607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported?

[The Librarian]

@Anna I will let the @admin know. 

I haven't experienced that warning yet though personally.

[scholar JW]

Alan F

47 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Wrong. I wrote about this back in the mid-1990s, shortly after I got hold of photocopies from microfilm of both volumes of "The Even-Tide

What I was referring to was the online discussion on the JWD forum between ourselves and you conceded that there was indeed a connection as quoted in Proclaimers.

 

50 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Once again you're trying to mislead readers. Only saying that there was a "connection" is meaningless. What connection? The context is that the Society is trying to justify an equation between the "seven times" and the "Gentile times", and is supposedly giving a history of that equation, so the reader will automatically understand "connect" to mean "equate", especially since the actual connection is nowhere explained

I do not need to mislead the readers for they can work it out themselves by reading the quotation on p.134 in  Proclaimers and p. 208 in Eventide. Any connection is meaningless without a context and the context is there for all to see. There is no equation mentioned in either source but simply a connection as I have explained.

 

55 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Exactly what I've been saying all along. You're finally forced to admit that Jonsson was correct in his criticism and so was I.

:: Again the point is that the Proclaimers book strongly implies that Brown equated the two periods, whereas he only said that they were somewhat related or vaguely connected. Why else would the author italicize the statement

The Society's equating of the two periods has always been part of tradition which Jonsson acknowledges but the point at issue is not the equating of the periods which has always been a 'given' but the simple historical fact that Brown was the first expositor to connect both periods which from later times equated thus disproving Jonsson's false claim re. Brown's connection'. The Proclaimers book does not equate the two periods based on Brown's thesis but on our own interpretation of Dan.4 and Luke 21.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

You've contradicted what you wrote above. You're so accustomed to lying that you no longer know the difference between truth and falsehood, and switch between the two from paragraph to paragraph. LOL!

:: Once again, in context, the Proclaimers book was expounding on the "seven times" and the "Gentile Times". Almost all readers already know that Watch Tower tradition is that the two periods are the same. The whole section is titled "End of the Gentile Times". Brown set forth complicated expositions on these two time periods, almost all of which would be unknown to almost all readers. The Proclaimers book gives no indication about these expositions. Therefore, in context, when the book says that Brown "connected" these periods, the reader is meant to understand that Brown "equated" the periods -- not that he left his readers with some vague, unexplained "connection

 

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

It certainly wasn't. It was written to deceive Jehovah's Witnesses by telling half-truths and making misleading statements.

It was written to make difficult for the likes of Alan F and to disprove Jonsson's claim about the 'Brown connection' LOL.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Except that the context shows that "connect" is implied to mean "equate". Again, the author's use of italics to emphasize his statement proves his intent, and that intent was to contradict what someone else had already written. Read it again

The context does not anywhere discuss the words 'connect' or 'equate' for the connection is established and the equation of the times underpins the whole discussion . The use of italics conveys emphasis in order to show the fact of the 'Brown connection'.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

magine a test of reading comprehension which asks:

What connection did John A. Brown make between the "seven times" and the "Gentile Times"?

The natural and automatic answer is: He equated them

I have sat this simple test and my considered response is: These two periods are connected by means of the fulfilment of the sign of  Jesus second coming as stated by Brown.  Sir, did I pass the test?

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

: Jonsson's overall exposition is on how the notion of the "Gentile times" came to be, and how various expositors came to calculate a "seven times" period of 2,520 years and to equate that period with the "Gentile times". In that context Jonsson wrote: "The first expositor known to have arrived at a period of 2,520 years was John Aquila Brown in 1823. He did not associate this period with the Gentile times of Luke 21:24, however; to him the Gentile times were a period of 1,260 lunar years, corresponding to 1,242 Julian years." Note the word "associate". That's another vague word that often takes on a clear meaning only in context. In this context it clearly means "equate", because Jonsson explicitly states that Brown viewed the 2,520 years as different from the 1,260 lunar years of the "Gentile times". Indeed, on page 22 Jonsson wrote: "The 2,520 years were soon identified by other expositors with the "Gentile times" of Luke 21:24." Obviously, "identified" here means "equated". Therefore, "associate" in this overall context also means "equate". So Jonsson was correct, and it's quite obvious that, if the author of the Proclaimers book read Jonsson's book (very unlikely), he misunderstood it

Quote

The simple fact of the matter is that Jonsson was incorrect in not recognizing that on page 208 of Brown's Eventide that both periods are connected and the fact that Brown was the first expositor to make such a connection. There can be no confusion about this matter.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Keep in mind that Jonsson published GTR 2nd edition in 1986, long before the Proclaimers book was published, and that some of the material in GTR 3rd edition (1998) was a response to the misinformation in the Proclaimers book

I would not call it out as 'misinformation' at all but as historical 'correction' which exposed Jonsson's misreading of Brown's book.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Quite to the contrary, as shown in the chapter above, Brown expressly stated as his firm conviction that the 2,520-year period began in 604 B.C.E. and would end in 1917. Further, despite the Society's italicized statement, Brown did not connect the 2,520 years with the Gentile times of Luke 21:24, because, as pointed out in the chapter above, he held the Gentile times referred to in this text to be 1,260 (lunar) years, not "seven times" of 2,520 years. Both statements about Brown's calculation, then are demonstrably false

Brown most certainly connected both periods as proved by his comments on page 208 even though he interpreted both times differently as you correctly present. The point at issue is not the nature of both periods but whether Brown made a connection and he did despite Jonsson's contrary opinion.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Clearly, when Jonsson used "connect" in the above, he used it in the sense "equate". Obviously he understood the Proclaimers book to mean "equate". Obviously, as I pointed out, Jonsson used "associate" in the sense "equate" in GTR 2nd edition

We do not know what was in Jonsson's mind at the time of composition for if he intended to mean 'equate' then that is what he should have said. The choice of 'associate' is to vague in meaning and 'connect' is quite specific so we have the matter of some ambiguity herein which in turn has no place in sound scholarship.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

As I continue to say, that research was done 14 years ago and a summary is available: https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/

The fact that you refuse to deal with that research says a great deal about your scholastic honesty.

Perhaps I did not address that issue to your satisfaction but I did make some comment about it. Now that you have a much improved website and that matter is presented by means of some pretty tabulation concluded with scholarly references it is now worthy of my examination. Firstly, has your thesis of 538 BCE been Peer reviewed? If so, by whom? After all, peer review is essential in any serious academic work!

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Yes, we know that. But the Proclaimers book implies an equation

Correct! but not in the case of 'Brown's connection' reference.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

You're making after-the-fact excuses, now that the false implication has been clearly pointed out.
 
:: How about you quote them and then explain how each sentence supports your claim

I do not need excuses just stating the obvious. Implications whatever the case lies in the mind of the reader and besides implications are part of one's comprehension of the written text. The reader can make an assessment of Brown and the Proclaimer's reference to it and draw his/her own conclusion.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

And here I'd think that you'd love to demonstrate your scholarly prowess by carefully showing exactly what Brown meant

I have already done just that.

scholar JW 

[AlanF]

10 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

 

Sorry, Scholar JW Pretendus, but I'm through trying to wade through your river of lies.

I'll no longer sully myself with your excrement.

AlanF

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, Anna said:

(By the way I can't read page 208 because I can't make it bigger @Ann O'Maly. Maybe that's  because of this glitch too....)

The image was a bit small. I have page 208 in text format which generally uses the spacing and line break style of the original, with original spellings:

------------------------------------------------------

[resur-]rection of the dead, and on the triumphant era of blessed-
ness, which immediately ensues.   I would again impress
on the mind of the reader, that these events depend upon
the fulfilment of the chronological periods ; and that as
the " new heaven and new earth," which are created at
the second judgment, and at the time of the general resur-  
rection, necessarily synchronise with Daniel's era of blessed-  
ness ;  so must the " new heaven and new earth " be con-  
sidered as succeeding the '' old heaven and old earth," or
the tyrannical monarchies of the old dispensation.   The  
times of these monarchies are fixed by the " seven times "
of the symbolic image, and by the 1335 years of the Mo-
hammedan Imposture ;  and unless it can be shown that
erroneous data have been assumed, on which these chro-
nological periods have been founded, then must it be
maintained that the forty-five years of Daniel are the
period of the second judgment ; and, commencing in 1873,
are attended by the sitting of that judgment, and by the
general resurrection, the last hour of which terminates
with the " seven times " of the monarchies, and with the
1335 Mohammedan years, in 1917.  It may be further ob-
served, that it is a judgment of the " wicked " only ; be-
cause the righteous rise first, and attend Christ " at his
coming."  Death, hell and the sea, and their dead, sub-
sequently stand in judgment.
     The Saviour himself, speaking of the signs of his se-
cond coming, foretels all these events ;  and upon that
memorable occasion, when he predicted the treading down
of Jerusalem, and " that the Jews should be led captive
into all nations," during the times of the Gentiles, ob-
viously refers to the sitting of the second judgment, at
which he is to appear as the Judge. " Heaven and earth,"
or the dispensation of the tyrannical empires, which were
the instruments of the captivity and desolation of his peo-
ple, he declares " shall pass away,"---the very token of the
second judgment,--- " but my words shall not pass away."
Verily I say unto you, " This generation shall not pass
away till all be fulfilled."  Whatever, therefore, be the [p.209]
criticisms upon these extraordinary words . . .

--------------------------------------------------

[TrueTomHarley]

!

[TrueTomHarley]

16 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

I bet you wish you had posted p. 208 yourself, hey Neil, like you were asked, instead of baiting me and @Anna to find another source. Then you wouldn't have found yourself splattered on the windshield of the @AlanF juggernaut yet again

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

I'll no longer sully myself with your excrement.

I hate it when juggernauts splatter our people this way.

 

[scholar JW]

Alan F

5 hours ago, AlanF said:

:: did not say they were. I've said consistently that a Jewish remnant left Babylon in early 538 BCE. I've said consistently that the Jews as a whole were no longer captive to "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons" after Babylon was overthrown simply because the Babylonian rulers were no longer in power and therefore could hold no captives.

This is simply your opinion. The Jews remained in Babylon after 539, remained in captivity to Babylon even though there was a new rulership in Babylon until their release under Cyrus in537 BCE thus ending their captivity.

5 hours ago, AlanF said:

What do you mean "now", you reprehensible liar? You continue to misrepresent what both the Bible and I have said. Jeremiah prophesies only about servitude to "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons". He does not prophesy about any captivity to the Persian empire. I have always said that any captivity of the Jews to Babylon -- to "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons" -- ended with Babylon's overthrow in late 539 BCE. I have always said that the return of the Jews to Judah occurred in either 537 or 538 BCE, but have long argued that the only real evidence (Ezra and Josephus combined) makes 538 virtually certain

The Bible clearly states that the Jewish nation would serve Babylon and describes in detail the fact of their deportation, exile in Babylon and the desolation of Judah. It was Ezra that also described the end of the captivity-exile-servitude as ending with Persian rulership ending the Babylonian dynasty-'Nebuchadnezzer and his sons' and the release of the captives in 537 BCE. How can it be that you are now virtually certain of 538 whilst admitting to the possibility of 537? Make up your mind!

5 hours ago, AlanF said:

So we agree on that. But the declaration of release was made in early (Nisan) 538 BCE, likely in conjunction with ceremonies connected with the beginning of Cyrus' first full regnal year (not his accession year, which began in late 539 shortly after his armies conquered Babylon). Since Ezra and Josephus together provide the only complete testimony (see https://ad1914.com/category/alan-feuerbacher/ ) on when rebuilding of the temple began (537 BCE), 537 is not possible for the return of the Jews to Judah, because temple rebuilding would have to have begun in 536 BCE, thus contradicting both Ezra and Josephu

Says you. We are not talking about Temple rebuilding at all but the fact of the Return before they began rebuilding the Temple. I am now starting to worry that you are conflating Josephus' building of the temple with the building of the Altar at the time of their Return. tThere is no way that the Jews could have returned in 538 BCE for it is too long  a stretch and my imagination has a limit. Best stick to the more comfortable 537 date.

5 hours ago, AlanF said:

've told you several times now: read the link I gave you. There's a section that addresses this topic specifically

Your hypothesis must be tested and examined. Has it been peer reviewed?

5 hours ago, AlanF said:

So says a demonstrable, reprehensible liar. Someone completely incompetent to pass judgment. Someone no more a scholar than he is an astronaut. Someone who is nothing more than a biased Watch Tower drone.

Have you not dreamt of being an astronaut?. Please do not crush my fancies or dreams for life is painful enough. I must amount to something to attract your attention over the many years and to be so rigorous in having to denounce my scholarship. Am I a worry to you?

5 hours ago, AlanF said:

LOL! You've dragged this red herring around for a decade and a half, Neil. It's one of your tactics of last resort when you know you're trapped.

Having already participated in extensive debates on this 12-14 years ago, and having been thoroughly trounced in every detail, you don't want to expose yourself to more ridicule from readers. You're so transparent!

Not really just a simple request to reveal to the scholarly community a solution to a piece of neglected Jewish history- the date of the Return. I am sure that post Exilic scholars would love to know of some scholarship that would prove beyond any doubt that 538 is the correct date. Jack Finegan and Rodger Young which you reference at the end of your online article would be most grateful for such enlightenment. Has it been peer reviewed yet?

5 hours ago, AlanF said:

: Also note that Jeremiah prophesied nothing about the land paying off sabbaths, so "Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah" had nothing to do with the paying off of sabbaths. Nor does the passage say that the paying of sabbaths ended when the 70 years ended. It merely says that during the 70 years the land would be paying sabbaths. Since various sources prove that the 70 years were a time of Babylonian supremacy over the Near East, and they most likely began in 609 BCE when Babylon overthrew the last remnants of the Assyrian empire, and they most certainly ended with Babylon's overthrow in 539 BCE, and Jerusalem was overthrown in 587 BCE, the sabbaths were certainly being paid during that time of Babylonian supremacy.

Wrong. Jeremiah most certainly prophesied about the land paying of its sabbaths according to Ezra and Ezra most certainly associated this with the seventy years as described in 2 Chronicles 36:21. Perhaps you Alan have a different Bible which omits this passage. I would have thought that a careful reading of this text is clear enough but I forgot that you have excellent reading comprehension so that explains your contradictory statement as above.There is nothing that can associate the 70 years with 609 or any such claim to Babylonian supremacy for such is utter nonsense for the simple fact that the Jewish nation and its internal problems were not in the frame as it were. Babylon was not even a World Power at that time so you need to get a grip on the political reality of the region.

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

Wrong. The only vague "link" is in 2 Chronicles 36, which I and others have already shown does not prove your case.

Wrong. The link is Lev.26:34. The WBC- 2 Chronicles, 1987, vol.15, p.301 states on this text:"The Chronicler has conjoined his citation of Jer.25:11-12; 29:10 with a citation of Lev.26:34-35, 43".Now that was not difficult was it?

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

Wrong. Carl Jonsson and many others have discussed this to death and proven that Watch Tower claims are false. You're simply too much of a Watch Tower drone to admit that Mommy is wrong.

COJ along with many others have failed abysmally. The seventy years indeed can only be a period of servitude-exile-desolation for no other paradigm fits all of the facts. Besides this proves that I am not a WT drone because this formula is of my own origination for nowhere in any WT publication is the matter thus so simply defined. Ah! creative genius at last

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

Wrong again. It is a fact that Babylon, under Nabopolassar, defeated the last remnant of the Assyrian empire in 609 BCE. But you already know that, so you're lying yet again

So what! Such an event has absolutely nothing to do with the seventy years.

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

Your beliefs are irrelevant. Jack Finegan, in "Handbook of Biblical Chronology", and various other scholars, support this view. But you already know this.

My beliefs are relevant to me because such are personal. I have a copy of Finegan's books both editions if you please and widely used by me.

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

It's not "fuzzy" at all. As you well know, various contemporary Babylonian documents prove that date

If it was not fuzzy then why did Jonsson vacillate between 609 and 605 for the beginning of the seventy years?

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

Now you're switching gears. The 609 date for Babylon's overthrow of Assyria is virtually certain. The 605 date for Nebuchadnezzar's accession, and his capturing Jerusalem for the first time, is virtually certain. The only thing that is uncertain is whether the 70 years is to be viewed as an exact or an approximate period. If exact, then 609 is the only candidate. If approximate, then 605 can be argued as well. What is certain is that the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy ended in 539, when Persia overthrew Babylon.

Nonsense. The date for Babylon's overthrow of Assyria in 609? is meaningless in its relation to the seventy years because Egypt was a menacing threat to this new invader so the politics at that time was in a state of flux with rival world powers jostling for supremacy. What is certain is that your beginning of the seventy years is fuzzy for there can be no uncertainty about the beginning of the seventy years for it is well described by Ezra, Daniel, Jeremiah and Zechariah. The only certain statement that you have made is that Babylonian supremacy ended in 539 BCE upon which we agree. Your uncertain statement about the nature of the  seventy years is a bit of a worry. Methinks!

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

Yet another weasel word.

I do not think that Rodger Young would agree with you for he laboured over the conflict over 586 or 587.

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

Correction: many leading scholars, following Edwin Thiele's opinion, prefer 586. But as you well know, many others, such as those who wrote articles in "The Cambridge Ancient History", prefer 587. And as you well know, in a 2004 JETS article "When Did Jerusalem Fall?" Rodger C. Young proved with a careful biblical analysis that the only date consistent with all biblical passages is 587. The glacial pace of scholarship in this area has simply not caught up. Edwin Thiele, writing beginning in the 1940s, was unaware of the material that Rodger Young used

Remember this it was I that introduced Rodger Young's research onto the online forums because of his use of Methodology in order to resolve the 586/87 conflict. The date 586 remains even today the widely accepted date amongst most serious scholars.

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

: It does more than that. In conjunction with Jer. 25 and 27, it defines the 70 years as a period defined by Babylonian supremacy over the entire Near East, not merely supremacy over Judah or the captivity of the Jews. The latter was a minor event in Babylon's history

The 70 years can only be defined as a period of servitude or Babylonish supremacy, a period of exile in Babylon or for Babylon in recognition of its supremacy and period of a desolated land of Judah. the role of Babylonian supremacy is only part of the picture, a necessity in order to actualize the seventy years.

6 hours ago, AlanF said:

ewish captives were taken to Babylon in 604, 597, 587 and later. They were no longer captives of "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons" after Babylon's overthrow in 539. Therefore, Jewish captivities occurred within the 70 year period between 609 and 539.

There were deportations of the Jews to Babylon before the seventy years began, at its onset and soon thereafter. The captives remained in Babylon even after its Fall in 539 even though the Dynasty of Neb. had come to an end all within the 70 years as foretold.

7 hours ago, AlanF said:

:: Who are "these nations" that were to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years? The context of Jer. 25 is clear: the Jews and the nations round about. During what time period did they serve? From the beginning of Babylon's rule over the Near East in 609 BCE to its end in 539 when the Persian empire overthrew it

Their identity is not disclosed but Jeremiah addressed those nations in Jer. 25;15ff and this pericope is described as the OAN in the literature. Whatever the case if it refers to surrounding nations as you state they would have had to serve Babylon during that period of supremacy from 607 until its demise in 539 BCE but for Judah, their servitude was specifically tied to the land and exile which proved in their case a little longer in Babylon in order to fulfill their sentence of seventy years.

7 hours ago, AlanF said:

: Note that servitude is not the same as captivity. Jeremiah implored the Jews not to rebel against Babylon. If they did not, Jehovah would allow them to remain on their land during the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy. -- Jer. 27:4-11 They rebelled, and so were punished with captivity

I disagree for in the case of the outworking of the seventy years it proved that their captivity, servitude or exile all amounted the same. Yes, they could have chosen to serve Babylon and remain in their land but they ignored the prophets and paid the price- 70 years of enslavement to a foreign power just as Jehovah foretold.

7 hours ago, AlanF said:

It does that, but more importantly -- why do you continue to fail to address this? -- it defines the 70 years, not as years of Jewish captivity/exile in Babylon and desolation of Judah, but as years of Babylonian supremacy over all the nations of the Near East.

I do address it and have done so many times in the past. I am perfectly happy with the rendering 'for Babylon' as it proves the reality that for a period of seventy years the Jews served Babylon because they were under Babylonian supremacy right up to its end and until Babylon under new rulership released the captives in 537.

7 hours ago, AlanF said:

Jewish captives were taken to Babylon in 604, 597, 587 and later. They were no longer captives of "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons" after Babylon's overthrow in 539. Therefore, Jewish captivities occurred within the 70 year period between 609 and 539

That is an interesting argument but it fails because despite the fact that Babylonian dynasty by means of Neb. and his descendants ended in 539. the Jews remained captive at Babylon even under a new rulership proving that the seventy years had not expired.

7 hours ago, AlanF said:

No specific nation -- not Judah, not any other -- was prophesied by Jeremiah to serve Babylon for 70 years. Rather, "these nations" as a whole would serve, by virtue of the fact that Babylon was supreme over the entire Near East. And of course, as I have repeatedly explained, servitude did not imply captivity, exile or desolation of a homeland -- Jer. 27

Jeremiah specifically addressed Judah for the seventy years applied to Judah and its land and by consequence other nations suffered similarly for they too were caught up in the maelstrom. Yes, servitude was generic, common to many nations during that period but seventy years of servitude =exile-desolation was assigned to Judah.

7 hours ago, AlanF said:

Another flat out lie. Jer. 25:11: "... and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.

That is a subject of exegesis and there a number of explanations and I have my own independent of others. Simply put, whilst Judah served Babylon under its supremacy which dominated the entire region other nations were made to serve similarly as to their respective lengths it is unknown but as Babylon as respects to Judah was the dominant force for 70 years then they too had to serve for the period of its sovereignty.

7 hours ago, AlanF said:

Only in the sense of exactly which nations "these nations" included. Since the expression "these nations" is plural, it includes more than Judah. Thus your claim about Judah is disproved.

No, you should research this matter more thoroughly try the leading Bible commentaries for starters. If you require guidance, scholar will help you because scholar likes to hel

 

 I have lost some data so will exit now.

scholar JW

 

 

[scholar JW]

Alan F

Was it going to tough for you? Please come again for I am always ready for battle.

scholar JW emeritus

[scholar JW]

Scholar requires some computer advice.

As you have noticed I have had a lengthy discussion with Alan F which I have thoroughly enjoyed for nothing excites me more than a robust discussion on Chronology especially 607 BCE. My frustration has been that when I quote  a section which is boxed, I type below my response and press the Enter key which sometimes causes my entry to either disappear or is partially removed which is most frustrating. Therefore, I have to repost what I have written. I have Grammarly installed and wondering if this is the problem. 

Thanks

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

I'll no longer sully myself

AlanF, I think that you will be asked to avoid the kind of insulting language and imagery. I am sure that other forums have allowed an escalation of this type to reach greater heights/depths of such. One of the things that has made this particular forum more palatable, according to several people here, myself included, is the fact that all perspectives have been able to come together WITHOUT these rough edges.

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

I must admit ... I do enjoy the dual edged bladed agenda driven conversions on this topic.

It reminds me of what author Stephen King said about writing one of his books ... I think it was "The Strand", where he had so many characters running around on the pages he could not keep up with them ... so he wrote in an explosion that wiped most of them out.

18 pages of debate to support something that may or may not have happened outside the physical Universe 100 or so years ago ... that was, or is invisible, to me (here comes a variation on one of my favorite expressions ...) is like milking a mouse because you need to make five pounds of cheese .... which has already been sold in advance.

That's a LOT of work !

So .... what's a simple Barbarian like myself to think with all these arguments and counter-arguments ...

I think I will make a bucket of popcorn! .... and watch the show!

Carry on Troops!

[Anna]

@AlanF