BTK59

So, are you implying that it's not the same individual? Wasn't that silly parrot named Tom? The question is this: a mere triviality for your playful mind.

Do you mean people like James, Thomas, Rook, and Pudgy? Where can I find the comparison photos, JWI?

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?

Let's see if I grasp the hypocrisy. So you're saying that you refused to learn from someone who was providing accurate information in a form consistent to the ridicule and insults given to that individual by all the participants in your little exclusive club, and instead you people in the closed club chose to listen and keep in this forum a loud and disrespectful person who was sharing false information. Is this statement accurate?

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.

What software are you using to make your observations as opposed to the ones used by Hunger, Steele, Etc.?

Do you doubt that God personally collects that data? What was the reason for using mortal servants to judge his people? Similarly, what would be the purpose of establishing a standard for repentance and the unrepentant? Do you believe that God would see the convenience of such action? If that's the understanding, then it seems like we can do whatever we want, and then at the last moment, just say "I repent" and all will be forgiven. Of course, that's definitely going to happen! Lol! Nay! I believe that former members tend to complicate matters in theology, accounting for approximately 99% of the confusion. Somehow, they either truly never knew about the bible or they have lost the ability to rationalize sitting on Moses' judgment seat. Let's seek guidance from Jesus, who initiated and commanded it for his faithful followers to pass on to future generations the purpose of God for his creation on earth. Considering your mention of survival, I'm curious to know if everyone who underwent God's "judgment" managed to survive. Could you provide an example of someone from Sodom and Gomorrah who was not part of Lot's group that survived God's judgment? Let's take a step back, shall we? Is there any evidence of other individuals surviving God's destruction of humanity, besides Noah and his chosen family? The lack of bible understanding should be a powerful motivation for witnesses to persist in preaching and teaching it in the "right" way.

There seems to be an error trying to access this link. Can you download the PDF?

Certainly. To them, it is irrelevant in this context. They are only willing to accept their flawed reasoning. Dominion Or The Unity and Trinity of the German Race 1857 "The language of the Scythians seems to have been Teutonic, but what were its general peculiarities beyond its supposed Indo-Germanic affiliations seems difficult, at this late day, to discover. Being pressed from the Caspian on the east by the Alans, they dispossessed the Cimmerians of the Crimea about 624 B. C., and about the year 500 B. C. were urged to the west of the Volga into southern Russia. About the year 588 B. C., the Scythians were overcome by Cyaxares, uncle of Cyrus; and about 538 B. C., Cyrus called together the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni, and Askenaz to the attack on Babylon." p.309 By consistently referring to the astronomical tablets as evidence of the 587 BC destruction of Jerusalem, while also considering the 589 BC start of the siege, we can also utilize these tablets to validate the assault on the Scythians by Cyaxares circa 588/7 BC. This timeframe aligns with the renowned tablets that display the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign when we follow the 19/8-year cycle. Some historical records indicate that the siege occurred from 588 BC to 586 BC. Consequently, these tablets provide no substantial evidence regarding the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC, no matter how hard apostates try to change the narrative with random schemes. It is evident that Carl Olof Jonsson disregarded a significant amount of historical evidence in order to challenge the Watchtower. This makes it particularly ironic when people refer to his work as "scholarly," as it was anything but.

What's the distinction between someone else being aggressive about that idiocy, considering that it could involve anyone in the closed club as well as individuals here? It appears that you are giving excessive importance to an individual who boasted about their intelligence but demonstrated very little of it. We can also observe the parallels that are evident in present-day discussions. What gives any individual the authority to determine what is right or wrong on any given topic? While others were kicked out, AlanF managed to stay despite his rude and profane comments. It appears hypocritical to me, particularly given that some individuals in the closed club were also rude and obnoxious.

However, it is puzzling that those who incited the situation are still present, while others are not. This is the excuse often found in instances of injustice.

Who can determine, based on this observation, who utilized an ascension year as opposed to a regnal year? Do you think you are making too many assumptions?

I see no conflict with this observation, as you are dealing with distinct types of observational cycles. Could you also verify a specific starting point with an observer? I believe it is the reader who is conflicted when making assumptions.

What's interesting is that criticism, when it lacks constructiveness and becomes purely shameful, is still not deemed as bad behavior.

LOL! It's quite impressive how even with the removal of many forum members, individuals like AlanF and Srecko continue to thrive. Where was the compassion for others?

This statement is incorrect. God graciously offers repentance to bring about forgiveness. Therefore, those who fail to repent of their mistakes, as evident in the past biblical examples, will face divine judgment. God holds accountable those who claim to be His children, but later betray Him by renouncing their commitment, just as it happens today through baptism.

That's why it is crucial to "rethink" to meet both aspects without sacrificing value. People tend to toss out dates and numbers as if they were precious gold, when in reality they are more like copper at best. While we understand the importance of historical knowledge, it is crucial to consider other relevant factors as well. Surprisingly, common sense and logic seem to be sidelined in the current discourse. We find ourselves trapped in a repetitive loop, discussing the same information without making any progress. It's time to shift the paradigm. Ten years of misinformation is more than sufficient. Now is the moment to accurately position Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year in its rightful context, alongside all the pertinent details concerning the 70 years and the gentile times. People should disregard historical inaccuracies when it comes to linking scripture, and embellishing on in conceived notions about those historical events does not aid researchers in their work. The focus should not be on whether the Watchtower's dates are accurate or not, but rather on how they are using precise language in prophecy to guide those who seek to understand God's plan for the end times. Why would you ruin that opportunity for everyone?

There are several other factors to take into consideration for that period of time. What happened during the 26th dynasty with Kings Apries and King Amasis II? Hence, the current representation of 587 BC continues to lack significance.

Ah, how I long to indulge in the nostalgic memories of ex-Elders recounting their tales of disdain towards the Watchtower. This timeless tradition still persists, as even current Ministerial Servants contribute to the discourse. Together, they expose the deceitfulness underlying their misguided encounters with the Watchtower. Remarkably, it appears that not much has changed in the last decade except for the addition of new participants to this ongoing saga, each stepping in as time claims another.

Does this mean he argued with himself or just individuals who possess superior skills and qualifications compared to himself?

In essence, your point is that when we examine the year 539 BC, there is significantly less time for consideration compared to the 2-year timeframe between 607 BC and 605 BC. Additionally, the year 587 BC does not fit into any accurate chronology, as the 70-year period falls within the pattern of less than a year between 537 BC and 607 BC. If we were to consider 587 BC as a potential date, it would only support a 50-year period, which is significantly short of the less than a year proposal, creating a discrepancy of 20 years.

George, in the book you mention on page 105, it states 538 BC rather than 539 BC. Any thoughts?

I completely agree, and I can't argue with that. It's disheartening to witness individuals attempting to impose their beliefs on readers as if they were unquestionably right. Regrettably, there has been a decade-long prevalence of dishonest individuals spreading false information here. This one goes in the category of "was" Jesus crucified on a cross or a torture stake? Some individuals falsely claim the "T" cross and not the torture stake. It's frustrating when people criticize me for thinking I'm wrong while overlooking the faults of those they favor. It seems they only focus on pointing out the mistakes of those they don't like, disregarding those they do. This alone reveals the "dishonesty" of specific individuals, and that is unlikely to change. Observing the illustration regarding finding common ground with specific words, only to have it dismissed by the same person you used to illustrate that very fallacy, and to be falsely contradicted by someone inconsequential, is another sign of deceitfulness. Who truly becomes the "troll" when they emerge from the closed club to demonstrate the actual impact to the audience? LOL!

It's a fascinating question, Tom. Although it may seem challenging at first, it is not impossible to answer. The prevailing speculation suggests that God provided Adam and Eve with skins while they were still inside the Garden, as Genesis 3:21 indicates. I'm not disputing scripture here but the interpretation of scripture by others. However, it is important to consider that this wording may not necessarily be meant to be taken literally. Other sources suggest that God clothed them when they were already outside the garden. So, the real question for all of you should be: Why did God feel the need to clothe them twice? Once inside the garden, where Adam and Eve were already covered, and a second time when they were already outside the garden. If I was to say I'm wrong, I would first need to disregard the fact that scripture mentions Adam and Eve were already covered when God spoke to them. Meaning I would need to refute scripture just to satisfy the viewpoint. Then I would have to deny the fact skins of an animal don't come off by themselves. If we think otherwise, we would have to say, God "did" sacrifice animals inside the garden to clothe Adam and Eve. How would that act been seen from heaven given the "fact" God considered all of his creation precious. If we consider that God did not have to take the lives of animals to provide clothing for Adam and Eve in the garden, we may still wonder about the origin of the "skins." Could they have been crafted artificially, resembling garments made of tunics or linen but with a texture like feel of an animal skin? This would still mean the garment was made of linen or artificial with an animal skin look. Then I would have to deny other writings in order for me to say I'm wrong. "Then came the Word of God and said to him, "O Adam, take Eve and come to the seashore where you fasted before. There you will find skins of sheep that were left after lions ate the carcasses. Take them and make garments for yourselves, and clothe yourselves with them." I'm sure this hasn't been overlooked nor should it be. I'll leave you people to rationalize it.

Once God had taken notice, and you have confirmed it, it becomes a matter of perception. The fig leaves have served their purpose well by covering their nakedness, as they had discovered. As I mentioned, you can focus on sequencing and accessories for the garden as you prefer after the exit. The issue with this argument is that it indicates the speculated moment of Adam and Eve's expulsion from the Garden. Regarding God's disappointment, it is quite significant that a cherub was placed at the entrance to prevent the first pair from returning. This is a clear indication of the extent of disappointment. For sure, Genesis 3:7, talks about when they spoke to God. Now, Genesis 3:21, not so much. Why? It's the point of expulsion. If we were to consider the circumstances leading up to the departure, it could be argued that God would have had to sacrifice part of his creation to facilitate that. What message would have been sent to the realm of angels? Satan's corruption of his creation was already unacceptable, but murdering within the garden would have been a step too far. According to other sources, Adam and Eve obtained sheep skins "following" their expulsion, through lions feasting on sheep. In that case, it was the animals that did the killing, not God. This occurred outside the garden where imperfection had already started to spread. "The tree of knowledge held both concrete and abstract significance.". It bore real fruit and became the "first" commandment of God to humanity, demanding obedience.