BTK59

During your time in Bethel, you were absorbing everything. Many Bethelites accepted the conclusions of that apostate, and some of you still do. Since that information was available then, it could have been used to challenge and refute 40 years of misinformation. Why didn't people like you take the time to conduct thorough research for the truth? You seem to think your personal research now is of value; why didn't you do it back then? It's not enough to simply say that it was a sensitive issue no one wanted to address, given that we are still dealing with the consequences of poorly researched claims made by unqualified individuals.

You seem to have limited knowledge about the connection between Christian Science and pyramidology. However, scientific tests have been conducted on several pyramids, not just the one briefly referenced by Pastor Russell. Instead of only conducting a Google search to confirm your biased presentation, like you did with Brother Adam Rutherford, broaden your knowledge. Absolutely! They discussed how the Great Pyramid could provide evidence for certain events that they were already familiar with. I don't think there's a need for personal bias and exaggerations in this matter. You are also right, Russell was not a spiritualist; he condemned it. However, that does not mean that those involved in Pyramidology did not focus on the spiritual aspects of it, much like the ancients. Your tendency to cause confusion on this issue should be well documented for the public. Your statement didn't specify the type of Bible Student association he was affiliated with. You only referred to him as a Bible student as if he were associated with the Watchtower Bible Student associations, which he was not. The PBI was a distinct type of Bible student association that diverged in many aspects from the teachings of the Watchtower, whether by Russell or Rutherford. Therefore, I did not fabricate this information; your mistaken assumption did. Why bother defending your deceitful facade? It holds no significance for me, as I am already aware of your dishonesty. It's gratifying to see that your friends are finally recognizing the illogical approach you have embraced. You have been personally affected by this for ten years. Are you just now realizing the spiritual damage you have caused? It's too little, too late. You are simply wasting time with nonsensical conclusions. While it may work within your closed community, it should be taken seriously for visitors to grasp the decades-old deception perpetuated by some individuals who identify themselves as JWs.

I fail to understand why you are defending such an egregious person who is clearly a liar. It seems unnecessary for you to overlook his repugnant actions when his own words speak volumes. He not only discusses the Babylonian Chronicles at length, but also provides a compelling explanation for why he discredits the Watchtower Chronology with his carefully chosen words. It's time to be honest with the public and stop deceiving them. The Gentile Times Reconsidered -- Jonsson, Carl Olof -- 4th ed., rev. and exp, 2004 If these lists are correct, the first year of Nebuchadnezzar would be 604/ 603 B.C.E. and his eighteenth year, when he desolated Jerusalem, would be 587/86 B.C.E., not 607 B.C.E. as in Watch Tower chronology. p.99 The Babylonian Chronicle BM 21946 This chronicle covers the period from Nabopolassar’s 21st year (605/04 B.C.E.) to Nebuchadnezzar’s 10th year (595/94 B.C.E.). Photo used courtesy of D. J. Wiseman (shown in his Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, Plate VI). p.101 Why not give a Justification for persisting in this deceitful path despite your knowledge of the truth, please elaborate it to your exclusive circle of acquaintances.

Just like you were so quick to place the attention of a false narrative about Brother Adam Rutherford being a Bible Student, you forgot to mention his specific affiliation within the Bible Student association before he moved on to another religious sect. He was a member of the PBI. Pastoral Bible Institute In 1918, the former directors held the first Bible Student Convention independent of the Watch Tower Society. At the second convention a few months later, the informal Pastoral Bible Institute was founded. It began publishing The Herald of Christ's Kingdom, edited by Randolph E. Streeter. An editorial committee continues publication of the magazine[68] in a reduced capacity, and reproduces other Bible Student movement literature, including Russell's six-volume Studies in the Scriptures. [67] The forty-fifth Annual Meeting of the members of the Pastoral Bible Institute, Inc., was held at 10:00 a.m., September 21, in the Central Y.M.C.A., 1315 Pacific Avenue, Atlantic City, New Jersey. members of the Institute during the previous year; after which the meeting proceeded with the election of a new Board. Brothers C. M. Glass and Adam Rutherford were appointed to act as Tellers. While they were counting the votes, the rest of the friends enjoyed a season of fellowship in praise, prayer, and testimony. At the conclusion of the count, the names of the following brethren were announced as elected F. A. Essler, J. C. Jordan, A. L. Muir, J. T. Read, P. L. Read, W. J. Siekman and P. E. Thomson Your presentation, which led people to believe he was somehow connected to the Watchtower Bible Students, is false. You need to conduct more thorough research before getting caught in a lie. This is not an ad-hominem attack, but rather the truth. Furthermore, Adam's transition to identifying as a British Israelite, tracing back to the lost tribes of Israel, particularly during the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, is noteworthy. Some historians have linked Charles Piazzi Smyth to the revival of that ideology, and some believe he was part of the British Israelite faction. If you claim to be a researcher, then strive to be an excellent one. That's also the truth. I have been aware of his history for over 40 years. Why haven't you, since you were at Bethel and heard the false claims made by Carl Olof Jonsson? Why didn't your conscience guide anyone there to investigate Adam Rutherford's book series, which directly addressed the Babylonian Chronicles?

You are mistaken. It is you who is creating a false narrative. Pyramidology, largely considered to be Christian Science, was actually opposed by Pastor Russell. Despite this, you continue to assert that he accepted it based on a few acknowledgments in articles. You are the one perpetuating this false impression. Correct, along with the IBSA were directed by Pastor Russell while "others" in the Bible Student Association directed themselves. The confusion is with the word independent. What I meant to say, you were, and You're absolutely right; he was disputing the years 607 BC and AD 1914, just like you. Therefore, let's not deviate from the subject and misinterpret what I am trying to say by distorting my words. Exactly. We all have the right to evaluate any written information and I, too, have the right to dismiss your unfounded assertions. It is futile to introduce additional dates to divert attention and change the topic when you find yourself losing an argument. Hence, you have no credibility to deny the evidence based on historical facts. The public deserves to be aware of where this deceit is originating from. Other than the well-documented Babylonian Chronicles, I fail to see how any other evidence could possibly illuminate you on matters you are unwilling to comprehend. Once more, who are you to dismiss historical evidence simply because it contradicts your unfounded assertions? You're constantly contradicting yourself. I personally find it hilarious, but you're deliberately confusing the public. Why? What's your end game with all this manipulation? Is your group of people in the closed club now questioning your credibility?

By the way, the topic here is "Watchtower's 1914 Chronology - Ad Nauseam." I used Adam Rutherford to illustrate the false narratives that apostates have used concerning the Babylonian Chronicles, especially an uneducated person like Carl Olof Jonsson, whom you have supported in the past. As an ex-Bethelite, he claimed to align the Babylonian Chronicles with 607 BC and relate this to 1914. Adam Rutherford has not been endorsed by me for the purpose of pyramidology. This tactic of diversion is an attempt to confuse by introducing a different topic while failing to support baseless claims of refuting 607 BC, despite persisting in lying to the public about it. Stick to the subject at hand without deflecting. Pudgy isn't here to do your dirty work, as you seem to prefer making him look bad in front of the public. Now, the public can see the real you and what you stand for. You made incorrect assertions regarding the dates 607 BC, 537 BC, and AD 1914. Additionally, your understanding of the biblical interpretation of 2520 years is flawed. Over the past decade, you have actively tried to disprove these dates, but your efforts have been futile. It seems as though you have become an apostate, refusing to acknowledge and accept the explanations provided by other scholars, apart from Jehovah's Witnesses. Who has given you the audacity to consider yourself the ultimate authority on knowledge, rejecting and denying everything else? This is no longer about debates, but rather a battle to keep a false narrative alive that serves no purpose other than to create conflict and division. Why do you identify yourself as JW? These opinions hold no value, so why the need for an open discussion that brings shame to God? Stop insinuating that the concept of "truth" is an ad hominem attack in an attempt to rationalize and utilize it against me in order to justify my banishment under that regulation, especially when you are equally responsible. The general public is well aware of your deceptive tactics. Simply because I honestly employ the truth, which you happen to find displeasing, does not give you the right to become enraged and ban me solely because you are losing an argument and your shortcomings are being revealed by the power of truth. Don't manipulate me to justify your public accusations of my need for a ban, when it is actually you who should have been expelled a long time ago.

I comprehend your intention to convey your message to the general public, so I will entrust that task to you and your proxies. The sole responsibility lies with you. Instead of acknowledging your mistakes, you consistently resort to deflecting and redirecting blame. It is clear that the true failure here, for the past ten years, has been you—an ex-Bethelite, who not only uses ad hominem responses but also seeks to blame others for the unchristian behavior of your group. Let's not forget that I do not possess the authority to ban individuals like you and Tom do. Thus, continue deceiving yourself, for the public I am concerned about is well aware of your misleading tactics. That's what frustrates you, the things that are right in front of your face, yet you are too oblivious to see them. You claim to be a researcher, so why not utilize your discernment and stop relying on others to guide you like a child? You reject facts from history, so how can anyone present information that your closed-mindedness would even consider accepting? I have no intention of trying to impress you, as you are insignificant to me. I will leave that to those who share your mindset. I have warned the public about this false impression. They can see for themselves that he is referring to that specific pyramid, not others as I claimed. It's clear that you are trying to confuse and manipulate them. It appears that the source of dishonesty lies with you. Pastor Russell's sole purpose in being intrigued by the Great Pyramid was its alignment with his existing knowledge. Your fixation on labeling Pastor Russell as a spiritualist is unfounded. Merely mentioning Smyth does not indicate anything other than the fact that information of interest was being shared by "other" Bible Student associations. Cease your false representation of a person who was sincerely seeking to rediscover Christianity, in order to perpetuate your deceitful allegations. Those who can read English accurately can discern the false narrative you attempted to convey. I appreciate that you shared it. I mentioned volume 3 so that people could see for themselves how Pastor Russell, whom you dismiss as a false witness from a bygone era, has no connection to the present-day Watchtower. You are just another apostate, similar to Srecko, who used to engage in futile arguments. However, there is no endorsement in the correspondence between them, as it was a common practice among brethren to share their interests through writing. In this particular case, even the Bible Students, who you try to vilify, were forced to defend him against individuals like you. The discussion concerning the GREAT PYRAMID was for a distinct reason unrelated to spiritualism. Consider another observation: it seems there might be a misconception about the word "CHAPTER," as Brother William M. Wright pointed out that you have. Who placed that stone near Pastor Russell's grave? It seems like another attempt to create chaos and mislead. Why do you feel the need to sow doubt and confusion among people? What drives your misguided sense of compassion that contradicts everything Christ taught? There is no advantage in engaging in the work of the devil, so who gave you the authority to pass judgment on others as you will be judged? The Watchtower Bible Students did not authorize the gravestone. A dedicated group of Bible Students, using their own resources, arranged for the placement of the gravestone in proximity to Pastor Russell's burial site. The main distinction lies in the fact that the Bible Student Associations and the "people pulpit and IBSA" are often mistaken to be the same, but they should be clearly differentiated as they are not one and the same. However, you persist in embarking on a senseless journey of bewilderment. Quit attempting to impress others. It is evident that you lack a deep understanding of biblical student history and are merely regurgitating arguments from those who have strayed from the faith. I will not accept your misleading tactics and posted articles, just as you reject mine. People have the ability to read "everything" for themselves, without having to selectively choose articles that create a distorted view, while disregarding other written articles that provide evidence-based facts.

Since you brought the name Charles Piazza Smyth I believe this individual is yet another proponent of the British Israelite theory. I trust that the public will come to recognize how Pastor Russell addressed information that contradicted the unfounded assertions being presented here. Certain Bible Students, much like numerous independent Bible Students, exercised discernment when assessing Charles Piazza Smyth's writings, and that's why the "association" also considered other works. It's important to consider Pastor Russell's views on this matter. Russell didn't pay much attention to occultism, and since Pyramidology is associated with Christian Science, he didn't give it much consideration either. He was intrigued by the great pyramid, but not in a way that suggested he sought enlightenment from it. Instead, it served as confirmation of things he already understood. Pastor Russell was not influenced by Charles Piazza Smyth's works, unlike other "independent" Bible student associations. In fact, some modern-day Bible students have acknowledged this. If Pastor Russell had been alive during Brother Adam Rutherford's time, he would have likely agreed with his findings, further affirming his own knowledge. While he may not have formally endorsed Rutherford, he would have found his works intriguing, like any rational individual would. Did Pastor Russell have a personal interest in pyramidology, as falsely claimed by some? Of course not! This is just another deceitful argument used by apostates to divert attention from their own shortcomings. The crucial aspect lies in his true opinion on Christian Science. It is evident that, at some stage, he must have been accused of being connected or associated with a prominent Christian Science figure named Mary Baker Eddy. His response, soaked in sarcasm, was: CHRISTIAN SCIENCE--Was Pastor Russell a Pupil of Mary Baker Eddy? Q70:2:: QUESTION (1912)--2--Was Pastor Russell ever a pupil of Mary Baker Eddy? (Laughter.) ANSWER--Not that I know of. (Laughter--applause.) If Pastor Russell were alive today, it is possible that he would consider Jehovah's Witnesses to be an occult, but such an opinion would lack a solid biblical foundation. In my view, I would have respectfully disagreed with his assessment in this matter. Harvest Gleanings vol 3 Nevertheless our text is not inappropriate to our topic, because Spiritism, Occultism, is a doctrine, and hence, as a whole, is to be proved or tried, to be weighed in the balance of reason and Scripture, and to be either accepted as true, or rejected as error. There is no middle ground, These things are either of God, or of the Adversary. It is our desire at this time to set before you conclusive evidence that Spiritism is of the Adversary, and, with its variations of Occultism, Hypnotism, Mesmerism, New Thought, Christian Science, etc., is the work of Satan, deluding the world of mankind, and leading them into the most woeful snares imaginable. In certain cases, Pastor Russell believed that individuals who engaged in pyramidology for mystical purposes were undoubtedly carrying out the work of the devil. Brother Joseph Rutherford is not the only one. Beware of the deceptive presentation of articles here, intended to mislead the public by distorting facts. The articles are designed to create a false impression of being good and right while actually being deceitful and misleading.

JWI, you should focus on monitoring your own multiple accounts instead of worrying about others. Continuously bringing it up only makes you appear foolish.

So, you're suggesting exposing you as a fraudulent witness and an apostate. That's great; it's important for others to know who they're dealing with – someone who used to be part of the Bethel community and is now engaging in questionable actions. Quite amusing, I must say! The current Watchtower has strengthened the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses based on their own understanding. Your criticism of the Bible students is meaningless because you lack an understanding of true chronology and are solely focused on defending your false claims. You will have to defend yourself on judgment day for causing strife, division, and leading others astray like an apostate.

Those who truly comprehend the prophecy of Ezekiel regarding the judgments upon Ammon, Moab, and Edom also recognize the similarities in the judgment that befell Egypt. In terms of historical perspective, it is crucial to emphasize that the Watchtower timeline diverges from the conventional Ussher's chronology, which sets the creation at 4004 BC. Scholars, historians, and archaeologists have long relied on this conventional starting point, but the alternative proposed by the Watchtower offers a fresh perspective. A more accurate one. Under this understanding, the events that took place between 590-580 BC are indicative of divine judgments upon the kingdoms of that time. Historical evidence allows us to establish a connection between the kingdom of Ammon and the year 588 BC. However, it is important to note that these judgments were happening simultaneously, leading to the conclusion that the historical accounts focus mainly on military events rather than biblical events. Despite this, both theologians and scholars have attempted to intertwine these two aspects, even though they are aware that the historical data, whether archaeological, written, or astrological, does not align perfectly. It is worth mentioning that Babylonian astronomers were magicians whose primary purpose was to seek out signs that would captivate the king and his kingdom, rather than anticipating the retribution that the Jewish God would unleash upon them. JUDGMENT AGAINST AMMON. (Ca. 588 B.C.?) The Daily Bible Into His Presence, Volume 2, Napoleon Burt · 2020 The Ancient Arabs: Israel Eph’al 1982 - Page 177 Ezekiel 25:1-7 New International Version A Prophecy Against Ammon 25 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, set your face against the Ammonites and prophesy against them. 3 Say to them, ‘Hear the word of the Sovereign Lord. This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Because you said “Aha!” over my sanctuary when it was desecrated and over the land of Israel when it was laid waste and over the people of Judah when they went into exile, 4 therefore I am going to give you to the people of the East as a possession. They will set up their camps and pitch their tents among you; they will eat your fruit and drink your milk. 5 I will turn Rabbah into a pasture for camels and Ammon into a resting place for sheep. Then you will know that I am the Lord. 6 For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: Because you have clapped your hands and stamped your feet, rejoicing with all the malice of your heart against the land of Israel, 7 therefore I will stretch out my hand against you and give you as plunder to the nations. I will wipe you out from among the nations and exterminate you from the countries. I will destroy you, and you will know that I am the Lord.’” People tend to fixate solely on what is said about Jerusalem, but it's crucial to widen our focus to the entire region. It is important to remember that the kingdoms of Aram, Ammon, and Moab were allies of Babylon and allowed Babylon free passage through their territory. This does not mean that the King of Ammon liked the Babylonian King; he actually disliked him. However, his dislike for the King of Judah was even stronger. No different from what happened between Egypt, Judah, and Babylon. There was no love between the Judean king and Babylon, but he favored Babylon over Egypt, leading to the conflict between King Josiah and King Necho II. Thus, the alliance was purely a matter of convenience. It's possible that the neighboring countries like Egypt and Jordan of today hold similar ideologies to those of ancient kingdoms of Aram, Ammon, and Moab toward Israel and Judah. These kingdoms were positioned adjacent to Israel and Judah. This strategic alliance with Babylon also compelled the Egyptians to travel through the coastline to support Assyria. In the end, all these kings would face judgment from God through the hands of the Babylonians and other allies like the Medes. 2 Kings 24:2 The LORD sent against him bands of the Chaldeans, and bands of the Arameans, and bands of the Moabites, and bands of the people of Ammon, and sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the LORD, which he spoke by his servants, the prophets. There is a crucial part of Judah that people, either deliberately or inadvertently, overlook: Jerusalem. It is essential to grasp that when God unleashed those marauders to bring devastation upon Judah, Jerusalem, being an integral part of Judah, would undoubtedly have been affected. To believe that the marauders would decimate every other city in Judah while leaving Jerusalem unscathed, solely for the purpose of ensuring historical accuracy depicting its destruction in 587 BC, is a fallacy propagated by those who stray from the truth. Those who attempt to refute such events are, in fact, refuting the divine word of God as it is written in 2 Kings 24. Their so-called refutation revolves around speculations on chronological order, by going against the teachings of scripture. It is essential to recognize that scripture is a sacred text, set apart from man-made historical findings, which rely on human calculations rather than God's wisdom. Furthermore, it is important to consider that the Babylonian Chronicles abruptly end in 594 BC. As a result, there is no mention whatsoever of the years 587 BC or 585 BC in these chronicles. However, when examining the historical events recorded, we do find references to Jerusalem in the year 598 BC, as well as accounts of numerous military campaigns that took place in 607 BC within those chronicles. It is worth noting that during this period, a band of marauders was actively wreaking havoc in Judah, including the city of Jerusalem, and as stated by scripture, Babylonian marauders were also involved in these destructive acts. Can this be explained through historical events without relying on the Watchtower chronology, which differs from the conventional chronology? One simply needs to understand the region where Nebuchadnezzar was documented to be in, according to their own Babylonian chronicles ABC4. [5] The nineteenth year (607/606): In the month Simanu the king of Akkad mustered his army and [6] Nebuchadnezzar, his eldest son, the crown prince, [7] mustered his army. They marched to the mountains of Za[...]. [8] The king of Akkad left the prince and his army there while he returned to Babylon in the month of Du'ûzu. Therefore, according to the strict guidelines of examining secular history and the Bible's account in 2 Kings 24, it not only matches the description but also aligns with the pattern established by God for the judgement against Judah, including Jerusalem. Nebuchadnezzar's presence in every Babylonian campaign was not necessary. Such a belief would be foolish. Of course, he would get credit for directing a military campaign from afar, especially a successful one. Who was left to oversee the military campaigns in the western region, from the Zagros Mountains that transcend far up to Turkey? Nebuchadnezzar, according to the chronicles since Napolossar went home. This is the time period when Napolossar's health started to decline. History teaches us that the Medes and Babylonians besieged Harran in 610 BC, which clearly demonstrates the vibrant activity taking place in the western region during that time. Particularly noteworthy is King Necho's attempt to assist the Assyrians in Harran, which was thwarted by the Babylonians and Medes after clashing with King Josiah of Judah in either late 610 BC or early 609 BC. The historical evidence of Egyptian King Necho's presence in Riblah in 609 BC, seeking to depose a Judean king and install his own, indicates the proximity of the Babylonians in the region, where the Arameans (Syria) are situated to the west of the Euphrates. All of these events occurred between 610-607 BC, as confirmed by historical records. There is absolutely no basis for a fictional date of 587 BC, created solely to rationalize the mistakes made by previous generations. The supposed explanation for 587 BC is entirely distinct. However, it remains a topic of discussion for individuals who are unwilling to acknowledge their erroneous beliefs even after a decade. They are unable to admit their mistakes and are troubled by the thought of leading others astray. All of these topics have been extensively discussed, as the title suggests. Countless posts, by numerous professional accounts, have been unjustly disregarded for challenging people's beliefs which prove them wrong. Then, these individuals have the audacity to assert that no evidence has been presented in the last 10 years, as if their inability to recognize it somehow qualifies them to pass judgment. It is truly foolish for an ignorant person to believe that they have been communicating with the same individual all this time, especially when they consistently use the same writing style for all their accounts. This means the jokes on them. Furthermore, George presented additional persuasive evidence to undermine the credibility of this individual's criticism. It is clear that this person is compelled to criticize, as their stance in this forum would otherwise be undermined by a decade's worth of manipulation, distortion, and lies, as revealed by George.

I won't waste any more time on this pointless argument about who deleted the past information and who the true librarian is. However, I must point out that the only thing you got right is that you reject the Watchtower Chronology. I have no obligation to prove anything to you or people like you. I'm intrigued by the Babylonian Chronicle ABC4 - what specific aspects of it are posing challenges for you? What parts are you finding difficult to comprehend?

It appears that the excuses are coming from you. Why should I keep posting numerous pieces of evidence to debunk your personal fallacies when you keep deleting them every time you ban someone? That doesn't seem logical. Your opinion is irrelevant. I am focused on revealing the real truth about your deceit to the public, not to any apostate.

Your personal fallacy lies in not considering the historical context that could reveal the fallacy in this conclusion. I was unaware that the scholarly works presented by both George and I were actually non-canonical books. These works are actually based on historical evidence, meticulously presented by professionals in the field. It seems that you are unfairly basing your criticism on just one book, without acknowledging the broader context. Your personal investigation into Brother Adam Rutherford did not delve deep enough. Although he may have been recognized by the Bible students, his background goes beyond that. As I mentioned, he was a British Israelite with a lineage that can be traced back even further. Are you troubled by the fact that Rutherford was correct while your champion, COJ, was not? Multiple individuals, besides Joseph Rutherford, alleged that Pyramidology was associated with Satanism. Your personal observations are causing confusion by trying to manipulate them with wordplay. I guess this is when you get very upset enough to ban. Indeed! We are aware of your stance on 587 BC versus 607 BC, which aligns with that of other dissenters. However, it is crucial to note that the evidence you continuously dismiss has valid explanations of its own. Thus, your refusal to acknowledge these explanations renders your opinion insignificant and lacking credibility. Consequently, I cannot accept your distorted perspective on history either. If you haven't witnessed the enlightenment brought about by many individuals over the course of a decade, what makes you believe that you are intelligent enough now to understand, especially if you still fail to comprehend it?

Misunderstanding history and biblical chronology does not necessarily imply the presence of contradictions. Such contradictions only arise in your mind, as you are the one perceiving them as contradictory. There is an abundance of compelling historical evidence to consider additional factors for that particular year, which you persistently refuse to acknowledge. Therefore, I will refrain from engaging in pointless arguments over baseless counterarguments, as the public is capable of conducting its own research. I firmly believe that George attests to that. But since you or Tom banned that person, it seems to have been erased. Your actions as a witness consistently highlight your dysfunction. It is evident that you are pretending to be one, and it is not difficult to comprehend this fact. Indeed, a person who speaks the "truth" has no reason to fear judgment from God. However, individuals who inflict conflict, discord, and lead people astray with deceit, distortion, and misguided intentions must bear the weight of concern before God. This principle holds true not only for those present but also for certain members in the exclusive group who still align themselves with that individual. I don't resort to anger to justify banning people; that's something you and Tom do. There is ample evidence that you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge, which seems like a futile attempt to defend false claims. Therefore, I concur with the Bible and historical events. I have doubts about your professionalism and research skills. Hence, your credibility is nonexistent. Overall, the majority of our brothers do not share apostate views like the ones you're expressing. Our focus should not be on questioning the truthfulness of our brothers, but rather on addressing the distortions presented as false truth being forced and presented here. When scripture admonishes us to avoid such behaviors, it becomes clear that you do not align with the faithful brothers, but rather stand as a stain among them. I haven't encountered any positive perspectives here so far. Criticizing the Watchtower, the Governing Body, the Elders, and their interpretation, as well as their chronology, seems to be the only thing you find beneficial. Your mindset on adhering to Bible truth as presented by an organization you disparage and slander appears to deviate from the civilized world under the guidance of Christ. Are Tom and you missing Pudgy (James) so much for that reason?

You seem to struggle with interpreting past information accurately due to a lack of research skills. This is a critical issue for a self-proclaimed researcher. If Brother Adam were alive today, I highly doubt that he would agree with your understanding of the historical events surrounding Nebuchadnezzar's kingship in 605 BC. He has his own chronology which places the destruction of Jerusalem in 585 BC, whereas you have been adamant in advocating for the date of 587 BC. Even in his astronomical data, I haven't found any inclusion of information other than Ptolemy's Canon. It appears that you tend to only support ideas that do not align with the Watchtower Chronology when it comes to historical events. However, I also observe your agreement regarding how Adam Rutherford, a member of the "British Israelite" sect of Christianity, successfully utilized the Babylonian chronicles to establish a reliable chronology. On the other hand, the COJ, unfortunately, failed to accomplish the same feat. I always strive to maintain consistency, which is why individuals like George were banned for. Just like George, there are various explanations surrounding the active military campaigns during the years 590,589, 588, 587, 586, 585, 584, 583, and 582 BC, etc. Consequently, my commitment lies in ensuring that different correct interpretations of historical events are consistently acknowledged.

You have consistently expressed your opposition to the Watchtower Chronology and your support for the historical view of 587 BC, aligning yourself with apostate friends past and present. I understand your position on this matter. If you are engaging in mind games, that is your concern. Your actions will never absolve you of the responsibility for causing conflict, division, and distress (stumble) to genuine visitors who came seeking the truth, only to encounter a supposed witness taking such reckless actions to share an untrustworthy opinion. If you are uncertain about the true meaning of the gentile times, let me clarify that it is not about predicting Armageddon. Rather, it is based on the proximity of the actual event of "tribulation." It appears that you and your misled circle of friends are still confused about this. You keep bringing up a misinterpretation of 587/6 BC despite criticizing me for being confused about your interpretation. Cease playing your childish games. However, it seems that you haven't fully grasped the details of historical events that lead us to the year 607 BC, as you still hold the belief that Nebuchadnezzar was the king in 605 BC. Let's examine the historical events surrounding Cyrus: indeed, he defeated Babylon in late 539 BC. In mid-538 BC, he issued a decree for the Jews to return home, and by 537 BC, when they were already back in their homeland, they erected an altar. These facts are straightforward enough. Consequently, we can indeed trace back the 70-year period to the year 607 BC. There's no window for error using the date 539 BC. Wow, that's a surprising statement. Have you received counseling or have you developed a conscience? It appears that the truth in your recent comments truly reveals your authentic self and how you wish to be perceived, not as a true witness. As I mentioned before, lacking understanding shouldn't be an excuse for causing others to stumble for more than 10 years.

Certainly, you do. You have been contending with misinformation for 10 years. What aspect of those dissenting views is leading you to shift your position? Your claims are merely speculative, as he has his own method for determining those dates. Furthermore, you conveniently overlook the fact that he relied on the Babylonian chronicles to validate his claims, which is my main argument that you seem determined to evade. More speculation: just because you can't figure it out personally, doesn't mean the rest of us are handicapped. That seemingly only applies to you. He didn't seem to have a problem organizing historical events in their proper order. It seems disingenuous to criticize just because you don't get it. Someday, you will inevitably grasp the simplicity that honest researchers effortlessly comprehend. However, in the meantime, it is of little value to entertain conjecture and speculation from dissenters who stubbornly refuse to accept facts, whether they are rooted in biblical or historical evidence. Those who are interested are free to delve into the positive findings of the Watchtower Chronology. Unfortunately, as more people search the internet, they are increasingly exposed to misinformation, not only from unreliable sources such as apostates and several active witnesses but also from biased search engine owners who prioritize deception over truth in their results.

It is intriguing how you justify your disagreement with Watchtower Chronology, especially considering that it is discussed in an apostate site, AD1914, alongside your own rejection of 607 BC for the reasons you mentioned. King Nebuchadnezzar was not king in 607 BC. However, numerous reputable individuals, including Bro. Adam Rutherford, have been able to discern this, while you seem to be unaware of these facts. This is a compelling reason why one should not take your personal observations seriously, as you do not appear to be a serious researcher. Fortunately, people can turn to Adam Rutherford's works and learn how he properly utilized the Babylonian Chronicles, as opposed to the incorrect methods employed by apostates in the past, including some active witnesses here and of course this would include Carl Olof Jonsson. It's good that you are finally being honest with the people whom you personally caused to stumble with your conflicted views. It's important to acknowledge that your opposition of 1914 and 607 can be easily proven. As always, you tend to react with frustration and possible banning, or attempt to cleverly manipulate the situation with wordplay to maintain a favorable image. However, it seems unreasonable that you only value your own words and those of your friends, without consideration for the general public.

In volume 3, the mention of 587 BC and 586 BC is not in the context one might expect, as argued by apostates. Those who dissent arrive at their conclusion based on an astronomical tablet dated in 568 BC. The inconsistency here lies in their assertion, which hinges on retracing either the 18th or 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar back to their given dates, when we could just as easily utilize those year dates from 626/5 BC to arrive at 607/6 BC. The king's list is not necessary to extract the value of Jeremiah's mission. Adam Rutherford's approach, while one of many, is driven by the Sabbatical year or cycle. He does not endorse 587/6 BC as he believes it to be in error, but instead opts to link it to 585 BC which hinders that apostate claim of the astronomical tablet VAT 4956 from 568 BC that COJ and all apostates used to confirm the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC. They would also need to explain those 2 years. library.biblicalarchaeology.org According to the introduction to his eponymous biblical book, Jeremiah became a prophet in the 13th year of King Josiah, that is, around 626 BC. In that same year, the Chaldeans took control of the city of Babylon, and so began the rise of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, which in 40 years would swallow up Judah. Pyramidology -- adam rutherford -- Volume 3, 1966 Hence 587 B.c. is also an erroneous date for the fall of Jerusalem. So 588 B.c. is not the correct date either for the Fall of Jerusalem. according to the system of chronology herein set forth, the destruction of Jerusalem took place in 585 B.c. Naturally, this does not correspond to our comprehension of events based on our initial standpoint in time. However, in all of Adam Rutherford's books, there are references to 607 BC and AD 1914. Regardless of any other connections and methods he may employ, it is ultimately these two dates that hold the utmost significance to the Watchtower Chronology. Rutherford emphasizes and establishes a connection with the Babylonian Chronicles in his own unique manner. As I previously mentioned, his works should be interesting for any dedicated researcher. However, for myself, in certain instances, I must respectfully disagree with his perspective on historical chronology.

Furthermore, I am absolutely certain that he possessed an extensive compilation of the kings' chronicles from esteemed sources like "Edwin R. Thiele" and "Ptolemy Canon", which he frequently referenced. The Watchtower Chronology commences in 4026 BC, whereas general secular history utilizes Ussher's 4004 BC. The crucial point here is that by solely relying on secular history as a reference, the same conclusion is reached without the need for Adam to utilize the Watchtower chronology. Why do we keep trying to confuse the issue with our chronology dates when the end goal is the same? Pyramidology -- adam rutherford -- Volume 3, 1966 THE 3RD YEAR OF JEHOIAKIM Daniel 1:1 The first verse in the Book of Daniel states: “In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem and besieged it.’’ This verse has puzzled archaeologists. As punctuated in the English Bible, Jeremiah 46,!2 seems to state that the Battle of Carchemish was fought in the 4th year of Jehoiakim. It is clearly recorded in the cuneiform Babylon Chronicle (B.M. 21946) that this battle occurred a few weeks before Nebuchadnezzar ascended the Babylonian throne in the 21st year of his father,Nabopolassar, whose death occurred on the 8th of AB (August). The Chronicle also records a siege of Jerusalem in the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar and the capture of the king (Jehoiachin) and appointment of the new king (Zedekiah) on the 2nd of Adar (March). As Jehoiachin only reigned 3 months, his accession on the death of Jehoiakim was therefore in the December of Nebuchadnezzar’s 7th year (8th year by Jewish reckoning). Hence Jehoiakim died in the first half of his 11th regnal year (being Tishri years) and in the latter half of Nebuchadnezzar’s 7th year (Nisan years). As the Battle of Carchemish was fought in the summer, had it taken place in the 4th year of Jehoiakim (second half), this would have been synchronous with the first half of Nebuchadnezzar’s 1st year (2nd year, Jewish reckoning), whereas we know from the Babylonian Chronicle itself that the battle occurred in the 21st year of the reign of Nabopolassar (Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year) and hence in Jehoiakim’s 3rd year. As explained on page 572, the seeming contradiction is accounted for by the erroneous punctuation of Jeremiah 46,1.), Here we can observe that he specifically references the siege of Jerusalem in 598 BC. He thoroughly examines secular history without depending on other factors. According to his perspective, the third year of Jehoiakim begins in 610 BC, specifically in the late portion of the year around October or November. Notably, Jehoahaz was made king in that period, and three months later, Jehoiakim ascended to the throne, aligning with secular historical records from 606 BC. However, the Watchtower's use of different dates originating from 4026 and chronologically running down from that point results in an obvious misalignment. Nevertheless, the discrepancy does not negate the fact that either the 607 BC Watchtower or the 606 BC Bible Students is correct, given that scripture mentions the 3rd year in one passage and the 4th year in another. So, those 2 years you are now agreeing with could have been used anywhere from 605 to 539.

I absolutely agree with your statement. This indeed provides compelling evidence that apostates mistakenly relied on the Babylonian Chronicles, when they could have easily utilized the correct method, which supports the Watchtower Chronology. The COJ book should have been considered utterly worthless by conflicted bethelites. Pyramidology -- adam rutherford -- Volume 3, 1966 THE EARLY PERSIAN PERIOD Persia became the dominating world power, with Cyrus as first monarch, after the Fall of Babylon. In 1957-38 the pub-lication of the translation of the three recently discovered Harran Inscriptions (H1, B.; H2, A.; H2, B.) of Nabonidus, the last independent king of Babylon, is revolutionary in that the first-hand detailed chronological information therein supplied demands an adjustment of the hitherto accepted chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period and that of the reign of Cyrus of Persia following. The details of this are given in Chapter IV, wherein we discuss the chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period but, suffice is to say here that these new invaluable archaeological discoveries show that the hitherto generally received date of the Fall of Babylon, 539 B.c., must be lowered 2 years and that the correct date for that event is 537_Bic, This means of course that the date of the accession of Cyrus as the first Persian Emperor is accordingly 537 B.c., with his Ist regnal year beginning in Nisan, 536 B.c. That this dating is correct can also be shown independently from Persian history as follows: (This portion was posted by you) Continued: After the fall of Babylon, the Jews returned to the Holy Land in the reign of Cyrus the Great. Both Ptolemy’s Canon and the contract tablet datings show a 9 years’ reign for Cyrus and 8 years for his son and successor, Cambyses. The latter reign is astronomically fixed by the record of the lunar eclipse of 16th July, 523 B.c. in the 7th year of that reign. Thus, there is an understanding of the events from 539 BC to Cyrus' Edict in 538 BC and the return of the Jews in 537 BC, which aligns with the Watchtower's view of 537 BC and the recognition of 607 BC as the 70-year mark. However, the inconsistency arises when the same two years accepted for the process of 539 BC are denied in the context of 607 BC, with the preference being for 587 BC based on astronomical data, which was previously upheld for 10 years. This shift in stance seems to come after causing confusion for many, all in an effort to argue against the Watchtower's position. It appears to be a belated change in perspective. In his fourth volume, he delves deeper into the topic of 607 BC, shedding more light on it. Additionally, it's important to consider the timeframe of his demise. Pyramidology -- adam rutherford -- Volume 4, 1972 This means to say that the end of this World Order comes precisely 4 Times or 1440 years (4x360=1440) after the beginning of Daniel’s 34 Times in a.d. 538. A pattern of prophetic Times apparently runs through the Divine Plan of the Ages, for from the birth of Christ in 2 B.c. (date of which is conclusively proved in Book JJ) to the inauguration of the Millennium in 1979 is exactly 54 Times or 1980 years (14. B.c. + A.D. 19782= 1980). All students of chronological prophecy are of course familiar with the 7 Times of Daniel, chapter 4, extending from the beginning of Babylonian domination in 607 B.c. till a.p. 1914, the commencement of World Wars and first stage in the breaking-up of the Old Order. Then the Great Pyramid’s chronograph defines another 3 prophetic Times beyond that, namely from 1914 to 2994 which is a period of 1080 years (3 x360=1080)—Book I, pages 149-150. However, what is being overlooked is the fact that Adam Rutherford's book was actually published in 1966, yet no apostate from that time, such as COJ or anyone in the present era, has ever mentioned the connection it has with the Babylonian Tablets at the British Museum. This crucial link is being deliberately downplayed, and I am bringing this to the public's attention with great emphasis. By relying solely on secular history, 607 BC stands as a credible date that has been substantiated in the past, well before the advent of all the COJ misconceptions.

Pyramidology -- adam rutherford -- Volume 3, 1966 He confidently refers to the years 539 BC and 537 BC, which he obtained from the Harran Inscriptions of 1957-1958 (H1, B; H2, A; H2, B). Additionally, he mentions the year 536 BC, which aligns with Pastor Russell's understanding of Chronology during that period. However, it is regrettable that some apostates here foolishly embraced Carl Olof Jonsson's erroneous misconception of secular chronology, which they desperately used to challenge the accurate Watchtower Chronology. It is clear that your unwavering insistence on using the incorrect date of 587 BC contributed to confusion and disharmony. If a good researcher wants to conduct a thorough investigation, they must utilize all available information, rather than cherry-picking data that aligns with their preconceptions. Isn't it, what people want here? Not a discussion but a fight when things don't go their way? There is too much resorting to strife and division, even though the Bible "clearly" speaks against such behavior. My statement remains firm: no apostate has utilized Adam Rutherford's work to "connect" the Babylonian Chronicles in a manner that doesn't support baseless argument like COJ. Anyone who had thoroughly examined the chronicles would have recognized that one individual had already used them correctly prior to the claims of the opposing party. This serves as further evidence supporting the validity of the Watchtower Chronology. Another compelling reason to dismiss theoretical ideologies presented here. For those to whom this issue is significant, I encourage independent and comprehensive research. Some individuals often become easily fatigued solely because they lack belief in the existence of alternatives. However, it is important to understand that there is always an alternative, and sometimes these alternatives coincide, even if it's just a single one. In Adam Rutherford's third volume from 1966, which predates Carl Olof Jonsson's misguided book, there is a question as to why conflicted Bethelites didn't explore that instead of embracing COJ's book. Now, 10 years later, there is a demand for explanations and justifications after causing so much confusion (Stumbling) for many.

"KEY" is the word that should be examined, as it signifies something with deep significance. Just like "meaningful." God grants wisdom through proper translation, which is crucial for conveying meaningful messages to his followers. Not everyone possesses the stature of Moses or a Levite, just as no one compares to Jesus or the apostles. Nevertheless, they have made a profound impact through their inspired written words. This inspiration is brought to life through the use of the appropriate lexicon and concordance. The existence of various lexicons with their own interpretations does not guarantee full support from God. Nor does one own interpretation. Let's entrust the task to the professionals and those who are guided by divine inspiration.

When God grants wisdom and understanding through the Holy Spirit, it is never a trial. Job got it, so why haven't all of you understood that you must find your own meaningful purpose.