JW Insider

Sorry @Thinking. I was taking a guess that he was closer to age 65 than to 120. But I have now been corrected. I think he's now claiming that he is closer to 6. If you have followed his past claims under some of those other names, you'd know that he has a bigger and more expensive sniper rifle than @Pudgy could ever dream about, plus 2 PhD's in Theology. Quite the combination. That's quite a feat for a 6-year-old! I'm super impressed.

BTK can correct me if I'm wrong, but a person who remembers Russell's time in a meaningful way would have to have been born at least around 1904 just to be 12 years old when Russell died. That would make him 120 years old this year. My conversations with @BTK59, @George88, @AllenSmith35, etc., have led me to believe that he is closer to 65 years old. This might not be true, but it's based on a couple of things he has said. That said, he does without a doubt have knowledge about Russell and early Bible Students.

Early this morning, I recalled a thread where Anna made a comment about Catholic excommunication, and noted that the GB have moved in that same direction:

This doesn't contradict what you are saying about the updates, but I always found it interesting that Paul said "the majority" as if the entire congregation was considered in the reinstatement process. (2 Corinthians 2:6) This rebuke given by the majority is sufficient for such a man;

Curiously the Watchtower’s teachings surrounding the Great Pyramid of Giza took almost exactly 47 years before Jehovah saw fit to correct them.

I guess it's good to explain oneself every couple of years. I said above that I am not trying to convince fellow Witnesses that 607 BCE is the wrong date for the destruction of Jerusalem. It might sound like it, but it would be an unreasonable goal to expect more than a small fraction of Witnesses to change their view on such a longstanding, strongly entrenched tradition. So here's my actual reasoning: (BTK should probably cover his eyes.) There will always be persons who hear good things about the Witnesses and who will want to study with us. But there will be some, admittedly only a few, who will decide to look at the details for themselves. There may even be some who already knew about the details of the Babylonian chronology, and who will realize that it isn't a controversy at all, and it really isn't at all a matter of choosing Bible chronology over secular chronology. I believe there will be more of these persons over time. No amount of bluster or false, contradictory explanations is going to convince them. (Because they have seen the details for themselves.) So what are we to do? Do we merely make sure that no one who has educated themselves about this particular topic will ever become a Witness? I think there should be a chance for these persons to know that a person can still be one of Jehovah's Witnesses and realize that this 607 thing was just a simple mistake that someone made back in 1873 or so, but that no one thought/sought to look into it or correct the mistake because it had apparently proven true as a prophecy about 1914.* *I don't think anyone can blame most Witnesses for not really wanting to look into the details because we really do think something happened in 1914 that was prophetically significant. We would automatically be suspicious of anyone who had looked into the details for themselves and found an issue with them. We think that if we were to begin looking into the same, that we must be "kicking against the goads" or even "fighting against the holy spirit." We have been taught that perhaps it's controversial, but that it's just a matter of putting more faith in the Bible than in secular chronology. That "Bible vs secular" mindset works for us, even though it's a false premise. But I'm talking about interested persons who have actually already LOOKED or who WILL LOOK into the data for themselves. Those persons will not have a choice to deny what they know. They should know that it is possible to be a Witness without having to deny something they KNOW to be true. They should also be aware that a Witness who accepts an alternative view about 607 and 1914 need not hold a very different view of the world around us and the closeness of the end of this system.

I'm so glad it's you running this site. (LOL) Actually everything you said in your whole post are things I wish I had said. And I would recommend your latest book to everyone too. I've read it, and it's like a long set of really good segments of informal witnessing, like if we had Thanksgiving dinners and each year a friendly non-Witness relative came over and generously gave us 10 to 20 minutes to explain what makes Jehovah's Witnesses different. But the book is not about a lot of "we don't do this" and "we don't do that" and "we don't believe in this or that." It's positive stuff that we don't always get a chance to "boast" about. Overall, the book has the effect of adding up a bunch of these different segments without being preachy and makes it all relevant for our time. It's more like the "experience" of being a happy Witness, rather than a sermon about why we should be like this or that. Also Tom seems to come from the era of JWs where there (I think) was a lot more conversation about what was going on around us. Today, more of us are afraid to give an opinion on a political leader or Covid or some worldly event -- or sometimes on topics that would make us appear "unwoke" even when the Christian view is rather obvious. This type of honest discussion about the world around us must be scary to some Witnesses, but I think it makes conversations between Witnesses and outsiders more comfortable when they realize that we all face the same world problems, but that our outlook is more positive. I come from a time and place among Witnesses when a couple of my uncles were circuit overseers. Our congregation servant and later presiding overseer (COBE) John Mullersman hung out with Hayden Covington. And yes, Covington, although a member of the GB, had problems, and was disfellowshipped. His daughter even talked him out of doing a huge exposition of things he knew would be embarrassing. He died in Pomona, I think around 1979, the congregation we were in for a while. His daughter is still a Witness -- and very nice. It was common to hear the expression: "Half the brothers are here to test the other half." This didn't make us concerned that we had to expose things or be angry about things. It was just life in a fun, wonderful, and expressive -- but slightly dysfunctional congregation. Tom recognizes that some dysfunctionality is not a "crucial" problem, nor is to be unexpected. He even writes in some Witness "characters" that we are all familiar with. When it comes to me currently "exposing" things to the public, I remember that this is a very small audience. Also, if I say something too one-sided, someone is usually there to attempt a rebuttal. This makes it easy for those who don't wish to look into something to just dismiss it. Even what I just said about Covington is likely going to be rebutted, in some way. And although the rebuttal is something I might know to be untrue, public readers (including other Witnesses) will still be able to walk away without being overly concerned or "burdened" by it. But there is another reason I don't mind going to extra lengths on certain topics like 1914 or "the generation." I don't expect Witnesses in general to and read what I say and agree. It's not even for Witnesses. But I'll explain that later....

Actually, he expressed remorse quite clearly on the forum. But from what I understand from you, you have the ability to read hearts and therefore you can judge without being concerned about being judged with the same measure in return. You quoted 1 Cor 5:13 which, in context, also says: (1 Corinthians 5:11-13) . . .But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside, while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves.” I'm sure you can easily guess who 99% of the people on this forum first think of when they hear the word "reviler." Remember that God sees and judges all actions.

Jesus associated with tax collectors, publicly known sinners, prostitutes, etc. Doesn't mean he condoned their conduct and actions. He was known for mercy and looking for repentance. It's true that there should not be close association which can lead to condoning and even sharing in the sins of someone. Some of us will show more judgment and some will show more mercy. Not everyone will find the same middle-ground. I thought these thoughts from a recent Watchtower were good: *** w21 October pp. 11-12 pars. 14-16 We Serve the God Who Is “Rich in Mercy” *** Sometime later, Paul learned that real changes had taken place. The sinner was truly repentant! Although the man had brought shame on the congregation, Paul told the elders that he did not want “to be too harsh.” He directed them: “Kindly forgive and comfort him.” Note Paul’s reason: “So that he may not be overwhelmed by excessive sadness.” Paul felt pity for the repentant man. The apostle did not want to see the man so overwhelmed, so crushed, by what he did that he would give up on seeking forgiveness.—Read 2 Corinthians 2:5-8, 11. 15 In imitation of Jehovah, the elders love to show mercy. They show firmness when necessary but mercy when possible if there is a real basis for it. Otherwise, it is not mercy but permissiveness. Are elders the only ones, though, who need to show mercy? WHAT CAN HELP ALL OF US TO SHOW MERCY? 16 All Christians seek to imitate Jehovah’s mercy. Why? One reason is that Jehovah will not listen to those who fail to show mercy to others. (Read Proverbs 21:13.) None of us would want Jehovah to refuse to listen to our prayers, so we carefully avoid developing a hard-hearted spirit. Rather than turn a deaf ear to a fellow Christian in pain, we must always be ready to listen to “the cry of the lowly one.” Similarly, we take to heart this inspired counsel: “The one who does not practice mercy will have his judgment without mercy.” (Jas. 2:13) If we humbly remember how much we need mercy, we are more likely to show mercy. We especially want to show mercy when a repentant wrongdoer returns to the congregation. If a man continues in conduct that he is not sorry about, and he calls himself a brother, then close association could be interpreted (or misinterpreted) as the congregation's acceptance of wicked conduct. I agree that we have to be careful about such things. A person who recognizes that they have no right to call themselves a brother and who appears sorry about the wrong will leave us in a position to make our own decision about what level of association might be useful for them and that shows a proper level of mercy. There are some things that will boil down to a matter of conscience, in my opinion. But no one else needs to hold my same opinion: (1 Timothy 1:5) . . .Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy.

Goodness. Would you have tried to stone Jesus? He asked us to love even our enemies!

I'm surprised that you finally admitted that. Some of your confusion appears to be clearing up. If you now admit that his 37th year was 568 BCE, then his 36th was 569 BCE, his 35th was 570, his 34th was 571, etc., etc. Do the math. It's simple. You are finally claiming that his 19th year was 586 BCE, and his 18th year was 587 BCE.

Now you appear to be getting it. Found it: (Jeremiah 32:1, 2) . . ., that is, the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar.  At that time the armies of the king of Babylon were besieging Jerusalem. . . (Jeremiah 52:29)  In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem. (2 Kings 25:8-10) . . .In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; he also burned down the house of every prominent man.

I don't care. I still prefer the Bible. And if they can both be harmonized, so much the better. Go back to your points enumerated 1, 2, 3 in your last post and note that you are still confused about interaction with Egypt and others in his 37th year, and trying to claim that this somehow proves that he couldn't have done what the Bible says he did in his 18th and/or 19th year. You are still showing so confusion that it looks like you have no business trying to discuss this matter right now.

You are confused again. Or you are having trouble reading and understanding. Or you are being dishonest. I said the opposite. When I say you can throw out VAT 4956 because there are other tablets, I mean it. No one needs to believe in VAT 4956 at all if they are trying to understand the absolute chronology of the period. They can use any or all of the many other astronomical records of the period. Opposers of the astronomical evidence, like yourself, would apparently love to make it look like supporters of this evidence are all obsessed with just onw tablet, when they themselves are obsessed with trying to minimize the evidence to just one tablet. Then of course, they think that there would just be ONE tablet to dismiss or try to criticize. Of course, any criticisms they do make note of just happen to be the same criticisms that are 10 times worse for the ONE tablet that the Watchtower focuses one to get the 7th year of Cambyses. And from which the WTS will derive 539 in an unnecessarily convoluted manner, just to avoid admitting that ALL of the data for the entire period is consistent with the astronomical evidence. Another false statement. You were and are still fixated on the dates 587 and 568 and you kept confusing which one referred to the 37th year and which one referred to the 18th and which one (or both) was being claimed as the year of Jerusalem's destruction. In fact, you show it again in your very next sentence: This tablet, again, is about observations from the 37th year of his reign. Why would anyone think it was related to his 18th/19th? You are still showing too much confusion about the matter. Re-read the Bible accounts in Jeremiah and 2 Kings and Ezekiel, or the references in the Insight book, at least. They will all tell you which regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar is associated with the destruction. If he was occupied in his 18th year with someone else, that's fine. But the Bible still associates the destruction of Jerusalem with the 18th year of his reign. I don't have to challenge your secular sources. But why do you feel the need to challenge the Bible, when it comes to his 18th year? If you like your secular sources so much you also have other options which allow you to keep the Bible account along with your secular sources. For example, you can note the distinct possibility that the 18th year was still part of the siege before the wall was broken down, and that the 19th year might be the most appropriate for the final destruction. That would make it 586, which I have absolutely no problem with myself. Also, if you read the accounts carefully, you will see that Nebuchadnezzar wasn't necessarily there in person in those years, although he was stated to be there in person during his 7th/8th year. You may also read carefully enough to note that the exiles taken in the 7th/8th year focused on Judea, but the 18th/19th focused on Jerusalem itself. (Jeremiah 52). Also you might note from the Chronicles themselves that Judea and Egypt appear to have been related from Babylon's perspective and could potentially even be seen as part of the same related campaign(s).

Go back to my last post. It appears that you are the one who is continuing to disregard facts to try to vaidate your own false assumptions. Of course I haven't been able to show that destruction of Jerusalem is described in his 37th year. Because that's not when the Bible says it happened. See the last post. You have shown too much confusion to take this much further with you. You really seem to have no business trying to discuss Neo-Babylonian chronology. No. You don't. You never have. You have always claimed that you have, but no one has seen you or any of your additional accounts try to do this. You have shown too much confusion on the matter. It seems you really have no business trying to discuss it. At least that's absolutely true! Although that's absolutely a false and misleading statement, if you happen to believe it's true, then throw out VAT 4956. It's absolutely unnecessary to establish the absolute dates of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. There are about 50 other direct observations on other tablets that all happen to coincide and consistently confirm the same dates. Of course, opposers of the astronomical data would love to throw ALL of them out except for one or two that confirm the 7th year of Cambyses. But even THAT one is part of the same set of data that confirms the absolute dates for the entire period. Again, 587 BCE is an ABSOLUTE date for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar, just as much (or more) than 538 BCE is an ABSOLUTE date for the 1st year of Cyrus over Babylon.