Body at the time, even if these particular sins seem much more unexpected. Paul spoke of struggling with sin even as an apostle.

"But I never heard any facts for sure about the molestation charges, although it was a well-known rumor."

This brings to mind an interchange you and I had last year regarding information that may come out in mid 2016.  It seemed from your response that you were leaning toward the idea of some potential homosexual encounter. The person I had In mind in my statement was in fact Leo Greenlees.  I of course, knew about the "purported" charges of child molestation, but more recently a person who had been a well-known elder died, leaving an envelope stating it should not be opened until after his death.  In the letter he made the accusation that Leo had molested him when he was younger.  (Not the same individual who was involved in 1984 as far as I know since this elder was already an adult and elder by that year).  In any event, to the extent that all of this is true, Leo would have already been a practicing child molester prior to his being appointed on the GB (although of course, the GB wouldn't have appointed him if they had known).  Naturally, in the current climate of things, these types of things could prove "difficult" for current members of the GB who are aware of the details if governmental authorities get nosy.

"The predisposition of someone should not disqualify them from responsibility as long as they can handle the responsibility without bringing reproach on Jehovah, on themselves, or others, and/or scandal upon the congregation. If a brother has already proven himself faithful and morally clean for many years, even if he struggles with sinful thoughts, then he is probably not so different from anyone else who was on the Governing Body at the time, even if these particular sins seem much more unexpected."

 I agree with you on that, since I know a number of brothers who have been disciplined for child molestation in various congregations.  All of them have been faithful brothers for many years now without incident.  But a potential problem with that type of weakness is the rate of recidivism that can accompany that type of behaviour.  Naturally, there are some very thorny legal issues associated with appointing a person with such a history and whether he would even potentially offend again.  

My take on this is that even though information on certain websites (which we should avoid) may have some truth or even be completely true, my faith in and dedication to Jehovah is not dictated by the choices other humans make - regardless of what "position" they may have in "the organization."  They too are imperfect, not miraculously inspired and make mistakes and have poor judgment at times. Kinda' like all the rest of us.  But even with all of that, it's as close to pure worship and accomplishing our Christian mandate to preach the good news of the Kingdom world-wide as is possible to find today.  You won't find brothers accomplishing that, regardless of how intellectual their reasoning may appear.  Who is "walking the walk" as to the preaching work the Christian congregation was formed for?

Im still not sure however, if there was more news we might expect regarding what you had suggested last year.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...
  • Member

Anna said:

Quote

 

    21 hours ago, AlanF said:

        23 hours ago, Anna said:

        It's because they thought he was cured.

    You know that, do you?

    You're wrong. I told you earlier: Greenlees was a pedophile in 1964 when he was appointed a Director, and before that according to one of his child victims, Mark Palo, who has put his story online. Greenlees was 72 when he was forced off the GB. Pedophiles don't start up at age 72 -- they just keep doing what they've long been doing
    Read more   

I don't know it, I am being logical about it. Why would anyone knowingly want to appoint a practicing pedophile?

 

They wouldn't. And I don't think that anyone knew Greenlees was a pedophile until 1984, when the parents of the boy he molested complained to the Society.

But the holy spirit certainly would know. And the fact that Greenlees served in a responsible position in the Canadian Bethel for many years prior to 1964, all the way up through his removal from the GB in 1984, proves that holy spirit could not have had anything to do with his appointment -- contrary to Watchtower teaching. And if Greenlees was not so appointed, it must logically be that no elders are so appointed -- including GB members.

If you really think that elders are directly appointed by holy spirit, then logically explain why Greenlees was not.
     
    21 hours ago, AlanF said:

    And even back in 1984 it was well known that pedophiles are never cured.

I agree. But as you say, he was appointed director in 1964, and then as GB in 1971. So it could have been believed he was cured.

Why do you keep saying "cured"? That assumes that someone knew Greenlees was a pedophile before any of his appointments. But no one ever knew -- at least, not those in responsible positions in Bethel -- until 1984.

Quote

I don't know what happened in 1984 when he was forced to resign.

I've said what happened in gory detail in earlier posts.

Quote

But whatever it was led the rest to believe he wasn't cured after all.

"Cured" had nothing to do with. The rest of the GB found out about his pedophilia when the molested boy's parents complained.
     

Quote

 

    21 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Furthermore, if holy spirit had anything to do with the Governing Body -- which formed the judicial committee that found Greenlees guilty of child molestation -- it would never have 'directed' Nathan Knorr to appoint Greenlees as Director in the first place, or it would have seen to it that Greenlees was not appointed a GB member in 1971, or that he was removed long before 1984.

I thought I had already agreed that if Greenlees was a pedophile when he was appointed director, and then later GB member, the holy spirit had nothing to do with it, that he was appointed by men who were evidently deceived.

 

Correct. But the holy spirit was not deceived.

Quote

And I thought we had already discussed the "mechanics" of how holy spirit works.

Discussed perhaps, but even now you still don't understand that holy spirit does no direct appointing of elders. Such "appointing" is only a metaphor, a manner of speaking. It's not real. Go back to my Julia Childs example. Does she direct you in the kitchen? Or do you follow directions in her cookbook? Do you understand the difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Anna said:

Quote

 

    14 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Why do you keep saying "cured"? That assumes that someone knew Greenlees was a pedophile before any of his appointments. But no one ever knew -- at least, not those in responsible positions in Bethel -- until 1984.

I did assume that someone knew he had done something in the past, but that it was believed he was changed and would never do it again in the spirit of 1 Cor 6:11.

 

I think you're very confused about this. Who would have known? Who would have thought him cured? When?

Quote

I have noticed this is one of the reasons why in the past pedophiles ended up molesting other victims besides the original victim. Elders assumed the person was "cured" and would never do it again.

True, but that again assumes that those elders knew of the pedophile. Greenlees was not known to anyone but his victims, and perhaps unknown accomplices.

Quote

 

    14 hours ago, AlanF said:

    And even back in 1984 it was well known that pedophiles are never cured.

Well known by whom?

 

The psychiatric community and pretty much everyone dealing with children. And God.

Note this: "Pedophilia was first formally recognized and named in the late 19th century." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PedophiliaApparent the holy spirit did not get the message.
     

Quote

 

    14 hours ago, AlanF said:

          Quote

        I don't know what happened in 1984 when he was forced to resign.

    I've said what happened in gory detail in earlier posts.

Missed that.

 

Ok.

Quote

 

    14 hours ago, Anna and AlanF said:

        the holy spirit had nothing to do with it, that he was appointed by men who were evidently deceived.

    Correct. But the holy spirit was not deceived.

Well, in a manner of speaking, since holy spirit is not a person but a force.

 

Come on! We all know (at least, non-trinitarians do) that the Bible's use of "holy spirit" is just a metaphor for God's power, or better, just God. So saying that "holy spirit did this and that" means "God did this and that".
So are you claiming that God did not know about pedophilia, or that Greenlees was a homosexual pedophile?
     

Quote

 

    14 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Discussed perhaps, but even now you still don't understand that holy spirit does no direct appointing of elders. Such "appointing" is only a metaphor, a manner of speaking. It's not real. Go back to my Julia Childs example. Does she direct you in the kitchen? Or do you follow directions in her cookbook? Do you understand the difference?

I do understand it is a manner of speaking, since holy spirit is not a person, as I mentioned above. You obviously meant it as a metaphor as well when you said it "was not deceived".

 

In the sense that, put plainly, "God was not deceived".

Quote

By the same token, it can be said someone is appointed by holy spirit even though it was merely written directions that were being followed.

Nope. Most Christians claim to follow the directions in the Bible, and you certainly don't accept that God directs them, metaphorically or directly.

Quote

Since God used holy spirit, his force, to inspire people to write down His directions, when appointing overseers, elders do so according to those directions. Doing so correctly is contingent on the honesty of the one being appointed, and the astuteness of those doing the appointing. If the person actually qualifies, then it can be said they were appointed by holy spirit as per Acts 20:28 "Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God...."

Once again, by that reasoning the Pope has been appointed by God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Come on! We all know (at least, non-trinitarians do) that the Bible's use of "holy spirit" is just a metaphor for God's power, or better, just God. So saying that "holy spirit did this and that" means "God did this and that".
So are you claiming that God did not know about pedophilia, or that Greenlees was a homosexual pedophile?

I thought I already gave you an answer to that, that of course God knew, and therefor Greenlees couldn't have been appointed by God using holy spirit.

 

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Most Christians claim to follow the directions in the Bible, and you certainly don't accept that God directs them, metaphorically or directly.

Claiming one thing and actually doing it are different. And we have already established God is not deceived.

 

2 hours ago, AlanF said:
Quote

Since God used holy spirit, his force, to inspire people to write down His directions, when appointing overseers, elders do so according to those directions. Doing so correctly is contingent on the honesty of the one being appointed, and the astuteness of those doing the appointing. If the person actually qualifies, then it can be said they were appointed by holy spirit as per Acts 20:28 "Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God...."

Once again, by that reasoning the Pope has been appointed by God.

If the Pope qualifies by doing God's will according to the Bible, seen and unseen by human eyes,  then yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 3/12/2016 at 9:14 PM, The Librarian said:

if one were to make inquiry about someone who has never been accused of such bad conduct, and who is unlikely to be so tainted because of their general reputation, the PA Office’s response would be outright denial.

Of course! What in the world is so controversial about that?

In Western law, it is called, “presumed innocent until proven guilty.” In common parlance, it is “refrain from gossiping.”

I sort of miss the times when outright gossip did not form the stuff of headlines

On 3/12/2016 at 9:14 PM, The Librarian said:

Note that the obituary does not include the fact that Greenlees was one of the Governing Body of JWs "at the World Headquarters" for over 20 years. 

Unless I am missing something, that is because he was not. 13 years is what it looks like from the article.

On 3/12/2016 at 9:14 PM, The Librarian said:

  member Leo K. Greenlees was forced to resign and leave Bethel in late 1984. ...As a director Greenlees automatically became a "governing body" member when that body was formally instituted in 1971.

He is removed when an apparently creditable accusation surfaces. It is shocking, perhaps, that he might do such a thing, but it appears pretty uncontroversial in the way it was handled.

And sometimes you wish that there was more differerentiation in “molestation.” At present, anything from a hand on the inner thigh or rear end to outright rape is described (and sometimes deliberately confused) as “molestation.” None of those actions are great, of course, but there is a substantial difference between them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

None of those actions are great, of course, but there is a substantial difference between them.

I know what you're saying, it's just that a hand on the inner thigh or rear end, if done deliberately, is usually just the beginning, and is like a test leading to other stages. Maybe the degree of molestation should be categorized in stages? Stage one: hand on inner thigh and buttocks, stage two: ........and so on.

The thing is, if the molester gets away with stage one (no one reports it, or the victim doesn't stop it) then you know for sure it will lead to stage two, and if that's not reported to stage three etc. So in my opinion, at least, it doesn't matter at what stage the molester gets caught or reported, because really it's about the potential, or goal of the molester, the actual "gravity" of the act is merely contingent on carrying on until he gets stopped. 

I consider my uncle (non JW) as molesting me when I was 13. I was wearing a t-shirt with some logo on it across my chest. He took his finger and begun tracing the writing and then at the end he tweeked my nipple. It all happened so unexpectedly that I didn't even think of moving. At the end of it I knew it had been deliberate because of the nipple thing. However, I nipped that one in the bud (no pun intended) by going straight to my mum  reporting what had happened. My mum went straight to my aunt, and my aunt went straight to my uncle. Needless to say, that was the last time he touched me. I hate to think what could have happened had I not said anything....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Of course! What in the world is so controversial about that?

In Western law, it is called, “presumed innocent until proven guilty.” In common parlance, it is “refrain from gossiping.”

I sort of miss the times when outright gossip did not form the stuff of headlines

Unless I am missing something, that is because he was not. 13 years is what it looks like from the article.

He is removed when an apparently creditable accusation surfaces. It is shocking, perhaps, that he might do such a thing, but it appears pretty uncontroversial in the way it was handled.

And sometimes you wish that there was more differerentiation in “molestation.” At present, anything from a hand on the inner thigh or rear end to outright rape is described (and sometimes deliberately confused) as “molestation.” None of those actions are great, of course, but there is a substantial difference between them.

It's exactly the attitude TTH displays here -- "Oh, molestation is no big deal!" -- that has gotten JW leaders in deep doo doo, and is the source of the extreme disgust about them shown by so many people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • That was convoluted and strange. I assume it was that way on purpose. I have not tried to refute anything from VAT 4956. My "acceptance" of the evidence from VAT 4956 is not the same thing as "refuting" it. Unless you are doing that thing again where you say you can use words to mean whatever you want. Now you are doing that thing again where you hope to imply that the stance of 100% of the current "authorities" and "experts" the Watchtower has quoted just happen to agree with COJ. So, in order to make it easier to dismiss the conclusions of all those experts, you need to point out that those experts agree with COJ, therefore you can dismiss their conclusions.  This is not just stupid. It's dishonest because you have done it before. It's also hypocritical because you have never once ever been able to point out even one sentence from his GTR book that was wrong. When you finally did attempt to prove he was wrong about something, you picked his reference to Nabopolassar's years mentioned in the "Chronicles," you ended up inadvertently showing that COJ was perfectly accurate. That must have been embarrassing. As you know, COJ has nothing to do with this discussion. From now on, instead of referring to COJ directly, I think we should just refer call him, "the person that George88 has shown to be accurate." In fact, until you can show even one inaccurate sentence, that's how I will refer to "COJ, the person that George88 has shown to be accurate."
    • 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.   
    • In response to your email, it is important to note that the Watchtower chronology begins at 4026, adhering closely to the numerical indications in scripture. The significant distinction lies in the fact that not everyone begins at 4026; some might commence their chronology at 4004, for instance. Consequently, this creates a noticeable gap between those who employ different starting points for their chronologies. Consider that the new Bible Students have rejected Russell's starting point and instead adjusted it to align with Modern Israel. They have suggested a year around 3954, or something like that, I can't remember, but it seems unfounded. Some of their sects started Criticizing Russell about this matter, and it appears unjustified, as their own knowledge may be limited. Following the Watchtower's guidance is straightforward: align events with their corresponding numerical values. It is important to remember that the Watchtower does not view its chronology as an absolute, unlike secular chronology which seeks to impose its perspective. According to the Watchtower, the pivotal date for the divided kingdom is 997. Look it up in our archives and publications.  The Watchtower's chronology will always diverge from conventional chronology due to its distinctive starting point. The organization holds steadfast to the numbers in the Bible, guided by faith in scripture rather than human interpretations. Despite persistent challenges, the unwavering stance of the Watchtower remains unchanged, as it is grounded in divine guidance, not the opinions of anonymous and faithless individuals.
    • Consider this: if we assume that the tablet dated back to 568 refers to Nebuchadnezzar, and that the king issued an order for Borsippa, a city 12-15 miles from Babylon, then it suggests that King Nebuchadnezzar might have been in his palace giving that order, since logically it would have taken weeks or a month or so for a runner to dispatch such an order from Judah that was for Borsippa in 588/587, as historically suggested, since we can use the same date 588/587 for that event.
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.3k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,679
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Techredirector
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.