BTK59

1 minute ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Crystal. 

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.

2 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

LOL. Pudgy JTR has had two names on this forum, but never used both at the same time.

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.

7 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

AlanF would use a sock-puppet on a forum. Wasn't his style, at all.

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

7 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

No, he was not Billy The Kid. BTK was "Wally McNasty" as Pudgy called him. He is also George88, Cesar Chavez, Allen Smith, Alphonse, BTK59 [BillyTheKid59], etc, etc. I used to keep track, but I stopped at around 50 names. 

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?

8 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

No. Billy belonged to our in-house whack-a-mole generator of souls. AI couldn’t crank out personas as quickly as he. They usually met the same end and for the same reason.

I can’t imagine AlanF presenting as anyone other than AlanF

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?

14 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I never paid attention to the ones Hunger and Steele were using. Apparently, they all give the same results within seconds or maybe a minute of each other. But it takes 4 full minutes for the "night sky" to turn even one degree, so they are all giving the same reading.

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.

10 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It's fairly small (164k) so I'll just post it here:

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

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

actually involves collecting data about someone's "mistakes/errors". Because an individual's actions include his good and bad deeds on the basis of which he is "judged".

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?

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

According to the latest "clarification" a person can approach God in the last minute before Armageddon breaks out and will be saved from death.

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!

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

So now we see that WTJWorg theology is getting confused, as it has been many times before. A reversal has been made that in a certain way not only invalidates additional JWs theology, but also invalidates elements from Jesus' teaching that speaks of "separating the sheep and the goats" before his judgment seat. It also cancels elements from Jesus' standard, which is that those who did good to his brothers will be in his grace, and those who did not will be rejected. It means that Jesus must have a list of when we did or did not give someone water or clothes and the like.

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.

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

What is the real role of the much hyped and mandatory work of "preaching the good news", if people can be absolved en masse from every kind of sin because they will realize "who is the true God" in a minute before Armageddon begins?

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.

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

WTJWorg will have countless members who will be like Jonah who preached the "certain destruction" of those who did not accept the "global preaching of the last days", and in the end they ALL survived.

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?

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

What concept or to what extent, ratio is the official WTJWorg doctrine now advocating on this matter?

The lack of bible understanding should be a powerful motivation for witnesses to persist in preaching and teaching it in the "right" way.

On 2/26/2024 at 1:52 PM, JW Insider said:

But there may be a couple more, one of which should touch on Nabopolassar's 14th:

https://www.jenseits-des-horizonts.de/download_pdf/bsa_044_04.pdf

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

4 hours ago, George88 said:

Any number of events can be applied to the astronomical tablets VAT 4956 - MB 33006. Even Dr. Wiseman's presentation alludes to certain timeframes that he failed to logically extrapolate in his book of 1 & 2 Kings.

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.

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

On the other hand, if he felt a person's intelligence was anywhere north of idiocy, he would become increasingly aggressive in his presentation of information and responses if the individual refused to learn.

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.

45 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It is true that I didn’t feel the love. But I may have egged him on. I have been known to do that. Thinking and Aruana did not, however. His attacks on them were provoked only by their standing up to him.

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.

5 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

t's pretty simple.

• Ptolemy said that the Babylonians reported an eclipse that was only PARTIAL in the 5th year of Nabopolassar. 
• Today, that exactly described PARTIAL eclipse can be calculated to 621 BCE. 
• That makes perfect consistent sense because it meshes perfectly with 100 other astronomical observations that would also indicate that 621 BCE is the 5th year of Nabopolassar.
• But the Watchtower claims that 621 BCE is the 4th year of Nebuchadnezzar, so the WTS needs this eclipse to have happened in 641 BCE, otherwise 1914 doesn't work.

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? 

On 2/27/2024 at 6:19 AM, JW Insider said:

*** w69 3/15 pp. 185-186 Astronomical Calculations and the Count of Time ***
LUNAR ECLIPSES
Lunar eclipses, as found in Ptolemy’s canon and presumably drawn from data in the cuneiform records, have been used in efforts to substantiate the dates usually given for particular years of the Neo-Babylonian kings. But even though Ptolemy may have been able to calculate accurately the dates of certain eclipses in the past, this does not prove that his transmission of historical data is correct. His relating of eclipses to the reigns of certain kings may not always be based on the facts. Additionally, the frequency of lunar eclipses certainly does not add great strength to this type of confirmation.
For example, a lunar eclipse in 621 B.C.E. (April 22) is used as proof of the correctness of the Ptolemaic date for Nabopolassar’s fifth year. However, another eclipse could be cited twenty years earlier in 641 B.C.E. (June 1) to correspond with the date that Bible chronology would indicate for Nabopolassar’s fifth year. Besides, this latter eclipse was total, whereas the one in 621 B.C.E. was partial.

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.

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Another ‘tortured soul,’ methinks, for whom I must have compassion.

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?

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It's not that Jehovah doesn't "watch" errors, but he is all-knowing and all-understanding and has provided the ransom as a means for forgiveness. So he doesn't watch for errors to slap us down like a human boss might, and he doesn't judge by the number of errors.

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.
 

23 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I'm not the one saying it is significant. I'm only saying that all evidence so far consistently points to 587 BCE as the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar. It's up to you to decide whether that fact has any significance:

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?

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Note that if the 55th Olympiad is 560 (which it is) then the 47th is as little as 29 years earlier, or 589-590 BCE. Right about the time when Nebuchadnezzar would have begun the siege ending in 587 BCE.

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.

3 hours ago, Many Miles said:

he was one of the rarefied souls who could argue with a stupid person

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

5 hours ago, George88 said:

For me, the year 537 BC is the most plausible explanation.

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.

7 hours ago, George88 said:

I just checked my library. The first link you posted, F.R. Stephenson has a book that is a good read.

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

On 2/22/2024 at 7:30 PM, George88 said:

I would say it's a close call.

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!

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

And since we’re speaking of eating here, and I’m not following closely enough to make a contribution, but wish to make a contribution nonetheless,

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.