Ann O'Maly

On Dr. Jeanson:
http://americanloons.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/193-nathaniel-jeanson.html
Jeanson is a relatively central figure in the Creation Science movement, since he has (in fact) a Medical PhD from Harvard. The fact that he apparently painstakingly obtained the degree in order to disregard every piece of knowledge obtained in the process soley for the purpose of lending an air of authority to anti-science makes his degree meaningless, of course, but the Creationist movement still tout it as evidence for their claims. This is, of course, further showcased by his young earth Creationist arguments, which are the same as the ones Gish used in the 60s and which reveal no grasp of the science. And it is, of course, showcased by the fact that Jeanson himself admits to obtaining the degree for window-dressing.

Diagnosis: This guy seems to virtually worship confirmation bias, and he seems pathologically unable to recognize the problem (though with sufficient zeal and confirmation bias the difference between dishonesty and ignorance does admittedly become murky). He is shown off as a circus freak by the Creationist movement, but seems to have made little impact beyond that.  
https://web.archive.org/web/20160418052514/http://www.icr.org/article/4822/
"I'm a second generation creationist, you might say," he said. He explained how he saw that "salvation was inherent in creation science" and that it could be used as a tool for evangelism, another passion of his.
With a promising and lucrative career in medical research open before him, Jeanson said he underwent a career shift at Harvard. "I asked myself, 'How can I use and abuse my training to influence eternity, rather than for temporary gain?'" He considered mission work or attending seminary. He decided, instead, to seek employment at ICR, rather than continuing his research in Boston.
 

May 15, 2016 TO ALL CONGREGATIONS Re: Answers to 10 Questions Young People Ask
Publication in question: Answers to 10 Questions Young People Ask ypq-E

 
 

Hm. I think I see where you're coming from with the 'patiently explaining' thing. However, Wrench was an incorrigible wriggler. 

Many JW women would disagree. Pants are often more practical and can even be more modest than skirts. They are accepted as appropriate smart-wear for women in the business world. There are no scriptural grounds against them, and I guess it's just another one of those antiquated attitudes where the JW community needs to catch up with late 20th/early 21st century. It may happen - you never know. Look how the Org has embraced digital visual aids and videos as part of their public teaching after resisting them for so many years. 

Many JW women would disagree. Pants are often more practical and can even be more modest than skirts. They are accepted as appropriate smart-wear for women in the business world. There are no scriptural grounds against them, and I guess it's just another one of those antiquated attitudes where the JW community needs to catch up with late 20th/early 21st century. It may happen - you never know. Look how the Org has embraced digital visual aids and videos as part of their public teaching after resisting them for so many years. 

Please be aware this is just to belittle Jehovah's Witnesses. Notice words easter egg on front of envelope? Last page, barely readable,proves this is supposed to be a joke. Not even funny to me, Think, would he have had camera men just waiting for him to open his mail.?And the tears, he is an actor , after all. I post this because I do not wish someone with little command of, or knowledge of American culture and warped ideas of humor to be duped into believing this is true. The posts on you tube show at least one person is not sure if this is true. I am not happy when my brothers and sisters are made fun of or presented in a demeaning manner.@ Kurt. This is not a response to you personally. You may be inexperienced in American ways, and for that I apologize to you for such crass behavior.  If I have spoken in error I will take the wet noodle spanking. Be nice to Jehovah's people!

This is already public record. There is no point in trying to "erase" something. 
I also don't think Prince right now really cares. (unless he was one of the anointed ... in which case he could use his powers to ensure that it gets erased)
Until then.... rejoice in the information that he donated to the world wide work.

2005 - $20,000 for CHANHASSEN JEVOVAH WITNES y ST LOUIS JEHOVAH WITNESS
2006 - $130,000 for JEHOVAH WITNESS KINGDOM HALL
2007 - $800,000 for PECCOLE RANCH LAKES KINGDOM HALL FUND
The amounts of his donations has been posted in other forums with copies of the public tax filings of his Love 4 One Another foundation.

 
I will add a link to this page to his central post on this forum:
 

How is it idolatry to protect one's own or another's property? I don't get it. Besides,
Matthew 24:43 - “But know one thing: If the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into." 
Was Jesus using an idolater as an analogy for Christian vigilance? 
Call the police? Hmm. Other than that, I would hope any volunteer security guard would get appropriate training for these kinds of scenarios.

Questions (open to all):
1. If there were no artifacts to corroborate Bible history, on what would your faith be based? 
2. Biblical interpretation is the scaffold upon which faith hangs, is it not? 
 

The CQC inspection is looking at whether the home is working in accordance with governmental regulations and thereby reflecting current best practice. The same criteria applies to 'worldly' homes as well. 
The problems at Jah-Jireh Wigan weren't centered around the general ethos but were these:
 It's good to see that improvements have been made since. 
The report had lots of positive comments too. 

I only saw The Librarian's response after I hit submit.
Duly noted, sir. 

This home has been inspected again by the Care Quality Commission recently. Improvement has been noted with some further work required.
INS2-2453310514.pdf

JW Insider and Ann O'Maly
Thank you both for such clear and concise information. Also your not resorting to insults and verbal diarrhea as done by one other party makes you both stars as far as I am concerned.
I think the case is proven by your irrefutable information and logic. In clear and concise English, YOU WIN!
All the best
Hugh Baxter

Allen, it's real childish to make a mistake and call the person who pointed it out 'stupid.'  
To further JW Insider's answer about how Nebuchadnezzar raced back home to secure the throne, here is the excerpt from Josephus' Against Apion, 1.19 (134-138): 

https://www.loebclassics.com/view/josephus-apion/1926/pb_LCL186.217.xml
Note that Neb took a shorter route across the desert.

There are JWs I know who disbelieve Prince was a 'brother' so this official confirmation is welcome.

The question sets up a fallacy of the excluded middle. That's why I quoted Ps. 82.
Here I'd like to acknowledge those who pointed out that 'gods' here refer to humans - you're right. I should have checked beyond my old, brief scribblings when looking for a quick reference to post. 

OK. If that's really your position, then what can I do? As it turns out, the case you knew about was almost as germane to the topic, as saying that there really are mathematicians who say that 2+2=5. And that this somehow proves that you shouldn't believe renowned mathematicians. I say that it doesn't have any effect on the evidence of real mathematicians, but you appear to be claiming that anyone who writes any nonsense on a subject can count himself among the others in that field.

Not saying that they can't be flawed, just saying that they happen to fit the evidence from several other independent lines of evidence. So far, there is no evidence that they are flawed. What you brought up was an interesting topic for discussion, and I appreciated it, but it turns out that you are using some speculation that may or may not be true, and then insisting that your speculation is evidence. I'm sure you realize that this is not an honest way to make use of evidence.
 
When you say "couldn't possibly" you are doing the same thing. You are turning your speculation and conjecture and trying to turn it into facts and evidence. Taking care of the affairs of the enemies does not require travel, only that he "makes arrangements." Remember that he still would have left generals and messengers in place while he rushed home.
 
I'm sure that this can and did happen. Just that we don't have real evidence that it happened in this case. Between 609 and 605 Babylon was just beginning to flex its muscles. That doesn't mean that all nations were immediately brought under their control. "Settling the affairs" could even have been terms of peace or truce for some of these nations until he could come back later and finish the job.
 
I have never claimed that 607 is not a viable date. It actually occurred somewhere between 608 and 606. All I am saying is that there is no evidence that the destruction of Jerusalem occurred during that year, and that there is overwhelming evidence that it did not occur that year. Perhaps something else happened that year which perfectly fits what Jeremiah had in mind about Babylon being given 70 years of rule. Perhaps Jeremiah used the term 70 in a sense similar to the idea in Psalms that man's lifespan is 70 or 80. Just because people lived to be 66 or 75 or 83 years of age doesn't change the idea.
Also, I would have no problem with anyone claiming that the date is not infallible but is based on FAITH. That would clear up everything. It's when the claim is made that it is correct because it was worked backwards from a so-called "absolute" date, that we have a problem defending it to anyone who asks a reason from us.
Here's my opinion on this so-called "Oslo Chronology"
There is no such thing as an "Oslo Chronology." As you are aware, a man named Rolf Furuli, a Witness, has come up with the idea of the "Oslo Chronology" I'm guessing because he is from Oslo and really is the kind of egotist that would like to be seen as the man who saved WTS chronology. But from an academic perspective, it was a scholastic fraud. I don't mean that he might not personally believe in it. The way he uses evidence is not up to academic standards. It makes too much use of what is often called "academic dishonesty" in terms of the claims he makes about evidence in order to dismiss it. If you do this once, it can be seen as a mistake, twice, and you just appear sloppy, but if at least 40 such false claims always fit your unique theory, then you lose credibility as any kind of researcher. There is no way these books can be seen as anything but special pleading built on dozens of logical fallacies. You will never be able to find a historian or wannabe historian who could defend these books.
Rolf Furuli is a man with whom I have communicated on several occasions. He proposed a theory that we could take about 10 different lines of evidence that indicated 587 for the 18th/19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, and pretend that 8 of them don't actually matter at all. In fact he makes the false claim that all of them are built on misunderstandings of just one or two lines of evidence, because he obviously doesn't want to admit that the others are truly independent lines of evidence. So he focuses most of his "best evidence" against a single tablet (which he pretends is somehow the only source of identifying the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign). And what does he finally conclude? That it's very likely a fraud. His evidence for it being a fraud is laughable, because he proposes that it was changed by a museum curator, even though there is absolutely no evidence for this, and plenty of evidence against it.
He says that, failing that, you can look at the astronomical sightings on this particular astronomical diary and tie them to a time 20 years off. I even followed a debate where I double-checked every one of Furuli's findings on that tablet, while another person debated an elder from Ohio, and we all discovered that Furuli was either extremely sloppy or dishonest. In fact, even though the the other elder still wanted to believe Furuli, he finally came up with his own alternate scheme about how several of these sightings might have been 20 years off, but he had to stop defending most of his evidence. Furuli's attempt was a complete mess.
Furuli is not a chronologist or historian, and as it turns out, doesn't even have a good understanding of the Bible's chronology. (I pointed out some evidence for this in a previous discussion on jw-archive.) Because he created a couple of books that are "laughed at" by actual historians and archaeologists, I'm afraid he has done a great disservice to the credibility of the WTS. The fact that the WTS used some of his unique ideas in a set of articles a couple years ago, just makes this matter of honesty much more important.

Psalm 82:1, 6
God takes his place in the divine assembly;
In the middle of the gods he judges:
...
 “I have said, ‘You are gods,
All of you are sons of the Most High.
 
Is the psalmist talking about false gods here? Are the angelic 'gods' legitimate or not?

@Jim63 You just ACCUSED ME of being the devil!? Oh the irony! ...... I was asking QUESTIONS earlier without knowing all of the answers of potential dilemmas and for that act alone you called me something far worse than "despicable fool".  Let's see... those who call others "despicable fools" according to Jesus are liable to the fiery Gehenna. Hmmm..... I would say an apology is in order for your long term well-being.
 
 

via TheWorldNewsOrgvia journal.theworldnewsmedia.org

It says that he returned to Babylon in Ululu and he sat on the throne (i.e. the coronation) on Ululu 1st.
There is no attested Ululu II for the year Nab 21/Neb 0 (605 BCE). There had already been an Addaru II 6 months earlier! No need for another intercalary month.
The one that P&D slots into Nab 19 (607 BCE) is an error. The footnote on P&D p. 4 shows it was questionable as the king's name isn't mentioned on the tablet. There are, however, 4 tablets that clearly attest to a second Ululu in Nabopolassar's 18th year.
Indeed.
So what was Allen's point, again, in bringing up this objection about Neb's travel? I've lost track (pun intended).
 
 

They say Prince was a 'spiritual man' who very strongly believed in the church's message
However they do not keep his photo inside so as not to glorify an individual
A couple in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, opened their door in 2003 to find Prince standing on their doorstep with a Bible



The 81-year-old said of the deceased singer: ‘Prince was a publisher with good standing here in our congregation. He was active, he shared in the ministry every month.
‘We didn’t see him very often because he was away all the time, but he did attend the memorial of Christ’s death on March 23 here, he brought some of his band members with him.
‘He was a spiritual man from what I know of him and he talked to individuals and he very strongly believed in the message of the bible that Jehovah Witness’s proclaim.
‘He believed that the true God is Jehovah and he knew for example that when we die, we’re dead, we’re sleeping and the hope is the resurrection, that’s why Jesus died.’
Elder Cook said Prince regularly ‘witnessed’ alone in the community, as well as in groups.
And he admitted that people might have been shocked to see the superstar turn up on their doorstep to talk to them and offer a free bible course, but added: ‘We try to downplay the person, it’s all about the message.
‘We try not to eulogize any individual from a personal standpoint, one person is equal in the eyes of God as another person.
‘So our main goal is to proclaim the message of God’s kingdom as equals and Prince did what he could from what I understand.
‘He did what he could to help people to get into the Bible and appreciate the benefits of family life and the hope of God’s kingdom.’
He added: ‘Credibility and honesty in conveying the message is vital.’
Elder Cook described Prince as ‘modest’ and ‘very, very humble’ when he came to the church.
‘Obviously he was able to witness when he was on his travels as well, he was devoted to it like we all are,’ he said.
‘He found fulfillment as a Witness and in sharing his faith with others.’
The elder says he last saw Prince when the star attended a 50-minute ceremony to commemorate the death of Jesus on March 23 – an event celebrated by Jehovah’s Witnesses all over the world.
The church has no photos of their most famous ‘publisher’ on the walls as you might expect, because ‘that would be glorifying an individual’.
‘Glory goes to Jehovah God, almighty God and his son Jesus Christ,’ said elder Cook.
Elder Cook also said the church does not have a problem with Prince’s reported addiction to prescription drugs because ‘that’s a personal matter’.
‘We are in to homeopathy and things like that, because nothing is 100 per cent.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3555735/Inside-Prince-s-Jehovah-s-Witness-Church-singer-went-door-door-Bible-hand-large-cash-donations-years.html#ixzz46hhZS25l
 
 

The Jehovah's Witness Church has released a statement following the untimely death of Prince, who officially converted to the religion in 2003. 

"We are saddened to hear about the death of Prince Rogers Nelson, who was baptized as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in 2003," the church said in a statement obtained by PEOPLE. 

The church said that Prince "found fulfillment as a Witness and in sharing his faith with others." 

The statement added: "We do not have any details regarding his medical condition or the cause of his death. Our thoughts are with his family and friends, particularly his fellow worshippers in the Saint Louis Park congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Minnesota. We hope that all find comfort in the Bible’s promise of a future time when death, pain, and tears will be no more.—Revelation 21:3, 4."
http://www.people.com/article/prince-dead-jehovah-witness-release-statement
 
See also: