Ann O'Maly

There will likely be more prosecutions in the aftermath of the ARC, @Barbara Snook. This is a good thing. This former JW may have been targeting 'worldly' children since he left the Org. Other unreported molesters may still be active members of congregations. Former JW or current JW, what has been hidden is coming to light and, if convicted, the community should be that little bit safer.
Also, if you really don't like these kinds of news stories - and the thread title was sufficiently clear on what it was about - then choose not to read them! 

@Allen Smith - most can see through the sensationalist language used, but it is reporting a true story.
How naive are you?
Victim: "I was attacked and beaten, and I have life-changing injuries which will require therapy for the rest of my life!"
Allen: "You are very brave to speak up. There, there. Now don't you feel better?"
Victim: "So is my attacker to be penalized for what he did?"
Allen: "You having a voice is enough. On your way."
"Some here claim"? Hahaha. This is what Watchtower Australia claimed - they categorized the 1006 cases as child sexual abuse allegations. (Idiot.)
 

The one with Harry Holt does. But she and her younger sister Alison related their stories about their father's abuse back in 2002 (see the documentary below - it's cued up at the right place). Stories like this are hitting the news outlets at the moment, no doubt because there is a campaign to have the UK JWs' child abuse allegation procedures officially investigated due to failings that have come to light in high profile cases over the past few years.
 
 

@Allen Smith - most can see through the sensationalist language used, but it is reporting a true story.
How naive are you?
Victim: "I was attacked and beaten, and I have life-changing injuries which will require therapy for the rest of my life!"
Allen: "You are very brave to speak up. There, there. Now don't you feel better?"
Victim: "So is my attacker to be penalized for what he did?"
Allen: "You having a voice is enough. On your way."
"Some here claim"? Hahaha. This is what Watchtower Australia claimed - they categorized the 1006 cases as child sexual abuse allegations. (Idiot.)
 

Then you may have missed his strongly-worded comments against the Catholic hierarchy and his persistent efforts to call its leadership to account.
http://www.zalkin.com/blog/irwin-zalkin-statement-on-vatican-refusal-to-comply-with-u-n-committee-report/
https://web.archive.org/web/20160824114318/http://www.zalkin.com/blog/irwin-zalkin-statement-on-vatican-refusal-to-comply-with-u-n-committee-report/
http://www.pressherald.com/2010/10/26/records-document-decades-of-abuse-by-priests_2010-10-26/
Rodrigue later admitted he had molested between four to five children a year over a span of 22 years, said Irwin Zalkin, an attorney for the plaintiffs. About 30 people filed lawsuits against the diocese alleging sexual abuse against the priest, who died within the last year, he said.
“He was probably one of the most prolific abusers in this diocese. … And they knew about this guy from his days in the seminary but kept him in ministry,” Zalkin said.
Attorneys are still trying for the release of an additional 2,000 pages of documents.
http://www.10news.com/news/abuse-victims-want-convicted-priest-relieved-of-duties
"That's outrageous," said sex abuse attorney Irwin Zalkin, reacting to the fact that a convicted priest was still with the church. "But that was part of the practice that has existed within the church as a whole, certainly within the Diocese of San Diego, and I have no doubt is a problem in Latin America and Mexico."
Zalkin said there is no provision in the 2007 settlement with the Catholic Church that says "Thou shall not hire pedophile priests, but one would hope that after what we've been through for the past almost decade, with the exposure of these documents, with the litigation, with the payment of almost $200 million, they'd get the right idea and start vetting who they're hiring."
https://youtu.be/BdC2D9YYM5I?t=37s (interview with Associated Press)
 

The one with Harry Holt does. But she and her younger sister Alison related their stories about their father's abuse back in 2002 (see the documentary below - it's cued up at the right place). Stories like this are hitting the news outlets at the moment, no doubt because there is a campaign to have the UK JWs' child abuse allegation procedures officially investigated due to failings that have come to light in high profile cases over the past few years.
 
 

Releasing a magazine that scapegoats homosexuals as pedophiles is hardly being 'proactive' against child abuse. 

JW Insider
I have several issues with your post: Firstly, the dating of the commencement of the seventy years from 609 BCE is problematic for the simple reason nothing of historical significance occurred in that year further its ending in 539 BCE is also absurd because the Jews were still in Babylon after that date. So both the beginning and the end of the seventy years simply does not work. Carl Jonsson failed to resolve these problems especially the first objection as he wavered between 609 BCE and 605 BCE.
Further, the seventy years of Zechariah are also problematic if we simply ignore the fact that Zechariah was referring to those seventy years that began with Jerusalem's destruction in 607 BCE until their end in 537 BCE. Again, Jonsson who discussed these seventy years in some detail could come with a coherent chronology.
One can only conclude that 607 BCE is the only possible date for the Fall of Jerusalem and the beginning of the seventy years and with some fine tuning well harmonizes with the secular evidence. The date 587 BCE is unacceptable as it has to compete with 586 and other dates.
scholar JW
 

Yes. A 70 year period that ended in 539 would have to have started around 609. And this is a pretty good match for when Babylonian power reared its head over Assyria. The capital of Nineveh fell in 612 and Babylon took advantage and became the next world power. 609 was the year that Josiah died. Josiah was considered by many Jews to be the next potential Messiah, a king like David.
In fact, notice that 609 is exactly the year that the Watch Tower publications point to (indirectly) when it speaks of the end of the Assyrian empire. (Remember that the WTS arbitrarily adds 20 years to every date prior to 587 B.C.E., so that 607 B.C.E.is actually 587 B.C.E., and therefore 629 B.C.E. is actually 609 B.C.E.)
*** it-1 p. 205 Assyria ***
According to the same chronicle, in the 14th year of Nabopolassar (632 B.C.E.), Ashur-uballit II attempted to continue Assyrian rule from Haran as his capital city. This chronicle states, under the 17th year of Nabopolassar (629 B.C.E.): “In the month Duʼuzu, Ashur-uballit, king of Assyria, (and) a large [army of] E[gy]pt [who had come to his aid] crossed the river (Euphrates) and [marched on] to conquer Harran.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 305; brackets and parentheses theirs.) Actually, Ashur-uballit was trying to reconquer it after having been driven out. This record is in harmony with the account relative to the activity of Pharaoh Nechoh recorded at 2 Kings 23:29, which activity resulted in the death of King Josiah of Judah (c. 629 B.C.E.). This text states that “Pharaoh Nechoh the king of Egypt came up to the king of Assyria by the river Euphrates”—evidently to help him. “The king of Assyria” to whom Nechoh came may well have been Ashur-uballit II. Their campaign against Haran did not succeed. The Assyrian Empire had ended. So this is an excellent match for the 70 years of Babylonian domination from 609 to 539, spoken about by Jeremiah:
(Jeremiah 25:11, 12) 11 And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’ 12 “‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,’ . . . Just as the Watch Tower publications have explained it in the "Isaiah's Prophecy" book:
*** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***
“These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) . . . Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble.
So that is ONE period of 70 years that started in 609 and ended in 539.
The Bible, in the book of Zechariah, also mentions another period of 70 years that starts around 587 (destruction of Jerusalem) or even 588 when the siege began, and ends around 518. Since it's been so many months I'll repeat some portions of the post you referred to, where this was explained:
------- the remainder of this post copied from a previous post (JWI: 4/14/2017) above -------
(Zechariah 1:12) . . .“O Jehovah of armies, how long will you withhold your mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with whom you have been indignant these 70 years?”
(Zechariah 7:5) . . .‘When you fasted and wailed in the fifth month and in the seventh month for 70 years. . .
(Zechariah 8:19) . . .‘The fast of the fourth month, the fast of the fifth month, the fast of the seventh month, and the fast of the tenth month will be occasions for exultation and joy for the house of Judah. . .
*** w96 11/15 p. 5 Does God Require Fasting? ***
For example, at one time the people of Judah had four annual fasts to commemorate the calamitous events associated with Jerusalem’s siege and desolation in the seventh century B.C.E. (2 Kings 25:1-4, 8, 9, 22-26; Zechariah 8:19)
According to our current understanding of the chronology that includes the supposed destruction of Jerusalem in 607 BCE, then this produces a contradiction, because we date the book of Zechariah as follows:
*** nwt p. 1662 Table of the Books of the Bible ***
Zechariah
Jerusalem rebuilt
518
520-518 [BCE]
If Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE, then 518 BCE is 69 years later, and therefore matches Zechariah's theme of 70 years of withheld mercy and indignities, and wailing and fasting over Jerusalem, which is now being rebuilt.
If Jerusalem had been destroyed in 607 BCE, then by Zechariah's time, in 518 BCE, it would have been 89 years of wailing and fasting.
Neither date is "Biblical" and neither date should really matter that much, but it is curious that 607 BCE is totally impossible from the perspective of secular evidence, and it becomes very difficult from the perspective of Biblical evidence. Yet 587 BCE is totally supported from the perspective of secular evidence and provides an excellent match to the Biblical evidence. There should really be no reason why we are not rejoicing that secular, historical, archaeological evidence for 587 BCE once again shows the Bible to be accurate and sound from a historical perspective.

Some of you mentioned Carl Olof Jonsson on the Destruction of Jerusalem
I didn't know any of his story until this video.
 

They already did.

This really puts a bad mark on Jehovah's name. It's concerning to me that more and more people are coming to associate the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses with child abuse.

The formal ruling according to the court of appeals document dated Nov. 9, 2017 page. 39 (the link to the document posted by Witness above)
"On the record before us, we are satisfied that the superior court's order was not arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical. To the contrary, the superior court has shown great patience and flexibility in dealing with a recalcitrant litigant who refuses to follow valid orders and merely reiterates losing arguments. We therefore affirm".
Therefore the fine stands.

PDF File

On June 23, 2016, San Diego, California, Superior Court Judge Richard Strauss grew tired of the Watchtower Society fighting his order to produce a 1997 letter sent to all elders worldwide, and decided to sanction the religion with a fine of $4000 per day until the Watchtower complied with that order. 
Today is  November 12 2017. Quick mathematical say that this Company payed almost $2 000 000 until today. Imagine how many ice creams children in JW congregations  would be able to enjoy after Sunday meetings in KH, with this fund. Imagine how many poor bro and sis in congregations worldwide would be helped and receive some comfort for daily life.
But as Bible say: Proverbs 22:2 -"The rich and poor have this in common: The Lord made them both." 28:6 - "Better to be poor and honest than to be dishonest and rich."
Source: JW Victims.org
https://jwvictims.org/2017/10/18/news-update-watchtower-appeals-4000-per-day-fine-by-flipflopping-on-their-own-legal-argument/
https://questionsforjehovahswitnesses.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/d070723-marked-up.pdf 

(Giannis, Robert King is disfellowshipped so it's unlikely that loyal JWs will read anything he says.)
I remember the controversy when it broke and researched the matter for myself at the time.
The issue wasn't so much that Watchtower became a NGO, but that it also became associated with the UN's Department of Public Information which required assenting to the UN Charter (read it to see what that involved) and promoting the UN's work, aims and values. Every year, as the rules stood, the Organization had to provide evidence to the DPI that it was doing that in order to continue association. This is why the articles in the Awakes during the 1990s softened their anti-UN stance and put the UN's accomplishments in a more positive light.
It's easy to minimize the Watchtower's involvement as the actions of one Bethelite, but he and the other named representative were high-up Bethelites. At least one GB member was aware because he was also listed as one of the representatives on the accreditation forms (W. [Lloyd] Barry). Not only that but, 
"Each article in both The Watchtower and Awake! and every page, including the artwork, is scrutinized by selected members of the Governing Body before it is printed." - w87 3/1 p. 15 par. 18.
So any 'spiritual food' that promoted the UN's work (in contrast to the usual contempt about it) was checked and signed off by members of the GB. It would be those kinds of articles that were provided to the DPI so the Org. could continue its association.
Given that the UN has long been viewed as the 'disgusting thing' of Daniel and the 'scarlet wild beast' of Revelation, it's understandable why many would be stumbled by the Org's actions.

Indeed. But the focus of this thread is on how historical and linguistic scholarship can be misused or ignored to influence readers to a preordained conclusion (namely, that Jesus didn't die on a cross). The shape of the stauros Jesus died on shouldn't be an issue, but the Org has stuck its neck out and made it one.
 

The following post quotes originally came from this thread: 
Rather than take the thread totally off topic, I thought I would make some comments in a new one.
I'm commenting on this post, likewise not to create a firestorm, but to flag up how we ought to check sources of information rather than automatically taking on trust that what is written is sound.
Regarding information on the internet, the August 15, 2011 Watchtower put forward some criteria by which we can critically assess its factuality:
"Before trusting it, ask: (1) Who published this material? What are the author’s credentials? (2) Why was this published? What motivated the writer? Is there any bias? (3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?" - p. 4 
It's good practice to apply these basic principles to anything we read - even material produced by the Organization. 
It's also worth remembering Christians do not claim Jesus was executed on a crux ansata or ankh-shaped cross (think of the practical problems for a start). But let's look at how the Reasoning book approaches the wider question of whether Jesus was executed on a cross at all.
 
"(2) ... Is there any bias?"
Absolutely. The Reasoning book's quote from the Imperial Bible Dictionary is chopped up, and omits key information that would allow the reader to understand that, while stauros originally had one meaning, by the time of Jesus the word had evolved and was understood differently. The omitted parts from the quote are in red.
"The Greek word for cross, [stau·ros′], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. But a modification was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through Greek-speaking countries. Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole, and this always remained the more prominent part."
The quote continues to cite Seneca's (4 BC-65 AD) eye-witness testimony about 3 different kinds of crucifixion regularly employed, the last of which was where the victim's arms were extended on a patibulum. The dictionary then adds:
"There can be no doubt, however, that the latter sort was was the more common, and that about the period of the gospel age crucifixion was usually accomplished by suspending the criminal on a cross piece of wood." - p. 376
You can read the Imperial Bible Dictionary article for yourself here:
https://archive.org/stream/imperialbibledi00fairgoog#page/n402/mode/2up
So why do Watch Tower publications show Jesus on a stake with hands over his head instead of on the traditional cross? Reading an extended quote from the Imperial Bible Dictionary makes the reason for Watchtower's divergence on this matter unclear.
There's no problem with this section as crosses were made of wood from trees. Not only that, but trees had branches upon which arms could be outstretched either side of the body, above it, upside-down or however the executioner wanted to position the poor victim. 
Of course, the Org. no longer translates Jesus' mode of execution as 'impaling' because, well, he wasn't impaled; he was suspended from a stauros by being nailed to it. Impaling is an entirely different kind of torturous end. 
This reference, then, doesn't help explain why Watch Tower publications depict Jesus on an upright stake either.
"(1) ... What are the author’s credentials? ... (3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?" 
Not only is this another outdated source, but psychical research enthusiast J.D. Parsons does not provide references for his comments here (publication viewable online). Historical, linguistic and gospel evidence contradicts him. It's a pity he didn't consult works like the Imperial Bible Dictionary before he wrote his book.
"(3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?" 
This is another old work, this time one edited by E.W. Bullinger. Appendix No. 162 does supply some sources, but it also repeats some of Alexander Hislop's and others' mistaken ideas, e.g. the Babylonian sun-god cross. Not only that, but Bullinger (or whoever the author of Appendix No. 162 was) was evidently unaware of the Oxyrhyncus discoveries which showed that the understanding of stauros as being a two-pieced cross shape occurred in 2nd (and possibly 1st) century Christian writings.
See the Companion Bible entry here: https://archive.org/stream/CompanionBible.Bullinger.1901-Haywood.2005/CompBib.Bull.Hay.NT.Append.24.#page/n797/mode/2up
In fact, many of these old publications the Org. uses as support, and that are contemporaneous with one another, seem to feed off each other's sources, regurgitating them in their own works. The Two Babylons was published in book form in 1858. It's always good to keep this in mind when reading older references after that time because it often influenced other theologians' work - especially if their theology was less mainstream. Vine's Expository Dictionary's entry on 'Cross' is another notable example (see below).
That's assuming that all the available evidence has been presented to the Reasoning book reader. As we've seen, it hasn't but has been cherry-picked from flawed, out-of-date works, which often recycle the same sources, in order to force a predetermined conclusion. When we dig into those sources a little deeper, we find that Watchtower's rejection of the cross and adoption of an upright stake to depict Jesus' execution is based on insubstantial grounds. If we research the subject more thoroughly, although we will never be certain what shape stauros Jesus died on, we will find that the weight of evidence indicates the opposite view to that of the Organization. 
 
What does this have to do with how Christians regard the cross? Cross shapes occur in different cultures, times and contexts. Whatever significance non-Christians placed on cross shapes (4 cardinal points, 4 year markers, 4 key stages in the Sun's apparent seasonal or daily paths around the Earth, circle of life, etc.) has nothing to do with any symbolism Christians attach to the cross Jesus was believed to have been executed on.
"(2) ... Is there any bias? (3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?"
Vine's comment about the two-beamed cross's Chaldean origin actually came from Hislop (Two Babylons, p. 197-8). It is false. 
Hislop was rabidly anti-Catholic and grasping at anything to discredit it, no matter how outlandish. However, in doing so, he was undermining aspects of biblical Christianity too. So, yes, one could say he was biased - so much so that he imagined ancient pagan-Catholic connections everywhere. He provides no historical evidence that the Babylonian god Tammuz was represented by a Tau and besides, the Babylonians didn't write in Greek! Their writing was logographic and the signs for Tammuz (Dumuzi) don't look anything like crosses. 

 
On the other hand, the Paleo-Hebrew script has a letter tav. Guess what it looks like:
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_One/Pictograms/pictograms.html#
Shocking, hey?
"(3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?"
Again, a 19th/early 20th century work. Tyack doesn't provide any sources for his statements. However the concepts seem to be from the Two Babylons book. These connections between the cross and Tammuz plus other ancient near eastern deities don't go back beyond the 1850s and Hislop's book - not that I've been able to trace, anyway.
Around and around we go. This information is straight out of Two Babylons! Look:
https://archive.org/stream/worshipdeadoror00garngoog#page/n268/mode/2up
Please pay particular notice to the references in the footnotes on that page.
I'll post separately about all those cross symbols and the conclusions Hislop jumps to.
Again, what does this have to do with how Christians view the cross Jesus is believed to have died on? 
This is a quote from the same Bullinger work discussed above.
Now, this is a whole different issue.
And is it a matter of degree? Remember how obsessed many JWs are nowadays with the JW.org logo, maybe because of its associations in the JW's mind with true worship, brotherhood, divine blessings, etc. They put it on anything from tiepins to cake. Likewise, many Christians associate the cross with Jesus' love for humankind, victory over death/Satan, hope, etc., and so they like to have a symbolic reminder of that or use it as a visible expression of their faith. I guess it depends on whether one considers a line has been stepped over between expression of faith and worshipful veneration, and there is a certain level of subjectivity in that assessment.
Here we go again. An allusion to Hislopian baloney.
And an upright stake is NOT phallic?
'Some commentators' - who? The Reasoning book doesn't enlighten us.
While I agree that idolatry is against biblical principles, the Org's reluctance to entertain at least the possibility that Jesus historically died on a cross is based on deeply flawed, outdated, and circular reasoning.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Hislop's discussion of various cross shapes on p. 197 of the Two Babylons book:
Fig. 43 shows 5 different cross shapes.
No. 1 is the familiar crucifix shape and comes from Kitto's Biblical Cyclopedia, Vol. 1, p. 495 (viewable online - as with all of these references, just Google). This reference is just a discussion of 'Cross' and Lipsius' various pictures/descriptions of this means of execution.
No. 2 is similar to No. 1 but slanted. The pic comes from Sir W. Betham's Etruria, Vol. 1, p. 54 (viewable online). This references the Etruscan alphabet. Hislop's picture is just one of the letters he's picked out.
No. 3 is like No. 1 except with a slightly curved crosspiece. This is from Bunsen's Egypt's Place in Universal History, Vol. 1, p. 450 (viewable online). Hislop's picture is one of the Coptic letters of the alphabet - a tei. He doesn't bother with the other cross-shaped letters in the Coptic alphabet on pp. 448-450 - not even the tau on p. 449!
No. 4 is similar to an ankh. Hislop thinks it's a cross (the sign of Tammuz) attached to the circle of the sun (p. 198). He provides no reference for this one.
No. 5 is a cross within a circle. This is used as another example of Tammuz being associated with the sun and the picture comes from Stephen's Incidents of Travel in Central America, Vol. 2, p. 344, Plate 2 (viewable online) where an indigenous person's belt is decorated with the symbol.
Hislop uses these sources and cobbles together isolated cross symbols - an instrument of execution, letters of the Etruscan and Coptic alphabets, an ankh and the belt decoration of a Central American Indian. These all form the basis of his argument that,
a) The Christian cross is not a Christian emblem.
(He only establishes that cross shapes occur in all sorts of places and contexts.)
b) The cross originates from the mystic Tau of the Chaldeans and Egyptians.
(An unsupported assertion pulled out of the air - none of his examples are linked to Chaldea.)
c) The letter T is "the initial letter of Tammuz - which, in Hebrew, [is] radically the same as ancient Chaldee" (p. 197).
(It's already been discussed on this thread that, while Paleo-Hebrew indeed has a cross-shaped Tav, the Babylonians wrote in cuneiform and their logographic signs making up the word Dumuzi/Tammuz do not resemble a cross.)
d) Tammuz was identified with the sun.
(Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Babylonian deities knows that Shamash was the god identified with the sun and Marduk may also have had solar connections - not Tammuz. Tammuz was a shepherd-god of agriculture, fertile lands, food and vegetation.)
Hislop's conclusions about how the Christian cross originates in Babylonian worship are therefore founded on ... nothing.

http://britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/search.aspx?searchText=21946

605 BCE is correct, actually.
605 BCE is historically accurate for the battle of Carchemish.
 The British Museum features special exhibitions for limited periods before other special exhibitions replace them. BM 21946 is still prominently and publicly displayed with other tablets, cylinders and stelae of that period in Room 55. You can also go to the 'Collections' part of the website, type in the BM number and see a nice picture and description of it with the correct dates.

https://singularityhub.com/2016/06/27/why-the-world-is-better-than-you-think-in-10-powerful-charts/

Wasn't there mention of there now being a retirement home for old and infirm Bethelites at Warwick?
And a discarded understanding has been brought back about the 'vindication of God's name' - it's OK to use that term again.
 

Wasn't there mention of there now being a retirement home for old and infirm Bethelites at Warwick?
And a discarded understanding has been brought back about the 'vindication of God's name' - it's OK to use that term again.
 

End of a long era. Yearbooks have been produced for about 90 years!
But seeing as personal experiences and regional JW news stories are video presentations now, I guess it makes the Yearbooks redundant.

The funny thing is, old publications are JWs' worst enemy! Where do they think many of the dangerous 'apostate' ideas come from?
I also wonder how long this resource and the associated youtube channel will last before a copyright infringement 'cease and desist' order from Watchtower is slapped on them. Hm, let's wait and see ...
To add: I hope it lasts - it is a useful site - especially with all that is being discontinued at the moment.