Jump to content
The World News Media

Recommended Posts

  • Views 226
  • Replies 1
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

PROFESSOR ROBERT R. NEWTON AND "THE CRIME OF CLAUDIUS PTOLEMY" © Carl Olof Jonsson, Göteborg, Sweden, 2000 The following material is adapted from the discussion on pages 44-48 of the first and second editions of my book, The Gentile Times Reconsidered (published in 1983 and 1986), with some updates. PROFESSOR ROBERT R. NEWTON (who died in 1991) was a noted physicist who has published a series of outstanding works on the secular accelerations of the moon and the earth. He examined

  • Member


© Carl Olof Jonsson, Göteborg, Sweden, 2000

The following material is adapted from the discussion on pages 44-48 of the first and second editions of my book, The Gentile Times Reconsidered (published in 1983 and 1986), with some updates.

PROFESSOR ROBERT R. NEWTON (who died in 1991) was a noted physicist who has published a series of outstanding works on the secular accelerations of the moon and the earth. He examined in detail hundreds of astronomical observations dating all the way from the present back to about 700 BC, in order to determine the rate of the slowly changing of the length of the day during this period. The best information on his research in this area is found in his book, The Moon’s Acceleration and Its Physical Origins, vol. 1, published in 1979. His results have more recently been further refined by other scholars, especially by F. Richard Stephenson. (Historical Eclipses and Earth’s Rotation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) 

The research of Newton, Stephenson, and all the other scholars who have examined this matter totally and irrevocably demolishes the idea of ”Gary” (alias ”Joshua/92”), who in his posts on the H2O site claims that the longitude of Babylon in 568 BC was located at the longitude of Honolulu (a desperate idea resulting from his attempts to overcome the evidence of VAT 4956)! This idea presupposes a change of the length of the day since that time of a magnitude that is in the most glaring conflict with the research of Robert R. Newton, whom ”Gary” likes to quote (although very selectively and completely out of context). 

Accusations against Claudius Ptolemy not new

The claim that Claudius Ptolemy ”deliberately fabricated” many of his observations is not new. Astronomers have questioned Ptolemy’s observations for centuries. As early as 1008 AD, ibn Yunis concluded that they contained serious errors, and by about 1800, astronomers had recognized that almost all of Ptolemy’s observations were in error. In 1817, Delambre asked: ”Did Ptolemy do any observing? Are not the observations that he claims to have made merely computations from his tables, and examples to help in explaining his theories?” (J.B.J. Delambre, Histoire de l’Astronomie Ancienne, Paris 1817, Vol. II, p. XXV. Quoted by Robert R. Newton in The Moon’s Acceleration and Its Physical Origins [MAPO], Vol. I, Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, p. 43.) 

Two years later (1819) Delambre also concluded that Ptolemy fabricated some of his solar observations and demonstrated how the fabrication was made. (Newton, MAPO I, p. 44) More recently, other astronomers have re-examined Ptolemy’s observations and arrived at similar results. One of them is Professor Robert R. Newton. In his book, The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977), Newton claims that Ptolemy fudged, not only a large body of the observations he says he had made himself, but also a number of the observations Ptolemy attributes to other astronomers, including some he quotes from Babylonian sources. These include the three oldest observations recorded in Ptolemy’s Almagest dating from the first and second years of the Babylonian king Merodach-baladan (called Mardokempados in Almagest), corresponding to 721 and 720 BC. 

Scholars disagreeing with R.R. Newton

In the ensuing debate a number of scholars have repudiated Newton’s conclusions. They have argued that Newton’s arguments ”are marred by all manner of distortions” (Bernard R. Goldstein of the University of Pittsburgh in Science, February 24, 1978, p. 872), and that his case collapses because ”it is based on faulty statistical analysis and a disregard for the methods of early astronomy” (scholars Noel M. Swerdlow of the University of Chicago, Victor E. Thoren of Indiana University, and Owen J. Gingerich of Harvard University, in Scientific American, March 1979, p. 93, American edition). Similar comments are made by Noel M. Swerdlow, ”Ptolemy on Trial, ” in The American Scholar, Autumn 1979, pp. 523-531, and by Julia Neuffer, ”´Ptolemy’s Canon´ Debunked?” in Andrews University Seminary Studies, Vol. XVII, No. 1, 1979, pp. 39-46. An article by Owen J. Gingerich with a rebuttal by R.R. Newton is found in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 21, 1980, pp. 253-266, 388-399, with a final response by Gingerich in Vol. 22, 1981, pp. 40-44.

Scholarly support for R.R. Newton 

Most of these critics, though, are historians without particular expertise in the field of Greek astronomy. Some reviews written by well-informed astronomers have been favorable to Newton’s conclusions. One historian who is also well acquainted with Greek astronomy, K.P. Moesgaard, agrees that Ptolemy fabricated his astronomical data, though he feels it was done for some honest reason. (K.P. Moesgaard, ”Ptolemy’s Failings,” Journal for the History of Astronomy, Vol. XI, 1980, pp. 133-135) Rolf Brahde, too, wrote a favorable review of Newton’s book in Astronomisk Tidskrift, 1979, No. 1, pp. 42,43. 

B.L. van der Waerden, Professor of Mathematics and an expert on Greek astronomy, discusses Newton’s claims in his book, Die Astronomie der Griechen(Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1988). Although he would not go as far as Newton in his attack on Ptolemy, he agrees that Ptolemy falsified his observations, stating: ”That Ptolemy systematically and intentionally has falsified his observations in order to bring his observational results in agreement with his theory have been convincingly demonstrated by Delambre and Newton.” (p. 253) 

Recent criticism of R.R. Newton

G.J. Toomer, the well-known translator of Ptolemy’s Almagest (London: Gerald Duckworth & Co., 1984), discusses Newton’s claim in an article published in 1988 (”Hipparchus and Babylonian Astronomy,” in A Scientific Humanist. Studies in Memory of Abraham Sachs, eds. E. Leichty, M. DeJ. Ellis, & P. Gerardi, Philadelphia, 1988, pp. 353-362), in which he convincingly argues that all the observations from earlier periods recorded by Ptolemy were taken over from the Greek mathematician Hipparchus (2nd century BC). 

In 1990, Dr. Gerd Grasshoff included a lengthy section on the accusations against Claudius Ptolemy in his work, The History of Ptolemy’s Star Catalogue(London, Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong: Springer-Verlag, 1990, pp. 79-91). He concludes that Newton’s arguments against Ptolemy are ”superficial” and ”unjustified”. 

More recently, Oscar Sheynin has discussed Newton’s accusations at some length, arguing that the reason why Ptolemy’s observations so well agree with his theory is, not that he fabricated them, but that he selected the observations that best fitted his theory. Although such selectivity is not allowed in science today, it was quite common in ancient times. For this reason Sheynin states that Ptolemy cannot be regarded a fraud. (O. Sheynin, ”The Treatment of Observations in Early Astronomy,” in C. Truesdell (ed.), Archive for History of Exact Sciences, Vol. 46:2, 1993, pp. 153-192.) 

In summary, there seems to be at least some evidence in support of the claims that Claudius Ptolemy was ”fraudulent” in the way he handled his observations, either by ”trimming” the values or by selecting those who best fitted his theory. However, few scholars would go as far as Newton, who dismisses Ptolemy altogether as a fraud. As Dr. James Evans notes, ”very few historians of astronomy have accepted Newton’s conclusions in their entirety.” (Journal for the History of Astronomy, Vol. 24, Parts ½, February/May, 1993, pp. 145-146.)

R.R. Newton and ”Ptolemy’s Canon”

In a review of Newton’s book, The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, published in Scientific American of October 1977, pp. 79-81, it was stated that ”Ptolemy’s forgery may have extended to inventing the length of reigns of Babylonian kings.” This was a reference to the so-called ”Ptolemy’s Canon”, which Newton at that time erroneously believed had been composed by Claudius Ptolemy himself and thus may have been affected by his ”forgery”. The statement was quickly picked up and published in The Watchtower (December 15, 1977, p. 747). On page 375 of his The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, Newton also wrote: ”It follows that Ptolemy’s king list is useless in the study of chronology, and that it must be ignored. What is worse, much Babylonian chronology is based upon Ptolemy’s king list. All relevant chronology must now be reviewed and all dependence upon Ptolemy’s list must be removed.” 

Newton was unaware of the fact that ”Ptolemy’s Canon” was not composed by Claudius Ptolemy. He was not an historian and he was not an expert on Babylonian chronology. He also admits in his work that he has not studied sources other than Ptolemy for the years prior to Nebuchadnezzar. (The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, p. 375) He explains that his thoughts on the relations between chronology and the work of Ptolemy were influenced by a Mr. Philip G. Couture of Santee, California! In the Preface of his book he states: ”I thank Mr. Philip G. Couture of Santee, California for correspondence which led me to understand some of the relations between chronology and the work of Ptolemy.” . (The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, p. XIV) The same Mr. Couture also induced Dr. Newton to reject the Assyrian eponym canon in his work, The Moon’s Acceleration and Its Physical Origins. (See Vol. 1, 1979, p. 189) 

What Newton evidently did not know was that Mr. Couture was and still is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and that some of the chronological arguments he passed on to Newton were taken from the Watch Tower Society’s Bible dictionary, Aid to Bible Understanding. These arguments were not only aimed at supporting the chronology of the Watch Tower Society, but they are also demonstrably untenable!

Correspondence with R.R. Newton

In 1978, the year after The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy had been published, I had some correspondence with Professor Newton. In a letter dated June 27, 1978, I sent him a shorter study I had prepared in which the so-called ”Ptolemy’s Canon” was compared with earlier cuneiform sources. The study briefly demostrated that all the reigns of the Babylonian kings given in the Canon, from Nabonassar (747-734 BC) to Nabonidus (555-539 BC), were in complete agreement with these older sources. (This study was later expanded and published in a British scholarly journal for interdisciplinarty studies, Chronology & Catastrophism Review, Vol. IX, 1987, pp. 14-23.) I then asked: ”How is it possible that Ptolemy’s astronomical data are wrong, and yet the king list, to which they are attached, is correct?”

In his answer, dated August 11, 1978, Newton said: ”I am not ready to be convinced that Ptolemy’s king list is accurate before Nabopolassar [= before 625 BC], although I have high confidence that it is rather accurate for Nabopolassar and later kings.” He also pointed out: ”The basic point is that Ptolemy calculated the circumstances of the eclipses in the Syntaxis from his theories, and he then pretended that his calculated values were values that had been observed in Babylon. His theories are accurate enough to give the correct day of an eclipse, but he missed the hour and the magnitude.” 

Thus Ptolemy’s ”adjustments” of the eclipse observations were too small to affect the year, the month, and the day of an eclipse. Only the hour and the magnitude were affected. Ptolemy’s supposed ”adjustments” of the records of the ancient Babylonian eclipses, then, didn’t change the BCE dates that had been established for these observations. They did not change the chronology! Further, Newton was convinced that the king list was accurate from Nabopolassar and onwards. In other words, he was convinced that the whole Neo-Babylonian chronology from Nabopolassar through Nabonidus (625-539 BC) was accurate! Why? 

Because he had made a very thorough study of some of the ancient Babylonian astronomical records that were independent of ”Ptolemy’s Canon”, including VAT 4956 and Strm. Kambys. 400. From his examination of these two records, he had established that the first text referred to the year 568/67 BC and the second one to 523 BC. He concluded: ”Thus we have quite strong confirmation that Ptolemy’s list is correct for Nebuchadrezzar, and reasonable confirmation for Kambyses.” (The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, 1977, p. 375) These findings were further emphasized in his next work, The Moon’s Acceleration and Its Physical Origins, vol. 1 (1979), where he concludes on page 49: ”Nebuchadrezzar’s first year therefore began in –603 [= 604 BC], and this agrees with Ptolemy’s list.” 

Therefore, to quote some statements by R.R. Newton in an attempt to undermine the chronology established for the Neo-Babylonian era would be to quote him out of context. It would be to misrepresent his views and conceal his conclusions. It would be fraudulent. Yet, this has been repeatedly done by the Watch Tower Society and by ”Gary/Joshua92”. Newton’s findings refute both of their chronologies and prove them to be false.


Whether Ptolemy falsified his observations, perhaps also some of those of earlier astronomers, is irrelevant for the study of the Neo-Babylonian chronology. Today, this chronology is not based upon the observations recorded by Ptolemy in his Almagest. Further, the claim that Ptolemy may have ”invented” the lengths of reign in ”Ptolemy’s Canon” is based upon the mistake that this king list was composed by Claudius Ptolemy. As is demonstrated on pages 94-96 of the third edition of The Gentile Times Reconsidered (and also briefly in the second edition), the designation ”Ptolemy’s Canon” is a misnomer, as this king list had been in use among Alexandrian astronomers for centuries before the time of Claudius Ptolemy. Finally, the claim that the king list is the basis of or a principal source for the Neo-Babylonian chronology, is false.Those who make such a claim are either totally ignorant or dishonest. The plain truth is that the king list is not needed for the fixing of the chronology for this era, although its figures for the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings are upheld by at least 14 lines of independent evidence based on cuneiform documents, as is demonstrated in The Gentile Times Reconsided. 

An excellent discussion of Ptolemy’s Canon, or, more correctly, the Royal Canon, and its relation to the Neo-Babylonian chronology, is found in the article by Leo Depuydt, ”’More Valuable than all Gold’: Ptolemy’s Royal Canon and Babylonian Chronology,” published in the Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 47, 1995, pp. 97-117.

    Hello guest!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Similar Content

    • By JW Insider
      We know that dates like 1513 BCE, 606 BCE, 587 BCE, 539 BCE, 70 CE (or AD), don't occur in the Bible, nor in the ancient astronomical diaries either. If we can pin a specific astronomical event to a record of any of Nebuchadnezzar's years, it would help. But we don't need those kinds dates yet. We can get them later.
      The first thing we need to do is to figure out where the variously listed kings fit in our timeline relative to each other. If we knew the order of the kings in succession and knew how long they each ruled for, we could at least create a "relative" timeline.
      So. To begin. Do ancient records provide an agreed upon list of kings, their order of succession, and the lengths of their rule?
      Do all ancient records agree?
      No. (Most would argue that they agree in all the important areas, and minor disagreements are easily fixed, but we should still admit that not all records are 100% in agreement.)
      So. Can we find two or three that do agree with each other, or perhaps even the majority of the records, in order to start a tentative timeline, and then deal with the disagreements later?
      Yes. The most important of the ancient records from Babylon itself and from those who made use of Babylonian records for astronomical purposes all agree anyway (Babylonians, Persians, Greeks). We would expect the most accurate records to relate to works for predicting or understanding eclipses (for example) or various lunar cycles  and planetary movements. We know that certain types of astronomical phenomena were predicted in advance, or even known to be occurring even if invisible behind thick clouds, or because it occurred below the horizon, or invisible because some events relative to stars and planets could not be seen in the daytime. So  we should expect records accurate enough to be used to actually calculate and predict a future eclipse even if it would be invisible.
      OK. So we'll put into our chart an example where two of these records agree with each other. For now, we'll pick the Royal King List that must have been available to Ptolemy's Almagest as a kind of "look-up table" and the writings of Berossus a Babylonian historian/priest from the Seleucid Period. They both agree on the following:
      Nabopolassar        21 years Nebuchadnezzar  43 years Awel-Marduk         2 years Neriglissar             4 years [Labashi-Marduk  9 months]* Nabonidus            17 years So, we have two "witnesses" (so far) to the names, years, and order of succession for these kings, which I will place in the chart below. To save space and give us a fairly legible font size, I only put in the last few years of Nabopolassar's 21 year reign. And we haven't discussed the length of position of Cyrus reign yet, but both Berossus and the Royal King List give him 9 years starting immediately after the 17th year of Nabonidus.
      So this, so far, becomes an 81-year span (arbitarily) from the 16th year of Nabopolassar up to the 9th year of Cyrus as King of Babylon. It might not be right, but it's a version that we can begin to test against the data to see if it holds up. E-M by the way, is short for Evil-Merodach (Awel-Marduk).

      1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Nabopo-lassar N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S C Y R U S 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  
      *Labashi-Marduk reigned only a few months, but we would NOT expect his name included in a timeline used for counting the number of years between any points on the timeline. And we definitely would not expect it to be included for any purposes related to astronomy calculations. That's because if a reign was so short that it started in a year already counted as "Neriglissar 4" and it ended before the start of "Nabonidus 1" then it should not be inserted because those full years were already counted. In fact, it would be considered a mistake then to include it in an astronomical reference, because it would have thrown off all calculations. predictions and cycles by a full year, making the entire king list worthless. In this case, Berossus, in the role of historian mentions him, but in the Royal King List used for astronomical purposes as a reference for Ptolemy's Almagest, for example, it should NOT be listed, and it wasn't.
    • By César Chávez
      Well at least Theologians are beginning to see how CORRECT the Watchtower is by them demonstrating in their new Bible Studies the 3 Babylonian deportations of the Judeans.
      However, they still have to conjoin the fall of Jerusalem from 586 BC to an earlier date written in human history and scripture.
      An honest assessment, that can’t be found here by questionable people.
      NIV, Bible Study has been introduced here, not to show the publishing house but the actions that are now being considered and printed that agrees in similar fashion with the Watchtower. If they are willing to reconsider that stance, then it shouldn’t be a problem about 1914.
      The NIV Study Bible
      Copyright © 1985, 1995, 2002, 2008, 2011, 2020 by Zondervan

      Therefore, 1914 is not problematic to those that, understand.
    • By The Librarian
      You can type in the search bar above "539"  to see more discussion regarding this date.

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

  • Members

    • Jerome

      Jerome 0

      Last active:
    • xero

      xero 171

      Last active:
    • TrueTomHarley

      TrueTomHarley 4,488

      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

    • folens  »  Eric Ouellet

      Hello Eric, merci pour tes bons sujets. Bonne journée Michel
      OUI certains jours.mp4
      · 0 replies
    • Eric Ouellet

      Bâtissons chaque but de notre vie avec amour
      L'homme à toujours chercher le sens véritable de l'amour. L'homme réfléchissant à cette vertu, il sépara cette qualité en trois phases et uni en une seule.  Les millénaires passèrent et l'homme à compris que les trois phases de l'amour sont des étapes que l'on ne peut trépasser.
      La première partie est appelé" L'Éros."
      L'éros fut le premier chemin que Dieu entama dans son Esprit ( pensée en action) (verbe) intérieur avant de faire ce monde magnifique que nous vivons. L'Éros est le feu qui nous anime dans le début d'une pensée qui nous traverse l'esprit.
      L'Amour éros est une énergie très puissante, car d'elle, d'une seule image non réalisée, l'éros active cette image en rêve, uni à notre pensée et propulse dans notre vision, un rêve ultime qui nous pousse à chercher au fond de nous, le sentiment qui nous anime puissamment.
      Nous recherchons en nous d'autres images pour connaitre d'avantage cette vibration qui se manifeste, telle un feu ardent.
      D'un rêve, l'amour de ce but te pousse à créer et fonder ce rêve dans ta réalité, construire le but ultime de ta vie.
      La flamme de Yah, s'anime en toi ( Chant de Salomon)
      Le désir sexuelle ne fait pas parti de cet Amour.
      L'Éros te propulse dans tout les côtés des variantes d'un but non réalisé, dont tu ne connais point comment construire ce but qui s'anime en toi; et même comment pourrais-je réaliser ce but?
      Quand le rêve d'un projet d'avenir est dans l'Éros, il ne faut pas qu'il devienne en nous une obsession intense. Nous ne savons pas comment contrôler notre feu intérieur de ce but, de cette vision qui anime nos pensées, jour après jour et souvent dans les images de notre sommeil, elles peuvent envahir nos nuits.
      L'amour " Éros" nous confrontes à plusieurs désirs qui nous anime et qu'avec le temps nous apprenons à assembler le casse tête de la réalisation de notre vie, les pièces maîtresses de notre rêve qui nous poussent sans cesse à trouver les outils et l'instructions nécessaires à notre cheminement qui s'accomplit pendant une grande période de notre vie, pour atteindre l'objectif premier de notre vie, le vrai but que nous voulons accomplir.
      Quand notre but est assemblé, telle un film intérieur, de sa première image (début), à son dénouement et cela jusqu'à son accomplissement , alors notre rêve se voit construit dans notre esprit alors nous sommes prêt; nous pouvons commencer la deuxième étapes de l'amour qui construit notre but.
      La connaissance de l'amour apporte à réaliser le rêve de notre but vers la réalisation de notre projet en ce monde au bonheur de chacun.
      Les étapes de réalisation de chaque but, doit être construit avec l'Amour philia à (suivre)...

      · 0 replies
    • Eric Ouellet

      Pour guérir notre personnalité, une petite recette intérieure doit être préparé avec minutie et avec conviction, en voici la composition:
      En premier, prend le temps de prendre conscience de l'amour que tu t'attribues à toi même. L'amour désintéressé, celle qui te lie en toi le mérite vrai de la beauté intérieure, celle de la lumière qui vibre dans ton coeur. Cette amour doit être le fondement de ta personnalité, car plus tu consacres le temps nécessaire à épanouir tes forces et que tu perpétues cette puissance universelle envers autrui. Ainsi, tu t'élèveras au-dessus de la souffrance et Il te guidera vers le chemin de l'accomplissement de ta vie.
      En deuxième, prend le temps de travailler la qualité de la patience. La patience est une vertu primordiale à ta personnalité, car elle te fait comprendre les étapes de la vie et que pas à pas, une chose à la fois tu redresseras tes faiblesses. La patience te guidera vers la maîtrise des étapes à la victoire des buts, que tu entreprends. Cette vertu t'aidera à accepter les erreurs de ta personne et de celle des autres.
      Troisièmement, trouve en toi la joie de vivre. La joie est une petite qualité à quatre lettres. Elle se situe en toi, car chaque moment de ton quotidien elle se manifeste et elle vibre de tout ton être. Elle se manifeste, dans les moments où tu vois un coucher de soleil éblouissant, dans les activités avec tes amis qui te sont chère. Quand tu réussis un travail qui t'inspire et que tu réussis l'accomplissement avec brio. À plusieurs moment la joie se manifeste et tu dois prendre conscience de ces moments, car il font parti de la positivité de ta vie. Elle t'aide à oublier les épreuves que tu dois traverser.
      Quatrièmement, une clé primordiale doit être insérée en toi, celle de la confiance. La confiance est la synergie de l'amour désintéressé. Sans la confiance ton amour vacillera avec le temps. Bâtir la confiance est un travail acharné à ton travail personnel. Cette vertu t'aide à prendre conscience de tes mérites, de te rassurer que les actions que tu fais son juste et t'empêche de regarder constamment en arrière. La confiance te donnera la force d'avancer vers l'horizon de la lumière et croire en toi. 
      Cinquièmement, le courage, est le courant qui aide à te reprendre dans les moments difficiles où la vision de tes buts que tu entreprends devient très ardu. Il t'aide à ne pas baisser les bras dans les moments où tu ne vois plus la manière de franchir une étape, un examen de conscience qui illumine ta pensée à trouver une solution réfléchit et te dire, je vais être capable de réussir. Le courage est le deuxième souffle dans ta course vers le sommet de ta personnalité intérieure.
      Sixièmement, La force fait partie du courage, l'un ne va pas sans l'autre. Le courage est le souffle, l'oxygène qui activera ta force intérieure. La force t'aide à gravir les montagnes et même à certaine étape de ta vie à soulever les montagnes pour trouver les trésors qui y sont enfouis. La force te donne la chance à balayer les nuages de la tempête et de retrouver la chaleur du soleil du bonheur venant de Dieu.
      La septième étapes , la maîtrise de soi, une vertu qui est au sommet de ces étapes intérieures. La maîtrise de soi est l'étape ultime de ta vie  (les actions justes) car par cette vertue plus rien ne fera barrière dans le chemin que tu auras voulu suivre, car les épreuves que tu auras surmonté, te guidera à devenir maître de toi même et ne faire qu'un avec toi même, unis à Dieu et à son Roi.
      La maîtrise de soi te donnera un trésor inestimable qui est celui de l'harmonie. Équanimité ( équilibre parfait) dans tous les sens de ton âme. Tu trouveras la beauté ultime de chaques éléments de la vie, ta conscience sera dans ta pensée comme un métronome parfait; La vrai vie celle de nos rêves deviendra réalité, nous deviendrons un être de lumière. La lumière qui sommeillait en toi jaïllira de toute ta personne.
      Même dans la nuit des plus grandes tempêtes, tu seras un phare éblouissant de Dieu.
      2 Timothée 3: 16-17, Proverbes chapitre 1-3,Galantes 5:22,23  1Corinthien 13: 4-(8 premier phrase)

      · 0 replies
    • LAWRENCE THOMAS  »  T.B. (Twyla)

      do you have the videos of the rejoice with jehovah's 2021
      · 1 reply
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
    • Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
    • Most Online

    Newest Member
    Deci enuno
  • 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.