JW Insider

You are treading on dangerous ground, even if you have already considered that Cesar, is Allen, is . . . . etc. Expect a lot of diversions -- and insults if you don't let the diversions work.
Actually you, Arauna, definitely did mention it during that discussion, and the comments you made about it there indicated that you were NOT aware that it doesn't change a thing. (Assuming you go along with the rest of the WTS assumptions about 538/537.)
The festival of Akitu was not just celebrated in 538 BCE, but EACH and EVERY year for centuries prior and centuries afterwards. I know you already knew that, but the way you worded it above could have implied to others that this festival took place only in 538. (The WTS evidently believes there was another Akitu/NewYear's celebration in 537 and this would have been just as possible.) Or at least you were implying that there was some special evidence that only allowed for this particular year 538 to be the time when Cyrus declared the Jews to be free to go home.
Turns out this is just a guess with no real evidence behind it, if you think it forces the decree to be only possible in 538. But I agree that it's possible (though a little less likely if the WTS is right about 537). You might recall from the other discussion, I didn't care whether your preferred SECULAR date was 539 or 538 or 537 for the declaration/release because any of of those dates is a close enough fit for the Bible record, and any of those dates supports the historical facts surrounding the prophecies of Jeremiah. Any of those dates would be a fair fit for the dominance of Babylon for 70 years. (A dominance and servitude that led to a very greatest level of desolation Israel had ever seen, associated directly with those same 70 years given to Babylon for domination as a "World Empire.")
Apparently you also didn't realize that you were using it in a way to push the first regnal "year" of Cyrus to a date that even the Watchtower doesn't necessarily push for. The Watchtower would have loved to move the decree as late as possible after 539 because of the 3 year gap between 539 and the 536 date that Russell had used for Cyrus overtaking Babylon. Changing 606 to 607 back in 1943 had only bought them 1 of those 3 years, but that still left 2 years to account for. Russell/Barbour had not really accounted for communication time, preparation time and travel time back to Judea, so adding a year for this bought the Watchtower 1 more of those 2 years, still unaccounted for. So to get that extra year they also needed to push the decree of Cyrus (freeing the Jews) to a time that was a year or even more than a year after Babylon was overtaken.
So, to that end, the Insight book hints that it is possible, and that some commentators have inserted Darius for that first year without Cyrus, but continues to use a date that shows it's more likely they were co-rulers. You are pushing for an idea that would put Cyrus' accession year and first full regnal year (Nisannu to Nisannu) to a point one year later than the Watchtower admits.
*** it-1 p. 568 Cyrus ***
The Bible record at Daniel 9:1 refers to “the first year of Darius,” and this may have intervened between the fall of Babylon and “the first year of Cyrus” over Babylon. If it did, this would mean that the writer was perhaps viewing Cyrus’ first year as having begun late in the year 538 B.C.E. However, if Darius’ rule over Babylon were to be viewed as that of a viceroy, so that his reign ran concurrent with that of Cyrus, Babylonian custom would place Cyrus’ first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E.
In view of the Bible record, Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E.
But making such a big deal out of the importance of the Akitu (New Year's celebration) did not help your claim in the slightest.
The Akitu celebration was indeed at least a week-long celebration that was officially ran from Nisannu 4th through the 11th. With preparation and travel to the two main temples and back, it's probably fine to count it from the 1st to the 14th as you did above.
But, as stated, it was not just celebrated in 538 of course. It was celebrated in 540, 539, 538, 537, 536, 535, etc., not just in 538.
I do agree that this New Year's celebration was probably considered an appropriate time for a king like Cyrus to make that kind of legal announcement to free the Jews from exile. I'm fine with your date, but it has no real solid evidence, only conjecture, and the declaration might have even been even more likely in 539. Either way it plays no part in 1914. Even if 607 had been correct, it would have nothing to do with 1914, from a scriptural perspective. You are only arguing from a secular perspective.

I think I've read that in some older works, maybe Alexander Hislop? Might've been referring to even more ancient practices. Here's a short version at https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/akitu/ that you might find interesting too. It's only officially a 7 day festival in this version, but who knows how long it was for those who had to prepare and travel.
True. There were persons in the royal court of the Assyrians who seemlessly meshed right into the Neo-Babylonian courts. Seemed a bit like the way so many European courts "shared" royalty through marriage, or even other reasons, so that for many years around WWI, half a dozen heads of state in different European countries were all cousins. And the queens and princesses were "traded" and "sold" to create a kind of human bond between states that had windows of peace with one another.
Well, the proposition here is that the 70 years of nations serving Babylon ran from ABOUT 607 to about 537. I don't fret over the exact years because I don't think it matters all that much to the prophecy of the 70 years. There's a good chance it ran from ABOUT 609 to about 539, too. In other words, the Assyrian world power waned, and the Babylonian world power gained. They were granted about 70 years of dominance over the nations around them, before the Medo-Persian empire gained ascendancy. As the Isaiah's Prophecy book states:
*** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***
Isaiah goes on to prophesy: “It must occur in that day that Tyre must be forgotten seventy years, the same as the days of one king.” (Isaiah 23:15a) Following the destruction of the mainland city by the Babylonians, the island-city of Tyre will “be forgotten.” True to the prophecy, for the duration of “one king”—the Babylonian Empire—the island-city of Tyre will not be an important financial power. Jehovah, through Jeremiah, includes Tyre among the nations that will be singled out to drink the wine of His rage. He says: “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.
If you read the resources that Cesar has begun to recommend here, there is no claim among any of these new recommended historians that 607 was the date for the fall of Jerusalem in any of them, but that this date is considered a fairly close date for the beginning of the Babylonian domination that apparently ended around 539. Cesar has stated that he is OK with this "new chronology" even though it dates the fall of Jerusalem (Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year in 587) not 607.
This is why I say that the date 607 can be right for the beginning of the 70 years, even without any reference to 1914.
This is not correct that it is a letter at the end of the word that indicates the difference. That's why we also see the example in Acts 28:6 where "theon" means "a god."
In this case both words are just different cases of the same lexical word theos. It's the context of the whole sentence that let's us know that there are two different types of divine beings or divinity being referenced. And Greek does have the definite article "the" but does not have an indefinite article "a." Since John 1:1 creates a distinction between a use of the definite for "God" we can tell that the distinction must be on purpose so that the second one IMPLIES "a god" or perhaps just the quality of being "divine." A being that has a quality of being divine, but is not "THE" God, might effectively be called "a god." Therefore this is not a bad translation at all. (In spite of a ton of criticism because it spoils a verse that is otherwise quite useful for Trinitarians.) 
But it's not those endings at the end of the word in this case. It's the fact that one "theos" has a "THE" in front of it and the other doesn't. The argument by Trinitarians and some Greek linguists, is that you don't NEED to always put a "THE" in front of "theos" to mean GOD. And even when you do, it doesn't mean that you always need to translate "THE" God each time. You wouldn't need to say "In the beginning, THE God created the heavens" because it sounds right to just say "In the beginning, God created the heavens."

I've read things like this too. But it should still be pointed out that it is conjecture to indicate that it was at one of these events that Cyrus must have made the declaration. And although the king was an integral part of each New Year's celebration, a co- or vice-regent could represent him or "do the honors" under their own title.

A lot of culture here and many of the tribes can tell you stories where they come from. They drink beer  too - a lot...... but wine is their forte.. it is a 4000 year tradition and they have approx 525 different grape varieties!

That's true. A person can ask you for your lunch money, or if they're a big enough bully, they can just steal it.

True. But a few things have been repeated from that Law for Christians to benefit from as principles and truths.
I can't. But I think it might have even been a wider principle than just refraining from drinking human or animal blood directly. It might refer to abstaining from bloodguilt, which can be brought upon ourselves by reckless driving, reckless use of a firearm, parachute diving for pleasure, etc.
Both. Not even God's law should override the value of a life, according to Jesus:
(Matthew 12:3-7) 3 He said to them: “Have you not read what David did when he and the men with him were hungry? 4 How he entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, something that it was not lawful for him or those with him to eat, but for the priests only? 5 Or have you not read in the Law that on the Sabbaths the priests in the temple violate the Sabbath and continue guiltless? 6 But I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 However, if you had understood what this means, ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless ones.
I believe that Paul understood that even the "laws" that the Jerusalem Council came up with could be ignored if conscience allowed. He didn't think those idols that the meat had been sacrificed to meant anything, so he said a person could eat it if his conscience allowed. James and Peter had said NO!
 

True. But a few things have been repeated from that Law for Christians to benefit from as principles and truths.
I can't. But I think it might have even been a wider principle than just refraining from drinking human or animal blood directly. It might refer to abstaining from bloodguilt, which can be brought upon ourselves by reckless driving, reckless use of a firearm, parachute diving for pleasure, etc.
Both. Not even God's law should override the value of a life, according to Jesus:
(Matthew 12:3-7) 3 He said to them: “Have you not read what David did when he and the men with him were hungry? 4 How he entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, something that it was not lawful for him or those with him to eat, but for the priests only? 5 Or have you not read in the Law that on the Sabbaths the priests in the temple violate the Sabbath and continue guiltless? 6 But I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 However, if you had understood what this means, ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless ones.
I believe that Paul understood that even the "laws" that the Jerusalem Council came up with could be ignored if conscience allowed. He didn't think those idols that the meat had been sacrificed to meant anything, so he said a person could eat it if his conscience allowed. James and Peter had said NO!
 

You still seem to have the idea that persons who are truly anointed will be inspired by God's holy spirit and not let personal viewpoints get in the way. Look again at Acts 15:
(Acts 15:2) . . .But after quite a bit of dissension and disputing by Paul and Barʹna·bas with them,. . .
(Acts 15:6, 7) 6 So the apostles and the elders gathered together to look into this matter. 7 After much intense discussion had taken place,. . .

I wanted to stay out of this because of the way the answer might sound worse than I hope it sounds. I think the real answer should acknowledge both of your ideas.
Because I think the policy changed on account of a belief by some that the original policy showed "hardheartedness" in the face of "doubts" at the level of a primary policymaker. Not so much F.Rusk/Dr.Dixon, but mostly from the research by G.Smalley (Writing Dept) which had "earned" him a larger say in the policy. Too many people were dying, and because of doubts about the overall policy, these deaths seemed unnecessary. The more that the "hardhearted," older generation, wanted to speak of "martyrs," the more that the soft-hearted younger generation wanted to see the entire blood policy thrown out. I believe that allowing fractions was a compromise between the "old guard" and the new. Even some Witness doctors were called in to HQ to discuss it. And without committing to any changes in policy with them, the direction was clear that some compromises on blood fractions could be potentially justified when one looked at the details of blood fractions and how they were being used to save lives.
I haven't talked to Brother Smalley about this, but was told by a Bethel elder who has known him well, that he was willing to change the entire blood policy (for scriptural reasons, not financial) but that this would be seen as a Catholic "Fish on Friday" "No Fish on Friday" -- the flip flop on fish. It would devastate the Witness families who had lost a child, parent, relative or close friend to the blood policy in the past, and for this reason he was happy to go along with the fractions compromise which could at least reduce the number of deaths greatly. I've heard JTR assume this was a move by lawyers to reduce financial exposure. But I know that even Brother Rusk was aware of both financial exposure and that there were several questions about the scripturalness of the policy as he had dealt with those arguments before. (But as soft and gentle and loving as this brother was to my wife and me, and all persons we knew, he was very much a "hard-liner" on the original blood policy and never gave an inch to those arguments. I don't know that he was ever really OK with the fractions compromise. I think I've mentioned before that he was best friends with my wife, and gave the key portion of our wedding talk.)
BTW, my iPhone identifies a goodly portion (badly portion) of my calls as "Fraud Risk" and I always glance at it with the thought that I just got a call from "Fred Rusk" although he died a few years ago.
Yes, there are probably "14 ways from Sunday" to look at the matter "legitimately", not just two. (The term "legitimate" seems out of place when we are comparing law with conscience.) Some of these ways are fully scriptural; some are based on science; some are a mix. I was in full agreement with JTR strictness in my own personal policy (based on conscience) until a couple of years ago, while participating on this forum. I would neither take blood nor fractions, and I would have been willing to die before knowingly accepting a transfusion of any kind. The only difference I had (conscientiously) with the Society's position, however, is that for the last 10 years at least, I would never impose my conscience about either whole blood or blood fractions on any of my own children before they were baptized or 18, whichever came first. I would try to work with doctors as best I could, but if I were convinced that their survival depended on a blood transfusion, I would not impose my conscience, and would accept any consequences. And of course I would give no recommendations for unbaptized youngsters or babies in the congregation either. I felt the issue was too serious to even accidentally impose my own conscience on another. Fortunately, it has never come up.
But when I learned of Brother Smalley's policy-making issues, even though I didn't confirm them with him personally, the brother who told me about it gave me another contact who might confirm. This was another one of Smalley's friends who was close enough to him even recently to know if he had said anything of the sort to him. This contact was reluctant, because I had never contacted him before, but after I told him of my concern based on the information from the Bethel elder whom he knew, he understood how important an issue I thought it was. This new contact gave me some additional information I have already included above. To be fair, I should also mention that I very recently talked to another friend who had worked with Smalley in the Writing Department back in the 70s and 80s, and he sounded incredulous about all of this.

Actually, Moses was the first one to download data from "The Cloud"

I wanted to stay out of this because of the way the answer might sound worse than I hope it sounds. I think the real answer should acknowledge both of your ideas.
Because I think the policy changed on account of a belief by some that the original policy showed "hardheartedness" in the face of "doubts" at the level of a primary policymaker. Not so much F.Rusk/Dr.Dixon, but mostly from the research by G.Smalley (Writing Dept) which had "earned" him a larger say in the policy. Too many people were dying, and because of doubts about the overall policy, these deaths seemed unnecessary. The more that the "hardhearted," older generation, wanted to speak of "martyrs," the more that the soft-hearted younger generation wanted to see the entire blood policy thrown out. I believe that allowing fractions was a compromise between the "old guard" and the new. Even some Witness doctors were called in to HQ to discuss it. And without committing to any changes in policy with them, the direction was clear that some compromises on blood fractions could be potentially justified when one looked at the details of blood fractions and how they were being used to save lives.
I haven't talked to Brother Smalley about this, but was told by a Bethel elder who has known him well, that he was willing to change the entire blood policy (for scriptural reasons, not financial) but that this would be seen as a Catholic "Fish on Friday" "No Fish on Friday" -- the flip flop on fish. It would devastate the Witness families who had lost a child, parent, relative or close friend to the blood policy in the past, and for this reason he was happy to go along with the fractions compromise which could at least reduce the number of deaths greatly. I've heard JTR assume this was a move by lawyers to reduce financial exposure. But I know that even Brother Rusk was aware of both financial exposure and that there were several questions about the scripturalness of the policy as he had dealt with those arguments before. (But as soft and gentle and loving as this brother was to my wife and me, and all persons we knew, he was very much a "hard-liner" on the original blood policy and never gave an inch to those arguments. I don't know that he was ever really OK with the fractions compromise. I think I've mentioned before that he was best friends with my wife, and gave the key portion of our wedding talk.)
BTW, my iPhone identifies a goodly portion (badly portion) of my calls as "Fraud Risk" and I always glance at it with the thought that I just got a call from "Fred Rusk" although he died a few years ago.
Yes, there are probably "14 ways from Sunday" to look at the matter "legitimately", not just two. (The term "legitimate" seems out of place when we are comparing law with conscience.) Some of these ways are fully scriptural; some are based on science; some are a mix. I was in full agreement with JTR strictness in my own personal policy (based on conscience) until a couple of years ago, while participating on this forum. I would neither take blood nor fractions, and I would have been willing to die before knowingly accepting a transfusion of any kind. The only difference I had (conscientiously) with the Society's position, however, is that for the last 10 years at least, I would never impose my conscience about either whole blood or blood fractions on any of my own children before they were baptized or 18, whichever came first. I would try to work with doctors as best I could, but if I were convinced that their survival depended on a blood transfusion, I would not impose my conscience, and would accept any consequences. And of course I would give no recommendations for unbaptized youngsters or babies in the congregation either. I felt the issue was too serious to even accidentally impose my own conscience on another. Fortunately, it has never come up.
But when I learned of Brother Smalley's policy-making issues, even though I didn't confirm them with him personally, the brother who told me about it gave me another contact who might confirm. This was another one of Smalley's friends who was close enough to him even recently to know if he had said anything of the sort to him. This contact was reluctant, because I had never contacted him before, but after I told him of my concern based on the information from the Bethel elder whom he knew, he understood how important an issue I thought it was. This new contact gave me some additional information I have already included above. To be fair, I should also mention that I very recently talked to another friend who had worked with Smalley in the Writing Department back in the 70s and 80s, and he sounded incredulous about all of this.

What sounds to me like haughty bluster is often so far off, that it's hard to know whether to bother responding at all. But this one seems important to correct since you are merely adding to the confusion some people might already have.
Two things wrong here:
No, the distinction made in Psalms is NOT the same distinction made in Matthew.  (Psalm 110:1 and Matthew 22:44) No, it is NOT unfortunate that some lexicons use the same meaning for both "Kurios" here because they are in fact the same word in different cases. This is really the same as "2" above. There does not need to be a separation between κυρίῳ noun dative masculine singular from κύριος, because they are in fact the same word just with different "case" endings because of how they are used in the sentence. Here's why. It's explained pretty well in many commentaries. Also here: https://christswords.com/content/matthew-2244 -lord-said-unto-my-lord
Note the meaning of κύριος:
Κύριος (noun sg masc nom) "Lord" is kyrios (kurios), which means "having power", "being in authority" and "being in possession of." It also means "lord", "master of the house," and "head of the family." -- The word translated as "master" is the same word that is often translated as "Lord" or "the Lord" in the NT. It also means "lord", "master of the house," and "head of the family." It is the specific terms for the master of slaves or servants, but it was a common term of respect both for those in authority and who were honored. It was the term people used to address Christ, even though he had no formal authority. Today, we would say "boss" or "chief".
Note the meaning given for κυρίῳ
κυρίῳ (noun sg masc dat) "Lord" is kyrios (kurios), which means "having power", "being in authority" and "being in possession of." It also means "lord", "master of the house," and "head of the family." -- The word translated as "master" is the same word that is often translated as "Lord" or "the Lord" in the NT. It also means "lord", "master of the house," and "head of the family." It is the specific terms for the master of slaves or servants, but it was a common term of respect both for those in authority and who were honored. It was the term people used to address Christ, even though he had no formal authority. Today, we would say "boss" or "chief".
Either form can refer to God. Either form can refer to Christ. Either form can refer to a human master.
I mention this one because it is so typical of you to bluster some irrelevant (and sometimes irreverent) information that you apparently think you understood from book searches or Google searches. That part can be fine, but you seem to have a need to often insult the people you are trying to bluster with incorrect or poorly understood information.

I think I've read that in some older works, maybe Alexander Hislop? Might've been referring to even more ancient practices. Here's a short version at https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/akitu/ that you might find interesting too. It's only officially a 7 day festival in this version, but who knows how long it was for those who had to prepare and travel.
True. There were persons in the royal court of the Assyrians who seemlessly meshed right into the Neo-Babylonian courts. Seemed a bit like the way so many European courts "shared" royalty through marriage, or even other reasons, so that for many years around WWI, half a dozen heads of state in different European countries were all cousins. And the queens and princesses were "traded" and "sold" to create a kind of human bond between states that had windows of peace with one another.
Well, the proposition here is that the 70 years of nations serving Babylon ran from ABOUT 607 to about 537. I don't fret over the exact years because I don't think it matters all that much to the prophecy of the 70 years. There's a good chance it ran from ABOUT 609 to about 539, too. In other words, the Assyrian world power waned, and the Babylonian world power gained. They were granted about 70 years of dominance over the nations around them, before the Medo-Persian empire gained ascendancy. As the Isaiah's Prophecy book states:
*** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***
Isaiah goes on to prophesy: “It must occur in that day that Tyre must be forgotten seventy years, the same as the days of one king.” (Isaiah 23:15a) Following the destruction of the mainland city by the Babylonians, the island-city of Tyre will “be forgotten.” True to the prophecy, for the duration of “one king”—the Babylonian Empire—the island-city of Tyre will not be an important financial power. Jehovah, through Jeremiah, includes Tyre among the nations that will be singled out to drink the wine of His rage. He says: “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.
If you read the resources that Cesar has begun to recommend here, there is no claim among any of these new recommended historians that 607 was the date for the fall of Jerusalem in any of them, but that this date is considered a fairly close date for the beginning of the Babylonian domination that apparently ended around 539. Cesar has stated that he is OK with this "new chronology" even though it dates the fall of Jerusalem (Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year in 587) not 607.
This is why I say that the date 607 can be right for the beginning of the 70 years, even without any reference to 1914.
This is not correct that it is a letter at the end of the word that indicates the difference. That's why we also see the example in Acts 28:6 where "theon" means "a god."
In this case both words are just different cases of the same lexical word theos. It's the context of the whole sentence that let's us know that there are two different types of divine beings or divinity being referenced. And Greek does have the definite article "the" but does not have an indefinite article "a." Since John 1:1 creates a distinction between a use of the definite for "God" we can tell that the distinction must be on purpose so that the second one IMPLIES "a god" or perhaps just the quality of being "divine." A being that has a quality of being divine, but is not "THE" God, might effectively be called "a god." Therefore this is not a bad translation at all. (In spite of a ton of criticism because it spoils a verse that is otherwise quite useful for Trinitarians.) 
But it's not those endings at the end of the word in this case. It's the fact that one "theos" has a "THE" in front of it and the other doesn't. The argument by Trinitarians and some Greek linguists, is that you don't NEED to always put a "THE" in front of "theos" to mean GOD. And even when you do, it doesn't mean that you always need to translate "THE" God each time. You wouldn't need to say "In the beginning, THE God created the heavens" because it sounds right to just say "In the beginning, God created the heavens."

Uh oh! Now look what I've done by bringing this up. Actually TheoN can mean "a god" or "God" and theoS can mean "a god" or "God."
Look at the Interlinear for Acts 28:6, for example, which uses "theon" here:
(Acts 28:6) . . .After they waited for a long time and saw that nothing bad happened to him, they changed their mind and began saying he was a god. [theon]
Look at the Interlinear for Matthew 22:32, for example, which uses "theos" here:
(Matthew 22:32) 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob’? He is the God, not of the dead, but of the living.” [theos x 4]
Lexically, it's the same word in both cases, and it's the context and sentence structure that makes a difference. If it's something God has, such as "the Word of God," it will be in the genitive case, or if something is given to god such as "prayer to God" or "you should love your God," it's usually in the accusative case. If it's the topic of the sentence, such as "God is love," then it is in the nominative case, etc. If you speak any German, there are many similarities you might recognize. I don't know any Arabic as you do, but I do know that Hebrew keeps some of these types of variations where the same word is changed depending on how it's used in the sentence.

If you believe that what I posted was nonsense, then I feel much better that I posted the clarification.
You are claiming now that you stated both words mean the same in the lexicons. It's good that you see that now. But you said the opposite before, so I'm glad it's straightened out. You said it was unfortunate that the lexicons use the same meaning for both, and this is exactly what the lexicons were supposed to if they are honest and correct. I don't think it's unfortunate when lexicons are honest and correct.
What you said was:
The distention made in Psalms is the same distention made in Matthew. YHWH is one, the son is another. Unfortunately, some lexicons use the same meaning for both (Kurios).
Therefore, there needs to be a separation between κυρίῳ noun dative masculine singular from κύριος.
The statement was, and is, completely untrue. We should hope that ALL lexicons use the same meaning for both kurios here, not just some of them. There needs to be no distinction in the lexical meaning of the two cases of the same word.
Seriously, this should have been seen as a favor to you. I was hoping that you'd be able to see a problem in starting out a post with statements like the following:
The insult seemed unnecessary and all the more ironic when you then went on in the next sentences to show that you thought the two words for "Lord" had different lexical meanings, when they have the same lexical meaning.
OK. You should know by now that I don't have the ability to ban anyone and don't even know the people who do have that ability. I hope you stay on without being upset and so defensive about everything.
Believe me! From past experience I never expected you to admit a mistake here or anywhere else. I probably sound haughty too to many people, but for a mistake I will gladly change my view wherever there is contrary evidence.
None of us needs to research anything just because someone brings a disagreement. But I keep posting that I don't care about the secular dates every year because I don't think these secular issues are relevant to a good understanding of the scriptures. I continue to engage in discussions about them because over time more and more Witnesses are going to be able to access the evidence that will make us look like we don't even care about honesty. Hopefully, the evidence we can go over now, will help us avoid bringing such reproach on our ministry. If I'm wrong about this evidence, I definitely want to know the "what, where, how and why."
 

What sounds to me like haughty bluster is often so far off, that it's hard to know whether to bother responding at all. But this one seems important to correct since you are merely adding to the confusion some people might already have.
Two things wrong here:
No, the distinction made in Psalms is NOT the same distinction made in Matthew.  (Psalm 110:1 and Matthew 22:44) No, it is NOT unfortunate that some lexicons use the same meaning for both "Kurios" here because they are in fact the same word in different cases. This is really the same as "2" above. There does not need to be a separation between κυρίῳ noun dative masculine singular from κύριος, because they are in fact the same word just with different "case" endings because of how they are used in the sentence. Here's why. It's explained pretty well in many commentaries. Also here: https://christswords.com/content/matthew-2244 -lord-said-unto-my-lord
Note the meaning of κύριος:
Κύριος (noun sg masc nom) "Lord" is kyrios (kurios), which means "having power", "being in authority" and "being in possession of." It also means "lord", "master of the house," and "head of the family." -- The word translated as "master" is the same word that is often translated as "Lord" or "the Lord" in the NT. It also means "lord", "master of the house," and "head of the family." It is the specific terms for the master of slaves or servants, but it was a common term of respect both for those in authority and who were honored. It was the term people used to address Christ, even though he had no formal authority. Today, we would say "boss" or "chief".
Note the meaning given for κυρίῳ
κυρίῳ (noun sg masc dat) "Lord" is kyrios (kurios), which means "having power", "being in authority" and "being in possession of." It also means "lord", "master of the house," and "head of the family." -- The word translated as "master" is the same word that is often translated as "Lord" or "the Lord" in the NT. It also means "lord", "master of the house," and "head of the family." It is the specific terms for the master of slaves or servants, but it was a common term of respect both for those in authority and who were honored. It was the term people used to address Christ, even though he had no formal authority. Today, we would say "boss" or "chief".
Either form can refer to God. Either form can refer to Christ. Either form can refer to a human master.
I mention this one because it is so typical of you to bluster some irrelevant (and sometimes irreverent) information that you apparently think you understood from book searches or Google searches. That part can be fine, but you seem to have a need to often insult the people you are trying to bluster with incorrect or poorly understood information.

Be obedient to those taking the lead amongst you: what do YOU believe this scripture means.
"Obviously because we can all have our own opinions as to what each scripture "  - your quote.
This kind of philosophy/thinking I found prevalent in the west in first world countries...... at work.....everywhere .  Meaning that there can be no unity because all do and think as they please but only cooperate and keep quiet because they want their pay .  This way of  thinking has also infiltrated the Christian congregation...... each one wants their independent opinion - not realizing that this causes division. 
I prefer to try to understand why the GB opinion differs from mine.  
You think I am a GB puppet - I am not.  However, I have learnt to think about what the GB say and why they say it..... so I can cooperate to the best of my abilities.  The sin Adam did was egotistical - he wanted to be independent from jehovah.  This tendency is still the greatest deceiver of those who like to deceive themselves.   Their freedom is not true freedom because they are a slave to themselves. 
Anna will not listen to me - she knows better. She happens to agree with me because it is logical.  Something you do not see. You listen to Witness who will lead you down the garden path because you like your own opinion and independence more than the truth.  You are a slave to your own desires/ideas.
Not to the point where they all want special treatment. The special use is being a slave of God...... and the commission is to preach and teach.  I know another anointed lady who has been a pioneer most of her life,  she must now be 87 and still going strong. Smart but humble, raising 5 faithful children with an unfaithful husband who later divorced her.  She gave me wonderful advice.  Apparently she still cooks for pioneers.....  

You are treading on dangerous ground, even if you have already considered that Cesar, is Allen, is . . . . etc. Expect a lot of diversions -- and insults if you don't let the diversions work.
Actually you, Arauna, definitely did mention it during that discussion, and the comments you made about it there indicated that you were NOT aware that it doesn't change a thing. (Assuming you go along with the rest of the WTS assumptions about 538/537.)
The festival of Akitu was not just celebrated in 538 BCE, but EACH and EVERY year for centuries prior and centuries afterwards. I know you already knew that, but the way you worded it above could have implied to others that this festival took place only in 538. (The WTS evidently believes there was another Akitu/NewYear's celebration in 537 and this would have been just as possible.) Or at least you were implying that there was some special evidence that only allowed for this particular year 538 to be the time when Cyrus declared the Jews to be free to go home.
Turns out this is just a guess with no real evidence behind it, if you think it forces the decree to be only possible in 538. But I agree that it's possible (though a little less likely if the WTS is right about 537). You might recall from the other discussion, I didn't care whether your preferred SECULAR date was 539 or 538 or 537 for the declaration/release because any of of those dates is a close enough fit for the Bible record, and any of those dates supports the historical facts surrounding the prophecies of Jeremiah. Any of those dates would be a fair fit for the dominance of Babylon for 70 years. (A dominance and servitude that led to a very greatest level of desolation Israel had ever seen, associated directly with those same 70 years given to Babylon for domination as a "World Empire.")
Apparently you also didn't realize that you were using it in a way to push the first regnal "year" of Cyrus to a date that even the Watchtower doesn't necessarily push for. The Watchtower would have loved to move the decree as late as possible after 539 because of the 3 year gap between 539 and the 536 date that Russell had used for Cyrus overtaking Babylon. Changing 606 to 607 back in 1943 had only bought them 1 of those 3 years, but that still left 2 years to account for. Russell/Barbour had not really accounted for communication time, preparation time and travel time back to Judea, so adding a year for this bought the Watchtower 1 more of those 2 years, still unaccounted for. So to get that extra year they also needed to push the decree of Cyrus (freeing the Jews) to a time that was a year or even more than a year after Babylon was overtaken.
So, to that end, the Insight book hints that it is possible, and that some commentators have inserted Darius for that first year without Cyrus, but continues to use a date that shows it's more likely they were co-rulers. You are pushing for an idea that would put Cyrus' accession year and first full regnal year (Nisannu to Nisannu) to a point one year later than the Watchtower admits.
*** it-1 p. 568 Cyrus ***
The Bible record at Daniel 9:1 refers to “the first year of Darius,” and this may have intervened between the fall of Babylon and “the first year of Cyrus” over Babylon. If it did, this would mean that the writer was perhaps viewing Cyrus’ first year as having begun late in the year 538 B.C.E. However, if Darius’ rule over Babylon were to be viewed as that of a viceroy, so that his reign ran concurrent with that of Cyrus, Babylonian custom would place Cyrus’ first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E.
In view of the Bible record, Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E.
But making such a big deal out of the importance of the Akitu (New Year's celebration) did not help your claim in the slightest.
The Akitu celebration was indeed at least a week-long celebration that was officially ran from Nisannu 4th through the 11th. With preparation and travel to the two main temples and back, it's probably fine to count it from the 1st to the 14th as you did above.
But, as stated, it was not just celebrated in 538 of course. It was celebrated in 540, 539, 538, 537, 536, 535, etc., not just in 538.
I do agree that this New Year's celebration was probably considered an appropriate time for a king like Cyrus to make that kind of legal announcement to free the Jews from exile. I'm fine with your date, but it has no real solid evidence, only conjecture, and the declaration might have even been even more likely in 539. Either way it plays no part in 1914. Even if 607 had been correct, it would have nothing to do with 1914, from a scriptural perspective. You are only arguing from a secular perspective.

It might seem plain to you. But I am not one of the anointed. At this point, this is a proposition to discuss amongst ourselves in this forum. Arauna has just as much right to her beliefs as I do. I'm sure the GB have seen these arguments before, and they have their reasons for continuing to read things differently. 

Your whole idea of another 10 years is irrelevant. Jesus was telling them that in the time period between the question and the fulfillment (turned out to be about 34 to 37 years) that it would be too late to try to prepare based on a sign. They should not start getting all excited about a war here, or a war there, an earthquake here or there, or a famine here or there, and to think that these might be signs of the END. So many of these things, even GREAT earthquakes, for example, might scare them half to death, might even kill some of them. But, stiil, they should not get all excited or alarmed into thinking it's a sign of the END, because there will be no sign of the end. At least not until it's too late to prepare, when the "strikingly visible" sign is already obvious in the skies -- and it's immediately after that point when the end of the age (synteleia of the aion) is upon them. 
The application for the end of that age was pretty obvious, that it would NOT be heralded by signs. And the application for the end of this age should be just as obvious, that it would NOT be heralded by signs. No one should get excited even by a publication from an apostle or an angel, that the end is near due to some sign someone thinks they are seeing. Because it could come at any time as a surprise. It needs no signs. There are certain things expected to happen that we shouldn't get too excited about, and wars, earthquakes are included. Even a letter from an apostle saying the end is upon us, should not get us too excited or alarmed that the end is upon us.
There have already been many times in history when Christians were killed by earthquakes, wars, and persecutions, and it was not a time to go off into the mountains to start waiting. Remember what Paul said:
(1 Thessalonians 5:1, 2) . . .Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night.
(2 Thessalonians 1:7-2:3)  But you who suffer tribulation will be given relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels 8 in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. 9 These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength, 10 at the time when he comes to be glorified in connection with his holy ones and to be regarded in that day with wonder among all those who exercised faith, because the witness we gave met with faith among you. 11 To that very end we always pray for you, that our God may count you worthy of his calling and with his power perform completely all the good that he pleases and every work of faith. 12 This is so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you and you in union with him, according to the undeserved kindness of our God and of the Lord Jesus Christ. 2 However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here. 3 Let no one lead you astray in any way, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction.
(2 Peter 3:10-12) 10 But Jehovah’s day will come as a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar, but the elements being intensely hot will be dissolved, and earth and the works in it will be exposed. 11 Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 as you await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah, through which the heavens will be destroyed in flames and the elements will melt in the intense heat!
Translating 2 Peter 3 and 2 Thess 2:2 as "day of Jehovah" instead of "day of the Lord" has resulted in a conflict that produces some confusion to explain away. Note:
*** w94 2/15 p. 21 par. 24 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” ***
That day of Jehovah, when he executes vengeance, will come as a grand finale to the conclusion of the system of things that has marked the day of the Lord Jesus from 1914 onward.
We now have TWO different "days of the Lord." (There was no evidence that the word "Lord" in 2 Peter 3:12 should have been changed to "Jehovah." This is especially true of 2 Thess 2:2 where the context identified that day of the Lord, as the "the revelation of the Lord Jesus." ) Worse than that, it gives us TWO different "parousias." One "parousia" starts in 1914, and the "parousia of the day of Jehovah" in 2 Peter 3:12 hasn't started yet.
Notice that the day of the Lord, his presence, is the time when the heavens are destroyed and the elements will melt. In other words, it's a time of unmistakable destruction of the age. It's also the time when the living holy ones are taken up and the time when those holy ones who had died are taken up.
Also, these writings indicate that the apostles took Jesus words to mean that the end of the entire world system (age) would come as a thief just like the end of the Jewish age. But no one should be able to excite us with the idea that the day of the Lord is already here. (Yet, we have claimed that the day of the Lord already started, in 1914.) If it were already here it would be too late to prepare. Thus Christians are always prepared so they are not overtaken. We should never try to prepare based on a sign someone claims is already upon us. Jesus knew that this produces a kind of false Christianity and even the temptation to "lord it over" one another because we can imagine that we live in a time when "the Master is delaying" and we think that we should be something MORE than just a servant who continues to do things the way we did when the Master was here with us.
This is why the idea of a Governing Body believing they are the embodiment of the Faithful Slave can be so dangerous. It can be the same as falling into the temptation to say "my master is delaying" and try to become a "leader" or "rabbi" who can claim they know things that Jesus never claimed. If it was never OK to try to set oneself up as a leader or rabbi when Jesus was on earth, then why would it be OK to do that when he is "delaying."
 
Should also note that the Watchtower publications teach us that Kingdom was BORN in 1914, so all these birth pangs should have been in the years leading up to 1914.
(Revelation 12:1, 2) 12 Then a great sign was seen in heaven: A woman was arrayed with the sun, and the moon was beneath her feet, and on her head was a crown of 12 stars, 2 and she was pregnant. And she was crying out in her pains and in her agony to give birth.
That's supposed to be 1914. So we have the birth pangs starting after the child is born.

It would be the same thing as if a U.S. "General Mattis" had been assassinated by Iraq, except that Soleimani was tremendously more popular, not just in Iraq, but with people from several Mid-East countries believing he deserved some kind of Nobel Peace prize for recent strategic negotiations.

The document appended was downloaded when the use of marijuana was allowed.Marijuana effects.docx

That's nothing!
We have a House of Congress with several hundred humans ... and NO WORKERS!

Your whole idea of another 10 years is irrelevant. Jesus was telling them that in the time period between the question and the fulfillment (turned out to be about 34 to 37 years) that it would be too late to try to prepare based on a sign. They should not start getting all excited about a war here, or a war there, an earthquake here or there, or a famine here or there, and to think that these might be signs of the END. So many of these things, even GREAT earthquakes, for example, might scare them half to death, might even kill some of them. But, stiil, they should not get all excited or alarmed into thinking it's a sign of the END, because there will be no sign of the end. At least not until it's too late to prepare, when the "strikingly visible" sign is already obvious in the skies -- and it's immediately after that point when the end of the age (synteleia of the aion) is upon them. 
The application for the end of that age was pretty obvious, that it would NOT be heralded by signs. And the application for the end of this age should be just as obvious, that it would NOT be heralded by signs. No one should get excited even by a publication from an apostle or an angel, that the end is near due to some sign someone thinks they are seeing. Because it could come at any time as a surprise. It needs no signs. There are certain things expected to happen that we shouldn't get too excited about, and wars, earthquakes are included. Even a letter from an apostle saying the end is upon us, should not get us too excited or alarmed that the end is upon us.
There have already been many times in history when Christians were killed by earthquakes, wars, and persecutions, and it was not a time to go off into the mountains to start waiting. Remember what Paul said:
(1 Thessalonians 5:1, 2) . . .Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night.
(2 Thessalonians 1:7-2:3)  But you who suffer tribulation will be given relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels 8 in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. 9 These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength, 10 at the time when he comes to be glorified in connection with his holy ones and to be regarded in that day with wonder among all those who exercised faith, because the witness we gave met with faith among you. 11 To that very end we always pray for you, that our God may count you worthy of his calling and with his power perform completely all the good that he pleases and every work of faith. 12 This is so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you and you in union with him, according to the undeserved kindness of our God and of the Lord Jesus Christ. 2 However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here. 3 Let no one lead you astray in any way, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction.
(2 Peter 3:10-12) 10 But Jehovah’s day will come as a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar, but the elements being intensely hot will be dissolved, and earth and the works in it will be exposed. 11 Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 as you await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah, through which the heavens will be destroyed in flames and the elements will melt in the intense heat!
Translating 2 Peter 3 and 2 Thess 2:2 as "day of Jehovah" instead of "day of the Lord" has resulted in a conflict that produces some confusion to explain away. Note:
*** w94 2/15 p. 21 par. 24 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” ***
That day of Jehovah, when he executes vengeance, will come as a grand finale to the conclusion of the system of things that has marked the day of the Lord Jesus from 1914 onward.
We now have TWO different "days of the Lord." (There was no evidence that the word "Lord" in 2 Peter 3:12 should have been changed to "Jehovah." This is especially true of 2 Thess 2:2 where the context identified that day of the Lord, as the "the revelation of the Lord Jesus." ) Worse than that, it gives us TWO different "parousias." One "parousia" starts in 1914, and the "parousia of the day of Jehovah" in 2 Peter 3:12 hasn't started yet.
Notice that the day of the Lord, his presence, is the time when the heavens are destroyed and the elements will melt. In other words, it's a time of unmistakable destruction of the age. It's also the time when the living holy ones are taken up and the time when those holy ones who had died are taken up.
Also, these writings indicate that the apostles took Jesus words to mean that the end of the entire world system (age) would come as a thief just like the end of the Jewish age. But no one should be able to excite us with the idea that the day of the Lord is already here. (Yet, we have claimed that the day of the Lord already started, in 1914.) If it were already here it would be too late to prepare. Thus Christians are always prepared so they are not overtaken. We should never try to prepare based on a sign someone claims is already upon us. Jesus knew that this produces a kind of false Christianity and even the temptation to "lord it over" one another because we can imagine that we live in a time when "the Master is delaying" and we think that we should be something MORE than just a servant who continues to do things the way we did when the Master was here with us.
This is why the idea of a Governing Body believing they are the embodiment of the Faithful Slave can be so dangerous. It can be the same as falling into the temptation to say "my master is delaying" and try to become a "leader" or "rabbi" who can claim they know things that Jesus never claimed. If it was never OK to try to set oneself up as a leader or rabbi when Jesus was on earth, then why would it be OK to do that when he is "delaying."
 
Should also note that the Watchtower publications teach us that Kingdom was BORN in 1914, so all these birth pangs should have been in the years leading up to 1914.
(Revelation 12:1, 2) 12 Then a great sign was seen in heaven: A woman was arrayed with the sun, and the moon was beneath her feet, and on her head was a crown of 12 stars, 2 and she was pregnant. And she was crying out in her pains and in her agony to give birth.
That's supposed to be 1914. So we have the birth pangs starting after the child is born.