-
Posts
1 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Reputation Activity
-
Alphonse reacted to Pudgy in New Light on Beards
…
…. It just occurred to me!
The subliminal hidden message with the Norwegian red white and blue “flag tie” is NOT FOR JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES!
… IT’S FOR THE NORWEGIAN COURT SYSTEM OFFICIALS!
-
Alphonse reacted to Pudgy in New Light on Beards
I try to see both sides of the issue, and both sides and perspectives, so occasionally I think about how the Elders who over 60 years persecuted the brotherhood about the never-ending issue of beards … I myself being called into “the little back room” / “the red room” (some walking out embarresed to tears, with red eyes) / “room 101 (where Winston Smith was tortured with a cage of rats attached to his face) at least five times that I remember, from Virginia to California,Texas, North Carolina, sometimes several times ….. and how these God fearing men of good conscience must NOW feel for having been agents of unwarranted and continuous tyranny that has divided the Congregations, and literally soured the Truth in tens of thousands of Brothers (and their women, girlfriends and wives … destroying, and I do mean DESTROYING the credibility of the Governing Body, and any valuable principles of righteousness they may have tried to impart.
Whew! THAT was a very long sentence…
When I was a young man, I would on Fridays after work to a bar with fellow employees and the Client, ( who expected us to pick up the tab on our overhead account) and we all got thoroughly plastered. No matter how drunk I got I never forgot … in fact I focused on … that I was one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and it was a great protection , always. After everyone else went home I sat there hyperventilating to burn off alcohol, then took a cab home.
But, I am rambling …..
In over 55 years, because of MANY COMMON SENSE issues like “beards” I can truly say as I worked all over the United States and three foreign countries, the Elders were never an encouragement to me, except in Pittsburgh PA, and Lima Peru.
It will take another 50 years I am afraid, and soon for me it won’t matter anymore.
But I worry about the young Elders that grew up watching this all , and were either willing or unwilling participants in this and suchlike tyrannies, including “shunning” as it has been practiced since the 1960’s.
I suppose I also worry about the possibility that they are oblivious.
-
Alphonse reacted to JW Insider in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction
Just an aside, but I find it curious that Daniel is praying about the 70 years and he is told that the greater fulfillment is not just 70 years but 70 WEEKS of years. But that 70 weeks is broken up into two pieces. A 49-year piece and a 434-year piece.
(Daniel 9:24, 25) . . .“There are 70 weeks that have been determined for your people and your holy city, in order to terminate the transgression, to finish off sin, to make atonement for error, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up the vision and the prophecy, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. You should know and understand that from the issuing of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Mes·siʹah the Leader, there will be 7 weeks, also 62 weeks. She will be restored and rebuilt, with a public square and moat, but in times of distress.
I don't read too much into it, but there are some commentators who believe that this is a direct reference to the fact that Daniel recognized the Persians were ruling now, and the Temple had now been destroyed for 49 years (587 BCE to 538 BCE). The 62 weeks or 434 years could start counting after the completion of the rebuilding with a public square and a moat.
Notice that the Insight book doesn't have anything more than conjecture about the 7 weeks:
*** dp chap. 11 p. 191 par. 21 The Time of Messiah’s Coming Revealed ***
The work was evidently completed to the extent necessary by about 406 B.C.E.—within the “seven weeks,” or 49 years. (Daniel 9:25) A period of 62 weeks, or 434 years, would follow.
Of course, starting from some time within the reign of Artaxerxes for the 434, (443 BCE?) plus the final 7 year week, this way of splitting the numbers can, at best, only reach about as far as the birth of the Messiah 2BCE/4BCE, not his arrival at baptism.
But then again, that might explain Herod's agitation and the magi looking for signs about that time.
Then again, someone could apply those 49 years to the completion of Herod's Temple:
(John 2:20) . . .“This temple was built in 46 years (from 18 BCE), and will you raise it up in three days?”
But then again, what about those missing 3 years?
This is not a real suggestion below (for those 49-46=3 years), but, just for fun, it just shows that the possibilities are endless when you begin playing with chronology and "the mysterious numbers of the Jewish Temple."
(Revelation 11:1-4) . . .And a reed like a rod was given to me as he said: “Get up and measure the temple sanctuary of God and the altar and those worshipping in it. But as for the courtyard that is outside the temple sanctuary, leave it out and do not measure it, because it has been given to the nations, and they will trample the holy city underfoot for 42 months. I will cause my two witnesses to prophesy for 1,260 days dressed in sackcloth.” These are symbolized by the two olive trees and the two lampstands and are standing before the Lord of the earth.
-
Alphonse reacted to Matthew9969 in Went to a wedding and 70% of all those in attendance left about 40 minutes after the ceremony
That is something jw's refuse to do.
-
Alphonse reacted to Pudgy in Went to a wedding and 70% of all those in attendance left about 40 minutes after the ceremony
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.
-
Alphonse reacted to Pudgy in Went to a wedding and 70% of all those in attendance left about 40 minutes after the ceremony
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.
-
Alphonse reacted to BTK59 in Khazars
It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world.
However, what drives action within a political framework? Power!
What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this.
However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe.
Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com
Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism.
What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't?
Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted.
A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
-
Alphonse reacted to JW Insider in Khazars
@Mic Drop,
I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.
But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..
The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??"
Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.
Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence.
Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
-
Alphonse reacted to JW Insider in Khazars
This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc.
-
Alphonse reacted to Pudgy in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction
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.
-
Alphonse reacted to xero in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction
When I see ad hominems I see a weakness. I like that. It lets me know when people have sh*tty arguments.
-
Alphonse reacted to JW Insider in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction
*** 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.
-
Alphonse reacted to BTK59 in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction
This comment disregards the misguided claims made in the Watchtower articles, which have been influenced by apostate perspectives. It is important to note that these assertions are being made by an individual who claims to be a Jehovah's Witness but has unfortunately lost all credibility. This person should have been disfellowshipped not because they believe in the Watchtower Chronology, but rather due to their misrepresentation of scripture and God's word.
-
Alphonse reacted to JW Insider in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction
You keep implying that the 1914 doctrine is there to prove that the GT, Big A had begun then, and God's Kingdom has already been "established" -- that the doctrine claims all this has already occurred.
Originally, the doctrine was there to prove that 1914 was part of Armageddon and the start of the Great Tribulation. But that part was dropped many years ago.
<bloviation> ** begins
However, I'll give you the part of about God's Kingdom:
*** w22 July p. 3 The Kingdom Is in Place! ***
. . . a prophecy that helps us discern when the Kingdom was established, . . . Read Daniel 4:10-17. The “seven times” represent a period of 2,520 years. That time period began in 607 B.C.E. when the Babylonians removed the last king from Jehovah’s throne in Jerusalem. It ended in 1914 C.E. when Jehovah enthroned Jesus—“the one who has the legal right”—as King of God’s Kingdom.—Ezek. 21:25-27.
Even here, the Watchtower plays with some nuanced semantics between the expression "established" and "fully established." There is even a sense given that the old Russellites were wrong for believing that the kingdom would be "fully established' in 1914, although it's a bit ambiguous as to whether they were right or not:
*** w84 4/15 p. 3 1914—A Focal Point ***
The March 1880 issue of Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence described two events of earthshaking importance that were looked forward to as due to happen in 1914: “‘The Times of the Gentiles’ extend to 1914, and the heavenly kingdom will not have full sway till then.” Hence, many Bible Students expected God’s Kingdom to be fully established in that year.
*** w84 12/1 p. 16 par. 7 Keep Ready! ***
Thus, although he would be ‘present’ and his Kingdom would already have been established, both he and his Kingdom would still have to “come”
Up until about 1975, the Watchtower always made the bold claim that the Kingdom had already been "fully established." It was about then, that the phrase was only used ambiguously, which I remember once caused a minor problem in the translation departments when they were translating a booklet. I think it was called "One World, One Government Under God's Kingdom," or something like that. The publications started saying "established" in 1914 but only "fully established" when the new heavens and new earth were here, and that became the explanation for the "Lord's prayer" question that came up fairly often: "Should we still pray for God's kingdom to come since it came in 1914?"
That issue was sort of resolved in the awkward wording of a new song that came out in 2014:
*** sjj song 22 The Kingdom Is in Place—Let It Come! ***
The Kingdom Is in Place—Let It Come!
BTW, I couldn't find the wording of that particular 1975 booklet in the Watchtower Library, but I found something quite similar which shows the kind of verb tense ambiguity they were going for. It's similar to the 1984 quote above:
*** w70 10/15 p. 629 par. 17 The Kingdom of Salvation Available Today ***
Former kings, emperors, presidents, governors and dictators on being resurrected may not expect to take over automatically and resume ruling over their onetime subjects or fellow citizens. The old system of things under the Satanic “god of this system of things” is no longer in operation. God’s new system of things under his Messianic kingdom of the heavens is fully established over all the earth. Of necessity, it will have organization of all those on earth . . .
Note that it looks like (1970) the Watchtower was still saying it was already "fully established" but it's couched in a discussion of the near future, because the previous sentence says: "The old system of things . . . is no longer in operation."
In previous decades, it was just claimed outright that it was already "fully established" in 1914:
*** w60 1/1 p. 29 par. 9 Part 29—“Your Will Be Done on Earth” ***
. . . In that year [1914] the kingdom of God was to be fully established in the heavens to see that His will should be done on earth.
*** w51 10/1 p. 583 “Happy Are the Eyes That Behold” ***
Our eyes are far more blessed than even theirs, because we can see by the fulfillment of Bible prophecy that Jehovah’s royal government by his Christ is now fully established
</bloviation> ** ends
-
Alphonse reacted to JW Insider in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction
These are taken from Ann O'maly's fact-check against a claim by someone who tried a slightly different method than Furuli's interpretations. This is why a few of the other readings were included below. The 13 referred to in the Watchtower are matched to Furuli's original list, numbered in red. Only the astronomically relevant info is summarized/paraphrased.
1. Line 1: Nisanu 1 = May 2, 588 BCE/ April 22, 568 BCE Moon visible behind Bull of Heaven (Taurus)
2. Line 3: Nisanu 9 = May 10, 588 BCE / April 30, 568 BCE Beginning of the night, Moon 1 cubit in front of β Virginis
x. Line 4: Nisanu 14 = May 16, 588 BCE / May 6, 568 BCE Sunrise to moonset 4°
3. Line 8: Ayyaru 1 = June 1, 588 BCE / May 22, 568 BCE Moon crescent ‘thick,’ visible ‘while the sun stood there’ … … 4 cubits below β Geminorum ... Moonrise to sunrise, 23°, not observed
x. Line 11: Ayyaru 26 = June 27, 588 BCE / June 17, 568 BCE Moonrise to sunrise, 23°, not observed
4. Line 12: Simanu 1 = June 30, 588 BCE / June 20, 568 BCE Moon visible behind Cancer, ‘thick’ crescent …… Sunset to moonset 20°
5. Line 14: Simanu 5 = July 4, 588 BCE / June 24, 568 BCE Beginning of the night, Moon passed east 1 cubit β Virginis
6. Line 15: Simanu 8 = July 7, 588 BCE / June 27, 568 BCE First part of night, Moon 2½ cubits below β Librae
7. Line 16: Simanu 10 = July 9, 588 BCE / June 29, 568 BCE First part of the night, Moon balanced 3½ cubits above α Scorpii
x. Line 17: Simanu 15 = July 15, 588 BCE / July 5, 568 BCE Sunrise to moonset: 7°30', ‘omitted’ lunar eclipse
reverse:
8. Line 5’: Šabatu 1 = February 22, 587 BCE / February 12, 567 BCE Moon visible in the Swallow (southern Pisces) …… Sunset to moonset: 14°30'
9. Line 6’: Šabatu 6 = Feb. 27, [587 BCE / February 17, 567 BCE] First part of the night, Moon surrounded by halo; Pleiades, the Bull of Heaven, and the Chariot [stood in it .... ]
10. Line 7’: Šabatu ? = March 4, 587 BCE / February 22, 567 BCE α Leonis balanced 1 cubit below Moon
x. Line 8’: Šabatu 13 or 14 = March 8 or 9, 587 BCE / February 25 or 26, 567 BCE Sunrise to moonset, 17° (text: 7), not watched
11. Line 12’: Addaru 1 = March 24, 587 BCE / March 14, 567 BCE Moon visible behind Aries ‘while the sun stood there’ … … measured sunset to moonset 25°
12. Line 13’: Addaru 2 = March 25, 587 BCE / March 15, 567 BCE First part of the night,41 Moon balanced 4 cubits below η Tauri (Alcyone)
x. Line 14’: Addaru 7 = March 30, 587 BCE/ March 20, 567 BCE Moon surrounded by halo. Praesepe and α Leonis [stood] in [it ....]
13. Line 16’: Addaru 12 = April 5, 587 BCE / March 26, 567 BCE Sunrise to moonset, 1°30’.
-
Alphonse reacted to JW Insider in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction
True. As long as you believe in 1914, it doesn't matter whether you know how it was calculated.
*** w86 4/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
Obviously, a basis for approved fellowship with Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot rest merely on a belief in God, in the Bible, in Jesus Christ, and so forth. . . .
Approved association with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses. What do such beliefs include? . . . That 1914 marked the end of the Gentile Times and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the heavens, as well as the time for Christ’s foretold presence. (Luke 21:7-24; Revelation 11:15–12:10)
Technically, I have no problem with the approved association requirement, because it says it only includes "those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah's Witnesses." The list included more than just the 1914 doctrine, and one of those other items in the list is already partly obsolete; it included a phrase that is no longer considered Scriptural. I highlighted Revelation 11 because this is the very chapter that associates only 1260, not 2520, with the Gentile Times.
-
Alphonse reacted to JW Insider in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction
I expect that this is true of 99% of all Witnesses. Certainly any that I speak with in the congregation would advocate for 607 BC, but the topic hardly comes up any more, and I'm certainly not going to bring it up. It's barely been mentioned in the publications since 2018, although it's been added to the extra material in the new NWT (simplified).
The Witnesses who no longer believe the Barbour/Russell version of 607 (606) are the ones who discuss the evidence in private email groups and closed forums. Not much danger of anyone changing their mind on a forum like this one.
Yes. I think that's about right. I think a lot of Witnesses believe that it's simply a matter of trusting the old Barbour/Russell 2,520, and they don't even give a thought to the fact that our doctrines have completely divorced it from the 1,260. Yet, several years ago, the very last mention of the 1,260 in the Watchtower was with the very verse in Revelation 11 that ties the 1,260 directly to the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24, and yet the Watchtower doesn't even mention that fact, only that the 1,260 "Gentile Times' number, should be measured in "days" (from December 1914 to early 1919) as opposed to the 2,520 which gets measured in years from 607 BCE to 1914 CE. I think it's a shame that so many of us actually believe it's a "Bible calculation." That's the power of indoctrination and tradition.
-
Alphonse reacted to JW Insider in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction
This is a very odd question. It's such a well-known fact that the Babylonian Chronicles do not mention the year 597 BCE. How could they, unless they were prophetic that a new "Christian" era would begin 590-some years later? They do mention what went on in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, the first year, the second year, etc,. . . on up to the 11th year when they are broken off and missing from that point through the rest of his reign. This is exactly what I quoted to you from Dr Wiseman. Dr. Wiseman agrees that there are many methods to determine the BCE equivalent of those years, but naturally he would agree with me and everyone else, that the Chronicles themselves on their own do not contain BC/BCE year markings.
I can't believe that you might have thought those dates were actually on the Babylonian Chronicles. Those dates are determined from dozens of archaeological references to astronomical events during the Neo-Babylonian empire. They even coincide with Egyptian records, Assyrian records, Persian records, and Greek records.
They refer to just almost exactly the same thing. In practice they mean the same. I prefer BCE over BC for the same reasons that the Watchtower does.
It's pretty obvious that you aren't understanding the evidence provided by all the authorities and experts that the Watchtower magazine quotes from. I have already explained how the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar can be associated with his 18th year through simple math.
The 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar is associated with 568 BCE. There is a tablet for his 37th year with many astronomy observations that can ONLY refer to celestial events in 568 BCE.
If you can't see that this also associates the prior year, his 36th year with 569 BCE, and his 35th year with 570 BCE, and his 25th year with 580, and his 15th year with 590, and his 18th year with 587 BCE, then I'm pretty sure there is no further use discussing this with you.
Perhaps one more question for you to try to answer would clear it up.
If you can answer it, then great. We can go on. If you can't or won't answer it, then I see no reason for continuing to discuss the topic with you:
If Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year is 568 BCE, then what BCE year would be his 18th year?
-
Alphonse reacted to Srecko Sostar in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction
A little break for a joke.
A Trump supporter was seated next to an older woman on an airplane and he turned to her and said, “Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger.”
The old woman, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total stranger: “What would you want to talk about?”
“Oh, I don’t know,” said the man. “How about how they stole the election in 2020 and Donald Trump should be president.”
“Okay,” she said. “Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff – grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?”
The man, visibly surprised by the old woman’s, thinks about it and says, “Hmmm, I have no idea.”
To which the old woman replies, “Do you really feel qualified to discuss politics, when you don’t know shit?”
-
Alphonse reacted to Pudgy in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction
You know George88, et al, ad nauseum, as much as you choke when asked a simple, direct question that would require a simple, direct answer conflicting with your agenda, you may want to get a portable oxygen tank, and some of that aquarium type air hose for your nose.
I hate Zombie Movies, so I find it disconcerting, yet strangely entertaining, to watch THIS one.
… and don’t fall asleep while eating a ham sandwich!
-
Alphonse reacted to BTK59 in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction
Hey! Pudgy, why don't you ask your friend to stop chocking on a simple direct question, that way it won't be ad nauseam either. As always, it appears that you are once again defending the indefensible. I hope you don't fall asleep eating a ham sandwich either.
If you choose to behave like a bully and interfere when people are wrong, don't be surprised when you are treated the same way. So, please don't complain if you end up being treated in that manner.
-
Alphonse reacted to BTK59 in Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction
I asked for this because Steele corrected previous errors using Hunger and other sources. He thoroughly documented this in his 2019 Sage article, which includes observations of Saturn.
steele-2019-an-early-compilation-of-saturn-observations-from-babylon
"Acknowledgements
I thank the Trustees of the British Museum for permission to study and publish BM 45426. I also
wish to thank Hermann Hunger for his suggestions for improving the reading of the obverse of the
tablet and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. They are not responsible for any
errors that remain."
The commitment to enhance reading comprehension demonstrates his personal perspective on the tablet, which can be better understood within the broader context of any cuneiform tablet.
I believe I have the night sky somewhere. I will give it a try. Thank you.
-
Alphonse reacted to Many Miles in Forum participants we have known
I'm not really that interested in whatever historical soap opera of this forum. Every social platform (including real life in-person platforms) has their share of drama, not to mention foibles we learn of individuals (including our own) along the way. Just rubbing elbows in any forum where I can learn and share is the more important thing to me.
-
Alphonse reacted to BTK59 in Forum participants we have known
I was just curious to understand which type of Jehovah's Witness I am interacting with. Seemingly, a rather unsatisfactory one. Now, the audience can clearly witness and comprehend exactly why individuals must steer clear of this website.
-
Alphonse reacted to BTK59 in Forum participants we have known
Will you be including James Thomas Rook Jr. in your humorous analogy, LOL? Grow up! The behavior of most people here often resembles that of spiritually immature children, making it quite challenging to communicate with you.
By continuously showcasing the individuals you have mistreated and kicked out by persistently highlighting your own misconduct, you consistently discredit yourselves through your actions. What does that reveal about your character?