JW Insider

Not so sure why you wanted to pick me out of the crowd. I think it was 605, immediately after his father died. He did manage to get back home probably faster than anyone had ever managed that trip before him.
 Both dates are secular chronology. But again, I have no problem with 607 being the start of the 70 years. I never have. I have always thought that it was close enough, within a year or two, and that even the term "70 years" need not have ever meant an exact number, to the very month, or even the very year. In fact, the expression was already previously in use by Isaiah:
(Isaiah 23:15) . . .seventy years, the same as the days of one king. . . Whether this meant "lifetime" as in "lifespan" of a king, or the span of the Babylonian period of greatest domination, as the "Isaiah's prophecy" book points out, it doesn't have to mean that the prophecy fails if that period of greatest domination was 67 to 69 years, instead of 70 exactly.
*** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***
“These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble. What years would you @Foreigner or perhaps @scholar JW or @allensmith28 use to date that 70 years of Babylon's greatest domination as applied to Tyre? Would you start it with the fall of Jerusalem's Temple, or does it make more sense to start it with the earliest years when Babylon was tramping about in the region, beginning to prove its dominance as the next world power in the region?
Besides, you don't know just how long Nebuchadnezzar was the king's representative in Hattu. At what point did Babylon begin controlling Tyre's economy by taking control of key trade routes? (Isaiah 23) At what point did Babylon begin dominating economic and political decisions made in the Hattu region (Syria/Israel/Judah) simply through fear even before the first physical depredations of the land and people were made? I don't think we need to look for a specific event that begins the 70 years of domination, and no specific event that ends the domination. It's pretty easy to get the general time period. (And 2 Chron 36:21 seems to pinpoint the end.)  It certainly makes sense that the prediction of the imminent fall of Nineveh would have been the end of the Assyrian power in the eyes of Jerusalem/Judea. Did it wait until the final and actual fall? And you are right, there appears to be a couple of years when the Egyptian power seemed on par with Babylon's. Egypt was the king of the south at the same time that Babylon was the king of the north. Judeans would continue to choose between them for many years. But even Egypt and Assyria together couldn't stand up against Babylon at Carchemish, as proven in 605. Was Jehovah able to discern the dominance of Babylon even a couple years before 605, while Nebuchadnezzar was still a prince and general?
We could even ask if the devastation and desolation of a city needed to be literal in every respect. Or did prophecy often use poetic language, even poetic hyperbole, in making memorable warnings? Was it even necessary that Nineveh, Jerusalem, Tyre, or Babylon ever be completely desolated? Or was it a warning of what Jehovah was capable of doing as the true sovereign (king) of the world?  For example, In his pronouncement against Assyrian Nineveh, Nahum includes "fear" as part of what devastates and desolates her, yet we know that Nineveh was never totally depopulated:
(Nahum 2:8-11, NWT) 8 And Ninʹe·veh, from the days [that] she [has been], was like a pool of waters; but they are fleeing. “Stand still, YOU men! Stand still!” But there is no one turning back.
9 Plunder silver, YOU men; plunder gold; as there is no limit to the [things in] arrangement. There is a heavy amount of all sorts of desirable articles.
10 The city is empty, desolate, devastated!
Their hearts melt in fear, their knees buckle, their hips tremble; (NWT 2013)
All their faces are flushed. 11 Where is the lair of lions, and the cave that belongs to the maned young lions, where the lion walked and entered, where the lion’s cub was, and no one was making [them] tremble?
Just as we often must do with other prophecies, I sometimes put a softer edge on the chronology in prophecy (unless the prophecy itself tells us otherwise). Dates and numbers can be rounded, just as this has often been explained for other prophecies discussed in our publications.

But it was "Pastor Russell's" own journal "The Bible Students Monthly" that included the following, in 1915, while Russell was still alive. I'll include the entire portion, although it was not the only contribution of its type found in issues of the Bible Students Monthly.
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/history/st paul defences.htm
How Pastor Russell Ranks in Greatness 
Dr. Jackson Analyzes Elements That Constitute True Greatness of the Man
 
A LEADER IN MANY LINES
 
His Temperament Poetic, Literary, Scientific, Analytical and Strong for Business
 
The world seldom recognizes its great men. Few or none saw the magnificent greatness of Lincoln until after his death. To the prominent and learned of the Roman Empire, Saint Paul was only an insignificant Jew; but we can see that in all that constituted real greatness he towered above them all, like a giant among pigmies. So it is today. If you ask "the man on the street," who are the great men of today, he is not likely to name Charles Taze Russell first, but let us see:
 
C. T. Russell commenced business for himself while yet a boy and with very little capital. When he was eighteen he owned a store, when he was twenty-four he owned five stores and was worth three hundred thousand dollars, and this at an age when John D. Rockefeller had hardly made a start, and J. P. Morgan, with his inherited capital, had but little. If C. T. Russell had devoted his life to business it is easy to guess that John D. would not now be the richest man in the world nor J. P. Morgan have been the prince of financiers.
 
However, that is the least remarkable thing about the career of Pastor Russell. With all this phenomenal talent for business he gave it all up and surrendered the most brilliant opening for obtaining wealth and power that has ever been offered to an American in order to take up a humble religious work. Such a thing as a man with surpassing wealth-getting power, voluntarily giving it up was unknown before in all history. He made no mistake, for the Master said, "Whosoever would become great among you shall be your servant." With an insight into the higher things that enabled him to choose aright, he saw from the Scriptures that the time had come for the greatest work of the ages to be done, and as he was the right man for the place, the Lord chose him to be his servant to lead the visible earthly part of this work, namely, the harvest work of the end of the Gospel Age.
 
In the case of the Apostle Paul the Lord chose a man of great business ability to do his work then, but in this "End of the Age," when business is on a scale a thousand fold greater than in Paul’s day, business talent is all the more necessary, and so the man chosen for His work today is a Napoleon of finance and business.
 
History shows that other men great in business and finance have not been richly endowed in other departments of the mind, but Pastor Russell in addition to his financial talent has remarkable mental talents of the most varied character. He has a frame of mind that may be described as a poetical mind that gets an insight into deep things by intuition, like a great poet or a Hebrew seer; it is as if Isaiah and J. P. Morgan were united in one individual. Poets are not usually of a logical scientific form of mind but Pastor Russell has these talents also, that is, he has the acute discrimination and analysis of a great lawyer, that can test the truth of things and sift the evidence on which they are founded. Thus the fallacies of the creeds of Christendom were brought to light as they had never been before.
 
His literary talent would distinguish him among the writers of his generation if he was tested by this alone. Without any special literary training he writes English in a simple and idiomatic style that sometimes reaches the sublime and that will make many passages from his pen take their place among English classics. Another phase of his many sided greatness is his scientific talent. He has the mind of an investigator and student, a scientific love of truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; the freedom from bias, the willingness to accept truth wherever found, willingness to be corrected, no difference how humble the instrument, in short a mind like Agassiz and Newton. The field of research to which Newton applied himself was the physical world, the earth and sea and sky wherein God’s plan is revealed in regard to physical things. The field of research which Pastor Russell chose was the moral world, the plan of God in regard to mankind as revealed in the Bible. As Newton discovered the great Law of the Attraction of Gravitation which binds the universe together and brings order out of seeming confusion, so Russell discovered the grand "Plan of the Ages" which binds all history together and brings order into the field of theology where before there was so much confusion and error; founding all his teaching upon the impregnable rock of Holy Scripture, his position has been unassailable. The united talent of Nominal Christendom has striven for thirty-five years to overthrow his teachings but has not been able to meet him on his own ground (the Scriptures), with a single fair argument.
 
Standing, as we do now, in the midst of the battle of Armageddon we can thank God and take courage because the Lord has sent us so great a leader. Courageous as a lion, pure as snow, wise as a serpent, harmless as a dove, a knight of God without fear and without reproach, no obstacle can turn him, no danger dismay him, no grief or pain distract him from his grand purpose. His motto is the words spoken for him by the prophets: "For the Lord God will help me; therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be confounded."

No, don't look because this thread is about 607, not about chastising strangers on the internet. I think @TrueTomHarley meant that suggestion to be purely rhetorical. Plus I don't think Alan F gives two monkeys bottoms.

Nah. We'll find one when and if it becomes necessary. Probably he is mending his ill-mannered ways right now so as to fit in.

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.

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.
 

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

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

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

Plus I have acquired 87 cavities.

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

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.

I have only netted a couple hundred sales through that method. It sounds good, but the payoff is less than you might think.

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

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

@Ann O'Maly tried clearing the cache, and cookies and rebooting. Still the same. This is the only website that's giving me trouble @The Librarian. with  firefox. Started a couple of days ago...
Just tried this website in chrome, and there's no problem. I was able to type this on my lap top right now..

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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