Pudgy

It may or may not be true but it presents like Grorgie’s opinions are generated by 💀Google’s AI left wing, anti-white, woke, liberal text generator.

You know, Georgie, your plethora of “rhetorical“  questions give the impression you don’t know that people are not ants … You ask ten people the same questions, and your questions, often based on your agenda or false information and/or assumptions, will generate 10 honest answers …all different.
For a change, stop asking your thousands of loaded  questions and start making flat statements of what YOU think is correct. 
You might as well, because in the thousands you have asked… I have not yet noticed a single response.
It’s like singing to pigs … you just ruin your voice, AND IRRITATE THE PIGS.
That’s why you get bounced from this forum so often, no matter what new name pops up out of the whack-a-mole hole.
No one answers your endless, never ending questions, transparently due to your desire to be known as the Vicar of Warwick, recognizing your attempts at self aggrandizement by attempting to denigrate others.
I will give you a much needed hint:
It’s not working. It has never worked. It will only fool some of the people, some of the time.…
.…. mostly your self-created upvoting and downvoting and fawning self created clones.
 
 

It has so far been 34 pages of posts about this topic. I hope everyone is as refreshed as I wish I was…..

That is something jw's refuse to do.

The Brothers and Sisters may have left the wedding early because of a disfellowshipped person being present, but if I had any significant money I would bet it all that if the Bride’s insanely rich mafia uncle had showed up with huge presents and a thick envelope and cases of fine wine and an orchestra, they would have partied ‘till dawn.

Yeah, but he wasn't disfellowshipped, right? There is a difference. We are directed to avoid these ones, but not like the plague. That is an over reach, anyone doing that is touchy with their conscience. No, I would help such a person if needed, speak to such a person. They need help just as any other human, what I will not do is stand and fellowship with them. But I will NOT be cold and unloving towards them because of their situation. That is what Jesus taught.

ANYONE ….
…. can look out their window and see … 360°, that God’s Kingdom by Christ - using the defining criteria in the Bible, does not yet exist.
ANYONE.

…

…

…

…

….

….. and on a related note:

….

No one saw that coming!! LOL.

Yes. I criticized your post. I would not have criticized it if it wasn't completely wrong though. I have agreed and upvoted several of your posts that were correct. But I will never avoid that question. Ever. No matter how many times you pretend that I have. That's why I have always answered it directly multiple times, even though you've been repeating the same question so many times, and repeating the false claim that I avoided it so many times. 
OK. That's good. That probably wasn't a dodge. Except that you have never explained why you sometimes imply that 607 is the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar and sometimes you imply that it is the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar. It can't be both the 8th and the 19th. Sometimes it seems that you are trying to be clever in that you never write 19/18 or 19th/18th but you always write 19/8th, and then highlight that Nebuchadnezzar may have completed the destruction of the temple in what the Babylonian Chronicles call his 8th year, and continually point out that the 19th year of the Babylonian Chronicles is missing. You have strongly implied, if not stated, that you think the Temple was destroyed in his 8th year. [You asked why he wouldn't complete the destruction in that year if even Wiseman says it was a possible year that we could say Jerusalem "fell" - along with 587.]  (You also often imply that perhaps this was the 19th year of ANOTHER Nebuchadnezzar, perhaps another person associated more directly with Nabopolassar's time.) Since you have not yet been clear about this, I assume it's because you don't want to be clear, and I won't push the issue. 
I think that instead of clarifying, you sometimes prefer to laugh derisively at all those who aren't able to figure out exactly what you are hiding. 
And, I think everyone would be happy to see that so-called "careful analysis of the tablet data." 
No you're not. You are falsely pretending that you are still waiting even though I have said multiple times that Jerusalem is not mentioned in any tablet related to Nebuchadnezzar other than the known, existing, non-missing portion of the Babylonian Chronicles. But I'll be happy to say it again with specific reference to VAT 4956: The destruction of Jerusalem is definitely not mentioned in VAT 4956. And yes, I know, you are "still waiting."
 
 

….. and on a related note:

…

The reason why BTK59/George88 couldn't find any evidence to support this is because it doesn't exist. 

To find Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year if you only knew that his 37th year was 568, you would KNOW that his 18th year was 587 BCE. The only reason that Furuli proposed that VAT 4956  was 20 years earlier 588 was so that his 18th year would be 607, also 20 years earler than 587. So it's a circular argument above. And it has nothing to do with "cycles." 
Here is a very similar circular argument I actually heard at a mid-week Book Study several years ago.
Question: "How do we know that 1914 is the year Christ's presence began." Answer: "Because if you count forward 2,520 years from 607 you get 1914." Another hand goes up.
Answer: "Not only that, but if you count backwards 2,520 years from 1914 you get 607." The conductor nodded agreeably and said, that's right, that's another way to prove it. 
 

I'm not above throwing some unwarranted shade either.

I think people who trouble themselves to own or run sites have the same kind of character that people who "start new religions" have. I don't know or care about anyone's history. To me talk about people is what tiny-minded people do. <patting my own back>Whereas the smart ones spend their time on the issues</end patting my own back>
So have you looked at the Korean guy's site yet?

When I see ad hominems I see a weakness. I like that. It lets me know when people have sh*tty arguments.

*** w56 12/15 p. 755 par. 11 Telling the Good News from Day to Day ***
At the start of the great tribulation upon Satan’s organization in 1914 all such people felt merely the “beginning of pangs of distress,” 
*** w51 3/15 p. 164 Time Better than Money ***
When Christ was enthroned, in 1914, great tribulation was started against Satan and his wicked world organization. If it had then proceeded to completion, no flesh would have been saved. But for the sake of human flesh that tribulation was shortened or cut short, to allow a period of time for men to take in and give out knowledge of the established heavenly kingdom,
*** ws13 7/15 pp. 3-4 par. 3 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” ***
In the past, we thought that the great tribulation began in 1914 when World War I started. We thought that Jehovah “cut short” those days in 1918 when the war ended so that the remaining anointed ones on earth could preach the good news to all nations. (Matthew 24:21, 22) After that preaching work would be completed, we expected that Satan’s world would be destroyed. So we thought that there were three parts to the great tribulation. It would begin in 1914, it would be interrupted in 1918, . . .
The "Armageddon" error was fixed many years before the "Great Tribulation" part was fixed.
And for good measure, it should also be added that the 1914 doctrine was NOT to show the start of Christ's reign in Heaven. For about 40 years after the 1914 doctrine was "established," Christ's reign in Heaven had started in 1878. These ideas were repeated into the 1930's, and parts of it into the 1940's. 1878 was still considered a valid prophetic date during the first Tuesday night Book Studies I ever remember attending. We still studied "Let Your Name Be Sanctified" when I was 7 years old. All this was well after 1914. It was just a few years after the famous 1922 Cedar Point convention when the WTS dropped the first hints that the new date for Christ's reign might change to 1914.
 In 1878 God’s favor was withdrawn from the nominal systems. From that time on . . . . Do you believe it? Do you believe that the King of glory is present, and has been since 1874? Do you believe that during that time he has conducted his harvest work? Do you believe that he has had during that time a faithful and wise servant through whom he directed his work and the feeding of the household of faith? Do you believe that the Lord is now in his temple, judging the nations of earth? Do you believe that the King of glory has begun his reign? Then back to the field, . . .  This is the day of all days. Behold, the King reigns! You are his publicity agents. Therefore advertise, advertise, advertise, the King and his kingdom. 

I could give a rip about the character or motivations of anyone involved in questions of fact. I do find really, really annoying and unhelpful all this sort of meaningless chatter. It's like some stupid, stupid squirrels chasing each other around the trunk of a tree, dashing across the street and getting squished because they kept their eyes on the wrong nut.