ComfortMyPeople

@xero I'd love to respond further because I think there is quite a lot of real evidence that would answer your original question more definitively than you might have expected.
I wouldn't mind copying or moving the relevant posts to the closed forum due to the inevitable and constant distractions by those with a different agenda: those who are anxious to make it clear they aren't interested in the topic and/or they aren't interested in relevant facts or evidence, but merely wish to pompously bloviate and criticize the flaws of humans who are supposedly disgruntled (or worse). 
Of course, you may have had your own reasons for asking this in the open forum, and I respect that. I sometimes prefer the open forum because the ultimate goal of sharing my opinion is the hope (and reward) that even from an unexpected source, someone can come along and prove me wrong or make me think more about where I could learn more. In spite of George88's tactics of running interference and thriving on confrontation and insults, he himself has sometimes offered up links or material that will shed a different light on a topic. 

These glaring errors in "enhanced" posts remind me that it is actually quite easy for "AI" scraping tools to even produce false information from wol.jw.org.
For example, it's been pointed out several times in these related discussions that the Insight book often quotes a scholarly source but adds brackets within that quote to insert the special Watchtower chronology, which makes it look like scholarly sources had actually supported the special Watchtower chronology instead of the evidenced chronology. This can fool the AI tools. 
For example:*** it-1 p. 94 Ammonites ***
The inscriptions of Assyrian King Shalmaneser III, who ruled in the time of King Jehu (c. 904-877 B.C.E.) of Israel, claim that the forces of “Baʼsa, son of Ruhubi, from Ammon” were among a coalition of kings opposing Assyria in the battle of Karkar. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 1974, p. 279) 
The quote appears to use the scholarly reference "Ancient Near Eastern Texts" as support for the special Watchtower dates, but that book would reject those dates. This is all the more important when it's done in a section especially concerned with Chronology and dates.
*** it-1 p. 190 Ashdod ***
A stone prism of Sennacherib of Assyria says that “Mitinti from Ashdod” brought him sumptuous gifts and kissed his feet, and it adds concerning King Hezekiah of Judah (745-717 B.C.E.): “His towns which I had plundered, I took away from his country and gave them (over) to Mitinti, king of Ashdod.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 1974, pp. 287, 288) Ashdod seems to have been in a weakened state by the time of Jeremiah (after 647 B.C.E.) so that he spoke of “the remnant of Ashdod.” (Jer 25:20) Nebuchadnezzar, whose rule began in 624 B.C.E. . . .
*** it-1 p. 205 Assyria ***
The Babylonian Chronicle B.M. (British Museum) 21901 recounts the fall of Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, following a siege carried out by the combined forces of Nabopolassar, the king of Babylon, and of Cyaxares the Mede during the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.): “The city [they turned] into ruin-hills and hea[ps (of debris)].” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 1974, p. 305; brackets and parentheses theirs.) . . . According to the same chronicle, in the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.), Ashur-uballit II attempted to continue Assyrian rule from Haran as his capital city. This chronicle states, under the 17th year of Nabopolassar (629 B.C.E.): “In the month Duʼuzu, Ashur-uballit, king of Assyria, (and) a large [army of] E[gy]pt [who had come to his aid] crossed the river (Euphrates) and [marched on] to conquer Harran.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 305; brackets and parentheses theirs.)
Note that the last one above even includes the phrase: "brackets and parentheses theirs." Yet the special Watchtower dates 632 BCE and 629 BCE, also in parentheses, are rejected by the reference work in favor of the evidenced dates. 
*** it-2 pp. 178-179 Kittim ***
This is in harmony with the historical evidence for Phoenician colonies in Cyprus at the time of Isaiah’s prophesying (c. 778–a. 732 B.C.E.). An inscription of Sennacherib relates the flight of King Luli of Sidon to the island of Iadnana (Cyprus) as the result of the Assyrian attack. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, pp. 287, 288)
 
And what about cases where no quote marks are used, as in the reference above. How would "AI" know that dates given are NOT supported by the referenced book, and that even here the special Watchtower chronology has taken the evidenced dates and added 20 years to them without admitting it?
Who would know that the following, which make it appear that cuneiform tablets support Watchtower dates, are actually NOT supported by those tablets or the referenced book about such tablets?
*** it-2 p. 457 Nabonidus ***
Last supreme monarch of the Babylonian Empire; father of Belshazzar. On the basis of cuneiform texts he is believed to have ruled some 17 years (556-539 B.C.E.). He was given to literature, art, and religion.
In his own inscriptions Nabonidus claims to be of noble descent. A tablet found near ancient Haran gives evidence that Nabonidus’ mother or grandmother was a devotee of the moon-god Sin. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, pp. 311, 312) As king, Nabonidus showed great devotion to the worship of the moon-god, both at Haran and at Ur, where this god occupied a dominant position.—PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 324.
Cuneiform tablets of the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar (Nisan 617-Nisan 616 B.C.E.) list a certain Nabu-naʼid as the one “who is over the city,” and some historians believe this is the same Nabonidus who later became king. However, this would mean that Nabonidus was a very young man when placed in such administrative position and would make him extremely aged at the fall of Babylon, some 77 years later (539 B.C.E.).
Discussing events in the 20th year of Nebuchadnezzar (Nisan 605-Nisan 604 B.C.E.), the Greek historian Herodotus (I, 74) describes a treaty negotiated between the Lydians and the Medes by one “Labynetus the Babylonian” as mediator. 
And how would one know in the above reference that 20 years was added to every date EXCEPT 539, which creates a bigger problem for that reference to that claim about Nabonidus being 77 years old? It uses the phrase "some historians believe" and implies therefore that some of them believe he would be 77. This is false, of course. Also if one were to look further into it, they would see an even bigger problem with the same Insight article references to Nabonidus' mother (or grandmother). [She evidently died at 104, but inscriptions for her actually list out the number of years she lived under each Babylonian king, and it happens to perfectly match the evidence from King's Lists, all the contemporary business documents, and "Ptolemy's Canon," VAT 4956, all the astronomical tablets, etc.
There are many more of these in Insight, and not just from Pritchard's book. In fact, you can actually backtrack the AI @xero quoted with a likely scrape from Insight here:
*** it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***
One fragmentary Babylonian text, dated to Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year (588 B.C.E.), does, in fact, mention a campaign against Egypt. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, p. 308) But it cannot be established whether it relates to the original conquest or a later military action.
 
That's the most likely place from which "AI" misunderstood to create the following:
Anyway, this could go on and on. Just shows the danger of reliance on these tools. And there's a good chance it will also be reading what we're writing here. Yikes!

This is another example of "AI enhanced" hallucinations. Whatever source created this response is just so incorrect that I decided to mark each incorrect sentence in red-orange, and each misleading statement in yellow, and each true statement in green.
It's pretty obvious that "AI" tools have scraped from conversations about 607, and often pick up mistaken quotes and will now even potentially pick up their own reprinted mistakes and regurgitate them as if those mistakes have now been validated by their use on a forum even such as this one. 
For a quick explanation of my markup, note the following.
Wiseman made good use of the Nabonidus Chronicle but did not rely "heavily" on it for dating purposes -- he states that they are only for relative chronologies --  and therefore he never tried to "establish" a chronology from it or other Babylonian Chronicles. Also Wiseman wrote the book "Chronicles of Chaldean Kings;" He did not "rely" on it. I just googled to see if it was written in 1961 and google's AI responded: Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626-556 B.C.) by D. J. Wiseman was written in 586.  The Chronicles are indeed fragmentary, and do not include the capture and destruction of Jerusalem, but this is irrelevant if we are merely trying to pin a BCE date on his 18th/19th year, which is all that Witnesses are interested in. If the Chronicles were either totally accurate or totally inaccurate about Jerusalem specifically, it wouldn't make an iota of difference to us. All we want to do is know the date for his 18th/19th year. If they are fragmentary but still gave us pertinent information to help us date his 8th year, his 1st year, or his 37th, then that is plenty of information from which to derive his 18th19th year. The relevant period is any one that includes Nebuchadnezzar's reign, therefore the Chronicles are particularly good for the relevant period.  There is nothing in the Babylonian Chronicles about the Jews in particular, so there is no information that would show bias towards them. "Dating inconsistencies" are irrelevant because there aren't any. This happens to be one period of ancient history with the most well-documented and testable chronology. If we didn't think we knew better, we'd say that it must have been providentially Jehovah's will that this period was the most well-documented and easily understood, with literally THOUSANDS of pieces of evidence all pointing to the same BCE dates, and NOT ONE INCONSISTENCY. The only problem is that we as Witnesses REJECT the obvious conclusion of all this evidence.  Wisemen never interprets Neb's 37th year as evidence for a 607 BCE destruction of Jerusalem as stated above. Wiseman interprets it according to the prevailing evidence, which would therefore point to a 587/586 destruction of Jerusalem.  No one believes the VAT 4956 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in Neb's 37th year, not JWs, not WIseman, not Furuli.  Any differences in interpretation over the exact year of Neb's ascension to the throne have no real impact on the dating of his regnal years. All the evidence is very consistent as to how the Babylonians counted ascension years and regnal years. There is no difference in interpretation for Babylonian documents, which are shown to be perfectly consistent throughout the entire period. This might refer to the Bible's inconsistent use "ordinal" vs. "cardinal" counting of regnal years, as explained in our Aid book and Insight book.  Archaeological evidence does indeed point to 587/586 for Neb's 19th year, but Wiseman does NOT contradict this evidence. He makes consistent use of the evidence. Lack of independent corroboration weakens the 607 argument? Mostly true, but there is absolutely NO corroboration of the 607 argument to begin with. Much less any additional independent corroboration. There is simply ZERO evidence for the 607 argument, Biblical or otherwise. And the implication about no independent corroboration misses the point that there are SEVERAL INDEPENDENT lines of evidence all consistently pointing to the 587/586 date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th/19th year.  Very few really argues that Wiseman has a theological agenda. He does try to support and defend the Bible as history in certain cases of apparent discrepancies. But this has almost no effect on the time period in question. In this case it is those with a traditional Biblical interpretation that goes against evidence who argue against the evidence.  There is really no "scholarly" debate at all about the overall time period in question, and especially not about the specific BCE years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. This might sound like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, but the point is that this period is just too well documented for scholars to debate. Pretend scholars might pretend that it's debatable, and unfortunately their pretensions carry a lot of weight with people who want desperately to believe they are right. It seems that this is because they are in support of a tradition that would create a lot of discomfort to many of us if we had to admit it was a false tradition. Wiseman's presentation of the overall evidence about the years of the Neo-Babylonian period is universally accepted by scholars, because he accepts evidence and does NOT accept the "607 argument" as claimed above.  I should mention that a person may be a scholar in a different field and therefore might disagree with scholars in a field that he is not that familiar with. For example, a scholar in the field of Shakespeare Studies might try to find reasons to disagree with a scholar who argues about the Laws of Physics. But if a Shakespeare scholar claims he knows that the speed of light must be closer to 100,000 miles per hour rather than closer to 186,000 miles per second, this doesn't really mean that the "186,000 argument" is not universally accepted by all scholars.  As I said, it's hardly worth trying to glean the wheat from the chaff on AI enhanced writing. Hope it helps a bit. I won't even make an attempt to respond to the many glaring errors in G88's recent posts. 

On the forum we have previously discussed astronomical evidence for the entire NeoBabylonian period which included astronomical dates in Nabopolassar's accession year (626 BCE) and his 18th year (608 BCE). 
Naturally, if current astronomical software indicates that his 18th year was 608 BCE, that puts his 14th year only 4 years earlier at 612 BCE. (i.e., 608+4=612)
It included a chart I made for that topic and I have linked to a post in that topic below:

 

I notice that you haven't yet specifically responded to the post I offered with a PREMISE, another PREMISE and a CONCLUSION. But you did offer the following response.
I think that's the best approach, too. As you say, you need at least one verifiable astronomical event, and to have it associated with a specific regnal year of a relevant king during this period. (Especially a rare solar eclipse tied to a specific regnal year, or a more common lunar eclipse or star/planet combination tied to a specific month and day of a regnal year.) And it would be best if there are multiple sources (with no contradicting sources) that indicate this is the correct time period for that king and the event in question.
It turns out that we do have astronomical events tied to specific years of Nabopolassar's reign, which indicate "NABO 14" as 612 BCE.  It's also true that we have sources corroborating that the EVENT in question happened during a specifically indicated year of Nabopolassar's reign. And we have no contemporary sources contradicting 1 and 2.   I'll get to specifics, but hope you'll first offer a response to the post with the two premises and the conclusion drawn from those premises.
The response to my post about BM 21901 (see ABC 3 here: https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-3-fall-of-nineveh-chronicle/ ) was good, imo. At least it is in full agreement with everything I said about how we would go about tying a specific BCE date to "NABO 14" (the 14th regnal year of Nabopolassar.)  

Here is one method that I find to be the easiest to understand and support. 
.PREMISE: Babylon was destroyed in 539 BCE (Won't go into it here, but there are many ways to reach this date. Even the Watchtower "accepts" this date, in spite of the fact that the Watchtower does NOT accept the evidence for it. Because accepting the evidence for it means rejecting 607 BCE as NEB 18.)
PREMISE: Babylon was to have its period of greatest domination over all the surrounding nations for 70 years. Biblically supported by direct statements in Jeremiah 25:8-17 and accepted by the Watchtower publications as shown in the following statement found here:
 https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/pc/r1/lp-e/1200270023/388/2 *** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***
Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble. 
CONCLUSION: If the Babylonian Empire ended in 539, we can count back 70 years and see that it must have started when the Assyrian Empire fell in 539+70 = 609. That means NABO 17 (fall of final Assyrian capital Harran) = 609, therefore NABO 14 (the fall of Nineveh) = 612 BCE

The basic method starts out with the Babylonian Chronicle currently in the British Museum labeled B.M. 21901. It's just a relative chronology covering several years of Nabopolassar (Nebuchadnezzar's father).
All we get from this is that there were specific events recorded about his dealings with the Assyrians from his 10th year to his 18th year. (I'll call those years NABO 10 to NABO 18). Basically we learn that:
NABO 10: Nabo defeats Assyria in a battle but Egypt comes up to help the Assyrian king (Sinsharishkun) and Nabo withdraws rather than fight Egypt (Psammetichus).  NABO 12: The Medes defeat Assyria at Asshur (the prior capital). Nabo wanted to join their fight, but was delayed and the Medes won that battle by themselves. Nabo joins the Medes (Cyaxares) as allies against Assyria. NABO 14: Medes and Nabo join to defeat Assyrians at Nineveh, where the Assyrian king dies within the city. His successor (Assuruballit) flees to Harran and calls it the new Assyrian capital. NABO 16/17: Medes and Nabo join to defeat Assyrians at Harran. Assuruballit joins with Egypt (Necho) and is unsuccessful as taking Harran back, and Assyria is considered fully defeated therefore, by NABO 17. (This would also be the same year that Judean King Josiah died.) So, now if we accept the premise that Nineveh was destroyed in the year "NABO 14" then all we have to do is find a way to attach a "BCE" date to NABO 14. cue scholar jw

I really, really miss having an intense interest in such things. 
I stopped when I realized if you assume EVERYBODY is a quack, especially about things that have NO PRACTICAL VALUE … the reward is peace and contentment.
Sleeping beside me on the sofa as I write this are three happy dogs.
…. it’s more than enough.

Sounds like a familiar quest. I had the same experience when I first tried to figure out why the 612 date was used everywhere except the Watchtower, which uses 632 instead. (Because 632 is needed as part of the foundation for our traditional claim that 1914 was pointed to in the book of Daniel.)
But it turns out that, for me, there were at least 3 basic ways to reach a date within one year of 612 for the destruction of Nineveh. (Making the date either 613, 612, or 611.) 
However, it's been my experience on this forum that if a statement about ancient chronology includes any concept that takes more than a minute to understand, it is immediately dismissed, so that we can fall back on whatever is more comfortable for our traditional belief system. I don't think that about you, but it should help manage the expectations of anyone who might start to read this type of discussion.

Isn't it somewhat ironic that ISIS would make Nineveh their headquarters? 
There definitely is something "special" about that place.

I found it super interesting to see the unearthed walls of Nineveh.... 
I remember seeing the Assyrian burnt walls in the Louvre as well years ago.
Agape!
p.s. - I'll try to link this up to Jonah chapter 1 one of these days somehow.

This video seemed to narrow it down pretty well .... what do you think?
Using the Pishon river reference

I'd like to ramble a bit about the Watchtower Study linked here:
https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-november-2023/You-Can-Remain-Confident-During-Uncertain-Times/
I'm often too critical, but I thought this one was excellent. I'll try to include a balance of some things I thought about and some things I questioned along with the reasons I thought it was excellent.
It's a great way to introduce a past example from the Bible by tying it to our own experiences today, and they managed to include everyone with the opening:
DO YOU at times worry about the future? Perhaps you have lost your job and you worry about providing for your family. You may be concerned about your family’s safety because of unstable political conditions, persecution, or opposition to the preaching work. Are you facing any of these issues?
One thing I thought about first was how Babylonian Exile was presented as a punishment, just as the destruction of the Temple and removal from their land was a punishment. Still it was better than death, and Jeremiah had warned his countrymen that they should put themselves under the Babylonian yoke for safety because this destruction/devastation/desolation was coming no matter what.
Yet, historically, it turned out pretty well for a lot (most?) of the Jews who were taken captive. They did well for themselves. Started businesses, etc. And when it came time to leave, they didn't want to go, mostly because (evidently) they were doing fine economically and the move would be an economic hardship:
It took faith on the part of the Jews who had lived in Babylon all their lives to leave behind a comfortable lifestyle and travel to a country that most of them knew very little about.
You don't often think of captivity and exile as "comfort." 
Clearly, the importance of going back was to re-establish a center for pure worship of Jehovah. That was the priority of the prophets, Ezra and Nehemiah and later the scribe, Ezra. 
When they arrived, it was not long before they were affected by unstable economic and political conditions as well as opposition. Some therefore found it hard to focus on rebuilding Jehovah’s temple.
With the focus on "Remaining Confident" one might have thought this would be another article on showing confidence in Jehovah's Organization and the FDS. Not that we don't need some reminders in that regard now and then, but this did NOT focus on the leaders, it focused on the "people" the "rank and file" as it were. When the leaders are mentioned it's mostly about their encouragement and example -- and the people's response. Not about the importance of obedience. 
the encouragement given by these prophets proved to be very effective. Nearly 50 years later, however, the returning Jews again reached a low point. Ezra, a skilled copyist of the Law, then came from Babylon to Jerusalem to encourage God’s people to give priority to true worship.
More to follow.... later. . . . I just discovered I have to go somewhere.

Good to know you can remember the ingredients and the methods.  Glad you enjoyed going back to old recipes but please continue with the vegetables and substitute them for some of the cheese, hamburger/mincemeat for their health-giving benefits and because of your age. Don't forget you were young then. I think you said grade and grading respectively in two instances, where I believe you meant grate and grating.
There is nothing like going back to eating foods you partook of when you were young.
All the best!

Serving [tacos] where the need is greater.
My parents moved our family of 5 from California to Missouri to "serve where the need was greater" in 1964. The first things we missed were the leeks and onions and garlic of Egypt (Num 11:4-6). I mean, of course, the tacos of California. Rather than risk turning into a pillar of sodium chloride by longing for the past, we did just fine with Missouri cuisine. And driving back to California once a year over the summer. Even though in a fairly large University of Missouri township, no local stores within 100 miles sold tortillas in 1964. By 1966, my father went to the town Kroger's and guaranteed the purchase of 2 dozen packs of tortillas if they would just order them. They never heard of them. Finally, he talked some university students into making the same request and they stocked some around '67, I think. 
My brother and I liked taco nights on Wednesdays and sometimes Saturdays. These were the two nights my mother gave us to cook. I became OK at cooking spaghetti on Saturday and tacos on Wednesday, and nothing else. Still pretty true even today. 
Back then it was frying the soft tortillas in boiling oil and then laying them out to dry on napkins. When my brother and I shared the work, we could have instant gratification by sharing the chopping of onions, tomatoes, lettuce grading some cheddar, frying the meat with some random peppers and spices that filled in for taco seasoning. Then we topped them off with Louisiana Hot Sauce. 
Yesterday, also a Wednesday, I fell off my typical vegetarian diet, and had just bought a pound of fresh hamburger, a couple of vine tomatoes, a small jar of salsa, a pound of mild cheddar, salad mix, sprig of cilantro, and a jalapeno pepper, and a crunchy taco kit that has 12 pre-shaped tortillas, some mild sauce and a pack of seasoning for the hamburger. 
Then the race begins -- this time by myself. I start the hamburger to fry, then rush to get out some bowls, and chop, slice, and grade the ingredients. I no longer use "head lettuce" but just salad mix. By the time the hamburger starts browning, I toss in a half cup of V-8 along with the seasoning mix, because the hamburger is extra lean and doesn't produce enough oil and juice to mix the seasoning. That cools the pan enough to give me a little time to finish the ingredients, and start a cookie plate of tortillas to heat in the oven. By the time the oven reaches a good temperature, the meat is done, and all is finished in less than 15 minutes. 
My wife eats 3 and I eat 8. This was a bigger event when the kids still lived at home with us. But I had slacked off for a few months on taco Wednesday, and am starting it up again after ditching the vegetable-based cheese and vegetable-based hamburger. Somehow it's a lot better this time.
Yesterday. Good times. 

*** w75 9/1 p. 519 Insight on the News ***
It has long been known that heart-transplant patients have a higher-than-average amount of postoperative psychiatric problems. But it seems that the same is true with regard to some other vital organ transplants, such as kidney transplants. U.C.L.A. psychiatry professor Dr. Pietro Castelnuovo-Tedesco is quoted as saying: “An outstanding finding following transplantation is the not infrequent occurrence of serious emotional disturbance.” One study of 292 kidney-transplant patients showed that nearly 20 percent experienced severe depression after the operation, a few even attempting suicide. By contrast, only about one out of every 1,500 general-surgery patients develops a severe emotional disturbance.
A peculiar factor sometimes noted is a so-called ‘personality transplant.’ That is, the recipient in some cases has seemed to adopt certain personality factors of the person from whom the organ came. One young promiscuous woman who received a kidney from her older, conservative, well-behaved sister, at first seemed very upset. Then she began imitating her sister in much of her conduct. Another patient claimed to receive a changed outlook on life after his kidney transplant. Following a transplant, one mild-tempered man became aggressive like the donor. The problem may be largely or wholly mental. But it is of interest, at least, that the Bible links the kidneys closely with human emotions.—Compare Jeremiah 17:10 and Revelation 2:23.
 
In the Awake! 10/221969, I noticed the attempt to make sure ALL transplant statistics showed more people dying than living. So much so that with kidney transplants they wouldn't give the actual survival rate, which had been above 50%, but instead Awake! found a segment of kidney transplant recipients (donor unrelated) where the survival rate was still below 50%. 


The point of most organ transplants is often not based on the idea of long-term survival. Most transplanted organs "wear out" often even kidneys after just a decade or so. No transplant offers any guarantee of long-term survival, they are merely procedures that often provide a temporary extension. In that sense they are like other potentially life-saving medical procedures. But a more complex decision than most other procedures.   

I figured that George88 was coming at this from the verses he quoted. Still, It reminds me of an old teaching once promoted by a GB member at Bethel: that it's the natural, physical heart that is the seat of motivations. In a talk I heard him give at our Assembly Hall he would say that persons who have  been given heart transplants from a criminal have reported that they themselves now have criminal tendencies. It was common to see things like this in the "Watching the World" pages of the Awake! too. Later, when I worked for this brother, he had already been asked to stop giving that talk that promoted the physical heart as the actual seat of human motivation, but he asked me to always be on the lookout for any new information that might support the theory.
*** g71 11/22 p. 31 Watching the World ***
Disenchantment with Heart Transplants
◆ Since 1967 doctors have performed 166 heart transplants, but the initial enthusiasm is gone. Too many patients have died—more than 85 percent thus far. There were also bad side effects. There were depression, brief periods of being psychotic, memory lapses, sleeplessness and marked changes in personality. According to Life magazine, immunologists have concluded that “the heart is a peculiar, particular organ, not only a pump, but a creature of some internal, unknown majesty.”
*** w81 9/15 p. 15 Insight on the News ***
“Heart Overrides Everything”
● Heart specialists now believe that about one third of heart patients have emotional problems after surgery. This often begins about the second day following the operation and may last about a week. Some patients become delirious; some suffer from weird dreams and hallucinations; others have severe bouts with anxiety and depression. To deal with the emotional problems that some patients have after surgery, heart surgeons and psychiatrists around the world recently formed an international consortium. The consortium would like doctors and nurses to pay as much careful attention to a patient’s emotional state after heart surgery as they do to heartbeats.
The specialists speak of the psychological significance of the heart. For example, psychiatrist Richard S. Blacher of Tufts–New England Medical Center in Boston says of the heart: “It’s a very special organ. People commonly think of it as the seat of emotions. In our minds, the heart overrides everything.”—“Newsweek,” May 25, 1981, p. 63.
How true it is that the heart tends to overrule the head, the seat of intellect! In view of this, the heart, above all else, must be disciplined and trained to respond to Bible guidance. It must be taught to appreciate spiritual qualities. These qualities spring from God. “More than all else that is to be guarded,” says God’s Word, “safeguard your heart, for out of it are the sources of life.”—Prov. 4:23; compare Matthew 15:19.
 
*** g70 10/22 p. 29 Watching the World ***
Personality Change
◆ According to a report that appeared on United Press International of August 18, 1970, the daughter of Philip Blaiberg said that he had experienced a complete personality change after undergoing a heart-transplant operation. 
Awake! 8/22 p. 29:

I think it indicates that people want a ‘king,’ somewhat like in Samual 8. They can’t handle subtle. They want a king.
’Alright, alright, we’ll give you king,’ says the visible org, ‘An entire Update to say ‘We don’t care about beards!’ That means you don’t have to either! Sheesh! We were trying to get away from that.’
Seen from a different standpoint, I think those seeking the downfall of the earthly organization also resemble those Israelites who demanded a king. Those ancients couldn’t handle the seeming vagaries of judges popping up here and there. They wanted a king, with all the trimmings, that they could see strutting around at all times.Similarly, people look real closely into the GB, see it is composed of men who have all the differing idiosyncracies of the first century disciples and they can’t handle it. How can God’s direction come from such a human arrangement? They either want an undisputed miracle-backed single entity (which we all know is not going to happen today) or they want dissolution of the whole model, going back to a ‘Jesus and me’ model. This usually means a ‘Me and Jesus’ model, since it is personal disagreements over this or that policy that motivates the desire to sink the earthly organization. They either imagine the ‘Jesus and Me’ model will continue to safeguard the unity and doctrinal uniqueness of JWs or they think that the unity and doctrinal uniqueness is not worth safeguarding—they are content to let it evolve, just like in the natural world of competitive struggle and how good things supposedly come of that. ‘Guardians of doctrine? Don’t make me laugh!’ they say.
My Bethel chum told me many years ago that it gets more challenging to see God’s hand as you get tighter with the organization. The friends in general will ooh and ahh over this new direction from God, and you will say, ‘Yeah….it’s only because so-and-so is too stubborn to……’
This is where faith comes in. It is the divine/human interface. Fleshly eyes can only perceive the ‘Indisputable miracle-backed, controlled Prophet’ model or the ‘Jesus and Me’ model for congregation headship. It takes spiritual eyes to see that, if God is really worth his salt, surely he can move dedicated men to adequately serve as his conduit. The GB is screened by being anointed, further screened by a lifetime of full time service, further screened by intensive Bible training on how to work with others by implementing Bible principles.
This training to work according to Bible principles, strive for unity, learn how to defer to one another, resist the temptation to run-over those with whom you disagree, produces good results. In individual congregations, elders periodically gather for such training in ‘elder schools,’ where they learn, among other things, that unity of the body is always the goal. This does indeed perform well, at least in my congregation, so I extrapolate it to others. (It might be different if my congregation was one of those basket-case Revelation 2 and 3 congregations) Though I am reliably informed (I can shake facts out if I want to but I usually refrain from doing it) that there is disagreement amongst our elders, you would never know it by the united front they display. Instead of shaking them down for disputes, I seek occasions to (genuinely) commend them for what they do.
It is not healthy to ‘expose’ present disagreements. (not that I don’t lap it all up if I hear of them here) People thereafter pick their favorite horses, which encourages further division. Of course people are going to disagree. The thing that counts is for them to resolve disagreements and carry on unitedly. That is the evidence of having God’s spirit.
Human traits will never disappear. ‘We have this treasure [of the ministry] in earthen vessels,’ but, being humble, God can work with such men as those comprising the Governing Body. Proud persons He can’t do much with other than squash them in time. ‘God is using imperfect people today because that’s all he has at the present time’ Mark Nourmair (approximately) says, not referring specifically to GB brothers. And, when the younger brothers fall to squabbling, the old-timer smiles, tilts back in his chair, and marvels, ‘It’s amazing what Jehovah accomplishes given what he has to work with.”
 

Thanks for your concern. I didn't mean to give the impression that I had any medical ailments that I know about. I'm 66 and my body aches a bit more after a hard day's work, but I have no diseases that I know about. 
I have been sleeping in very dry air this winter and I have a sore throat that I get about 1 out of 3 winters. My voice gets so low (bass) that I start singing "Old Man River" from Show Boat about 100 times a day.
Ironically I also got a nose bleed last night, very rare for me, and even more ironically I could taste and smell the iron when bits of it trickle into the back of my throat and I spit it out. I typed a couple of long posts last night with my head tilted back and a tissue stuffed into my left nostril. I couldn't even see the screen as I typed.
Another bit of medical disclosure. I have been a near-vegetarian for almost a year now, still having milk and cheese, and making a once-a-week exception for fish, and about a once-a-month exception for an egg or two. I love the new international flavors I had never tried before. I have nothing against meat, but I'm on this diet because my wife is on a very similar doctor-recommended diet and it seems to be helping her quite a bit.  

Nope I don’t think there is one because it’s the PRINCIPLE behind the abstain from blood.
You eating fractions when you eat the meat..yeah some of it’s washed with pink dye to make it look good but there is still fractions in there.
jehovah knew when you bled an animal you would not get all of the  blood out…but he is teaching us his right over us..the principle of the blood letting …
I’ve seen a number of Roos hung up and bled with their head cut of and skinned..hardly any fat on them …but they had muscle..and the blood in them was  visible …yet they had been correctly bled……...they butchered them cooked and ate them …lots of fractions in that meal….antidotes apparently have fractions in them.   Some medicines do..and people don’t even know it…so stop straining  the Nat and concentrate on the principle of abstaining from blood….anyway that’s how I see it…we are all different on it and going by scripture none of us are wrong. I respect your view but it’s not my view and this is where we get into not judging each other I suppose.

The fact that we as Christians are not under law does not mean that we would break just any law or advocate that anyone else would break just any law. I think we all have a proper aversion to eating or drinking blood and for me this includes avoiding any meat that hasn't been properly drained of its blood. 
Of course, when we say "properly drained" there are probably a variety of methods and I don't care to look into them too closely. Whenever I do, I end up being vegetarian for a few months. But I can look at meat and pretty much tell if it seems reasonably bloodless to me. I can't imagine that any meat eating Christians or Jews had methods that were so much better at squeezing out anything more.
I suspect that Paul thought Christians would use their best judgment (visually) and wasn't concerned that anyone should try to make rules about how best to butcher animals. For the most part, even among gentiles, there was a lot of natural aversion to eating/drinking blood, except for certain pagan rituals which, as Christians, they would already be avoiding. 
I've always thought this was important testimony, too. For those who haven't seen it, I'll include it here:
CHAP. IX. . . . . But to us, to whom homicide has been once for all forbidden, it is not permitted to break up even what has been conceived in the womb, while as yet the blood is being drawn (from the parent body) for a human life. Prevention of birth is premature murder, and it makes no difference whether it is a life already born that one snatches away, or a life in the act of being born that one destroys; that which is to be a human-being is also human; the whole fruit is already actually present in the seed. With regard to banquets of blood and such like tragic dishes, you may read whether it is not somewhere stated (it is in Herodotus, I think) that certain tribes had arranged the tasting of blood drawn from the arms of both sides to signify ratification of a treaty. Something of the same kind was tasted also under Catiline. They say that among certain tribesmen of the Scythians also each dead person becomes food for his own relations. But I am wandering too far. On this very day, in this very country, blood from a wounded thigh, caught in a palm of the hand and given to her worshippers to drink, marks the votaries of Bellona. Again, what of those who, by way of healing epilepsy, at the gladiatorial show, drain with eager thirst the blood of slaughtered criminals, while it is still fresh and flowing down from the throat? Or what of those, who dine on bits of wild-beast from the arena, who seek a slice of boar or stag ? That boar in the struggle wiped off the blood from him whom he had first stained with gore; that stag wallowed in a gladiator's blood. The paunches of the very bears are eagerly sought, while they are yet gorged with undigested human flesh; thus flesh that has been fed on man is forthwith vomited by man. You that eat such things, how far removed you are from the feasts of the Christians! . . . Your crimes ought to blush before us Christians, who do not reckon the blood even of animals among articles of food, who abstain even from things strangled and from such as die of themselves, lest we should in any way be polluted even by blood which is buried within the body. Again, among the trials of the Christians you offer them sausages actually filled with blood, being of course perfectly aware that the means you wish to employ to get them to abandon their principles is in their eyes impermissible. Further, how absurd it is for you to believe that they, who you are assured, abhor the blood of beasts, are panting for the blood of man, unless perchance you have found the former more palatable! . . .  

Yes, I see your point, I see your point...
I think that for any 1st century Christian of Gentile origin, when they learn that Jehovah from the beginning (Noah) prohibited the consumption of blood. This was later highlighted in dozens of mentions in the Mosaic Law and, finally, in the apostolic decree (with Paul present) of Acts 15. In short, I am sure that in no way would they want to consume blood.
As we know, even Tertullian writes that Christians abstained from the custom of drinking blood. Yes, the Early Church held this commandment as a whole.
So, from my point of view, any exegetical possibilities about some passages like the ones you mention pale next to the rest of the evidence. They are that, a possibility. For me, the certainty is that since Noah the servants of Jehovah did not drink/we don't drink/we will not drink  blood.

That is why I think some of JWI's tongue in cheek* predictions are not too far fetched.
*(Or maybe he was being completely serious, not sure this time) 

I think the beard issue is a perfect example. I am talking about how unclear instructions can be sometimes. In 2016, as we all know, the beard article was written, and it was so ambiguous and unclear that for 7 years it caused problems until finally the GB were "forced" as it were, to make it black and white. 
Similarly, some Bible passages are unclear "from our point of view" (to out modern way of thinking). Sometimes it's as if we have to guess at the correct answer. And sometimes reading other scriptures on the same subject doesn't help. 
I think to understand some things that were written thousands of years ago correctly, we would have to think like  people did when these things were written. And this is not easy. Not only that, but we would have to know the culture too.
So just as a illustration, we can imagine that someone reading the 2016 WT two thousand years from now might get confused by it and not really understand if beards were ok or not. And imagine that they were setting up a new religion and they had to make a decision on beards. 
Maybe it's not a very good example, perhaps someone can think of a better one.
That's why there is a need for "new light" all the time. It's because some passages in the Bible are not easy to interpret and we got it wrong in the past.

I would say that Paul, in the aforementioned texts, is alluding to eating meat previously offered to an idol in a pagan temple of worship. Meat that was sold in the temple itself, and the income from the operation financed said place.
Paul says that the Christian with a weak conscience thinks that he is contributing to false worship, but the strong one only thinks that he is paying for a service: receiving food. That is, he does not make a donation to promote something idolatrous.
In other words, I don't find that Paul even remotely addresses the issue of whether or not the meat was bled. That idea was not under consideration in the context we are talking about. I believe that if the Christian suspected that this was the case (that the meat contained blood), his conscience would prevent him from eating it. But that point is not discussed in those verses.
 
(1 Corinthians 10:25-28) 25 Eat whatever is sold in a meat market, making no inquiry because of your conscience, 26 for “to Jehovah belong the earth and everything in it.” 27 If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you, making no inquiry on account of your conscience. 28 But if anyone says to you, “This is something offered in sacrifice,” do not eat because of the one who told you and because of conscience. 
 
So the question was whether or not the meat was offered in a pagan sacrifice, not the blood it might contain.
I think so, but I may be wrong.