Nana Fofana

I AM SORRY, BUT I FIND THESE NUMBERS HARD TO BELIEVE UNLESS I AM READING THIS REPORT WRONG.
PLEASE CLARIFY FOR ME.
THANK YOU,

Thanks for showing such true concern. It's deeply appreciated. Those old posts are still in this thread. The ones that were moved to a separate thread (so far) made up 6 or 7 of the 20 pages of this thread. So those posts are still here, and in the same order, but by moving so many near-adjacent posts, they fall on different pages now. 
Regarding Bethel experiences, I look back on all of it overall with fond and happy memories. I know there was an initial shock, not so much at the existence of cursing and abusive behavior, but at the pervasiveness and acceptance of it among those with high levels of responsibility. I just typed up two cases that I thought were informative to your point but removed them to avoid raising new topics. The point was that I sometimes mistook mildness and meekness for humility, when it could also be paired with the height of egotism. And in another case where a brother ranted loudly and even slammed a newly published book across the room, I came to appreciate that he really thought he was protecting the worldwide congregation from error. As a young person, I didn't have the tools to understand people very well, and for many years still we continue to learn from new experiences that shed light on old ones.
But when we realize and accept that some negative type of behavior is widespread, we also tend to accept it ourselves too easily, I think. And I'm sure the level of privilege has something to do with that. I had excellent and wonderful assignments, and I wouldn't have risked them to give any kind of feedback to someone who could control my assignments. I would expect an argument here and there in the bindery or pressroom, and yet I heard they were rare. I wondered if they were worse among persons of greater responsibility. These weren't daily occurrences, of course, because we always tend to remember and highlight the exceptions. Even if those exceptions are negative.
Obviously, when it comes to doctrinal questions, I do the same thing here on the forum. I could go on and on about why our stance on war, hell and Trinity, for example, is such a good thing in that doesn't just set us apart, but also produces a much healthier Christianity than we could expect from those who see things differently. But instead, I assume we all know that alrady and try to share something that I think we probably do wrong, and which I believe can hurt our Christianity and spirituality unless we look into it.
(By the way, I mostly push the idea that we look into something even if my reasons appear too strongly promoted. I don't usually have a specific solution about exactly what we must do to resolve the issues that arise. I think that's what a Governing Body is for. I might have ideas but don't think it's my place to push a specific solution when there are multiple choices of solutions. However, I always think that discussions can help prepare us for change, and will promote less dogmatism, and therefore more humility in the meantime. This helps us empathize with those we meet in field service and other interested persons.)
On the issue of false rumors starting from nothing, I know it doesn't make much sense. We'd rather believe there was a kernel of truth to them. But in this case, I think I was there to watch the germination of a different kind of  phenomenon. I saw brothers and sisters change from being loving to almost literally "spitting" in a split second when they heard about the "apostasy" charges that several persons received. It was the incongruent variety of extra charges that were heaped upon some of the brothers and sisters that got to me. Within days, these might have coalesced into only one or two charges that were finally settled upon, but even these were clearly far-fetched and sometimes contradictory. I think it's more of a matter of our own minds not being able to manage the "justice" of casting out brothers and sisters that were so loving and kind and would do anything for you yesterday, but were called a disgusting cancer today. I think the mind just needs to create a story to solve the dissonance.
Your point about looking forward instead of back is so apt. I have three children, and in raising them, we often made the mistake of trying to draw out every detail of a conflict between any two of them. We wanted the whole story each time. Each person's version, and then as parents we know doubt imposed on our own compromised versions on top of it to make it coherent. What a waste of time! Your counsel to look forward, and focus on what we'll all do in the future to help each other avoid conflict creates on-going trust and therefore misconceptions and imputed bad motives don't have so much "breeding" room.
I have a feeling that the current GB get along many times better than the 17 at once during my tour of duty. I hear from a friend that these kinds of issues are more likely only from the more competitive among the "helpers." I visited Patterson early last year (and Brooklyn Bethel, too, but it doesn't tell you as much any more) and I see a much more professional group who appear less likely to let education levels, class differences, and various insecurities get in the way.

It's back on your post in this thread from Monday, 8/21/2017 time-stamped at 5:20pm in my time zone (EST). In that post you asked: " Should "series" always be in quotes, when referring to these clay tabs of Babs?"
You can tell from the context (of your original post) that she is discussing the fact that Grayson calls ALL of them a part of the "Babylonian Chronicle Series" which she sees as appropriate only up to a point, but does not see the same continuity especially between certain of the chronicles and major eras represented in the "Series" with such a long gap in between. Grayson almost always refers to the entire set of chronicles as the "Babylonian Chronicle Series:" And Grayson defends the use of the term "series."

So, you are right. And I did not catch the full gist of your question. I thought you were asking about the grammar of requiring quotation marks when referring to the "Babylonian Chronicle Series." You can see that the answer to the grammar question is 'NO' by her use of quotation marks only in the capitalized word, and comparing it with his use, without quotation marks, in the non-capitalized word. But if you were referring to the point of her argument itself, then it's obvious you already know that she takes exception his continued use of the term "Babylonian Chronicle Series" because she thinks the word "Series" connotes too much continuity.
 
 

Now you've got it!
That sun that went behind the moon the other day - shouldn't it have emerged by now? Have I done anything wrong? Is it from @The Librarian? No more musical poems, I promise.

Do I have cause for concern? Stop citing music LPs, @James Thomas Rook Jr., or you may have to learn the hard way, as I have!

Like when they go off topic a bit. The ladies seem to stick to the hard work as in their daily lives, while the gentlemen, sometimes like rambunctious kids in older bodies, veer off to speak of other interesting things like musicals, poems, etc., to rest their brains from the hard grind of the topic.  They know how to relax, even if it means shooting at another, using strange language (TTH, JTR) but JWI always uses good language and puts in a few puns for fun in between.  Men always know how to have some fun.

Don't know who wrote the Wikipedia article about David Rohl you are quoting but it is not accurate.  Rohl's dates are closer to the dates given by the Witnesses.  Most atheists say there is no evidence of the exodus in the bible.  Rohl is of the contention that they are looking in the wrong time-line for it because the evidence is there!   Many of these contentious Egyptian chronologists (Rohl included) say the ancient Egyptian history is out by 200 years and closer to the time of Nebuchadnezzar they are out by 20 years. 

I agree: It is remarkable that Israel won their wars under almost impossible circumstances just after the creation of their own country 1947.  I admire them as a people. They are on the forefront of new technologies and have turned Israel into a agricultural productive country where it was a wasteland before. I also see that the Muslim lobby has created hate groups against Jews at present.....(They believe Jews are apes and pigs).    However...., What I do not agree with is: that most Christians tout this as the reason why they think that Israel is still the true nation of God and send them large donations.
Very few people go back in history to look for the  links with the  Rothschild family (promises to them that Israel shall receive their own state after the break up of the Turkish Empire).   The Belfour declaration and its links with a certain letter written by the then British Prime Minister (Wilson) to Mr. Rothschild after he (Rotschield) made promises to get America included in the war. This was at the time Germany called for an armistice - before America came into the war.  
The entire situation before the first world war with Lenin and Trotsky (real name: Lev Davidovich Bronstein) and the fall of the Russian king etc. and the call from the Jews to boycott Germany so that they could not sell any of their products produced in a labor based economy in any other country of the world. It was also in this time that the FEDERAL Bank was created 1913.  Money and war colluding!  This is the history of the world.... and the innocent suffer.
Similarly at present: there are rich people behind the scenes backing their groups on the ground with big money, who in turn pressure the governments in certain ways (far-left and far-right groups).  Then there are religions who are now riding the beast....and also receiving large amounts of money from the middle east etc..
So it helps to find out the history behind the history  - then you will not be gullible to believe that any government is innocent or people of God.    They are all  "beastlike".
 
 

They moved some of the threads - sorry do not know where to find them!
I wanted to talk about the thoughts expressed by Insider.   After reading your experiences in Bethel you were on my mind - lets say - a lot. Was I shocked by your feelings and revelations?  NO.  People are people and Jehovah allows persons to choose their way and behavior.  Unfortunately, there are people who like to dominate others and as I said before - this is not a Christ-like quality. There are also those who like to sow doubt while they are busy with wicked things themselves.  So these persons were an instrument - not to break your faith BUT to break your trust.  However,  I do not distrust Jehovah when my neighbor does something bad to me - so the same when I brother does not act in a way we would expect. 
I can imagine the effect this can have on a young, eager mind.  But also remember - you do not know the inside story. He may have been seen - hence the rumors - and everything said and done in secret was revealed at once..... .
 I have read articles about the re-wiring of the brain or the strengthening of connections. Every time you re-live an emotion or a bad past experience your are re-wiring the memory again.....  So in order to look forward ... and not look back too much - do not think about bad experiences too much.  Jehovah told Cain to not let his bad thoughts control him.  He was expected to get control over it.  He did not listen to this advice direct from Jehovah. If your trust was shaken - sufficient time has now passed for you to get a more mature perspective of what happened.  If he was humble enough for correction would he not have come back later?  So did Jehovah withhold his spirit for a reason? 
My husband and I often talk about the earlier generations - they were more harsh because they were punished quite severely in school and most of them grew up in very strict (obedient to parents/teachers) environments.  The two world wars also had a great effect on society - more rigid.  So while I do not apologize for this behavior it is always good to look for mitigating circumstances and remember the Jehovah is the final judge.
It just worries me to think that it is still so vivid in your mind.  The restructuring of the GB and committees has made it less likely to happen again.  Now they pay much more attention to "reviling" than before.  If the dis-fellowshipped group displayed any form of defiant behavior - I  can understand why they then would quickly dis-fellowship them. Wicked people, often play on peoples feelings by playing the 'victim'. It is just another form of deceit.
The GB will definitely be attacked again by Satan and people maybe dis-fellowshipped. ... If there are people who can be used by satan to sow doubt or other behaviors which can break trust - he will do so - of this I am certain.

BCE - The Greeks figured time by means of four-year periods called Olympiads, starting from the first Olympiad, calculated as beginning in 776 B.C.E. Additionally, they often identified specific years by referring to the term of office of some particular official. More accurate and more sources than the Babylonian chronology. However, evidence will be stronger if one uses  BOTH  - not just one set of evidences!
539 BCE is the most accurate date because not only do the Babylonian sources agree but also when one takes the death of Cyrus (confirmed at 530 BCE from many sources.  + 9 years rule -   gives one 539 BCE for fall of Babylon. (battle of Opis given in same year.... so there are many additional  'indications' that this date is good...... and the proof is still on the ground!!regarding 1914 as the date which Jesus started ruling amidst his enemies! and the first resurrection took place.
 
 

Thanks  "You should all speak in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you,  but that you may be completely united in the same mind and in the same line of thought". 1 Cor. 1:10! 

Yes and to the ancients who did not understand science a visiting comet would be quite a spectacle even more than an solar eclipse would be. And bolides making impact or even a close call like the one in Russia a couple years ago may have caused a "DI ASTER" or even a Global Deluge. 

(Philippians 4:8) 8 Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are of serious concern, whatever things are righteous, whatever things are chaste, whatever things are lovable, whatever things are well-spoken-of, whatever things are virtuous, and whatever things are praiseworthy, continue considering these things. 
Don't leave plenty of emotes to use yet.

Actually I wrote a book [never published] dealing with the over 500 versions of flood legends all around the world and the connection that God used a comet [Like the flood comet mentioned by Whinston] to bring about the Flood ,very extensive book about 10 years ago and I believe I do recall some mention of a 7,000 year calendar in some ancient civilizations from thousands of years ago that were associated with the Flood of Noah's day that came from their stories as told throughout eons of time. The book is called "The Harbinger of Doom - Evidence of a Global Flood Caused by the Progenitor of Encke's Comet". I think there is mention in some of my research books on the Flood I have hundreds so it may take a while to find something. Here is a photo of my Flood library:                Footnote: Did you know the origin of the word "Disaster" means "evil star" - di = evil and aster = star interesting hey !!! 

I'll try to do some research on it. It has been about 30 years since I have on this particular subject and I don't remember and am quite busy with pioneering and stuff. The Watchtower I believe has not said anything about it since about 1987 questions from readers if I recall...but nothing since so it is not probably an area of interest anymore anyway. Although they never have said it was untrue or changed. {Although the type/antitype may come to mind here}  But like I said we may never know if it is true until we get there and perhaps not even then since the Bible does not directly mention it. And it dosent' actually matter to gain everlasting life. But it is fun to research anyway. I do remeber it going back over 2,000 years to time of Philo {a Jew} and he got it from somewhere earlier and ill try and find some resources for that. {Point is it's origin was not Christian but predated Christianity as Philo died in 50 C.E.]

Only 50 Translations. lol try +200 Translations - http://www.ebay.com/gds/Collecting-Watchtower-Research-Books-/10000000188341192/g.html
(Philippians 4:8) 8 Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are of serious concern, whatever things are righteous, whatever things are chaste, whatever things are lovable, whatever things are well-spoken-of, whatever things are virtuous, and whatever things are praiseworthy, continue considering these things. 

(Philippians 4:8) 8 Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are of serious concern, whatever things are righteous, whatever things are chaste, whatever things are lovable, whatever things are well-spoken-of, whatever things are virtuous, and whatever things are praiseworthy, continue considering these things. 

I can tell what happened here. Even though I wasn't familiar with this supposed controversy and had never read about it in COJ's book, it seemed obvious that you missed the actual point of the statement you quoted above, and which I highlighted in red. COJ did not word this statement very well, but you can catch his meaning perfectly from the context you provided. I'll add a little more context from that section of the book so you can see if this makes sense:
So COJ has already explicitly stated that the Society does indeed argue that Thermistocles died about 471/70. (He also points out that it's an argument the Society gets, at least indirectly, through Christendom, originating with a Jesuit theologian and an archbishop in the 17th century.) COJ's point here is that the Watch Tower Society leaves out information which would show what the real point of the source material is. As you saw from a previous question you asked, the Society did exactly the same thing in another place in the "Insight" book when they claimed they were giving the "Jewish understanding" from Soncino, but left out just enough words to hide the fact that they were only pretending to give the Jewish understanding. In this case COJ is saying that although the WTS was quoting Diodorus Siculus in support of Thermistocles death in 471, they were actually quoting source material that never claimed anything about a death in 471, but another event in his life that must have happened well before he died anyway. So it should have been worded:
I've learned that it doesn't take much to catch the Society in these bits of "scholastic dishonesty." It's hard to say whether it's incompetence or deliberate or they just read with a kind of "wishful thinking" that some secular sources might somehow be found to offer support. I didn't know this particular one at all, but I am very disappointed that it keeps happening. I'm not sure if COJ ever noticed the previous one we talked about (the "Jewish understanding") but I can see that COJ has seen several more of these examples, and I know I have seen several too that COJ probably never deals with in his book. 
It turns out, however, that COJ was right in this case, and the Watch Tower Society was wrong.
This was from your post about Grayson's book. (Which is excellent, btw) The reason this book review uses the term "Series" like this is to avoid the repetition of the longer phrase, "Babylonian Chronicle Series." The book itself has some very good information about why 539 is no better a date to call "absolute" than any other date in the Neo-Babylonian chronology, and why the supposed break at 539 is arbitrary. The reviewer alludes to it, saying:
In Grayson's book, what was meant by this is that there is a 50 year gap in the Series after 539, but excellent coverage in the 50+ years prior.  (The book review you mentioned takes exception to Grayson calling ALL of the chronicles the "Babylonian Chronicle Series" especially because she sees no real continuity between ALL the chronicles in this "Series" especially due to the long break in the eras covered.)

Ok M'dear,
Thanks Nana for quoting: The Babylonian Chronicles: Classification and Provenance
There are many sources which gives the end of Cyrus' rule as 530 BCE. To quote " Insight on the Scriptures:
"The date of 539 B.C.E. for the fall of Babylon can be arrived at not only by Ptolemy’s canon but by other sources as well. The historian Diodorus, as well as Africanus and Eusebius, shows that Cyrus’ first year as king of Persia corresponded to Olympiad 55, year 1 (560/559 B.C.E.), while Cyrus’ last year is placed at Olympiad 62, year 2 (531/530 B.C.E.).
Cuneiform tablets give Cyrus a rule of nine years over Babylon, which would therefore substantiate the year 539 as the date of his conquest of Babylon.—Handbook of Biblical Chronology, by Jack Finegan, 1964, pp. 112, 168-170; Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, p. 14; 
Cyrus died 530 + 9 year rule over Babylon before he died - he conquered Babylon in 539 BCE. Which is also the year for the battle of OPIS according to Babylonian Chronicles. This date is accurate!
 
Regarding a comment the other threads:
I do not buy this idea that a totally innocent person was dis-fellowshipped.   Although brothers are asked not to 'talk' about things - there must have been witnesses to some unbecoming or compromising situations or behavior - and these witnesses could have spoken out of place - given reasons secretly to friends.... and it spread like wild fire.    
I was not there but I firmly believe that when people start deviating from the straight and narrow path and repeat this behavior (it is a practice of a behavior not a mistake which gets a person dis-fellowshipped)  then Jehovah (and the angels) usually gives them time to confess - AFTER which he withdraws his spirit.  When people lose Jehovah's spirit they become arrogant,  defiant or put themselves in opposition to the organization.  So there could have been other behavior which triggered a Judas-like attitude - apart form the disagreements about time-lines. 
Judas was practicing a wrong attitude for a long time because he was stealing money over a time period. He could have confessed but he kept it secret - which lead to him to become so angry when satan entered him- and he betrayed Jesus.
 
 
 

The reason why you cannot accept 539 BCE as the only secular date which is truly verified is because you use mainly Babylonian sources to try to verify the date and their dates are all over the place - not reliable (reigns which are too long and impossible to correlate etc.)
The Persian and Greek sources gets us to the truth.  Please look up when the battle of OPIS took place and between who....?  This took place before Cyrus went right into Babylon.
This will give you a good idea why 537 BCE is correct for the return of the Jews to Jerusalem - which in turn proves that 607 BCE and 1914 is accurate.
The reason for the 'myopia' is an inability to accept that the slave (very imperfect and uneducated though they may be) may just have made a big mistake and accidentally got it RIGHT - because Jehovah was guiding them. The problems came when someone's ego got the better of them and they abused their power and were removed.... 
All the knowledge in the world cannot fight against the knowledge of Jehovah... and he can use his spirit to assist who he wants?  When a "mistake" (some people used their influence to say it is a mistake) turns out to be spot on later - as more historical facts were opened up - is it not quite revealing?  Don't you agree? 
Even if you feel you have "special insight" this does not mean that you have.   The ability to show the 'fruits' is cooperation, to subject your free will to Jehovah and help with the preaching work - become a slave of Jehovah and help the rest of his "slave".  (A slave has no personal power but has to do as he is told - the preaching).  Personally I would refuse to go out with someone who does not accept that Jehovah is guiding his people or "recognize" the 'slave' because we have to "help" our brothers with the commission they were given.
ANOTHER important question: How would you run such a large organization as ours when you have no special business training and you are responsible for the management and written content which goes out into the entire world; massive operations on a large scale and all on donations.....You have to try to manage other problems in congregations too - on top of millions of laws in every different country etc etc.  Did they fail in some aspects or re-act instead of being pro-active?  Of course they did.  CEOs do not even get it right...
CEOs which earn literally millions of dollars per year do not get it right and move around from company to company (we know what is going on in the banking industry and many Fortune 500 companies - don't we?)  and.......they do not have to cope with Satan's focus on them, trying to undermine the smooth daily operations set in place.  Some upstart - which you trusted and put in a trusted position - comes and wants to disrupt everything and starts a little group because he now has superior insight and becomes rebellious.  (Satan did the same thing to Jehovah because Jehovah is mild tempered and kind).  I think those put in place of responsibility would be hurt and shocked but in the end would guard the heritage of Jehovah -  put this first.  Would you not? And there will be some who will be taken in by this rebellion - will they not? 
Our history was not clean from the start - we recognize that completely.  And while they Russel and friends fumbled in the dark they accepted teachings from other religions which were in line with scripture.  In their ignorance they were determined to be guided to bring the truth to others. The immortality of the soul was one of the first teachings they rejected and we all know the reason why Russel stopped publishing with his associates and went out on his own to create the watchtower.
It was only after some cleansing of their teachings (Jehovah inspected them - where does that fit in with your dates?) that Jehovah appointed them as the slave.  They will guard the heritage they have received and try to keep the organization clean from anyone who tries to destroy it.
Has everything gone perfect in its management - NO.  Was there injustices - maybe?  But the main focus should be the preaching and the vindication of the true name of god and his promises.
I suspect we will see many more actions by Satan to discredit Jehovah and his organization (run by uneducated, imperfect men) before the final end - and he will use brothers with the spirit of Judas to do this.   If anyone in this circle does not think that we are going to have a terrible time of it - think again.
The forces of Satan is stacking up against us and the world has become a very violent place - and it is escalating. When they finally lash out at us they will be happy to find some soft target to vent all their anger against. 
LAST THOUGHT:  Is there any other Christian organization on earth which is unitedly preaching the good news of the kingdom as indicated in prophecy about the time of the end in Matt 24:14.    The proof is there!  To me it is a miracle!  
There are so many secret organizations with most of the worlds money in their pockets, who want the world to be united in ONE government.  There are many religions who want to rule the world and are prepared to use the sword to obtain it.  There are forces moving in the EU and the UN which is trying to bring in laws to control all people.  When this happens - we will be told to stop preaching.... and our neutrality will also become an issue........ it will be an attack.... but we will see great apostasy before this.  
 
 
 
 

I wouldn't like to have 'crossed' King David when he was ruling. These are things that are 'too high' for me.
Uriah will surely have a reality check when he discovers that David, not only had him killed, but had him carry his own order of execution to Joab. Moreover, Jehovah overlooked it, went on to bless David greatly, and blessed his son by his ex-wife even more. "What am I - chopped liver?" he will say.
And that is only because David had the hots for his wife. Imagine if he thought Uriah was messing with the kingdom!
There are some things you do not mess with and people of the last days are too stupid to know that. Reporters peer into the pants of leaders to tell of their soiled underwear and are dumbfounded that said leaders get mad.
As to the brothers back then, I won't attribute ill conduct to any of them. I will follow the counsel given somewhere that if a friend has consistently proven himself honorable, you do not turn upon him at the first questionable report. You think: "well, probably there are things I do not know about." Having said that, one can always revert to the remarks already made about David behaving unseemly.
That is the nature of rumors. You don't want to get caught in one. Most likely there was a grain of truth somewhere that someone built on and others blew it viral. Imagine what can be done, for example, with reports that men are sitting naked together in the sauna. It's why one must always be cautious about what they relate. I keep thinking of the scripture that tells how Jehovah feels about spreading contention among brothers.
I don't see any reason, per se, to vilify men like COJ. But neither do I want to sanctify him. There's a time to back off. Even if he felt maneuvered into a tight spot, he could have always clawed his way back, making whatever amends he had to.  Michael Jackson made the Thriller album and, to deal with the fallout, expressed regret over doing that type of music, which was woven into a magazine article on (then) questionable music, he being quoted anonymously. True, he later came to grumble about that 'discipline,' but it may have been better had he taken it to heart. His later years didn't really go that well for him, did they?

How does this fit with 1 Corinthians 1:26-29?
"For you see his calling of you, brothers, that there are not many wise in a fleshly way, not many powerful, not many of noble birth, but God chose the foolish things of the world to put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world to put the strong things to shame; and God chose the insignificant things of the world and the things looked down on, the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, so that no one might boast in the sight of God."
I'm not on familiar ground here, as I had never heard of COJ prior to this discussion, though I knew there must be someone to fill his role.  To the extent there is an appeal that the intelligencia are the only ones qualified on such things, God appears contemptuous of it. He not only puts up with the foolish things of the world - he chooses them over the 'wise men.'  Pure academic 'muscle' carries little weight with him, much less 'credentials.' It doesn't quite make sense to me, but there it is.
The twelve were decidedly not intellectuals. They were 'workmen' who had learned to handle the Word aright. Paul had intellectual cred, but I would not be quick to suppose he thereby did all the brainwork. He took direction from his educational inferiors. Plus, his lasting stature is not that he was an in-house thinker. He was primarily a doer, whereas the superfine apostles who were always trying to thwart him, boasting of their credentials, were not.
There is the biblical scholarship that starts on the premise that the biblical sayings are innocent (of untruth) until proven guilty, and biblical scholarship that presumes them guilty until proven innocent. It makes a difference in the conclusions derived, just as it does in the justice system.
I should do research to see if this COJ was a doer like Paul, or did he mainly fancy himself an in-house thinker? But probably someone will clarify this for me.

First of all know this, that in the last days ridiculers will come with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires  and saying: “Where is this promised presence of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep in death, all things are continuing exactly as they were from creation’s beginning.” (2 Peter 3:3-4)
Be careful Ann, those tossed in the lake of fire do not come out.... everlasting destruction is everlasting.
" For they deliberately ignore this fact, that long ago there were heavens and an earth standing firmly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God;  and that by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was flooded with water,  by the same word the heavens and the earth that now exist are reserved for fire and are being kept until the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly people." (2 Peter 3:5-7) 
"Let no one lead you astray in any way, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction.  He stands in opposition and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he sits down in the temple of God, publicly showing himself to be a god.  Do you not remember that when I was still with you, I used to tell you these things?" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-5)
Your kind is being revealed.... you're not a sister.... you're not of our sort. ( 1 John 2:19)  
 

 
 

Watch out, Jesus. Brother Rando has elbowed you off your judgment seat and consigned JW Insider to the fire.

What preaching campaign did he or the other man go on to found?
Look, I understand that the above question could be seen as blowing off research and reveling in ignorance. But as @Arauna has helped us to see, 'scientific research' in this system of things is no more than the children's game 'King of the Mountain' to prove "who's da man?" - not unlike those big, stupid, (blush) male animals ramming each other with their horns. The victors shove everyone else off the field. It happens everywhere in science. The fault does not lie in science, but in those who put slavish faith in it. Today's science is trumped by human politics - call it 'male ego' if you must - every time, so that it must be taken with a grain of salt.
How is anybody like me ever going to know this? They are not. They are safeguarded only when they assume that 'science,' like everything else in this system of things, is contaminated, and must not be relied upon as an absolute.
So it goes back to 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 dissing those who rely on their education and 'facts.' Other verses expand upon it. Jesus says "whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life." What a stupid thing to say IF his main concern is to persuade devotees of 'facts!'  But if his prime concern is, not heads, but hearts, then it is flawless.
So you put your efforts into the preaching work and trust in God, who does not appear overly concerned that his people are RIGHT in the eyes of contemporary scholarship. Sometimes that stuff changes, even though it be a tsunami. it reverses course and goes right back into the hole from which it came.

I like the bunker video in which the elder reflects at home how he groused at counsel from another elder. His wife says: "please tell me that you didn't argue with him."   (perhaps not a direct quote due to memory, but very close)
It's a little like when we decided to home-school our children and decided the question "you think you can do better than the professional educators?" was not the correct one to ask. "How can we do worse?" fit better. (city schools then, as now, were absolutely dismal in performance, despite non-stop declarations of 'reform' - each one of which is taken as a fait accompli) So it is with women. The question is not: "How can they do better than the men?" It is "how can they do worse?"
I also like (this time it is an exact quote) this statement from the August broadcast: "Right down to our day, rarely have women been afforded the dignity that God wants them to receive. However, Jehovah makes clear in his word the Bible that women and men have equal standing before him. In fact, he indicated that women would play a vital role in the outworking of his purpose."