JW Insider

23 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

What's another correction to add to the extensive list of errors spanning over a decade? It's ironic how even a six-year-old can possess greater knowledge than the people here, don't you think?

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.

On 6/23/2024 at 9:33 AM, Thinking said:

I would personally still love to hear about your experiences and memories of Russell’s time etc…as they are invaluable..

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:

On 11/4/2022 at 3:57 PM, Anna said:

Anyway, I was wondering how Catholics, for example, treat excommunicated members and I found this on a Catholic website, called "Canon made easy":

“Remember that Jesus himself ate with tax collectors, not because he wanted to signal approval of their line of work, but in order to draw them away from their immoral way of life. Similarly, we Catholics should obviously be unhappy when one among us is excommunicated, and we shouldn’t want to be rubbing shoulders unduly with such a person if we can help it, in great part because we wouldn’t want to conceivably be influenced by him in some negative way; but if there is an opportunity (through our words and example) for us to urge that person to amend and come back to the Church, then we should certainly be willing to have contact with the excommunicated Catholic in order to do this”

I am obviously not trying to defend the Catholic faith, or any other faith for that matter, but this policy of theirs seem to makes more sense.

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

The congregation as a whole is not authorized to reinstate an individual.

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; 
 

58 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

However, even after 47 years, it seems that God has not deemed it necessary to rectify the interpretation of the "Gentile Times" as described in scripture.

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

23 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Why doesn’t he state his point just once or twice and move on? I think it is quite clear that is what would happen if not for you. He states a point in a scholarly way. You apply accelerant and make sure the entire ‘public’ knows about it. In this way, you facilitate ‘apostasy’ far more than he.

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.

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Just answer a question. If you employ any sarcasm at all, even though the rest of your answer is brilliant, the other person will zero in only your sarcasm, and the overall reply is lost. Of course, it still stands for members of ‘the public’ who frequent this fine site, but it also sets a bad example for them. I look upon almost with awe on how restrained he keeps himself when interacting with you, kicking back only when your ad hominems and weird accusations become intolerable, and even then in a restrained way.

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....

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

and his behavior in this instance displayed no indications of remorse

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.

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Loving your enemy does not imply forming an association with them, as you are suggesting.

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.
 

1 hour ago, BTK59 said:

Have you not just admitted that you are fond of someone who has been disfellowshipped?

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

31 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

There is absolutely no room for misunderstanding when it comes to the historical records of Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year. Those tablets clearly and explicitly depict an event that took place in 568 BC, directly involving Nebuchadnezzar.

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.

7 hours ago, BTK59 said:

VAT 4956 holds no significance.

Now you appear to be getting it.

7 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Leave aside that particular tablet, and instead, choose any historical record that supports your argument.

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. 

14 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

By all means ex-bethelite, refute what is also written in history that may or may not be absolute as you claim history is. Your audience awaits you. There are myriad alternative historical accounts.

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.

5 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

You are telling the people to solely believe in VAT 4956 when there are other tablets.

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.

15 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

I am specifically referring to written language, rather than the calculations that you seem to be fixated on.

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:

18 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Show me evidence that clearly states that this tablet is intended to portray the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC, as described in written accounts.

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.

22 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

If we consider one of the interpretations of Nebuchadnezzar's early reign in 605 BC, we can understand that in his 18th year, he was occupied with King Hophra and Armis in 587 BC. Feel free to challenge these established sources if you disagree. Would you like a reminder?

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). 

51 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

That is why VAT 4956 fails completely, as there are other historical events that confirm the activities of Nebuchadnezzar during his 37th year. By disregarding these facts, you are simply trying to validate your own false assumptions.

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. 

51 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

However, you haven't been able to show where exactly the astronomical tablet states that in the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar the destruction of Jerusalem is described using similar language. Even the Babylonian Chronicles can't be misused in this manner.

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. 

51 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

I utilize historical data from the 18th or 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar to reinforce the credibility of the conclusions drawn about 607 BC

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.

51 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

It is important for the public to remain cautious of individuals who pose as Christians but may be deceiving them

At least that's absolutely true!

51 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

as there is no concrete evidence regarding VAT 4956 that cannot be interpreted in various ways, contrary to what you are trying to impose on others.

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.

6 hours ago, BTK59 said:

It is time to put an end to these unsubstantiated arguments and present factual information.

I agree. I have seen zero substantiated factual information from you. You are always quick to use words like "misleading" "dishonest" "lying" "inaccurate" "false" etc., but these accusations are always empty and meaningless because you don't offer anything to address your claims.

What you apparently have tried to include as "facts" have always shown little more than confusion about the issue. This is in every post so far that pretends to make use of "evidence." I'll give examples from this last one I am quoting from above:

6 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Show me precisely where VAT 4956 tablet provides evidence of Jerusalem's destruction in 587 BC, as you insist. In the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, he was occupied with other military campaigns.

As I stated above VAT 4956 is unimportant to this discussion, but VAT 4956 gives an absolute date of 587 BCE for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar. It also gives us an absolute date of 568 BCE for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. 

You say Nebuchadnezzar was occupied with other military campaigns in his 37th year, which the astronomical data indicates as 568 BCE. That's fine. What if he was? That's nearly two decades after 587 BCE. Many of your posts on this particular point have shown so much confusion on this point that I have ignored them because it seemed silly to deal with confused nonsense. But this time I will explain. 

You went on to say:

6 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Therefore, can you demonstrate how the astronomical tablet specifically relates to Jerusalem's fate? There is historical evidence that places Nebuchadnezzar approximately 400 miles away from Jerusalem at the time of its destruction in 587 BC.

You actually do NOT have historical evidence that places Nebuchadnezzar approximately 400 miles away in 587. You accidentally admitted this in other posts, including the more recent one where you added the following:

56 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Demonstrate where in VAT 4956 it explicitly states that Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in his 37th year, considering that in 587 BC, during Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, he was engaged in conflict with Egypt and bringing judgment against Ammon, Moab, and other nations, as well as being involved with other kings such as the King of the Medes. I challenge you to provide conclusive evidence. Do not dismiss history and avoid diverting from the topic.

You see what you have done here? I highlighted it above in red. You have confused Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year with 587 BCE. His 37th year was 568 BCE. You ask how he could have destroyed Jerusalem in his 37th year, when the Bible (and the WTS too, for that matter) associate the major destruction, including the Temple, with his 18th/19th year. You are off by nearly 20 years, so what does it matter what other campaigns he may or may not have been involved with 20 years later? The Bible says his campaigns against Judea and Jerusalem were especially notable in the 7th, 18th, and 23rd years. Nothing about his 37th year. 

Displaying even more confusion, you went on to say:

6 hours ago, BTK59 said:

However, I am curious about the alleged proof that firmly establishes the year 568 BC as the date of Jerusalem's destruction.

I have never thought there was proof that establishes the year 568 BCE as the date of Jerusalem's destruction. Again, that's the 37th year, made absolute by several astronomical observations during the years of his reign. VAT 4956 happens to confirm what all the other observations already confirm. Hopefully NO ONE is looking for proof that Jerusalem fell in his 37th year.

5 hours ago, BTK59 said:

The Watchtower's interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's reign by his years are explained just like historical data.

No. They are not.

5 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Show me precisely where VAT 4956 tablet provides evidence of Jerusalem's destruction in 587 BC, as you insist.

• VAT 4956 gives us 587 BCE as an ABSOLUTE date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign.
• VAT 4956 gives us 604 BCE as an ABSOLUTE year of Nebuchadnezzar's 1st year of reign.
• VAT 4956 gives us 586 BCE as an ABSOLUTE year of Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year of reign.
• VAT 4956 gives us 568 BCE as an ABSOLUTE year of Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year of reign.
• VAT 4956 gives us direct evidence that 607 BCE was not ANY year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign.

If you don't understand that to be true then you have no business discussing Neo-Babylonian chronology. Period.

Archaeologists and historians discuss relative chronology and absolute chronology. The Bible never gives us an absolute chronology, but it gives us a fairly complete relative chronology. The only thing that can give us an absolute chronology for Neo-Babylonian times is an astronomical date. That's the only thing that can tie a piece of evidence to a specific year in the BCE or CE era. That's what the term "absolute" means to archaeologists and historians. 

But there is no reason for opposers of the astronomical chronology to obsess over VAT 4956. That's because WITH it you can know that 587 BCE is an ABSOLUTE date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign. But WITHOUT it you can still know that 587 BCE is an ABSOLUTE date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year of reign. ALL of the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign are known in ABSOLUTE years, because there are many more astronomical observations and reports that tie 587 BCE directly to his 18th year of reign. 

Whether or not Nebuchadnezzar had any interaction with Jerusalem in his 18th and 19th year is up to you to either agree with or deny. All I can tell you is that we have ABSOLUTE BCE dates for every year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign.

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Then I have no choice but to point out that you are making a false statement. I can't say absolutely that Tom does not control this site, but in my heart of hearts I'm about 99.9999% sure that he doesn't. I don't think he even has moderator functions.

he he he ))))))))))

Hmmm. With remarks like that, I just moved the needle to only 99.9998% sure. 

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

By utilizing your inaccurate interpretation or ensuring the public truly comprehends the authentic context. They must also be informed of any uncorrected typos that occurred, as this necessitated an electronic "reprint," which has now been addressed. It was a more time-consuming process, and what do apostates say about reprints? The same concept that you are implying with your slander.

I have no idea what that means. When I use the WOL (Watchtower Online Library) or the Watchtower Library "CD" image and keep it updated, I am already getting the "electronic reprint." And I don't recall any typos in those publications that weren't already updated where necessary. (This goes mostly for "Insight" and rarely, only a few of the more recent books and Watchtower articles.) If there were other typos involved in anything I presented, I am unaware, and will assume there are none unless you or someone else can point them out.

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

The villains here are distorting not only published works, but history itself. How many examples do you need to understand that 568 BC can be linked to other military campaigns that you are unwilling to acknowledge?

I gladly acknowledge that 568 BC (astronomically the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar) might be linked to other military campaigns, but even if these other campaigns could be proven, it doesn't override the Bible's testimony about what occurred in the 7th, 18th and 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar.

48 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

It's clear that either you or Tom has control over this site. There's no need for a facade because I already know the truth, which you can't deny.

Then I have no choice but to point out that you are making a false statement. I can't say absolutely that Tom does not control this site, but in my heart of hearts I'm about 99.9999% sure that he doesn't. I don't think he even has moderator functions.

53 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Your anger towards banning users seems unjust when both your and Tom's behavior can be more offensive to God than you realize mine is.

I'm not angry toward banning users, I just think it's not always going to be done evenly and fairly, so why do it at all for the kinds of things you/George/Noisy Srecko/etc./etc./etc. do here? It's meaningless when someone can just pop up with one of their other accounts anyway. I do admit to being a little indignant that banning a person can take away ALL their old posts. That's completely unfair, and I would bet there is a way to ban someone without going that far. A person with 1,000 posts may try to make themselves a pain to deal with, but even if 90% of their posts are worthless, we have an ignore function (although I've never tried it). The other 10% of their posts might leave 100 out of 1,000 that are worth addressing.

19 hours ago, BTK59 said:

You deny the significance of 587 BC, even though you defend it fervently

In my opinion, 587 (or 607) should not be significant to any of us from a Biblical perspective, especially if we take Paul's and Jesus' words seriously:

(1 Thessalonians 5:1, 2) . . .Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night. 

(Acts 1:7) . . .He said to them: “It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction.

It's not important when Jerusalem fell, if it is part of an attempt to conjure up the future like a fortune-teller, or identify the time period that Jesus said none of us would know.

Even if is used to try to pretend we have special knowledge of when some invisible event happened in heaven, we should also consider Paul's warning about claiming that the parousia has already occurred:

(2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2) . . .However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here.

This type of presumptuousness could even lead to the claim that the resurrection has already occurred, or that as Paul said above, persons are already "being gathered together to him."

(2 Timothy 2:18) 18 These men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred, and they are subverting the faith of some.

So it shouldn't matter whether Jerusalem fell in 587 or 607. But it should matter to us that we pay  close attention to our teaching. This means that we shouldn't go around making claims that are unsubstantiated. It's one thing to make a claim that we know we are denying all the available evidence from Neo-Babylonian archaeology and astronomy because we think that God has given us special insight that makes us wiser than those who claim to be specialists and respected authorities. But if we love truth, this doesn't give us the right to make false claims about the evidence we oppose. It doesn't give us the right to pick and choose from the evidence, pretending without evidence that one small part of the whole is better than the other 99%.

And when we do in fact make our fortune-telling predictions based on a kind of prophetic numerology, as Russell did with 1914, then we shouldn't try to save face when all those predictions failed, by changing definitions and claiming he really said something else. It's even misleading to haughtily focus on one or two little things that were partially right while not also humbly admitting the error and the number of people hurt by the error. (As you pointed out before, Russell promoted the idea that Christians should thank God for Russell's mistake because it somehow made Christians more prepared!) 
 

7 hours ago, BTK59 said:

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The WTS admits that 587 BCE is the time that historians and archaeologists agree with:

. . . . The purpose of these articles is to demonstrate to the public that the year 587 BC is not the actual date of Jerusalem's destruction. It is truly difficult to comprehend why you would assume otherwise.

I never assumed otherwise. If you had read or understood more clearly you would have seen that I only claim that the WTS admits that this is where the secular evidence leads, but that everyone should read the original publication to see how the WT tries to cast doubt on that evidence. I said:

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Everyone should go to the original to see the ways in which the publication (Kingdom Come, kc) also tries to cast doubt on this evidence, but at least it admitted that the evidence currently points to 587/6 BCE as the destruction of Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th/19th year.

You also said:

7 hours ago, BTK59 said:

The Watchtower acknowledges the Babylonian Chronicles,

Yes. But usually with the idea that the Babylonian Chronicles support the WTS chronology. Imagine how you would react if I had tried the same tactic the Watchtower tries so often. You would be screaming about how I was being misleading and manipulating:

*** ad p. 878 Jehoiachin ***
It appears that Jehoiakim died during this siege and Jehoiachin ascended the throne of Judah. His rule ended, however, a mere three months and ten days later, when he surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar (617 B.C.E., in the month of Adar, according to the Babylonian Chronicles).

Notice how the unwary could get the idea that "according to the Babylonian Chronicles," Jehoiachin's rule ended in "617 B.C.E., in the month of Adar." If I had said it that way, you would be right that it was a misleading and manipulating statement, a FALSE statement.

Even the more accurate statements can leave a false impression, because they often juxtapose a WT chronology date next to a reference from a respected, authoritative source of the Babylonian Chronicle:

*** it-1 p. 1025 Hamath ***
According to an extant cuneiform inscription (British Museum 21946), after the battle of Carchemish in 625 B.C.E. (Jer 46:2), Nebuchadnezzar’s forces overtook and destroyed the fleeing Egyptians in the district of Hamath. (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 99)

There is no admission, of course, that Grayson would date this to 605 BCE rather than the WT date of 625 BCE.

*** it-2 p. 359 Medes, Media ***
Following the Median capture of Asshur in Nabopolassar’s 12th year (634 B.C.E.), Cyaxares (called Ú-ma-kis-tar in the Babylonian records) met with Nabopolassar by the captured city, and they “made an entente cordiale.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 93)

Here, it was made to look well-documented that Nabopolassar's 12th year was 634 BCE. Who would guess by reading this that all the evidence points to 614 BCE?

Similarly:

*** it-2 p. 410 Minni ***
According to a Babylonian chronicle, in his tenth year of reign (636 B.C.E.) Nabopolassar “captured the Manneans who had come to their (i.e. the Assyrians’) aid.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 91)

*** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***
The inscriptions further show that news of his father’s death brought Nebuchadnezzar back to Babylon, and on the first of Elul (August-September), he ascended the throne. In this his accession year he returned to Hattu, and “in the month Shebat [January-February, 624 B.C.E.] he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 100) In 624 B.C.E., in the first official year of his kingship, Nebuchadnezzar again led his forces through Hattu...

*** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***
But a mere three months and ten days thereafter the reign of the new king ended when Jehoiachin surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar (in the month of Adar [February-March] during Nebuchadnezzar’s seventh regnal year [ending in Nisan 617 B.C.E.], according to the Babylonian Chronicles). A cuneiform inscription (British Museum 21946) states: “The seventh year: In the month Kislev the king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Hattu. He encamped against the city of Judah and on the second day of the month Adar he captured the city (and) seized (its) king [Jehoiachin]. A king of his own choice [Zedekiah] he appointed in the city (and) taking the vast tribute he brought it into Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 102; PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 326)

*** it-2 p. 505 Nineveh ***
(Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. Grayson, 1975, p. 94; PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 958) To this day Nineveh is a desolate waste, and in the spring, flocks graze near or atop the mound of Kuyunjik.
Date of Nineveh’s Fall. Though effaced from the extant cuneiform tablet that relates the fall of Nineveh, the date for this event, the 14th year of Nabopolassar, can be supplied from the context. It is also possible to place the destruction of Nineveh in the framework of Bible chronology. According to a Babylonian chronicle, the Egyptians were defeated at Carchemish in the 21st year of Nabopolassar’s reign. The Bible shows this to have taken place in the fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign or in 625 B.C.E. (Jer 46:2) Therefore, the capture of Nineveh (about seven years earlier) in the 14th year of Nabopolassar’s reign would fall in the year 632 B.C.E.

So mentioning a Watchtower date next to a respected resource about the Babylonian Chronicles adds an air of respectability around a Watchtower date that otherwise has no evidence going for it other than the fact that it's part of a chronology that was necessary to change in order to make 1914 work. 

But when an article is specifically about when Jerusalem was destroyed, now the tune changes, and the Babylonian Chronicles must be a set of inscriptions we should doubt:

*** w11 11/1 p. 23 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
The Babylonian chronicles.
What are they? The Babylonian chronicles are a series of tablets recording major events in Babylonian history.
What have experts said? R. H. Sack, a leading authority on cuneiform documents, states that the chronicles provide an incomplete record of important events. He wrote that historians must probe “secondary sources . . . in the hope of determining what actually happened.”
What do the documents show? There are gaps in the history recorded in the Babylonian chronicles.3 (See the box below.) Logically, then, the question arises, How reliable are deductions based on such an incomplete record?
 

30 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

It took numerous misleading posts before you finally acknowledged the truth.

And I thought I was acknowledging the truth even before any of your misleading posts. LOL.

(And no I am not making fun of your grammar. Your grammar was perfect. I am merely copying one of your tactics to reflect your own words back to you in order to highlight your constant, empty ad hominem style. You always throw in as much pejorative snarkiness as you can, but you never are able to address any specific point.)

36 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

There was no need to ban George simply for speaking the truth.

I honestly don't know who banned George, or exactly why either. But I doubt seriously it could have been for speaking the truth. On topics like this one at least, truth was far removed from him.

5 hours ago, BTK59 said:

The Watchtower vehemently disagrees with your assertion of 587 BC, which you continue to deny advocating for. Every post you have made so far clearly exposes the falsehood. You have always recognized your place in relation to 587 BC, even in the past. So, why all the deceit. 

I don't deny believing that the evidence points to 587/6 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th/19th year. But the Watchtower is not as "vehement" as you present it to be. The WTS admits that 587 BCE is the time that historians and archaeologists agree with:

*** w11 10/1 p. 26 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One ***
“According to historians and archaeologists, 586 or 587 B.C.E. is generally accepted as the year of Jerusalem’s destruction.

And after admitting that this is the accepted secular chronology, our publications admit that all the archaeological evidence currently points to that year, but that it MAY be misunderstood, and perhaps some new evidence MAY be found someday that counters the current evidence:

*** kc p. 186 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
According to that Neo-Babylonian chronology, Crown-prince Nebuchadnezzar defeated the Egyptians at the battle of Carchemish in 605 B.C.E. (Jeremiah 46:1, 2) After Nabopolassar died Nebuchadnezzar returned to Babylon to assume the throne. His first regnal year began the following spring (604 B.C.E.).
The Bible reports that the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in his 18th regnal year (19th when accession year is included). (Jeremiah 52:5, 12, 13, 29) Thus if one accepted the above Neo-Babylonian chronology, the desolation of Jerusalem would have been in the year 587/6 B.C.E.

Some major lines of evidence for this secular chronology are:
Ptolemy’s Canon: .  . . Most modern historians accept Ptolemy’s information about the Neo-Babylonian kings and the length of their reigns. . . . Ptolemy’s figures agree with those of Berossus, a Babylonian priest of the Seleucid period.
Nabonidus Harran Stele (NABON H 1, B): This contemporary stele, or pillar with an inscription, was discovered in 1956. It mentions the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar. The figures given for these three agree with those from Ptolemy’s Canon.
VAT 4956: This is a cuneiform tablet that provides astronomical information datable to 568 B.C.E. It says that the observations were from Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year. This would correspond to the chronology that places his 18th regnal year in 587/6 B.C.E. . . .
Business tablets: Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets have been found that record simple business transactions, stating the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets of this sort have been found for all the years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in the accepted chronology of the period.
From a secular viewpoint, such lines of evidence might seem to establish the Neo-Babylonian chronology with Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year (and the destruction of Jerusalem) in 587/6 B.C.E. However, no historian can deny the possibility that the present picture of Babylonian history might be misleading or in error. . . . Or, even if the discovered evidence is accurate, it might be misinterpreted by modern scholars or be incomplete so that yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology of the period.

Everyone should go to the original to see the ways in which the publication (Kingdom Come, kc) also tries to cast doubt on this evidence, but at least it admitted that the evidence currently points to 587/6 BCE as the destruction of Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th/19th year. it doesn't even attempt to deny that there are at least 50 more astronomy observations, so that VAT 4956 is superfluous. And even though it brought up the idea that yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology, at least 2 more relevant astronomical inscriptions have been published, and both of them give further support to the already evidenced chronology. Also, many more of the 70,000+ dated business tablets have been published that provide even stronger evidence for the order of the Neo-Babylonian kings and the exact length of their reigns, sometimes nearly to the day of the transition between kings, and providing further confirmation of Parker and Dubberstein's intercalary data.
 

2 hours ago, BTK59 said:

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

What if others were inclined to use the resources the Watchtower referenced in doing further research? Is it only because, for so many years, I agreed with the Watchtower chronology? Is the Watchtower misleading people by pointing them to Sachs and Hunger, Wiseman, Pritchard, Steele, Grayson, Walker, Hunger, Dougherty, Brown, Huber, Weidner, Parker and Dubberstein, Thiele, etc.? Even the references in the 2011 articles supporting Furuli's folly never once pointed to Furuli, but only to at least 10 sources that all, 100%, supported 587/6 BCE as the time for Jerusalem's destruction. No exceptions.

It is essential for individuals to comprehend these sources within their appropriate contexts

Exactly. The context  was that the Watchtower quoted them as authoritative resources for matters related to Babylonian and Assyrian chronology. Naturally, the Watchtower only chose to use portions of these resources where the source agreed (or seemed to agree) in order to make it look as if the Watchtower is generally basing its view of chronology on authoritative and respectable secular sources. The Watchtower publications have often used ellipses and selective quotations to avoid revealing that the Watchtower actually opposes the chronology found in these authoritative sources. 

This reminds me of how much play the Watchtower Society got out of R. R. Newton's book "The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy."  Some brothers even referenced this book title in one of the talks (re: "Gentile Times") back when the "Sunday Public Talk" was an hour long. I don't recall if it was added to the Society's outline, but the outline already used a reference to cast doubt on the dates given for Nebuchadnezzar and compare them to the supposed "absolute" date of 539 for Cyrus using "Strm. Kambys. 400" as it was called in the outline (which was never pronounced correctly by any speaker I heard give the talk, myself included). 

Of course the talk left out a key point from that same book. The 140 page PDF I quoted earlier gives this some context, discussing the same book:

 (1) We now know from archeology that astronomical diaries from Babylon were abundant. It is reasonable to suppose that Ptolemy, a giant in the field, had access to some such records . (2) One of the eclipses listed above, the one in 7 Cambyses, certainly was recorded by the ancients, as the tablet record exists today (see page 15, item 2) . (3) Of the eclipse in 20 Darius, Ptolemy specifically claims it “is the one Hipparchus used.” Presumably this was not private information, and therefore Ptolemy could be checked by anyone familiar with the subject — and who else was he addressing in his very technical book? (4) There were other king lists whose numbers were incorrect, or corrupted, though much less detailed than the Canon (Dougherty, 7-10) . How do we explain the purity of Ptolemy’s list? It was a list for and by scientists, and its integrity was maintained by the utility to which it was subject . This implies that there were ancient observations by which the Canon could be checked . In any event, it is important to keep two things sharply in focus . (1) Ancient history does not depend on Ptolemy’s Canon . (2) Even Robert Newton, in whose book these concerns are raised, acknowledges “we have quite strong confirmation that Ptolemy’s list is correct for Nebuchadnezzar” (Newton 375, cited from Jonsson 48) . And the dates for Nebuchadnezzar control the date of the fall of Zedekiah and the kingdom of Judah.

Newton, Robert R ., The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1977

In fact, the book admits the strength of then entire Neo-Babylonian chronology (Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar, Amel-Marduk, Neriglissar, Nabonidus). But Watchtower readers would have missed this point from the only reference to this book in the Watchtower: 

*** w77 12/15 p. 747 Insight on the News ***
How certain can we be of the presently accepted chronology of the ancient Babylonian Empire? For many years, chronologists have put heavy reliance on the king list of Claudius Ptolemy, a second-century Greek scholar often considered the greatest astronomer of antiquity.
However, in his new book “The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy,” the noted physicist Robert R. Newton of Johns Hopkins University offers proof that many of Ptolemy’s astronomical observations were “deliberately fabricated” to agree with his preconceived theories “so that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories.”
In its comments on Newton’s book, “Scientific American” magazine notes: “Ptolemy’s forgery may have extended to inventing the length of reigns of Babylonian kings. Since much modern reconstruction of Babylonian chronology has been based on a list of kings that Ptolemy used to pinpoint the dates of alleged Babylonian observations, according to Newton ‘all relevant chronology must now be reviewed and all dependence upon Ptolemy’s [king] list must be removed.’”—October 1977, p. 80.

The Watchtower wasn't wrong, but what the Watchtower failed to mention was that that these were references to the much older original Babylonian Empire closer to the time of Abraham (Hammurabi, etc.) more than 1,000 years earlier than the Neo-Babylonian Empire (Nebuchadnezzar, etc.)