Hugh Baxter

The practice of using donated funds from Jehovah’s Witnesses to purchase a very high probability of “winning” an award is not new for the Watchtower organization. Since at least 2002, Watchtower has amassed a collection of certificates and statues, the result of dozens of submissions to numerous for-profit organizations, bypassing legitimate and critical sources of acclaim.
Located just outside the Brooklyn, New York office of senior Governing Body aide Robert Wallen stands a bookcase featuring a plethora of Telly and Aurora certificates and statues, purchased over a 14+ year period. A glass wall is all that separates this display from tens of thousands of Jehovah’s Witness tourists who pilgrimage to Brooklyn Heights each year.

The next best thing to having actually won an Emmy award is apparently having someone think you won that award.  For a few witty entrepreneurs, a golden opportunity emerged.
According to its website, the Telly Awards was founded in 1978 and “is the premier award honoring outstanding local, regional, and cable TV commercials and programs, the finest video and film productions, and online commercials, video and films.”
[NOTE:  – in their press release package, Telly declares 1979 as the date of their founding instead of 1978]
Combining a website with a shopping cart, clever marketing campaigns and a contract with the same manufacturer who produces the Oscar and Emmy statuettes, Telly zeroed in on an untapped market of emerging video creators who would jump at the chance to showcase a trophy which bears a striking resemblance to the Emmy statue.

Official Emmy Award
How does it work? When Watchtower produces a video or online news release, it uploads the video or URL to Telly using a web submission form, paying for this opportunity according to the number of entries and categories chosen. Per the Telly website: “The Telly Awards Final Entry Fee is $105 (U.S dollars) for single entries and $190 (U.S Dollars) for campaign entries.”
After the published “deadline” for entries, Telly contacts the “contestant” and advises them that they have won, in most cases, either a silver or bronze award. Once notified, the organization must cough up $210 U.S. for the trophy, which weighs approximately 4.5 pounds, one half the weight of an Oscar. You would think that a frame-able certificate would come with your victory, but sadly, this too is for sale – for $45.00.
 

From https://www.jw.org/en/news/releases/by-region/world/jehovahs-witnesses-receive-telly-awards/:
 “The Telly Awards has a mission to honor the very best in film and video,” said Linda Day, executive director of the Telly Awards. “The Witnesses’ accomplishment in the jw.org Newsroom illustrates their creativity, skill, and dedication to their craft and serves as a testament to great film and video production.”
Seen this quote before?
“The Telly Awards has a mission to honor the very best in film and video,” said Linda Day, executive director of the Telly Awards. “JIST Career Solution’s accomplishment illustrates their creativity, skill and dedication to their craft and serves as a testament to great film and video production.”  - http://jist.emcp.com/telly-awards
“The Telly Awards has a mission to honor the very best in film and video,” said Linda Day, Executive Director of the Telly Awards. “Impact Communications’ accomplishment illustrates their creativity, skill, and dedication to their craft and serves as a testament to great video production.” - http://impactcommunications.com/news_item/impact-receives-eight-telly-awards/
“The Telly Awards has a mission to honor the very best in film and video,” said Linda Day, Executive Director of the Telly Awards. “Red Circle’s accomplishment illustrates their creativity, skill, and dedication to their craft and serves as a testament to great film and video production.” - http://redcircleagency.com/red-circle-wins-11-telly-awards/
The Telly Awards has a mission to honor the very best in film and video, said Linda Day, Executive Director of the Telly Awards. Quest Groups accomplishment illustrates their creativity, skill, and dedication to their craft and serves as a testament to great film and video production. - http://wbecsouth.org/quest-group-lands-win-at-annual-telly-awards/
So it's one of those stock quotes where you [insert company name here]. Totally fake. 

Hm. I think I see where you're coming from with the 'patiently explaining' thing. However, Wrench was an incorrigible wriggler. 

JW Insider and Ann O'Maly
Thank you both for such clear and concise information. Also your not resorting to insults and verbal diarrhea as done by one other party makes you both stars as far as I am concerned.
I think the case is proven by your irrefutable information and logic. In clear and concise English, YOU WIN!
All the best
Hugh Baxter

Allen,
The 7th Day Adventist Pastor, Larry E Ford, wrote the book you are quoting from. As a Seventh Day Adventist he continues to believe a lot of the ideas that we have dropped and rejected. We also still have many ideas in common. His reason for bringing up Rand, from 1946, is to provide a kind of scattershot bunch of ideas that he can then reject where he wants and accept where he wants. They provide some hints that he, Ford, has some backing, although he is rejecting more of Rand than he accepts.
 
Anyone who wants to see the book you are quoting from can find it on Google Books at
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1512714143
 
Understanding the "Beasts" of Revelation 13
By Larry E. Ford
 
Here are some highlights quoted from the book:
 
Some say that the Bible is 25% prophecy; some say 33%; and some say 80%. I would say that, from Genesis to Revelation, it is all prophetic. It is not prophetic just because Scripture is filled with symbols and types. . . All of the past historical events were written as warning messages to "us" —that is, to the ones who are alive during the generation in which it is all to be fulfilled.
Just recently, the Watchtower dropped this similar view that every parable and narrative could somehow be turned into a prophecy about 1918, 1919, 1922, 1925, 1928, 1931, 1935, etc., based on the idea that this generation starting in 1914 was so important to Bible prophecy that "everything" must somehow refer to "us." (Elijah's experiences, Naboth's Vineyard, Prodigal Son, etc.) So we have a new rule that only when the Bible explicitly presents it as a type, only then do we have a right to declare the anti-type.
We continue to keep a few exceptions around, such as the "faithful and discreet slave" (GB) "Nethinim" (GB helpers) "Jehonadab (great crowd) and Nebuchadnezzar's 7 years of madness (=2,520 years of Messianic rulership "madness" until Nebuchadnezzar, representing Jesus' rulership, returns to the throne).
 
But there is one other exception that we rarely refer to any more, but when we do mention it, it is often in support of a bit of our chronology. It's the "sabbath." Seventh Day Adventists, who focus on the meaning of the sabbath a lot, have the same teaching:
 
This witness and warning are embedded in the meaning of all of God's Holy Days, including the weekly seventh-day Sabbath (compare Lev. 23 to Heb. 4). They are all prophetic insights into God's plan of salvation.
 
Rand was one of those who expounded on the idea that if Peter said "a day with Jehovah is 1,000 years" then the first 6 days of the week represented man's attempts to rule himself for 6,000 years, and the final day refers to the 1,000 year millennium of Christ. This should sound familiar since we believe the same.
 
The problem is that Rand -- like many others -- thought that it would be so much more understandable if Adam was created around 4000 BC, Jesus born around 0 BC, and Judgement Day at about 2000 CE. See how much simpler that is? (Therefore, others even placed the Flood at 2000 BC, David at 1000 BC.) This idea tickles the ears, because the schema is so easy.
 
But he also managed to come up with a schema that allowed for other periods of time that Adventists still hold dear: the "Time of the End" [Last Days] a time for "signs" to be seen, for the "good news" to be preached, etc. Rand did this by referring to the 1,000 years in our common calendar as "solar" time, but claiming that the same years were different in "lunar" time, and then believed that "sacred" time was the mean (average) between the two. Clever, eh?
 
Look what he can do now, and how he can continue to give prophetic significance to those early days of "new light" and "present truth" that began arising in the 18th century with men like Darby (Plymouth Brethren), Second Adventists, etc.
 
Howard B. Rand, in his book Study in Daniel (chapter 24: "End of Days"), gives a lunar, mean, and solar calendrical method for pinpointing the 20th century as the "end time" when Jesus Christ will ultimately intervene to put a halt to the destruction of the planet. He dubs the 180 years between the lunar termination (1821-1822) and the solar termination (2001-2002) cited below as the Time of the End. Take note of his methodology in the following quote from his Destiny Magazine, August 1946:
Now time in the Bible is measured by lunar, mean and solar years, so there will be three terminal dates for the 6,000 years on each of these respective scales. The terminal of 6,000 lunar years from Adam's fall is 1821-2 A.D.; the terminal year on
mean or sacred time is 1911-12; and the solar year terminal is 2001-2.
The present year, 1963 A.D., is 5961-2 years from Adam and 38 years remain in of the full 6000 solar years yet to run, although we are 142 years beyond the terminal of 6000 lunar years and it is 52 years since the expiration of 6000 years on sacred or mean time.
 
Rand also came up with something quite similar to what Brother Albert Schroeder came up with when he thought of changing the beginning of the "generation" to October 4, 1957 -- the launch of Sputnik. Note what Rand said, from your same book, of course:
 
 
Rand uses Daniel 9:27 to make a point about the terminal point of the solar time. The expression "overspreading of abominations" is the focus of the discussion. Note the following citation by Rand:
Rev. [A]lbert Barnes, in his commentary on Daniel written in 1853 A.D., states that the Hebrew word rendered overspreading means properly "a wing," like the wing of a bird, and he shall make desolate actually means "to lay waste, to make desolate." Dr. Barnes was puzzled as to what this "thing with
wings pouring out desolation" could mean.
It was impossible for Dr. Barnes to comprehend its full meaning nearly one hundred years ago. But no man today needs to be in ignorance of what "winged things passing overhead and pouring out desolation on the people below" really means (Ibid; p. 258).
By combining the term overspreading and the phrase "he shall make desolate," Rand concludes that Daniel actually sees the bombing airplane, which has increased man's ability to engage in war and destroy massive territories. To what else can wings refer in the 20th Century except bombing airplanes? It was in that century that the airplane evolved into an effective machine of war.
 
The author, Ford, adds:
 
Rand's commentary was written originally in 1948 and republished in 1963 with numerous amendments to it. This quotation is from the 1963 edition. How did he figure out the point from which "Adam's fall" took place? It presupposes that "Adam's fall" took place in 4000 BC (Ibid; Appendices: "A Chronological Chart of Events"). It appears to support his idea about the 20th Century as stated above. . . . However, it would take him and his 1948 readers 53 years (2001-1948=53) to find out that he was wrong!
 
This next part will sound familiar to most Witnesses:
 
He goes on to conclude that the Soviet Union is Gog and Magog—the Antichrist (Gog) and Beast (Magog). With that in hand, he declares that they will invade Israel sometime before 2001 in fulfillment of Ezekiel 38, 39 (Ibid; pp. 296-312). On p. 310, he specifically says: "At the end of
years Soviet Russia will advance with a great army and numerous cavalry [and] establish themselves in Palestine [that is, Israel]. Rand expected that end of years to have occurred before 2001.
Beyond the fact that Soviet Russia disappeared back in the 1980s…
 
The book you are quoting from makes a case against this idea. Here's another issue that should sound familiar to Witnesses. It's after a quick discussion of Archbishop Ussher's idea that Adam was created in 4004 BCE, and the idea of developing a timeline off the end of 6,000 years of man's existence on earth:
 
Even then, we're left clueless as to how long it took Adam and Eve to sin against God after their creation and, therefore, precisely when the 6,000-year countdown should have begun.
 
I don’t know if you were around in 1975 when this exact topic was brought up regularly at the meetings.
 
Rand also managed to get the 2,520 years, not from Nebuchadnezzar's dream, but from the handwriting on the wall that Belshazzar witnessed:
Look at the words again using that cipher: "A mina, a
mina, a shekel, and half a mina." Now what?
 
There are 50 shekels in a mina. There are 20 gerahs (a word not written on the wall) in a shekel. If you use the weight units based on the words, then the phrase can be interpreted: "1,000 [50 x 20], 1,000 [50 x 20], 20 [the gerah], and 500 [25 x 20]." Added together, they total 2,520 —a number significant to Bible students (for example: Daniel's 70th week 7 days 7 x 360 days in a year 2,520 days long). Now, it is stipulated that you must be aware of even more: (a) There is a short-term understanding, and (b) there is also a long-term understanding. In other words, there was, supposedly, a fulfillment for Belshazzar's time, as well as a fulfillment for a later time—essentially, the last days (Ibid.).
 
The author is not agreeing with Rand, but showing that he is grasping as untenable ideas. Then the author goes on to critique Rand's ideas and then gets to the point where he is discussing
what is wrong with the section you quoted. He finishes up with an interesting idea:
 
Each word had a particular meaning that was executed that very night. To attempt to apply its meaning to some double, long-term application is adding to God's word (see Deu. 4: I, 2; 12:32 and Prov. 30:5, 6). There is no mention of an application to the "end times."
 
If we (Witnesses) applied this same bit of counsel to the dream of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4 we wouldn't even be having a discussion of 607, etc.
 
Rand grasps at whatever he can find, and doesn't think it through. He quotes from very old sources, and ignored anything that didn't fit with a preconceived idea. I don't think this is the mark of a historian or even a wannabe historian. It's just another person grasping at any idea, crazy or not, who wants his particular interpretation of Bible prophecy to be right.
 
So where does that leave your claim?
 
That's "zero" so far on your ability to point to "some historians" who believed Nebuchadnezzar's accession year was 603. Still looking for the "some historians" that you mentioned.

Allen, it's real childish to make a mistake and call the person who pointed it out 'stupid.'  
To further JW Insider's answer about how Nebuchadnezzar raced back home to secure the throne, here is the excerpt from Josephus' Against Apion, 1.19 (134-138): 

https://www.loebclassics.com/view/josephus-apion/1926/pb_LCL186.217.xml
Note that Neb took a shorter route across the desert.

You apparently have very little interest in responding to facts and evidence. The only bits of evidence you have tried to include in your posts are those that focus on the one-year and two-year differences among archaeologists, especially those from the 1800's. The one-year+ differences that are seen in more modern scholarship on the subject can be explained almost 100% of the time with the list of reasons I gave in a previous post. These differences have nothing to do with confusion and contradictions among the archaeologists.
In the portions of your response I just quoted above, I notice that when you realize that you have no answer you will invariably resort to phrases like, "Just like Carl Olof Jonsson" and "the foolishness of the Doug Masons and Carl Olof Jonssons of this world" or mentioning "Raymond Franz." Yes, it's true that all these people are disfellowshipped, so you do have the ultimate, ready-made ad hominem attack at your disposal. People, like COJ, who were disfellowshipped for "apostasy" are our equivalent, basically, of a "Hitler."
You remind me of me when I was 7 years old. We moved from California to Missouri and my brother and I were in a country school where the kids were angry at our religion and the fact that we did not salute the flag, because they also knew from their parents that we didn't fight in the war against Hitler. How could we not want to defend our country?
But this particular verbal attack died down when their statements were always met by giving them a witness, especially when they found out that JWs stood up to Hitler and their religion didn't. So they decided to change their tactic to making fun of my lack of a full earlobe. My ears only have a partial lobe, since the lower end of the lobe attaches to the ear with only a small lobe, instead of the usual one.
So, I came up with the "brilliant idea" of just matter-of-factly telling them, "Oh, I see the difference; you have the same kind of earlobe that Hitler had." They would deny it, and I would show them the picture of Hitler from the encyclopedia on the back shelf of our school-room. It happened about 4 times that same first year then, when I was in second grade. The 4th time, I went to show my 2nd grade colleague, and lo and behold, . . . it wasn't there any more. Someone had ripped out his picture. I lost my fallacy argument due to lack of evidence. For future reference, I looked up Mussolini but it turned out his picture had almost exactly the same kind of earlobes that I have. But I found my new evidence in a picture of Stalin! Close enough. But then I turned 8, and didn't care any more that I had Mussolini's ears.
The point is. . . . Well, there isn't much of a point, except that I understand exactly why you need to pivot towards mentioning our most "evil and dangerous" enemies.  Yikes! But then you revealed just how childish this type of argument really is.
You made a curious mistake. You accidentally reminded everyone that you are continuing to point out that 587 and 586 are the beliefs of "enemies" and 607 BCE is somehow more like a 'teaching from God.'  But then you said the following, which is an amazing admission, when you think about it. You said:
"Historians really don’t give a hoot one way or another about it."
Thanks for reminding me. It's really one of the most crushing bits of evidence that exposes the fallacy of  your entire childish tactic. The reason is simple. You are right that historians really don't give a hoot one way or another about it and that is simply another way of saying that their conclusions are are not biased one way or another.
Hmmm. So why do almost 100% of all historians and archaeologists of the Neo-Babylonian period, whether they be Jewish, Catholic, Atheist, Indian, Russian, Vegan or Japanese -- why do they all indicate that 607 is an impossible date for the destruction of Jerusalem, based on the evidence? Why do almost 100% of the same Neo-Babylonian specialists, date the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 or 586 BCE?
Interesting that you try to use the same bit of logic about the thousands of tablets that you wish I was exaggerating and blustering about. These are not from a single place that may have had a bias one way or another, they are simply thousands of records dealing with hundreds of different people that just happened to have a date on them: the year of the current king of Babylon. So you are right, these are not the "official evidence from any oficial government of antiquities." So isn't it curious that from all these different sources all give us evidence for the same chronology, whether from private sources and business that went on with temples and traders and banks and land organizers, "realtors," etc.
Anyway, thanks for making that point for me. It's a good one. Too bad it just continues to demolish your argument, though.