JW Insider

I checked back into the topic and noticed that no one singled anyone out until "scholar JW" came onto the topic to complain about Carl Jonsson. I can't tell what you mean when you say that "others like ALANF AND SCHOLAR JW have the same perception of . . . intellectual perception." It seems to me they don't, but why would it matter? Remember, again, that no matter who anyone says they are or what they claim about themselves, that a discussion forum should be about evidence, and a Bible discussion usually gives additional weight to Bible evidence if there is a contradiction. (I don't see a contradiction, so I'm happy with the Bible evidence, and happy that it is corroborated by archaeological and historical evidence, too.) That does not follow. I didn't concern myself with the particular section I posted in. I just found a similar topic and clicked on "create new topic." That way you don't have to got through the entire menu to post. I definitely was not attempting to single out one person, because I remember what made me think of starting this topic. I don't get this idea of singling out someone. (Nor do I know how it goes against all Jesus taught. Surely you are not saying that Jesus hated those whom he selected to speak with.) Surely not "scholar JW" as he wasn't involved in this back in April when I first posted this. As I recall, it was out of respect for something that "Arauna" had said, claiming basically the same thing she has repeated more recently: that those who argue against our chronology (like me) do so, not out of respect for the Bible itself, but out of a desire to embarrass the "slave" or to discredit 1914. I wanted to show that it's the Bible verses themselves that we need to respect on this topic. This is why the first page touches on several Bible passages that still have not been addressed by opposers of the ideas found in these scriptures. Hardly, I have rejected dozens of ideas from those who reject the Watchtower chronology. I certainly do not accept all that Carl Jonsson has written, and I thought immediately that AlanF goes "beyond the things written" to try to pin down a specific 6-month period for the Jews to have returned and laid the temple foundations. (Although in reading more carefully I see that he was actually OK with a limited range of dates, too, but was explaining why he had a preference that came down on the side of 538 vs 537 for this event.) I freely admit that AlanF and Carl Jonsson and Ann O'maly clearly have much more knowledge of the ancient astronomy and artifacts that I do. I will learn and be corrected from any and all resources who offer better evidence than what I have seen, JWs, ex-JWs, non-JWs, experts. But I trust that the Bible is correct about these 70 years, even if we must admit that we don't really know every detail about the month it started and the month it ended. Also, where does it say that Jesus taught against defending those who reject Watchtower chronology? Jesus himself rejected Watchtower chronology well in advance of its appearance. In fact, he seemed to anticipate its appearance. Almost the entire 24th and 25th chapter of Matthew is a rejection of Watchtower chronology. We've covered this before and for here, it's off topic. But, out of respect for these important words of Jesus himself, I'd be happy to start another topic on whether Jesus anticipated Watchtower-style chronology and eschatology in Matthew 24. I can if I'm honest. I have no problem with the 70 years running from 607 to 537, nor do I have a problem with them running from 608 to 538, or 609 to 539. I don't know for sure if they need to total exactly 70 years, but this is very likely, and the evidence we know about, including the Bible evidence, makes it very possible. I don't even reject the portions of our chronology that are stated without any evidence. The only portions of our chronology that I reject are those where the Bible evidence creates a very probable contradiction with the secular dates the WT has promoted. And for anyone who asks I always give permission that anyone can share my opinions; you don't even need to credit me. After all, I'm semi-anonymous, and anyone has a right to share the opinions of others. You could even write a book if you wanted based 100% on my opinions and I couldn't care less if you credit me or not. You could accept 25% of my opinions and mix them with 75% of your own. Why should I worry how and why opinions get shared on the Internet. I'm not trying to control anything. There is a much better chance of someone correcting my opinions if they are shared, than if I keep them to myself. Of course, I'd still have to say that Ad1914 has tried to do something very un-smart with my posts. Looks like they stopped re-posting when they finally noticed that they'd have to actually read through 1,800 long and repetitive posts to find things they'd be willing to use. I agree that it's always best if one has solid proof for an objection. Sometimes however we find ourselves weighing one person's speculation against another person's speculation, and the goal is "best evidence" because "solid proof" does not exist. Best evidence sometimes shows up when we begin to remove conclusions that were based on contradictory evidence, logical fallacies, false premises, etc. Still, I'll look back through your posts (and you-know-who's posts) and see if I can see if there are any resources I can bring to bear that are relevant to your ideas and objections, which you might think have only been met with speculation. Don't know if my input can help much, though. Now I see where you misunderstood me. Yes, we can be very confident that 607 BCE is NOT the correct year for the destruction of Jerusalem, but this does not mean it can't be the start of the 70 years of Jeremiah's prophecy. That's because there is nothing in the book of Jeremiah that says that the 70 years must start with Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year. It makes more sense that it starts with his accession year at the very latest, and just as likely that it started under his father, Nabopolassar, when Babylon began a domination that replaced Egypt and Assyria. It's not farfetched. At most I'd say it can't be more than 2 years off. That's pretty good for a date that more than 2,600 years in the past. Not at all. 609 is not more than 2 years off, either, in my opinion.

After removing your parenthetical statements, I think this was your question, right? This question appears to be your response to my question about what you would give as a beginning [and ending] of the 70 years of Babylonian domination that would affect nations all around, including Tyre, for different periods of time over that 70 years given to Babylon. You imply that the 70 years could start between 609 and 607, but then you connect this to the time when Jerusalem was under siege and fell, which the Bible ties to the period from about Neb's 17th on up to his 18th/19th year. You should please correct me if I'm wrong, but I take it that, even though you phrased it as a question, you are accepting the secular dates of 609-607 as the start of the 70 years for TYRE, and other nations, specifically because Jerusalem came under it's greatest domination at that time. But wasn't this supposed to be the 18th/19th year of Nebuchadnezzar? Are you saying that the period of Babylon's domination of the nations all around Babylon could not start prior to the 18th/19th year of Nebuchadnezzar? I don't think too many would question the idea that the end date must fall very close to 537, at least within a year or two. Of course, then we're back to the problem, that you can't use the date 537 unless you mean a date that would fall a full 20 years after Babylon was destroyed -- if you use 607 as the date of Jerusalem's final fall. This is, of course, because you are using 607 as if it is the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar. You can't mix and match secular dates within the Neo-Babylonian period because they are so tightly intertwined with each other.

I'm fine with that. That's why I have never bragged about intelligence or even claimed intelligence. You will never see me calling myself "scholar" or referencing titles from college degrees in Theological studies, or speaking about two PhD's as Allen Smith has mentioned multiple times. If a person says something that doesn't stand up to evidence, then it should be questioned. It doesn't matter who says it. The room is actually pretty empty no matter who is playing. Perhaps we can all be thankful for that. Could very well be. I'm not married to any of these secular dates. I think what favors the beginning in 609 is the idea that 2 Chronicles 36 seems pretty clear about ending it in 539, with the fall of Babylon at the hands of the Persian. (2 Chronicles 36:17-22) So he brought against them the king of the Chal·deʹans, who killed their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary; he felt no compassion for young man or virgin, old or infirm. God gave everything into his hand. All the utensils of the house of the true God, great and small, as well as the treasures of the house of Jehovah and the treasures of the king, and his princes, everything he brought to Babylon. He burned down the house of the true God, tore down the wall of Jerusalem, burned all its fortified towers with fire, and destroyed everything of value. He carried off captive to Babylon those who escaped the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia began to reign, to fulfill Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill 70 years. In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in order that Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah would be fulfilled, Jehovah stirred the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his kingdom. . . It would be difficult to conceive of continued Babylonian domination in a literal sense when Babylon was no longer a world power. They stopped being a world power around October 539. But you could claim, as some have, that it waited until the proclamation, which could have happened within days, or months. The "first year" by some reckoning could have been during those last 3 months of 539. But maybe it was a couple more months, or perhaps it waited a year or so. There's a minimum that can fit the scriptures, but there is also a maximum. A good chronological methodology considers all the possibilities. We can have a preference based on the weight we give various bits of evidence, but there is still a minimum and maximum range at which we might begin and end the period. How would you answer the question, based on the Isaiah's Prophecy book about the 70 years of Babylon's greatest domination? Would you start it in 607? Do you think that Babylon's domination continued after 539? That's about 68 years, and for me it fulfills the Bible prophecy from Jeremiah. If you believe the 70 years to be a little more literal, I can see why you might choose 609 to 539, or 608 to 538, or 607 to 537. Of course, parts of 72 years can include 70 full years, and parts of 70 years can include 68 full years (in the same sense that Jesus was in the grave for parts of three days to fulfill "three days and three nights").

Not so sure why you wanted to pick me out of the crowd. I think it was 605, immediately after his father died. He did manage to get back home probably faster than anyone had ever managed that trip before him. Both dates are secular chronology. But again, I have no problem with 607 being the start of the 70 years. I never have. I have always thought that it was close enough, within a year or two, and that even the term "70 years" need not have ever meant an exact number, to the very month, or even the very year. In fact, the expression was already previously in use by Isaiah: (Isaiah 23:15) . . .seventy years, the same as the days of one king. . . Whether this meant "lifetime" as in "lifespan" of a king, or the span of the Babylonian period of greatest domination, as the "Isaiah's prophecy" book points out, it doesn't have to mean that the prophecy fails if that period of greatest domination was 67 to 69 years, instead of 70 exactly. *** 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) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. 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. What years would you @Foreigner or perhaps @scholar JW or @allensmith28 use to date that 70 years of Babylon's greatest domination as applied to Tyre? Would you start it with the fall of Jerusalem's Temple, or does it make more sense to start it with the earliest years when Babylon was tramping about in the region, beginning to prove its dominance as the next world power in the region? Besides, you don't know just how long Nebuchadnezzar was the king's representative in Hattu. At what point did Babylon begin controlling Tyre's economy by taking control of key trade routes? (Isaiah 23) At what point did Babylon begin dominating economic and political decisions made in the Hattu region (Syria/Israel/Judah) simply through fear even before the first physical depredations of the land and people were made? I don't think we need to look for a specific event that begins the 70 years of domination, and no specific event that ends the domination. It's pretty easy to get the general time period. (And 2 Chron 36:21 seems to pinpoint the end.) It certainly makes sense that the prediction of the imminent fall of Nineveh would have been the end of the Assyrian power in the eyes of Jerusalem/Judea. Did it wait until the final and actual fall? And you are right, there appears to be a couple of years when the Egyptian power seemed on par with Babylon's. Egypt was the king of the south at the same time that Babylon was the king of the north. Judeans would continue to choose between them for many years. But even Egypt and Assyria together couldn't stand up against Babylon at Carchemish, as proven in 605. Was Jehovah able to discern the dominance of Babylon even a couple years before 605, while Nebuchadnezzar was still a prince and general? We could even ask if the devastation and desolation of a city needed to be literal in every respect. Or did prophecy often use poetic language, even poetic hyperbole, in making memorable warnings? Was it even necessary that Nineveh, Jerusalem, Tyre, or Babylon ever be completely desolated? Or was it a warning of what Jehovah was capable of doing as the true sovereign (king) of the world? For example, In his pronouncement against Assyrian Nineveh, Nahum includes "fear" as part of what devastates and desolates her, yet we know that Nineveh was never totally depopulated: (Nahum 2:8-11, NWT) 8 And Ninʹe·veh, from the days [that] she [has been], was like a pool of waters; but they are fleeing. “Stand still, YOU men! Stand still!” But there is no one turning back. 9 Plunder silver, YOU men; plunder gold; as there is no limit to the [things in] arrangement. There is a heavy amount of all sorts of desirable articles. 10 The city is empty, desolate, devastated! Their hearts melt in fear, their knees buckle, their hips tremble; (NWT 2013) All their faces are flushed. 11 Where is the lair of lions, and the cave that belongs to the maned young lions, where the lion walked and entered, where the lion’s cub was, and no one was making [them] tremble? Just as we often must do with other prophecies, I sometimes put a softer edge on the chronology in prophecy (unless the prophecy itself tells us otherwise). Dates and numbers can be rounded, just as this has often been explained for other prophecies discussed in our publications.

Just read these through. It took 2 hours to do them justice. Sometimes you get angry and hope it's righteous indignation. But it is easy, even through emotion, to see that much of what transpired with the victims should be expected if not inevitable. Both daughters were both accusers of their father. And another young girl in his congregation also made another accusation of sexual abuse. The fact that the accusers both remained as sisters, married, one even serving with her husband at Brooklyn Bethel, and the other one married and continuing to serve as a pioneer, makes the case even more interesting when dealing with issues of credibility, reluctance to come forward, congregational privileges, etc. There were many disturbing elements to the correspondence. One was the cold, dismissive way in which almost nothing could be done, for years, until both of the rape/abuse victims were able to meet face-to-face with their rapist father. (Yes, I'm taking the side of the girls and the elders who met with both of them, not the father and perhaps a circuit overseer who seems to take his side.) There seemed to be almost a sense that there must be a scripture somewhere that a land-line telephone can also count as "face-to-face" meeting, but nothing less can count. (Later, of course, [2004] even a phone "face-to-face" was questioned as inadequate if the elders didn't get a chance to ask their own questions.) For years, the father makes the most of the inability of the daughters to prove their accusations, although they had thought about recording the audio from their abuse on a hidden cassette recorder under the bed, but I can't tell for sure what might have happened to the referenced tape, or if it ever existed, or worked. Still one of the most disturbing aspects with respect to the judicial handling of such cases is the idea that comes through from the viewpoint in a letter from the elders, and which pops up again in the correspondence. It helps explain why this has been such a pervasive problem in Witness sexual-abuse cases all over the world. Letter from body of elders in a Windsor, CT congregation to body of elders in Ware, MA congregation. [9/23/04] "We have had some concerns regarding [the rape victim's] seeming obsession in filing charges against [her rapist father] from the start of the long ongoing investigation into this matter." But I see a kernel of this same type of thinking, pop up several times in the correspondence, and even when one reads between the lines of the Society's correspondence, too: CCoJW [WTBTS/Patterson] to the Accused [8/18/05] ". . . her only option was to report this to the elders. . . . It is regrettable that [victims] discussed these accusations with others who were not in a position to address these charges in harmony with our theocratic arrangements." There were places that showed just how regrettable it was that the victims, for so long, discussed these accusations ONLY with those who were in a position to address them in harmony with our theocratic arrangements. Much of what the elders and the WTS did here, was handled evidently with best intentions, but you can see so many times where early age-appropriate training of young persons from professionals and intervention/investigation from professionals would have had much better effect that "theocratic arrangements" alone. A father-daughter(s) rape/incest case is the worst of all worlds from the standpoint of preparing the very young and vulnerable, but professionals are making progress here too. As a school principal, now retired, my wife has had occasion to be impressed with the methods used by CPS, psychologists, and Police investigators into such issues. Of course, being professionally trained is not just for non-Witnesses. (In the leaked correspondence, one of the victims was, at a much later time, seeing a JW professional as a counselor.) Even the accused was evidently able to "score points" by claiming that the accusations against him brought reproach on the organization. The unprofessional methods of trying to find holes in the victim's story was just the kind amateur behavior to expect from elders who are not trained in these matters, and who, deep down, wish that accusations, especially against brothers who serve as elders or m.s., would just go away due to the reproach issues. If they don't go away, at least they should be handled internally, as far as possible. But they did their investigation under the limitations of their experience, their training, and the imposed limitations of the theocratic arrangement. One of the most poignant moments is when elders seek out the sister at Bethel to help verify the accusations from her sister who is a pioneer in her congregation. The Bethelite sister is very reluctant to speak, but when the elders convince her that she should speak up, she finally tells her own story, at the hands of her rapist father, which is as bad or even worse than the experience of her own sister.

Better safe than sorry.

Not using malwarebytes, but I have 3 equivalents running and updated. None of them said anything, and the files came over just fine. Sites like this are often used for sharing files, of course, and by hundreds of different users, under different subdirectories of the primary domain. The ones that "Jay Witness" shares are under jw.servehttp, where servehttp is the domain and "jw" is the subdomain. I'm guessing that the site has been flagged for having had bad files in other subdirectories like marketing.servehttp and xwqwralq.servehttp, etc Just look up "servehttp.com malware" on Google to see the types of problems that have been served up from other files on that domain.

Didn't want this to get lost in the shuffle. Early in the morning yesterday, I mentioned the book from which you just quoted those several pages [pp.404-408] Of course, it is quite supportive of the historical Seventh Day Adventist (and Second Adventist) emphasis on their own chronology, but is well researched. I think we can find a better place to discuss just how, why or why not this might have influenced Russell, but I would agree with you, @allensmith28, that there was no direct impact on Russell. However, it looks like Froom, the author, was not trying to make the same point about JQB's agenda. Froom is saying that although JQB recognized 1844 very early on, that his specific scheme continued on into the future beyond 1844 without giving enough focus on the importance of 1844, and as he says, undermining it. Also, it might be useful to notice that there were MANY points of convergence between Russell's chronology interests and J.Q.Brown's. Including Russell's acceptance of 1844 as a prophetic date, and even Russell's concern about the Mohammedan problem.

What if you took a stack of coupons for the book(s) and attached them to small pieces of gum, and then surreptitiously stuck them to the bottom of every chair in the hall, repeating this process in 100 or 200 Kingdom Halls in the next year? Over the following year, the gum would lose its gumminess (Mt 5:13?) and then your coupon would be picked up by hundreds of different people over time. It'd be like a silent book tour where most of your effort is spent chewing and sitting down, and shifting your seat more often than most.

Have you tried finding a forum where both Witnesses and non-Witnesses gather to discuss Witness-related subjects? Perhaps you could mention it there.

I don't understand the very first line of the CLAM workbook: Although the Passover did not foreshadow the Memorial, certain features of the Passover have meaning for us. It must be some nuance that I'm missing: *** nwtsty John Study Notes—Chapter 1 *** 1:29 the Lamb of God: After Jesus got baptized and returned from being tempted by the Devil, John the Baptist introduced him as “the Lamb of God.” This expression occurs only here and at Joh 1:36. (See App. A7.) Comparing Jesus to a lamb is fitting. Throughout the Bible, sheep were offered in recognition of sin and to gain approach to God. This foreshadowed the sacrifice that Jesus would make when he surrendered his perfect human life in behalf of mankind. The expression “the Lamb of God” could reflect a number of passages in the inspired Scriptures. In view of John the Baptist’s familiarity with the Hebrew Scriptures, his words may have alluded to one or more of the following: the male sheep that Abraham offered up instead of his own son Isaac (Ge 22:13), the Passover lamb that was slaughtered in Egypt for the deliverance of the enslaved Israelites (Ex 12:1-13), or the male lamb that was offered up on God’s altar in Jerusalem each morning and evening (Ex 29:38-42). John may also have had in mind Isaiah’s prophecy, where the one whom Jehovah calls “my servant” is said to be “brought like a sheep to the slaughter.” (Isa 52:13; 53:5, 7, 11) When the apostle Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians, he referred to Jesus as “our Passover lamb.” (1Co 5:7) The apostle Peter spoke of Christ’s “precious blood, like that of an unblemished and spotless lamb.” (1Pe 1:19) And more than 25 times in the book of Revelation, the glorified Jesus is spoken of figuratively as “the Lamb.”—Some examples are: Re 5:8; 6:1; 7:9; 12:11; 13:8; 14:1; 15:3; 17:14; 19:7; 21:9; 22:1. *** w07 1/1 pp. 20-21 par. 4 “You Must Become Nothing but Joyful” *** Jesus died on Nisan 14, 33 C.E. In Israel, Nisan 14 was the joyous day of the Passover celebration. Each year on that day, families shared a meal that included a young, unblemished lamb. In this way, they remembered the role that the blood of a lamb played in the deliverance of the Israelite firstborn when the angel of death slew the firstborn of the Egyptians on Nisan 14, 1513 B.C.E. (Exodus 12:1-14) The Passover lamb foreshadowed Jesus, of whom the apostle Paul said: “Christ our passover has been sacrificed.” (1 Corinthians 5:7) Like the blood of the Passover lamb, Jesus’ shed blood provides salvation for many.—John 3:16, 36. *** w06 4/15 p. 19 Melito of Sardis—Defender of Bible Truths? *** After making comments on Exodus chapter 12 and having showed that the Passover foreshadowed Christ’s sacrifice . . . *** w81 4/1 p. 11 Celebrating the Death of the Greatest Man Ever on Earth *** These are very happy to get the invitation to attend the celebration of the Lord’s Evening Meal as celebrated by the remnant of spiritual Israelites, who are in the new covenant and also in the Kingdom covenant. . . . These were foreshadowed by the vast mixed multitude of non-Israelites that left demon-controlled Egypt on that first Passover night, throwing in their lot with the departing Israelites and taking up the worship of Jehovah God. (Ex. 12:38) *** w77 5/15 pp. 304-305 par. 18 The “Tree” Whose Fall Shocks the World *** “in a spiritual sense” Jesus Christ was sacrificed as “the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.” (Matt. 2:13-21; John 1:29, 36) Not by mere chance was the Lord Jesus Christ sacrificed as the Lamb of God on Passover Day of 33 C.E. Why not? Because he had been foreshadowed by the lamb that was sacrificed by the Israelites on that first Passover Day of the year 1513 B.C.E. down in ancient Egypt. The Egyptians who did not sacrifice a Passover lamb and sprinkle its blood upon their doorways lost their firstborn ones of man and beast. This led to Pharaoh’s releasing the Israelites from slavery that they might go out a free, liberated people. So what am I missing? (Hint, it's explained in a 2013 Watchtower)

To be fair, the original version of this hymn was written by Frances Ridley Havergal (1836-1879) and originally played with music by Henri Abraham Cesar Malan (1787-1864). The original version also included the words "Take my silver and my gold." In 1966, we were still singing this song at the Hall with the words: "Take my silver and my gold." (Frances Havergal was the wife of an Anglican preacher [Church of England] and her brother was a priest in the Anglican church.) Our penultimate version included "take my:" heart, mind, feet, hands, voice, life, myself. Our current version now includes "take my:" heart, voice, feet, hands, silver, gold, life, myself. So we had to lose "my mind" and raise "my voice" to accommodate "my silver and my gold." As you can see below, the original Anglican version (right) had "take my:" life, moments, days, hands, feet, voice, lips, silver, gold, mind(intellect), will, heart, love, and myself. The ones we still include are highlighted in red, so we are now at 9 of 14. Starting in 1905 (Hymns of the Millennial Dawn) we sang it almost exactly as it is in the original. The 1905 version (left) was the way Russellites sang it and was very much like other versions of the original as sung in other churches.  1 Take my life and may it be Lord, acceptable to thee; Take my hands, and let them move At the impulse of thy love.  Take my life, and let it be Consecrated, Lord, to Thee; Take my moments and my days, Let them flow in ceaseless praise, Let them flow in ceaseless praise. 2 Take my feet and let them be Swift on errands, Lord for thee; Take my voice and let it bring Honor always to my King.   Take my hands, and let them move At the impulse of Thy love; Take my feet and let them be Swift and beautiful for Thee, Swift and beautiful for Thee. 3 Take my lips and let them be Moved with messages from thee; Take my silver and my gold; Nothing, Lord, would I withhold.   Take my voice, and let me sing Always, only, for my King; Take my lips, and let them be Filled with messages from Thee, Filled with messages from Thee. 4 Take my moments and my days; Let them flow in constant praise; Take my intellect and use Ev'ry pow'r as thou shalt choose.  Take my silver and my gold; Not a mite would I withhold; Take my intellect, and use Every power as Thou shalt choose, Every power as Thou shalt choose. 5 Take my will and make it thine; It shall be no longer mine; Take my heart, it is thine own; Thus in me thyself enthrone.   Take my will, and make it Thine; It shall be no longer mine. Take my heart; it is Thine own; It shall be Thy royal throne, It shall be Thy royal throne. 6 Take my love, my God; I pour At thy feet its treasure store; Take myself-- I wish to be Ever, only, all for thee.   Take my love; my Lord, I pour At Thy feet its treasure-store. Take myself, and I will be Ever, only, all for Thee, Ever, only, all for Thee. We began singing a very pretty, shortened version of this song a couple decades later. We changed the name from Consecration to Dedication in 1950, and this was the way we were singing it up until 1966 (pictured below) -- with "take my:" life, voice, feet, hands, mind[intellect], moments, silver, gold, heart, myself -- still managing to fit 10 out of 14 points from the original.

Thanks for moving back to the topic. Those are bold assertions. I have not read James Penton on this topic, so I can't speak to it, but I have read COJ. Maybe not the whole book, but I've read about 100 pages and skimmed about 200 more. I had already noticed that the Watchtower's chronology is based on pseudo-archaeology, without COJ's help, but that wasn't the problem. I had taken an much bigger interest from the perspective of the Biblical evidence alone. Also, I know that every time you have ever made a general claim that his treatise was "flawed" I notice that you never had any specific points that proved this. Also, you should say what you mean by the fact that 607 B.C.E. is Biblically supported. In the first few posts of this topic, I explained what I meant by that question. You have suggested that 607 could be significant, but that you do not necessarily agree that the event in 607 is the same event that the Watchtower describes for that year. I think you give it pretty much the same significance however. I have mentioned before that I also think that 607 is very close (within two or three years) of a Biblically supported event, the start of the 70 years. This year must be very close to the start of the 70 years for Babylon's greatest domination, according to the "Isaiah's Prophecy" book, and which fits the prophecy of Jeremiah 25 (as also quoted in the same "Isaiah" book.) The only problem is the fact that the secular 607 date is closer to Nabopolassar's 19th year and not Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year, which are about 20 years apart. Of course, you have already pointed this out, and have suggested that the similarity of the names and a potential confusion between the two names resulted in the Bible's use of the term Nebuchadnezzar when the Bible could have meant the same person we speak of as Nabopolassar. This is a theory that is based on a very thin and murky foundation. You have made use of errors found in 19th century works, errors in the pseudo-chronology of the book of Judith, and the possible confusion between the two names as your best evidence so far. There is also the "coincidence" of the 18th/19th year that you have brought up. If I understand you correctly, you have also proposed a possible theory that the actual "destruction" of Jerusalem should be moved back another 11 or so years before the Jerusalem event that the Bible describes in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th/19th year. I don't know if you have been as clear about this theory, or perhaps it was just me. It appeared that you were focusing on what secular historians date to about 598.

They also say that David, as a shepherd, was out-standing in his field.

I can imagine a situation where it was a sister's fault that the entire songbook had to be updated again. And, although it's pure speculation, it wouldn't be the first time something like this happened. They say it was a sister who got celebrating anniversaries approved. They say it was a sister who got the idea of approving multiple blood fractions. Ultimately it was a sister (Audrey Mock) who got the rule changed at Bethel that if a brother got married, he had to leave Bethel. In this case, imagine a brother as high up in the hierarchy as the Governing Body itself who has a wife. Now every time this wife sees her husband glancing for too long at a younger sister she knows she can't say anything directly, so she just starts humming the tune of: "O Guard Your Heart, you . . . " After all, these songs have become the playlist of our lives, and I must have a thousand triggers that immediately get me to start humming any one of a hundred different Kingdom Songs.

I don't admit that yet. But this is a definite issue to watch out for, and it's easy for a double standard develop. That's because the biggest reason to avoid banning people for as long as possible is that no moderator has time to look into all aspects of a conversation or "level of insult" in order to treat all sides fairly. I have others who create or share memes, for example, and I know that what is truly funny often includes that which makes us uncomfortable. Still, I have been much more offended by many of the statements and memes from others on this forum than having you tell me that I'm some kind of apostate who will be destroyed forever. (Also it's been a long time since you tried to say that in any direct way.) But it means that you will always carry the historical baggage of a time or two when you or one of your "doubles" appears to lose your temper. This is wrong, too, when there is no such thing as a fresh start, and you end up being told that you are walking on eggshells, so to speak. However, I personally see a huge difference, so far, in the AlanF, scholar_JW dialogue. There was never a moment when this escalation seemed out of place or unexpected. It was not about temper. It was always about honest directness. Insult was part of the "style" right from the start, and it was accepted. In your case, I grabbed a few screenshots before they disappeared, and often purposely re-quoted some of what you had said so it wouldn't get lost, because I thought it was so over-the-top, but also out-of-place, and it lashed out at the person in abusive ways that wasted a lot of dialogue space when it was supposed to be about the topic. I think it was that combination that drew so much attention to your own style and drew many complaints from people who actually were on your side doctrinally, but didn't like the way in which you created an abusive, rabid image. Even so, you were allowed to go on for months without any repercussions, as far as I could tell. I think the moderators felt it was a matter of patience. (I get the feeling that there must be "real" moderators who also consider what is good for the site overall, and know that certain types of abusive behavior result in members leaving, and other types of colorful language and imagery are just considered part and parcel of argumentation.) So, all in all, I don't believe you should have been banned, but even less so in this particular case do I think that AlanF should be banned. Even this particular reference to the word "excrement" refers to his opponent's argument, not the person himself. Also when the person himself is mentioned, it because of their own claims they make about themselves and of course, their method of argumentation. When a person asks to be judged on their own merit, they have to expect that judgment to be forthcoming.

I obviously don't have any say in whether people are banned or not. I got a message from a moderator on two different occasions in the last two years asking whether I thought that you had gone too far with insulting and abusive speech and should be banned. My answer was always that you should NOT be banned, because the Internet is a rough and tumble world. Banning someone rarely does any good on the Internet anyway, as there are a million and one ways to get around it: make new accounts, map an account to a different IP address, use temporary email addresses that various services create to make this easy to accomplish, etc., etc. Any who venture into the world of Internet discussion forums must learn quickly that public statements will result in public ridicule even when those statements are right. It's up to mature people to distinguish right from wrong, even where someone's use of language might offend us. It's not always a pleasant experience for some, but as @scholar JW has indicated, he found this particular exchange enjoyable. It's an acquired taste. Expressive language, filthy imagery, even taboo words actually have their place in dialogue. I think it was pointed out that even the Bible does this, and the NWT 2013 Revised version explains in several of its footnotes that it has cleaned up some of this filthy or insulting imagery that appears in the original Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible.

This could not merely be about being considerate of the new ones or interested ones. It appears to be more about being considerate to the 'rest of us' who might feel offended being told what to do by a 'new one.' It's pretty much the opposite of what Jesus said about 'out of the mouths of babes.'

AlanF, I think that you will be asked to avoid the kind of insulting language and imagery. I am sure that other forums have allowed an escalation of this type to reach greater heights/depths of such. One of the things that has made this particular forum more palatable, according to several people here, myself included, is the fact that all perspectives have been able to come together WITHOUT these rough edges.

The image was a bit small. I have page 208 in text format which generally uses the spacing and line break style of the original, with original spellings: ------------------------------------------------------ [resur-]rection of the dead, and on the triumphant era of blessed- ness, which immediately ensues. I would again impress on the mind of the reader, that these events depend upon the fulfilment of the chronological periods ; and that as the " new heaven and new earth," which are created at the second judgment, and at the time of the general resur- rection, necessarily synchronise with Daniel's era of blessed- ness ; so must the " new heaven and new earth " be con- sidered as succeeding the '' old heaven and old earth," or the tyrannical monarchies of the old dispensation. The times of these monarchies are fixed by the " seven times " of the symbolic image, and by the 1335 years of the Mo- hammedan Imposture ; and unless it can be shown that erroneous data have been assumed, on which these chro- nological periods have been founded, then must it be maintained that the forty-five years of Daniel are the period of the second judgment ; and, commencing in 1873, are attended by the sitting of that judgment, and by the general resurrection, the last hour of which terminates with the " seven times " of the monarchies, and with the 1335 Mohammedan years, in 1917. It may be further ob- served, that it is a judgment of the " wicked " only ; be- cause the righteous rise first, and attend Christ " at his coming." Death, hell and the sea, and their dead, sub- sequently stand in judgment. The Saviour himself, speaking of the signs of his se- cond coming, foretels all these events ; and upon that memorable occasion, when he predicted the treading down of Jerusalem, and " that the Jews should be led captive into all nations," during the times of the Gentiles, ob- viously refers to the sitting of the second judgment, at which he is to appear as the Judge. " Heaven and earth," or the dispensation of the tyrannical empires, which were the instruments of the captivity and desolation of his peo- ple, he declares " shall pass away,"---the very token of the second judgment,--- " but my words shall not pass away." Verily I say unto you, " This generation shall not pass away till all be fulfilled." Whatever, therefore, be the [p.209] criticisms upon these extraordinary words . . . --------------------------------------------------

Apologies to @scholar JW but it's pretty clear that the Watchtower had already given away the answer, back in 1983, which shows clearly that AlanF is correct, as was Ann, Carl Jonsson, and many others: *** w83 8/1 p. 20 par. 15 Israel and the “Times of the Gentiles” *** 15 In the dream that Jehovah God sent to his “servant,” King Nebuchadnezzar, there were “seven times” that were decreed from heaven. How do these connect up with “the times of the Gentiles” or coincide and become identical with them? THUS, EXAMPLES which would only make sense if the connection/link/etc means an "equating." *** w98 9/15 p. 15 par. 1 Waiting in “Eager Expectation” *** Similarly, a prophecy providentially caused sincere 19th-century Bible students to be in expectation. By linking the “seven times” of Daniel 4:25 with “the times of the Gentiles,” they anticipated that Christ would receive Kingdom power in 1914. *** yb75 p. 37 Part 1—United States of America *** Very noteworthy was the striking accuracy with which that book pointed to the end of the Gentile Times, “the appointed times of the nations.” (Luke 21:24) It showed (on pages 83 and 189) that this 2,520-year period, during which Gentile or non-Jewish nations would rule the earth without interference by any kingdom of God, began with the Babylonian overthrow of the kingdom of Judah in the late seventh century B.C.E. and would end in 1914 C.E. Even earlier, however, C. T. Russell wrote an article entitled “Gentile Times: When Do They End?” It was published in the Bible Examiner of October 1876, and therein Russell said: “The seven times will end in A.D. 1914.” He had correctly linked the Gentile Times with the “seven times” mentioned in the book of Daniel. (Dan. 4:16, 23, 25, 32) True to such calculations, 1914 did mark the end of those times and the birth of God’s kingdom in heaven with Christ Jesus as king. Just think of it! Jehovah granted his people that knowledge nearly four decades before those times expired. *** jv chap. 10 p. 134 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth *** As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in London, England, calculated the “seven times” of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length. But he did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did, however, connect these “seven times” with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. In 1844, E. B. Elliott, a British clergyman, drew attention to 1914 as a possible date for the end of the “seven times” of Daniel, but he also set out an alternate view that pointed to the time of the French Revolution. Robert Seeley, of London, in 1849, handled the matter in a similar manner. At least by 1870, a publication edited by Joseph Seiss and associates and printed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was setting out calculations that pointed to 1914 as a significant date, even though the reasoning it contained was based on chronology that C. T. Russell later rejected. *** w15 6/15 p. 22 par. 12 Live in Harmony With the Model Prayer—Part I *** 12 When the time approached for God’s Kingdom in the hands of Jesus to start ruling from heaven, Jehovah helped his people to understand the timing of events. In 1876, an article written by Charles Taze Russell was published in the magazine Bible Examiner. That article, “Gentile Times: When Do They End?,” pointed to 1914 as a significant year. The article linked the “seven times” of Daniel’s prophecy with “the appointed times of the nations” spoken of by Jesus.—Dan. 4:16; Luke 21:24. *** w84 4/1 p. 16 par. 4 Heed God’s Prophetic Word for Our Day *** 4 That year 1914—what of it? Over a century ago, C. T. Russell (who became the first president of the Watch Tower Society) linked the Gentile Times with the “seven times” mentioned in the book of Daniel. (Daniel 4:16, 23, 25, 32; Luke 21:24, Authorized Version) Writing in the Bible Examiner of October 1876, Russell said: “The seven times will end in A.D. 1914.” He also was a joint publisher of the 1877 book Three Worlds, and the Harvest of This World, which showed (on pages 83 and 189) that the 2,520-year period of Gentile world domination without interference by any kingdom of God began with the Babylonian overthrow of the kingdom of Judah in the late seventh century B.C.E. and would end in 1914 C.E. Similarly, the Watch Tower issue of March 1880 stated: “‘The Times of the Gentiles’ extend to 1914, and the heavenly kingdom will not have full sway till then.”

Thanks @Ann O'Maly and it looks like thanks also to @AlanF for posting the pages in question. Of course, for anyone who really wanted to know, they already could have found enough of the content of those pages that had already been posted and discussed by both "AlanF" and a person calling himself "Earnest" on another forum and then again by AlanF on a separate blog at corior.blogspot. On a major forum, AlanF had even exposed some of the content that @scholar JW has already made reference to here on this forum, under this current topic. (Referring to correspondence with WTS, COJ, Franz, etc.) A person on that same forum named "Earnest" had even quoted sufficient portions of those two paragraphs from page 208, which are still there to read for anyone who wishes. They can just search Google, for example, with phrases like the following (including the quote marks): "john aquila brown" "Ray Franz, Carl Jonsson" But I had also seen that AlanF had even quoted from a few other pages of Volume II, including the the near context of page 208 (pps. 68-9, 135, 152, 206). Just google: "Part 5: Sanitizing the Past" I also have the book "Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers" by Froom, volume 3. It contains a very good discussion of John Aquila Brown in the context of all his own proposed time periods compared with others being presented at the time. All in all, these resources have made it clear to me that Jonsson had it right from both a high-level perspective and a detail level perspective. It even reminded me that the April 2018 Watchtower (p.30,31) may have had this very type of exchange in mind when they spoke of allowing "apostates" and other critics to sow distrust through a forum that allows dialogue. The "Proclaimers" book gives the appearance that it may have actually been written in such a way as to engage in dialogue with "apostate" reasoning, on this specific point, as an attempt to offer a kind of "gotcha." Something similar had been tried in the Appendix of the "Kingdom Come" book in 1981, and two Watchtower articles in 2011. Unfortunately, I think that these particular attempts backfired on the WTS, and I'm sure they do not wish for this kind of embarrassment to show up again.

Yikes! I run off for a day, and someone throws a party. I almost hate to interrupt, but it does look like you responded with 2 Chron 36, which I must admit, does appear to be the Biblical evidence against the claim I made when i said; ' But nowhere does the Bible say that the full and complete desolation measured from some specific point in time, was to begin counting off the 70 year period. In fact, there is no Bible passage that says the entire 70 years of Babylonian domination was equal to be equal in length to a 70 year period of full desolation.' It's almost ironic that a side conversation is going on about how John Aquila Brown had made a 'connection' between his 1260-year "Gentile Times" ending in 1844 and his 2,520-year period of the "Four Tyrannical Kingdoms" ending in 1917. John Aquila Brown made a connection without equating the periods. I think even "scholar JW" agrees with that much. And here we have 2 Chronicles speaking of a period of 70 years spoken by Jeremiah, and he connects them with a period when the land would pay off its sabbaths during all the days that the land would lay desolate. He appears to connect them, but does not equate them. It seems to be similar to how a prophetic type in Jonah connects his being in the belly of a large fish for 3 days, and how the fulfillment is tied to the idea that Jesus would be in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights. There is an emphasis on the 3 day and 3 night period, even though the direct connection in the case of Jesus was more likely a reference to Jesus being in the grave all of Saturday, plus a few hours on Friday afternoon, and a few short hours on Sunday morning. Maybe 36 hours instead of 72 (3x24). The prophetic period of "70 years" loomed large in these days and may have connected several periods in a loose way, especially since we know that the desolations that started as early as 604 ultimately resulted in more and more abandoned fields, abandoned cities, attacked cities, attacked populace, captured populace, two or three occasions of taking sacred utensils from Jerusalem, two or three sieges of Jerusalem. Finally, the desolation was effectively complete somewhere between Neb's 19th year and Neb's 24th year. Nebuchadnezzar was a kind of abomination that caused desolations, not just a single desolation. The idea is used in the plural almost as often as it is used in the singular. Even when used in the singular it is often paired with plural places --desolate places-- so that the idea of plural desolations is still obvious. Notice how this fact is hidden in the NWT translation of Daniel 9:2: (Daniel 9:2) 2 in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of years mentioned in the word of Jehovah to Jeremiah the prophet to fulfill the desolation of Jerusalem, namely, 70 years. But the Hebrew does not say 'desolation' חָרְבָּה of course. It says 'desolations' חָרְבֹות . As the ESV, quoted earlier says: (Daniel 9:2, ESV) in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years. Can you see the difference? Of course, as I've said before, I'm not a stickler for starting and ending these 70 years as of a specific certain event in the life of Neb., and I'm not so convinced that the 70 years must stop instantly with the event that freed the Jews from Babylonian captivity: i.e., the removal of Babylonian dominance by its capture in the first year of Cyrus over Babylon. Of course, this is the primary sense in Jeremiah, but I think it's clear that the 70-year period of that prophecy became a focus of several associated time periods that would find fulfillment either within that period, or because of that time period. One of the "desolations" (In Hebrew, it's also the word for "drought") was the spiritual "drought" caused by the desolation of the Temple. That particular "drought" must have been seen as connected with the 70 years of desolation, too, even though the connected 70-year period would have run from about Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year up to the first few years of Darius. (see: Zechariah, Haggai) At any rate, the evidence on the ground is that we can only find about 50 years between the destruction of Jerusalem in Neb's 19th year and the overthrow of Babylon in the first year of Cyrus. By evidence on the ground, I mean, literally, the tens of thousands of dated contract tablets, with or without the multiple examples of other evidence that will also mesh perfectly with these tablets. If we allow two or three extra years after the first year of Cyrus and start with the desolation in Neb's 8th year, we could get about 63 years, but still not 70. If we go all the way back to the time when the Babylonian power proved itself as the next power over Assyria (or even a combination of Assyria and Egypt), then we get a complete 70 years, and it perfectly fits Jeremiah's prophecy that the 70 years were "for Babylon" even though they would "effect'' the fulfillment of the desolations upon Judea and Jerusalem. I don't see a contradiction between 2 Chronicles 36 and Jeremiah 25, even if the focus is different.

That's correct, of course. Jerusalem and the nation of Judea were definitely to be emptied and left desolate. But nowhere does the Bible say that the full and complete desolation measured from some specific point in time, was to begin counting off the 70 year period. In fact, there is no Bible passage that says the entire 70 years of Babylonian domination was equal to be equal in length to a 70 year period of full desolation. The Bible appears to be saying that the desolation of Jerusalem was a key part of that desolation, the final key to the desolation. But most of the exiles had been taken 10 to 11 years prior to that destruction, according to the specific numbers given in the Bible. Judean had been escaping to the nations all around them during the entire period of the 70 years given to Babylonian domination. But it was not a true safety as Jeremiah said that those nations would feel the hammer of Babylonian domination in time, themselves. Isaiah shows that all these places absorbed fleeing Judeans . . . (Isaiah 11:11, 12) . . .In that day Jehovah will again offer his hand, a second time, to reclaim the remnant of his people who are left from As·syrʹi·a, from Egypt, from Pathʹros, from Cush, from Eʹlam, from Shiʹnar, [Babylon] from Haʹmath, and from the islands of the sea. 12 He will raise up a signal for the nations and gather the dispersed ones of Israel, and he will gather together the scattered ones of Judah from the four corners of the earth. One point to notice of course is that the Insight book added the word "suddenly" but then quoted two archaeologists/historians that, if you read them, are both quite clear that this was NOT a sudden desolation, in their opinion. Of course, I'm not saying it was sudden, or it wasn't sudden. That word can be subjective, depending on the historical perspective. I was only pointing out that the Bible gives an impression of a process of desolation that was never pinpointed to a specific event. Even if the Bible had tied the final and full desolation to a specific event, such as the destruction in Neb's 19th year, or the final captivity in his 24th year, that even this was never tied to the count of the 70 years. But in all events, remember that I agree completely that the nation and city became totally desolated, a pile of stones, effectively without an inhabitant.

I suspect that this is it. I've noticed that if a person repeatedly points to their own blogs and links to their own books that there is a limit to how much of this is allowed. If you link to a single place at a time and discuss a specific piece of evidence from that site, then the link becomes a 'source' for reference for what is being discussed here and it's usually acceptable. But if the source is just to a bunch of things that we are supposed to read on another site and use that site for its own sake, then that's not considered to be a good use of this discussion forum -- just to push people over to another site or forum or blog, etc.