Foreigner

Since when are JWs reviled in the name of Christ?  Please tell.  

First, even an unscholarly website, committed to biblical learning, runs a gambit of truthful research, NOT critical personal opinions. What do personal opinions advance, in academia?
What is your opinion based on and Why? Manipulating, distorting, and misrepresenting the Watchtower literature for one's personal gain, is a meaningless endeavor. The same opinions, RECYCLED by millions of ex-witnesses and HATERS of the truth? Jesus went through that, and it got him killed. By who, the same people that were waiting for the Messiah, with an earthly Kingdom, instead of accepting the Son of God with a heavenly Kingdom. What’s the difference between the two, exploits, against the truth?
The rest is up to interpretation. Once again, what is the criticism of the Watchtower, that is REFLECTIVE, and based on scripture?
The contribution then falls in the interpretation of scripture, yet the HATRED of the Watchtower, just like Jesus, takes center stage, just as in the past. So, who are the Critics of the Watchtower, if not, the same kind of people that were critical of Christ. Aside from that, everything just goes around in circles, and everyone that personally criticizes, just to criticize, is no better than the people that got Jesus killed. GREAT JOB!!!
YouÂ’re really having a positive influence on HATRED!! But then again, so did Hitler LOL!!!!
Exodus 23:1       
"You shall not bear a false report; do not join your hand with a wicked man to be a malicious witness.
Leviticus 19:16  
'You shall not go about as a slanderer among your people, and you are not to act against the life of your neighbor; I am the LORD.
2 Timothy 3:3
Unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good,
1 Peter 4:14
If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you.
1 Peter 3:16
And keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame.
Matthew 5:11
"Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.
 
Now ask yourself? what does your Christianity or NON-Christian conduct and interpretation, have to offer, if you are committed as the Pharisees were?
 

First, even an unscholarly website, committed to biblical learning, runs a gambit of truthful research, NOT critical personal opinions. What do personal opinions advance, in academia?
What is your opinion based on and Why? Manipulating, distorting, and misrepresenting the Watchtower literature for one's personal gain, is a meaningless endeavor. The same opinions, RECYCLED by millions of ex-witnesses and HATERS of the truth? Jesus went through that, and it got him killed. By who, the same people that were waiting for the Messiah, with an earthly Kingdom, instead of accepting the Son of God with a heavenly Kingdom. What’s the difference between the two, exploits, against the truth?
The rest is up to interpretation. Once again, what is the criticism of the Watchtower, that is REFLECTIVE, and based on scripture?
The contribution then falls in the interpretation of scripture, yet the HATRED of the Watchtower, just like Jesus, takes center stage, just as in the past. So, who are the Critics of the Watchtower, if not, the same kind of people that were critical of Christ. Aside from that, everything just goes around in circles, and everyone that personally criticizes, just to criticize, is no better than the people that got Jesus killed. GREAT JOB!!!
YouÂ’re really having a positive influence on HATRED!! But then again, so did Hitler LOL!!!!
Exodus 23:1       
"You shall not bear a false report; do not join your hand with a wicked man to be a malicious witness.
Leviticus 19:16  
'You shall not go about as a slanderer among your people, and you are not to act against the life of your neighbor; I am the LORD.
2 Timothy 3:3
Unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good,
1 Peter 4:14
If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you.
1 Peter 3:16
And keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame.
Matthew 5:11
"Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.
 
Now ask yourself? what does your Christianity or NON-Christian conduct and interpretation, have to offer, if you are committed as the Pharisees were?
 

If you mean, stick to bible principle and the teachings of Christ? Then you are correct. Other than that, its people like you that dumbfound the prospect. Did anyone see Jesus on an Arabian horse or a donkey? You’re nothing more than an enabler of false narratives and propaganda. What kind of Academia is that? And whats your excuse?

What does misrepresenting scripture have to do with ACADEMIA?

Academia is an aggregate for learning and teaching. Critics of the Watchtower have NO value in teaching other than to distort what the Watchtower teaching is by whining like 6-year-old, little girls.

For once, be honest with its definition other than to impose hypothetical, speculative, conjectural, impractical, and unrealistic views to the lies (John 8:44,) perpetrated by unscrupulous people.

Adjective

1. Of or relating to a college, academy, school, or other educational institution, especially one for higher education: academic requirements.

2. Pertaining to areas of study that are not primarily vocational or applied, as the humanities or pure mathematics.

3. Theoretical or hypothetical; not practical, realistic, or directly useful: an academic question; an academic discussion of a matter already decided.

4. Learned or scholarly but lacking in worldliness, common sense, or practicality.

5. Conforming to set rules, standards, or traditions; conventional: academic painting.

6. Acquired by formal education, especially at a college or university: academic preparation for the ministry.

7. (initial capital letter) of or relating to Academe or to the Platonic school of philosophy.

Noun

8. A student or teacher at a college or university.

9. A person who is academic in background, attitudes, methods, etc.: He was by temperament an academic, concerned with books and the arts.

10. (Initial capital letter) a person who supports or advocates the Platonic school of philosophy.

11. Academics, the scholarly activities of a school or university, as classroom studies or research projects: more emphasis on academics and less on athletics.

 

So, NO! There is NOTHING academic about this portion of the forum. It’s fool’s gold to think otherwise. That’s just an excuse to toe the party line, nothing more.

Excellent, Good for you.

What a lot of twaddle this has been. The bible students were totally wrong about a lot of things, we all know that. Is any of this important ? Surely what is important is the state of the Organisation NOW. And it's in a very bad way that's for sure. As for JTR Jr, keep asking 'Is there anything better'? That's a bit like saying "I'm drinking poison but it's less poisonous than other poisons". Poison is still poison no matter how you compare it. I left the Org' because of the Earthwide pedophile problems and more so because the Governing Body refuse to hand over the documents to the Supreme court of California. They tried it on here in the UK too, but it didn't work. Why oh why would the Governing Body want to protect pedophiles within the Org' ? Why would the Governing Body introduce a rule about the two witnesses needed in such cases as Child Abuse. It's very obvious that God Himself didn't mean it to be used in that way. We have to remember that the Governing Body call themselves the Governing Body. The Governing Body also call themselves the 'Faithful and discreet slave'. The scripture says 'Who really is the faithful and discreet slave .... ' it does not say the 'bosses of the JW Org' are the faithful and discreet slave.  They have given themselves those titles. Self praise is no recommendation. They have even said that other anointed brothers and sisters are not of the 'faithful slave class'. They have the right to judge do they ? And to make it worse they have said via the Watchtower that some claiming to be anointed, may be mentally ill. Um, dictatorship comes to mind. Because here we have a group of eight men (there is a new one it seems) of mainly American background, that say they cannot be questioned as they are the only ones receiving God's Holy Spirit and therefore are the only ones capable of distributing the 'truth' / food at the proper time.  So, you lot can go on disputing Masons and other unimportant things, but i will look for answers about the problems in the Org' now, as i think what is happening now is far more important. 

I'll start with the conclusion of your post. I looked over the two books. Both books can easily be found in their entirety although possibly copyright-infringed, so I won't share the links. I have access to one of the complete books through a college library account. And both books are previewed in Google Books.
So, after looking them over, I don't make assumptions with your writing, that it is somehow in agreement with what I am saying. However, these books that look scholarly and have the word "influence" in the title are very much in agreement with what I am saying. And they are very much in disagreement with how you are evidently trying to twist the meaning of the word "influence." This shouldn't have surprised anyone. You've tried this dozens of time with me, and rarely have you ever responded to an argument with a book cover where the conent of the book actually supported your theories. (Even when you sometimes have pulled long quotes from the books, those quotes have often hurt your argument.) So I can see why you might be concerned with the exposure of "trickery." But the books don't matter. It turns out that just because they both had the word "influence" in the title, that neither book has much relationship to this context .
The dictionary definitions you supplied, on the other hand, are exactly in line with the correct usage of the word "influence." And yes, unfortunately, it completely demolishes your theory, because none of the definitions would allow you to avoid the obvious -- that Russell was "influenced" by Second Adventists. 
But you did go to a lot of trouble to respond, and I appreciate that, even though your claim suggests one thing and the only evidence you have provided indicates that your claim is wrong. This suggests that you might have had some other prejudicial reason to avoid the word "influence" with respect to Russell. I think that this might be the best place to start, then, in order to understand what you are trying to say. In other words, the new question, is as follows:
Why would anyone provide evidence that Russell was influenced by Second Adventists while at the same time claiming he was not influenced by Second Adventists? This is just a guess, but my theory is that you won't realize the cognitive dissonance due to the strength of your overriding belief that Russell was somehow too good to be influenced by ideas and people who turned out to be wrong. You evidently hold to an ideology that Russell was above influence by anything or anyone that could be wrong or false. And you do give several evidences from your own words that this is your belief. Just as no one would ever say that Jesus was "influenced" by any man or group of men, you also can't abide an ideology that Russell could have been influenced by Second Adventists.
Since this appeared to be the same reasoning behind previous attempts that you have made, you can probably see why I went to the trouble of discussing the dangers of creature worship, personality cults, false claims, and historical revisionism that invariably results from elevating the status of a man as if he were some kind of "prophetic figure." Note the implication of the references here on jw.org: [emphasis mine]  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102014241
Who, though, was the other “messenger,” the first one mentioned at Malachi 3:1? This prophetic figure would be on the scene well before the Messianic King’s presence. In the decades before 1914, did anyone “clear up a way” before the Messianic King? . . . . Those taking the lead among them—Charles T. Russell and his close associates—did, indeed, act as the foretold “messenger” . . . . Can you name one of the other persons "in the decades before 1914" (i.e. prior to 1895) who would have to be included in that "prophetic figure"? Anyone?

LOL! What is a "Nebuchadnezzar IV member of the Watchtower"?
It's a good point that a lot of JWs and non-JWs alike just sort of assume that Russell was under the complete influence of Second Adventists, or they even assume that all of Russell's close associates were Second Adventists. I think several of the major influences on Russell came throught the writings of Joseph A Seiss, who was not a Second Adventist, nor were several of the other people who clearly influenced Russell. Russell himself had never been a Second Adventist either. He understood that there was a lot of shame among Second Adventists (especially because of the "great disappointment" of 1843 and 1844). Russell spoke about that shame. He did not want to be associated with it and sometimes spoke of his disdain of their chronology. Yet, in spite of his progress in some doctrinal areas that progressed beyond the doctrines of Second Adventists, he never totally gave up on their chronology.
Whenever there is a tendency to elevate a man for the purpose of elevating a religion or a body of men who claim to be his "legacy," there will likely be:
"creature worship," a personality cult, cover-ups, false claims by the contemporary followers, false claims and presumptuous behavior by the leader himself, and dishonest historical revisionism by later followers. To avoid this dangerous and unscriptural tendency, an honest assessment of the man himself should be promoted. To the extent that a man is elevated above what faithfulness and discretion would call for, it's a good thing when people tell the unvarnished truth about the man himself. This is no doubt why we know the unvarnished truth about the guilt of King David: a murderer, adulterer, and a man whose actions resulted in the unnecessary deaths of thousands of his own people. If someone knows that Russell was dishonest at times, or manipulative, or haughty, or egotistical or unfaithful, then this would normally not be important, since love covers a multitude of sins. But if he is being promoted as the primary fulfillment of a Bible prophecy such as the "angel to Laodicea" or "the messenger" of Malachi 3:1, then it becomes proper to consider the Bible's priority here:
(Romans 2:29-3:4) . . .That person’s praise comes from God, not from people. . . . 3 What, then, is the case? If some lacked faith, will their lack of faith invalidate the faithfulness of God? 4 Certainly not! But let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar. . . Rather than a smearing campaign, I would recommend a historical honesty campaign.
It's false, in my opinion, to take it that far. Russell was highly influenced by Adventism, just as he was also highly influenced by persons who were not Adventists. But there were more Adventists among his formative associates than non-Adventists. His own views adjusted somewhat over time, too, which creates a complexity here. Also, Russell wasn't completely honest about his own avoidance of Adventism. It was apparently wishful thinking on Russell's part that he would differentiate himself far enough from the shame of Second Adventism. It's also my opinion that even careful historians like, B. W. Schulz, have gone too far in positioning Russell's doctrinal eclecticism as far away from Adventism as possible. I think it's partly in order to hold a more unique contrary position that Schulz emphasizes the differences instead of the similarities.
Pre-1876, and post-1909, one could argue with some good evidence that Russell held more non-Adventist positions than Adventist ones. But he continued to give great importance to the teachings that were most influenced by Adventists, until his death. Also, from 1877 to nearly 1909 he was constantly working through (and sometimes out of) these Adventist influences.

I’m glad there are people like you that are advocates for breaking the law. Remind me of your Christian status? What does that have to do with the fact that this artist did ask for permission from Michael Jackson, and JTR misrepresented that fact, that you are poorly attempting to defend for him, now? Is this an author thing? Defend each other’s mistakes?

Hmm!!!

Would this thought include, taking someone else’s work, completely out of context and displaying copyrighted material, for the purpose of distorting facts? Isn’t that a REWRITE?

JTR. You fall short on your facts.

The first time I met him in person was long after I had gotten permission to do "Eat It" back in 1984.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/michael-jackson-remembered-weird-al-yankovic-on-imitation-as-flattery-20090709

http://mentalfloss.com/article/75056/9-musicians-who-refused-let-weird-al-yankovic-parody-their-songs

But I can understand why you would want to defend enablers and abusers of copyright.

I figured, with your moniker, it implies you are a Witness. What’s this frivolous point about monikers, since under your own understanding, it means something else?
We have erred in both instances under your understanding. I, however, don’t make it a habit of advocating someone abuse copyright material, which under Christian life is against bible law, Exodus 20:15 and Caesar’s law. Perhaps, you see a “little white lie” acceptable, but it shouldn't be, to a Christian. What part of “misrepresentation of facts” is tripping you that you find it hard to accept, JTR simply made an error?
That in itself makes no sense, especially if you are referring to this site as, academic. What are you TEACHING then?

Hopefully, opposers are paying attention to your “wisdom” of 2-3 lines of copyrighted material to debate and criticize. Unfortunately, this also put owners, with none compliance, for allowing it, happen in their forums. Remember, copyright is part of intellectual property.

Take it from people like Charlie Chaplin that successfully defended his intellectual property from people like Charles Amador a.k.a. (Charlie Aplin), and Ben Blue (Benjamin Bernstein) Also, Windows with Lindows, to name a few.

Then you and I agree completely. I don't think anyone should make a habit of advocating that someone abuse copyright material. And I agree that many people abuse "fair use" guidelines, or don't understand them. It's fairly easy to comply, although it requires a bit more work than a lot of people want to put into their posts. It's easy to get lazy or in a hurry, and I've done this too. I've seen whole articles posted many times. A good rule of thumb is to keep quotes under 3 lines at a time from any article, and keep excerpts down to less than a paragraph or two from longer works. If anyone thinks I have advocated for abuse of the law, they are mistaken either about what I said, or about the law.
You are misrepresenting me again. I agree that JTR made an error. I almost pointed it out before you did, but had to go somewhere and didn't see any notifications from the forum pop up for a couple hours. 
The rules should be kept MORE strictly if this were an academic site. This is NOT an academic site. But there are parts of the site that tend toward being academic in the sense that they are about religious doctrine and they discuss and quote from the academic or scholarly research of others. They are often discussions and critique of doctrine. Doctrine means teaching. Discussions about teachings and critique of teachings is essentially going to categorized as "academic." When you quote from sources to open up a discussion or refute another persons opinion about copyright law, you are teaching something about copyright law. The person presenting material need not be correct in all aspects, but that's the nature of a forum. It's a mix of teaching and questioning and learning and discussion and controversy and disagreement and social banter and parody and jokes and entertainment. But we should still be able to LEARN from anyone who offers a point of view.

Under the law, ignorance is no excuse or substitute to make a defense. First, you would start, by not justifying the abuse, and then, ask yourself, which laws you think can be broken to satisfy defamation.

God starts with your heart, where, does those calling themselves witnesses, START!!

Then anyone can use you published work without your permission, just because you think “fair use” is “fair game”. That's amusing coming from you.

Religious organizations do a limited Q&A to confirm or refute some underline claim, by others. The Bible Students used their publications for rebuttal. However, there are circumstances that even the Watchtower has to be given permission to use information that is copyrighted. They also GRANT permission too many that have an interest in the Watchtower publications, History and Chronology.

None of which is Granted automatically, as its being abused here. I used your position as an Author to make a point, not directly to you, BUT EVERYONE HERE. This includes Witnesses, opposers, and the OWNER, that contributed this hilarious controversial portion of this website for people to malign the Watchtower.

Just, like you wouldn’t want your works stolen, what makes anyone think the Watchtower does?

 
Ephesians 4:28 World English Bible (WEB)

 
28 Let him who stole steal no more; but rather let him labor, producing with his hands something that is good, that he may have something to give to him who has need.

World English Bible (WEB)

 
By Public Domain. The name "World English Bible" is trademarked.

Exactly. You, as an AUTHOR, should have been aware of copyright, even before JWI obscured, the fair use, view. So, what makes your works better, that it needs YOUR PERMISSION, from, that of the Watchtowers, that people think they DON’T need permission from the Watchtower to publish ANY of their copyrighted material. If, you’re NOT willing to subject your own published works to the same standard, then, don’t advocate, the infringement of the Watchtower copyrighted material.

Then I suggest you start educating yourself in the laws that govern copyright, and not assume as JWI has about fair use. There are plenty of websites to aid you. This ideology of violating other people’s rights just to make websites of opposition, viable, is no longer an excuse.

However, Does this mean, I can publish YOUR books content online?

Perhaps, to opposers and unscrupulous people that don’t adhere to Caesar’s law much less God’s law, until they find the words “slander” and “defamation” attached to their senseless rhetoric. Even then, a dying atheist wants to believe in a higher being.

It’s hilarious when opposers attempt to sway their argument by introducing an “interlinear” to make a point. First, the Bible Students were criticized for relying on the Emphatic Diaglott Bible with the Westcott and Hort interlinear (Vatican Manuscripts), and now, the Watchtower is being criticized for thinking it hasnÂ’t consulted the TR-MSS. No different with what the J.P. Green SR interlinear offers. What will people think of next?

Textual basis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures

The Greek New Testament Textus Receptus (Stephanus 1550)

Modern Midrash: The Retelling of Traditional Jewish Narratives By Twentieth-century Hebrew Writers SUNY Series in Modern Jewish 1987

Midrash-and-Multiplicity-Pirke-De-Rabbi-Eliezer-and-the-Renewal-of-Rabbinic-Interpretive-Culture-Studia-Judaica-48 2009

Targum and Testament Revisited 2010

The Vatican Manuscript of Spinoza's Ethica (Brill's Studies in Intellectual History) (English and Latin Edition) 2011

 

WhatÂ’s, even funnier the J.P. Green SR, GLT bible, agrees with the NWT in certain text, by using the name of God (Jehovah) NOT (Yahweh) such as in, 2 King 24:1-2

Therefore, an interlinear is as good as its interpretation with the proper context attached to the ancient script. Anything else is meaningless rhetoric.

Masoretic Text 1524

2 Kings 24:1

????? ??? ???????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?

24:2        ????? ???? ?? ?? ????? ????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ????? ???????

In his days, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon went up and Jehoiakim became a servant for three years, and sat down:

24: 2 And Jehovah sent to him the battalions of Gadim, and the divisions of Aram, and the battalions of Moab, and the battalions of the Ammonites, and sent them in Judah to destroy him, as the word of the LORD was spoken by the servants of the prophets.


 
24:2

 

Young's Literal Translation 1862

 

24:1     In his days hath Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon come up, and Jehoiakim is to him a servant three years; and he turneth and rebelleth against him,

24:2     and Jehovah sendeth against him the troops of the Chaldeans, and the troops of Aram, and the troops of Moab, and the troops of the sons of Ammon, and He sendeth them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of Jehovah, that He spake by the hand of His servants the prophets;

 

Reina Valera 1909

 

4:1

EN su tiempo subió Nabucodonosor rey de Babilonia, al cual sirvió Joacim tres años; volvióse luego, y se rebeló contra él.

24:2

Jehová empero envió contra él tropas de Caldeos, y tropas de Siros, y tropas de Moabitas, y tropas de Ammonitas; los cuales envió contra Judá para que la destruyesen, conforme á la palabra de Jehová que había hablado por sus siervos los profetas.

 

GOOGLE TRANSLATE: Substitutes JEHOVA for LORD. This shows the bias in translation.

24: 1 In his time Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon went up, and Jehoiakim served for three years; He turned then, and rebelled against him.

24: 2 But the LORD sent against him troops of the Chaldeans, and troops of Syrians, and troops of the Moabites, and troops of the Ammonites; and he sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the LORD, which he spoke by his servants the prophets.

 

 
ALL these translation derive from the TR-MSS. Only a selective few honor God by using his proper name, (i.e. translated in its CORRECT context) and doesn’t hide his name like many bibles out there. Where does that leave that ideology, when applying an interlinear as bases for an argument? But, this also falls in line, when, POPE John Paul II “ordered” the REMOVAL of the Tetragrammaton and use of God’s personal name from all Catholic Churches services.

http://forum.yadayah.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=1230#post7756

https://vn.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130804071545AAj7aHJ

Reprinting ZENIT's articles requires written permission from the editor. http://www.zenit.org/article-23414?l=english (dead-link) Permission, not granted!!

 
Any other disingenuous argument can be scrutinized by the works, like Norman L. Geisler.

Since this forum is hypothetically anything but an academic forum, Copyright rules apply.

 “No portion of this e-book may legally be copied, reproduced or transmitted in any form and by any means, electronic or mechanical.”

A similar clause, the Watchtower has for its printed material.

Copyright

© 2017 Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

This website is published and maintained by Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (“Watchtower”). Unless otherwise indicated, all text and other information on this website are the intellectual property of Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (“Watch Tower”).

“But please do not reproduce its contents on another website or application.”

You may not:

·         Post artwork, electronic publications, trademarks, music, photos, videos, or articles from this website on the Internet (any website, file-sharing site, video-sharing site, or social network).

·         Distribute artwork, electronic publications, trademarks, music, photos, text, or videos from this website with or as part of any software application (including uploading such materials to a server for use by a software application).

·         Reproduce, duplicate, copy, distribute, or otherwise exploit any artwork, electronic publications, trademarks, music, photos, text, or videos on this website for a commercial purpose or for money (even if no profit is involved).

 

Therefore, I recommend everyone keep their views of opposition to works that donÂ’t VIOLATE copyright law.

2018 has become a different beast. There are forces out there, which will get, people to start complying with the LAWS of the LAND. No exceptions, LBR, TTH, JTR. This, however, doesn’t apply to “public domain” works. I’m sure you would agree on TTH, you wouldn’t want your published work on an open forum to be butchered by opposers to make irrelevant claims when they don’t have a cognitive understanding of scripture, to begin with. So, why turn a blind eye to the Watchtower publications. I hope people will finally understand the irony why the Watchtower doesn’t attach a name to any of its publications in order to preserve their works from becoming public domain.

In general, works published after 1977 will not fall into the public domain until 70 years after the death of the author, or, for corporate works, anonymous works, or works for hire, 95 years from the date of publication or 120 years from the date of creation, whichever expires first.

An organization is an organized group of people with a particular purpose, such as a business or government department. A corporation is a large company or group of companies authorized to act as a single entity and recognized as such in law. An organization can be a part of a corporation.

https://iclg.com/practice-areas/copyright-laws-and-regulations/usa

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

https://abovethelaw.com/2017/12/its-a-wrap-what-to-expect-from-the-copyright-wars-in-2018/

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/01/copyright-week-2018-join-us-fighting-better-copyright-law-and-policy

 
So, this infamous ideology that JWI keeps suggesting, what is “fair use” will be a thing of the past. So, gear up folks, Web sites are included in this battle. Yes, that also applies to archives of published works without the expressed permission or consent of the owner.

YOU WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY DISRESPECT FOR ALANF. WHO ARE YOU TO DEMAND THAT ANYONE RESPECTS WHITE TRASH, ESPECIALLY AFTER COMMENTING, BROWN TRASH?

YOU AND ANN AS THE OWNERS OF THIS SITE, HAVE NO RIGHT TO DEMAND ANYTHING FROM ANYONE. IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT TUFF.

A PERSON THAT DENIGRATE OTHERS FOR THEIR WRITING SKILLS IS THE STUPIDEST PERSON ALIVE. THE EXAMPLE I OFFERED OF HIS OWN FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE *JEFFRO* ILLUSTRATED HOW MORONIC HIS CHILDISH ATTEMPTS ARE TO IMPOSE HIS WRITING SKILLS ON ANYONE. SINCE INTELLIGENT PEOPLE, ALSO MAKE MISTAKES, YOU'RE NO BETTER THAN ANYONE.

O’MALY, ANNA, ALANF, WHICHEVER NAME THIS PERSON IS AND IS ASSOCIATED WITH YOU, HAVE GONE BEYOND HAVING TO TOLERATE THIS JERK, ACTIONS.

SO, DON’T EVER CLAIM YOUR BETTER THAN ME, JUST BECAUSE YOUR WHITE. I’M NOT A WITNESS YET, AND THE WAY IT LOOKS WITH THE FILTH HERE, I’M NOT FOR SURE I WANT TO BE ONE.

To be fair. It’s true, English is not my first language. Unfortunately, Grammarly doesn’t know how to correct, English the way racist white people think English should be used or understood by the rest of the World. Especially by those that say they are Jehovah’s Witnesses and have the same attitude toward others.
There’s no correction in Grammarly to fit your individual, and personal writing style, ALANF, There is no BOT button to copy your writing style verbatim, sorry!! But in my native language, there is a word for people like you. It starts with a “P” middle “nd” and ends with “jo”. It brings it, more to the point.
I feel sorry for the owner to have allowed this forum stoop so low? Instead of intellectual conversations, it has [be]come a cesspool, with vices of ignorance, by, one sad little person, shame!!!  
Especially when racism by language barriers is being introduced without the consideration of the own[er].

YOU WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY DISRESPECT FOR ALANF. WHO ARE YOU TO DEMAND THAT ANYONE RESPECTS WHITE TRASH, ESPECIALLY AFTER COMMENTING, BROWN TRASH?

YOU AND ANN AS THE OWNERS OF THIS SITE, HAVE NO RIGHT TO DEMAND ANYTHING FROM ANYONE. IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT TUFF.

A PERSON THAT DENIGRATE OTHERS FOR THEIR WRITING SKILLS IS THE STUPIDEST PERSON ALIVE. THE EXAMPLE I OFFERED OF HIS OWN FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE *JEFFRO* ILLUSTRATED HOW MORONIC HIS CHILDISH ATTEMPTS ARE TO IMPOSE HIS WRITING SKILLS ON ANYONE. SINCE INTELLIGENT PEOPLE, ALSO MAKE MISTAKES, YOU'RE NO BETTER THAN ANYONE.

O’MALY, ANNA, ALANF, WHICHEVER NAME THIS PERSON IS AND IS ASSOCIATED WITH YOU, HAVE GONE BEYOND HAVING TO TOLERATE THIS JERK, ACTIONS.

SO, DON’T EVER CLAIM YOUR BETTER THAN ME, JUST BECAUSE YOUR WHITE. I’M NOT A WITNESS YET, AND THE WAY IT LOOKS WITH THE FILTH HERE, I’M NOT FOR SURE I WANT TO BE ONE.

Wrong! for white trash, it spells PENDEJO!

Yes. There have already been quotes and links in this topic to discussions of these 200 or so Babylonian tablets "since 2015" that shed more light on the Jewish exiles in Babylon. The primary exhibit is still at the BLMJ ( blmj.org ). It's in Jerusalem with only a few artifacts that overlap with the British Museum.
But you are "flailing wildly" with these false accusations again. How many times have you done this now? Every time you have brought up COJ it's to make some wild claim about what he failed to do in his book. Every time you have been shown to have made a false claim. Worse than that, every time, you have never acknowledged that you made a false claim. And even worse than that, you usually go out of your way to use words that make it seem like it was others were wrong and you were right all along.
I can understand a person who misunderstands what they read, or makes a claim they are pretty sure about based on something they read or heard from a trusted source. But "chronology" has always seemed to be to be one of the worst topics to attract people who just hope to bluster and pretend and distract. I hate to say it but I think it's because the pretender is pretty sure that his or her words will be liked and defended if they at least appear to support the Watchtower's view. Beyond that it seems like the blusterers just hope that others haven't studied the issues very well yet.
Those three different exile years mentioned with reference to these tablets are the same ones I have mentioned, and so has Ann and AlanF. And of course we all know that COJ has discussed and accounted for them. (I sometimes mention a fourth round-up of exiles in Nebuchadnezzar's 24th year.) But what's even more interesting, is that the Watchtower rejects the earliest one of these exiles in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar. So it's as if it's the WTS that you are really considering to be your biggest skeptic.
I really can't understand why you (and others) have continued to make this same type of mistake with respect to COJ. It must be some kind of reflex. Let's just hope it's NOT supposed to be explained in the way you have projected onto others:
Anyway, I enjoy the banter, but the bickering gets old in a hurry. In a discussion as important as this one (according to the Watchtower), however, this type of error needs to be pointed out in fairness to any who are really interested in truth, and not opposed to it.