BTK59

By whose standards do you judge? You cannot grant forgiveness to an unrepentant person. Therefore, your brand of remorse holds no weight. What truly matters is whether he persists in attacking the Watchtower, the Elders, and the Governing Body in a slanderous manner by accusing them of following God's laws. He is the one who committed a heinous act against children, not the Watchtower. Therefore, what justification could he possibly have for attempting to shift the blame onto the actions of the Watchtower? What excuse do you have for defending a disfellowshipped individual as a former bethelite? You have no excuse whatsoever. You are projecting the same ignorance that you accuse me of, as you are also attempting to justify your own unchristian behavior. Indeed, you, Tom, and the others in your closed club all belong to the category of "revilers," who do not hesitate to criticize your brother. It is important not to misuse scripture to justify your actions without proper understanding. But, in this case, who is truly worse: you, Tom, the others in your closed club, or me? I am simply defending God's truth, while it seems like you are only bringing disgrace to His name and distorting the very essence of what a true Christian should be.

This is another flawed example. Where did you acquire your knowledge of scripture? None of what you stated aligns with the apostle Paul's understanding. Instead, Jesus exemplified the difference between sin and repentance, as none of those individuals actually sinned against Jesus. You not only embarrass yourself with your lack of historical knowledge, but you also twist scripture to rationalize your emotions towards someone who has been disfellowshipped and has shown no signs of repentance. Prepare to give an account for your actions on judgment day. However, you consistently contradict yourself with a straightforward fact - the expression of remorse. James/Pudgy's secular actions are being questioned in a legal setting, and his behavior in this instance displayed no indications of remorse. He attacked, accused, and slandered the Watchtower, just as you often do. Therefore, your moral principles do not align with the teachings of religious texts; instead, they conform to your imperfect human nature. People should devote themselves to Christ and God, rather than a misguided and immoral individual. In this instance, Paul was actually referring to the incorrigible brother within the community, not the world, as you are suggesting. It is important to consider the specific context in which Paul's words were spoken. 1 Corinthians 5:13 New International Version 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you. Your conduct as a JW reflects poorly on the principles of Christianity, as it seems that you accept and excuse the bad behavior of others. Claiming that you are not doing anything wrong does not align with being a JW. Remember that God sees and will judge all actions. When either you or Tom become upset about disfellowshipping someone for speaking the truth, dissenters should indeed be disfellowshipped for demonstrating unchristian behavior that goes against the teachings of Christ. There is a distinction between poor judgment exhibited by fallible individuals. They make no sense with their actions.

This is a weak argument, especially considering that Apostle Paul was explicit about God's intentions when he declared "have nothing to do with them." Therefore, instead of using your own emotions and misbehavior to rationalize going against God, it is better to refrain from dishonoring Him and tarnishing the reputation of the Watchtower. Loving your enemy does not imply forming an association with them, as you are suggesting. If you had taken the time to pay attention to my previous comment about expressing concern for his well-being, you would realize that it demonstrates the concept of loving your enemy without any personal ties. I am not in favor of the decisions he made that caused him to encounter legal issues.

I'm glad you finally clarified that rumor. As I mentioned to Tom, I've personally witnessed you upvoting other posts. So, why hold back? These individuals are more aligned with your values than JWs. It only makes sense for you to feel comfortable and welcome among them, just like you have in the past. So, there's really no need for comparisons anymore; it's time for you to rejoin the club.

Indeed, I must humbly acknowledge your profound lack of knowledge in history, which renders your statement unworthy of serious consideration, even from the simplest of individuals. Your insistence on a baseless assertion merely further demonstrates your incompetence in basic calculations. It is clear that Nebuchadnezzar was occupied in the western front with Egypt during this time, rendering your interpretation of the 18th or 19th year utterly insignificant in the face of your misguided perspective. I urge you to mature intellectually and broaden your understanding.

We must delve into the true workings of Christianity with certain individuals. On one hand, blatant honesty is deemed negative, while on the other hand, circumventing God's commands in various ways is not. The actions of Jehovah's Witnesses speak louder than the judgment they believe they hold over others through their words. It is imperative for individuals to reconsider the profound significance of Christ's sacrifice in relation to their superficial Christian existence.

The example given showed individuals who are incorrigible, aside from those depicted by Tom. Have you not just admitted that you are fond of someone who has been disfellowshipped? I believe this has just proven my point. Furthermore, it speaks volumes when a former Bethelite supports your viewpoint.

You are the one distorting facts, not me. I have discovered that none of the mentioned references point to the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC. It seems that you are inaccurately projecting your claims. Your current attempt to disprove 2 Kings 24 appears to be driven by desperation. Admit it, your apostate assertions have never carried any weight with genuine researchers. Leave that to those with true expertise.

Remember, you are the one constantly shifting the goalposts to conveniently accommodate your excuses and justifications. There is absolutely no room for misunderstanding when it comes to the historical records of Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year. Those tablets clearly and explicitly depict an event that took place in 568 BC, directly involving Nebuchadnezzar. If we wish to persist with distortions, we could also incorrectly interpret those tablets and the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar. I must point out that apostates have erroneously relied on VAT 4956 to validate a false assumption. This particular tablet VAT 4956 may have been fabricated solely to incorporate a genuine historical incident that truly took place in 568 BC, which directly relates to Nebuchadnezzar. Considering that apostates are the ones who backtrack with the 18th year, it would be erroneous to assume a connection between the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar and Jerusalem. Reliable tablets, in fact, link the 37th year of this ruler to a specific event in 568 BC. VAT 4956 is no different. The assumption and connection to the 18th year is entirely false. When we consider the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar from 605 BC, we find another event that Nebuchadnezzar was overseeing 400 miles away, along with other events involving different Kingdoms, as documented in military records. 1."JUDGMENT AGAINST AMMON. [Ezk. 25:1–7 (Ca. 588 B.C.?)] The word of the LORD came to me: “Son of man, set your face against the Ammonites and prophesy against them." 2." The details of this alliance are lacking, but it is certain that some formal pact had been made with Egypt at the time. Hophra succeeded his father, Psammetichus II, as Pharaoh of Egypt in 588 B.c, and he was even more aggressive in furthering a policy of Asian intervention. As a result, early in 588 B.c., Nebuchadnezzar once more marched to the west," This implies that the 18th year mentioned in scripture would not be the same as the 18th year mentioned in secular history. These two would contradict each other and should not be synchronized, as Ezekiel might be referring to God's judgment upon other nations like Ammon, rather than the judgment that Jeremiah was talking about for Jerusalem. The assertion that backtracking to the 18th or 19th year from 568 BC is a false equivalence. It is important to consider that this time period could also signify the judgment of other nations, which God had entrusted Babylon to undertake. The presumption of "complete" destruction of Jerusalem based on the 18th year of that king is incorrect. A comprehensive review of history is necessary, rather than selective snippets that favor a single argument. This approach is distorted and deceptive. While the Watchtower concludes with the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BC, by historical reckoning, the destruction of Jerusalem and Judah began in 607 BC. None of that is relevant. What truly matters is the accurate interpretation of the "Gentile times." Both the Watchtower and others have gotten it right. Dissenters must confront and discredit historical and biblical accounts by disproving the concept of the gentile times. In doing so, they would need to discount the freedom obtained by the Jews and the occurrence of WW1 in AD 1914. The Babylonian Chronicles are self-explanatory, even though secular history indicates that Nebuchadnezzar's ascension year was 605 BC. The discrepancy of those famous 1 or 2 years is also a subject of debate, but historical facts can resolve that discrepancy. Luke 21:24 King James Version 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. Challenging the word of God by apostates is a direct insult to God, particularly when those dissidents attempt to refute scripture as they are written. To the modern day Jew, the fulfillment of that prophecy came when the Jewish Nation was finally recognized as a state in 1947-1948, after the expiration of the British mandate. Unfortunately, many do not fully appreciate the importance of their earlier freedom. However, it's crucial to acknowledge that this fulfillment pertains to Judaism, not Christianity. The only thing the word "absolute" can be used for in this case is: 1. The word "absolute" is only appropriate when there is absolutely nothing dissenters can post regarding VAT 4956 or any other ancient tablet that can unequivocally "confirm" the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC by their own numbers. 2. There is absolutely nothing that can be said in favor of Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year. 3. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from backtracking the 18th or 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign from 568 BC. Doing so would only lead us to further incursions in 590-589-588-587-586-585 BC, apart from the fall of Jerusalem as dissenters want you to believe. Remember that they want you to believe in the "complete" destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC," not just a siege or a partial destruction, but a total annihilation. This is precisely why any presentation made by dissenters regarding 587 BC will always be inaccurate, as they are unable to provide evidence for 587 BC, and their historical data fails to support it as well.

Maybe you can truly comprehend this. The ultimate authority lies in God, so it shouldn't concern anyone else. If God found any errors in the calculations about 607 BC made by the Watchtower, he would have personally corrected them, along with his faithful servants. However, what God actually did was disfellowship a member of the governing body due to his involvement in apostasy. This speaks volumes about the power of God, far more than secular history ever could. Anyone who lacks an understanding of scripture and secular history should refrain from offering opinions that degrade both subjects. I believe that when someone looks into the eyes of a deceitful person like you, they come to a different conclusion, not based on basic English comprehension. For most of us, it's quite straightforward. I trust common sense to interpret the passages without reading between the lines. I concur as well. You lack the skill to have initiated this argument a decade ago. Please continue your efforts. I am eagerly awaiting the specific reference in VAT 4956 that explicitly mentions the documentation of the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC. It seems that the tablet merely mentions the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, much like other tablets that refer to his 37th year for various events. However, as someone who questions your sincerity, it appears that you are attempting to compel others to accept your distorted chronology without providing any evidence. How many times have I requested you to substantiate your claims? Leave aside that particular tablet, and instead, choose any historical record that supports your argument. Remember YOU DON'T CARE! Instead of wasting your time searching on Google for information to disprove, let me remind you that those three examples are just the tip of the iceberg. There are countless other events that support my argument. Just to give you a taste, consider this: there is one event that clearly places Nebuchadnezzar as far as 400 miles away from Jerusalem in 588/7 BC. So, you see, you'll need to refute overwhelming secular evidence.

That's precisely what you must debunk: history. I couldn't care less about your presentations, but unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, VAT 4956 holds no significance. So far, all I've been getting from you are distortions and lies. You've wasted 14 pages of empty evidence. So, who is really the one obsessed? Present evidence that supports the claim that VAT 4956 is the primary tablet that requires scrutiny when compared to other tablets detailing battles with Egypt during the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. Avoid appearing defensive by providing accurate information to address any discrepancies. You are free to entertain whatever false beliefs you wish to hold onto. However, compelling people to accept a false premise is a matter for God to judge. In the meantime, it is possible to calculate back to 568 BC from the Babylonian and Egyptian conflict, landing in the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, starting from the secular point of 605 BC. Avoid using the Watchtower as a basis for your flawed perspective. Your focus should be on discussing secular history instead of referencing the Watchtower. Your incorrect assumption lies within secular history, not the teachings of the Watchtower. Therefore, it is best to separate the two and concentrate on the core of your argument. The apostate position still stands, doesn't it? To support the secular chronology, you would need to disprove 2 Kings 24, as I previously mentioned. Thus, the 18th year referred to in the Bible is inconsistent with the secular chronology. Your theory lacks credibility unless you are willing to accept the possibility that something other than what actually happened in the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar, as supported by secular history concerning Egypt, could be true. I ensure that the historical accounts are accurate and align with biblical narratives. It is not my responsibility if you fail to recognize the evident truth. This is just one of many alternative perspectives. Including the temple, the palace, some affluent homes, and the outer wall when Nebuchadnezzar's Captain arrived would have halted the destruction of Judah, including Jerusalem, much earlier. In that scenario, Nebuchadnezzar would not have been in Jerusalem, as your VAT 4956 and apostates suggest.

By all means ex-bethelite, refute what is also written in history that may or may not be absolute as you claim history is. Your audience awaits you. There are myriad alternative historical accounts. 1."This tablet left much room for conjecture. The kings, the allies of his power and - his general and his hired soldiers - he spoke unto. To his soldiers - who were before - at the way of - In the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon - the king of Egypt came up to do battle (?) and -es, the king of Egypt - and - of the city Putu-Jaman - far away regions which are in the sea - numerous which were in Egypt - arms and horses - he called to - he trusted- 2 Ever since this fragment was published." 2."Apries returned with an army against Amasis but was defeated and killed. A fragmentary Babylonian text (ANET 308) appears to mention a Babylonian attack on Amasis in the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, 568-567 B.C.E." 3."It is known that the Apis bull was never slain. There are historical sources that tell a different story. Cambyses was not the villain, Nebuchadnezzar was. It happened forty years earlier, in 568/567 BC. A clay tablet, now in the British Museum, mentions a Chaldean attack on Egypt. "In the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, king of the country of Babylon, went to Mizraim (Egypt) to make war. Amasis, king of Egypt, collected his army and marched and spread abroad." We recall how Hophra ordered an attack on Cyrene in Libya, but the army was defeated. Hophra sent Amasis, a general, to stop the rebellion; but the army made Amasis their king. Amasis at once announced himself pharaoh." Show how people should only take your word because you and Tom control this site, and a lie is better than the truth.

We have always known the true identity of the librarian, so there's no reason to pretend. Consider the significance of being placed in Dante's 9 circles of hell, as you have depicted. I believe the banishment occurred after the display of your profanity-laden post. I was not aware that revealing the truth that releases people from Satan's grip was meant to be perceived negatively.

Despite your contradictory arguments, you persist in advocating for it, which is quite perplexing. I did not mean to support only the perspective of mainstream secular history. There are additional historical records that I consider. However, if I were to focus solely on one aspect, I would highlight that starting from 605 BC, Nebuchadnezzar was involved in a conflict with Egyptian King Hophra, which lasted until 587 BC. You are telling the people to solely believe in VAT 4956 when there are other tablets. Can't disagree with that, you have been an imposter for a long time. I am specifically referring to written language, rather than the calculations that you seem to be fixated on. Show me evidence that clearly states that this tablet is intended to portray the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC, as described in written accounts. The only falsehood here lies in your own presentation. If we consider one of the interpretations of Nebuchadnezzar's early reign in 605 BC, we can understand that in his 18th year, he was occupied with King Hophra and Armis in 587 BC. Feel free to challenge these established sources if you disagree. Would you like a reminder?

You're the ignorant apostate. Nowhere in that tablet does it state that it's exclusively meant for Jerusalem. You shouldn't be arguing history, as your stubbornness is misleading others. Demonstrate where in VAT 4956 it explicitly states that Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in his 37th year, considering that in 587 BC, during Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, he was engaged in conflict with Egypt and bringing judgment against Ammon, Moab, and other nations, as well as being involved with other kings such as the King of the Medes. I challenge you to provide conclusive evidence. Do not dismiss history and avoid diverting from the topic. That is why VAT 4956 fails completely, as there are other historical events that confirm the activities of Nebuchadnezzar during his 37th year. By disregarding these facts, you are simply trying to validate your own false assumptions. It's true that you've been fixated on this for 10 years. However, you haven't been able to show where exactly the astronomical tablet states that in the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar the destruction of Jerusalem is described using similar language. Even the Babylonian Chronicles can't be misused in this manner. I utilize historical data from the 18th or 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar to reinforce the credibility of the conclusions drawn about 607 BC, which you seem to overlook. It is important for the public to remain cautious of individuals who pose as Christians but may be deceiving them, as there is no concrete evidence regarding VAT 4956 that cannot be interpreted in various ways, contrary to what you are trying to impose on others.

That's why it's pointless to pretend, because we're aware of who has the power when they get angry. I have witnessed him endorsing meaningless content, indicating that he is still active. It is highly likely that he is anticipating the Watchtower to face charges in another impartial court, as they are engaged in the work of Satan. Regarding Pudgy, there are two distinct possibilities: one pertains to his health, while the other is related to legal matters. Naturally, I sincerely hope that his health is in good condition. However, if the situation is indeed legal in nature, it is plausible that a court ruling might impose restrictions on his internet access for a certain duration. In such a scenario, it is likely that we won't see any posts from him for approximately three years or so. Perhaps you should consider reaching out to him, either yourself or through JWI, if you are genuinely concerned.

We are both aware that this was not always the situation when "typesetting" was the only option, and reprints were the only way to make corrections. You also understand how apostates thrive on attempting to prove that the Watchtower manipulates their publications to conceal whatever their distorted minds conceive. I understand that you hold a different perspective on the significance of the year 568 BC. I acknowledge that you prefer the year 587 BC. The Watchtower's interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's reign by his years are explained just like historical data. Show me precisely where VAT 4956 tablet provides evidence of Jerusalem's destruction in 587 BC, as you insist. In the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, he was occupied with other military campaigns. Therefore, can you demonstrate how the astronomical tablet specifically relates to Jerusalem's fate? There is historical evidence that places Nebuchadnezzar approximately 400 miles away from Jerusalem at the time of its destruction in 587 BC. However, I am curious about the alleged proof that firmly establishes the year 568 BC as the date of Jerusalem's destruction. Instead of making baseless statements, please provide credible evidence to support your claim. It is time to put an end to these unsubstantiated arguments and present factual information.

Of course, you do. When you make false statements, who holds you accountable? As I mentioned before, I truly have no concern about your identity or beliefs. I am fully aware of the indisputable facts, and if you desire to persist with your petty manipulations, feel free to do so. Of course, you have no problem banning just one individual whom you believe has hundreds of accounts, as opposed to many users using the same writing style. A former member was known to be straightforward and blunt, much like you, Tom, and others who have a similar writing style, leading one to assume multiple individuals. Your mind games are your own. You are absolutely right. There are instances when you just banned an individual in order to safeguard and protect others, particularly when they resort to profanity or are found to be spreading outright falsehoods that have been proven false. When apostates like Srecko make false allegations and those are proven to be false, who is the one to face the consequences, Srecko the apostate, or George? Save it for your group.

However, throughout the past 10 years, you have obstinately defended a false premise, much like your current stance, rendering this observation inconsequential when it originates from you. Why are you spending 13 whole pages trying to defend your inaccurate interpretation of the events of 587 BC and AD 1914? It seems like you're not paying attention to the actual scripture you posted, so bringing it up doesn't really help your argument. When Jesus spoke about being alert to future events, no one with sincere spiritual beliefs would accept your misleading presentation. Your lack of spiritual conscience undermines your attempt to gain favor with God. Hence, in addition to the proverbs you mentioned that apply to you, true Christians should also pay attention to the entirety of scripture, not just what is convenient for them. Otherwise, you will make the Bible meaningless. Ephesians 5:6-12 New King James Version 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not be partakers with them. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-16 English Standard Version 3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the son of destruction, Matthew 24:4-36 New International Version 4 Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains. What aspects of these signs do you, as a dissenting observer of the truth, struggle to comprehend? When you slander the Watchtower as fortune-tellers, you are promoting an apostate view, indicating a refusal to comprehend the numbers "driven" by scriptural observation. As a result, this lack of knowledge reflects a lack of faith. Visitors should not take comfort in paying attention to such lies and accusations, as they are driven by apostasy. Incorrect. Your assertion is a misinterpretation aimed at deflecting responsibility. It is completely unrelated to the accurate comprehension of resurrection, which is based on a deep understanding of scripture. Therefore, there is no justification for raising this point to mask your shortcomings as a Christian. Another useless deflection tactic. Our teachings are firmly rooted in scripture, which you have chosen to refute. This raises the question: what kind of teacher are you? Your rejection of the word of God based on personal ignorance and lack of knowledge is concerning. The unfounded claims you enthusiastically advocate for apostasy should be a greater cause for alarm for the audience than your limited understanding of history. Once more, it is worth questioning who you are to dismiss well-established historical evidence that contradicts your assertion of an "absolute" year as 587 BC. Making erroneous judgments about someone's Christian life without a basis is unjustifiable. It is unethical to make unfounded allegations against the Watchtower organization without a clear understanding of Christian principles. Therefore, the only failure evident here is on your part. Why do you insist on continuously launching these ad hominem attacks against the Watchtower organization?

You pretend a lot and claim to be something you're not. It's important to show the kind of truth that is genuine, not false. Don't confuse God's truth with your falsehood. You deny the significance of 587 BC, even though you defend it fervently like an apostate. However, this is not the truth that God is seeking, nor did Christ teach deception. You've gone to great lengths to pour out your meaningless words on an entire page, but people are able to read and comprehend your failures and strategies. Therefore, it's time to put an end to your feeble excuses regarding ad-hominem attacks, especially when you are no different. The only criticism you have against me is that I am not an apostate pretending to be a witness. It's clear that either you or Tom has control over this site. There's no need for a facade because I already know the truth, which you can't deny. Your anger towards banning users seems unjust when both your and Tom's behavior can be more offensive to God than you realize mine is. You can rest assured that, in terms of behavior, I am at the lower end from you according to God's judgment.

By utilizing your inaccurate interpretation or ensuring the public truly comprehends the authentic context. They must also be informed of any uncorrected typos that occurred, as this necessitated an electronic "reprint," which has now been addressed. It was a more time-consuming process, and what do apostates say about reprints? The same concept that you are implying with your slander. I urge the public to thoroughly examine previous publications. It's crucial to be discerning and not be misled by irrelevant information. The Watchtower, as early as 1972, referenced VAT 4956 in the Awake magazine. This is undeniably significant! Yet, So, What! The villains here are distorting not only published works, but history itself. How many examples do you need to understand that 568 BC can be linked to other military campaigns that you are unwilling to acknowledge? Others should not be swayed by your irrational beliefs.

The Watchtower's approach is one of inquiry rather than assertion. It's crucial to grasp the historical backdrop of 587 BC, as some individuals, despite being apostates, staunchly uphold that belief, much like yourself. It took numerous misleading posts before you finally acknowledged the truth. You have consistently stood your ground in the past. There was no need to ban George simply for speaking the truth. The purpose of these articles is to demonstrate to the public that the year 587 BC is not the actual date of Jerusalem's destruction. It is truly difficult to comprehend why you would assume otherwise. The Watchtower acknowledges the Babylonian Chronicles, as well as any other false presentations and statements made by apostates regarding those dates and items. However, this acknowledgment does not change the fact that such claims are unsubstantiated. So, what is the significance of this acknowledgement? Do you really believe that you have the "authority" to dictate to the Watchtower what it should or shouldn't write in a way that people can understand? It seems like you're trying to go above God, placing yourself above him just like Srecko the apostate does when he challenges God with his nonsensical ideas.

In 1914, the British Empire liberated approximately 60,000 Jews in Palestine. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that this event alone does signify the end of the gentile times, as there may be some other distortion of facts not by me but by you. It is important to pinpoint which fact is being misrepresented: whether it is the population of 60,000 Jews in Palestine or the specific year 1914. Are you challenging the notion that Palestine was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, or that a different gentile nation liberated the Jewish community from the control of an Arab nation, just as the land was originally handed over to the Arab nation Babylon by God? Could you please explain your interpretation of the historical records that mention the presence of 60,000 Jews in Palestine? Are you disputing the accuracy of this number? Are you suggesting that there should have been even more Jews in order to support your statement? Are you now confusing the Balfour declaration? To the public, if you are interested, there are numerous historical facts that provide many examples of the plight the Jewish Nation faced leading up to that year and beyond. Dozens upon dozens of reference books are available for the public to gain a deeper understanding. Jews and Palestinians in the Late Ottoman Era, 1908-1914 Zion Liberated: Jewish Nation Building Under the British Bitter Harvest; Palestine Between 1914-1967 The Question of Palestine, 1914-1918: British-Jewish-Arab Etc.

To put it simply, the Watchtower is not deceiving the public as you are. When you shared the "proverbs," it was expected to reflect your character. It is essential for individuals to comprehend these sources within their appropriate contexts, rather than rely solely on their own misconceptions. It is evident that you are well aware of what Professor Wiseman has also incorporated into his works, much like another Nechuchadnezzar figure. Hence, instead of haphazardly mentioning meaningless names, it is highly encouraged for people to conduct thorough research of their own, unlike you or Carl Olof Jonsson. It is about seeking genuine knowledge. The Watchtower vehemently disagrees with your assertion of 587 BC, which you continue to deny advocating for. Every post you have made so far clearly exposes the falsehood. You have always recognized your place in relation to 587 BC, even in the past. So, why all the deceit.

While I acknowledge the potential for humor in your group, I must inquire: how can George be reintegrated if he was removed from the forum? Should any of your fictitious accounts also partake in amplifying the excitement? lol!