Leaderboard

Yes. I wish he would grow up. There is nothing wrong with upvotes. They show that other people think you’re hot stuff.

Here is the material for the weeks of July 1-7 and July 8-14, 2024. TB Meeting Workbook and CBS week of JULY 8-14, 2024.doc Meeting Workbook and CBS week of JULY 8-14, 2024.pdf Watchtower July 8-14, 2024.doc Watchtower July 8-14, 2024.pdf Watchtower WEEK OF July 1-7, 2024.doc Watchtower WEEK OF July 1-7, 2024.pdf Additional Highlights -JULY 1-7, 2024.doc Additional Highlights -JULY 1-7, 2024.pdf Additional Highlights -JULY 8-14, 2024.doc Additional Highlights -JULY 8-14, 2024.pdf Meeting Workbook and CBS week of JULY 1-7, 2024.doc Meeting Workbook and CBS week of JULY 1-7, 2024.pdf

Here is the material for weeks of June 17 and June 24, 2024..TB Watchtower June 24-30, 2024.pdf Additional Highlights -JUNE 17-23, 2024.doc Additional Highlights -JUNE 24-30, 2024.doc Meeting Workbook and CBS week of JUNE 17-23, 2024.doc Meeting Workbook and CBS week of JUNE 24-30, 2024.doc Watchtower June 17-23, 2024.doc Watchtower June 24-30, 2024.doc Additional Highlights -JUNE 17-23, 2024.pdf Additional Highlights -JUNE 24-30, 2024.pdf Meeting Workbook and CBS week of JUNE 17-23, 2024.pdf Meeting Workbook and CBS week of JUNE 24-30, 2024.pdf Watchtower June 17-23, 2024.pdf

I hope pudgy is okay but I’m fearing the worse……I really like pudgy…

This doesn't contradict what you are saying about the updates, but I always found it interesting that Paul said "the majority" as if the entire congregation was considered in the reinstatement process. (2 Corinthians 2:6) This rebuke given by the majority is sufficient for such a man;

I consider you and Tom superior to myself and I think he is a fantastic writer…he’s very good at his love of writing,,,,,more importantly he is a very good and trustworthy servant of Jehovah …and he’s humble and even admits he came here and was humbled….and I know him to be very gracious and kind also a little sarcastic at times,( I’m worse ) Forums can make you stronger or humbled and wiser or break you totally….they can also make one sarcastic nasty bombastic bitchy and frustrated …..( I can be guilty of all) but I’ve learnt things and got to know some who I have affection for,,,and sure hope we meet at some time in that New World tho I think ..and I bet we wouldn’t mention anything that’s been discussed on this forum,,

Yes I am fond of Pudgy..tho I’ve never had proof he was disfellowshipped….I would have still been especially fond of Peter even after he three times betrayed his Christ ….who as we know never disfellowshipped him…I don’t know who I’m really talking with…as to your name but your personality is familiar to me. Actually I think you are very clever and knowledgeable with the scriptures and Jehovah’s Witness’s and going by what you have said you must be very old. And go back a long way…I love your old historical memories and I have learnt from you a number of times and even upvoted you…..I wish I had your astute knowledge brother and your recall of scriptures…you certainly have a treasure with them. But I do feel also sorry for you as you do not know Jesus very well..you lack the depth of his love. In our cong we had elders who said ….three strikes and your out…so many young ones were disfellowshipped . Most lost to the world but some survived it….Peter would have been disfellowshipped by them also and I have a feeling you would be like them. You need to keep up with the new understandings and thoughts of the GB…they are teaching the real love that Jesus showed to those others considered ..good for nothing…they are really really pushing how we need to be kind to each other and even show kindness to those disfellowshipped…or did you miss that point. Im preety sure you won’t change..but I wish you would be a little more gentle with people…I’m not an apostate and nor are the others you mentioned….but at least you and JWI and a couple of others keep this forum surviving….I would personally still love to hear about your experiences and memories of Russell’s time etc…as they are invaluable.. At least the conversation between you and JWI gives two sides to the coin….and each has good points to learn so I’ve learnt from both of you.

That would be nice to avoid an unnecessary conflict, but I still stand for truth, and when I have time, might continue to respond when you say that something I said is a lie intended to mask deceit. Why should I care whether you are Tom or Juan or Srecko support me? I happen to know that YOU support some of what I have said here, and that Tom, Juan, Srecko, etc., do NOT support much of what I have said. If I say something here, it doesn't matter who reads it, or how they want to respond to it. Anything I write can be taken and reused by anyone without crediting me, or blaming me. It's just meant to get people to think about "making sure of all things." If they ignore it, that's fine, too. If they have something to respond with that shows I was wrong, then I will immediately change my view. So far, I have even changed my view every time you showed me that I was wrong.

@"Hammer" Rubi @"Hammer" Urabi @Dr. Adhominem @Dr. Adhominum No. My guess is that when the software for the forum has to be reloaded now and then for maintenance issues, there were a couple of yours that got lost during updates due to attempts to include too many items of special characters and punctuation. Also you can see the attempts to create near duplicates as in the ones I listed above which might sooner or later get flagged by software as superfluous. Or maybe I imagined that they were being rude to me or insulting me, or worse yet, downvoted me, and I just banned them without telling you. More power to the moderators!!

One more outrageous claim like that and it is off to Worm City for him. And, what’s with the angel that was able to spring Peter from prison, opening doors right and left, but was not able to spring the one at Mary’s home, leaving Peter knocking in the street. Have him write Bethel about that.

I don’t even know what you are talking about….and yes I believed James….please let’s not get antagonised with each other….your really old and I’m old….we are wasting time…

He is. Nonetheless, his example has helped me. I had a ‘take no prisoners’ approach when I first became active here. Nobody gonna saying nothin bad bout God nor the earthly organization on my watch. I was not free of ad hominem attacks. Nothing like you, of course, but I was not free of them. I was also given to sarcasm. He reined me back that. Sometimes you have to see where people are coming from and why. If you address a topic, just address it. Just answer a question. If you employ any sarcasm at all, even though the rest of your answer is brilliant, the other person will zero in only your sarcasm, and the overall reply is lost. Of course, it still stands for members of ‘the public’ who frequent this fine site, but it also sets a bad example for them. I look upon almost with awe on how restrained he keeps himself when interacting with you, kicking back only when your adhominems and weird accusations become intolerable, and even then in a restrained way. Anyone else rather quickly collapses under your dark strangeness and throws themselves against the electric fence, like concentration camp inmates who have lost hope. To be sure, I don’t share his interest in this particular matter of 607. If it is wrong, it will be changed. Probably, the rapid deterioration of this systems of things will make the point moot, anyway. And you can always say, ‘Oh, to blazes with it! ‘Generation’ means ‘era,’ and in that way get another 60 years out of it, if not more. Why doesn’t he state his point just once or twice and move on? I think it is quite clear that is what would happen if not for you. He states a point in a scholarly way. You apply accelerant and make sure the entire ‘public’ knows about it. In this way, you facilitate ‘apostasy’ far more than he. It is crucial that you stop doing this. Absolutely vital. The public should drop everything to figure it out. Start with the excellent book (my latest) ‘In the Last of the Last Days: Faith in the Age of Dysfunction,’ available at Amazon, and most ebook retailers. Take note of the metadata: “Those of the Enlightenment laud the “human experiment” that is democracy, Jehovah’s Witnesses laud the human experiment that is worldwide family. Theirs is John Lennon’s brotherhood of man not rejoicing that there is above us only sky but instead seeking direction from that sky. A family all but solving racism, a family uniting nationalities and social classes. Who wouldn’t want a double-shot of it? But even a recent circuit overseer likened it to “one big, united, happy, somewhat dysfunctional family,” a phrase I suspect is not in any outline. “Witnesses are ordinary folk, with all the foibles of ordinary folk, and sometimes a few extra thrown in since “They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are ill do: I [Jesus] came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” “What drives the Witnesses? Examine what faces these ordinary folk who star in a world-stage role that is alternately noble and strange. Some challenge is external: “A large door that leads to activity has been opened to me, but there are many opposers.” Some challenge is internal: “We have this treasure [of the ministry] in earthen vessels.” Translation: “We have met the enemy and he is us.” “Either way, “Do not be puzzled at the burning among you . . . as though a strange thing were befalling you,” says Peter. Don‘t be puzzled. Tackle it head-on. Start with the pure bonus, ‘Things that drive you crazy about the faith--and how to view them,’ for the goal is to endure: “When the Son of man arrives, will he really find the faith on the earth?” says Jesus. ‘Not if we have anything to do with it,’ reply ever increasing enemies. "If errors were what you watch, O Jah, O Jehovah, who could stand?” asks the psalm. Is watching errors not the mission statement of today’s culture, typified in its media? Nobody stands as their enemies magnify, enhance, and even concoct evil reports—see it play out on the internet with any public figure, “admiring personalities,” until they destroy them. Ought Christians play that game? "Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is stumbled, and I am not incensed? If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness,” says Paul. Three times the apostle entreated God to remove a “thorn in his flesh” Nothing doing, God said. I look better when you are flawed. If brilliant people achieve brilliant things, it’s easy to see why. But when flawed people do it . . .” “Tips on the ministry within. How did Witnesses fare in the face of COVID-19? How to regard ever-present conspiracy theories that ripple through society? And what about those overlapping generations? How long can they overlap? What is at stake? What facts on the ground identify the times? Venturing to the edge of the universe, rewriting the textbooks, and dressing down the god of good luck is all in a day's work. Meet Mephibosheth, that faithful man of old whom nobody can pronounce his name at the New System Dinner Table. A bad boy turns over a new leaf, a theodicy that works, and my favorite circuit overseer finish up the offerings.” It is essential that people read this work. (I have a collection or two of the Bill Watterson cartoons ‘Calvin and Hobbes’ Some are named things like ‘The Essential Calvin and Hobbes.’ Watterson said he chose such titles because few things could be less essential than a collection of cartoons. I admit, I tease you a bit when so many things with you are ‘essential, and ‘crucial.’)

Actually, he expressed remorse quite clearly on the forum. But from what I understand from you, you have the ability to read hearts and therefore you can judge without being concerned about being judged with the same measure in return. You quoted 1 Cor 5:13 which, in context, also says: (1 Corinthians 5:11-13) . . .But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside, while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves.” I'm sure you can easily guess who 99% of the people on this forum first think of when they hear the word "reviler." Remember that God sees and judges all actions.

Sheeesh…I didn’t even say anything 🫤

I’ve seen entire armies vanish. If you exercised the correct wisdom belonging to true knowledge and the correct knowledge belonging to true wisdom, you would realize this explains some missing years of Nebuchadnezzar. I banned him. He crossed a line. It’s okay to move it back again. Once he gets an idea in his head, it’s impossible to get it out, so I corroborate it instead. It is crucial and essential that you understand this. We must not deceive the public.

What if Satan knew that Jesus said that no one would knows the day and hour of his return, that it would be at a time we would not think to be it, and that the times and seasons are in Jehovah's jurisdiction, not for us to know. And what if he knew that Paul had said "As for the times and seasons, you need nothing to be written to you -- because you very well know that the day will come as a thief." So Satan is seeking to devour people who are otherwise determined to be Jehovah's named people, but he would love to see them become disobedient to the spirit of Jesus's words and show the kind of hubris and pride that would make them think that what Jesus said doesn't really matter: that we want to claim that we can know the times and seasons anyway. So Satan finds a group of honest-hearted people looking for truth, but he needs them to have at least one major stumbling block -- disobedience to Jesus' words about realizing that the end comes as a complete surprise, just the way that Sodom was destroyed without warning. This way it's also possible to get people serving for a date, or not completely whole-souled because they think that they will be able to wait until the signs get even more specific [like a "cry" of peace and security] before they completely clear their conscience of all the things that could weigh them down in this system. They will be looking for signs, but won't be focused on what sort of persons they ought to be - and to be ready for that revelation/manifestation/parousia at any time, including 5 minutes from now. So making persons get absorbed in date-setting not only produces a lack of readiness, it always produces one more thing that most people don't realize. Everyone who sets certain expectation for certain dates is displaying presumptuousness and pride. They will also invariably fail, just as Russell failed with every single prediction and expectation for 1914, and 1915, and 1878, and 1881, and just as Rutherford failed in his published predictions for 1918 and 1925. The pride angle is obvious, because a leader like Russell or Rutherford (or Ellen G White, or Nelson Barbour, or William Miller, or Garner Ted Armstrong, or Frederick Franz, or Harold Camping, etc.) is saying in effect, "I know Jesus said that no one would know, but he is making an exception for me, and therefore for the group that listens to what I am saying. We are so special!" But that type of pride has a secondary effect when the dates fail -- and they invariably do fail. To save face, every single person who has predicted something must backtrack (with few exceptions) and try to make it look like it wasn't really a failure. Instead of admitting failure, it becomes "Well it wasn't us, it was people listening to us but getting too carried away." Or, "We were expecting the right thing, just at the wrong time - a little to early." Or, "We had the time right, we were just expecting the wrong thing." And then there is the whitewashing of history, as when the Watchtower began "bragging" about how only Jehovah's Witnesses (called Bible Students at the time) were preaching for decades in advance that Jesus' invisible presence would begin and Christ's kingdom would be born in 1914." Of course, that's a dishonest statement, yet we have heard versions of it so many times that some of us believe it's true. No one ever preached in advance that Christ's kingdom would begin in 1914. No one ever preached in advance that Jesus invisible presence would begin in 1914. There is nearly always an element of dishonesty that goes with every religion that has ever tried to set dates related to end time events. So if Satan could find a way to feed into that idea of date-setting either through a typo or through manipulation of world leaders to fool Russell into thinking one of his dates was right all along, I wouldn't doubt that Satan would try.

Hardly. I only researched what I was assigned to research. The most leeway I was given was when I had to look up and review what had been said previously about certain specific doctrines. We didn't have electronic searching of anything, or the Internet. So if Brother BS, or RL, or JN asked me to look into what we once said about house-to-house, or the literal vs the figurative heart, or a partial 70 CE fulfillment of Matthew 24, or certain medical advice, or Abaddon, or Evolution, or the Creative Days, or the Prodigal Son, then I might get a chance to read dozens of articles going all the way back through the 1930's. We would find a lot of places where the WT Publications Index needed updating, too. We didn't actually care about going back to Russell. Mostly, the brothers only cared about references going back to 1935, sometimes 1931. Then we might see if our commentary referencing Bible dictionaries and lexicons still held up with the latest versions of those references. And the Aid Book was still producing new questions to look up and double-check for accuracy. I was never assigned a research project about chronology, or parousia, or the generation, or Gentile Times, or the 70 years, or Babylonian kings. The closest to that was a double-check of how often anyone had written about a partial or minor fulfillment of Matthew 24 in the first century. And one time I had to look up if we had been consistent about saying that the "Lord's Day" of Revelation 1:10 had been the start of 1914. But obviously it was never a matter of questioning 1914. When COJ's manuscript came up, it was a total surprise to me that anyone would question 1914, although I soon learned that Sydlik, Schroeder, Chitty and Swingle were questioning certain aspects of it. And I soon learned COJ's name from Rusk and Schroeder, but I thought they were going to find someone to respond to the document. You seem to have not understood much of what Adam Rutherford was saying, then. Adam Rutherford's information is basically a confirmation of the ideas of COJ and every authority on the Babylonian Chronicles. Being only two years off from the astronomically evidenced numbers is hardly a problem unless you also want to incorporate the dozens of astronomical readings. But Adam Rutherford stuck with the relative chronology but mostly ignored the "absolute" chronology that the astronomy readings would have given. With respect to the relative chronology, Adam Rutherford, confirms COJ's understanding and that of every person currently considered an authority on the Babylonian Chronicles. Adam Rutherford agrees completely with me, too, on the relative chronology. If he was using the Babylonian Chronicles correctly then he is saying that COJ is right, and the Watchtower is wrong. His information would mostly just confirm COJ, not challenge him. COJ goes further and takes into consideration the rest of the astronomical evidence which Rutherford also nearly had right -- only two years off. Rutherford indicates that the current Watchtower is 22 years off in the absolute, and 20 years off in the relative. His information could only have been use to challenge and refute the Watchtower.

There were big differences between the Bible Students and the Christian Science religion. The pyramid that was built near Mary Baker Eddy's birthplace was built in December 1918, by the same person who designed her cemetery memorial, but not officially sanctioned by the religion itself. The pyramid built near Russell's gravesite was built in 1921. Both have since been destroyed. Both had a metal box buried deep within to contain the writers' artifacts, and both had plaques on the 4 sides. One of “Eddy’s” plaques had “The new order of the ages” in Latin. Anything that Mary Baker Eddy had said about the Great Pyramid has been downplayed, and in fact, no one has found more than a sentence or two that she ever said about it. But there have been claims by those outside her religion that she supported pyramidology. In 1921, some Christian Scientists recommended pilgrimages to the site, but the church discouraged it, reminding people that Eddy didn't want people celebrating her birthday, and she had spoken out against mystic cults and "spiritualism" and "theosophy" that the pyramid apparently represented to some.

Here is the context and the letter from Smyth that Russell published in Volume 3 (Thy Kingdom Come), praising Russell's "originality" and "magnificently" worded passages. It also praised Russell's accuracy to within an inch, even though Russell later rescinded a couple of these measurements and changed them by up to 41 inches. Notice that Russell calls the Pyramid, not just Jehovah's Witness, but also Jehovah's PROPHET: THE CORROBORATIVE TESTIMONY OF GOD'S STONE WITNESS AND PROPHET THE GREAT PYRAMID IN EGYPT A KINDLY COMMENT ON THIS CHAPTER WHEN IN MANUSCRIPT, FROM THE PEN OF THE ESTEEMED PROF. C. PIAZZI SMYTH, F.R.S.E., F.R.A.S. EX-ASTRONOMER ROYAL FOR SCOTLAND Brother William M. Wright, on learning that this chapter on the Great Pyramid was written, requested that he might have the reading of it before it would be put into type, as he had already considerable knowledge of the Pyramid. This we gladly granted, assuring him of our desire for all the criticism possible. After reading the MS., Bro. Wright concluded that, as we desired criticism, the higher the standing of the critic the better. Accordingly he made a typewriter copy of the MS., and by permission mailed it to Prof. C. Piazzi Smyth, who is generally accorded a greater knowledge of the Great Pyramid's construction and measurements than any other man in the world, requesting that he examine the MS. carefully and note upon it any criticism he might have to offer in the interest of the truth. The Professor's answer to that letter, together with the MS. copy sent him, which bore his marks of criticism, when received were sent to the author. We thank Bro. Wright and Prof. Smyth for their kindness, and have followed the corrections indicated; which, however, only three in all, we were pleased to note were not of special importance. Only one of the criticisms was upon measurements, and it showed a variance of only one inch, which we gladly corrected. Thinking it might be interesting to our readers we give below Prof. C. Piazzi Smyth's Letter Clova, Ripon, England, Dec. 21, 1890 Wm. M. Wright, Esq., Dear Sir: I have been rather longer than I could have wished in looking over the MS. of your friend, C. T. Russell of Allegheny, Pa., but I have now completed a pretty careful examination, word by word. And that was the least I could do, when you so kindly took the pains to send it with such care between boards by registered parcel, with every page flat, and indited by the typewriter in place of the hand. At first I could only find slips of the said typewriter, but as I progressed through the pages, the powers, the specialties and the originalities of the Author came out magnificently; and there were not a few passages I should have been glad to take a copy of for quotation, with name, in the next possible edition of my own Pyramid book. But of course I did nothing of that sort, and shall wait with perfect patience and in most thankful mood of mind for when the author of Scripture Studies shall choose his own time for publishing. So I merely remark here that he is both good and new in much that he says on the chronology of various parts of the Pyramid, especially the First Ascending Passage and its granite plug; on the Grand Gallery, as illustrating the Lord's life; on the parallelisms between the King's Chamber and its granite, against the Tabernacle and its gold; and generally on the confirmations or close agreements between Scripture and the Great Pyramid, well commented on. In the meanwhile, it seems that I am indebted to you for your kind gift of long ago of the first two volumes of Scripture Studies. I did not at the time get further than the first half of the first volume, finding the matter, as I thought, not quite so new as I had expected. But after having profited, as I hope, so much by a thorough reading of this advanced pyramid chapter of the third volume, I must take up the first two volumes again, de novo. The parcel will go back between its boards, registered. I remain, with many thanks, Yours respectfully, C. Piazzi Smyth

Calling assertions unfounded when you know they are true is dishonest. You are probably aware that Russell got most of his initial pyramid information through persons he never credited, and made it look like he came up with this himself. He paraphrased and nearly plagiarized parts of Joseph Seiss' book "Miracle in Stone" but never credited Seiss. He did reference Smyth's "Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid" and used Smyth's endorsement of what Russell published. Smyth gave it a glowing review and Russell published that letter in Studies in the Scriptures, Vol 3. Not always. He had no other source for his predictions about 1910 and 1911 other than the Pyramid itself. This "enlightenment" he sought did not come from the Bible, but from "divining the entrails" of the Great Pyramid. Watchtower Reprints page 5249 : page 167, 1913: We did in discussing the Great Pyramid—STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES Series—suggest that possibly a certain measurement of the step at the upper end of the Grand Gallery might signify something important by the end of 1910. But we hope that we made it clear that we built nothing on that suggestion—that it was merely a suggestion, a guess only, but a pointer that the year 1911 might be looked to with interest.

You should be aware by now that I have only one account and I am not at all worried about your multiple accounts. Pointing out just a few of your active ones can merely help others here understand you a bit better. In the meantime, I will repeat that you have always been anxious to focus on distractions. You have had so many chances to provide even one bit of evidence, but you have never come through. You have always ignored and deflected or blustered or merely resorted to anger and ad hominem responses whenever any evidence is provided to you. You are making it pretty obvious that the only reason for your decade of failure to respond to evidence is because you don't have any evidence for a response. And the obfuscations you choose instead are an indication that you are are fully aware of this and that you think it's important to hide this truth from others. As I've said already: Instead of excuses, why not try to offer even just one piece of evidence that is specifically about Nebuchadnezzar that indicates a particular BCE year during his reign? If you don't, then it seems obvious that you can't. You've had over 10 years here to try.

Since you brought the name Charles Piazza Smyth I believe this individual is yet another proponent of the British Israelite theory. I trust that the public will come to recognize how Pastor Russell addressed information that contradicted the unfounded assertions being presented here. Certain Bible Students, much like numerous independent Bible Students, exercised discernment when assessing Charles Piazza Smyth's writings, and that's why the "association" also considered other works. It's important to consider Pastor Russell's views on this matter. Russell didn't pay much attention to occultism, and since Pyramidology is associated with Christian Science, he didn't give it much consideration either. He was intrigued by the great pyramid, but not in a way that suggested he sought enlightenment from it. Instead, it served as confirmation of things he already understood. Pastor Russell was not influenced by Charles Piazza Smyth's works, unlike other "independent" Bible student associations. In fact, some modern-day Bible students have acknowledged this. If Pastor Russell had been alive during Brother Adam Rutherford's time, he would have likely agreed with his findings, further affirming his own knowledge. While he may not have formally endorsed Rutherford, he would have found his works intriguing, like any rational individual would. Did Pastor Russell have a personal interest in pyramidology, as falsely claimed by some? Of course not! This is just another deceitful argument used by apostates to divert attention from their own shortcomings. The crucial aspect lies in his true opinion on Christian Science. It is evident that, at some stage, he must have been accused of being connected or associated with a prominent Christian Science figure named Mary Baker Eddy. His response, soaked in sarcasm, was: CHRISTIAN SCIENCE--Was Pastor Russell a Pupil of Mary Baker Eddy? Q70:2:: QUESTION (1912)--2--Was Pastor Russell ever a pupil of Mary Baker Eddy? (Laughter.) ANSWER--Not that I know of. (Laughter--applause.) If Pastor Russell were alive today, it is possible that he would consider Jehovah's Witnesses to be an occult, but such an opinion would lack a solid biblical foundation. In my view, I would have respectfully disagreed with his assessment in this matter. Harvest Gleanings vol 3 Nevertheless our text is not inappropriate to our topic, because Spiritism, Occultism, is a doctrine, and hence, as a whole, is to be proved or tried, to be weighed in the balance of reason and Scripture, and to be either accepted as true, or rejected as error. There is no middle ground, These things are either of God, or of the Adversary. It is our desire at this time to set before you conclusive evidence that Spiritism is of the Adversary, and, with its variations of Occultism, Hypnotism, Mesmerism, New Thought, Christian Science, etc., is the work of Satan, deluding the world of mankind, and leading them into the most woeful snares imaginable. In certain cases, Pastor Russell believed that individuals who engaged in pyramidology for mystical purposes were undoubtedly carrying out the work of the devil. Brother Joseph Rutherford is not the only one. Beware of the deceptive presentation of articles here, intended to mislead the public by distorting facts. The articles are designed to create a false impression of being good and right while actually being deceitful and misleading.

LOL. I can hardly believe anyone else read this far into the thread. At this point I thought I was just teasing BTK/nkboswell/Alphonse with a little dose of his own medicine. It's an interesting thought. Some people have come at this from angles I never thought of. I saw one online source wondering whether Satan made sure that WW1 would start during the same year that Barbour and Russell had predicted would be the end [of the time of troubles]. If a major world event could happen in 1914 it could have the effect of tricking Jehovah's people into hanging on to a false tradition for many more years. It is amazing that Barbour had pinpointed a year for the end so many years in advance. And even though every prediction for 1914 failed, no one can deny that it was still a major historical turning point. Of course, Barbour came out of an era where almost every year from 1843 to 1890 was being prophesied as the end by someone. Even the Watchtower was also expecting prophetic fulfillments that had been predicted for the time periods surrounding 1878, 1881, 1904, 1910, 1912, 1914, 1915, 1917, 1918, 1925 etc. If WW1 had broken out in any of those other years the shift of emphasis and definitions would have been just as quick for highlighting how we had been correct about any of those years, too. No doubt we would always be able to point out that we got something right, and then just change the definition of what we had predicted so that we could better explain that it was Jehovah's guidance. Since so much emphasis had been on "the end of the Gentile Times" all we really had to do was drop the half-dozen "predictions" for 1914 and shift emphasis to the "Gentile Times." Then we only had to change the definition of what was meant by "Gentile Times" and we'd look like geniuses. (By "we" I mean the brothers representing the Watchtower Society in those times.)

Seeing there is a lot of energy here, let me mention a translation issue. Still working on a commentary of Job here, and by extension, all theodicies. The last chapter of Job reads, “All his brothers and sisters and all his former friends came to him and ate a meal with him in his house. They sympathized with him and comforted him over all the calamity that Jehovah had allowed to come upon him. Each of them gave him a piece of money and a gold ring.” Only the NWT, so far as I can see, says Jehovah allowed the calamity. Every other one I see says that he brought it about. I have no problem with us believing he allowed it. Job 1 & 2 all but demands that interpretation, but the final verse says it differently. Anyone with insight as to where this unique translation comes from? No problem here if JWI shuffles this away to some other category. But if he bans me for bringing it up, it will be truly sad, indeed puzzling, and he will miss the crucial fact that I can respond with the words of Paul to Elymas, “O man full of every sort of fraud and every sort of villainy . . . you enemy of everything righteous, will you not quit distorting [my] right ways?" It is essential that he realize this.

Those who truly comprehend the prophecy of Ezekiel regarding the judgments upon Ammon, Moab, and Edom also recognize the similarities in the judgment that befell Egypt. In terms of historical perspective, it is crucial to emphasize that the Watchtower timeline diverges from the conventional Ussher's chronology, which sets the creation at 4004 BC. Scholars, historians, and archaeologists have long relied on this conventional starting point, but the alternative proposed by the Watchtower offers a fresh perspective. A more accurate one. Under this understanding, the events that took place between 590-580 BC are indicative of divine judgments upon the kingdoms of that time. Historical evidence allows us to establish a connection between the kingdom of Ammon and the year 588 BC. However, it is important to note that these judgments were happening simultaneously, leading to the conclusion that the historical accounts focus mainly on military events rather than biblical events. Despite this, both theologians and scholars have attempted to intertwine these two aspects, even though they are aware that the historical data, whether archaeological, written, or astrological, does not align perfectly. It is worth mentioning that Babylonian astronomers were magicians whose primary purpose was to seek out signs that would captivate the king and his kingdom, rather than anticipating the retribution that the Jewish God would unleash upon them. JUDGMENT AGAINST AMMON. (Ca. 588 B.C.?) The Daily Bible Into His Presence, Volume 2, Napoleon Burt · 2020 The Ancient Arabs: Israel Eph’al 1982 - Page 177 Ezekiel 25:1-7 New International Version A Prophecy Against Ammon 25 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, set your face against the Ammonites and prophesy against them. 3 Say to them, ‘Hear the word of the Sovereign Lord. This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Because you said “Aha!” over my sanctuary when it was desecrated and over the land of Israel when it was laid waste and over the people of Judah when they went into exile, 4 therefore I am going to give you to the people of the East as a possession. They will set up their camps and pitch their tents among you; they will eat your fruit and drink your milk. 5 I will turn Rabbah into a pasture for camels and Ammon into a resting place for sheep. Then you will know that I am the Lord. 6 For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: Because you have clapped your hands and stamped your feet, rejoicing with all the malice of your heart against the land of Israel, 7 therefore I will stretch out my hand against you and give you as plunder to the nations. I will wipe you out from among the nations and exterminate you from the countries. I will destroy you, and you will know that I am the Lord.’” People tend to fixate solely on what is said about Jerusalem, but it's crucial to widen our focus to the entire region. It is important to remember that the kingdoms of Aram, Ammon, and Moab were allies of Babylon and allowed Babylon free passage through their territory. This does not mean that the King of Ammon liked the Babylonian King; he actually disliked him. However, his dislike for the King of Judah was even stronger. No different from what happened between Egypt, Judah, and Babylon. There was no love between the Judean king and Babylon, but he favored Babylon over Egypt, leading to the conflict between King Josiah and King Necho II. Thus, the alliance was purely a matter of convenience. It's possible that the neighboring countries like Egypt and Jordan of today hold similar ideologies to those of ancient kingdoms of Aram, Ammon, and Moab toward Israel and Judah. These kingdoms were positioned adjacent to Israel and Judah. This strategic alliance with Babylon also compelled the Egyptians to travel through the coastline to support Assyria. In the end, all these kings would face judgment from God through the hands of the Babylonians and other allies like the Medes. 2 Kings 24:2 The LORD sent against him bands of the Chaldeans, and bands of the Arameans, and bands of the Moabites, and bands of the people of Ammon, and sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the LORD, which he spoke by his servants, the prophets. There is a crucial part of Judah that people, either deliberately or inadvertently, overlook: Jerusalem. It is essential to grasp that when God unleashed those marauders to bring devastation upon Judah, Jerusalem, being an integral part of Judah, would undoubtedly have been affected. To believe that the marauders would decimate every other city in Judah while leaving Jerusalem unscathed, solely for the purpose of ensuring historical accuracy depicting its destruction in 587 BC, is a fallacy propagated by those who stray from the truth. Those who attempt to refute such events are, in fact, refuting the divine word of God as it is written in 2 Kings 24. Their so-called refutation revolves around speculations on chronological order, by going against the teachings of scripture. It is essential to recognize that scripture is a sacred text, set apart from man-made historical findings, which rely on human calculations rather than God's wisdom. Furthermore, it is important to consider that the Babylonian Chronicles abruptly end in 594 BC. As a result, there is no mention whatsoever of the years 587 BC or 585 BC in these chronicles. However, when examining the historical events recorded, we do find references to Jerusalem in the year 598 BC, as well as accounts of numerous military campaigns that took place in 607 BC within those chronicles. It is worth noting that during this period, a band of marauders was actively wreaking havoc in Judah, including the city of Jerusalem, and as stated by scripture, Babylonian marauders were also involved in these destructive acts. Can this be explained through historical events without relying on the Watchtower chronology, which differs from the conventional chronology? One simply needs to understand the region where Nebuchadnezzar was documented to be in, according to their own Babylonian chronicles ABC4. [5] The nineteenth year (607/606): In the month Simanu the king of Akkad mustered his army and [6] Nebuchadnezzar, his eldest son, the crown prince, [7] mustered his army. They marched to the mountains of Za[...]. [8] The king of Akkad left the prince and his army there while he returned to Babylon in the month of Du'ûzu. Therefore, according to the strict guidelines of examining secular history and the Bible's account in 2 Kings 24, it not only matches the description but also aligns with the pattern established by God for the judgement against Judah, including Jerusalem. Nebuchadnezzar's presence in every Babylonian campaign was not necessary. Such a belief would be foolish. Of course, he would get credit for directing a military campaign from afar, especially a successful one. Who was left to oversee the military campaigns in the western region, from the Zagros Mountains that transcend far up to Turkey? Nebuchadnezzar, according to the chronicles since Napolossar went home. This is the time period when Napolossar's health started to decline. History teaches us that the Medes and Babylonians besieged Harran in 610 BC, which clearly demonstrates the vibrant activity taking place in the western region during that time. Particularly noteworthy is King Necho's attempt to assist the Assyrians in Harran, which was thwarted by the Babylonians and Medes after clashing with King Josiah of Judah in either late 610 BC or early 609 BC. The historical evidence of Egyptian King Necho's presence in Riblah in 609 BC, seeking to depose a Judean king and install his own, indicates the proximity of the Babylonians in the region, where the Arameans (Syria) are situated to the west of the Euphrates. All of these events occurred between 610-607 BC, as confirmed by historical records. There is absolutely no basis for a fictional date of 587 BC, created solely to rationalize the mistakes made by previous generations. The supposed explanation for 587 BC is entirely distinct. However, it remains a topic of discussion for individuals who are unwilling to acknowledge their erroneous beliefs even after a decade. They are unable to admit their mistakes and are troubled by the thought of leading others astray. All of these topics have been extensively discussed, as the title suggests. Countless posts, by numerous professional accounts, have been unjustly disregarded for challenging people's beliefs which prove them wrong. Then, these individuals have the audacity to assert that no evidence has been presented in the last 10 years, as if their inability to recognize it somehow qualifies them to pass judgment. It is truly foolish for an ignorant person to believe that they have been communicating with the same individual all this time, especially when they consistently use the same writing style for all their accounts. This means the jokes on them. Furthermore, George presented additional persuasive evidence to undermine the credibility of this individual's criticism. It is clear that this person is compelled to criticize, as their stance in this forum would otherwise be undermined by a decade's worth of manipulation, distortion, and lies, as revealed by George.

I hope no one else is confused. I haven't changed my stance in 15 years, 10 of them here on a public forum. I have always agreed that 607, plus or minus a year or two, is an excellent time with which to start the 70 years of Babylon's desolations against the nations per Jeremiah 25:10. And I have also believed that the "these 70 years" of Zechariah's reference to the destruction of the temple is a good fit (plus or minus a year or two) based on the Watchtower's own date for the timing of Zechariah's prophecy (about 518/517 BCE as the 4th year of Darius). "These 70 years" of the Temple's destruction would therefore run from about 587 to 517 using the Watchower's own year for the 4th year of Darius. *** it-2 p. 1225 Zechariah, Book of *** The last time indicator found in the book of Zechariah is the fourth day of Chislev in the fourth year of Darius’ reign (about December 1, 518 B.C.E.) Turns out that Adam Rutherford used the same scriptures and evidence I have used to reach the same Biblical conclusion, but he "adjusts" it by two years, for his own reasons. I added the same image from his Vol 3 as above, but this time to highlight the dates 585 to 515 on the right under the destruction (and rebuilding) of the Temple.

Thank you Sis🙏🏻

Still traveling. Sunday's talk was "Acquiring a Heart of Wisdom" by Brother West from East Shelby Congregation, which is just a couple of towns over from @Pudgy. Made me wonder how he is doing. Anyone heard from him? I have never followed @Pudgy on the forums, but from his Profile it looks like he has still shown no activity here since May 6th. Back to the topic. I have no idea about apostates relying on the Babylonian Chronicles, but I see that Adam Rutherford relies on them in exactly the same way that COJ does. No difference. What COJ does a bit differently, is to ALSO rely on 100% of the astronomy readings . A.Rutherford can only rely on a few of them because he has chosen to disregard all evidence that gets in the way of his two-year adjustment of the entire Neo-Babylonian period. This means he can rely completely on the accuracy of the regnal lengths found in Ptolemy's writings, and all the contract tablets, and ALL the different segments of the Babylonian Chronicles. That's because they don't include the actual BCE years, just the relative chronology. Rutherford uses Ptolemy's regnal lengths, but does not incorporate the actual astronomical dates that Ptolemy associated with those years. That would have given him 538 for the first year of Cyrus not 536 -- and would have given him 604 for the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, not the year 602 that Adam Rutherford uses. Rutherford takes what the Watchtower has called the supposed "absolute" and "pivotal" date of 539, and changes that date to 537 for the year Cyrus captured Babylon. So much for absolute dates!! COJ exactly agrees with the Watchtower for this date (539) because both sources (COJ and WTS) use the astronomy evidence for all the years from Nabonidus down through most of the Persian period. That includes Nabonidus, Cyrus and Cambyses. So although Adam Rutherford rejects the Watchtower Chronology, to keep 1914, he still ends up supporting Russell (and Barbour's) chronology as far as he can. It's easy to see why: Barbour and Russell derived 1914 primarily through calculations related to Israel's "double" and not through counting 2,520 years from 606. The use of the “7 times” was a secondary method for calculating 1914, and it wasn't even based on Nebuchadnezzar's tree dream prophecy of Daniel 4. The primary method was based on counting 40 years from 1874 to get 1914. When the "7 gentile times" of Leviticus was used as a further support, Barbour knew he had to find a major event from 606 BCE. A quick check of Rev. Bowen's chronology in Rev. Elliott's famous book looked like it had dated the destruction of the Temple in 606. Perfect! But Adam Rutherford knew that counting back from 1914 actually leads to 607. And he had easily seen that Nebuchadnezzar wasn't even a king until 605, which was two years later. So his 18th year would have been 587 per the received evidence. For his own reasons, Adam Rutherford made that even worse by changing that period another two years so that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year would have been 585 BCE, not 587 BCE. So. Adam Rutherford had a new problem trying to support Russell's 1914 because he now had to find a DIFFERENT event for 607 BCE. For this event he did exactly what many Bible commentators have done. He did what COJ would also later do. He knew that 607 was BEFORE Nebuchadnezzar's kingship, and went with Jeremiah 25:10-12 and made it the "Fall of Assyria" using the date between 609 (Harran) and 605 (Carchemish). 607. Perfect! All you need is a major Biblical event for 606 or 607 and let interpretation do the rest. So that 1914 can still work for you as the culmination of 2,520 years before that 1914 date.

Thank you

Always appreciated!

Yes. He confidently says that the received date, 539 BCE for the fall of Babylon to Cyrus must be lowered by 2 years Unfortunately for him, the Watchtower chronology is exactly correct through this period and matches the tablets and the secular scholars readings, too. True. A lot of people don't want to think for themselves. Taking Carl Olof Jonsson's word for something that is so simple to check out for oneself is a stupid mistake. A person should "make sure of all things," not just take man's word for it. The exact date of the siege and fall of Jerusalem around the 18th and 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar isn't important to me. The claim that a false chronology must be correct just because we've used most of it to hang onto a date that Barbour and Russell once published is a false premise. If we stand for truth, then we can't just make claims without evidence and tell the world that we are right and the astronomy is wrong. It would be one thing if we said that we know the chronology is wrong and have rejected it, but we hypocritically claim that the chronology is correct when it gives us 539 BCE, which we can use. But then we claim it is incorrect when it gives us 587 BCE for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. Both of those dates are backed consistently by all the astronomical evidence. And even if we didn't trust any of the astronomical evidence, we have all the archaeological evidence telling us that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year is exactly 49 years from the first year of Cyrus over Babylon. So it's a matter of presenting ourselves as upright and honest to the public that concerns me. We can believe whatever we want, but we can't be dishonest and pretend we have scholarly evidence for it, or that we are superior somehow because we can base our chronology on a lack of evidence. We look haughty when we present these alternatives to anyone who has looked into the matter for themselves, as everyone should. And just to make the point even clearer, recall that you have never and probably will never answer simple questions: What astronomical evidence do you use to get the date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign? What year did it give you? You have never been able to give a straightforward answer to such simple questions under any of your accounts. That's correct. Thank you. A discussion talks about the merits of the evidence. A fight is when both sides look to attack the person, and call names. What often happens here is that one person is willing to discuss the merits of the evidence, and the other person gets angry and starts calling him an apostate, or a liar, or a deceiver. It seems like that person wants a fight, but can't really get one because the other person still wants to discuss the merits of the evidence. At least, that's been my experience here for many years.

It's clear that Pastor Russell and the groups he proudly led had no association. Even today, these independent Bible Students continue on their own path, with some even embracing Adventism, as was the case in Pastor Russell's time. This does not mean that Russell was heavily influenced by Adventism, but rather that he found certain aspects intriguing enough to investigate. The false claim that Pastor Russell was an Adventist is an apostate vision, and today's Bible Students who support Russell's perspective will ardently defend this truth. However, my statement remains valid. Not a single apostate has taken the trouble to mention that Brother Adam Rutherford, who is unrelated to Joseph Rutherford, made reference to the Babylonian Chronicles in his book volume 3. It is irrelevant if certain Bible Students associate him with their long-forgotten alliances. What truly matters is what is referenced in all of his books. Personally, I own eight of them, and they all consistently refer to AD 1914 and how it marked the culmination of the Gentile Times, just as Russell had mentioned. So, that's for the update. I'm sure someone else will find it interesting. John and Edgar Morton had their own comprehensive ideology, which Pastor Russell only briefly mentioned in one of his publications. I recall it being a three-paragraph long piece. However, it is important not to overemphasize the influence of the Morton's ideology on Pastor Russell, as his primary interest lied in the Great Pyramid. He merely utilized the pyramid to validate certain biblical interpretations through calculations. It is crucial to note that Pastor Russell did not extensively engage with the pyramid schemes that others were involved in. Of course, he visited the Great Pyramid, but that's not the point. The associations were "independent", meaning they would think and act independently in the best interest of their respective churches. Although this sometimes conflicted with Russell's own views, he never sought to impose his authority over others. The key here is whether people are truly interested in the truth. For instance, if someone is genuinely interested in the truth as presented in Adam Rutherford's books, they should make a point to read all of his published works. By examining the historical events, one can clearly understand the significance of the year 1776, which contrasts the alternative perspective of 1799 as a significant date. It is worth noting the inclusion of both 1917-1918 and 1914, as mentioned by the person in question. It is important to avoid distorting their words or manipulating their ideas. I found it quite interesting when Adam depicted the British Empire as the savior of the Jews in 1914. Referring to Britain as "Israel" and the Jews as "Judah" adds a poetic touch to the story. Anglo-Saxon Israel or Israel-Britain -- Adam Rutherford -- 1939 Snippet: "It is important to notice, too, that since the Great War of 1914-1918 Great Britain (Israel) and the Jews (Judah) have occupied the Holy Land together, the latter being under the guidance of the former,"

According to an article on the Bible Student site HERALDMAG.ORG [ http://www.heraldmag.org/2004_history/04history_7.htm ] Adam Rutherford was a Bble Student This is fairly obvious from several passages in the 4 volumes, especially the first which paraphrases Joseph Seiss and C.T.Russell quotes, often nearly verbatim. Also he references Morton and John Edgar who were Bible Students in Russell's time and who went on to publish two extensive volumes on the Great Pyramid. In fact, one page of Volume 1 of Adam Rutherford's book (122) is nearly a full page quote from Russell's "Divine Plan of the Ages" (191-192). A.Rutherford even calls it the Bible in Stone several times, just as Russell (and Seiss and others) did. And he also calls it the blueprint of the Divine Plan of the Ages. He uses all the same scriptural references that Russell used in support of the supposed prophetic importance of the Pyramid. But he has also adjusted a few of the dates, ignoring most of the pre-1914 dates that Russell made note of, and makes much use of the 2,520 number, starting it not with the destruction of the Temple (which he would put around 587 BCE) but with the beginning of the Babylonian Empire at the final destruction of the Assyrian Empire, which he places in 607 BCE. He uses the astronomy-backed dates instead of the Barbour/Russell date that the Watchtower still uses today. He also counts from the exact beginning of the Babylonian Empire's incursions against Judea in 604 BCE (first official year of Nebuchadnezzar) to show that they (2520) end with the Balfour Declaration in 1917. But the future dates he focuses on would have put the start of the Millennium in AD 1994 and the end of the Millennium in AD 2994.

They almost all do it in today’s world of theology. Long ago, in answer to the question of where did we originate our explanation of suffering & evil, you pointed to a Great Courses lecture series by a Professor Hall. Our theodicy was there, you had heard, and the prof said it was the only theodicy that made sense. In fact, it is only the fact that the theodicy involves Satan that makes it logical from his point of view. All other theodicies he considers do not. He confines his entire exploration, save for this renegade theology, to what he calls ‘ethical monotheism’—that is, one God unopposed. Since he himself comes from an evangelical Lutheran background, it surprised me that he has shoved Satan into such a tiny footnote, a player only in his last theodicy considered. I think he has done it to join the world of contemporary scholars, who are thoroughly embarrassed by the thought of a Devil. It makes all their progressive efforts to repair the world and improve mankind pointless if there is a devil you can pin all the bad things to. Several times in his lecture, Hall points out this theodicy involving the devil is extremely unpopular today, to the point where he seems to assume that his audience may not even have heard of it! Consistent with this modern understanding from the scholars, the Book of Job is separated into 1) an ancient Jewish ‘fable’ consisting of chapters 1,2, and 42, and the poetic portion, consisting of all that remains. Frankly, I think the intellectual appeal of this approach is that, by separating the book into two portions, it puts you into position to understand neither, thus ensuring modern theologians will have a job till the end of time. You can debate the meaning of the poetic portion forever, with no one able to call your bluff. But the moment you integrate the ‘fable,’ it all resolves fairly quickly. But it resolves in a way repugnant to today’s theologians, so they don’t go there.

NKBoswell Comment: It seems that your position is based on personal observation rather than published information. I have had similar experiences with individuals who have read the comments of C.T. Russell was in the Overland Monthly as the Pastor of the Brooklyn Tabernacle. He offered a profound comparison, suggesting that the release of the Jewish people from Palestine in 1914 effectively liberated them from their gentile bondage. I found that comparison quite fascinating. Bible Students: II.--Hope Long Deferred Now Reviving BY C. T. RUSSELL "For the present we content ourselves with the bare statement that, according to the Bible, Palestine will be flourishing with a large population of Jews at the close of the year 1914. The Scriptures indicate that the gathering will be "out of all nations," and with considerable wealth and general prosperity. We are not to understand that this means that all the Jews of the world will go to Palestine, but that some of the most pious and zealous from every quarter will gather there. At that time will occur what the Bible terms "Jacob's Trouble," in conjunction with a world-wide trouble, financial, religious, political, social, eventuating in anarchy, and, later on, in Israel's exaltation as the earthly exponent of Messiah's spiritual Kingdom." NKBoswell Comment: Here, Russell explained how Jews from around the world would be gathered to reestablish the nation of Israel. This vision became a reality when Israel became a state. However, his initial observation of Jewish freedom in 1914 is indeed accurate. I am inquiring about this because Pastor Russell favored the year 606 BC over our revised date of 607 BC. This viewpoint is also substantiated in volume 2. Nevertheless, I am familiar with the explanation for the year difference, which is both satisfactory and well elucidated by our brothers. Bible Stidents: CHRONOLOGY--Beginning of the Trouble in 1914. Q70:3:: QUESTION (1905)--3--Why should the trouble begin with 1914? ANSWER--I answer that the reason we expect it to begin there in the full sense is that the Father laid out the plan of this whole age. Here Bro. Russell gave a long talk on the "Times of the Gentiles" showing that their lease of {Page Q71} power began in 606 B.C. and will end in the fall of 1914, which can be found in detail in Vol.2, of the Dawns. NKBoswell comment: You also mentioned Adam Rutherford as a potential cause for public confusion about Christian association. Could you please provide more details?

I might just shuffle this away to another topic because it is a very interesting one. And a huge topic, imo. There are literally dozens of examples in the Hebrew Scriptures that touch on the topic. And some of them are related to a progressive understanding of Satan himself within the Hebrew Scriptures. I would start with this: [all taken from Watchtower Online Library] (1 Chronicles 21:1) 21 Then Satan stood up against Israel and incited David to number Israel. (2 Samuel 24:1, Byington) 24 And again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah. (2 Samuel 24:1, Rotherham) 24 And again was the anger of Yahweh kindled against Israel,—so that he suffered David to be moved against them, saying, Go, count Israel and Judah. (2 Samuel 24:1, King James) 24 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. The NWT gets rid of the apparent contradiction by changing "he" (Jehovah) to "one" to try to make it align with 1 Chronicles. It might work here, but does not work for other cases that are similar. (2 Samuel 24:1, NWT) 24 The anger of Jehovah again blazed against Israel when one incited David against them, saying: “Go, take a count of Israel and Judah.” ... (2 Samuel 24:15, 16) 15 Then Jehovah sent a pestilence on Israel from the morning until the designated time, so that 70,000 of the people from Dan to Beʹer-sheʹba died. 16 When the angel stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, Jehovah felt regret over the calamity, and he said to the angel bringing destruction among the people: “It is enough! Now let your hand drop.” Jehovah’s angel was close to the threshing floor of A·rauʹnah the Jebʹu·site. In fact, there have been persons who treat the opening two chapters of Job as a later addition just to explain away that very ending. Personally I don't think this is necessary. And there have been some attempts to differentiate passages that can attribute certain anthropomorphic characteristics when God is referred to as Jehovah but not when he is referred to as El or Elohim in the original language. (Such as "regret" etc.) The full discussion should take many pages.

A better question is: what motivated nearly ZERO brothers that we know about to stand up for the Bible's view? What motivated brothers after they began following Russell, to study the pyramids and write extensively, even visiting the Great Pyramid and writing books about it, in full support of faulty mathematics, and faulty astronomy? What made them so gullible? What motivated The Bible Students Monthly (in the issue just prior to the one you showed earlier) to make exorbitant claims that this pyramid was the ORACLE of Jehovah? Why did no one seem to question it at all until the very day that Rutherford came out in the Watchtower and said it was from Satan?

None. That's my point. If someone is just about to come into the truth, and they ask their study conductor if it's true that this or that controversy really happened, or if it was true that when Brother Jackson testified at the Australian Royal Commission on CSA really said that Proverbs isn't really talk about corporal punishment. Then what happens when the study conductor says, "No, Brother Jackson was never asked to testify, or we would have heard about it in the Watchtower or on JW.ORG." (This supposedly actually happened, although the original question was only about whether he testified at the ARC, not about corporal punishment.) Now, who is spreading disinformation??? The likelihood of "stumbling" a new one may be even stronger when we outright deny something through ignorance of controversial issues. That person who asked the study conductor about something, and the study conductor spread disinformation in response. Now we have a possibility that the one studied with can just easily pull up the video, and he will begin thinking that JWs are some kind of cult who will deny reality. And the study conductor may begin wondering "why such important information was hidden from us." Now we have TWO persons potentially stumbled, when just being aware of the situation could have easily resolved the whole thing, and Brother Jackson's words could be better defended in context. When we are so quick to deny anything negative out of ignorance, we not only look bad, we can easily cause others to stumble, especially when we consider how easy it is for people to find controversial information online. I think there will come a time very soon when any question can be asked of an AI LLM and it will quickly spit out ALL sides of the answer to a question, pro and con. We shouldn't be so arrogant as to suppose that only OUR own preferred side of a controversy will be available to interested persons.

What motivated brothers in the past to stand up for Pastor Russell and correct the misconceptions surrounding pyramology? Some brothers took it upon themselves to directly address the issue by personally funding the placement of a pyramid stone near Pastor Russell's grave. Unfortunately, there was misinformation circulating that claimed the Watchtower had acquired and installed the stone. "Pastor Russell was always firmly opposed to all forms of occultism, as will be discussed in greater detail in the section on Pyramidology later in this chapter; and he never knowingly employed any mystic symbols in his ministry and teachings." "PYRAMID USAGE. Finally, we need to comment on yet another absurd charge in connection with the Pyramid. This was made by David Reed, who attempts to build a case on the alleged usage of questionable forms of pyramidology in the Pastor’s over all ministry. First, he cites the fact that a seven-foot-tall stone pyramid was used in the Society’s Rosemont Cemetery near Pittsburgh to mark the location of burial plots for members of the Bethel staff, including Pastor Russell, and then writes." Another misconception that was circulating at that time involved the confusion between the "name" Rutherford and another Rutherford who was involved. "A monthly publication, Pyramidology, by Dr. Adam Rutherford of New Castle, began in 1941. The Forest Gate Church (London) Bible Monthly was published 1936-1985. Phillys Stracy compiled an evening devotional book, Songs in the Night." This insider knowledge may seem irrelevant today, as it reflects people's confusion in the past about the language used by others. However, it is important to acknowledge that we cannot make well-informed judgments about those conditions since we were not alive during that time. Whether Pastor Russell found the pyramid scheme intriguing but useless, or if later under Rutherford it was condemned as the devil's work because of the usage by other Christian denominations, none of these matters as it holds any significance now.

What positive outcomes can be achieved by spreading disinformation? You are the one responsible for manufacturing these controversies, unwilling to accept the truth when it is presented. Let's consider the example of the Russell comment and the apocalyptic rumors about the end of the world. You are well aware that Russell had to issue a full-page disclaimer to counteract the misleading ideas propagated by certain individuals, just like the Watchtower eventually did for the year 1975. However, you persist in promoting a false narrative, continuing to fuel this controversy. So, what beneficial response are you hoping to achieve with your personal denial? This controversy is purely a product of your imagination, not of the Bible students, the Watchtower, or Jehovah's Witnesses. It has already been clarified, so it requires a nonconformist diehard to keep revisiting this deceit. Therefore, what is the benefit of airing this nonsense in public? Who stands to gain from this other than apostates? What relevance does any of that have to do with the remarkable progress achieved by the Watchtower since gaining full control in 1950? Do the events of 1933, which a sister found controversial, truly matter? Did she fully grasp the significance of what she was reading? It is true that 60% of Bible students were in the process of relearning, while 30% did not adhere to Pastor Russell's ideology and chose to leave, leading to a separation from the IBSA. History shows that. However, what does this ultimately prove? Merely having access to dubious insider information does not hold much weight, especially when your own credibility is questionable. Does today's Watchtower endorse pyramidology just like Brother Rotherford failed to endorse in his tenure as the head of the Bible Student Association under the publishing house the Watchtower? What was the true motivation behind the pyramidology that you personally find distasteful? It aimed to present an alternative perspective on chronology, which even Pastor Russell himself found intriguing but not essential. Those were Pastor Russells thoughts about it, regardless of what you dream up to refute his actual words by misrepresenting them, just like you did with "the end of the world in 1914" apostate fiasco. What positive lessons can be derived from inaccurate information? You are eager to persuade others to adopt your perspective, so demonstrate how one can benefit from learning from misrepresentation. Instead of accepting your lack of credibility and deceitful conduct, how can one actually learn from your experiences? If tarnishing your reputation is your aim, then congratulations on a job well done as a role model. Before criticizing others, it would be wise to reflect on your own actions. It seems that you are quick to judge others, especially me, while disregarding your own anger when you ban someone. Why do you continue to ignore this? Matthew 7:3-5 English Standard Version 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

Yes. But as I said, if there is a good answer to anything controversial that you or I or others bring up here, then that answer appears right here, online, where the original controversial point has probably been rehashed in other places with or without an answer. Also, if there is no viable answer to the controversy, then the issue has been brought up and persons who are interested in truth ("making sure of all things") will know that there is no answer to it (yet). That's also good information to have so that we don't go around deceiving people inadvertently. For example, let's say that someone claims that "Pyramidology" was presented as truth to householders as late 1933, nearly 5 years after it was declared "from the Devil" and two years after most Bible Student associations and individuals began identifying themselves as "Jehovah's witnesses." This point was brought up to me once (by a Bethel sister, who was a proofreader, no less) and I was asked to question the writer about making a small change in the "ka" book which referenced this point of organizational history incorrectly. This book ("ka") was about to be reprinted for the mid-week Book Study. I claimed to her that her statement was false. But she showed me the 1928 through 1933 "Informants" which she had copies of. This was something controversial to her and she knew it, and she wanted someone else to pass the question back to the writer. To be sure, she was skewing the emphasis on pyramidology to make the point more memorable. The "ka" book reference never mentioned pyramidology, only the date when the Society stopped selling the Studies in the Scriptures series. Should we all have ignored the issue? This book was going out to the public. I placed several copies of this book myself. Interested persons would attend the Book Study. In the end, it was decided that the sentence would not be corrected. But does this mean no one should have questioned? Should no one have tried to "make sure of all things"? But I also learned that the people who get angry over such things, when the answer is not in favor of their interests, are the ones who KNOW there is no answer, or don't want to admit the answer. That's why I'm not concerned about bringing up controversial things publicly. There is nothing secret that will not be made known. And I've found that online the anger is most often from those who, deep down, realize that they don't like the truth. But I always remember Proverbs 6:17; Psalm 26:3; Psalm 31:5: ". . . Jehovah, the God of truth."

Sounds like you are angry that I wouldn't get angry. "Fiery coals on the head" syndrome I guess. The 1914 Bible Students Monthly has already been discussed at length, so I won't belabor it again here under this topic. Best if people do their own research as you say. The easiest way is to get the ZWT database that was once available for free from Bible Student websites. Look up: "end of the age" "end of the world" "consummation of the age" "cosmos" "Matthew 24:3" "Matthew 28:20" etc., and especially pay attention to the previous years of Bible Students Monthly. Then of course, one could go and see Rutherford using the same exact definition of the word "world" when he repeatedly announced: "The World Has Ended - Millions Now Living May Never Die!" *** w84 2/1 p. 24 par. 11 ‘Oneness of Spirit’ in a Rapidly Growing Flock *** Thus in 1918 the president of the Watch Tower Society delivered a talk in Los Angeles, California, on a subject later to be repeated by hundreds more speakers, under the title “The World Has Ended, Millions Now Living May Never Die.”

Sorry, I upvoted again!!

And speaking of insults and negative criticism, you have always shown a keen interest in who upvotes and who downvotes others. Even in this very thread you have brought it up more than once. So, I'm sure you are aware that when a person adds a critical downvote with no explanation (no constructive criticism) that this is intended as a not-so-subtle insult. I don't think anyone here really has any remaining doubt about who controls a certain account which once only interacted positively with you and George88, and which only interacted negatively with accounts you and George88 also interacted with negatively. Watch how that account still spams upvotes and downvotes: These are just the last 10 in a row. As is typical, 100% of the downvotes are unexplained downvotes of my posts, and 100% of the upvotes are for you, BTK59. Previously, as expected, all the upvotes were shared between BTK59 and George88.

You have been aware for years that I state I have never banned anyone. You might not believe it of course, but you were aware of my position from previous discussions. Yet, you repeat here that I am showing favoritism to some and banning others. You imply that I am just making excuses for favoritism, and that this behavior with no evidence provided is becoming increasingly obvious -- and you repeat it claiming now that it is MULTIPLE people I have banned by adding -- "with each person you ban." So I give you the benefit of the doubt and don't call it an insult yet, even though it clearly was: BTK insult #1: JWI is making excuses BTK insult #2: JWI is showing favoritism BTK insult #3: JWI is banning others making this behavior obvious with each person JWI bans I was guessing that you meant the "laughter" emoji at the reference to my funeral. Still, I guess this was also meant as an insult: BTK insult #4: JW upvotes dishonesty I began to respond: This was not an insult. Just a statement of clear fact. It can't be obvious that I have banned someone since I never have banned anyone. I still honestly don't know if I have the power to do so. So far, BTK insults: 5. You responded with: So, now you go ahead and try to claim that I was lying via some kind of wordplay that I have never used, but which I have often seen used by others. BTK insult #6: JWI is using wordplay manipulation to deceive Anyway, I responded: Again, just a statement of fact. And to make it clear you weren't being insulted I made mention of how astute you are. As an aside, I don't think it's an insult to point out that when I use certain descriptive words (like "astute') for the first time here almost all the "Allen-Smith-styled" accounts will return that word to me in some way, and I have often said this might be a form of echolalia. No one else does this, but Allen did it, Moise did it, Billy the Kid did it, and at least 20 other Allen-styled accounts. And guess what: I admit that the phenomenon of echolalia came up in a course I took many years ago. Otherwise I would not likely have noticed. I could give about 150 to 175 examples from the Allen-styled accounts. Aside completed. You had gone on next to say: Another direct claim that I am lying. BTK insult #7: JWI will continue lying (claiming NOT to be the Librarian) because he will never publicly admit it. I assumed that this meant only a few out of hundreds of my posts have been true. Another insult that I am overwhelmingly a liar almost by default. BTK insult #8: JWI only posts a very small percentage of truth. At any rate, I don't think I have to spell out the next 20 or 30 micro-insults from you. They don't even make a difference. I'll continue to speak the truth. But I just wanted you to see why it seemed ridiculous for you to claim that other people insult you and you don't insult others. It seemed you had such an obvious double-standard. (Yes, that's an intentional form of me using echolalia. My own definition, not the same form you will see in a dictionary, but perhaps related.)

I have to admit that I laughed out loud a bit when I saw your claim that Tom and I are the Librarian. It didn't make me laugh when Anna admitted that she had the same reaction. In fact, I cringed a bit realizing that you would take immediate offense and try to make a big deal out of it. The problem is not that people are insulting you, but that you have indeed made ridiculous statements and claims. When people make ridiculous claims in public, they can expect ridicule. That's what ridiculous means. You can be glad that the form of ridicule you receive is merely a bit of laughter. I will again admit that this too made me laugh a bit. Not at you, but at the ridiculousness of the claim about who started insulting, and the fact that you gave yourself a score of 0 insults, which only highlighted your own double standard. Although I doubt this was on purpose; i don't think you were aware of it. You probably aren't aware that claiming someone is not telling the truth is insulting, except of course when someone happens to make that claim about you. For example, look closely at the exchanges between you and me. Next post of mine:

Must not be as obvious as you think because I've never banned anyone. I don't even know if I have the power to ban anyone. It's possible I do, but when I was offered moderator powers it was to help keep some order in some otherwise chaotic threads that kept going off-topic, and most specifically it was offered to me at a time when Allen Smith appeared to be responding to nearly all my posts with an extra dose of vitriol. I was told that I could use my new moderator powers to remove excessively spiteful posts from Allen. As you are well aware, I never did, but left them all just exactly as awful as he wanted to express himself. Then someone came along and deleted several versions of Allen along with all his past posts in many cases. This removed the foundation of my own responses to him which makes it difficult to make sense of those threads if anyone were go back and try to read them. I may never know if I actually have the power to ban anyone because I will never use it even if I can.

I don't think disfellowshipping is always unethical. The Christian congregation needs this authority for cases of exceptional wrongdoing, gangrene-like heresy and apostasy, and times when accepting association by someone reprehensible would give the appearance of condoning that person's conduct. But it can be implemented in a "barbaric" manner. I've watched this happen. I worked with Governing Body member, Brother Bert Schroeder, when his practice was to threaten to disfellowshipping persons unless they "snitched" on private conversations they had with friends who were closer to Bert's "political" target at the time. Then the person who snitched was allowed to just walk away unscathed. I've seen it used to break apart families where a (young -but-just-over-18) baptized person still lived at home with mental conditions that made it nearly impossible for her to safely live on her own, and yet she was kicked out of the home. I've seen the threat used on my own sister if she were to tell the truth to hospital personnel that her ministerial servant husband had given her the injuries through a beating. I've seen the threat used against a registered nurse, a good friend of my brother, who was told (by Brother James Pellechia of the Writing Department) that she could no longer voluntarily care for a 90-year-old nearly invalid wheelchair-bound brother in a second/third floor apartment in Brooklyn who was disfellowshipped for apostasy, mostly over some negative remarks about Rutherford that he wouldn't recant. (He had been a colporteur under Russell and Rutherford.) The nurse asked my brother (a Bethelite at the time) for help and my wife and I were able to sneak in (partly disguised) to help the disfellowshipped person several times a week, along with another sister who took the other days. He literally would have died without the help. I agree that you have often spoken truth here. However, this is not a congregation. It's a nearly random collection of persons who take an interest in discussing JW-related topics: some controversial, some innocuous. Every one of us who is here is here against the wishes of the Governing Body and we know it. There is therefore no reason to ban/disfellowship over any issue, with the exception of deliberate or targeted abusive behavior intended to hurt or bring harm to someone. But as we are mostly Witnesses here, we have learned to take such abuse in stride. We expect it. And if we happen to doubt or even reject a doctrine or two that most JWs accept, we understand quite well that we should expect to take some "abuse" for it. That's the only kind of abusive behavior I've gotten from the Allen-Smith-persona-like accounts. I expect it now and then, and don't agree with JR that such a vigilante-styled zealous one needs to identify himself. I especially don't like the fact that all the innocuous posts from the same individual get lost in the process. That's overkill over and above what's already overkill.

What about the abusive behavior displayed by TOM, Pudgy, and now Juan, Xero, Many Miles, Miracle Pete, as well as numerous other associated accounts created by Tom and Pudgy? You cannot make any excuses, JWI, for showing favoritism to some individuals while banning others. This behavior becomes increasingly obvious with each person you ban. Then you upvote that dishonesty.

Oh sure! Here I was thinking that George had finally tracked you down and burned you at the stake! So much for the funeral talk I was preparing. Oh sure! Here I was taking advantage of the situation to posit you and he were the same! (and then afterwards that I had banned you both) So much for my reliability profile. Gasp! You don’t think JR was banned, do you? He could get pretty outrageous, but underneath it all he had the heart of a pork chop. I mean, George, yes—of course—but there is hardly a point with him, because like a Whack-a-Mole, he is instantly back. But JR—his sense of honor would prevent him coming back under any guise. He was so reckless in his posts, I guess I should be glad. But somehow I am not. To be sure, I muted his comments. But I usually ended up checking them out one by one anyway. Oh wait . . . You mean Juan. Yes, he almost blew a gasket responding to G’s vitriol. He did it well, too. Not that it had the slightest impact on the latter. (But now I am back to wondering what became of the pork chop. Hope he is well.) Also hope you have been behaving during your absence and that family is well. Now that you are back, turn on the fire-waterworks: https://share.icloud.com/photos/036kN6vQPZ9wfl7PnyWb1BJSg (Oops. My bad. I should not have posted video from the last theocratic gathering. We’ve been asked not to do that.)