Anna

A snitch at Bethel told me 47 of those Helpers were caught shoplifting from boutiques last month and that was the reason for the article.
Also, CNBC has reported, or should have, that over 6000 boutiques went out of business last year due to customer theft. It is a crisis rivaling the one of opioids. A spokesman for the industry said: "If only more religious organizations would talk about how the flying scroll of Zechariah condemns stealing instead of trying to spin it in airheaded ways."

Yes. In my imaginary illustration, a coin that had the same date on both sides is giving the accurate minting date on both sides.
That's because I was making an illustration to match VAT 4956 which, on both sides, references the exact date on which the original observations were made. In the case of VAT 4956 it refers specifically to the same date of 568/7 for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar on both sides. The coin illustration was not really about coins, of course, it was an illustration about how honest you might consider me to be if I tried to pass off a coin that clearly said 587 as if it were a coin from 607 using the kinds of tactics I described. In real life, of course, an ancient coin cannot contain a B.C. date, and VAT 4956 is not a coin; it's a "text" or "diary" about a couple dozen astronomical observations. In fact, it's a later copy that has at least one minor error in it (which is one day off). 
VAT 4956 has a couple dozen observations on it, and all of them fit a specific year. It just so happens that all the other observations from Nebuchadnezzar's reign and the observations from all other Neo-Babylonian kings give us the same exact date. So we really don't even need VAT 4956 to see the chronology, but it's nice to know that it's further evidence and none of the evidence contradicts any of the other evidence.
You shouldn't say something like 2+1=4; and then "This" is why 2 dogs +1 dog = 4 dogs. It's true you could claim all kinds of possible alternative endings based on the premise that 2+1=4, but I mean that if your premise is unproven or false, then you should do the opposite of drawing a specific conclusion based on such a premise. Saying "this is why" or "therefore, this is true" after an unproven premise is "heavy-handed."
This can depend on the topic and the level of experience each scholar has in that particular topic area, whether it's the physics of making clay tablets, experience with hundreds of astronomical readings, Assyrian/Mesopotamian linguistics, paleography, etc. If none of the scholars have made any attempt to "discredit" scripture then this other point about finding "common ground" will be meaningless. Wiseman and Grayson have, evidently without even trying, translated documents of the Neo-Babylonian Empire that just happen to contain evidence for a Babylonian chronology that has a common ground with the scriptures. There is no contradiction between the secular chronology of Babylon and the Scriptures. In fact, it is the Watchtower chronology that creates more problems against the Biblical evidence. In effect, then it is the Watchtower chronology that, by comparison, attempts to "discredit" scripture, although I'm sure it's not on purpose. It's just that a higher priority is given to making 1914 appear to be right, than in being concerned about how the theory tends to contradict scripture. I think past posts in this thread and others on the same topic have already highlighted about 5 ways in which this has happened.
VAT 4956 pinpoints Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year to be 568/7. If you can pinpoint his 37th year then you can pinpoint his 18th to be 587/6, right? If you can pinpoint that my 37th year of life was in 1994, then you can also pinpoint that my 18th year was in 1975, right? If you don't know how to do this, you should admit this right away, and someone can always draw a chart.
So your only question is whether you believe that the destruction of Jerusalem was in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, or his 19th year, or some other year if you prefer. No matter which year you prefer, you can pinpoint it to a calendar year in the same way you can pinpoint his 37th year to be 568/7 from VAT 4956.
Outside of that, why should anyone care what Carl Jonsson says? Why should anyone care what any ex-JWs say? There are probably a MILLION ex-JWs (literally) who don't even know who this Carl Jonsson is, and could rightly care nothing about 607 or 587. What Carl Jonsson says is no different than what every other modern Neo-Babylonian scholar says about Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. It just depends on whether you choose Nebuchadnezzar's year 18 or 19 for the destruction of Jerusalem. Which year do you choose, by the way? For some reason this was a difficult question for 607 promoters when it came up the last few times.
Of course, the reason is obvious why someone should need to try to tie something to a specific person known as an "apostate" even if a million other non-religious persons and all other Neo-Babylonian scholars believe the same thing. Just for fun, everyone should look at a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Notice especially the ones under "Red Herring" and "ad hominem" including these, like, "poisoning the well":
Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument. Poisoning the well – a subtype of ad hominem presenting adverse information about a target person with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says. Abusive fallacy – a subtype of ad hominem that verbally abuses the opponent rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument. Appeal to motive – a subtype of ad hominem that dismisses an idea by questioning the motives of its proposer. Traitorous critic fallacy (ergo decedo) – a subtype of ad hominem where a critic's perceived affiliation is seen as the underlying reason for the criticism and the critic is asked to stay away from the issue altogether. Appeal to fear – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side Appeal to spite – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party. Judgmental language – insulting or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment Good point. The FAITH of the Bible Student shouldn't depend on secular chronology. Yet, so many Witnesses think that the secular date 607 must somehow be "credited" to be true -- yet 607 is completely dependent on SECULAR chronology. To be sure, it requires that we use secular chronology and then requires that we make a mistake in the way we use it, but we can't get anywhere close to 607 without depending on secular chronology. The Watchtower even uses the premise that 539 is a kind of ABSOLUTE secular date from which we then count 70 years farther back to get the secular date for the time period starting 70 years earlier. Yet, you are right in your implication that no true Bible Student should need such secular dates like 539 and 607 for his faith.
The term "absolute" is used by archaeologists and astronomers who study historical texts like these to describe the ability to tie this entire period from Nebuchadnezzar's father, Nebuchadnezzar and down to Cyrus and beyond to specific years or ranges of years in our calendar, such as, 587, 597, 607, 617, 539, 529, etc. They do not use the term "absolute" because we need to put "faith" in it. The Watchower, on the other hand, has used the term "absolute" "reliable" and "pivotal" with respect to such secular dates like 539 with the idea that we should have "faith" in them -- that we have reason to "believe" in them.
You or Allen may have to come out of the tentative zone then and just explain clearly what it is you are trying to say. I believe I caught some of it from a set of previous posts, and Allen agreed to that part that I said I understood, but he also said he wasn't ready to present the entire theory yet. I can respect that, but it's not useful to make guesses here, because the entire thing could become a moving target until the theory is "nailed down" so to speak.
It's possible that Allen once thought of "scholar JW" as someone with the background to help validate or invalidate the theory through shared resources. If so, I can see another reason for a further delay. If asked, I'll be glad to see if I can help, as I have offered before. But otherwise I'll have no more to say on those ideas until the theory is spelled out. I should also mention again that I am offering to look up resources, test astronomical data, help look up variations in published translations, or any number of things. And as several others here can attest, I have had such conversations "on the side" completely in private, completely confidentially, without ever publicizing names or any of the content of those conversations. One such side conversation on this forum now contains 203 private posts as of today.

I know some who don't, but it is not a rule. I for one would never miss the Sistine chapel! 
While out on the ministry in England, as teenagers, we would sometimes stop and go inside a church and look for God's name in the big Bible by the pulpit. We would leave it open at Psalms 83.
 

I've had my own comments disallowed specifically for discussing moderation policy, which is often a sensitive subject for moderators. And some for engaging with a poster who appears bent on spamming his or her own blog address, and I'm inadvertently helping them out by discussing their blog.
And of course, that might mean that this very response won't last long. But I bring it up anyway because it was in this very thread where @allensmith28 (##?) was minding his own business and got an earful from @tromboneck. (I say, "earful" because it had somethng to do with a corn cob, if I remember correctly.) So, allen was actually the one being "protected" by the moderators. Not that allen needs protecting -- he can handle himself -- and not that tromboneck had really pushed the envelope as far as others have, either. Moderation can never be totally fair, and this is one of the reasons that I often wish it had never been used. When the topic of a discussion forum takes a turn toward the totally absurd, as this one nearly had, it often just means that some people are just too tired or too uncomfortable to deal with it seriously. Silliness sometimes sends a serious message.

No, it doesn't tell them that - how can you be such a child?
Still, I will concede that it is a bit, um - not subtle. But it teaches a lesson that adults have hammered at children since the beginning of time - pay attention. If you don't despise the cause you will have no problem with it.
The zealots of New York State bombard me with a host of PA's that regularly spoil my mood. One emphasizing the value of school shows  a little girl hopelessly lost in class because she missed some school. She can't even make out the teachers voice, which is muffled to her, as though she was underwater.  The concluding logo reads 'every minute of school matters.'
The poor child missed a few minutes of school and now she is dumb as a fence post. You should hunt up that video so you can complain about it.
 

Hi Shirley,
I'm not sure if you are still around given the sideline responses from the men who are prolific commenters but I thought I would respond since I'm a single sister over 50yo and can feel your pain.    
As we are all aware, Jehovah created men and women to have companionship and have an intimate partner to share our deepest feelings with, find support when we "fall" and some to share our joys and happiness.   However, right from the "get go", that purpose was thwarted by Satan and human selfishness.   That said, I know that lonely feeling and desire for close companionship, intimacy and a sense of security.    My experience and observation is that marriage isn't necessarily the cure for the void one feels as a single person so caution is necessary.   My moto is:  Men are like parking places, the good ones are taken and the rest are handicapped (-:    Don't get me wrong, I do think there are good single men out there but they are rare.   Personally, I have accepted the fact that I won't find that "rare" one, however, I know sisters (over 50yo)  who have found good partners and seem happy (but not problem free).   My cynicism is obvious I know, but it helps me focus on outward things instead of inward feelings.  I have a full life as a servant of Jehovah and have many interests that fill the "quiet times".   I accept that statistically my chances of finding a compatible mate are slim to none (Satan has done a great job of culling the male gender through ions of wars causing an uneven number of males to females), therefore, I refuse to let feelings of loneliness consume me.   
I hope I don't come across as lecturing you or seeming insensitive, but I  wanted you to get an idea of where I'm coming from.  I do understand your deep feelings and know we all cope in different ways.   As sisters, we can support each other by honestly sharing those feelings (which I'm glad you did), having a good cry and a good laugh ( I can be more humorous than I'm being right now).   So I would say, "Hang in there sis! "   - Agape - your sister in the Truth

True. If they had submitted to Babylon and paid their dues as they were supposed to, the city would have been left alone. Jer. 27:6-14.
--------------------------------------------------
But 597 BCE can be. This is where a dated event in the Bible and the same event dated in the Babylonian Chronicle coincide. The BCE year can be derived from dated astronomical tablets - the same method used for pinning BCE years on kings' reigns, Babylon's fall, and Jerusalem's destruction.

As a rule, I am neither obtuse or acute, but that doesn't mean I am always right. By any measure, however, it's always good to try angles of all kinds. I can even try scalene new heights!

Fortunately for her the old boy is married at the moment, hopefully for good.

Bored today JWI ? 

Yes, it is simple and clear, but I wish I could agree with you that it is also correct. I cannot logically reconcile the fact that WT agrees on 539, but has a problem with 587, if I am to believe that both dates are derived from the same sources. Why would one be false and the other true? It seems as illogical as saying 587 is a correct date, but 539 is a wrong date,  so we will count forward 70 years from 587, and insist that 517 is when Cyrus conquered Babylon.
 

Yes, it is simple and clear, but I wish I could agree with you that it is also correct. I cannot logically reconcile the fact that WT agrees on 539, but has a problem with 587, if I am to believe that both dates are derived from the same sources. Why would one be false and the other true? It seems as illogical as saying 587 is a correct date, but 539 is a wrong date,  so we will count forward 70 years from 587, and insist that 517 is when Cyrus conquered Babylon.
 

Yes, it is simple and clear, but I wish I could agree with you that it is also correct. I cannot logically reconcile the fact that WT agrees on 539, but has a problem with 587, if I am to believe that both dates are derived from the same sources. Why would one be false and the other true? It seems as illogical as saying 587 is a correct date, but 539 is a wrong date,  so we will count forward 70 years from 587, and insist that 517 is when Cyrus conquered Babylon.
 

Nothing against men, but women tend to be more humble, one of the prerequisites of being a follower of Christ. There are a host of other qualities that women posses in greater measure than men which make them better candidates, and there are some qualities that are typically more dominant in men that make them less likely candidates.
I don't think I have ever seen more men than women get baptised at any given convention or assembly that I have attended  in 30 years. Which obviously confirms my theory  

There are no rules of any sort.
Except for a family head who is authorized to set rules for his family. And since Bethel is a 'family' - many persons living in voluntary close quarters for a specific reason - there are quite a few rules there. But they do not carry over into the general congregation (though there are always some who would have it otherwise).
There is counsel and peer pressure. It will be (relevant to this thread) based on the concept many have noticed that men and women are attracted to each other, yet cannot enjoy the intimate closeness of sex relations unless married so it is best not to allow themselves to get all pumped up. The counsel varies from place to place and culture will have something to do with it.
If you enjoy privileges in the congregation - servant, pioneer - you will find that you are expected to be an example and you can lose privileges by flying in the face of such counsel as to what is locally acceptable or has been published. Otherwise, no.
Jehovah's people are not belligerent or headstrong and are not inclined to blow off counsel as nothing. Elders are not control freaks or micro-managers, though some are - in about the same proportion as the general population, I would guess. Efforts are made through training so as to get those ones to be less that way.
There is such a thing as 'brazen conduct' - it used to be translated 'loose conduct.' It has the air of contempt & outrageous disregard of customary standards & an in-your-face attitude. That can get a person in trouble. Since it is more vague than outright immorality, it will not always be applied consistently. But always it is associated with persistent defiance of accepted conduct - just look up the word 'brazen' to get a sense for it.
But it is never a matter of petty rules enforced by people who just like to meddle. Anyone like that jeopardizes his reputation as a reasonable person - one of the criteria for serving as an older man.
 
 

True. One big US insurance company calls itself The Rock. (and some actor does too)
They could have redeemed their policy.
(Psalm 78:35) 35 Remembering that God was their Rock And that the Most High God was their Redeemer.  

SPOING !

I don’t think trying to discredit 1914 is the reason. Not among serious Bible students and seekers of truth anyway. As for secular historians and scholars, logically, why would they be interested in discrediting 1914? Why should they care? I would think it’s only ex witnesses who would be happy to throw 1914 under the bus.
Personally, I have no interest in discrediting 1914, but I am interested in truth. Unfortunately, and this is the part that raises suspicions in my mind (regrettably), is that  607/1914 is going to remain an unverified subject, and because of that it will be accepted by most JWs without question. What I mean by that is how many JWs are in the position where they are able to investigate anything like this at more than a cursory level? Honestly? When someone starts to study the Bible with JWs and begins to investigate the Trinity, Hell fire, immortality of the soul etc. easy! But 607 is a whole different kettle of fish!
I would hazard a guess, and someone might have a better idea, but I think there can’t be more than 10% of JWs who are interested in Bible chronology to a deeper level. I personally know of no one, except maybe one brother, but I was a teenager at the time so I didn’t really pay much attention, but I know his library was full of history and scholastic books on the Bible and the Middle East. Thinking about it now, maybe the 10% is being generous; the real number might be nearer 1%. Chronology can't be everyone's hobby.  I don’t think this has anything to do with the level of intelligence of the friends but rather their focus. The average Witness just does not have the time to devote to researching this very involved subject. And most don’t have the desire. I wonder, how many have thoroughly read “When was ancient Jerusalem destroyed?”  part 1& 2 in the WT 11/10/1*  Probably a very few. And out of the very few, how many actually bothered to look up the references and do further research?  
I for one find it frustrating because I know I cannot contribute to this discussion in any meaningful way because I just do not have the time to acquire all the background knowledge I would need in order to do so. I mean, how many years did it take COJ to write his treatise? I can only do this in snippets of maybe an hour every other day, (if that) making notes and drawing diagrams. I know what it’s like to study a subject, but you have to be young free and single and living with your parents, or a guy and retired (women still have to cook and clean, generally).
So I think 607 will remain WT’s well hidden Achilles heel for a long while because of the majorities’ lack of interest, and those who might have interest; with work, taking care of family and all the theocratic activities, when would they find the time?
*  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011736
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011810

I don’t think trying to discredit 1914 is the reason. Not among serious Bible students and seekers of truth anyway. As for secular historians and scholars, logically, why would they be interested in discrediting 1914? Why should they care? I would think it’s only ex witnesses who would be happy to throw 1914 under the bus.
Personally, I have no interest in discrediting 1914, but I am interested in truth. Unfortunately, and this is the part that raises suspicions in my mind (regrettably), is that  607/1914 is going to remain an unverified subject, and because of that it will be accepted by most JWs without question. What I mean by that is how many JWs are in the position where they are able to investigate anything like this at more than a cursory level? Honestly? When someone starts to study the Bible with JWs and begins to investigate the Trinity, Hell fire, immortality of the soul etc. easy! But 607 is a whole different kettle of fish!
I would hazard a guess, and someone might have a better idea, but I think there can’t be more than 10% of JWs who are interested in Bible chronology to a deeper level. I personally know of no one, except maybe one brother, but I was a teenager at the time so I didn’t really pay much attention, but I know his library was full of history and scholastic books on the Bible and the Middle East. Thinking about it now, maybe the 10% is being generous; the real number might be nearer 1%. Chronology can't be everyone's hobby.  I don’t think this has anything to do with the level of intelligence of the friends but rather their focus. The average Witness just does not have the time to devote to researching this very involved subject. And most don’t have the desire. I wonder, how many have thoroughly read “When was ancient Jerusalem destroyed?”  part 1& 2 in the WT 11/10/1*  Probably a very few. And out of the very few, how many actually bothered to look up the references and do further research?  
I for one find it frustrating because I know I cannot contribute to this discussion in any meaningful way because I just do not have the time to acquire all the background knowledge I would need in order to do so. I mean, how many years did it take COJ to write his treatise? I can only do this in snippets of maybe an hour every other day, (if that) making notes and drawing diagrams. I know what it’s like to study a subject, but you have to be young free and single and living with your parents, or a guy and retired (women still have to cook and clean, generally).
So I think 607 will remain WT’s well hidden Achilles heel for a long while because of the majorities’ lack of interest, and those who might have interest; with work, taking care of family and all the theocratic activities, when would they find the time?
*  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011736
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011810

I don’t think trying to discredit 1914 is the reason. Not among serious Bible students and seekers of truth anyway. As for secular historians and scholars, logically, why would they be interested in discrediting 1914? Why should they care? I would think it’s only ex witnesses who would be happy to throw 1914 under the bus.
Personally, I have no interest in discrediting 1914, but I am interested in truth. Unfortunately, and this is the part that raises suspicions in my mind (regrettably), is that  607/1914 is going to remain an unverified subject, and because of that it will be accepted by most JWs without question. What I mean by that is how many JWs are in the position where they are able to investigate anything like this at more than a cursory level? Honestly? When someone starts to study the Bible with JWs and begins to investigate the Trinity, Hell fire, immortality of the soul etc. easy! But 607 is a whole different kettle of fish!
I would hazard a guess, and someone might have a better idea, but I think there can’t be more than 10% of JWs who are interested in Bible chronology to a deeper level. I personally know of no one, except maybe one brother, but I was a teenager at the time so I didn’t really pay much attention, but I know his library was full of history and scholastic books on the Bible and the Middle East. Thinking about it now, maybe the 10% is being generous; the real number might be nearer 1%. Chronology can't be everyone's hobby.  I don’t think this has anything to do with the level of intelligence of the friends but rather their focus. The average Witness just does not have the time to devote to researching this very involved subject. And most don’t have the desire. I wonder, how many have thoroughly read “When was ancient Jerusalem destroyed?”  part 1& 2 in the WT 11/10/1*  Probably a very few. And out of the very few, how many actually bothered to look up the references and do further research?  
I for one find it frustrating because I know I cannot contribute to this discussion in any meaningful way because I just do not have the time to acquire all the background knowledge I would need in order to do so. I mean, how many years did it take COJ to write his treatise? I can only do this in snippets of maybe an hour every other day, (if that) making notes and drawing diagrams. I know what it’s like to study a subject, but you have to be young free and single and living with your parents, or a guy and retired (women still have to cook and clean, generally).
So I think 607 will remain WT’s well hidden Achilles heel for a long while because of the majorities’ lack of interest, and those who might have interest; with work, taking care of family and all the theocratic activities, when would they find the time?
*  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011736
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011810

I don’t think trying to discredit 1914 is the reason. Not among serious Bible students and seekers of truth anyway. As for secular historians and scholars, logically, why would they be interested in discrediting 1914? Why should they care? I would think it’s only ex witnesses who would be happy to throw 1914 under the bus.
Personally, I have no interest in discrediting 1914, but I am interested in truth. Unfortunately, and this is the part that raises suspicions in my mind (regrettably), is that  607/1914 is going to remain an unverified subject, and because of that it will be accepted by most JWs without question. What I mean by that is how many JWs are in the position where they are able to investigate anything like this at more than a cursory level? Honestly? When someone starts to study the Bible with JWs and begins to investigate the Trinity, Hell fire, immortality of the soul etc. easy! But 607 is a whole different kettle of fish!
I would hazard a guess, and someone might have a better idea, but I think there can’t be more than 10% of JWs who are interested in Bible chronology to a deeper level. I personally know of no one, except maybe one brother, but I was a teenager at the time so I didn’t really pay much attention, but I know his library was full of history and scholastic books on the Bible and the Middle East. Thinking about it now, maybe the 10% is being generous; the real number might be nearer 1%. Chronology can't be everyone's hobby.  I don’t think this has anything to do with the level of intelligence of the friends but rather their focus. The average Witness just does not have the time to devote to researching this very involved subject. And most don’t have the desire. I wonder, how many have thoroughly read “When was ancient Jerusalem destroyed?”  part 1& 2 in the WT 11/10/1*  Probably a very few. And out of the very few, how many actually bothered to look up the references and do further research?  
I for one find it frustrating because I know I cannot contribute to this discussion in any meaningful way because I just do not have the time to acquire all the background knowledge I would need in order to do so. I mean, how many years did it take COJ to write his treatise? I can only do this in snippets of maybe an hour every other day, (if that) making notes and drawing diagrams. I know what it’s like to study a subject, but you have to be young free and single and living with your parents, or a guy and retired (women still have to cook and clean, generally).
So I think 607 will remain WT’s well hidden Achilles heel for a long while because of the majorities’ lack of interest, and those who might have interest; with work, taking care of family and all the theocratic activities, when would they find the time?
*  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011736
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011810

Definitely more women! Don't ask me why, you may not like the answer..

Who would these things be disturbing to?

More to the point:
https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/religious-institutions
Australian RC Final Report 2017 - Jehovahs Witnesses.pdf

Homeschooling the kids, we used to color in on a world map each year the various countries - with colors corresponding to penetration of the good news, as in 'publisher to general population' ratio. It was a fine way to teach both theocracy and geography
We used the rainbow. Red was the greatest concentration. Violet was stone cold. Alas, today it might all be misconstrued as the advancement of gay rights.