Srecko Sostar

That is because universally you see quite clearly things that do not exist.
The things which DO actually exist your stated agenda prohibits you from seeing.
Your incomprehension is self-inflicted.

… at least Joe Biden has a good excuse for forgetting what he’s talking about … he’s in his 80’s and demonstrably senile ….

… when you reply “Exactly.” that means you agreed, Georgie.
Woops! …. let’s make sure I quoted you in context …..

You’re reading comprehension is woefully deficient. 
What part of “I don’t care” did you not understand?
Even a rational, provable correct answer has absolutely NO PRACTICAL VALUE .
(…. sheesh! …. what do you do with someone who AGREES with your question, but does not answer it …?)

If you translate from the original Babylonian language it can mean one of two things:
1) “Overlapping generations? Yeah!”, or
2) “ Who gives a crap? Yeah!”.

IF YOU HAD THE CORRECT ANSWER AND COULD PROVE IT, OF WHAT PRACTICAL VALUE WOULD IT BE NOW?

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!

I'm certain that the use of "A.I." "enhanced" writing tools will quickly produce a comedy of errors -- but still mixed in with a lot of true statements here and there. And that it is hardly worth the time and effort to try correcting all the errors and diversions those tools can create.

So far, that I'm considered ill-mannered and impatient, and that moon's do eclipse on a regular basis, even in the past and even in Mesopotamia.

Judaism was the true religion during Jesus' times. But most Jews did not accept Jesus as the prophesied messiah; hence, the whole nation was rejected by God and replaced with Christianity. This 'new' religion is still based on Judaism sans observance to the Mosaic law. The additional belief is faith in Jesus' ransom sacrifice. Ergo, no resignation letter needed.... 😁

So …. to sum it up in one very short conclusion …. what can be said with certainty about all this that is true?
What’s the bottom line?
 
 
 
 
 

Did I ever mention that I have a Polaroid picture of Fred Flintstone?  I know it’s authentic, it’s dated and signed!

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.

I see the face of a housecat carrying a black-tailed Chihuahua-Terrier puppy in her mouth. Or perhaps it's a Great-Horned Owl that just swooped into someone's backyard to grab the puppy, probably because it was so cute, and wanted to make friends.
But I have to say that, from the original full-size picture, it's easier for me to see a four-eyed KKK member in a worn-out sheet, than to see an image of Christ there.

Wiener Schnitzel and Beef Franks sounds like “overlapping” Tube Steaks to me!

Maybe Nathan Knorr had just a slice of that pie.
Or maybe he started out with just Knorr's Wiener Schnitzel Company and then shortened it to Nathan's Hot Dogs.
Maybe they should have tried my marketing idea:
  Pizza and Hot Dogs -- For Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner 
  It's Always Food At The Proper Time!  

Maybe Knorr had shares in that company? lol

So that you can select from this small group of faiths the one comprised of true followers of Christ. If a religious group is not hated, it is disqualified from consideration, since the Bible repeatedly says that true Christians will be hated. For example: 
If you were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is its own. Now because you are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, for this reason the world hates you. (John 15:19)

It should be noted that in this article, "Reader's Questions", there are only 6 quotations from the NT, and for which, the authors of the article, defending their positions on the issue of blood, look for support in 28 quotations from the OT.
This is not an insignificant matter, because it indicates the existence of a parallel religion that is "true", which is the Jewish religion. JWs reject every religion that exists today, or has existed for these 2 thousand years, as wrong, false.
I already pointed out in a comment on another topic, that Jesus never publicly renounced his Jewish religion. He was born as a Jew and he died as a Jew. He was baptized in the Jordan, that's right, but he didn't leave his religious background. He did not go to the synagogue and announced that he was leaving the Jewish faith. He did not write a letter asking the priests to delete him from the genealogy and list of religious members. He did not tell others or ask them that they should renounce the Jewish faith in order to be baptized in water or in the spirit.
The exact opposite of this is the practice of WTJWorg, which requires proof that a candidate for baptism has manifested himself by his public rejection of his former religion.
Infiltration of Judaism? No, we can't judge it like that. Without Judaism there is no "true religion", because it is the "true religion" for all those who believe in Abraham and Jesus.
The problem arises later, in corruption. And every religion, even the "true" one, is subject to corruption and eventually becomes corrupt, whether we like it or not.

quote, obviously fom WTJWorg publication:
The WT is considered to be like the eyeglass that helps one understand the true teachings from God’s word. It is however, recognized as fallible. The scriptures, as far as they are translated properly, reflect the perfect word of God and the Bible is well known to be our primary textbook. It is infallible and takes full precedent in any understanding, teaching or practice. Therefore, with the Bible at the helm, your above contrived scenario is not an issue.
JWs are on a spiritual merry-go-round, or "death train", I think that's what the Amusement Park type of ride is called.
They are caught in the trap of a religious hierarchy where, in theory, according to Geoffrey Jackson, they have the right to recognize false teaching, but in reality they must not question it because they will be excommunicated as apostates.
A complete breakdown of the system in which the mental health of believers is put at risk. But that is why the established system of manipulation is very well guarded.
 
 
 

For $35,000 you can have my slice of burnt pizza with Nathan H. Knoor!

At first I thought it might be Alvin. Alvin the Chipmunk:
 

Father Guido Sarducci on SNL had a skit called "Find the Pope in the Pizza." 
A woman sold her actual slice of pizza with an apparent image scorched onto the back for $28,000 on eBay. There have been similar occurrences with Jesus' face on a slice of toast, for example. https://birdinflight.com/en/world/20160525-litso-boga.html

Well I had my own very similar experience today, when I sliced a pear in half.

Just to clarify, when you say:
"Yes. As Jehovah’s Witnesses we have a duty to hold on to what has been given. In this way we come to know what those taking the lead cannot possibly say, and if an overseer including a Governing Body member were to say “x” that would be contrary to the Good News and Faith, it should not be accepted, just as Paul teaches in Galatians 1:8."
Is your comment narrowing the subject to individuals ("an overseer" "a Governing Body member") or does it embrace the plurality of "we" used by Paul at Galatians 1:8 to mean anyone and everyone who is teaching contrary to, as you say, "what has been given"?
The real issue to me is about the limit of obedience.
Paul was pretty straightforward. In essence he said Christian obedience to those taking the lead ended where those taking the lead departed from what had been taught and accepted. Paul admitted that obedience had a rightful limit, and he laid down a litmus test for it.

What motivates JWs to sue Norway? Well, money, right?
Do you justify that a "humanitarian organization" deals with investing?
*the bolding is mine
It is a matter of theology and the choice of a church how it will deal with such questions. Whether a certain worldview or theological interpretation is accepted by believers and those who are not, or whether the doctrine needs to be critically reexamined, is a matter of our perception and position on an issue. WTJWorg also has unacceptable theology on some subjects, so by the same standard should JWs be restricted because of that, or?
The Norwegian government is doing just that. It is unacceptable to them that former members are being ignored in the organized way that WTJWorg is doing. The Catholic Church has no such practice. That is why they are not in court.
JWs have similar/same practices as Mormons when it comes to homosexuals. JWs allow someone in the congregation to be homosexual, but they are not allowed to practice their sexual needs.
I don't remember anywhere claiming that GB members take donation money and put it into their private accounts. If you have proof that I claimed that, please show it.