Jump to content

JW Insider

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

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

JW Insider -
admin -
776
26791

Top Posters


Recommended Posts


53 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Like you Alan I am here to entertain.

I think that by now, even the dumbest JW can see how you dodge and weave, evade questions, challenges and arguments, and generally try to obfuscate rather than enlighten.

Just like Mommy.

AlanF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alan F

21 minutes ago, AlanF said:

I think that by now, even the dumbest JW can see how you dodge and weave, evade questions, challenges and arguments, and generally try to obfuscate rather than enlighten.

Have you taken flight, Alan?  You do not like being challenged or questioned and expect the reader to accept all that you say. You preach from your pulpit about the value of evidence, demanding it from others and yet you fail to deliver. I have continued to ask concerning your 538 hypothesis, it lacks peer review, based on assumptions and uses charts to mislead and deceive the reader further it is not grounded at all in any scholarly research. In short it is a fraud. Have a rethink, do solid, sound research before embarking on a course of dogmatism.

The readers on this forum can judge for themselves the merits of my presentation and refutation of your criticism of WT Chronology. I rest my case.

scholar JW emeritus

University of Sydney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

The biggest evidence has just been handed to you. 604BC. I just find it amusing that you now, RESORT to the Bible Student era, once again to make your argument. However, it doesn’t surprise me.

You haven't explained why this 604 date is suddenly so important to you. The point about 604 has been made by secular archaeologists, myself, Ann, COJ, Jeffro and others for years, and suddenly you act like this is something you just found out. Have you not been reading anything written on the topic no matter how many times it was mentioned. Also, you now act like it's so important to count this 604 date (+ or - 1 or 2 yrs.) among the other two dates, which is something that people have been saying for nearly 200 years now. As you say, it shouldn't have surprised you at all.

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

The continued assumption is on 2 different ideologies.

1.       The revised WT chronology after 2011

2.       The Standard WT Chronology before 2011

You are playing that dishonest game again where you make a vague statement that doesn't exactly mean anything in English, so that someone might have to guess what you mean. I'm not playing your word-twisting games any more. You will have to explain what you mean by "the continued assumption," and the two ideologies, for example. Yours? Mine? Which differences in this revised WT chronology? How are these assumptions affecting the date of the final destruction of Jerusalem's wall and temple under Nebuchadnezzar?

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Did these proposed errors come from the author's (Scholars) or script? Does it matter,

Yes. Of course it matters. Why would you even have to ask?

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

 

kings.jpg

So what is your point? That Nabokalassar in this list reminds you of Nabopallassar? The book you are quoting

    Hello guest!
is from 1867 before hardly any of the contemporary dated tablets and artifacts were translated and published. The chronology still seemed fluid to many people when they thought it was only based on Ptolemy. The author of this book, "The Sealed Book of Daniel Opened" didn't like 539 BCE as the end of the reign of Nabonidus (and Belshazzar) because he wished that the 70 weeks of years were easier to manage based on his own Bible interpretation. A common problem. The Watchtower tried to do similar things when the secular chronology got in the way of a private interpretation.

But don't forget that the Watchtower still likes 539 BCE. I like 539 BCE. Arauna and Ann O'maly both like 539. Even scholar_JW and AlanF both agree on 539. This author likes a date closer to 488 to replace 539. It's easy to guess why. Because he wants 69 weeks of years, or 483, years to reach closer to the time from the decree of Cyrus so that it' Cyrus who starts the 69 weeks of years, to reach to the Messiah who was born, he says, in 5 BCE. This has been a favorite project of "crank" Bible interpreters for years. Perhaps the Watchtower will go for it one day because it would also move the parousia from 1914 to about 1997 (+/-) or at least to 1964 depending on whether you need to reach Jesus' death or his birth. That's the kind of generation reset some WTS writers probably would have died for, because they could have avoided the flap over the overlapping generation. 

The author makes a lot of errors we would now consider to be stupid. You probably noticed some of them yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The readers on this forum can judge for themselves the merits of my presentation and refutation of your criticism of WT Chronology. I rest my case.

I'm one of the readers on this forum and I can judge that you have done, as AlanF noted, almost nothing but dodge and weave and obfuscate and try several different logical fallacies to avoid evidence. When someone asks you a question you refuse to answer. When someone offers you a chance to show evidence you pretend it's a game to see how long you can go without providing it. Then you were caught lying about the evidence. I believe you have been thoroughly disgraced by haughtily and pretentiously claiming to be a scholar and then not even pretending very well.

Since you said above that we can judge for ourselves, I would have guessed you were a teenage Internet "troll." Since I can see you have been doing this for 20+ years, I guess you must not be a teenager.

I'm still entertained however.9_9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

I guess I can ask, why 587 date is important to you. Isn't it part of secular history?

The actual date is still not important to me. But treating all facts, evidence and interpretations of evidence with honesty will always be important to me. Even if something is trivial in the long run, we can show our faithfulness in small things which is just as important as showing faithfulness with big things.

  • (Luke 16:10) 10 The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much.

As you know, I don't believe any of these secular dates like 539, 607 and 587 are important to any understanding of any prophecy. The Bible record is sufficient and any prophecy that depends on a knowledge of secular chronology or an interpretation of that secular evidence is clearly not in harmony with the scriptures. And you can't know about 539 without an interpretation of secular evidence.

  • (2 Timothy 3:16, 17) . . .All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.
  • (2 Peter 1:20) 20 For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation.

No matter how sure we are about our interpretation of the secular evidence, if we have worked out a prophecy that involves a supposed "pivotal" or "absolute" secular date, like 539 BCE, or 607 BCE, or even 1914 CE, then we know for sure that this isn't the proper way to treat scriptural prophecy. If we don't learn from these hundreds of chronology mistakes in our own doctrinal past, and just continue to prove ourselves unfaithful, and unable to handle the word of God aright, then we have no right to call our doctrines "truth."

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

The good thing, the 2 point observation has come to a close with 3 exiles, doesn't it?

What else can be said? 

Sorry, as I said I'm no longer playing your word-twisting games. If you are hoping to say something or communicate something you will have to actually say what you mean. If you want to be taken for someone who doesn't care to explain or defend his beliefs, or answer questions, that's fine with me too. You should know, however, that you have so often used this technique for the obvious purpose of obfuscation and evasion in the past, that I'm afraid it will continue to look like this is what you are up to again.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

What do all those tablets tell you? That ancient historian hasn't already mentioned. It becomes a matter of interpretation with all that evidence. So, you can safely go beyond 200 years.

Do you really believe the WT might be off by as many as 200 years? To me, all those tablets tell me the opposite, that we have a chronology that is made even more sure. We can't even try to maneuver an extra 20 years into it any more without getting caught as pseudo-historians and pseudo-archaeologists. We end up trivializing the rest of our message by being unfaithful in what is least.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

However, no amount of evidence is going to change, how “wrong” people have been for the longest time, about the authority given to Babylon, and its timeline.

You mean that Jeremiah was wrong, or the Watchtower, or both? As long as you merely state vague generalities without evidence you are merely throwing out twisted words and hoping some of them might stick. Not a good or respectable methodology.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

Like you mentioned. The only thing left is to place the final piece of the puzzle. It's taken decades of erred perception. I wonder how long it will take people to figure it out.

Sounds like more haughty pretentiousness. Vague claims of superior knowledge with no evidence. I'm just guessing, but I suspect it will end the way "scholar JW" was found to be lying when he said that evidence about J.A.Brown would prove COJ had blundered, but wouldn't dare show his evidence. When the evidence showed up it proved that "scholar JW" had been lying. Decades of erred perception, and it took people just a few seconds to figure it out when the evidence was finally presented.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

in the Al-Yahudu Tablets. So, what does that say about ABC-5 reliability? It was important enough to mention 598BC, but not important enough to mention 604BC? or at the very least 601BC.

You must not have any idea what you are talking about. These tablets are 100% in agreement with the Bible and the secular timeline that has been known and knowable for longer than the WTS has been around.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

So, for the purpose of verification, these tablets remain suspect. Of course, the same thing can be said about 607BC (ABC-4), which, would also illustrate how unimportant it was for that, chronicler NOT to give a good account of that time period. None of which syncs with scripture, of course. But, practice makes perfect!!!!

This is another meaningless "word salad" with pretentious, but slippery dressing.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

So, don't use wordplay by NOT knowing what I mean, about after 2011 with the 19-year, time adjustment. WT Chronology remains in sync.

You are saying that the WT made a  19-year adjustment in 2011 to remain in sync? But you don't want to spell it out for some reason. I would just call your bluff but, yes, I can already see through the dishonesty. The WT never made a 19-year time adjustment in 2011. The WTS clearly wanted to take some advantage of Furuli's lack of honesty by using hints about his work in the 10/1 and 11/1 Watchtower issues, but the WTS couched most of their words in some careful language showing that they realized they would be thoroughly embarrassed if they named the book and scholar who had sullied himself with such dishonest scholarship. You noticed that these Watchtower issues named the reputable books, but would not dare name the source of the discredited theory.

Furuli would never try to defend his theory in public or try to get such a theory peer-reviewed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Just like O’Maly can no longer argue, 538BC? You can no longer argue, 605BC.

No one ever gave evidence against 538 or 605. They are both good dates to put forward for the events that should be associated with them, plus or minus a year or two, in my opinion.

7 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Since that word salad (facts) was handed to you, to feast, and chock on!!!!! :$

You provide mixed up facts for me to choke on? LOL. 

9 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

As for the WT Chronology, it remains an accurate part of the Watchtower History, that is solely based on scripture!!!! B|

Then why has most of WT Chronology already been dropped? About 15 of the original "non-erasable" prophetic dates that had included 1914 have already been erased from WT chronology. All that is left is a simple claim that, even though all the predictions for 1914 failed, we are going to keep it anyway because, if we merely change the meaning of "Gentile Times" we can at least say we got that part right. Of course, even this is a huge failure, because our current definition is not based on scripture.

WT chronology was intended to circumvent the words of Jesus about how the times and seasons were in the Father's jurisdiction, and how no one would know the time of the parousia. It had become analogous to the way in which early Christians were using genealogies:

  • (1 Timothy 1:3-7) . . .to command certain ones not to teach different doctrine, 4 nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies. Such things end up in nothing useful but merely give rise to speculations rather than providing anything from God in connection with faith. 5 Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on . . .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

scholar JW horribilis pretendus said:

Quote

::: Like you Alan I am here to entertain.

In a way, we both do entertain. However, my main purpose is to inform people of the facts about Neo-Babylonian chronology, and how WTS chronology is a deliberate distortion of that, done in order to support its tradition going back to the 1870s. "Scholar JW", on the other hand, entertains by being a shill who demonstrates by example the worst sins that real scholars can make.

Quote

 

:: I think that by now, even the dumbest JW can see how you dodge and weave, evade questions, challenges and arguments, and generally try to obfuscate rather than enlighten.

Have you taken flight, Alan?

 

Far from it. It just becomes an exercise in futility trying to educate someone who doesn't want it, but wants to support obsolete religious tradition, and wants only to "argue to win" rather than argue to inform and educate.

Quote

You do not like being challenged or questioned and expect the reader to accept all that you say.

Another flat out lie. I don't mind being challenged at all, and will rise to most challenges, as long as the challenges are based in fact and on sound arguments rather than being bald assertions of religious tradition with no evidence presented. If evidence is presented that requires me to change my view, I will.

There are very few exceptions to my methods shown in this thread. One will find that almost every statement that I claim is true is supported either by evidence and arguments presented right there, or supported by references to older material, often online, which I can readily enough supply.

There is a big difference between expecting bald assertions to be accepted, and expecting sound arguments and evidence to be accepted.

Quote

You preach from your pulpit about the value of evidence, demanding it from others and yet you fail to deliver.

Yet another flat out lie. You can find almost no instances on this thread where I have failed to deliver evidence, presented either there or by reference to other material.

Of course, you will never rise to this challenge. We know this because I've challenged you the same way dozens of times on other forums, all with the same result: Nothing. Very occasionally you'll manage a limp "No" followed by the usual handwaving, but almost never anything of substance. You claim I'm wrong? Then by all means, provide several counterexamples.

Proof of my claim is easy to come by. Just a few posts above, you claimed that you've never been able to detect problems with the scholarship of WTS literature, and I pointed out that your inablity is due to your not wanting to detect problems, as opposed to there not being any problems. So I posed the following challenge:

<<<<
So let's test your ability to detect problems in WTS literature. Tell us, please, if the following statement on page 143 of the Creation book is an accurate representation of the quoted source:

<< Zoologist Richard Lewontin said that organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed.” He views them as “the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer.”5 It will be useful to consider some of this evidence. >>

Excuses will be noted and used as further proof that you're no more a scholar than you are an octopus.
>>>>

Rather than rising to the challenge, you simply ignored it.

Quote

I have continued to ask concerning your 538 hypothesis,

And I've given you a full set of evidence several times, not a bit of which you've been able to disprove. And of course, on other forums years ago I've posted far more extensive sets of evidence, which you've dismissed with handwaving rather than evidence. Indeed, I've challenged you to provide a correct timeline for the period 539-536 BCE, along with supporting arguments and evidence, but you've always refused. Just as you refused to provide evidence about page 208 of John Aquila Brown's book, because you knew that the evidence was against your claims.

Quote

it lacks peer review,

Such gross hypocrisy! No Watch Tower literature is peer reviewed, but you make no complaints about that. On the contrary, you've claimed it requires no peer review.

You also try to mislead your readers by implying that peer review is something that amateurs like me need in order for their arguments to be valid. But peer review is done by recognized scholarly journals deciding whether to accept for publication articles written by credentialed scholars. Therefore peer review is not normally done for amateurs, and your demand for it is a red herring.

Furthermore, you reject out of hand all peer reviewed scholarship that contradicts Watch Tower tradition. So even if I managed to get my "thesis" published in a peer reviewed scholarly journal, and even if every scholar in the world endorsed it, you would still reject it based on its refuting WTS tradition. Your demand for peer review is another attempt to dodge and weave.

Quote

based on assumptions

What assumptions? You've never bothered to try to point them out.

Quote

and uses charts to mislead and deceive the reader further it is not grounded at all in any scholarly research.

Nonsense. I've posted the charts for all to read and critique, on several forums over the years, the latest being a brief exposition on the ad1914 website. It is entirely based on scholarly research, with all research results taken from the Bible, Josephus and recognized scholarly literature, and presented there for all to see and evaluate.

You, on the other hand, have presented only bald dismissals and handwaving, such as you've written here.

Quote

In short it is a fraud. Have a rethink, do solid, sound research before embarking on a course of dogmatism.

Already done.

Quote

The readers on this forum can judge for themselves the merits of my presentation and refutation of your criticism of WT Chronology.

In principle, sure. But experience has shown that most readers are unwilling and/or unable to judge anything competently and fairly. Why? Because they don't want to investigate anything critical of Mommy Watch Tower for fear of finding out anything that could damage their faith in Mommy, and because most of them know nothing more of the topics than they've read in WTS literature.

Quote

I rest my case.

LOL!

What case? Even your brother, JW Insider, has pointed out some of your reprehensible lies.

AlanF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just finished reading a few books by Seiss, after which I intended to comment further on another thread that was started only for the purpose of sharing the commonly agreed-upon history of the 607 and 1914 doctrine among Bible Students who followed Russell, Second Adventists and others who had influenced those movements.

But I just discovered something that might be just a bit controversial, so I'm presenting it over here where someone might be able to point out if I am wrong about it. (I wouldn't doubt that others have already noticed the issue I'm going to present.)

When I looked at the paragraph in the Proclaimers book again, I noticed that I had never really looked into a point made about Seiss, and just assumed it was part of Seiss's many theories, and gave the WTS the benefit of the doubt that Seiss had chanced upon a 1914 theory probably in a way similar to John Aquila Brown in Even-Tide, or E. B. Elliott in his work on the "Apocalypse" or in the chronology of Christopher Bowen. 

Here's the paragraph from Proclaimers, with the Seiss information highlighted:

*** jv chap. 10 p. 134 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth ***

  • As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in London, England, calculated the “seven times” of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length. But he did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did, however, connect these “seven times” with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. In 1844, E. B. Elliott, a British clergyman, drew attention to 1914 as a possible date for the end of the “seven times” of Daniel, but he also set out an alternate view that pointed to the time of the French Revolution. Robert Seeley, of London, in 1849, handled the matter in a similar manner. At least by 1870, a publication edited by Joseph Seiss and associates and printed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was setting out calculations that pointed to 1914 as a significant date, even though the reasoning it contained was based on chronology that C. T. Russell later rejected.

I had never wondered what this "reasoning" was that C.T. Russell had later rejected. The actual 1870 source material is

    Hello guest!
. The PDF is 605 pages long, and you will need to look at the first article in the December 1870 issue of "Prophetic Times" pps. 177-184. (pdf pages 386-393). I have already excerpted the relevant sections in the 5th post here:

I think I just figured out what the "reasoning" was that Russell later "rejected." The problem is, I see evidence that Russell held onto this reasoning even more strongly as time went on, and I see no evidence that he "rejected" it. I'll explain in my next post below.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post follows up on my last post looking more closely at the words in the Proclaimers book, repeated here:

  • At least by 1870, a publication edited by Joseph Seiss and associates and printed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was setting out calculations that pointed to 1914 as a significant date, even though the reasoning it contained was based on chronology that C. T. Russell later rejected.

From what I can tell, the basic idea of these periods of time, especially the ones associated with 2,520 years, were about judgments visited upon the nation of Israel/Judah. As Seiss published:

  • Upon this one feature all prophetic periods‘ are made to depend; “the seven  times” of Moses, the two thousand and three hundred days,” and the other shorter periods of Daniel, all have primary reference to the chastisements visited upon this people and nation.
  • Taking first the "seven times," or the two thousand five hundred and twenty years of dispersion and denationalization, for the disobedience and rebellion of Israel under the Law, as predicted by Moses (Lev. 26:18,21,24,28) and indicative of the entire period of God's displeasure toward them, and accepting the historical dates of God's afflictive dispensations. . . .

The point here is that the "seven times" or 2,520 years are not taken from Nebuchadnezzar's tree dream prophecy in Daniel 4, but are called the "seven times" of Moses. This means, of course, that they come from Leviticus 26:18-28 which says:

  • (Leviticus 26:18-28) 18 "If even this does not make you listen to me, I will have to chastise you seven times as much for your sins. . . .  21 But if you keep walking in opposition to me and refuse to listen to me, I will then have to strike you seven times as much, according to your sins.. . . 24 then I too will walk in opposition to you, and I myself will strike you seven times for your sins. . . . 28 I will intensify my opposition to you, and I myself will have to chastise you seven times for your sins."

The word here is not the word "times" in the sense of "iddan" as in Daniel which can refer especially to time periods, like weeks, months, seasons, years, etc. In Daniel the word is therefore translatable as "seven periods of time" but in Leviticus the term is not really "seven times" literally, but just "seven" as in the meaning of "7 times as much," or 7 instances. The literal word "times" doesn't even appear, and can be understood as a numerical multiple, as in the way "double/twice" or "triple/thrice" or "quadruple" can be used with numbers like 2, 3 and 4.  Something similar (and probably related) happens when Daniel prays about the fact that the 70 years of Jeremiah must be completed, and Daniel is told that it's not just going to be 70 years, but "7 TIMES 70" years before a complete fulfillment is seen. 

But did Russell really ever reject this reasoning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alan F

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

n a way, we both do entertain. However, my main purpose is to inform people of the facts about Neo-Babylonian chronology, and how WTS chronology is a deliberate distortion of that, done in order to support its tradition going back to the 1870s. "Scholar JW", on the other hand, entertains by being a shill who demonstrates by example the worst sins that real scholars can make

Interesting comment. All that you have done really is simply repeat or rehash the COJ hypothesis which is identical to much earlier criticism of WT Chronology by SDA's from 1958. Yes, the 'shrill' has you running for cover as always hiding behind insults and that is not scholarship.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Far from it. It just becomes an exercise in futility trying to educate someone who doesn't want it, but wants to support obsolete religious tradition, and wants only to "argue to win" rather than argue to inform and educate.

Nonsense, I have spent much time since the early seventies defending WT Chronology so I do not want to be educated by you. I owe my education to WT publications and the research carried out by the Adventists so I have seen both sides of the fence. Have you?

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Another flat out lie. I don't mind being challenged at all, and will rise to most challenges, as long as the challenges are based in fact and on sound arguments rather than being bald assertions of religious tradition with no evidence presented. If evidence is presented that requires me to change my view, I will.

There are very few exceptions to my methods shown in this thread. One will find that almost every statement that I claim is true is supported either by evidence and arguments presented right there, or supported by references to older material, often online, which I can readily enough supply.

There is a big difference between expecting bald assertions to be accepted, and expecting sound arguments and evidence to be accepted

Now this is a more refreshing attitude. Chronology requires an open mind and it is essential to look at all sides of the argument and realize that it is not an exact science but open to much interpretation. However, when you say that WT chronology has no evidence is rather absurd, you are not being honest because you very well know that our Chronology is based on recognized facts, scriptural texts etc and is an established scheme, saying otherwise is simply  showing.stupidity and ignorance. The very simple fact which I have repeated before is that COJ your mentor has devoted his life to this subject indicates the substance thereof.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Yet another flat out lie. You can find almost no instances on this thread where I have failed to deliver evidence, presented either there or by reference to other material.

Of course, you will never rise to this challenge. We know this because I've challenged you the same way dozens of times on other forums, all with the same result: Nothing. Very occasionally you'll manage a limp "No" followed by the usual handwaving, but almost never anything of substance. You claim I'm wrong? Then by all means, provide several counterexamples.

Proof of my claim is easy to come by. Just a few posts above, you claimed that you've never been able to detect problems with the scholarship of WTS literature, and I pointed out that your inablity is due to your not wanting to detect problems, as opposed to there not being any problems. So I posed the following challenge:

An good example where you have not provided evidence is your 538 hypothesis. You claim that the Cyrus' Decree was issued in the first month of his first year and also claim that the Jews returned home in the sixth month of the first year. Now these are assumptions and you have ever right to make such assumptions but please do not present these as historical facts in order to prove a certain theory or thesis. Assumptions have a rightful place in constructing a Chronology because many details are missing both from the Bible and the secular records.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

So let's test your ability to detect problems in WTS literature. Tell us, please, if the following statement on page 143 of the Creation book is an accurate representation of the quoted source:

<< Zoologist Richard Lewontin said that organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed.” He views them as “the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer.”5 It will be useful to consider some of this evidence. >>

Excuses will be noted and used as further proof that you're no more a scholar than you are an octopus.

Now you are being silly because in order to respond to your challenge I would need to read the whole article that is referenced in the Bibliography at the end of the Creation book. You can either post here or email it to me then I will read the entire article and give you my opinion. OK. If I find a mistake then I will 'fess up' to it. No problems!

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

And I've given you a full set of evidence several times, not a bit of which you've been able to disprove. And of course, on other forums years ago I've posted far more extensive sets of evidence, which you've dismissed with handwaving rather than evidence. Indeed, I've challenged you to provide a correct timeline for the period 539-536 BCE, along with supporting arguments and evidence, but you've always refused. Just as you refused to provide evidence about page 208 of John Aquila Brown's book, because you knew that the evidence was against your claims

You have not given me a full set of evidence but only a theory which contains some facts and some assumptions. It lacks scholarship because it shows no evidence that you researched the matter. You quote no sources, other scholars or commentaries. You have not considered alternative views on the matter. Have you read Thiele on this subject? The latest scholarship on this subject that I have found thus far is that of Steinmann's paper, have you read his paper on this subject? Now I have not even begun to deconstruct your thesis but you have three major problems;

1. The matter of calendars, which calendar did Ezra use?

2. Timing, it is difficult nay impossible to believe that all of the events described in Ezra 1;1-3:1 could have occurred in six months. I refer you to Steinmann's article on this very point.

3. The association/connection between Josephus and Ezra 3;8 is tenuous at best.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Such gross hypocrisy! No Watch Tower literature is peer reviewed, but you make no complaints about that. On the contrary, you've claimed it requires no peer review.

You also try to mislead your readers by implying that peer review is something that amateurs like me need in order for their arguments to be valid. But peer review is done by recognized scholarly journals deciding whether to accept for publication articles written by credentialed scholars. Therefore peer review is not normally done for amateurs, and your demand for it is a red herring.

Furthermore, you reject out of hand all peer reviewed scholarship that contradicts Watch Tower tradition. So even if I managed to get my "thesis" published in a peer reviewed scholarly journal, and even if every scholar in the world endorsed it, you would still reject it based on its refuting WTS tradition. Your demand for peer review is another attempt to dodge and weave.

Peer review is reserved only for those in academia and as WT publications are not written for academics but the general public there is no need for such a process. In your case, you propose a novel thesis which you are dogmatic but if you want your audience to take you seriously then why don't you have others-your peers check it over. COJ whom you greatly respect his scholarship would I thought be your first 'port of call' as he has written very little about the Return. As you have stated above if Peer Review is not for amateurs then I can only conclude that your thesis is 'amateurish' so if that is so then you cannot demand of others that it be taken seriously. Got it?

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

What assumptions? You've never bothered to try to point them out

I have many times. See my above list of three.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Nonsense. I've posted the charts for all to read and critique, on several forums over the years, the latest being a brief exposition on the ad1914 website. It is entirely based on scholarly research, with all research results taken from the Bible, Josephus and recognized scholarly literature, and presented there for all to see and evaluate.

You, on the other hand, have presented only bald dismissals and handwaving, such as you've written here.

Charts are helpful in that such make plain the printed text. However, if the text or argument contains even one assumption then this conveyed into the chart which can amount to a contrivance of sorts. SDA scholarship is replete with charts and diagrams that does not make the Chronology correct for if you require too many charst then the reader could well think that he is being' conned'. Do you not think that I could make a pretty chart illustrating our computation of 537? Your computer skills are superior to mine so would you please make a nice, pretty chart similar to yours? Please!

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Already done

Do it again as I have awarded you a' Fail' mark.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

In principle, sure. But experience has shown that most readers are unwilling and/or unable to judge anything competently and fairly. Why? Because they don't want to investigate anything critical of Mommy Watch Tower for fear of finding out anything that could damage their faith in Mommy, and because most of them know nothing more of the topics than they've read in WTS literature.

I will tell you something that I have only recently learnt. This may sound rather odd and strange to you or to our readers and many Witnesses would not understand this comment. To put the matter very simply because it would require much elaboration is that in the defence of WT Chronology it is essential that one considers carefully SDA scholarship on Chronology as both schemes have co-existed together from the forties through to the fifties and beyond.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

What case? Even your brother, JW Insider, has pointed out some of your reprehensible lies

JW Insider is simply a 'Johnny come lately' in his field of Chronology for he has much to learn and the said scholar will educate him.

scholar JW emeritus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

scholar JW horribilis pretentious wrote:

Quote

 

:: In a way, we both do entertain. However, my main purpose is to inform people of the facts about Neo-Babylonian chronology, and how WTS chronology is a deliberate distortion of that, done in order to support its tradition going back to the 1870s. "Scholar JW", on the other hand, entertains by being a shill who demonstrates by example the worst sins that real scholars can make

Interesting comment. All that you have done really is simply repeat or rehash the COJ hypothesis which is identical to much earlier criticism of WT Chronology by SDA's from 1958.

 

Your usual ad hominem dismissal of COJ's work. But as usual, you ignore the fact that COJ's work is a summary of the best of modern scholarship. So when you reject COJ's summary, you're rejecting that best scholarship. You, an amateur who admittedly shills for Mommy Watch Tower, and demonstrably lies for the same. And of course, Mommy Watch Tower has demonstrably lied in print about many things connected with chronology.

Quote

Yes, the 'shrill' has you running for cover as always hiding behind insults and that is not scholarship.

LOL! You ignore the scholarship and emphasize the insults -- all of which you deserve in spades. Of course, every JW critic you've battled has come to the same conclusion -- you're a thoroughly dishonest sham of a scholar.
     

Quote

 

:: Far from it. It just becomes an exercise in futility trying to educate someone who doesn't want it, but wants to support obsolete religious tradition, and wants only to "argue to win" rather than argue to inform and educate.

Nonsense, I have spent much time since the early seventies defending WT Chronology so I do not want to be educated by you. I owe my education to WT publications

 

Exactly what I said.

Quote

and the research carried out by the Adventists so I have seen both sides of the fence. Have you?

I don't care about what the Adventists say, largely because so far as I know, they make the same debunkings of WTS chronology as most other critics. I care about what modern, non-religiously-affiliated scholars have to say. Although on second thought, the handful of stuff from Adventists that I've read shows unequivocally why Watch Tower chronology is bogus, and how the Watch Tower has lied and misrepresented so much. For example, William MacCarty's 1975 booklet, 1914 and Christ's Second Coming.

Quote

 

::  Another flat out lie. I don't mind being challenged at all, and will rise to most challenges, as long as the challenges are based in fact and on sound arguments rather than being bald assertions of religious tradition with no evidence presented. If evidence is presented that requires me to change my view, I will.

:: There are very few exceptions to my methods shown in this thread. One will find that almost every statement that I claim is true is supported either by evidence and arguments presented right there, or supported by references to older material, often online, which I can readily enough supply.

:: There is a big difference between expecting bald assertions to be accepted, and expecting sound arguments and evidence to be accepted  

Now this is a more refreshing attitude.

 

It's the same attitude I always display.

Quote

Chronology requires an open mind

Which is why you and Mommy Watch Tower fail so miserably.

Quote

and it is essential to look at all sides of the argument and realize that it is not an exact science but open to much interpretation.

True in principle, but the devil is in the details. And when you personally deny that a clear scripture that reads "these nations" actually means "the Jews", we know that you're lying through your teeth.

Quote

However, when you say that WT chronology has no evidence is rather absurd,

Yet another misrepresentation. You're just chock full of them.

I've never said there is no evidence for "WT chronology". I've stated clearly, and hundreds of times, that Watch Tower writers misrepresent evidence, ignore Bible passages, ignore all evidence they don't like from whatever source, and generally commit most every scholastic sin extant. Furthermore, I've carefully and with copious source references explained why various specific WTS claims about Neo-Babylonian chronology are wrong. So my claim is not that there is no evidence, but that some of the evidence for "WT chronology" is bogus.

Quote

you are not being honest because you very well know that our Chronology is based on recognized facts, scriptural texts etc and is an established scheme, saying otherwise is simply  showing.stupidity and ignorance.

Since you're lying again, all I need say is this: Many supposed WTS "facts", when fact-checked, turn out to be wishful thinking, misrepresentation, or outright lies. The WTS deliberately misrepresents much scriptural evidence, even going as far as quote-mining the Bible and ignoring texts that disprove its claims. As far as being an "established scheme", well, Bishop Ussher's chronology is an established scheme.

Quote

The very simple fact which I have repeated before is that COJ your mentor has devoted his life to this subject indicates the substance thereof.

A total non sequitur.
     

Quote

 

:: Yet another flat out lie. You can find almost no instances on this thread where I have failed to deliver evidence, presented either there or by reference to other material.

:: Of course, you will never rise to this challenge. We know this because I've challenged you the same way dozens of times on other forums, all with the same result: Nothing. Very occasionally you'll manage a limp "No" followed by the usual handwaving, but almost never anything of substance. You claim I'm wrong? Then by all means, provide several counterexamples.

:: Proof of my claim is easy to come by. Just a few posts above, you claimed that you've never been able to detect problems with the scholarship of WTS literature, and I pointed out that your inablity is due to your not wanting to detect problems, as opposed to there not being any problems. So I posed the following challenge:  

An good example where you have not provided evidence is your 538 hypothesis.

 

You keep lying about this. You claim I've not provided evidence, even though I can point to many posts in this thread, and material on other forums, where I've provided lots of evidence.

The fact that you don't like the evidence, and are unable to disprove it, does not mean there is no evidence.

Quote

You claim that the Cyrus' Decree was issued in the first month of his first year

No, I've claimed that it is very likely that it was issued in the first month of the first year. There is no evidence for any other time. Watch Tower speculation is not evidence.

Quote

and also claim that the Jews returned home in the sixth month of the first year.

Wrong again. I've carefully explained that the Bible itself states that the Jews were back in their cities by the 7th month of 538 or 537, and therefore one of those years was the year of Return, simply because if they were in their cities by month 7, their return must have been before that, in month 6 or 5 or whatever.

Quote

Now these are assumptions and you have ever right to make such assumptions

No assumptions; the Bible explicitly states what I've explained. Oh yeah, you reject the Bible.

Quote

but please do not present these as historical facts in order to prove a certain theory or thesis.

What do you disagree with about the above? I'm not talking about your misrepresentations of what I've said.

Quote

Assumptions have a rightful place in constructing a Chronology because many details are missing both from the Bible and the secular records.

Quite right. But as we all know, the Watch Tower often fails to state such assumptions, and presents a glossed-over view of many facts, where the underlying assumptions are deliberately covered over.
     

Quote

 

:: So let's test your ability to detect problems in WTS literature. Tell us, please, if the following statement on page 143 of the Creation book is an accurate representation of the quoted source:

:: << Zoologist Richard Lewontin said that organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed.” He views them as “the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer.”5 It will be useful to consider some of this evidence. >>

::  Excuses will be noted and used as further proof that you're no more a scholar than you are an octopus.

Now you are being silly because in order to respond to your challenge I would need to read the whole article that is referenced in the Bibliography at the end of the Creation book.

 

Actually, all you need to read is the first page, and finding it is really not hard. Here's a link I found in a couple of minutes, to Scientific American, “Adaptation,” by Richard Lewontin, September 1978, p. 213:

    Hello guest!

Quote

You can either post here or email it to me then I will read the entire article and give you my opinion. OK. If I find a mistake then I will 'fess up' to it. No problems!

Good. But no one will be holding their breath waiting for your response.
     

Quote

 

:: And I've given you a full set of evidence several times, not a bit of which you've been able to disprove. And of course, on other forums years ago I've posted far more extensive sets of evidence, which you've dismissed with handwaving rather than evidence. Indeed, I've challenged you to provide a correct timeline for the period 539-536 BCE, along with supporting arguments and evidence, but you've always refused. Just as you refused to provide evidence about page 208 of John Aquila Brown's book, because you knew that the evidence was against your claims

You have not given me a full set of evidence

 

I have indeed -- sufficient for anyone with at least half a brain to evaluate. What do you want? A 10,000 page dissertation?

Quote

but only a theory which contains some facts and some assumptions.

The facts are entirely clear. The few assumptions needed are perfectly reasonable, but until now you've not argued against them because you have not even stated them.

Quote

It lacks scholarship because it shows no evidence that you researched the matter.

Look at

    Hello guest!
again and tell us again that I failed to research the matter. Looking carefully at Ezra and Josephus, and compiling timelines is not research? LOL!

Quote

You quote no sources, other scholars or commentaries.

So what? I told you many times: this is new information that I've only recently seen mentioned elsewhere. And hypocritically, you reject all sources that disagree with the WTS.

Quote

You have not considered alternative views on the matter.

What alternative views? Give references. No, you can't; you're just blowing smoke.

Quote

Have you read Thiele on this subject?

Quote

 

So far as I know, Thiele doesn't comment on any specifics of my "thesis" in "Mysterious Numbers". If you have comments from him, let's hear it. Otherwise, this is another red herring.

Quote

The latest scholarship on this subject that I have found thus far is that of Steinmann's paper, have you read his paper on this subject?

I have now. I've been out of the loop for nearly ten years.

Steinmann comments that 537 is usually given as the date of the Return, but also that it is "usually offered with some reservation". Furthermore, he argues that the Return was in 533. He says nothing about Josephus.

Quote

Now I have not even begun to deconstruct your thesis but you have three major problems;

Quote

1. The matter of calendars, which calendar did Ezra use?

Non-accession-year, Tishri dating. Many scholars, including Thiele, agree.

Quote

2. Timing, it is difficult nay impossible to believe that all of the events described in Ezra 1;1-3:1 could have occurred in six months.

Nonsense. You've already admitted that the necessary time for a Return in 538 is almost the same as for a Return in 537 -- a difference of one month out of 7 or 8.

Quote

I refer you to Steinmann's article on this very point.

Sure, and based on his speculation, the Return was in 533, which does you no good at all.

Quote

3. The association/connection between Josephus and Ezra 3;8 is tenuous at best.

The connection is trivial: they both talk about the Temple foundations first being laid.
     

Quote

 

:: Such gross hypocrisy! No Watch Tower literature is peer reviewed, but you make no complaints about that. On the contrary, you've claimed it requires no peer review.

:: You also try to mislead your readers by implying that peer review is something that amateurs like me need in order for their arguments to be valid. But peer review is done by recognized scholarly journals deciding whether to accept for publication articles written by credentialed scholars. Therefore peer review is not normally done for amateurs, and your demand for it is a red herring.

:: Furthermore, you reject out of hand all peer reviewed scholarship that contradicts Watch Tower tradition. So even if I managed to get my "thesis" published in a peer reviewed scholarly journal, and even if every scholar in the world endorsed it, you would still reject it based on its refuting WTS tradition. Your demand for peer review is another attempt to dodge and weave.   

Peer review is reserved only for those in academia

 

Exactly what I said, you moron. Can't you read?

Quote

and as WT publications are not written for academics but the general public there is no need for such a process.

Yes, which emphasizes your hypocrisy, since I'm not in academia.

Quote

In your case, you propose a novel thesis

So you admit it's new. Why then, do you demand support from recognized scholars?

Quote

which you are dogmatic but if you want your audience to take you seriously then why don't you have others-your peers check it over.

I might just do that. And if they agree with it, what will you say then?

Quote

COJ whom you greatly respect his scholarship would I thought be your first 'port of call' as he has written very little about the Return.

COJ is ill and not writing any more.

Quote

As you have stated above if Peer Review is not for amateurs then I can only conclude that your thesis is 'amateurish'

Material written by amateurs is not necessarily amateurish. Of course, you are an amateur, but you don't automatically consider your writings amateurish. Even though pretty much everyone else consider them outright dishonest.

Quote

so if that is so then you cannot demand of others that it be taken seriously. Got it?

Wrong. Einstein and Newton were amateur physicists when they published the first of their seminal papers.
     

Quote

 

:: What assumptions? You've never bothered to try to point them out

I have many times. See my above list of three.

 

Not "many times". Only above, and for the first time, except for the business about six months not being enough for the Return travel -- except that you forgot that you already ageed with me that it was sufficient.
 

Quote

 

:: Nonsense. I've posted the charts for all to read and critique, on several forums over the years, the latest being a brief exposition on the ad1914 website. It is entirely based on scholarly research, with all research results taken from the Bible, Josephus and recognized scholarly literature, and presented there for all to see and evaluate.

:: You, on the other hand, have presented only bald dismissals and handwaving, such as you've written here.

Charts are helpful in that such make plain the printed text. However, if the text or argument contains even one assumption then this conveyed into the chart which can amount to a contrivance of sorts.

 

Generalities are meaningless without specifics. Since you really don't have any valid specifics, your claims aren't worth a toot.

Quote

SDA scholarship is replete with charts and diagrams that does not make the Chronology correct for if you require too many charst then the reader could well think that he is being' conned'.

More meaningless and irrelevant generalities.

Quote

Do you not think that I could make a pretty chart illustrating our computation of 537?

No. I've requested such for more than a decade, with no results.

Quote

Your computer skills are superior to mine so would you please make a nice, pretty chart similar to yours? Please!

Already done. See my ad1914 website material, and see if you can locate our old debates on the JWD website.

Quote

 

:: Already done

Do it again as I have awarded you a' Fail' mark.

 

Try reading the previous posts.
     

Quote

 

:: In principle, sure. But experience has shown that most readers are unwilling and/or unable to judge anything competently and fairly. Why? Because they don't want to investigate anything critical of Mommy Watch Tower for fear of finding out anything that could damage their faith in Mommy, and because most of them know nothing more of the topics than they've read in WTS literature.

I will tell you something that I have only recently learnt. This may sound rather odd and strange to you or to our readers and many Witnesses would not understand this comment. To put the matter very simply because it would require much elaboration is that in the defence of WT Chronology it is essential that one considers carefully SDA scholarship on Chronology as both schemes have co-existed together from the forties through to the fifties and beyond.

 

Whatever. Without specifics, one can only conclude that you're misrepresenting SDA sources. Especially since SDA William MacCarty debunked Watch Tower chronology back in 1975.
     

Quote

 

:: What case? Even your brother, JW Insider, has pointed out some of your reprehensible lies

JW Insider is simply a 'Johnny come lately' in his field of Chronology for he has much to learn and the said scholar will educate him.

 

Neither he nor anyone else needs to be an old campaigner in the battle against Watch Tower lies in order to notice your lies. All one needs to do is read your material, compare it with reality, and there you have it.

AlanF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nana Fofana wrote:

Quote

 

    Hello guest!

 
by Richard C. Lewontin

. . .

 

Very good! Your effort just goes to show up "scholar JW" as a lazy buffoon.

Unfortunately, you seem to have completely missed the point, which was:

:: So let's test your ability to detect problems in WTS literature. Tell us, please, if the following statement on page 143 of the Creation book is an accurate representation of the quoted source:

The point was not whether evolution or creation is correct, but whether the Creation book's quotation of Lewontin accurately represented his views.

What say you on that?

AlanF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nana Fofana wrote:

Quote

 

:: Unfortunately, you seem to have completely missed the point, which was:

:::: So let's test your ability to detect problems in WTS literature. Tell us, please, if the following statement on page 143 of the Creation book is an accurate representation of the quoted source:

:: The point was not whether evolution or creation is correct, but whether the Creation book's quotation of Lewontin accurately represented his views.

:: What say you on that?   

He was quoted accurately.

 

Do you really think that? Read the SA article again. Read the quoted words carefully. Note the context of Lewontin's statement.

Quote

Right, YOUR point is not whether evolution or creation is correct,  or whether any useful data  on that question is presented,  but whether  Lewontin's  views, in toto -whatever they are- are all presented.

More accurately: whether Lewontin's statements were accurately represented in the Creation book.

Quote

What about Stephen Jay Gould saying "the fossil record caused Darwin more grief than joy"?

This is a topic for the other thread. By all means, let's take it up there.

AlanF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alan F

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Your usual ad hominem dismissal of COJ's work. But as usual, you ignore the fact that COJ's work is a summary of the best of modern scholarship. So when you reject COJ's summary, you're rejecting that best scholarship. You, an amateur who admittedly shills for Mommy Watch Tower, and demonstrably lies for the same. And of course, Mommy Watch Tower has demonstrably lied in print about many things connected with chronology.

Perhaps you could say that COJ's work is a summary of the best of modern scholarship and I am inclined to agree but I will hold you to this comment. Yes, when one rejects this scholarship then it could be argued that one is rejecting the best scholarship so I agree to both statements.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

LOL! You ignore the scholarship and emphasize the insults -- all of which you deserve in spades. Of course, every JW critic you've battled has come to the same conclusion -- you're a thoroughly dishonest sham of a scholar.

I don't ignore anything. Insults from you do not reflect scholarship.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

I don't care about what the Adventists say, largely because so far as I know, they make the same debunkings of WTS chronology as most other critics. I care about what modern, non-religiously-affiliated scholars have to say. Although on second thought, the handful of stuff from Adventists that I've read shows unequivocally why Watch Tower chronology is bogus, and how the Watch Tower has lied and misrepresented so much. For example, William MacCarty's 1975 booklet, 1914 and Christ's Second Coming

It is good that you have considered SDA scholarship and that is my advice to you and I disagree with your statement that such scholarship has debunked WT Chronology. I am familiar with MacCarty's material as I have his treatise to hand.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

rue in principle, but the devil is in the details. And when you personally deny that a clear scripture that reads "these nations" actually means "the Jews", we know that you're lying through your teeth

No, not just in principle but in practice, that is why Methodology is essential.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

I've never said there is no evidence for "WT chronology". I've stated clearly, and hundreds of times, that Watch Tower writers misrepresent evidence, ignore Bible passages, ignore all evidence they don't like from whatever source, and generally commit most every scholastic sin extant. Furthermore, I've carefully and with copious source references explained why various specific WTS claims about Neo-Babylonian chronology are wrong. So my claim is not that there is no evidence, but that some of the evidence for "WT chronology" is bogus

WT Chronology has no need to misrepresent any evidence and I have found no examples of having done so nor have they ignored Bible passages but have evaluated all available evidence. Your presentation of such matters is simply a retelling of the COJ story and that has been falsified by the biblical 'seventy years'.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Since you're lying again, all I need say is this: Many supposed WTS "facts", when fact-checked, turn out to be wishful thinking, misrepresentation, or outright lies. The WTS deliberately misrepresents much scriptural evidence, even going as far as quote-mining the Bible and ignoring texts that disprove its claims. As far as being an "established scheme", well, Bishop Ussher's chronology is an established scheme

We all know about your supposed 'fact checking' it is simply proved to be bogus. There is no need to quote mine the Bible because the texts that we use are exactly the same scriptural texts that feature in COJ. These are few in number and are mainly centered around a few books of the OT relevant to NB Period. You are correct, Ussher's Chronology and WT Chronology are both established schemes of Chronology. Please note that to date COJ has not published a OT scheme of Chronology and neither did Edwin Thiele.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

You keep lying about this. You claim I've not provided evidence, even though I can point to many posts in this thread, and material on other forums, where I've provided lots of evidence.

The fact that you don't like the evidence, and are unable to disprove it, does not mean there is no evidence

Any evidence that you have presented is simply a rehash of the COJ story so this is not new and has been dealt with by contrary evidence over the years. It is not evidence that is the problem or that is missing for the problem is the INTERPRETATION of that evidence which you fail to understand.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

No, I've claimed that it is very likely that it was issued in the first month of the first year. There is no evidence for any other time. Watch Tower speculation is not evidence.

'Very likely' does not cut it. You have presented such as a fact in your earlier charts on the JWD FORUM and it has to be so in order for your novel theory to work. The only evidence we have is Ezra 1:1; 2 Chron.36:22-3.and that simply staes that the decree was given Cyru's' first year.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Wrong again. I've carefully explained that the Bible itself states that the Jews were back in their cities by the 7th month of 538 or 537, and therefore one of those years was the year of Return, simply because if they were in their cities by month 7, their return must have been before that, in month 6 or 5 or whatever.

No, Ezra did not specifically indicate what year the seventy month fell. It could not have been 538 BCE but could only have been 537 for the reasons I have given before and yes they must have arrived prior to that seventh month in order to be settled in their cities. The month of their actual arrival is not stated.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

No assumptions; the Bible explicitly states what I've explained. Oh yeah, you reject the Bible

Your thesis contains both assumptions and interpretation and that is fine so there is no room for dogmatism. OK

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

What do you disagree with about the above? I'm not talking about your misrepresentations of what I've said

I have already given you three reasons for concern which must be duly recognized but you are free to have an opinion just try to make a better fist of it and pay close attention to what Ezra actually said in Ezra 3:8 and not misinterpret his words in order to harmonize with Josephus' comment.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Quite right. But as we all know, the Watch Tower often fails to state such assumptions, and presents a glossed-over view of many facts, where the underlying assumptions are deliberately covered over.

Incorrect, if you read what WT publications have written about the Return you will notice that certain assumptions were and are made in order to establish a Chronology for the Return.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Good. But no one will be holding their breath waiting for your response.

My response is that the quote was used correctly and in context.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

I have indeed -- sufficient for anyone with at least half a brain to evaluate. What do you want? A 10,000 page dissertation

A dissertaion is not required but a short article with scholarship would be nice.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

The facts are entirely clear. The few assumptions needed are perfectly reasonable, but until now you've not argued against them because you have not even stated them.

Yes the fact are indeed clear but your assumptions are impossible therefore undermining the merit of your argument as I have explained previously.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

Look at

    Hello guest!
again and tell us again that I failed to research the matter. Looking carefully at Ezra and Josephus, and compiling timelines is not research? LOL

I have indeed and there is no evidence of any scholarship or research just an interpretation based on a fallacy.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

So what? I told you many times: this is new information that I've only recently seen mentioned elsewhere. And hypocritically, you reject all sources that disagree with the WTS

This so-called new information has been part of your thinking since June 2005 some 12 years ago and even yet has not had COJ's tick of approval.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

So far as I know, Thiele doesn't comment on any specifics of my "thesis" in "Mysterious Numbers". If you have comments from him, let's hear it. Otherwise, this is another red herring.

Why would he have done when he would have understood as most scholars do that 538 is impossible. Thiele does not discuss the Return in his MNHK but in a paper published in February, 1976. Now if you had engaged in proper research in support of your thesis then you would have come across such an article. Good scholarship demands a Literature Review.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

have now. I've been out of the loop for nearly ten years.

Steinmann comments that 537 is usually given as the date of the Return, but also that it is "usually offered with some reservation". Furthermore, he argues that the Return was in 533. He says nothing about Josephus

Excellent. Well done so tell me what else did you learn from his article with regard to the Return? Now, Steinmann is a Chronologist who indeed argues 533 which was 5 years after 538 making your theory absurd, impossible. Josephus' comment is not decisive when it comes to fixing the actual date of the Return.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Non-accession-year, Tishri dating. Many scholars, including Thiele, agree.

True, this is a consistent with SDA scholarship originating with Horn in 1953 but still today highly contentious

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Nonsense. You've already admitted that the necessary time for a Return in 538 is almost the same as for a Return in 537 -- a difference of one month out of 7 or 8.

My concession excluded the time of the Decree and its proclamation which existed prior to.the actual journey preparations and the journey itself.Further, 537 had an additional month in contrast to 538 BCE.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

he connection is trivial: they both talk about the Temple foundations first being laid

Correct but the time periods are not identical were they?

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Exactly what I said, you moron. Can't you read?

We agree. But it is you that has excellent reading and comprehension skills for I am but a dummy!!!!

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Yes, which emphasizes your hypocrisy, since I'm not in academi

So this fact should temper your criticism.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

So you admit it's new. Why then, do you demand support from recognized scholars?

Because of its novelty and any such new thesis is usually accompanied with sound scholarship.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

I might just do that. And if they agree with it, what will you say then?

I will give it careful consideration and would be happy to give a Critical Review..However, please take note of my earlier criticisms and deal with these carefully.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

COJ is ill and not writing any more.

Sorry to hear that and I hope all goes well with him.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Material written by amateurs is not necessarily amateurish. Of course, you are an amateur, but you don't automatically consider your writings amateurish. Even though pretty much everyone else consider them outright dishones

Case in point is that of WT scholars and the NWT and yes I am an amateur but then so is COJ.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Wrong. Einstein and Newton were amateur physicists when they published the first of their seminal papers

Correct, amateurs can move scholarship forward and I look forward to your contribution in this area.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Not "many times". Only above, and for the first time, except for the business about six months not being enough for the Return travel -- except that you forgot that you already ageed with me that it was sufficient

Well six months is sufficient for actual journey and resettlement but it still excludes the preparations and the Decree and I only agreed in context with the actual journey itself.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Generalities are meaningless without specifics. Since you really don't have any valid specifics, your claims aren't worth a toot

I agree so let us crank up the scholarship!

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

More meaningless and irrelevant generalities

Not so, you try reading the stuff better than chess or a mathematical puzzle.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

No. I've requested such for more than a decade, with no results

I would if I could.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

lready done. See my ad1914 website material, and see if you can locate our old debates on the JWD website

No not your nonsense but our scheme. Please.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

ry reading the previous posts.

I have.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Whatever. Without specifics, one can only conclude that you're misrepresenting SDA sources. Especially since SDA William MacCarty debunked Watch Tower chronology back in 1975

You fail to grasp the matter for my comment has absolutely nothing to do misrepresenting SDA sources which shows that historically SDA scholars were in tandem with WT scholars even though criticism was levelled  from both sides.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Neither he nor anyone else needs to be an old campaigner in the battle against Watch Tower lies in order to notice your lies. All one needs to do is read your material, compare it with reality, and there you have it

Opinion not fact

scholar JW emeritus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The point here is that the "seven times" or 2,520 years are not taken from Nebuchadnezzar's tree dream prophecy in Daniel 4, but are called the "seven times" of Moses. This means, of course, that they come from Leviticus 26:18-28 . . .

We can find out whether Russell really ever rejected this reasoning. We can trace his discussions of the topic from the very first to the very last. When Russell first wrote about the Gentile Times it was in the October 1876 Bible Examiner (published by George Storrs).

*** jv chap. 10 pp. 134-135 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth ***

  • Shortly thereafter, in an article entitled “Gentile Times: When Do They End?”, Russell also reasoned on the matter from the Scriptures and stated that the evidence showed that “the seven times will end in A.D. 1914.” This article was printed in the October 1876 issue of the Bible Examiner.

The entire article is at: 

    Hello guest!
.  Here is some of what he said: 

  • We believe that God has given the key. We believe He doeth nothing but he revealeth it unto His servants. Do we not find part of the key in Lev. xxvi. 27, 33? “I, even I will chastise you seven times for your sins: . . ."

In explaining the "Gentile Times" of Luke 21:24, this is the first scripture he quotes, Leviticus 26:27,33. [Actually, Russell only quotes from Levitius 26:28,32,33.] Then he quotes from Ezekiel 21:26-27 ("Remove the diadem, take off the crown, . . . I will overturn, overturn, overturn it, . . . until He comes whose right it.") Leviticus 26 is no longer part of our 1914 doctrine, but Ezekiel 21:25-27 is still a key part of it. Then he references Daniel 2:38 about Nebuchadnezzar:

  • "Further, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, the head of gold, is recognized by God as the representative of the beast, or Gentile Governments."

So far, all of this perfectly echoes the publication by Seiss nearly six years earlier. ("Prophetic Times" Dec 1870). There, the 2,520 years was also mentioned in connection with Leviticus 26:18,21,24,28, after which the 1870 article goes on to make the same point from Ezekiel 21:25-27. The only mention of Nebuchadnezzar in the "Seiss" article is a similar reference to Daniel 2 as just quoted from :

  • . . . with the corresponding investiture of Nebuchadnezzar, with as absolute dominion as God has ever delegated to man, as the "head of gold," contemplates the commencement of the "times of the Gentiles," which points to A.D. 1914 as the "time of the end" . . .

Of course, they both are saying the same thing about Nebuchadnezzar which would appear to preclude making Nebuchadnezzar represent the non-Gentile government, if he is such a perfect representation of the Gentile governments!

So, the publication by Seiss never attempts to bring in Daniel 4, but Russell follows Barbour's lead here and attempts it anyway. Russell seems to be only slightly aware that his thinking is getting terribly muddled here, about who Nebuchadnezzar represents. Using some long and convoluted sentences, in his 1876 article, Russell says:

  • . . . as in the case of Israel, their degradation was to be for seven times, so with the dominion of the Image; it lasts seven times; for, when in his pride the “Head of Gold” ignored“ The God of heaven,” the glory of that kingdom (which God gave him, as a representative of the Image,) departed, and it took on its beastly character, which lasts seven times. Dan iv:23 – and, (prefigured by the personal degradation for seven years, of Nebuchadnazzar, the representative) until the time comes when they shall acknowledge, and “give honor to the Most High, whose Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom.”

Russell's point is NOT that Nebuchadnezzar represents the Messianic Kingdom, as the Watch Tower publications tell us today. Instead, Russell is arguing that there is a "parallel" in the length of punishment because the two "events" are parallel periods: "trodding of Jerusalem" and "times of the Gentiles." The first single sentence quoted above in its entirety actually said the following:

  • God had taken the crown off Zedekiah and declared the Image, of which Nebuchadnezzar is the head, ruler of the world until the kingdom of God takes its place (smiting it on its feet); and, as this is the same time at which Israel is to be delivered, (for “Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled”), we here get our second clue, viz.: these two events, noted of the Scriptures of truth-“Times of Gentiles,” and “Treading of Jerusalem,” are parallel periods, commencing at the same time and ending at the same time; and, as in the case of Israel, their degradation was to be for seven times, so with the dominion of the Image; it lasts seven times; for, when in his pride the “Head of Gold” ignored“ The God of heaven,” the glory of that kingdom (which God gave him, as a representative of the Image,) departed, and it took on its beastly character, which lasts seven times.

Yes that was only one sentence. But the point is that there are two periods of seven times: seven times of degradation for Israel (Treading of Jerusalem), and seven times for the dominion of the image (Times of the Gentiles). They will run in parallel. The first of those periods about the punishment of Israel/Jerusalem is from Leviticus 24 and the second of those periods is about the dominion of the Gentile nations and is from Daniel 4.

Of course, Russell's overall point was that by 1914 "the Jew" would be delivered because "the nations" would be "dashed to pieces" (smashed as with an iron rod) , and 1914 would be the time when the nations would therefore acknowledge God as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. There would be no more Gentile governments as they would collapse in chaos, and only Israel's government (assumed to be from the physical city of Jerusalem) would now have power.

  • ". . . the seven times will end in A.D. 1914; when Jerusalem shall be delivered forever, and the Jew say of the Deliverer, “Lo, this is our God, we have waited for Him and He will save us.” When Gentile Governments shall have been dashed to pieces; when God shall have poured out of his fury upon the nation [sic], and they acknowledge, him King of Kings and Lord of Lords. 
  • If the Gentile Times end in 1914, (and there are many other and clearer evidences pointing to the same time) and we are told that it shall be with fury poured out; at time of trouble such as never was before, nor ever shall be; a day of wrath, etc.

So was Russell consistent about this reasoning or did he reject it as stated in "Proclaimers"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

So was Russell consistent about this reasoning or did he reject it as stated in "Proclaimers"?

In the Watch Tower, October 1909, Russell continues the same thinking about the "parallels" but never even mentions Daniel 4 or Nebuchadnezzar in the discussion. In fact, he defends the use of "seven" in Leviticus to mean "seven times" even though, by now, it is clear that Russell has heard the argument about the actual meaning of the Hebrew words. The Hebrew in Leviticus 26 was about as helpful in creating "time periods" as saying that Naaman bathed 7 times in the Jordan, or that the three Hebrews of Daniel 3:19 were thrown into a furnace heated "seven times" hotter. Instead, Russell, "digs in his heels" and mixes the two meanings together to create a "continuous" period of seven times to mean 2,520 years.

  • God foretold that if Israel would be faithful he would bless them in every sense of the word, but that if they would walk contrary to him, he would walk contrary to them and chastise them "seven times for their sins." (
      Hello guest!
    .) This expression in this connection is, with variations, repeated three times. In one instance the word "MORE" is used. "I will chastise you seven times more for your sins." The Hebrew word rendered more, according to Strong's translation, would properly be rendered "continuously."
  • This threat of punishment we interpret to mean, not that the Lord would give Israel seven times as much punishment as they should have, but that he would punish them seven times (seven years) more (continuously) for their sins. These seven times or seven years were not literal years surely, for they received more punishment than that on numerous occasions. The seven times we interpret as symbolical years, in harmony with other Scriptures--a day for a year, on the basis of three hundred and sixty days to a year. Thus the seven times would mean 7 x 360, which equals 2520 literal years. And the word more or continuously would signify that this period of 2520 years would not be the sum of all their various years of chastisement at various "times," but this experience of 2520 years of national chastisement would be one continuous period.
  • Next we should ask, Has there been such a continuous period of disfavor in Israel's national history? The answer is, Yes. In the days of Zedekiah, the last king to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord, the Word of the Lord concerning the matter was, "O, thou profane and wicked prince, whose time has come that iniquity should have an end: Take off the diadem! Remove the crown! I will overturn, overturn, overturn it [the crown, the kingdom] until he comes whose right it is, and I will give it unto him." (
      Hello guest!
    .) This period of 2520 years, or seven symbolic times, will expire, according to our reckoning (DAWN-STUDIES, Vol. II., Chap. IV.) in October, 1914. In other words, the period of Gentile times, of Gentile supremacy in the world, is the exact parallel to the period of Israel's loss of the kingdom and waiting for it at the hands of Messiah.

In the "Studies in the Scriptures" series, Russell, also focuses on Leviticus 26:28 first, and then Ezekiel 21:25-27, but there he does include brief references to the tree dream of Daniel 4. When he wrote Volume 2, he was still concerned about the differenes in the Hebrew between Leviticus and Daniel and made a statement about the Hebrew word prior to the statement quoted above which was false (understood better in 1909, but never fixed in future printings of Volume II itself):

  •  All these periods being far longer than "seven times" or years literal, yet the "seven times" being mentioned as the last, greatest and final punishment, proves that symbolic, not literal time is meant, though the Hebrew word translated "seven times" in 
      Hello guest!
    , is the same word so translated i
      Hello guest!
    , except that in Daniel the word iddan is added, whereas in Leviticus it is left to be understood.

It's like saying, it's the same Hebrew word, except that it's different. But he is still consistent that there are two parallel time periods: the "chastisment [trampling] of Israel" and the "time of the [domination by the] Gentiles." This is from Vol 2, "The Time Is At Hand," page 192, 193:

  • In the same chapter in which he tells them of the punishment of seven times under Gentile rule, he tells them, also, that if they would neglect the year Sabbaths he would punish them for it by desolating their land. (And, as a matter of fact, the seventy years desolation was also the beginning of the seven Gentile Times, as already shown.) The Lord's threatening reads thus: "Your land shall be desolate and your cities waste. Then shall the land enjoy her Sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate and ye be in your enemies' land,...because it did not rest in your Sabbaths when ye dwelt upon it." 
      Hello guest!
    . . . The entire number being seventy, and nineteen of these having been observed in a half-hearted way by Israel before the desolation, it follows that the remaining fifty-one (70-19=51) mark the period from the last Jubilee which Israel imperfectly observed, down to the great antitype.

Notice, as an aside, that Russell comes 'curiously' close to finding a solution for the supposed "20-year gap" when he mentions that it was intended to cover for Jubilees observed in a half-hearted way for 19 of the 70 years, and failing completely for 51 of the seventy years. Just above this in the same article Russell had highlighted the connection between the separate phrases about a usual reference to the "70 years of captivity" as perhaps different from the "Biblical" reference to the "70 years of desolation." It's a side point, but might indicate that the "wheels were turning" to discover a way to push the 606 reference back to the actual chronology proposed by Seiss, instead of the 19 to 20 year mistake Russell had accepted through N.H.Barbour. (Seiss had recognized 606 as the first year of captivity and exile, referring to Daniel and others, from the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar, not the 18th/19th year when Jerusalem was destroyed. For that matter, so had E.B.Elliott.)

But back to the point at hand.

Russell showed again and again that his primary source for the 7 times, even the "seven Gentile Times" was Leviticus 26, not Daniel 4. Without further quoting long passages, we can see this in several more places, in no particular order. The following is a fairly comprehensive list of every time the period of "seven times" (as 2,520 years) was mentioned by Russell in the Watch Tower magazine:

  • The Watch Tower article in July 1915, supports the "seven times" only with Leviticus, not Daniel.
  • The February 1892 Watch Tower, page 61 also only uses Leviticus, not Daniel, and states the prediction for "1915" instead of 1914:
    •  Seeing Israel's kingdom cut off, and finding themselves for centuries uninterfered with in ruling the world, they conclude that it shall so continue always, and know not that their days of empire are limited to "seven times" or 2520 years, which will end in A.D. 1915
  • The June 1912 Watch Tower still speaking of the literal, physical nation of Israel only uses Leviticus 26, not Daniel.
    • as a nation, they have for centuries been receiving the very "curses" specified under their Covenant. (See 
        Hello guest!
      .) Verses 49-53 describe the Roman siege, etc.; verses 64-67 describe the condition of Israel since. As shown in previous writings the Lord (
        Hello guest!
      ) declared the symbolical "seven times," 2,520 years, of Israel's subjection to the Gentiles, and their deliverance--A.D. 1914.
  • The October 1909 Watch Tower is quoted earlier in this post, and only uses Leviticus, not Daniel.
  • The December 1912 Watch Tower is actually about the potential problem with the potential existence of the "zero year" between BC and CE, and the article also makes a point that even back in 1904 the Watchtower had already hedged toward 1915 anyway, just in case. The parallel time periods are mentioned, without any mention of either Daniel or Leviticus, however:
    • "We find, then, that the Seven Times of Israel's punishment and the Seven Times of Gentile dominion are the same; and that they began with the captivity of Zedekiah, and, as will be seen from the Chart, they terminate with the year 1915.
  • In the November 1914 Watch Tower,  the Times of the Gentiles is still being discussed with only references to Leviticus, and not Daniel. Just as in the Seiss publication, the primary references are to Leviticus 26 and Ezekiel 21, and the only reference to Nebuchadnezzar is to Daniel 2 where he is called the "head of  gold:"
    • Through our Lord Jesus Christ, God has mentioned the Gentile Times (Luke 21:24), and now in the Old Testament we find out how many Times there are-- how many years; for in Scriptural usage a Time means a year. As we studied the subject still further, we found that God had told the Israelites that they would come under His disfavor for Seven Times. (

        Hello guest!
      .) . . . each symbolic "Time" would be 360 years. So then, this period of Seven Times must mean 7 x 360 years, or 2520 years. Thus we found that this was to be the period of time during which Israel was to be overturned (
        Hello guest!
      ) --to have their kingdom and their government subject to the Gentiles.

So, it turns out that Daniel 4 might never have been used as a proof text for the 2,520 years in the Watch Tower itself during Russell's lifetime. It was in Volume II of Studies in the Scriptures, but even there it was not used much, but was discussed in a section more than two-thirds of the way into the article, after 20 pages, under a subheading of the chapter on the Gentile Times, called "Another Line of Testimony." So even here, it was considered to be an additional perspective, treated as secondary, after the Leviticus 26 explanation had been given as primary.

Another side point I found interesting is that there are several phrases that echo Seiss's publications, even though it may have been Barbour who had already provided the direct conduit to Seiss, and Russell's references are perhaps only through Barbour. But it's also true that when Seiss published this work in 1870, that it didn't actually quote Ezekiel 21:25-27, per se, but quoted the exact same verses from Ezekiel 21:30,32 using Leeser's Reading, which renumbers some verses. The Watch Tower began selling Leeser's translation as a recommended study aid back in 1884, but rarely quoted from it in the Watch Tower. The first quote from it that I have found was in February 1884, and the second quote from it was 8 years later in the same article mentioned above from February 1892, and the quotation is from Ezekiel 21:31,32, just as Seiss had published this passage (and only this passage) from Leeser's in 1870.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

scholar JW pretendus horribilis mendacious wrote:

This post of yours, to which I'm responding, is a fine example of your atrociously bad attempts at scholarship, of how you misrepresent source references -- even of yourself -- and of how you deliberately misrepresent your opponents' words.

Quote

 

:: Your usual ad hominem dismissal of COJ's work. But as usual, you ignore the fact that COJ's work is a summary of the best of modern scholarship. So when you reject COJ's summary, you're rejecting that best scholarship. You, an amateur who admittedly shills for Mommy Watch Tower, and demonstrably lies for the same. And of course, Mommy Watch Tower has demonstrably lied in print about many things connected with chronology.

Perhaps you could say that COJ's work is a summary of the best of modern scholarship and I am inclined to agree but I will hold you to this comment.

 

And I will hold you to yours.

Quote

Yes, when one rejects this scholarship then it could be argued that one is rejecting the best scholarship so I agree to both statements.

Here you're admitting, for the first time, that your bashing of COJ's work as unscholarly has been a straw man -- a fallacious argument that is also a red herring -- a false or irrelevant argument designed to throw naive readers off the track of the real argument. In other words, you've admitted to lying, fallacious argumentation, and deliberately trying to deceive your readers.
     

Quote

 

:: LOL! You ignore the scholarship and emphasize the insults -- all of which you deserve in spades. Of course, every JW critic you've battled has come to the same conclusion -- you're a thoroughly dishonest sham of a scholar.

I don't ignore anything. Insults from you do not reflect scholarship.

 

You ignore almost everything that you can't dismiss by handwaving or lying. I can give dozens of examples. Of course, we know that if I do, you'll ignore those, too.
     

Quote

 

:: I don't care about what the Adventists say, largely because so far as I know, they make the same debunkings of WTS chronology as most other critics. I care about what modern, non-religiously-affiliated scholars have to say. Although on second thought, the handful of stuff from Adventists that I've read shows unequivocally why Watch Tower chronology is bogus, and how the Watch Tower has lied and misrepresented so much. For example, William MacCarty's 1975 booklet, 1914 and Christ's Second Coming.

It is good that you have considered SDA scholarship and that is my advice to you and I disagree with your statement that such scholarship has debunked WT Chronology.

 

More unevidenced handwaving. You can disagree all you like, but with no evidence for your disagreement, it's meaningless.

Quote

I am familiar with MacCarty's material as I have his treatise to hand.

Good. Then both you and I can quote him on why WTS chronology is bogus.

Quote

 

:: True in principle, but the devil is in the details. And when you personally deny that a clear scripture that reads "these nations" actually means "the Jews", we know that you're lying through your teeth

No, not just in principle but in practice, that is why Methodology is essential.

 

Another example of your ignoring an essential part of an argument. Let's examine how you've done it.

You had said:

<< ... it is essential to look at all sides of the argument and realize that it is not an exact science but open to much interpretation. >>

To which I replied:

<< True in principle, but the devil is in the details. And when you personally deny that a clear scripture that reads "these nations" actually means "the Jews", we know that you're lying through your teeth. >>

So we both agree on my statement "true in principle", but that's a trivially obvious statement. The meat of my argument was "the devil is in the details" followed by my example of your lying about a Bible passage. You ignored the meat, and focused on the trivial.

You also invoke your standard bogus "different methodology" fallacy. A methodology different from that accepted by the world's best scholars is fine, as long as one can justify that it is valid. But what you call "WTS methodology" is not valid, as shown by the fact that it results in contradictions with the Bible and ancient sources, and is logically flawed. This "methodology" amounts to a circular argument, and deliberately ignores all evidence that does not support its pre-defined conclusion.

Quote

 

:: I've never said there is no evidence for "WT chronology". I've stated clearly, and hundreds of times, that Watch Tower writers misrepresent evidence, ignore Bible passages, ignore all evidence they don't like from whatever source, and generally commit most every scholastic sin extant. Furthermore, I've carefully and with copious source references explained why various specific WTS claims about Neo-Babylonian chronology are wrong. So my claim is not that there is no evidence, but that some of the evidence for "WT chronology" is bogus  

WT Chronology has no need to misrepresent any evidence

 

Of course it does. Without misrepresentation, it immediately falls apart, as has been proved by countless JW critics.

Quote

and I have found no examples of having done so

More to the point: you have acknowledged no such examples.

Quote

nor have they ignored Bible passages

Do you want me to list them again?

Quote

but have evaluated all available evidence.

Yes, evaluated and then ignored all that does not fit. Such as Jeremiah 27 and Daniel 5. And various passages in 2 Chronicles 36 and Jeremiah 25. Examples that you are well aware of, and routinely ignore when they're put to you.

Quote

Your presentation of such matters is simply a retelling of the COJ story

LOL! "Simply"! That story, as you admit, is the sum of the best world scholarship.

Quote

and that has been falsified by the biblical 'seventy years'.

Translation: "It's wrong because it contradicts Mommy Watch Tower's fairytales!"
     

Quote

 

:: Since you're lying again, all I need say is this: Many supposed WTS "facts", when fact-checked, turn out to be wishful thinking, misrepresentation, or outright lies. The WTS deliberately misrepresents much scriptural evidence, even going as far as quote-mining the Bible and ignoring texts that disprove its claims. As far as being an "established scheme", well, Bishop Ussher's chronology is an established scheme

We all know about your supposed 'fact checking' it is simply proved to be bogus.

 

More handwaving, disproved by many examples just in this thread. And by dozens of examples on other forums and in various critical commentaries over the years. You can offer no examples, aside from "It's wrong cuz it contradicts my Mommy!"

Quote

There is no need to quote mine the Bible because the texts that we use are exactly the same scriptural texts that feature in COJ.

Some are, but "celebrated WTS scholars" ignore or misrepresent all that don't fit their narrative. This has been repeatedly demonstrated.

Quote

These are few in number and are mainly centered around a few books of the OT relevant to NB Period.

Correct.

Your problem is that these texts, interpreted properly in the manner summarized by COJ, are fully concordant with the most accepted secular evidence, whereas WTS chronology is not. Thus we have "two witnesses" for good scholarship.

Quote

You are correct, Ussher's Chronology and WT Chronology are both established schemes of Chronology.

But you're again ignoring the point: both are "methodologies", one of which you accept because it aligns with your preconceived beliefs learned along ago, and the other which you reject because it contradicts your preconceptions.

Quote

Please note that to date COJ has not published a OT scheme of Chronology and neither did Edwin Thiele.

So what? One does not need to set forth a complete Theory of Cosmology to debunk a claim that the moon is made of green cheese.
     

Quote

 

:: You keep lying about this. You claim I've not provided evidence, even though I can point to many posts in this thread, and material on other forums, where I've provided lots of evidence.

:: The fact that you don't like the evidence, and are unable to disprove it, does not mean there is no evidence

Any evidence that you have presented is simply a rehash of the COJ story

 

So you now admit that you lied when you claimed that I have presented "no evidence". This has been noted in your "record of repentance".

Quote

so this is not new and has been dealt with by contrary evidence over the years.

"Dealt with"? Yes, waving your hands around is certainly "dealing with" evidence.

Quote

It is not evidence that is the problem or that is missing for the problem is the INTERPRETATION of that evidence which you fail to understand.

I'm perfectly well aware of the niceties of interpretation. WTS interpretation consists of sifting through the evidence and tossing out what does not fit with its traditions. Good, scholarly interpretation consists of dealing with ALL of the evidence, and honestly talking about the pieces that are problematic. "Celebrated WTS scholars" simply ignore the evidence problematic for their preconceived notions. Examples abound.
     

Quote

 

:: No, I've claimed that it is very likely that it was issued in the first month of the first year. There is no evidence for any other time. Watch Tower speculation is not evidence.

'Very likely' does not cut it.

 

Of course it does, when supported by good evidence.

But you're showing your hypocrisy again, because the best that WTS fake scholars can do is say that it's "likely" that Cyrus issued his decree in late 538 or early 537 BCE -- based not on evidence, but speculation. Speculation required only by their need to support WTS tradition, and nothing else.

Quote

You have presented such as a fact in your earlier charts on the JWD FORUM

False. I have clearly stated that there is very good evidence for it -- not that it is a fact -- and presented charts based on that evidence.

No one -- not you, not Thirdwitness, or any other JW defender has ever attempted to present an alternate chart that supports WTS claims, despite my having asked for such many times.

Quote

and it has to be so in order for your novel theory to work.

Correct. Just as Cyrus' decree had to have been issued some time later for the WTS's theory to work.

Quote

The only evidence we have is Ezra 1:1; 2 Chron.36:22-3.and that simply staes that the decree was given Cyru's' first year.

False. We also have Josephus' testimony, which combined with Ezra and 2 Chron. is nearly definitive that the Jews returned in 538.

Once again, I challenge you to show why such combination does not result in a 538 BCE date. Your attempts at throwing cold water on the arguments have not addressed the basics, and I've shown why they're wrong.

Quote

 

:: Wrong again. I've carefully explained that the Bible itself states that the Jews were back in their cities by the 7th month of 538 or 537, and therefore one of those years was the year of Return, simply because if they were in their cities by month 7, their return must have been before that, in month 6 or 5 or whatever.

No, Ezra did not specifically indicate what year the seventy month fell.

 

You really are a moron. We both agree on either 538 or 537 as the year of the Return. We both know that Ezra did not specify a year. The point here is to determine whether Ezra's description refers to 538 or to 537.

Quote

It could not have been 538 BCE but could only have been 537 for the reasons I have given before

Lying yet again. As I've pointed out, you yourself agreed that the evidence is consistent with either 538 or 537. Do I need to quote you again?

Quote

and yes they must have arrived prior to that seventh month in order to be settled in their cities.

Very good! You admit that 6 comes before 7! Wowee!

Here is a diagram of what I said. Perhaps you can understand pictures.

||. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538 or 537 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .||
||. . . .  1st year of Return | 2nd year of Return . . . . .||
||. . . . Month 5 . Month 6 | Month 7 . Month 8  . . . . ||
||. . . . . . . . . . . . . Ab . Elul | Tishri . Heshvan . . . . . . .||

 

Quote

The month of their actual arrival is not stated.

Correct, but irrelevant to this point.
     

Quote

 

:: No assumptions; the Bible explicitly states what I've explained. Oh yeah, you reject the Bible

Your thesis contains both assumptions and interpretation and that is fine so there is no room for dogmatism.

 

The only thing I'm dogmatic about is that IF we combine Ezra and Josephus, and IF there are no disqualifying assumptons, THEN the only conclusion is that the Jews returned in 538 BCE.

Thus, the crucial question for my "thesis" is whether there are any disqualifying assumptions. I know of several possibilities, but I've looked into them quite carefully. You've listed three, which I've debunked.

Quote

 

:: What do you disagree with about the above? I'm not talking about your misrepresentations of what I've said

I have already given you three reasons for concern which must be duly recognized

 

Which I debunked, and you ignored.

Quote

but you are free to have an opinion just try to make a better fist of it and pay close attention to what Ezra actually said in Ezra 3:8 and not misinterpret his words in order to harmonize with Josephus' comment.

Already done. This is more handwaving by you. You have never listed any specific disagreement you have with the details of my "thesis", such as any supposed misinterpretation of Ezra's words.
     

Quote

 

:: Quite right. But as we all know, the Watch Tower often fails to state such assumptions, and presents a glossed-over view of many facts, where the underlying assumptions are deliberately covered over.

Incorrect, if you read what WT publications have written about the Return you will notice that certain assumptions were and are made in order to establish a Chronology for the Return.

 

Exactly my point: assumptions are made, but not stated. Only a reader who is already cognizant of the details will notice the unstated assumptions -- and the typical JW reader is not cognizant of such details.
The standard example I give is that unstated assumptions are made by the WTS in assigning late 538 or early 537 for Cyrus' decree. Hardly any JW readers are aware of the historical details and scholarly discussions.
     

Quote

 

:: Good. But no one will be holding their breath waiting for your response.

My response is that the quote was used correctly and in context.

 

Excellent! You've proved my point: you are not able to detect misrepresentations in WTS literature.

Go back and carefully compare Richard Lewontin's statements with what the Creation book claimed. Answer these questions:

1. Did Lewontin say that he views the apparent design of organisms as the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer?

2. When Lewontin stated that organisms have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that appear to have been carefully and artfully designed, what did he mean by the word "appear"? Does the Creation book accurately reflect Lewontin's meaning?
 

Quote

 

:: I have indeed -- sufficient for anyone with at least half a brain to evaluate. What do you want? A 10,000 page dissertation

A dissertaion is not required but a short article with scholarship would be nice.

 

I've already done that several times in several forums. What "scholarship" do you claim is missing?

Quote

 

:: The facts are entirely clear. The few assumptions needed are perfectly reasonable, but until now you've not argued against them because you have not even stated them.

Yes the fact are indeed clear but your assumptions are impossible therefore undermining the merit of your argument as I have explained previously.

 

False, as I've shown above and several other times.
     

Quote

 

:: Look at

    Hello guest!
again and tell us again that I failed to research the matter. Looking carefully at Ezra and Josephus, and compiling timelines is not research? LOL

I have indeed and there is no evidence of any scholarship or research just an interpretation based on a fallacy.

 

LOL! You invoke "scholarship or research" as a bludgeon, but you fail to give any details. You cannot define either term in a way that makes sense, without exposing your underlying false claims.
In your world, "scholarship" means "whatever Mommy Watch Tower says." "Research" means "whatever Mommy Watch Tower prints and calls the results of 'research'."
 

Quote

 

:: So what? I told you many times: this is new information that I've only recently seen mentioned elsewhere.

:: And hypocritically, you reject all sources that disagree with the WTS

This so-called new information has been part of your thinking since June 2005 some 12 years ago and even yet has not had COJ's tick of approval.

 

Irrelevant. My research is valid on its own merits. And of course, as I've mentioned, even if COJ and the rest of the world of scholarship came down solidly on the side of my "thesis", you would reject it simply because it contradicts Mommy Watch Tower's tradition. Your above "argument" is a straw man.
     

Quote

 

:: So far as I know, Thiele doesn't comment on any specifics of my "thesis" in "Mysterious Numbers". If you have comments from him, let's hear it. Otherwise, this is another red herring.

Why would he have done when he would have understood as most scholars do that 538 is impossible.

 

Pure speculation, since Thiele wrote nothing about this.

Quote

Thiele does not discuss the Return in his MNHK but in a paper published in February, 1976. Now if you had engaged in proper research in support of your thesis then you would have come across such an article. Good scholarship demands a Literature Review.

Well then, why don't you quote what Thiele said? Oh yeah, likely for the same reason you refused to quote John Aquila Brown: Thiele's words most likely don't support your claims.
     

Quote

 

:: have now. I've been out of the loop for nearly ten years.

:: Steinmann comments that 537 is usually given as the date of the Return, but also that it is "usually offered with some reservation". Furthermore, he argues that the Return was in 533. He says nothing about Josephus

Excellent. Well done so tell me what else did you learn from his article with regard to the Return?

 

I learned that Steinmann is as good at speculation as other scholars are. And that his speculations are not convincing.

Quote

Now, Steinmann is a Chronologist who indeed argues 533 which was 5 years after 538 making your theory absurd, impossible.

The same is true of 537. Such gross hypocrisy!

Quote

Josephus' comment is not decisive when it comes to fixing the actual date of the Return.

Not necessarily decisive, but given that it's the only statement from historical documents that connects the laying of the Temple foundation with Cyrus' 2nd year, and it perfectly jibes with Ezra's statements, it's pretty solid evidence.
And so far, you've been unwilling and unable to argue why combining Ezra and Josephus is a flawed way of pinpointing the events.
     

Quote

 

:: Non-accession-year, Tishri dating. Many scholars, including Thiele, agree.

True, this is a consistent with SDA scholarship originating with Horn in 1953 but still today highly contentious

 

Not really. When one examines the arguments of Thiele and others, it's decisive. And again, such arguments are not the sort of bald assertions so dear to your heart, nor the mere parroting of claims of other authors.
If you think that the arguments Thiele and other top scholars make for Ezra's dating methods are wrong, then argue your case.
     

Quote

 

:: Nonsense. You've already admitted that the necessary time for a Return in 538 is almost the same as for a Return in 537 -- a difference of one month out of 7 or 8.

My concession excluded the time of the Decree and its proclamation which existed prior to.the actual journey preparations and the journey itself.

 

Misleading, revisionist gobble-de-goop. Here is what was said, from pages 21-22 of this thread:

<<
scholar JW: Alan F would have us believe that the six month interval from Nisan, 538 BCE month 1 until Tishri, 538 BCE, month 7 according to his tabulation would be of sufficient time for the Jews to return home with a four-month journey inclusive. Now if ones' imagination cannot accommodate such a hypothesis then it must also be considered that the Jews were prior to Month 1 would have been in an anticipatory or preparatory frame of mind with some preparations already in hand. Now, this of course is an interesting scenario but if Alan F demands such an indulgence proving 538 BCE for the Return then how is it the case that he refuses one to believe or to concede the possibility that the Jews could have more easily returned the following year in 537 BE.

AlanF: The Watch Tower Society would have us believe that the six or seven month interval from Adar or Nisan, 537 BCE month 12 or 1, until Tishri, 537 BCE, month 7 according to its tabulation would be of sufficient time for the Jews to return home with a four-month journey inclusive. Now if ones' imagination cannot accommodate such a hypothesis then it must also be considered that the Jews prior to Adar or Nisan would have been in an anticipatory or preparatory frame of mind with some preparations already in hand. Now, this of course is an interesting scenario but if the Society demands such an indulgence proving 537 BCE for the Return then how is it the case that it refuses to believe or to concede the possibility that the Jews could have easily returned the previous year in 538 BCE?  

scholar JW: Alan F is correct in that the scenarios for both 538 and 537 BCE are similar so in theory what works for one should work for the other.
>>

Clearly, both of us agreed that the scenario in question -- from about Nisan through Tishri, in either 538 or 537 BCE -- works for either year.

In a later post I said:

<< Here's your problem: since 538 and 537 have pretty much the same logistics, there is no way to decide between them based on those logistics. The ONLY way to decide is by OTHER information -- information such as provided by combining the accounts in Ezra and Josephus, as I have repeatedly explained. That information breaks the tie in favor of 538. >>

Quote

Further, 537 had an additional month in contrast to 538 BCE.

So what?
     
 

Quote

 

:: The connection is trivial: they both talk about the Temple foundations first being laid

Correct but the time periods are not identical were they?

 

Well, 538 BCE is not 537 BCE. What's your point?
You've now conceded that the connection between Ezra and Josephus is their mention of the Temple foundations first being laid.
     

Quote

 

:: Exactly what I said, you moron. Can't you read?

We agree. But it is you that has excellent reading and comprehension skills for I am but a dummy!!!!

 

Obviously.
     

Quote

 

:: Yes, which emphasizes your hypocrisy, since I'm not in academia

So this fact should temper your criticism.

 

Why? If my not being in academia is evidence that my arguments are wrong, then it is far stronger evidence that Watch Tower arguments are wrong. Hypocrite! How are you to avoid the judgment of Gehenna?
     

Quote

 

:: So you admit it's new. Why then, do you demand support from recognized scholars?

Because of its novelty and any such new thesis is usually accompanied with sound scholarship.

 

More hypocrisy. The Watch Tower has for some 140 years come up with "novel theses" that were provably wrong at the time they were set forth, and certainly had no support from recognized scholars, nor were accompanied by sound scholarship. For example, while most proper historians were well aware that there was no "zero year" between 1 BCE and 1 CE, Russell was not, and his Watch Tower Society successors were not (at least, in print), until 1943. Talk about lousy scholarship!
     

Quote

 

:: I might just do that. And if they agree with it, what will you say then?

I will give it careful consideration and would be happy to give a Critical Review..

 

Yes, and then reject it based on nothing more than that it destroys WTS chronology.

Quote

However, please take note of my earlier criticisms and deal with these carefully.

Already done.
     

Quote

 

:: COJ is ill and not writing any more.

Sorry to hear that and I hope all goes well with him.

 

I hope so too.
     

Quote

 

:: Material written by amateurs is not necessarily amateurish. Of course, you are an amateur, but you don't automatically consider your writings amateurish. Even though pretty much everyone else consider them outright dishonest

Case in point is that of WT scholars and the NWT and yes I am an amateur but then so is COJ.

 

Exactly. Which means your point about amateurs is meaningless. Will you now stop making it?
     

Quote

 

:: Wrong. Einstein and Newton were amateur physicists when they published the first of their seminal papers

Correct, amateurs can move scholarship forward and I look forward to your contribution in this area.

 

What I've done is already online in various forums.
     

Quote

 

:: Not "many times". Only above, and for the first time, except for the business about six months not being enough for the Return travel -- except that you forgot that you already ageed with me that it was sufficient

Well six months is sufficient for actual journey and resettlement

 

Good! Finally a clear and unambiguous admission. Yet you and other JW defenders have in past debates vigorously opposed this fact.

Quote

but it still excludes the preparations and the Decree and I only agreed in context with the actual journey itself.

More revisionism -- even of your own words. See above.

As I have carefully explained several times, if we take the Bible at its word, the Jews were aware of Isaiah's prophecy that someone named Cyrus would free them. They were also aware of Jeremiah's prophecies that Babylonian supremacy would last 70 years and be terminated when other nations punished Babylon (Jer. 25) and ended Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty (Jer. 27). They also knew that Jeremiah foretold their return to Judah after 70  years of Babylonian supremacy (Jer. 29). Obviously this supremacy ended when Cyrus' armies, in October 539 BCE, conquered Babylon, killed its king of Nebuchadnezzar's line, Belshazzar (Dan. 5), and began ruling Babylon with Cyrus as the global king of the Persian empire and, apparently, Darius the Mede as his viceroy over the Babylonian territory.So the Jews would have been expecting a release from the date of Babylon's fall, leaving an additional six months before Nisan of Cyrus' 1st regnal year to prepare for their release. So their preparation time was a minimum of six to eight months before the journey home. That's plenty of time.
     

Quote

 

:: No. I've requested such for more than a decade, with no results

I would if I could.

 

As usual, you're unwilling and unable to support your claims with actual evidence.
     

Quote

 

:: Already done. See my ad1914 website material, and see if you can locate our old debates on the JWD website

No not your nonsense but our scheme. Please.

 

Whatever that means. But again you refuse to consider the actual evidence.
     

Quote

 

:: Try reading the previous posts.

I have.

 

But dismissed with almost nothing but handwaving.
     

Quote

 

:: Whatever. Without specifics, one can only conclude that you're misrepresenting SDA sources. Especially since SDA William MacCarty debunked Watch Tower chronology back in 1975

You fail to grasp the matter for my comment has absolutely nothing to do misrepresenting SDA sources which shows that historically SDA scholars were in tandem with WT scholars even though criticism was levelled  from both sides.

 

Meaningless gobble-de-goop without quotations from SDA sources.
     

Quote

 

:: Neither he nor anyone else needs to be an old campaigner in the battle against Watch Tower lies in order to notice your lies. All one needs to do is read your material, compare it with reality, and there you have it

Opinion not fact.

 

When one compares your claims with reality, one immediately notices your deliberate distortion or outright misrepresentation of reality, and one notes clearly your attempts to obfuscate rather than clarify matters. That is the definition of lying, and your claims fit it perfectly.

AlanF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By Witness
      In the recent Watchtower book, “Pure Worship of Jehovah, Restored at Last!”, it is stated:
      “In the past, our literature has referred to Christendom as the antitype of apostate Jerusalem. The conditions in unfaithful Jerusalem—including IDOLATRY AND WIDESPREAD CORRUPTION—certainly remind us of what is happening in Christendom. However, in recent years our publications, including the one you are now reading, have not taken the type-antitype approach to prophecy except where the Bible provides a clear basis for doing so. Is there a solid Scriptural basis for referring to Christendom as the ANTITYPICAL JERUSALEM? 
      NO.
      In view of the foregoing, what may we conclude? When we examine Bible prophecies that were fulfilled on unfaithful Jerusalem, we may say, ‘This or that reminds us of what we see in Christendom today.’ But there appears to be NO SCRIPTURAL BASIS for referring to Christendom as the antitypical Jerusalem.” Pure Worship of Jehovah—Restored At Last! p. 174
      First off, what do they mean by “antitypical”? An “antitype” is, 
      …something that corresponds to or is foreshadowed in a type
      …or an opposite type.
      After many years, the Watchtower is now saying Christendom does not correspond in any way to ancient Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the “holy city” of God. Under the New Covenant promise, “Jerusalem above” is the “city whose architect and builder is God”. Heb 11:10 It is referred in scripture as the “mother” of the anointed ones. Luke 22:20; Gal 4:26,24; Heb 9:15 Mothers bring life, and this mother/promise brings immortal life to those faithful sealed anointed ones. Together, they become the “New Jerusalem”, Zion. Heb 12:22,23 
      As the fulfillment of that New Covenant/promise, “New Jerusalem”, the Holy City, will be seen “coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. Rev 21:2
      And, as the fulfilled promise, the Bride will bring life to the rest of the children of God.
      “And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s DWELLING PLACE is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God.” Rev 21:3
      Rom 8:19-21; Rev 22:17 
      The city of Jerusalem was the location of God’s dwelling place – His temple at the time. Today, God “dwells” within the hearts of His anointed priests through His Holy Spirit. His dwelling place, or His “house”, is His Temple. 1 Pet 2:5,9; 1 Cor 3:16,17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:20-22
      “New Jerusalem”, the Temple, the Holy City, all refer to one and the same; comprised of this priesthood joined under Christ, their High Priest. Heb 7:26 This makes “New Jerusalem” the “city/house that bears My name”. Acts 7:49; Rev 3:12
      If Christendom is no longer taught as the “antitypical” Jerusalem, the organization can no longer point to Christendom to fulfill the many prophetic scriptures that concern the “holy city”/Temple/New Jerusalem. JWs, this means all the earlier teachings by the WT that point to Christendom as that “city” which receives condemnation for its abominations, realistically points to the anointed under covenant with God.
      The organization admits:
      “Jerusalem was the ONLY city in all the earth that was DIRECTLY ASSOCIATED WITH GOD’S NAME. (1 Kings 11:36; Matthew 5:35) It was the capital of a God-approved earthly kingdom. 06/7/15 p. 5,6
      Past teachings of the WT tell a different story in the following quotes from the Watchtower:
      #1 – Christendom’s congregations say ‘Lord, Lord,’ even as sexual immorality flourishes in their midst. “Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not known,” Jehovah asks, “and then come and stand before me in THIS HOUSE, WHICH BEARS MY NAME, and say, ‘We are safe’—safe to do all these detestable things?”—Jeremiah 7:4, 8-10, g89/1/22 pg 11
      #2 - Christendom will be the FIRST PART of this system of things to go down, for she is the modern-day counterpart of the apostate kingdom of Judah and Jerusalem. To typify that, the kingdom of Judah was made the first to drink the “cup” that contained “the wine of rage.” Jehovah said that it was with “THE CITY UPON WHICH [HIS] NAME IS CALLED” that he would start off in bringing the international calamity. (Jer. 25:29) Unchristlike Christendom is the most accountable religious section before God and Christ, and so from her the world calamity would go, as in a chain reaction. W79/9/15 pp. 22-29, par 23
      Now, going back to the same book that declares, “there appears to be no Scriptural basis for referring to Christendom as the antitypical Jerusalem”, the statement is made,
      #3 - “During the war of Armageddon, Jehovah will execute people, not in a cold, clinical manner, but in a “great rage.” (Read Ezekiel 38:18.) He will direct the explosive force of his anger, not against one army or one nation, but against countless individuals living across the globe. On that day, those slain by Jehovah “will be from one end of the earth clear to the other end of the earth.”—Jer. 25:29, 33. RR, chapter 18, pp. 189-199
      Do you notice in all three quotes, reference is made by either listing scripture or by quoting it in the paragraph, to the “city” or “house that bears My name”, which today is the anointed in covenant with God?
      Paragraph #1 quotes Jer 7:4,8-10: “Do not trust in deceptive words and say, “This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord!” “But look, you are trusting in deceptive words that are worthless.9 “‘Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not known, 10 and then come and stand before me IN THIS HOUSE, WHICH BEARS MY NAME, and say, We are safe”—safe to do all these detestable things?”
      Is it not true that the “safe haven” for JWs is in “Jehovah’s spiritual temple” – the organization and a counterfeit Zion? This idol tramples down the authentic Temple of God, His priesthood. 1 Cor 3:16,17 Isn’t this a sign that God’s people are committing “spiritual adultery and perjury” through their devotion and dedication to “Jehovah’s spiritual temple”? Matt 24:15; 2 Thess 2:3,4, 9-12; Rev 11:1,2; 13:1,4-6
       
      Paragraph #2 quotes Jer 25:29 – “See, I am beginning to bring disaster on THE CITY THAT BEARS MY NAME, and will you indeed go unpunished? You will not go unpunished, for I am calling down a sword on all who live on the earth, declares the Lord Almighty.’”
      #3 - In this new book, although it clearly states Christendom does not correspond to Jerusalem, again Jer 25:29 is sited, which says the disaster in the last days comes upon THE CITY THAT BEARS MY NAME. Did you catch this, JWs? Can you untwist the history of Watchtower teachings and perceive what and where the disaster will fall? Yet, they deceitfully continue to put the blame of the prophetic disaster to come, on everyone else, except on the now apostate “city that bears My name”, the anointed under covenant with God. Deut 12:2-5; Zech 4:7-9; Rev 6:15,16; 8:8; 16:20
      Pearl Doxsey wrote the following in 2013, well before the “new light” (barely visible) came into being:
      God Himself says of His own people,
      "The faithful city has become a harlot" Isa.1:21; 63:18; Rev.17:1
      Is "Christendom" the "faithful city"?
      If not...Then it is not the "harlot".
      Hosea makes clear that this "harlotry" is the act of an "adulterous wife" (Hosea9:1; 1:2; 5:4; 9:1).
      Being as a wife to God requires a marriage covenant (Isa.54:5,6,7; 48:17; Jer.3:8,14; Hosea2:19; Ps.73:27). 
      Is "Christendom"/"nominal Christians" in covenant with God?
      Revelation's Harlot is not "Christendom"/"nominal Christians" at all!...but are ruling, unfaithful anointed in covenant with God...
      the "wicked steward" (Luke12:42,45; Rev.17:6) (Luke12:46; Hosea6:5; Jer.5:14; 23:29; Rev.18:8)
      and all anointed who stay a part of her organizational Beast, are committing fornication with her (Rev.13:1; 17:2,12,16; 18:9; 1:5; 5:10; John18:36). 
      From within that Sodom-like City, God will cleanse a remnant and restore them, IF they are repentant.  They are restored back to being "the city of righteousness, THE FAITHFUL CITY". (Isa.1:25,26,27; Zech.13:9; Mal.3:3; Zech.4:9,6,12,14; Rev.11:4,3; Rev.3:12; 21:2; Ps.48:8) 
      Is that faithful remnant from the city OF JERUSALEM, from "Christendom"?
      According to Jesus, "Jerusalem" is "the City of the living God/Great King" (Matt.5:35; Ps.48:2).
      IT IS NOT “CHRISTENDOM”.
      These prophecies about "Jerusalem" are not about "Christendom".
      THESE PROPHECIES DO NOT APPLY AS THE “WATCHTOWER” HAS TAUGHT.
      There is no "anti-typical Jerusalem" according to scripture.
      If the Bible says "Jerusalem", it means "Jerusalem".
      While their pride refuses to apply God's warnings and discipline to themselves;
      the scriptural clarity of "Watchtower" ERROR, is inescapable.
      The prophets of Jerusalem were compared to Sodom (Jer.23:14). Their land was to become a desolation (Jer.49:18; 50:39; Rev.18:2).
      This speaks of God's people...Lam.4:6
      DO NOT BE DECEIVED! (1Thess.5:3,6,7; Mark13:36,37,35) 
      As a result, can Revelation’s end time fulfillment to come against God’s people, be sourced outside of the Watchtower and outside of where the House/dwelling/now “apostate” city of God resides? 
      No! Not even Watchtower’s interpretation of the “King of the North.”
       “Son of man, will you judge her? Will you judge this city of bloodshed? Then confront her with all her detestable practices 3 and say: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: You city that brings on herself doom by shedding blood in her midst and defiles herself by making idols, 4 you have become guilty because of the blood you have shed and have become defiled by the idols you have made. You have brought your days to a close, and the end of your years has come. Therefore I will make you an object of scorn to the nations and a laughingstock to all the countries. 5 Those who are near and those who are far away will mock you, you infamous city, full of turmoil.
      Again the word of the Lord came to me: 24 “Son of man, say to the land, ‘You are a land that has not been cleansed or rained on in the day of wrath.’ 25 There is a conspiracy of her princes within her like a roaring lion tearing its prey; they devour people, take treasures and precious things and make many widows within her. 26 Her priests do violence to my law and profane my holy things; they do not distinguish between the holy and the common; they teach that there is no difference between the unclean and the clean; and they shut their eyes to the keeping of my Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them.27 Her officials within her are like wolves tearing their prey; they shed blood and kill people to make unjust gain. 28 Her prophets whitewash these deeds for them by false visions and lying divinations. They say, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says’—when the Lord has not spoken.29 The people of the land practice extortion and commit robbery; they oppress the poor and needy and mistreat the foreigner, denying them justice. Ezek 22:2-5,23-29
      “Armageddon” – Obadiah’s blog
      Pearl Doxsey, 4womaninthewilderness:
              “Sodom/Four Horsemen”
              “End of the New Covenant”
             “The Disgusting Thing Standing in a Holy Place”Matt 24:15
       

       
       

    • By JW Insider
      Even before C.T.Russell was born, commentaries on Bible prophecy included  dozens of potential dates. Nearly 200 years ago, a couple of them even included 1914 as potentially significant time period. The "1914 presence" doctrine, however, is only about 75 years old.
      All the ideas behind the Watch Tower's version of the 1914 doctrine have already been discussed for decades now, and all of them, so far, have been shown to be problematic from a Scriptural point of view. Since the time that the doctrine generally took its current shape in 1943, the meanings and applications of various portions of Matthew 24 and 25 have already been changed, and the timing of various prophesied events and illustrations have changed. Most recently, the meaning and identification of the "faithful and discreet slave" has changed. And the definition of "generation" has changed about half-a-dozen times. This doesn't mean that the current understandings are impossible, of course, only that it has become less likely from the point of view of reason and reasonableness.
      Besides, for most of the years of teaching this doctrine, we have had the flexibility of extending the "1914 generation" from a possible 40 years, up to 70, then 75, then 80 years. And this has been applied to teenagers who saw 1914, 10-year-olds who saw 1914, then even newborns who saw 1914. With every one of these options already tried and stretched to their limits, we finally were forced to convert the meaning of generation from its most common meanings and give it a new "strained" meaning that has no other Biblical parallel. (See Exodus 1:6; Matthew 1:17; 16:4; 23:36; Luke 11:50)
      But that flexibility is still seen as the last reason for hope that the Watch Tower Society might have still been correct in hanging on to 1914. Since the Bible says that a lifespan is 70 or 80 years and 1914 + 80 = 1994, the "generation" doctrine in its original form (1943) could remain stable until about 1994. Of course, a lifespan could technically reach to 120 years or more, and Gen 6:3 even gives vague support to the idea that the "1914 generation" could last 120 years, until 2034.
      The current alternative solution is to make the generation out of the length of two lifespans, which technically could be double 120 years, or nearly 240 years from 1914. That would have had the potential to reach to the year 2154 (1914+240) except for the caveat that it can, by its new definition, only refer to anointed persons who discerned the sign in 1914 and whose lives overlapped (technically, by as little as one second) with the lifespan of another anointed person representing the second group. If persons from each group don't really discern their own "anointing" until age 20, for example, this would effectively remove 40 years from the overall maximum. 1914+120-20+120-20 = 2114. We could also assume a possible lifespan of more than 120 years, but otherwise, the new two-lifespan generation could potentially make the generation last 200 years. This "technical maximum" is not promoted currently, because for now we look at examples like Fred Franz who was part of that original generation already anointed and who saw the sign, and the typical example of an anointed brother who was apparently "anointed" prior to Franz' death in 1992 would be someone like Governing Body member, Brother Sanderson, who was born in 1965, baptized in 1975, and was already a "special pioneer" in 1991. His is currently 52.
      However, the generation problem is just one more problem now which we can add onto the list of all the other points that make up the 1914 doctrine. Here are several points related to 1914 that appear problematic from a Scriptural point of view:
      All evidence shows the 1914 date is wrong when trying to base it on the destruction of Jerusalem. (Daniel 1:1; 2 Chron 36:1-22; Jer 25:8-12; Zech 1:12, 7:4; Ezra 3:10-13) Paul said that Jesus sat at God's right hand in the first century and that he already began ruling as king at that time. (1 Cor 15:25) Jesus said not to be fooled by the idea that wars and rumors of wars would be the start of a "sign" (Matt 24:4,5) Jesus said that the "parousia" would be as visible as lightning (Matt 24:27). He spoke against people who might say he had returned but was currently not visible. (Matt 24:23-26) Jesus said that his "parousia" would come as a surprise to the faithful, not that they would discern the time of the parousia decades in advance. (Matt 24:36-42) Jesus said that the kingdom would not be indicated by "signs" (Luke 17:20, almost any translation except NWT in this case) The "synteleia" (end of all things together) refers to a concluding event, not an extended period of time (Matt 28:20) Jesus was already called ruler, King and even "King of Kings" in the first century. (1 Tim 6:15, Heb 7:2,17; Rev 1:5; 17:14) Wicked, beastly King Nebuchadnezzar's insanity and humiliation does not represent Jesus as the "lowliest one of mankind." (Heb 1:5,6; 2:10,11; Daniel 4:23-25; cf. Heb 2:7; 1 Pet 3:17,18) The demise of a Gentile kingdom cannot rightly represent the time of the rise of the Gentile kingdoms (Daniel 4:26,27) The Gentile kings did not meet their demise in 1914. (Rev 2:25,26) The time assigned to the Gentile Times that Jesus spoke about in Luke 21:24 is already given as 3.5 times, not 7 times (Revelation 11:2,3) The Devil was already brought down from "heaven" in the first century. (1 John 2:14,15; 1 Pet 5:8; Luke 10:18; Heb 2:14) The Bible says that the "last days" began in the first century. (Acts 2:14-20; 2 Tim 3:1-17; 1 Peter 3:3-5; Heb 1:2, almost any translation except NWT in this case.)
    • By JW Insider
      A recent topic about whether the Watchtower view of 607 BCE is SCRIPTURALLY supported is linked below. This new topic should provide a better place to discuss the SECULAR evidence. I also think it would be useful to discuss the methodology that the Watch Tower Society has historically used to treat this evidence.
      I would hope that we can do this without so much side discussions of unrelated topics. To avoid another topic that goes on for 30+ pages where only half of them were on-topic, I would suggest that if we get enough off-topic posts, we merely move them to another more appropriate topic.
      The link to the most recent topic on a similar subject is here:


       
    • By TheWorldNewsOrg
      via .ORG
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • By Israeli Bar Avaddhon
      "Yes, in her was found the blood of prophets and of holy ones Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. and of all those who have been slaughtered on the earth.” - Revelation 18:24
       
      If Babylon the Great is the modern nation of Israel, why does the book of Revelation say that "in her was found the blood of all those who were slaughtered on the earth"?
      Obviously the objection is that if Israel exists only since 1948, it can not be responsible for all the blood spilled!
      To answer this question we must understand when the Revelation and the context of this writing are fulfilled.
      In the meantime, it is useful to reflect on the words of Our Lord when, addressing precisely to the scribes and the hypocritical Pharisees of that nation, he said: “Serpents, offspring of vipers, Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. how will you flee from the judgment of Ge·henʹna?For this reason, I am sending to you prophets Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. and wise men and public instructors. Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. Some of them you will kill Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. and execute on stakes, and some of them you will scourge Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. in your synagogues and persecute Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. from city to city, so that there may come upon you all the righteous blood spilled on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. to the blood of Zech·a·riʹah son of Bar·a·chiʹah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation" - Matthw 23:33-36
      Now we know that when the Lord said "this generation" did not mean something strange, like a generation that intersects with another generation or such absurdity.
      Jesus pronounced those words in 30 AD. about, and those words came true in 70 CE, that is about forty years later.
      Nobody asked himself "what the Lord really meant" when he said "this generation" because it was clear what he meant.
      This also applies to the "sign of His presence" and should make each of us reflect when, trying to hide a series of errors and wrong intentions, we try to make Scripture say what it does not say.
      However, in this context, the question we should ask ourselves is "Why does the Lord impute crimes from Abel to the scribes and the Pharisees?"
      Obviously Abel was not killed by a scribe or a Pharisee!
      At the time of Abel, the nation of Israel did not even exist!
      Why, then, this condemnation?
      This could be one of the reasons that led to think that "Babylon the great" was the world empire of false religion because the Pharisees could not be guilty of the death of Abel or of "all those slaughtered on earth".
      However this hypothesis is absurd because could also be made the opposite objection.
      If when Jesus condemns those who are guilty of the blood of "all those who have been slaughtered on earth" meant this phantom "world empire of false religion" because, instead, the judgment strikes only on Israel? - compare Luke 21:22
      The judgment fell into "that generation" and fell right on Jerusalem, exactly as the Lord said.
      Why, then, did this condemnation starting with the murder of Abel?
      This is because God considers those who have "known God" to be especially responsible, yet they commit unspeakable crimes - Amos 3: 2
      What other nation in the world has had a "special relationship" with the Creator of the universe so that they have a greater responsibility for their mistakes? - compare Matthew 11: 21-24; 12: 38-41
      It is also very important to consider people's heart condition - Matthew 5: 21-22
      Although these scribes and Pharisees were not directly responsible for the death of Abel or all those who had been killed until that day, they had clearly manifested the same mental attitude of Cain and for this reason they were already subject to judgment - John 8 : 44-47; 1 John 3:12 However, the legitimate next objection could be "Why should God condemn Israel again, since it has already paid for its mistakes in 70 AD?"
      As said at the beginning, to answer this question we must understand when the biblical book of Revelation is fulfilled.
      Every time we read Revelation 18:24 we understood that it was to pay for all the blood spilled since the beginning of time but it does not.
      Indeed, Revelation is fulfilled on the day of the Lord - Revelation 1:10
      So the blood that is imputed to Babylon the Great is all the blood that will be shed on the Lord's day and not from the beginning of time.
      This should make us reflect on the period in which the day of the Lord really begins, namely a period in which there must also be Israel, not before.
      If Israel exists only since 1948, the day of the Lord can not start on any other previous date.
      It can start at a later date, not necessarily in 1948, but it certainly can not begin sooner.
      However we will deepen this "bold statement" in a future article.
      Why will Babylon the Great be held responsible for all the blood shed on earth during the day of the Lord?
      Because this nation will be the main cause of the clash between the king of the north and the king of the south - Daniel 11:40
      The king of the north (Russia) either directly or through one of his allies, will find himself in a situation where he will be forced to attack Israel.
      This attack, predicted in the Scriptures, will become the expedient to bring into play the two great world powers.
      These will be the wars that foretold the Lord as an unmistakable sign of His presence - Matthew 24: 6
      The first and second world wars, though terrifying, have nothing to do with what we have been taught.
      It will be the next wars to identify the "day of the Lord" - Revelation 6: 3, 4
      God is not responsible for these wars but Babylon the Great.
      This will be the main reason why it will be destroyed, but this will not happen during this attack (now close).
      Babylon the Great will continue to exist until the last moment of the world system.
      Towards the end of the great tribulation (not at the beginning), Babylon the Great, or the nation of Israel that will continue to exist until the end of the third world war, will be finally destroyed.
      This event will start the armageddon war.
      Look carefully at world events.

      The next article will see another characteristic of Babylon the Great and this will also help us to identify it as the nation of Israel.
    • By Israeli Bar Avaddhon
      In the Bible there are hundreds of references relating to the destruction of Babylon and unfaithful Israel.
      There are also many parallels between Isreal and Babylon (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel ...).
      Being accustomed to making parallels with Christianity and the world empire of false religion, every time we read "Israel will be destroyed!" we read, in effect, "Christianity will be destroyed!" and every time we read "Babylon will be destroyed!" we read "The world empire of false religion will be destroyed!".
      Now the question is ... "If in a specific passage the Bible meant that Israel would be destroyed by intending to own Israel ... what would we find written?"
      Evidently we would find written "Israel will be destroyed!"
      In the end it is a matter of understanding whether, whenever we speak of the destruction of Babylon and / or Israel after the Lord's day, there is at least the possibility of referring to Israel, that is, modern Israel which is a literal nation.
      What is the greatest counterfeiting of the people of God today?
      Christendom or the modern nation of Israel?
      Before 1948 this hypothesis and these questions would have made no sense.
      Any hypothesis would have excluded Israel a priori simply because Israel did not exist.
      Since May 1948, however, Israel exists and it is basically a matter of understanding three things.
      1) See if it is possible that Babylon the Great is a nation
      2) If so, see if Israel matches the description that makes the Bible
      3) Compare with the current understanding and see which of the two subjects, in the light of the Scriptures and not of personal desires or ideas, are more likely to be.

       
      Question 1
      Babylon the Great can be a nation?

       
      Meanwhile, let us remember that Babylon the Great, throughout history, has been "identified" with many nations and for the most disparate reasons.
      Imperial Rome, Papal Rome, USA, UK, USSR etc.
      Many different people and religious groups have given different explanations but none of them has ever resisted the test of fire and that is the scrutiny of the Scriptures - I Thessalonians 5:21
      What about us?
      One of the explanations given in the publications of the Slave according to which Babylon the Great can not be a literal nation is the fact that "he commits fornication with the kings of the earth".
      A strengthening of this statement would be the fact that both kings and merchants mourn its destruction.
      Finally, it would not be a nation because it is said to mislead the entire inhabited earth through its "spiritual practices".
      That's it?
      Let's see.
      In Isaiah 23: 15-17 we speak of Tire as a "forgotten prostitute" and therefore, as such, "commits prostitution with all the kingdoms of the earth on the surface of the ground".
      Tire was a nation, not a religion or a religious system - Romans 15.4
      So a nation can be described, in the Bible, in the act of committing prostitution with all the kingdoms of the earth and remaining a nation.
      Prostitution may have to do with commercial trade or acts of injustice and bloodshed and not necessarily with religion. - Naum 3: 1-4
      In particular, Tire's prostitution has nothing to do with false religion because, if that were so, Jehovah would not have considered “saint” his reward - Isaiah 23:18
      "Prostitution" can have to do with the covenant and trust placed in other nations, as reported many times in the Bible when Israel and Judah proved to be unfaithful by allying with pagan nations.
      It is clear, therefore, if this nation is compared to a prostitute the loss of this prostitute would have caused pain to her lovers (the nations with which she committed prostitution and the merchants who have enriched herself with it) just like ancient Israel " joy " for Tire's prostitution and this not because Tire was a religion or for the religion of Tire.
      A king can "cry" for the loss of a political ally (therefore for the fall of a nation) and a great merchant can cry for the fall of a commercial ally (which can be big or small but certainly rich nation).
      So the reasons that "Babylon the Great" can not be a nation because kings and merchants mourn his departure are not valid.
      What can we say, however, of the strongest affirmation in reference to Babylon La Grande, that is, that "all nations have been misled by its spiritual practice"?
      This statement in particular has led many to think that it was a religious empire (for many sects of Christianity Babylon the Great is Catholicism and for some Catholics it is even the Second Vatican Council).
      First of all we must realize that all the empires of the past have resorted to spiritualistic practices and this is also true of modern so-called atheist empires.
      Pharaoh opposed his "magic practitioners" to Moses and Nebuchadnezzar was practically surrounded - Exodus 7:11 - Daniel 2: 2
      The same can be said of Assyria, Syria, Media Persia etc.
      So if the Bible, speaking of a literal nation, said that "uses magic" or "divination practice", it would not say anything exceptional.
      We also know from the study of the Scriptures that nations are governed by demons that mislead the entire inhabited earth and that during the wars not only human beings are involved - Daniel 10:13
      Can we hypothesize that the demons have given particular power to a nation and that this has, today, "the kingdom over the kings of the earth"? - Revelation 17:18 see also Luke 4: 5-7
      By comparing the Scriptures without preconceptions, it is not possible to exclude "Babylon the Great" among the nations.
      Question 2
      "Does the literal people of modern Israel match the description that the Bible makes of Babylon the Great?"
      In Revelation 17: 1, 2 we read that Babylon the Great "sits on many waters".
      We know that the waters mean "peoples and crowds and nations and languages"
      Israel "sits on many waters" because it is surrounded by many peoples and nations that can not stand it ("to sit on" can also mean against the will of the neighboring peoples). In Isaiah 8: 5-8 one speaks of the powerful Assyrian army as "devastating waters"; therefore the "waters" are not always a symbol of protection - Isaiah 8: 5-8
      It was put there by the UN against the will of the many neighboring nations.
      It also sits "on many waters" because his position is due to the nations that make up the United Nations (Babylon the Great also sits on the wild beast of scarlet color) that, besides having settled it where it is still, protect it militarily.
      The armies of Assyria are compared to "devastating waters", so we can say that they also sit on many armies? - Revelation 17: 3, 16
      it is also noteworthy that the nation of Israel is right in the "crossroads" of three continents: Europe, Africa, Asia.
      If I wanted to find a literal nation located above "many waters" (ie peoples and nations and tribes and languages) both geographically and politically, no other nation would correspond better than the modern nation of Israel.
      The harlot rides a beast.
      In Revelation 17: 3 we read "And the angel brought me into the power of the spirit in a wilderness." And I saw a woman seated on a wild scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. "
      The nation of Israel is already in a desert today and rides on the wild beast of scarlet color which, as we know, is the League or League of Nations ascended from the abyss with the name U.N.
      Israel exists, thanks to the push of the Anglo-American empire, thanks and through the United Nations, since 1948.
      Historical events prior to and following the creation of the state of Israel confirm that the Jewish people have ridden the scarlet-colored wild beast even before returning to being a nation (I invite you to do a research on Balfour and all the historical background before 1948).
      Mother of all prostitutes.
      Revelation 17: 4-5: "And the woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and she was adorned with gold and precious stone and pearls, and she had in her hand a golden cup full of disgusting things and the unclean things of her fornication. on his forehead was written a name, a mystery: 'Babylon the Great, the mother of the harlots and of the disgusting things of the earth' ".
      If we accept the possibility that a nation is compared to a prostitute (just like Tire), then the nation of Israel is the "mother of all prostitutes" because it has committed greater fornication than any other nation in the world.
      How can we say it?
      If the prostitute rides the scarlet-colored wild beast, which, as we know, is the League or League of Nations, is supposed to have committed fornication with all the nations adhering to the United Nations.
      Indeed, its very existence as a nation is due to his political lovers so, to continue to exist, must commit prostitution in excess and continuously.
      No other nation can compare itself to her as acts of prostitution because no other nation has the urgent need to please the UN to continue to exist.
      it is also possible that in the Bible it is described as a prostitute because it is not a real "queen" but a forcing. It is an empire carved out of art for a prostitute.
      The woman is also "dressed in purple and scarlet and adorned with gold and precious stone ..." so she is simply dressed like a queen but the purple and scarlet colors are still the colors of luxury and royal power and this would strengthen the idea that we are talking about a kingdom, a literal nation.
      In the same way the beast that the prostitute rides is scarlet in color and the beast, as we know, is the League or Society of Nations (all members of the United Nations represent literal nations). The scarlet color, color of both the wild beast and the harlot, is significant.
      Drunk with the blood of the saints.
      The writing continues saying "And I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints and of the witnesses of Jesus".
      Israel has an enormous blood fault and Jesus referred to this very nation when he said: “so that there may come upon you all the righteous blood spilled on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel+ to the blood of Zech·a·ri?ah son of Bar·a·chi?ah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar” - Matthew 23:35; Luke 11:50, 51
      So Jesus himself identifies Israel, not another nation, as responsible for the payment of "all the right blood" (compare also the words of Stephen recorded in Acts 7: 51-53).
      The book "Insight", under the heading "Babylon the Great", correctly points out that not all Christians were persecuted by the Pharisees and the Jews themselves have suffered, in turn, a great persecution.
      However, even Abel was not killed by a Pharisee or even by any religious minister.
      Moreover, the millions of deaths caused by the communist, atheist empire, could hardly be pointed to false religion.
      Can we hypothesize that Jehovah and Jesus hold particularly responsible those who have "known God" and, despite this, commit unspeakable crimes?
      The nation of Israel fits perfectly in this context. - Hosea 8: 2 - Amos 3: 2
      It should also be said that the blood of "all those slaughtered on earth" is referring to the last war (which is yet to come) and therefore is saying that Israel will be the real behind-the-scenes cause of this war.
      However, this last parat needs other explanations for which, for the moment, omit it.
      Condolence for the end of Babylon.
      Revelation 18: 9-14 says: “And the kings of the earth who committed sexual immorality* with her and lived with her in shameless luxury will weep and beat themselves in grief over her when they see the smoke from her burning. 10  They will stand at a distance because of their fear of her torment and say: ‘Too bad, too bad, you great city,+ Babylon you strong city, because in one hour your judgment has arrived!’ 11  “Also, the merchants of the earth are weeping and mourning over her, because there is no one to buy their full cargo anymore, 12  a full cargo of gold, silver, precious stones, pearls, fine linen, purple cloth, silk, and scarlet cloth; and everything made from scented wood; and every sort of object made from ivory, and from precious wood, copper, iron, and marble; 13  also cinnamon, Indian spice, incense, perfumed oil, frankincense, wine, olive oil, fine flour, wheat, cattle, sheep, horses, carriages, slaves, and human lives.* 14  Yes, the fine fruit that you* desired has left you, and all the delicacies and the splendid things have vanished from you, never to be found again”.
      As we saw at the beginning, both the kings of the earth and the travelers traders suffer for the demise of their lover.
      Unlike any other nation, the destruction of Israel would bring desperation and "misfortune" between rulers and traders all over the world.
      Why?
      Because the Jewish people are owners of the world's largest banks, almost all of the gold, oil, the largest multinationals and everything that can be imagined.
      The largest world powers (including the US, USSR and China) have benefited from copious loans to wage war on other nations and to build massive and colossal structures (such as the Suez Canal).
      Just do some research to find out how and how many owners of the world's largest banks have been involved in almost every wars of the last two centuries and probably far back in time.
      The words of Revelation 18: 11-14 that speak of 'full of gold and silver and precious stone and pearls and fine linen and purple and silk and scarlet, and each smelling wood and all sorts of ivory objects and all sorts of precious wood and copper and iron and marble, and cinnamon and Indian spice and incense and fragrant oil and olibanum and wine and olive oil and flour and wheat flour and cattle and sheep and horses and carriages and slaves and human souls' are significant.
      Imagining the global economic consequences for the collapse of 80% of all the existing banks and therefore the immediate and simultaneous failure of thousands of companies spread all over the world ... one could conclude that a crisis of this size would not be reflected in all the history of man - Matthew 24:21
      Really the kings of the earth and travelers traders around the world would be right to beat their chests, to mourn and cry, "Woe!"
      "Get out of her, my people".
      Revelation 18: 4 says:And I heard another voice out of heaven say: “Get out of her, my people,+ if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues”.
      If Babylon the Great is the modern nation of Israel then it is easy to understand to whom this urgent appeal is addressed: to our dear brothers present in the nation of Israel who are also "a remnant to be saved".
      If they stayed there, they would receive part of his wounds as a result of the United Nations' furious attack.
      This possibility is to be evaluated very seriously.
      This would also mean that the destruction of Jerusalem, occurred in 537 a.E.V. and then in 70 E.V. would have a further and definitive fulfillment. The third (Revelation 4: 8; 8:13; 16:13, 19 - Ezekiel 21:14).
      Question two asked: "Does the literal people of modern Israel match the description that the Bible makes of Babylon the Great?
      Whether we like it or not, and as much as it can constitute a "domino effect" on other interpretations, this is in harmony both with the secular history and with the Scriptures.
      So the answer is yes.
      Question 3
      Which of the two subjects, in the light of the Scriptures and not of desires or personal ideas, is more likely to be?
      Honestly, the whole description that the Bible makes of Babylon the Great corresponds very well to false religion and so it is very difficult to understand if the Bible wants to point us to a literal nation or the false religion as a whole.
      The shameless immorality, extreme violence, the desire for domination, spiritual prostitution, arrogance and presumption ... are all characteristics of the worldwide empire of false religion as well as of present-day Israel.
      The clues, however, should be more than enough, if seen without preconceptions, to understand the subject.
      Reflections
      As written at the beginning of this treatise, hundreds of parallels are found in the Bible between Babylon and unfaithful Israel.
      Even the cup "full of disgusting things" from which the harlot gets inebriated recalls the utensils of Jehovah's temple.
      The problem is to understand what we must understand when we read these parallels.
      All of Jehovah's judgments, reported in the Scriptures, have fallen upon peoples and literal nations and even the wounds sent to the land of Egypt, which served to destroy / humiliate their false gods, however, had to fall upon a specific nation.
      In the book "The prophecies of Isaiah" volume 1, page 202 paragraph 28 (Italian edition) reports Isaiah 19: 3 and we read ...
      "Likewise, on the day of judgment, the false religion will be unable to save this corrupt system of things".
      But if Egypt represents the world as a whole, we are already at Armageddon (in Isaiah 19: 2 Jehovah puts "Egyptian against Egyptian") and the world empire of false religion (if it is Babylon the Great) has already been destroyed .
      Now, if the world empire of false religion has already been previously destroyed, in what sense will "people resort to worthless gods, to spellcasters and spirit mediums"?
      Only a world still imbued with religion, after the destruction of Babylon the Great, could "resort to worthless gods".
      The above could be in harmony with the writing of Zechariah 13: 4-6, which speaks of the "prophet" who will deny ever having been?
      The Watchtower of 15 July 2015, under the heading "The beginning of the great tribulation", says ... "It seems therefore that even some members of the clergy will abandon their religious career and deny ever having been part of the false religion".
      Yet if for the adherents of Babylon the Great enough to "change coat" to save their lives (which would make the majority of them, not having a true faith), one would not say that it was "torn and completely burned with fire". It is also difficult to imagine this "great mourning" since the majority of the clergy, especially that of Christianity, would still be alive after the destruction of Babylon the Great.
      The book "Revelation", in chapter 19 paragraph 29 says ... "Neither the caverns of the literal mountains nor the political-commercial organizations comparable to the mountains will offer economic security or help of another kind".
      However, even false worship in the Bible is related to "high places" for example in Ezekiel 6: 1-5 (high places that did not protect unfaithful Israelites from Jehovah's wrath).
      Is it possible to hypothesize that on the day of Jehovah's wrath (hence after the Great Tribulation) human beings will seek protection in political, commercial and religious institutions?
      If we accept the possibility that Babylon the Great is a literal place (and be modern Israel) we must consider that even the mountains, above which the woman sits, are literal mountains.
      There is always talk of the seven world powers of biblical history but we never talk about the seven mountains.
      We never talk about the seven mountains because the political powers, they say, are the seven mountains.
      Yet the writing of Revelation 17 explains that there are seven kings ... and (joining, in my language, that is "and there are also") seven mountains and this conjunction could suggest that even though the mountains depict powers as we know , there are actually seven mountains as objects of similitude with the number of kings.
      It would seem a literal clue useful for identifying Babylon the Great.
      Now the question is ... Which and how many mountains are indicated in the Scriptures that were part of the Promised Land?
      1) Mount Moria 2) Mount Zion 3) Mount of Olives 4) Gilboa 5) Gerizim 6) Ebal 7) Mount Tabor.
      N.B. Mount Nebo and the others, also mentioned in the Scriptures, were part of the territory of Moab and Edom and are therefore excluded.
      This parallel is simply impossible to do with the world empire of false religion.
      Revelation 3:12 and other scriptures that are fulfilled after the Lord's day, which mention the New Jerusalem, seem to emphasize a distinction with Old Jerusalem.
      In chap. 18 of Revelation, Babylon the Great is destroyed.
      In chap 19: 7, 8 the marriage of the lamb is prepared, so ...
      The prostitute dies as a bride and the marriage can finally begin.
      Marriage takes place with the "New Jerusalem"; was the prostitute is maybe the "Old Jerusalem" that is the carnal, impure, disobedient, idolatrous? - I Corinthians 9: 6-8; 10:18 - Galatians 4: 26-29
      I would like to point out to you that the book Revelation, besides having the symbols, also has contrasts.
      For example you can see that the beast with two horns of lamb is set against the real Lamb.
      The mark of the wild beast is set in contrast with the name engraved on the forehead that the 144,000 have - see Revelation 13:11, 16; 14: 1
      Now in Revelation you will see that there is a pure woman who is the legitimate bride and then there is a woman who, on the contrary, is a prostitute.
      So the question we should ask ourselves is: if Babylon the Great is a nation, which is the only nation in the whole world, that would have the qualifications to pass itself off as "legitimate bride" when, in reality, she prostitutes herself with other nations ? -
      Babylon is also called "the great city" and the only biblical reference is Nineveh, the "city of bloodshed".
      This seems to be in harmony with the fact that Babylon is drunk with the blood of saints, prophets and everyone.
      However, in Jeremiah chap. 22 Jehovah condemns Judah, which is the city of Sallum and Ioiachim, and people call this city "the great city".
      Thus, even the city that once belonged to Jehovah is called the "great city".
      Of the two clothed witnesses described in chapter 11 of Revelation it is said that, once killed, "their corpses will be on the wide street of the great city which in spiritual sense is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was put to the stake "- Revelation 11: 8
      In which "great city" did the Lord Jesus have been killed?
      Finally we could ask ourselves why, the writer of Revelation, after having seen frightful wild beasts, incredible celestial visions both beautiful and terrifying, thundering declarations and many other things, only at the sight of the woman he is "marvels of great wonder" - Revelation 17: 6 , 7
      Could it have "marveled of great wonder" for having seen its own people and its own nation (which at the time of the writing of Revelation no longer existed)?
      When in 70 E.V. the first Christians received the command to "flee to the mountains" in view of the destruction that would have occurred through the "disgusting thing" (represented at the time by the Roman Empire) they understood it as "separating from Judaism" or this was a consequence natural of the Teacher's teachings? Did not they understand it as literally to get out of the city?
      Jeremiah 25:10, 11 and Revelation 18:22, 23 are very similar to each other, yet Jeremiah speaks of Israel while Revelation speaks of Babylon the Great.
      In Revelation 18: 5-8 it is said that "God has remembered his acts of injustice".
      Why did God "remember"?
      False religion has not always done evil, in 6,000 history, without stopping a moment since the days of Nimrod?
      Or, if Babylon were "the world", did God forget the actions of the world?
      Could it not be because "Babylon" has not existed for many years, as a nation, but appears again after the "Lord's Day" by another name?
      In Revelation 16: 16-21 we are now in Armageddon, the great city is divided into three parts, the nations fall and Babylon "was remembered".
      So Babylon is related to the fall of other nations as if it were a "special" nation, something to remember, but still a nation.
      Which, among all the nations of the earth, could it be considered "special" by Jehovah God?
      Could the golden cup full of "disgusting things" held in the hands of the great harlot remember the utensils of the temple of God? - Compare Daniel 5: 1-4
      Question one.
      According to the explanation of the book "Revelation: its climax" it is appropriate that the great harlot sit on the wild beast of scarlet color because, the false religion, has always had power over the kings of the earth even coming to name and oust them.
      We know that the League or League of Nations also has representatives as "old nations" mentioned in the bible as Rome, Media-Persia and others but it would not have been more logical to see the "great whore" ride the first wild beast and that which ascends from the sea, since the false religion exists since the days of Nimrod?
      Instead the great harlot sits on that beast that "was, but is not, and is about to ascend from the abyss, and will go into destruction" - Revelation 17: 8a
      What rode the world empire of false religion (or Rome, or the world) when the beast was not?
      Question two.
      As has been pointed out, in the Bible Israel is compared to a wife and Jehovah to the marital owner.
      When it showed itself unfaithful, allying itself with other nations and mixing with the false adoration, Israel became "infidel" and even "prostitute".
      Christianity claims to serve God but, in reality, prostitutes itself with the nations and with every false doctrine of pagan origin.
      However, if Babylon the Great is the world empire of false religion (and therefore also includes religions such as Buddhism, Shintoism, Hinduism, tribal religions, etc.), why is it considered, as a whole, a prostitute?
      Jehovah has never identified himself as the "marital owner" of nations like Ammon, Moab, Egypt, or others (not even in Rome or the world).
      So if we applied the concept of prostitution exclusively in the spiritual-religious (or politic) sense, it would seem that this infamous prostitute is exclusively Christianity.
      Throughout the entire Bible, what is the only nation that Jehovah considers responsible for his prostitution? - Amos 3: 1, 2

    • By Raquel Segovia
      De un régimen especial administrado por la ONU a la partición en oeste y este y luego a la unificación tras la guerra de 1967, la ciudad sagrada ha tenido una larga y compleja historia reciente. Hoy es reclamada como capital tanto por Israel como por la Autoridad Nacional Palestina

      Jerusalén, la ciudad sagrada del judaísmo, el cristianismo y el islam, ha estado bajo control de Israel desde 1967, pero la comunidad internacional nunca reconoció este statu quo ni aceptó que el país la considerara su capital.
      La situación dio un giro este miércoles, cuando el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos anunció que va a trasladar su embajada desde Tel Aviv hasta Jerusalén, reconociéndola en su totalidad como capital de Israel, a pesar de que los palestinos también reclaman el este como la capital de su futuro Estado.
      La historia de Jerusalén es larga y compleja, y
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. , que la consideraba su capital. Los palestinos, por su parte, se sostienen en siglos de cohabitar la región junto a judíos y cristianos.   Mapa de Jerusalén, entre 1947 y la guerra de 1948 (haga click en el mapa para más información)
      Lo cierto es que la ciudad pasó por el control de muchos imperios: el Alejandrino, el Romano, el Persa, el Omeya, el Ayubí, el Otomano y el Británico, por citar solo algunos.
      En 1947, la 
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. (ONU) estableció la partición del Mandato de Palestina, controlado por Gran Bretaña, en los territorios de los nuevos Estados de Israel y Palestina. Mapa de Jerusalén, entre 1948 y la guerra de 1967 (haga click en el mapa para más información)
      En el caso de Jerusalén se designó un Régimen Internacional Especial, por medio del cual la ciudad sería administrada por la ONU. Pero la guerra árabe-israelí de 1948 impidió su implementación, y tras el cese al fuego Israel, controlaba el oeste de la ciudad y Jordania, el este.
      En ese momento, Israel la declaró su capital, aunque la comunidad internacional rechazó este anuncio, invocando la resolución 181.
      Mapa de Jerusalén, entre 1967 y la actualidad (haga click en el mapa para más información)
      En 1967, Israel realizó un ataque preventivo sobre Egipto, de quien temía una invasión inminente. A los combates enmarcados en la Guerra de los Seis Días se sumaron Siria y Jordania del lado egipcio y, tras una espectacular victoria, toda Jerusalén pasó a estar bajo control israelí.
      Desde entonces Israel siempre sostuvo que la ciudad era su capital y avanzó en la construcción de asentamientos en el este, pero ningún país lo había aceptado hasta ahora. Por otro lado, la Organización para la Liberación de Palestina y luego la Autoridad Nacional Palestina designaron al este de Jerusalén como su propia capital, lo que tampoco fue aceptado.
    • By The Librarian
      Donald Trump has announced that the time has come for the U.S. to officially recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. There has already been a wave of criticism to the proposal across the Muslim and Arab world.
    • By Jack Ryan
      This is a nice article about archaeological finds, what caught my attention is the use of 586 BCE as the date for the destruction of Jerusalem.
      According to biblical descriptions, in 586 BCE, the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar vanquished the Judaean king Zedekiah and razed his capital city, Jerusalem. The Babylonian captain of the guard Nebuzaradan was dispatched into the city, where, as told in the Book of Jeremiah, he “burned the house of the Lord, and the king’s house; and all the houses of Jerusalem, even every great man’s house, burned he with fire.”

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • By The Librarian
      The Destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem II
      POUSSIN, Nicolas
      1637
      Oil on canvas, 147 x 198 cm
      Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna 

      Via
    • By The Librarian
      There was no Islam back in Jesus Christ's time period. This is what is looked like...

      from the Watchtower April 15, 2013 via jw.org
       
    • By TrueTomHarley
      I never could get my head around our previous take on the Babylonian exile. Or care. I mean, a one-year period representing such an event?
      But the new package revealed Sunday makes so much more sense.
      'That new point the Governing Body wrote about?' said Mike Tussen's years ago. 'You may have already noticed that point in your studying. And if this were Christendom, you'd run out and start your own religion over it.'
      The uppity people take no interest in that new religion of Jesus because it is carpenters, fishermen and shoemakers. But then they figure out how to monetize it. All the highbrow people jump in, bringing all the highbrow ideas they love so, ideas from Aristotle and Plato.
      photo: Carla216

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.    30% free preview. After that, we'll talk, your people and mine.
    • By g@gmail.com
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • By Jack Ryan
      Add 2 years: Evil-Merodach "After reigning but two years King Evil-Merodach was murdered" Babylon the Great Has Fallen - God's Kingdom Rules p.184
      Add 2 or 12 or 18 years -  wp_E_20111001

    • By Bible Speaks
      Model of Jerusalem at Rome Bethel. Photo shared by @_mimi_dreamy Jerusalem model Branch Office Italy
    • By The Librarian
      Jerusalem, a Middle Eastern city west of the Dead Sea, has been a place of pilgrimage and worship for Jews, Christians and Muslims since the biblical era. Its Old City retains significant religious sites concentrated around the Temple Mount compound, including the Western Wall, sacred to Judaism, and the Dome of the Rock, a 7th-century Islamic shrine with a gold dome.
       
       
      Jerusalem (/dʒəˈruːsələm/; Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushaláyim pronounced [jeruʃaˈlajim]; Arabic: القُدس‎‎ al-Quds pronounced [ˈaːɫ ˈquːdsˤ] ( listen), Bait-ul-Muqaddas[3] (بيت المقدس), meaning "The Holy [City/Home]"), located on a plateau in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea, is one of the oldest cities in the world. In the ancient cuneiform, Jerusalem was called "Urusalima", meaning "City of Peace", during the early Canaanite period (approximately 2400 BC). It is considered holy to the three major Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital, as Israel maintains its primary governmental institutions there and the State of Palestine ultimately foresees it as its seat of power; however, neither claim is widely recognized internationally.
      During its long history, Jerusalem has been destroyed at least twice, besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times, and captured and recaptured 44 times. The part of Jerusalem called the City of David was settled in the 4th millennium BCE. In 1538, walls were built around Jerusalem under Suleiman the Magnificent. Today those walls define the Old City, which has been traditionally divided into four quarters—known since the early 19th century as the Armenian, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Quarters. The Old City became a World Heritage Site in 1981, and is on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Modern Jerusalem has grown far beyond the Old City's boundaries.
      According to the Biblical tradition, King David conquered the city from the Jebusites and established it as the capital of the United Kingdom of Israel, and his son, King Solomon, commissioned the building of the First Temple. These foundational events, straddling the dawn of the 1st millennium BCE, assumed central symbolic importance for the Jewish people.[9] The sobriquet of holy city (עיר הקודש, transliterated ‘ir haqodesh) was probably attached to Jerusalem in post-exilic times. The holiness of Jerusalem in Christianity, conserved in the Septuagint which Christians adopted as their own authority, was reinforced by the New Testament account of Jesus's crucifixion there. In Sunni Islam, Jerusalem is the third-holiest city, after Mecca and Medina. In Islamic tradition in 610 CE it became the first qibla, the focal point for Muslim prayer (salat), and Muhammad made his Night Journey there ten years later, ascending to heaven where he speaks to God, according to the Quran. As a result, despite having an area of only 0.9 square kilometres (0.35 sq mi), the Old City is home to many sites of seminal religious importance, among them the Temple Mount and its Western Wall, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Dome of the Rock, the Garden Tomband al-Aqsa Mosque.
      Today, the status of Jerusalem remains one of the core issues in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. During the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, West Jerusalem was among the areas captured and later annexed by Israel while East Jerusalem, including the Old City, was captured and later annexed by Jordan. Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan during the 1967 Six-Day War and subsequently annexed it into Jerusalem, together with additional surrounding territory.[viii] One of Israel's Basic Laws, the 1980 Jerusalem Law, refers to Jerusalem as the country's undivided capital. All branches of the Israeli government are located in Jerusalem, including the Knesset (Israel's parliament), the residences of the Prime Minister and President, and the Supreme Court. Whilst the international community rejected the annexation as illegal and treats East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory occupied by Israel, Israel has a stronger claim to sovereignty over West Jerusalem. The international community does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and the city hosts no foreign embassies. Jerusalem is also home to some non-governmental Israeli institutions of national importance, such as the Hebrew University and the Israel Museum with its Shrine of the Book.
      In 2011, Jerusalem had a population of 801,000, of which Jews comprised 497,000 (62%), Muslims 281,000 (35%), Christians 14,000 (around 2%) and 9,000 (1%) were not classified by religion.
      See also:
      New Jerusalem
      Heavenly Jerusalem
      Jerusalem Above
      Biblical Archaeology section (regarding Jerusalem
    • By Kurt
      Archaeologists have probed down to the bedrock foundations of the
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. in old Jerusalem.  They have confirmed that the large stones of the wall are not part of any temple that was standing there before Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 C.E. Some people have had the impression that the remnants of the wall are from Solomon’s temple, or from Herod’s temple.  But as an Israeli archaeologist stated recently:  “The wall you see is not the wall of Solomon’s Temple, . . . Nor is it even the wall of the temple built by Herod the Great,” which was the temple destroyed in 70 C.E.
      What was this wall that is now called the
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. ? The archaeologist stated:  “When Herod decided to build the temple, he leveled off a site twice as large as the Acropolis—500 by 260 yards (457 by 237 meters)—bolstered by huge retaining walls.  The Western “wailing” Wall is that retaining wall.” In his prophecy about Herod’s temple, Jesus said to his followers:  “Truly I say to you, By no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.”  
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. Archaeology confirms the truth of these prophetic words.
       
    • By admin
      A bus has exploded in Jerusalem, leaving around 16 injured, Israeli media report, citing emergency medical services
    • By Jack Ryan
      This date is important for our calculations of the Messianic Kingdom.
       
  • Forum Statistics

    60,825
    Total Topics
    110,715
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,336
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    Trilliance
    Newest Member
    Trilliance
    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.