ComfortMyPeople

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.)

I remember once enumerating 10 things predicted for 1914, all of which had to be dropped. I just noticed that Wikipedia had the list of 7 that come from "The Time is At Hand." It's curious that Russell admitted, not a typo per se, but that he had taken his pyramid measurements from the pages of Charles Piazzi Smyth's book, which he didn't realize was not to scale. The fix turned out to be a perfect change of 41 "inches" to move a date from from 1874 to 1915.
---------------from Wikipedia-------------
Based on measurements from the Great Pyramid of Giza, this "passing beyond the vail" or rapture was expected "before the close of A.D. 1910."[95][96] Russell enumerated seven expectations for 1914 in The Time is at Hand:
God's kingdom would take full control of earth "on the ruins of present institutions";
Christ would be present as earth's new ruler;
The last of the "royal priesthood, the body of Christ" would be glorified with Christ;
Jerusalem would no longer "be trodden down by the Gentiles";
"Israel's blindness will begin to be turned away";
The great "time of trouble" would reach its culmination of worldwide anarchy;
God's Kingdom would "smite and crush the Gentile image—and fully consume the power of these kings".[97]
In 1911, Russell wrote that October 1914 would witness the "full end" of Babylon, or nominal Christianity, "utterly destroyed as a system".

LOL! None of ABC4 is difficult to comprehend. So why don't you stop pretending you have evidence of some kind and stop making excuses. As I said above:
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.

I have already posted many examples of evidence specifically about Nebuchadnezzar. Up to this point you have always ignored them. You have never posted anything more than vague "teasers" that imply you might know about some evidence that you are not willing to share. Besides, I will never delete you or anyone else, even if I could, and I will save your evidence and/or responses in case you do get yourself deleted by an owner or moderator. This way your "evidence" isn't going to be lost and you can continue to defend it if you wish under another account if necessary.
So again, not for me, but just to show anyone who reads this that you aren't a fake:
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.

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.

I have read and acknowledged all the evidence surrounding 607, 587, etc, that has ever been presented on this forum. You act like I can claim that 2+2=4, but that if you can ramble on for long enough about how 2+2=1,440 then I need to agree or else you will claim I have somehow not "acknowledged" your so-called "compelling evidence." You have never provided a shred of evidence, not under any account you have ever used here. If you think that rambling incoherently about various false claims is the same as "compelling evidence" then it's no wonder you have made some of the false claims you have made. 
If you disagree with this then go ahead and try out just ONE piece of your so-called compelling evidence, and see how it stands up against actual evidence. It's not that you have ever refrained from engaging in pointless arguments, it's that you refuse to present evidence. 

You always appear to have a very convoluted and inconsistent grasp on the details you argue about. I believe Nebuchadnezzar became king in 605 because 12 different and independent pieces of evidence tell us that he became king in 605. So far, after 10 years you haven't attempted to show even one bit of evidence that shows he was NOT.  You make a vague reference to the non-canonical book of Judith now and then, as if it might override Jeremiah. You make a vague and unsubstantiated claim that there may have been a King Nebuchadnezzar during the time when Nebuchadnezzar's father, Nabopolassar, was king. You make vague references to 18 and 19-year cycles as if they might somehow override the actual evidence. You pretend that these vague hints produce insurmountable problems to the chronology, but you won't even say what they might lead to. Except that they might somehow support the Watchtower's traditional chronology. 
Now you begin quoting the works of a self-proclaimed Russell-supporting-Bible-Student-turned-Pyramidologist who rejects what Russell said about the "606 event" and puts that event in 585, 21 years later than Russell, and 22 years later than the current Watchtower. You begin calling him "Brother Adam Rutherford" and praising his methods. Yet you forget that he is in almost exact agreement (within 2 years) of your obsessed-over nemesis, Carl Olof Jonsson. Adam Rutherford understands Ptolemy the same way COJ does; he understands the Babylonian Chronicles the same way COJ does; he understands the contract tablets the same way COJ does. Adam Rutherford agrees with my own view of 607, but because he merely mentions 607 and continues to keep Russell's 1914 as the end of the Gentile Times, you apparently think he's doing something right. Do you agree with one-time Governing Body member Joseph Rutherford in seeing Pyramidology as Satanic?
I have rarely seen a more confused and inconsistent argument from you.

I don't oppose all of it. Only where it is inconsistent and produces potential Bible contradictions.
Because it is the only year supported by the overwhelming astronomical evidence, I support the historical view that 587 BCE was the 18th year of King Nebuchadnezzar. If any apostates wish to accept that view, too, that's up to them. It is also the view of EVERY ONE of the authors, experts and authorities that the Watch Tower Society quotes when they refer to Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Persian chronology. If the WTS chooses NOT to accept the view of the same persons they deem to be experts on the matter, that's up to them. 
If that's true, then you were pretending that you didn't because you kept implying that my position had shifted.
 A person who speaks the truth need not be overly concerned about whether simple truth will cause division or distress among others. If those visitors are seeking truth they will not be stumbled by truth. Besides I am telling people the truth about what I personally believe. No one is telling other people that they must believe what I believe. 
The only people who would get overly concerned about what I believe are people who understand that there may be no adequate response to the evidence presented. If you are angry about what I say that I believe, then I can only guess that you also do not believe there is an adequate response to the evidence. For that, I appreciate your responses because they certainly add more credibility and strength to the evidence. If anyone has any actual evidence that counters the evidence presented in the past on this forum, I'm still happy to consider that evidence, too. 
I don't think it's typical that a group of Witnesses would pay much attention to evidence that goes against our traditional beliefs about chronology. But I see evidence that a good percentage of people here have actually listened, asked questions about it, have contacted me privately for more information, and in some cases will publicly admit to agreeing with that evidence in spite of the danger to their standing and positions of responsibility in their congregations. I don't recommend that anyone speak of these things in their  congregations, but if they have concerns about how our traditions hold up in this regard, I'm happy to try to help address their concerns.
I think you have been a large part of the positive reception that the Biblical and historical evidence gets on this forum. Your confused and convoluted methods attempting to promote the Watchtower tradition have helped several people see more clearly that the evidence for the Watchtower's tradition really is confused, convoluted and contradictory. Bible doctrines need not be that way, but you have helped to show that this particular doctrine really is that way.  

I personally think that you know better, and you cannot actually claim that you have misunderstood my position on this matter that I have repeated many times. You can't just claim that you don't understood what I've said while everyone else here understands what I've said. 
But just in case you have confused anyone, I'll say it again. I think the Bible opposes the idea that we can know the times and seasons in relation to the end times. I have no problem agreeing with 100% of the current authorities that the Watchtower has referenced about the Babylonian Chronicles and the various astronomical diaries and other tablets and inscriptions of the period. ALL of those quoted authorities agree that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year would be about 586 BCE. ALL of those quoted authorities agree that Nebuchadnezzar was not even a king in 607 BCE. 
All of them would agree that it was within a couple of years of 607 BCE when one could finally say that the Assyrian Empire had lost its ascendancy and the Babylonian Empire was now the newly recognized Empire of the region. All of them would agree that Babylon was defeated by Cyrus in 539 BCE. Therefore the 70 year period of Babylonian domination falls between those years, plus or minus one or two years. Therefore Bible prophecy (Jeremiah 25) is proven to be correct again. 
I have therefore never disagreed with 607 (plus or minus a year or two) as the beginning of the 70 years. I do disagree with taking a dream about a wicked Gentile named Nebuchadnezzar and claiming that his anti-Messianic rulership represents Christ's Messianic rulership. So any attempts to try to turn his 7 times of insanity, humiliation and restoration into a picture of the Messianic kingdom's restoration is unscriptural, in my opinion.  

Yes. You are right. Numerous reputable individuals realize that Nebuchadnezzar was not even a king in 607 BCE. Adam Rutherford also realized this. In fact, 100% of the reputable historians, archaeologists, Assyriologists, and commentators that the Watchtower Society has referenced as authorities on the matter have realized this. So how could Nebuchadnezzar have been in his 19th year as King when Jerusalem was destroyed in 607, if he was not even a king yet in 607?
Yes. "Bro. Adam Rutherford" agrees with me, and disagrees with you on this fact. So why are you including this vague and convoluted admission by you that you are wrong? Yes, I agree that he has properly used the Babylonian Chronicles. This is how he was able to understand the relative chronology of the period correct. I believe he is correct in his relative chronology but the astronomy data says he is off by two years in his absolute chronology, which is why he generally ignores the astronomy data and sticks with the Babylonian Chronicles, which are relative.
I agree with his relative chronology of the period, he has the correct lengths for the reigns of the kings. But in one post you indicate agreement and in another you admit that you disagree with his conclusions, including both the relative and the absolute chronology he has utilized. 
Try to be more consistent.
 

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.
 

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. 

I know the feeling. For me that scripture is sometimes:
(Zephaniah 2:3) . . .Seek Jehovah, all you meek ones of the earth, Who observe his righteous decrees. Seek righteousness, seek meekness. Probably you will be concealed on the day of Jehovah’s anger.
How often has that word "probably" been emphasized to us so that we always feel like maybe we will be doing all we can and trying so hard to be the right kind of person and then it's still "probably" we might survive Armageddon.
It's a bit like last Sunday's Watchtower lesson which said that, like the sister named Amanda, "I tend to equate giving Jehovah my best with the constant need to do more." 
The best counterbalance to that Scripture in Zeph above is to read the context and see that a more specific great day of Jehovah's anger is being spoken of, not necessarily related to Armageddon. The very next line is:
(Zephaniah 2:4) For Gazʹa will be an abandoned
It includes the desolation of Gaza, and we know that this is not about our own day but something specific in the long past. Oh wait! Gaza? Just got scared again. LOL.
For me, that leaves the best counterbalancing Scripture, here:
(Matthew 11:28-30) 28  Come to me, all you who are toiling and loaded down, and I will refresh you. 29  Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am mild-tempered and lowly in heart, and you will find refreshment for yourselves. 30  For my yoke is kindly, and my load is light.”
 

I have always felt guilty and scared when I read that scripture…in nearly 45 years that feeling has never changed………same feelings happen when I open the door to someone just about to knock the door down with their harsh knocking and find the police standing there…….the first thing they say is ..don’t worry you have havent done  anything wrong ( there had been break ins at our neighbours)
hope you pick another scripture that puts a smile on my face or makes me laugh 😆 

Sorry, I upvoted again!!

Anyone who embraced COJ's book was misguided when there was so much evidence to look at without being biased one way or another by what one man had to say. The question is an archaeological and astronomical one. COJ never claimed to be an expert in either one of those things. But he quoted persons who were. It was better to go directly to the archaeological evidence and astronomical evidence, and forget the claims of people like you, who kept obsessing over COJ's book.
That said, I doubt there is much of anything wrong with COJ's book. So far everything you or George88 or others claimed to be wrong in the book turned out to be correct, so based on things you have said, I have a lot of respect for COJ's book. But it's still not the right kind of resource for me. It's just not the right kind of source for someone who wants to make sure of all things.

Adam Rutherford rejects the current Watchtower chronology. He places the destruction of Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year at about 585 BCE.

Also he uses the Harran inscription to show that the lengths of all these kings' reigns are exactly in accord with Ptolemy's regnal lengths. Therefore he also accepts that the number of years between Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year and Cyrus' first year is about 49 years. Same as me. Same as Wiseman. Same as Gadd. Same as Jonsson. Same as 99.99% of all people who have run the astronomy programs for themselves. He agrees with Carl Olof Jonsson in this regard and in the idea of beginning the 70 years of desolation with the fall of Assyria and rise of Babylon. I also agree with him on those points. The fact that he must ignore most of the astronomy to keep his chronology 2 years off doesn't bother me. I've always said that one or two years one way or another doesn't make enough difference to the understanding of the Bible's record of that time period.
The WTS claims that we need some pivotal of absolute secular dates for this period. I'd say that we don't need ANY secular chronology to understand the Bible's record of this period. (2 Tim 3:16,17)

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.
 

I can't imagine why anyone interested in astronomy-backed chronology would find any good reason to quote him. He adds nothing to what the available research already says about them. He is a secondary source who relies on the same scholars and scientists and archaeologists and linguists and astronomers who continue to extensively study and research and re-check those tablets. 
When I say he "adds" nothing, I should add that he does subtract a couple of years so that he can be in agreement with Russell's use of 536 BCE as the first year of Cyrus, and 537 BCE as the fall of Babylon. There is no good reason to do this and it requires conjecturing about a two year co-reign without good evidence. [And he also keeps the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology off by a year or two as a result.] Watchtower chronology has already corrected Russell's 2 year mistake and placed the fall of Babylon "absolutely" in 539 BCE, not 537 BCE. The WTS derives the 2 extra years (to reach 537) by ending the 70 years, not at the first opportunity for the edict of Cyrus, but after a conjectured delay for the edict and then another delay for the Jews to get back to their homeland.
At least he understands that he has to accept the "no zero year" between AD and BC (CE and BCE). Per a WT article, Russell wouldn't really accept it even after it was pointed out to him.

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.  

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.

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.
 

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.

What I did with George was EXACTLY what I did with you, Tom, Juan, and myself. Which, of course, was absolutely nothing, in spite of your constant whining that makes you sound like a paranoid victim. You say "It's not fair to act impartial . . ." whatever that means. You say that I get angry, which clearly comes across as another laughable projection from an angry person. It's true that I am not happy that you give other Witnesses a bad reputation with your style of contentiousness. But I was very happy with George88 and am still happy with your responses to my point of view on certain controversial doctrinal topics. I think you mean well, and you think you are doing the right thing, but your responses are usually filled with hate and anger and spite and so void of anything substantive. They end up highlighting the strength of the point of view that I hope others will think about as they try to make sure of all things. I don't think you realize just how indirectly supportive you have been. And more often than you apparently realize, you have been directly supportive by inadvertently providing material that directly supports what I was saying, even though you apparently think that it doesn't. There is a good reason, therefore, that I do not want to see you banned, and I do not want to see your responses disappear.

Yes. LOL!!! The only reason you have survived here through hundreds of posts and George88 survived here for over 1,000 posts is because both of you continued to pay homage to me all that time. Thanks for the homage, both of you; it's so important. In fact, in some topics, I was referenced as JWI, JWInsider, or less edifying epithets by George and you in over 100 of the posts found in a single topic. All I need is to see my account name or some other reference to me in "print" and I bask in all that homage that you and George have paid to me all these months. Now it's just a matter of trying to figure out what I can buy with all that homage you guys have paid to me.