JW Insider

6 hours ago, Queen Esther said:

Thank  you

The picture is misleading. It makes it look like Jesus thought of Charles Taze Russell as the "slave" or as part of the "slave" class.

Do people think of Russell as included in the faithful and discreet slave? Do people think that the items shown on the right, that issue of the "Bible Student's Monthly" or "Zion's Watch Tower" were produced by the "slave"?

According to the current teaching, Russell was NOT part of the 'faithful and discreet slave' and no issue of "Zion's Watch Tower" was produced or written by the "faithful and discreet slave."

5 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

I would agree Jerusalem Temple was burned in 586BC

That's progress! I can see 586 as a strong possibility too. Of course, most of the fake controversy between 586 and 587 is presented as a way to try to trick those who haven't studied the subject yet. The ruse is used to trick fellow JWs and others into thinking that the secular evidence for this period is just so faulty (over a one year difference!). When in fact the "Insight" book has admitted that this is not really a controversy at all. It's not the secular dating that is questionable here, it's an inconsistency in the Bible's reference to the date. But it's easily explained, as is done here in Insight.

*** it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***

• on Tammuz (June-July) 9 in the 11th year of Zedekiah’s reign (Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year if counting from his accession year or his 18th regnal year), a breach was made in Jerusalem’s wall. Zedekiah and his men fled but were overtaken in the desert plains of Jericho. Since Nebuchadnezzar had retired to Riblah “in the land of Hamath,” Zedekiah was brought before him there.

That's because it's the Bible that says these events happened in his 19th year:

• (2 Kings 25:8, 9) . . .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. 9 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.

And the Bible refers to several of these events happening in his 18th year:

• (Jeremiah 52:29) In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem.

There are also some very similar Biblical references to the year of the Judean king, Zedekiah, for example. There is absolutely no issue at all identifying Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year in secular chronology, nor is there any problem identifying his 19th year. From the perspective of studying chronology, the entire Neo-Babylonian period is just as "absolute" as is the Persian period. The idea some have tried to promote (that this controversy is due to a weakness in the secular sources) is a hoax.

I think that when someone is raptured, all earthly references to them disappear.

8 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

A hilarious example by AlanF!!!

http://www.biblehistory.com/map_babylonian_captivity/map_of_the_deportation_of_judah_treatment_of_the_jews_in_babylon.html

I see you made a mistake here @allensmith28in the transcription of the URL that @AlanF gave.

I clicked on your "typo" URL that you created when you left out the hyphen. I'm sure this was an accident on your part, but I was surprised that it linked to a Bible timeline that put the Exile from 585 to 487 and ended the Divided Kingdom in 586. I thought it an interesting coincidence that both sites would have such similar URLs. But it turns out that even if you had accidentally made further adjustments to the link, even with your own name in it, for example: 

http://www.biblehistory.com/ALLEN_SMITH_28.htm

. . . that it also would have taken you to the same page with the 586 date on it. You can try it by clicking above.

In fact, you did originally use the actual link AlanF's provided, on which you based your comments, just as you claimed. AlanF was wrong to offer only those three choices about you personally in response to your simple mistake. AlanF was also mistaken in not recognizing that you had gone on to criticise other parts of the page/site, beyond the point he was using and quoting, to point out the chronology information from the map found on this page and other parts of the same website -- which contained information not consistent with AlanF's views.

Of course, even so, your only salient point is that there is some stuff on the site where AlanF's link came from that AlanF clearly doesn't believe in. We've been through this same type of logical fallacy before, where just because a site or page has something wrong on it that other things on the same site or page can't be useful. (Often a "composition" fallacy, sometimes a "poisoning the well" fallacy. Don't know the Latin for @TrueTomHarley's collection.)

You had a chance to leverage the mistake to your own advantage, but then you went off and made some more serious logical blunders of your own.

8 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

The gobbledygook and ignorance belong to Alanf supporters. By the way. This website is structured by the ideology of an American Scholar Edward Robinson Born in 1794AD. If this website is going to be used as proof of something, then 19-century ideology is PROOF of ancient events, as well. Try showing some coherency. Keep learning Junior, you have a long way to go before you can understand scripture like a 6-year-old.

Yes. Someone used a word like "gobbledygook" with reference to ideas you have promoted or defended, so naturally you have no choice but to blame-shift and redirect that word onto those you oppose. Logically, however, there is no reason to push these words onto "AlanF supporters," whoever they may be.

Also you point out that the American scholar, Edward Robinson, was born in 1794 and that this site is structured by his ideology. Is this really a problem to you? It has already been pointed out, even by you yourself, that we can expect some issues with the chronology of scholars who worked so early in the 19th century, but no one says that this means everything they say is to be under suspicion. After all, the WTS still prefers the support of 19th century scholars over 20th and 21st century scholars. It's off topic, but I have a couple in mind in case you doubt this.

Also, guess who quotes Edward Robinson himself. Yep . . . here's the Awake! magazine, and it's only one of at least a dozen more times he is quoted, especially for Biblical language studies:

*** g80 5/8 p. 17 A Book That Tells What the Future Holds ***

• What is the condition of ancient Edom today? “Around us were the desolation of ages; the dwellings and edifices of the ancient city [Petra, the former capital city, carved out of the mountain crag] crumbled and strewed in the dust.”—Edward Robinson, in “Biblical Researches in Palestine.”

Then you say, "If this website is going to be used as proof of something, then 19-century ideology is PROOF of ancient events, as well." I think you are making the same mistake that Arauna made in misunderstanding the different uses of evidence, when 'proof' is not part of the equation. Besides, your statement is completely illogical on many levels.

As far as the "Junior" and "6 year old" I think AlanF deserves to be treated just as he treats others, and I'm as entertained as anyone by the back-and-forth slinging. Although, I must say that those particular attempts sound like desperate shifting projections.

11 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

This is what it all boils down to, doesn’t it? The Rejection of 2520.

If Jesus rejected the 2,520, then who am I to say Jesus was wrong? Note, as I said above, that I have no problem with accepting the WTS view of most doctrines, even if they are not based on evidence. The vast majority of doctrines are absolutely correct from a Biblical point of view. I think they should be given the benefit of the doubt as respected teachers.

• (1 Timothy 5:17) 17 Let the elders who preside in a fine way be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching.

It is only where the evidence is contradictory that there would be any real reason to be concerned. In this case, I think we should at least have a good reason why Jesus himself said that the Gentile Times were 1,260, if we still wish to contradict him.

• (Revelation 11:2, 3) . . .because it has been given to the nations, and they will trample the holy city [Jerusalem] underfoot for 42 months.”

I don't think anyone can doubt that Jesus is referring here to the trampling of Jerusalem by the nations [gentiles] for the appointed times [42 months; 1,260 days; 3 and 1/2 times]. Do you really doubt that this is a reference to the appointed times of the nations? Compare the red-highlighted words if you have any trouble with this question.

• (Luke 21:24) . . . and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.

37 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

Start by reading: The-Pedagogy-of-Shalom-Theory-and-Contemporary-Issues-of-a-Faith-based-Education 2017

I agree with the significance of Josiah's time and even the possible importance of his death in 609 to the prophecy about Babylon's 70 years of dominating rule over the other nations. Josiah has already been discussed in this context. But I have to say that I found this particular reference you just gave to be about the least valuable and least informed of all the books I have ever seen that reference Josiah and Jeremiah. BTW, do you think that dating Josiah's death to about 609 BCE is correct?

9 hours ago, Foreigner said:

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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?

This, of course, would be on how you wish to view history. Technically, Babylon subdued King Jehoiakim in 605BC

So it seems you would allow, potentially, that Babylon's 70-year domination of these nations around them could start when Babylon subdued King Jehoiakim in 605 BCE. That's a pretty late start, and if you take it down to 537, then you are already including parts of 69 years.  605, 604, 603, 602, 601, 600, 599, 598, 597  . . . that's 9 different years, so on to 587 represents 19 different years, 577 represents 29 different years, etc., etc., until 537 represents 69 different years. We also have another potential year or so, based on how we read Daniel 1:1, which would represent 70 years.

And this is only referring to how Babylon affected Judea. Jeremiah doesn't say that the 70 years started only with Judea, did it?

• (Jeremiah 25:11, 12) 11 And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’ 12 “‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,’ declares Jehovah, ‘and I will make the land of the Chal·deʹans a desolate wasteland for all time.

The desolation that occurs upon the land of the Chaldeans (Babylonians) was not to be inflicted by Judea, but by the nations around Babylon, just as the servitude of the nations to Babylon was not dependent on when the punishment on Judea would begin or end.

• (Jeremiah 25:14) 14 For many nations and great kings will make slaves of them,. . .

And, as "Arauna" has already pointed out, this word "desolation" which is said here to come upon Babylon at the end of their 70 years does not necessarily refer to literal absence of all inhabitants, either. In fact, Babylon remained a metropolis into Christian times. But other nations dominated over them, just as they had once dominated over other nations, including Judea.

10 hours ago, Foreigner said:

So, what would be the reason to use 609BC if you want to be precise? 608BC, then, you end up in 538BC, 1 year after the fall of Babylon. So, what would be the reason to use another speculative view about Isaiah’s Prophecy, if this claim can’t be added, either? Don’t you think, you are attempting to make things fit, just as the Watchtower is being defamed for?

You think the Watchtower's view about Isaiah's prophecy is speculative? Do you think it's wrong? Do you think they were just trying to make things fit in those statements from "Isaiah's Prophecy"? It's curious that the Watchtower publications would perfectly agree with Carl Jonsson in this regard, but they did not change it in the online version, or the Watchtower Library CD, the way the "Insight" book has already been changed in several online articles. As far as I can tell, this is still the WT view, and I happen to agree with it -- not because Carl Jonsson agrees -- but because it fits the Bible's evidence. If you think you have a better explanation and this is only WT speculation, then please share your ideas.

Also, why do you think that proposing a correction to the current doctrine is the same as defaming the WT? Isn't it true that if you see someone taking a false step, the loving thing to do is to speak up. otherwise you are complicit in the error, right?

11 hours ago, Foreigner said:

This whole time, COJ proved nothing since the GENTILE TIMES would have started with the death of King Josiah in 609BC.

That makes no sense. Just because the 70 years of Babylonian domination started in 609 (or 608, or 607), what does that have to do with the Gentile Times? Jesus said the Gentile Times were "1,260 days" long,  and that they would start AFTER Jesus gave the "Olivet Sermon" about the end (the PAROUSIA, the SYNTELEIA) as recorded in Luke 21. If they started some time after 33 CE and lasted 1,260 days, what does this have to do with the death of Josiah? This is off-topic of course, but there have already been topics on the "Gentile Times."

11 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Then why single out one person, when others like ALANF AND SCHOLAR JW have the same perception of calling themselves within the same level of expertise and portray that same intellectual perception.

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.)

11 hours ago, Foreigner said:

I believe, the POSTING on the MAIN PAGE of this WEBSITE, shows what you are attempting to single out one person with your statement.

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. 

11 hours ago, Foreigner said:

So, either you are deliberately being selective, and hate this person, which is against all that Jesus taught?

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.

11 hours ago, Foreigner said:

or you are defending those that reject the Watchtower chronology, Which is another view Jesus taught against.

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.

11 hours ago, Foreigner said:

You can’t imply, you have no problem with the WT chronology, and then reject the WT chronology and allow your views of rejection be POSTED in AD1914, as though, it is something, factual.

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.

11 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Many scholars agree, those that present an objection, are obligated to show SOLID proof of their objection. Thus far, the objections have been met with speculation, where’s the intellectual mind?

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.

11 hours ago, Foreigner said:

You are confident that 607BC in NOT the correct year for the destruction of Jerusalem, and have cited with, secular chronology, of 587BC, yet you give a vague response that it COULD VERY WELL BE?

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.

11 hours ago, Foreigner said:

If 607BC is farfetched

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.

11 hours ago, Foreigner said:

then 609BC is FAR WORSE

Not at all. 609 is not more than 2 years off, either, in my opinion.

1 hour ago, Nana Fofana said:

If it's "Babylon's domination" you really, really  think we must fulfill according to scripture . . .   that Jerusalem came under siege in 609, and remained under siege until it fell in 607?

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?

1 hour ago, Nana Fofana said:

And then, for fulfilling the 70 years of desolation during which the land kept Sabbath to fulfill the 70 years, during the 70 years it was desolated, what if we considered 607 until 537 for that time period?

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.

31 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

everyone can drop the sarcasm about being intelligent, when they show the contrary?

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.

2 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Therefore, wouldn’t it be conceivable, those who boast about their intelligence, are simply playing to an empty room?

The room is actually pretty empty no matter who is playing. Perhaps we can all be thankful for that.

31 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

By that logic, then we could agree that 609BC would be worse of a probability than 607BC.

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").

2 hours ago, Foreigner said:

When, was King Nebuchadnezzar made King by secular reckoning JWinsider?

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.

2 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Since we are referring to BIBLE CHRONOLOGY, and NOT secular chronology, then what kind of intelligence is being referred to here, when 607BC is flatly “denied” but 609BC is *perfectly* acceptable.

 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.

2 minutes ago, Chloe Newman said:

Too risky for me I'm afraid!

52 minutes ago, Chloe Newman said:

Malwarebytes indicates these are links to malicious sites.

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.

4 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

 [pp.404-408]    This is the crust of John Aquila Brown’s observation. Did it have a direct impact on Russell’s chronology? NO! Russell might have considered number 7, but JQB’s agenda was to prove 1844. Something Russell REJECTED!!!!

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]

On 1/7/2018 at 9:24 AM, JW Insider said:

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.

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.

11 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I need better marketing.

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.

3 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Truth be told, even the books are not exactly flying off the shelf as they ought. I need better marketing.

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 ***

1. 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)

3 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

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 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.

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.

2 hours ago, allensmith28 said:

But, back to topic: 607 B.C.E. - Is it Biblically Supported? Yes!! It has been proven by secular chronology it’s a justifiable means to the symbolic time of the Gentiles. COJ’s treatise was flawed from the get-go. James Penton fared no better.

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.

10 minutes ago, Anna said:

He said she was out, standing under the shower.

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

8 minutes ago, Anna said:

He said he's never known in his life any sister to be bothered about telling people what to do.

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.

29 minutes ago, allensmith28 said:

Them you must admit, there is a double standard, at least for me. Therefore, it's unfair to ALLOW such imagery and to have mine BANNED by the say of others when others won't say the same for the same filthy imagery!

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.

17 minutes ago, allensmith28 said:

Don't you think there is some misdirection here? I will sacrifice my number 28 by saying, between you and Anna, I have had my account BANNED. yet AlanF's remains, by is that?

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.

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The article first of all mentions "new ones" and "interested ones" we are considerate of. Why would anyone ridicule consideration?

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.'