Uncovering Discrepancies in Secular History

[BTK59]

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

You got me curious, since I honestly had never even skimmed this portion of COJ's book. I noticed a footnote, on the same page you pointed to, about the famous eight-UK-clergymen December 1917 Manifesto, from their "prophets" conference. This manifesto has been referenced in the WTS publications several times.

Even if you deny it, you still adhere to it as your constitution.

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Rutherford quoted from the Manifesto, and had only good things to say about these particular preachers. He called them honest and faithful and good, as compared to so many other clergymen:

 

How can someone who claims to be a righteous clergyman and yet behaves like a Pharisee still be seen as trustworthy and sincere? There are many individuals here who strongly embody that statement. Bringing up the reference book "Millions Now Living Will Never Die" is nothing more than empty talk with no real significance.

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

What is his evidence of the signers of the above showing vehement opposition to "present truth" since then? It is that a different group of clergymen, who did NOT sign the above manifesto, had signed on to the proposal for the U.S. to join the League of Nations. So in January 1919, the executive committee of the Federal Council of Churches, had made a "blasphemous" statement in that proposal about the League of Nations, hoping it represented a means to peace in the world:

How do your previous posts relate to the 1914 closing of the Gentile Times, apart from criticizing Rutherford, a Bible Student at that time? What sets your discussion apart from COJ's criticism and deceptive portrayal? I am curious to find out.

I am willing to entertain your misguided notions, although it is regrettable that promoting dissenting opinions only serves to confuse the public, rather than benefit them.

Your criticism of Rutherford's stance towards false religion fails to address the crucial question: Why didn't he speak favorably about it? This point deserves the public's attention. Rutherford was falsely imprisoned due to religious persecution.

So, what was the Catholic Church that imprisoned Rutherford trying to do with the FCC hearing?

Federal_Communications_Commission

Mr. MONAGHAN. May I ask a question ?
The CHAIRMAN . Mr. Monaghan.
Mr. MONAGHAN. We Members of Congress-I know I have— have received petitions with thousands of signatures from people who are followers of the radio broadcasts of Judge Rutherford . I would be interested in knowing whether this amendment would help out in that situation . Would it create that liberty of the radio, in all channels , small radio , National Broadcasting Co. , and every sort of company, that has the use of facilities of the air ; would it create that degree of freedom which he desires ? Would it enable Judge Rutherford , in other words , to broadcast ?

Father HARNEY. Why, Judge Rutherford , I think- now, I am open to correction- but, I think that Judge Rutherford already owns, or his own organization owns or controls two or three broadcasting stations , and they broadcast on forty or fifty.
But, this amendment would leave it open to Judge Rutherford and his crowd to get a franchise to broadcast , provided the Commission could be convinced that their broadcasts are for human welfare and are in the public interest , convenience, or necessity. Not every man that wears the garb of religion even is entitled to talk religion, or talk for religion on any subject. There have been some men who have utilized the radio simply to sling mud . You can refer specifically to our friend Frank Ford-gone , but not forgotten-whose pièce de résistance and every broadcast was simply sending out calumny against the Catholic Church . He was greatly worried, very much disturbed , because we at WLWL would not pay any attention to him. He called me up, pretended to be somebody else , and called me on the telephone and wanted to know why I did not answer this, that, and the other.

An effort was made to silence him by blocking his access to an FCC license for broadcasting. Wanting to prevent Rutherford from boldly exposing the truth about deceitful religious practices. However, all of these irrelevant matters have no connection whatsoever to the year 1914, except for you presenting them as a spectacle for your misguided audience.

[BTK59]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But you seem to forget that NO ONE relies on VAT 4956 as authoritative evidence. It's just one part of a puzzle made up of at least 50,000 pieces of evidence. And all 50,000 pieces just happen to consistently fit with all the other pieces of evidence. And all 50,000 pieces mitigate against the WTS publications timeline of Nebuchadezzar and the other 5 Neo-Babylonian kings. It's the sum total of several completely independent lines of evidence --at least a dozen independent lines, where the 50,000 business tablets is counted as only one of those lines of evidence. It's not about any ONE piece of evidence for the Neo-Babylonian timeline.

It no longer holds true since it has been demonstrated that the evidence in question is not relevant. Apostates are now attempting to distort the narrative when they did rely on it in the past, such as the COJ.

The 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar can indeed have significance, but it should not be limited to your incorrect assumption that it represents 587 BC. By recognizing the consistent 19/8 cycle which you deny, we can also interpret it as 607 BC.

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But most people would think it's akin to a game of foolishness to think of Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky as providing authoritative evidence, as you have referenced him above. I have the book "Worlds in Collision" on the shelf behind me and I have skimmed it. You can verify in the May 8, 1950 Awake!, page 27,28, that his ideas were wildly speculative and completely unsupported by evidence. 

Twisting words and making false presentations to create a senseless argument is nothing short of foolishness. It would be disappointing if the closed club continues to engage in such behavior. There are numerous publications and reference books available that we can utilize, instead of selectively cherry-picking references to support our unfounded claims.

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The "Chronology" book you are quoting is from 1858 by Franke Parker. Before anyone puts too much stock in it, I think one should note that the so-called "absolute date" of 539 BCE has been changed in his book to 559, 560 or 561 BCE. This is in spite of the fact that he claims to make proper use of the Olympiad dating. His date for the destruction of Jerusalem in the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar is about 629 BCE. That's from 40 to 42 years before the astronomical dating of the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar, along with the whole gamut of Neo-Babylonian evidence. The Watchtower is only 20 years behind the astronomical evidence and he is more than twice as far off.  

The topic here is: Uncovering Discrepancies in Secular History

Not what your false narrative thinks about the Watchtower's 20 years. Keep that in the closed club where it belongs. Or you can argue it in Xero's topic.

Hence, that reference book is perfectly aligned with the themes of the narrative, since I'm presenting the discrepancy with the destruction of Nineveh in 608 BC, not what the reference book says, or you think about what it says about the destruction of Jerusalem in the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar in 629 BC.

[JW Insider]

27 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Even if you deny it, you still adhere to it as your constitution.

I deny any reliance on any chronology, correct or otherwise. COJ's chronology defense is meaningless. The WTS chronology defense is meaningless. I prefer the Biblical stance that "as to the times and seasons we need nothing to be written to us." We don't need to know what secular people have said about the exact BCE dates of these events. The Bible is good enough for me on such matters. 

[BTK59]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

That article was overly generous to him because he tried to support Biblical miraculous events with cosmic events in our solar system. Wikipedia gives a good summary of his ideas, some of which were published in "Worlds in Collision" some in "Ramses II and His Time," etc.

Do you understand English along with your fan base?

Why do you persist in distorting the Watchtower articles like any other apostate?

1950_Awake

In this book the author sets forth the novel theory that millenniums ago a skyroving comet the size of the Earth was cast out from Jupiter's molten mass; that this comet almost collided with the earth and Mars on several occasions; that finally this wandering offspring of Jupiter found an orbit of its own around the son and has since been known as the planet Venus. 

Throughout the book the attempt is made to prove that when this comet passed within the vicinity of the earth it caused the great catastrophes that befell this globe in times past. Out of the ancient folklore of Arabia, India, China, Tibet, North and South America, and Scandinavia, from accounts found on ancient Egyptian papyri and Babylonian tablets of clay, as well as the record contained in the Bible, links of circumstantial and direct evidence are connected together to make a binding chain for supporting the theory.

The intention behind the Watchtower article does not seem to embody kindness or generosity, as far as I can tell. It is imperative that you cease your behavior and confine your foolishness to the confines of the closed club.

The question, then, is what theory they used, with reference to Immanuel Velikovsky's book, not the Watchtower.

[BTK59]

32 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I deny any reliance on any chronology, correct or otherwise. COJ's chronology defense is meaningless. The WTS chronology defense is meaningless.

As I mentioned, you can continue to deny it, but that doesn't change the fact that you have used it in the past. Therefore, your defense of 587 BC is meaningless or otherwise incorrect by COJ's understanding of Chronology. Scripture warns us to stay vigilant and be alert for the coming of the Son of God, as he will arrive unexpectedly, like a thief in the night.

Your dissenting ideas do not align with Christianity as you compel others to believe in your own misguided convictions. What makes it unacceptable to God is not your disbelief in chronology, but rather your action and speaking against the word of God by making it public.

[George88]

@BTK59

It's puzzling why he's so adversarial towards the Watchtower, especially considering his past as a ex-bethelite. It seems like his goal as a pretend Jehovah's Witness is to publicly undermine what he once believed God had chosen.

However, I don't know if JWI is criticizing the clergymen, the Watchtower, or the mention of the gentile times in 1918.

It seems he is directly criticizing those clergymen for mentioning gentile times in 1918, which has "nothing" to do with the Watchtower. However, I can show the public where others believe the gentile times concluded in 1947/8 CE when the Jewish people's land became a state. I can also show when other people have supported the end of the gentile times on different dates, but there's no need to. What does that prove concerning the Watchtower?

https://israelmyglory.org/article/q-what-are-the-times-of-the-gentiles/

"Many people misunderstand and misinterpret Luke 21:24. Some claim that when Israel became a state on May 14, 1948, and then captured the Old City of Jerusalem during the Six-Day War in June 1967, the times of the Gentiles ended. But this is an erroneous interpretation of the verse."

https://executableoutlines.com/topical_series/time-of-the-end/end_07.html

https://enduringword.com/did-1948-begin-the-last-generation-qa-for-february-4-2021/

Some people even calculate it to mean the Gentile Time ended on May 14, 1948. That specific.

So, COJ's meaningless footnote also describes others:

42 The Bible on Our Lord’s Return (1922), p. 93. 43 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1914, pp. 329–30; Reprints, p. 55–68. 44 Christian commentators of several different denominations regarded this event as a sign of the times. It will be remembered that as early as 1823, John A. Brown, in his The Even-Tide, ended the “seven times” in 1917. In his opinion 1917 would see “the full glory of the kingdom of Israel . . . perfected” (Vol. 1, pp. xliii f.) Later in the same century the British expositor Dr. Henry Grattan Guinness, too, pointed forward to 1917 as a very important date: “There can be no question that those who live to see this year 1917 will have reached one of the most important, perhaps the most momentous, of these terminal years of crisis”—Light for the Last Days, London, 1886, pp. 342–46. Aware of these predictions, eight well-known English clergymen, among whom were Dr. G. Campbell Morgan and Dr. G. B. Meyer, issued a manifesto which among other things declared: “FIRST. That the present crisis points towards the close of the times of the Gentiles. . . . FIFTH. That all human schemes of reconstruction must be subsidiary to the second coming of our Lord, because all nations will be subject to his rule.” The manifesto was published in the London magazine Current Opinion of February 1918 and subsequently republished by other papers throughout the world. Although this manifesto has been cited several times in Watchtower publications in support of the 1914 date, it was actually issued in support of the 1917 date and resulted from Allenby’s “liberation” of Jerusalem in the latter year. p.258

As suggested, why did he only take 1917 into account?

The former Belethite rejects the beliefs surrounding the years 1914 and 607 BC. The question for people visiting this site should ask, and then stay off of this site is, why are you trying so hard to force others to believe in what you don't believe in?

Therefore, he is not only refuting the Watchtower Chronology, but he is refuting what is mentioned in the bible about the Gentile Times.

That means he is refuting what is mentioned in the books of Daniel, Ezekiel, Luke, Revelation, etc. How is that not a disfellowshipping offense by God? How is that behavior any different from Srecko's?
 

[Pudgy]

ANYBODY can merely look out  their windows,   Georgie,  and see the amswers to ALL your inane questions.

Except you. (… and your clone sock puppets).

Your Agenda has blinded you.

 

 

[George88]

I'm curious if those looking out the same window can observe the "inane" behavior happening here, especially from dissatisfied witnesses, apostates, and the disfellowshipped like yourself.

[Pudgy]

Of course you do,  Georgie … being totally divorced from REALITY ,,, THAT’s what you are able to focus on.

[George88]

The Bible instructs us to obey God, not individuals who falsely present themselves as Christian and behave dysfunctionally. I will follow God's will and distance myself from people who hold no significance in my Christian life.

[Pudgy]

You’re even being here,  Georgie,  by your OWN DEFINITION, demonstrates that is a lie.

[George88]

22 hours ago, BTK59 said:

To date, the account of the Destruction of Nineveh in 612 BC is not completely certain. An event occurred in 606 BC, and now another one places the destruction of Nineveh in 608 BC, following the destruction of Jerusalem in 629 BC.

Chronology.

"This places the fall of Nineveh after the destruction of Jerusalem and is in perfect accordance with our finding that the destruction of Jerusalem was in our B.C. 629 and that the fall of Nineveh could not be earlier than our B.C. 608" p.363

Here we have a historical inconsistency within an inconsistency. The author claims the destruction of Nineveh in 611 BC but also acknowledges the existence of numerous tablets dated to 612 BC from Nineveh.

Here we can witness how individuals can perceive a distinct interpretation of the terms "besiege," "sack," and "destruction." This author suggests that the palaces were initially ravaged in 612 BC, preceding the actual downfall of Nineveh in 611 BC.

This question stems from the same reference book. The central issue at hand is whether we should place our trust in secular history narrated by individuals who did not have the guidance of God.

The Babylonian Empire: 1900 BC to 539 BC

The reign of this king begins in the Late Assyrian period, in which the state began to regain central control of the original Assyrian heartlands, and also to conquer new territories.108 The Late Assyrian period lasted until the destruction of Nineveh, the Assyrian capital, in 611 BC. p.101

Around 20,000 clay tablets survived the fires which ravaged the palaces of Nineveh in 612 BC, and these tablets are now housed at the British Museum in London. p.103