Jump to content
The World News Media

607 B.C.E.


Jack Ryan

Recommended Posts

  • Member
11 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

So a more logical look at this point would be, even with fine horses, the amount of travel would be within a 7-10 mile radius per day. Mainly, not to cause on due attention to themselves from enemy forces.

You think they would have attracted less attention going slower? Hm. Do you have any real reasons why a horse couldn't cover about 30 miles a day? Regarding the water issue, the Ahal Tekke was reported to have covered over 200 miles of desert in 3 days without water in that 1935 race (that's about 70 miles per day!). It's likely the crown prince and his small military escort would have had the best, most suitable horses for so important a journey.

You do make a fair point about traveling from Jerusalem. I only chose Jerusalem because Neb had taken Jewish captives so he must have been in the general area (and there's Dan. 1:1,2 to consider, although this may have been on his return trip after securing the kingship), and Jerusalem is an easy point of reference. However, the Chronicle does not say Neb traveled from Carchemish to Babylon - you are mistaken about that, and the rest of your arguments and non sequitors derive from that misunderstanding. The Chronicle does say Neb had just conquered the "whole area of Hamath" which is about 130 miles further south from Carchemish and less than 500 miles from Babylon in a straight line.

Also Google 'Frank Hopkins.' In summary, back in 1886, Frank Hopkins, a military dispatch rider, rode a Mustang stallion named Joe 1800 miles from Galveston, Texas, to Rutland, Vermont, in 31 days (average 58 miles per day). Joe finished in excellent condition, after traveling no more than 10 hours per day.

Jerusalem (or Hamath) to Babylon - 500 miles divided by 58 miles per day is nearly 9 days.

So, without beating this horse to death (get it?), let's just leave it there by saying it is perfectly feasible for Neb to ride back to Babylon in the time frame the Babylonian Chronicle records. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 6.4k
  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

[Adding link to 2nd pg of discussion, since my Chrome and Firefox browsers won't link to pg.2 from the "2," "Next" or ">>" links: http://forum.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/4416-607-bce/?page=2&am

That's pretty easy to answer. You don't seem to put much reliance in the date 539 BCE, that the Watchtower promotes as the accurate, pivotal point. Yet, the older publications even called this an "abs

Do you attach a commencement date to these events? i.e. When was Jesus enthroned?, When did the last days begin?

Posted Images

  • Member
2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Remember that the Chronicle says that his father died, Abu 8, and Nebuchadnezzar traveled in the month of Ululu.

It says that he returned to Babylon in Ululu and he sat on the throne (i.e. the coronation) on Ululu 1st.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

At any rate, the only nearby Ululu II that was added was in Nabopolassar's 19th year, not his 21st.

There is no attested Ululu II for the year Nab 21/Neb 0 (605 BCE). There had already been an Addaru II 6 months earlier! No need for another intercalary month.

The one that P&D slots into Nab 19 (607 BCE) is an error. The footnote on P&D p. 4 shows it was questionable as the king's name isn't mentioned on the tablet. There are, however, 4 tablets that clearly attest to a second Ululu in Nabopolassar's 18th year.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

No matter what, though, I can't see that this has any bearing on his accession year. In fact, the Chronicle mentions specifically that he went back to Hatti-land in the accession year, and that he stayed until Sabatu.

Indeed.

So what was Allen's point, again, in bringing up this objection about Neb's travel? I've lost track (pun intended).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

It says that he returned to Babylon in Ululu and he sat on the throne (i.e. the coronation) on Ululu 1st.

This is funny. I edited my post before reading your posts. I went to bed around 3 am and kept thinking that this idea was just too much of a stretch. In fact, I kept all the links open so that I could check out the possibility more carefully when I got up this morning. I noticed the recent Addaru II and then read the footnotes to the JStor paper (A. Goetze) and P&D itself more carefully. So I edited my post down to almost nothing about the intercalaries. When I saw your post, I realized that I had already removed the lines you critiqued. Sorry to have put you to the trouble over nothing.

In fact, this whole subject of a horse's stamina and speed seems to be trouble over nothing. My original point was only going to be that even if we think it really should have reasonably taken a week or two longer, this isn't enough of a difference for us to claim it was impossible, and that it isn't enough of a difference to change his accession year. We weren't there. We don't know what they knew. We're the ones guessing. Also, to me it really does seem exaggerated by a couple of weeks (my own conjecture). So I give credit to Allen for pointing out a real question that has some evidence and rationale behind it.

I hadn't read anything on this subject for decades, it seems, but I do remember wondering if the three week difference between the death of Nebuchadnezzar's father and the trip back, then were BOTH directions supposed to have taken place during that same 3 week period? This is why, even under the best of circumstances, I would agree with the need for a couple more weeks. If Neb was stationed closer to Carchemish, then Neb could have settled those affairs with the enemies and prisoners and treasure from there, and driven straight home, right? From Carchemish there is no water problem and the roads were likely completely under his control. If Berossus knew that he cut across the desert from farther south, then there must have been some routes that I can't find any history on (yet). Perhaps "desert" could be a word that implies only that it's off the usual inhabited routes wherever he could find shortcuts. Without any evidence I preferred to think that this was a north-easterly shortcut from farther south, just to reach a point on the river routes farther north.

Thanks for the info on the horses.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
44 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

So I edited my post down to almost nothing about the intercalaries. When I saw your post, I realized that I had already removed the lines you critiqued. Sorry to have put you to the trouble over nothing.

Well, it served to refresh my own memory, and in the process I found a couple of very useful articles on Jstor that I hadn't been able to access before, so it's all good. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 4/23/2016 at 0:54 PM, Allen Smith said:

Now if he backed tracked his steps, then extreme historians would estimate it would have taken him at the very least January/February of 604BC. Now did, NEB NOT have an accession year? That would make his accession year 603BC as some historians attest to.

Well it’s a matter of interpretation. And since you people continue to fall for the same FALLACY of accepting secular chronology just because it looks good on paper? Those of us understand the following, by seeing it differently.

An accession year is merely the year that was already named for the predecessor as of the new year (Nisannu). So aren't these ideas conflicting when you indicate that Neb might not have had an accession year and that this would make his accession year 603 BCE. Also when you say "603 BC as some historians attest to" is this for real?

Can you name some historians that attest to this date as an accession year? If you are serious here, then I would be happy to learn something else about the time period. But I've also learned not to be surprised when you make claims that you won't even try to back up with evidence. Anyway, I couldn't find any, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. (For now.)

You also got something else wrong here. I don't know which secular historians you are relying on to claim that it took him an estimated 2.5 months to get back, but even if he got back by January/February of 604, this is still the same "605" accession year that goes from Nisannu 1, 605 to Addaru 30, 604 because they ran their year count from Spring to Spring.

 

The Months of the Babylonian Calendar
1. Nisannu bab-01.gif 30 7. Tashritu bab-07.gif 30
2. Aiyaru bab-02.gif 29 8. Arakhsamna bab-08.gif 29
3. Simannu bab-03.gif 30 9. Kislimu bab-09.gif 30
4. Du'uzu bab-04.gif 29 10. D.abitu bab-10.gif 29
5. Abu bab-05.gif 30 11. Sabad.u bab-11.gif 30
6. Ululu I bab-06.gif 29 12. Addaru I bab-12.gif 29
6. Ululu II bab-06.gif 29 12. Addaru II bab-12.gif 30
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Guest
Guest Allen Smith
12 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

is an easy point of reference. However, the Chronicle does not say Neb traveled from Carchemish to Babylon - you are mistaken about that

I didn't imply it, you did.

Yes, I know the Chronicles don’t say that verbatim. The exaggeration of the chronicles is the given implicative point I was making.

So far, your hypotheticals went from 16 days to 9 days. Let me know when you decided upon Nebuchadnezzar taking the flying carpet from Aladdin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Guest
Guest Allen Smith
Quote

JWinsuider: Interesting that Berossus adds details about Nebuchadnezzar taking some time to settle some affairs with the enemies and manage the separate escort of some prisoners from Judea and elsewhere -- likely including Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who would have arrived during 605 BCE. So I had the idea he didn't travel straight back from Carchemish, but continued to tramp around, perhaps even in Hatti-Land again, to take care of some necessary business, although he would have done this quickly. I had the feeling that if the Babylonian Chronicles were inaccurate, it was only to the extent that they exaggerated the speed at which he had been able to return by a week or two.

Unfortunately, this of course could not possibly be since you keep insisting that the Babylonian Chronicles are not flawed.

Have you bothered to read what you wrote? Nebuchadnezzar couldn’t possibly have taken care of Egyptian affairs within the time frame you’re relating to. Carchemish battle (605BC) Nebuchadnezzar returning home (605BC) Taking control of thorn and returning to Hatiland.

It amazes me that Nebuchadnezzar could defeat King Nech II in Carchemish in 605BC, take his entire mobilized army and chase King Necho II through enemy territory. That’s a bitter pill to shallow. Since Secular history suggest the Babylonians had NO control over the WESTERN KINGDOMS, in 605BC.

Then one would have to admit, there was something going on between 609BC to 605BC within that territory that could explain that.

I’m not suggesting the chronicles are wrong given face value, but flawed with its timing of events. However, historians contradict ancient works due to not understanding the content their reading all the time.

So if you understand this:

Quote

 

JWinsider: i. Nebuchadnezzar came against Jerusalem because the Pharaoh of Egypt invaded Babylon. In response the young prince Nebuchadnezzar defeated the Egyptians at Charchemish, and then he pursued their fleeing army all the way down to the Sinai. Along the way (or on the way back), he subdued Jerusalem, who had been loyal to the Pharaoh of Egypt.

 

ii. This happened in 605 b.c. and it was the first (but not the last) encounter between Nebuchadnezzar and Jehoiakim. There would be two later invasions (597 and 587 b.c.).

 

Then the WTS is correct in suggesting 607BC to be a viable date. So the contradiction is in your own interpretation of events.

Therefore, you are describing 3 events instead of 2. Now you have, 605BC (starting point), 597BC, 587BC. Now you state that timing is nothing. Will I defer on that. A Military strategist, would find a lot of exaggerated accounts in the chronicles, and secular history.

Did the WTS emphatically state that 607BC was fool proof? No, they have stated it many times, they arrived at that date by back tracking 539BC and giving leeway for the Judeans to return home at 537BC. They never stated it was an infallible date. It is BASED on FAITH.

The other thing you’re not seeing, I’m switching between “standard chronology”, and the “Oslo chronology” which differ by 20 years.

So the hypotheticals would range from:

1.       607BC, 597BC, 587BC, and 537BC.

2.       605BC, 597BC, 586BC, and 535BC.

3.       609BC, 598BC, 587BC, and 539BC.

The problems that can be generated by misinterpretation, can be solved. But not in the context you would like to hold secular chronology as indisputable, that isn’t happening. Regardless of which chronology one uses? The answers is there.

Now, a straight line from Carchemish to Babylon can have a flat surface. However, that terrain would mostly be desert. Could Nebuchadnezzar use multiple horse teams? Of course he could have. The American Pony Express can attest to that. A horse will run himself to death if the master allows it. But what about the endurance of humans.

Once again, Arabs were NOT partial to Chaldeans, after Sennacherib. Look at it, as with the modern battles being waged in the Middle East right now. Who’s a friend and who’s a foe.

So according to your aerial simulation? Nebuchadnezzar could arrive at Babylon as attested to from the Babylonian Chronicles.

History shows King Necho II left a garrison in Jerusalem. So it wouldn’t be possible for Neb to take the King’s Route established by trade within that region. Unless he felt it would have been safe enough to do so. But that would IMPLY he already has control of that territory BEFORE 605BC.

NOT ACCORDING TO THE BABYLONIAN CHRONICLES!

Now your proposal suggest a more direct approach. Nebuchadnezzar came down from Carchemish with NO obstacles, plenty of oasis water, green pasture with no care in the world. In other words, Neb was descending perfectly from Carchemish. A care free travel. Even though the terrain might have been different back then?

 

King Necho II still had a garrison in Riblah.

Assyrians had control of Rezeph, and Terqa. So was Nebuchadnezzar invisible? Or was he flying his magic carpet, not to be noticed.

Funny thing about WAR, people like to sneak around. But, what happens eventually; like ISIS…when they try doing that. Their troops get caught. So I guess the Assyrians were not smart people to allow a ROYAL PRINCE and COMMANDER travel freely back home to take over his father’s Kingdom, and in 2 weeks. Starting from a Mountainous terrain. Yeah! The Babylonian Chronicles is a perfect account.

Nebuchadnezzar had the best. His security detail were superhuman, no layover’s, no sleep, (No need for Tents, and Blankets) and they all had the best horses, galloping theirs hearts away to secure NEB’s kingdom.  Traveling with little combat gear, no water, or food since the land was blooming with those amenities, which would have weighed down a horse. But mind you, NO rest for the weary. Eat your food on the go. There were NO patrols around them, no danger what’s so ever, since that’s how history painted that scenario, by the Babylonian Chronicles showing it took him less than a month to accomplish that miraculous ride. (Ride Boldly Ride!) It would be even MORE miraculous, if he had chased King Necho II back to Egypt in 605BC with Nebuchadnezzar’s ENTIRE army. (That’s what he would have needed?) Instead of moving a full army from point to point, back then it would have taken 3 to 5 years; it took him only 5 months, Wow! Even a modern army takes longer to deploy.

Not to mention, we would have to EXCLUDE the following: No rain, sand storms, or hot days, no horse injuries, no human illnesses. A paradise ride back home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Guest
Guest Allen Smith
4 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

I also would like Allen to name these historians who attest to Neb's accession year as being 603 BCE.

Hey! You caught me O'Maly. I meant to say wannabe historian.

Untitled=2.png

 

 

Feel free to do your own research!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
18 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

I didn't imply it, you did.

I was referring to your unambiguous statement here:

On 4/23/2016 at 11:21 PM, Allen Smith said:

According to the Babylonian chronicles, Nebuchadnezzar was rushing back to Babylon from Carchemish.

The assumption was yours.

And I still would like you to name the historians who attest to Neb's accession year as being 603 BCE. I don't want to see wannabes. I want to see bona fide historians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Guest
Guest Allen Smith
2 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

I was referring to your unambiguous statement here:

Well, the exaggeration is in the hyped up "Babylonian Chronicle"

 

2 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

And I still would like you to name the historians who attest to Neb's accession year as being 603 BCE. I don't want to see wannabes. I want to see bona fide historians.

And as for historians, look them up, Just as the insinuation implies, too me they are all wannabes, since known of you have learned chronology the right way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Guest
Guest Allen Smith

Before you continue your non acceptance on written works you refuse to see, it would be NO different when a historian, comments; that Nebuchadnezzar rushed home on 604BC to claim his throne. The things we know about accession years, then…that is implying what? That Nebuchadnezzar’s accession was in 603BC.

Untitled12.png

It would be NO different if a historian thought 605BC was Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year. That would make Neb rushing home from Carchemish in 606BC.

Untitled14.png

Unless you are suggesting that this historians are running everything concurrently? That’s the type of ideology, earlier historians had.

And since were dealing with hypothesis, then the observations are analytical, regardless who wrote matters about ancient history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • try the: Bánh bèo Bánh ít ram
    • Definitely should try the Bond roll here when you get a chance: this is a mom and pop place that does a great job  
    • An interesting concept, bible discipline. I am struck by the prevalence of ignorance about spiritual discipline on "Reddit." While physical and mental disciplines receive attention, the profound impact of spiritual discipline on a person's physical and mental well-being is often overlooked. Is it possible to argue against the words of the Apostle Paul? When he penned those words in Hebrews 12, he was recognizing that there are moments when an individual must be "rebuked" in order to be corrected. Even Jesus himself established a precedent when he rebuked Peter and referred to him as Satan for failing to comprehend what Jesus had already revealed to the apostles. Did that imply that Jesus had an evil heart? Not at all, it was quite the opposite; Jesus had a loving heart. His need to correct Peter actually showcased his genuine love for him. If he hadn't cared, he would have let Peter persist in his mistaken ways, leading to a fate similar to Judas'. There is a clear emphasis on avoiding the apostate translation and its meaning, yet many seem to overlook the biblical foundation for the reasons NOT to follow the path of the fallen brethren or those with an apostate mentality. Those individuals have embraced the path of darkness, where the illuminating power of light cannot penetrate, to avoid receiving the righteous discipline based on God's Bible teachings. They are undoubtedly aware that this undeniable truth of life must be disregarded in order to uphold their baseless justifications for the unjust act of shunning. Can anyone truly "force" someone or stop them from rejecting a friend or family member? Such a notion would be absurd, considering the fact that we all have the power of free will. If a Witness decides to distance themselves from a family member or friend simply because they have come out as gay, who is anyone within the organization to question or challenge that personal sentiment? It is unfortunate that there are individuals, both within and outside the organization, who not only lack a proper understanding of the Bible but also dare to suggest that God's discipline is barbaric. We must remember that personal choices should be respected, and it is not for others to judge or condemn someone based on their sexual orientation but should be avoided under biblical grounds. No one should have the power to compel an individual to change their sexual orientation, nor should anyone be forced to accept someone for who they are. When it comes to a family's desire to shield their children from external influences, who has the right to challenge the parents' decision? And if a family's rejection of others is based on cultural factors rather than religious beliefs, who can impose religious judgment on them? Who should true followers of Christ follow? The words of God or those who believe they can change God's laws to fit their lives? How can we apply the inspired words of Paul from God to embrace the reality of God's discipline? On the contrary, how can nonconformists expect to persuade those with a "worldview" that their religious beliefs are unacceptable by ostracizing individuals, when God condemns homosexuality? This is precisely why the arguments put forth by ex-witnesses are lacking in their pursuit of justice. When they employ misguided tactics, justice remains elusive as their arguments are either weak or inconsistent with biblical standards. Therefore, it is crucial to also comprehend Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 9:27. The use of the word "shun" is being exaggerated and excessively condemned by those who reject biblical shunning as a form of punishment. Eph 5:3-14 NIV 3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. 5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person — such a man is an idolater — has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.  6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7 Therefore do not be partners with them.  8 For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light 9 (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) 10 and find out what pleases the Lord. 11 Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. 13 But everything exposed by the light becomes visible. The impact of the message becomes significantly stronger when we emphasize the importance of avoiding any association with unrighteousness and those who remain unrepentant. In fact, it becomes even more compelling when we witness how some individuals, who dismiss biblical shunning as a method of discipline, excessively criticize and condemn the use of the word "shun". Therefore, Jehovah's Witnesses do not shun people; instead, they choose to focus on the negative actions being committed, which is in accordance with biblical teachings. This should be construed as ex-Witness rhetoric. Now, let's consider why ex-Witnesses specifically target one particular religion. What justifications do they provide when other Christian denominations also adhere to the same principle grounded in the Bible? Chapter 1 - Preface Both must therefore test themselves: the one, if he is qualified to speak and leave behind him written records; the other, if he is in a right state to hear and read: as also some in the dispensation of the Eucharist, according to  custom enjoin that each one of the people individually should take his part. One's own conscience is best for choosing accurately or shunning. And its firm foundation is a right life, with suitable instruction. But the imitation of those who have already been proved, and who have led correct lives, is most excellent for the understanding and practice of the commandments. "So that whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  It therefore follows, that every one of those who undertake to promote the good of their neighbours, ought to consider whether he has betaken himself to teaching rashly and out of rivalry to any; if his communication of the word is out of vainglory; if the the only reward he reaps is the salvation of those who hear, and if he speaks not in order to win favour: if so, he who speaks by writings escapes the reproach of mercenary motives. "For neither at any time used we flattering words, as ye know," says the apostle, "nor a cloak of covetousness. God is witness. Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome as the apostles of Christ. But we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children."   (from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2) Divine promises 2. The manner of shunning, in the word escaping. There is a flying away required, and that quickly, as in the plague, or from a fire which hath almost burned us, or a flood that breaketh in upon us. We cannot soon enough escape from sin (Matt 3:7; Heb 6:18). No motion but flight becomes us in this case. Doctrine: That the great end and effect of the promises of the gospel is to make us partakers of the Divine nature. (from The Biblical Illustrator)  
    • Clearly, they are already demanding your exile. Yes! It's unfortunate that Pudgy spoiled a great discussion about science. I hope the discussion can continue without any more nonsensical interruptions. Just a suggestion since they are on your heels. Wow! You speak! It seems you have a lot to say! Now they are going to treat like, who do you think you are, mister big stuff! Are those aliens now going to imply that anyone who speaks out against the five or six key contributors to this site will be treated as though it is George just because those in opposition speak the language they hate to hear, the TRUTH? They are seeking individuals who will embrace their nonconformist values and appreciate what they can offer in shaping public opinion contrary to the established agenda of God and Christ. Their goal is to enhance their writing abilities and avoid squandering time on frivolous pursuits, mainly arguing about the truth they don't care for. They see it all as a mere game, even when leading people astray. They believe they have every right to and will face no biblical repercussions, or so they believe. They just want to have fun just like that Cyndi Lauper song. Be prepared to be belittled and ridiculed, all the while they claim to be angels. Haha! By the way, please refrain from using the same language as George. They appear to believe that when others use the same words, it means they are the same person, and they emphasize this as if no one else is allowed to use similar grammar. It seems they think only they have the right to use the same or similar writing styles. Quite amusing, isn't it? See, what I just placed in bold, now I'm George, lol! Now, let's leave this nice science thread for people that want to know more about science. I believe George left it at "Zero Distance."  
  • Members

    • Claud's Lst

      Claud's Lst 4

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

    • lauleb  »  misette

      merci pour ton travail très utile. tu es une aide qui fortifie
      · 0 replies
    • Pamela Dunston  »  T.B. (Twyla)

      Hi, TB
      I would like to get the weekly meeting and watchtower materials  and the 2024 convention 
      Attend the 2024 Convention—“Declare the Good News!”
      notebook, I just recently got a new computer, If don't mind my brother to add me on and allow me access to our study again.
       
      Thank you, so much
      Sister Dunston
      · 2 replies
    • SpiritualSister 24  »  DARLENE2022

      Hello, Darlene, I just love your name, I had a cousin named Darline, and had a classmate also named Darlene! It's a pleasure to know another Darlene! Especially a Spiritual Sister! There's some websites, Ministry Ideaz , JW Stuff.com, and Etsy that I use to order my yearly buttons for the Conventions! They always send me what I order, and their also Jehovah's Witnesses, that send us the merchandise we order!  You can check out these websites, and they might have what your looking for! I hope I have been helpful in assisting you, Darlene! Agape love, Shirley!😀
      · 1 reply
    • SpiritualSister 24

      2024"Enter Into God's Rest" Circuit Assembly! 
      · 0 replies
    • Janice Lewis  »  T.B. (Twyla)

      Hello Twyla, when will the weekly study material be available. I am a member.
      Janice Lewis     lewisjanice84@gmail.com
      Thank you
      · 1 reply
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      160k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,694
    • Most Online
      1,797

    Newest Member
    Gardeniableu
    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.