Anna

I had a study years ago with this jewish astrophysicist. It was interesting, but one interesting observation he made (he did become a brother) was that evil is predictable because evil shuns free will. The more evil, the more predictable. Also from other writings I've read (C. S. Lewis) evil is also parasitic. It doesn't create, but owes its existence to parasitism. An evil person (who am I to judge), but and evil act is the business of getting at "the good" the wrong way. Atheists want what faith provides, but can't have it because it requires a specific path - one they've shunned. "I am the way, the truth, the life - no one comes to the father except through me" Jesus said, and all the truly good things require obedience to and recognition of Jehovah and his rules, laws, purposes. He's teaching us to benefit who? Us all.

It's none of my business, but I'd encourage people to follow their bible trained consciences. Personally? I think not. How it's all going to go down, I don't know. Will it be a wipeout and restore operation? Does the scripture which says "those slain by Jehovah will be from one end of the earth to another" be that which Jehovah ALLOWED or CAUSED to be slain by some cosmic event which has been on it's way to this planet for thousands of years?
I think the overweening concern with judging others alive or dead or living at that time is out of place. What it really means is that the individual imagines either what some organization told him is going to happen is true and moral when it's neither true nor moral (and not at all what Jehovah is up to) , or they simply don't trust God to be a moral God.
If the latter is true, then we're all screwed. I don't think that's the case, however and I avoid the apparent joy and relish some have at contemplating the destruction of anyone. Certainly God has said he takes no delight in the death of the wicked. So we ought not either. In either case, you are right that some in the organization have said these things, but when you read the fine print there's always an asterisk * "*" - meaning we don't really know.

...I also discovered the power of stupid. Nothing gets an irate householder off your butt than pretending to be galactically stupid. I remember this big guy in a cowboy hat running down his driveway yelling at me saying "There's no soliciting here!". He stopped quick when I put on my dumb face (maybe it always looks dumb?) and said "...but you could still have the magazines if you want them..." He stopped up short...and you could see him realize and think "Why would I kick this dumb dog? It's only doing what it was trained to do..." He said more calmly "...no, I'm sorry that's OK."
 

I would say that God rejected Israel as a nation, but not as individuals. 
Why would he have Jerusalem destroyed in he did not reject it. It wasn't just the place destroyed but the people and the records of their inheritance. I'm sure I've read somewhere that after the destruction in 70C.E. none of the Jews could prove their birth line / family tree.  God replaced physical Israel with Spiritual Israel. 

It was an Apple, but with extremely limited memory. Just one byte and then everything crashed.

Yes, but Jesus fixed everything by making the Net work. 
(John 21:11) . . .And though there were so many, the net did not burst.
 

If anyone got through all that reading, they surely won't mind indulging me in a little story about a girl who had trouble sleeping, so she kept a "sleep diary" for a few months. I think that a few here will already understand it even before I begin:
It's 2021. Sally is grown now, about 40 years old, born in 1980, and had already moved out of her parents' house 10 years earlier. But her mother finds the diary while cleaning the basement, and reads a few of the entries:
Sally's Sleep Diary. Age 16.
Monday, January 8. Got up at 2 am. Cold. Saw one of those circular halos around the moon, a gray frosty circle through the skylight in kitchen. Cool. Monday, January 29. Woke up around 1:30 am with TV on. Must have fallen asleep during Super Bowl. Wanted to see Joe Montana. Wonder who won? Thursday, February 29. Went out for pizza in afternoon with Sarah. Got back before sundown at 5:30. Stomach bothered me until well after midnight. Lactose intolerance? Friday, March 15. Raccoons rustling in garbage kept me awake. Looked out the south window with flashlight and one looked very sick. Might have rabies. Tuesday, July 30. Got up well before sunrise today. The moon was full and bright through my east-facing window. Wednesday, July 31. Slept in late this morning, rained all day, sun didn't come out until 7:30pm. Saw a very spectacular rainbow out my east window, just before sunset. Glad I didn't go to bed early. Thursday, Sept 4. Couldn't sleep. Rain pounded the skylight loudly and the street drain must have clogged. Because water was  several inches at the sidewalk and even came halfway up the driveway. The mother shows the father, and says:
"Oh look at this dear. I found Sally's diary from when she was only 16. Let's see. What year was that? She was born in 1980, so that must have been 1996."
But the husband says:
"Now just wait a minute, dear. You are too trusting, too naive. We have 4 daughters, remember. We know that Sally was the one who had sleep problems, and she was the one with lactose intolerance, and she was our only daughter in the southeast bedroom with those two windows, and she was the only one who had a friend named Sarah, and she did kind of have a crush on Joe Montana. Why? I'll never know. But this diary might still be a product of deceit. Who says that this is really even about Sally? One of our other daughters could have been faking the name because they didn't want to use their own name for some reason, and wanted you to find this 20 years later. Besides, everyone knows that Super Bowls are on Sunday not Monday. And Sally didn't know that much about football, so it might have been a playoff game or some other game that Joe Montana was in. Let me look into this and try to see if it might be a fake."
Two days later, the husband has the "proof" that this is a fake diary:
OK, dear. Now I know that it must be fake.
When a TV is on just after midnight, most people see this as the date the TV was left on, Sunday, not Monday. Even TV Guide lists late night TV under Sunday night, even though the diary is technically right that it was Monday because it's after midnight. On February 29, the sun went down at 5:45, not 5:30 as she stated in the diary. That mistake makes me suspicious, too. The moon was not full until July 31, and she says it was full on July 30. I looked it up. So why would she say she saw the full moon? And the final proof is that she said "Thursday, September 4," and September 4th was a Wednesday, not a Thursday. All the others are right for 1996 but this mistake shows it wasn't really written in 1996. So I looked into it, and the most recent THURSDAY, September 4th was not in 1995, or 1994, or 1993, or 1992. It was in 1991. So this diary might be hers, but it MUST have been written in 1991, when she was only 11 years old. The wife replies:
"But wait, dear. . . .
1991 was not a leap year with a February 29th. And Joe Montana was out for the 1991 season with a bad arm. And she probably wrote that entry about the Super Bowl on Monday morning, like she says. Joe Montana was in the Super Bowl the night before. And she said she got home before sundown at 5:30, not at sundown at 5:45pm. And the difference between the full moon on July 30 and the full moon on July 31st is negligible. And a lot of people accidentally write down the wrong day of the week, especially in the summer when they are not on a weekly school schedule -- you've done it yourself." And besides, there are 30 entries, these are just the first 5, and there are no problems at all with any of the others. And if she was only 11, why would she call it "Sally's Sleep Diary. Age 16" ??? Husband:
Who are you to question your husband? You charlatan!!! You Devil-influenced apostate!!!

"the OLD guy"?     😉

I half expect the curtain torn away to reveal you controlling their marionette strings like the old guy running the Oz wizard.

Finally we get into discussion of the deep questions of life.
One verse I will never apply to JWI is that of the lazy man turning on his bed like a door on its hinge.

Just out of curiosity... do you already have time to sleep? Sometimes I wonder if you are not an alien.
Well, now seriously, I just wanted to tell you that all this information is appreciated. It is sure to be valuable to some. Frankly, I don't understand practically anything. It happens to me like when I go to a museum and see a beautiful painting, I don't have the ability to paint it, but I recognize the merit of whoever did it.

Mansikka next goes on to discuss (in a few sentences) the reign of Pul and Tiglath-Pileser as it relates to King Menahem of Israel.
King Pul of Assyria
When the year 809 BC was applied Ashur-Dan III’s reign, it also paved the way for a new interpretation of the reigns of the Assyrian kings in the 7th century BC. The history of Israel tells of this activity of Pul, the king of Assyria in question:
“King Pul of Assyria came to the land, and Menahem gave Pul 1000 talents of silver. . . . And Menahem gathered silver out of Israel. . . and gave it to the king of Assyria.”4
Assyriologists have found confirmations for this event. Tiglath-Pileser III boasts of inheriting taxes from King Menahem of Israel. However, according to biblical chronology, Menaheim's reign ended as early as 780 BC. about. The 18-year reign – 12 – of Tiglath-Pileser III did not go so far back in time. Thus, this paved the way - in the early stages of the study in the winter of 2017 - for the reign of King Pul, or Pulu, of the Assyrian, which lasted about 18 years before the reign of Tiglat-Pileser III began.
This is just another reflection of Mansikka trying to improve on the more flexible admission of the INSIGHT book:
*** INSIGHT-2 p. 1102 Tiglath-pileser (III) ***
In ancient Assyrian records Tiglath-pileser III is assigned a reign of 18 years. Biblical references, however, seem to indicate that his kingship was of longer duration, inasmuch as references to him appear from the time of Menahem down to that of Hoshea. But the Hebrew Scriptures do not set forth all the details needed for one to state positively that the Assyrian records are in error in this case. This is so for several reasons: There is some uncertainty regarding the manner in which the reigns of the Israelite kings are to be fitted into a chronological framework. It is also worth noting that the period prior to the time generally assigned for the start of Tiglath-pileser’s reign is one of relative obscurity as far as the ancient records are concerned and is considered to have been a time of great decline for the Assyrians.
However, to accomplish this Mansikka apparently has to separate the reign of Pul from Tiglath-Pileser III, where INSIGHT would say:
*** INSIGHT-2 p. 1101 Tiglath-pileser (III) ***
During the reign of King Menahem of Israel (c. 790-781 B.C.E.), Tiglath-pileser III (Pul) advanced into Palestine, and Menahem sought the Assyrian’s favor by paying him tribute to the amount of “a thousand talents of silver” ($6,606,000 in current values).
Thus, Mansikka would double the 18-year reign of Tiglath-Pileser (archaeological dates: 745 to 727) by adding a twin 18-year reign of Pul, thus supposedly adding 20 years the WTS needs, plus another 18 years for Pul, so that 745+18+20=784 BCE to reach the WTS date range for Menahem.
Mansikka doesn't admit the circular reasoning going on here. So when he says, the 18-year reign did not go so far back in time "according to Biblical chronology" he doesn't mean that the "Bible" has anything to do with this. It just means that the WTS placed it farther back in time, and the extra 20 years that the WTS not only conflicts with Neo-Babylonian chronology, it also conflicts with Assyrian chronology.
Instead of admitting that this actually is further evidence against the "wishful thinking" chronology of the WTS, Mansikka takes the WTS position and assumes that all other chronologies must be off. Like the little drummer boy who marches to the beat of his own drum and assumes it was everyone else in the band who were wrong.
Of course, marching to the beat of your own drum produces ridicule by experts, and this feeds directly into the us/them psychology, or even persecution psychology, that some Witnesses thrive on. Like a good conspiracy theory, it's the very lack of evidence that is therefore turned into perceived "evidence." The ridicule over our belief without evidence (faith) supposedly makes us right, like a small David standing before a Goliath of evidence. We believe we must be right if the so-called experts all say something else. This is turned into a "Bible vs secular" argument, which some will turn into a "Jehovah vs Satan" argument. In reality it's nothing more than the "WTS vs Bible&archaeology." Ultimately, the WTS is accepted over the Bible&archaeology because . . . well, because FDS & 1914!

It took awhile & massive extra writing of which I may use just 2 or 3 paragraphs, but the mess that was Chapter 7 (Education) is falling into place. Plus, it does not appear that Chapter 8 will need much more than a light touch to begin with. 

OMG! What a mess Chapter 7 (Education) is. Good for maybe the first 10 paragraphs, then it veers everywhere, with waaaayyyy too much snark punctuating the solid material. I’m not sure any snark belongs there at all. Major overhaul ahead.

JWI: Two questions. Does this heady stuff of yours offer me any way to slam God’s organization without doing any work? If so, how?

If you really think it was sound research that brought him to develop his list of Neo-Babylonian kings that you posted, you should be able to let us know how he reached this conclusion. Or you could answer Srecko's question:
Well. as it turns out, I sent Mansikka a link to this forum, and he has already visited and noticed that the "sound research" that @César Chávez provided was "valid" only up until shortly after December 2019. This means that his book that I was quoting from in response to Cesar was also only "valid" up until shortly after December 2019.
Mansikka linked me to the updated information which is found in his Nebuchadnezzar V book. Here's the link again: https://www.pm-netti.com/free/nebuchadnezzar-v.pdf
It's a book of 39 small pages, and I had read only up until page 18 before skimming the rest and missing a critical piece of information on page 20 and on page 39.
He now rejects the idea that the extra 20 years should be tacked onto the end of the reign of Nabonidus. He now would put his new king list in this order:

 

In other words, you admit to committing the logical blooper of ad reversum fallacy. 
For once, I have high praise for Bart Ehrman, who says that if you know a Latin expression and also a perfectly fine English expression that means the same thing, always use the Latin, so people will know you are educated.

I think he gave enough information if you have followed TTH's interest in the "Teaching Company Great Courses." I have the same lectures on my hard drive.

Notwithstanding quirks as Michael Shermer’s forsaking his own ad hominem attack ban to indicate by voice intonation that those who oppose him are nuts, I overall appreciated very much his Skepticism 101: How to Think like a Scientist. I learned a lot as to how they think and I came to find I agreed with Shermer in many things. Alas, skepticism, when it becomes a movement, is like all new trends of the world. What might work if it was to try to integrate itself into the overall pattern rather than take over fails when in opts for the later goal. Overall, a measure of skepticism is a good thing. But it is also covered by verses such as ‘does not the palate test out words?’ ‘a fool believes every word, but the wise one considers his steps,’ and so forth.
When skepticism imagines itself the be-all and end-all, then what could be beneficial becomes a way to stifle discovery. It throws the baby out with the bathwater in its presumption to be THE answer to life. 
It reminds me of my friend Bud, who fixed many a clunker for me back in the day. An old-school mechanic, he was disdainful of the then newfangled electronic diagnosis methods. He told me of the younger guys of the shop stymied when such methods told them there was nothing wrong with a certain car. “Well,there must be something wrong with it,” he said, “It doesn’t run.”
Shermer’s lecture of evolution vs creationism was fascinating as it laid out four distinct battles (in the U.S) of the “war:” the Scopes trial of 1925, the later battle that Genesis be given equal time with evolution, the next battle to declare creation a science, and give it equal time on that basis, and finally the stage of “intelligent creation,” which makes no mention of religion at all (but whose proponents almost always believe in the God of Abraham, Shermer says, no doubt in violation of another one of his rules of thinking that one’s religion is relevant to the merits of whatever ideas he brings to the table). I agree with Shermer that “creation science” is not science, and said it here on JWI’s 607 thread:
“It’s not, and we shouldn’t argue that it is. That does not mean that it is not reasonable. It is eminently reasonable, and the fact that science has not endorsed it says more about the limitations of science than it does about creation. Furthermore, whatever Shermer may do in his private capacity, in his public capacity as Great Courses lecturer, he acknowledges that there are some places that science is not equipped to go, and therefore he passes no judgment on those places. What we should be arguing is not that our beliefs are scientific, but that science is a flawed system for measuring existence. In some areas it works pretty well; in others it comes up empty handed. When it attempts to encroach on what Shermer says it is not equipped to encroach, it becomes an overall obstacle to gaining insight and @Araunais right—it becomes a false god and those who follow it where it has no authority become it’s “clergy.”
Shermer’s contention that creation science is not science, upheld by the U.S Supreme Court in 1987, gives me renewed respect and some insight into the reasoning of the WTS, who at least since that time have not said that it is. Instead, we have become accustomed to reading such things as “the Bible is not a book of science, but it is in harmony with true science.” Materialists will choke at this phrasing, for they assume that ALL science is true, and if it is not there is no other way to correct the problem than a further advance of science. But the WT’s phrasing is in accord with the truth that not everything is examined physically; some things are examined spiritually, and when science encroaches on that field where it has but clumsy and inapplicable tools, it is apt to come up with something other than “true science.”
I’ve previously coined a category of materialists with the acronym SPCA—“science/philosophers/cheerleader/atheists.” These are not the same as scientists though there is overlap. Scientists just go about doing science. Michael Shermer acknowledges that many scientists believe in God, no doubt because they sense there are limitations to science. But SPCAs assume human science is all there is and ram it down everyone’s throat as the be-all and end-all.
It is also worth noting that the Bible never speaks of proving faith in a scientific way. Instead it speaks of “taste and see that Jehovah is good.” Can you really prove that something tastes good? Plainly it is subjective. It will appeal to some hearts and not others.

What are the names of this Witness and forum?

An author from Finland named Pekka Mansikka has written several books and papers which, among other things, look to adjust the secular chronology to fit the Watchtower's chronology. For those who don't know, the Watchtower's chronology requires an extra 20 years of time somewhere between Nebuchadnezzar's reign and the beginning of the reign of Cyrus. This has the effect of pushing back any archaeological date in Nebuchadnezzar's reign by 20 years.
In fact, it affects dates going back much further than that, so that:
if one reads that the Battle of Carchemish happened on the archaeological date of 605 BCE, the WTS date will be 605+20=625 BCE if the Battle of Harran happened in 609 using archaeological dates, then the WTS date will be 609+20=629 BCE if one reads that the fall of Nineveh was in 612 using archaeological dates, then the WTS date will be 612+20=632 BCE The same thing continues to occur even farther back into the Assyrian empire and the Israelite and Judean kings. Although several other factors were involved here, I think it's not a complete coincidence that Bishop Ussher famously put Adam's creation in 4004 BCE, and the Watchtower currently has this at 4026 BCE, a 22-year difference.
Fortunately, Pekka Mansikka has give his permission to discuss any and all parts of any of his works here on this forum:
Several of his works can be found online, or for purchase at very modest costs on Kindle. A good portion of the Kindle books are available for free preview, and most of the content of these books is also available on academia.edu.
Here are some links to his material:
https://independentresearcher.academia.edu/PekkaMansikka
See all 18 items at that link. Sometimes it's only the Table of Contents that shows up here.
 
50 to 70 pages of his primary book are available in free preview here:
New Chronology Using Solar Eclipses
He also offered the following links, two of which are e-books:
https://www.pm-netti.com/lookout-ancient-eclipses
https://www.pm-netti.com/kirjat/PM-Tiedekirjat/nebuchadnezzarv
https://journal.pm-netti.com/
Most sources for his own reference material can also be found online for free, or free with limits. You can find links in his own work to many sites.
 
The most interesting topics he covers are:
The reign of Nabonidus. He is brave enough to actually try to show exactly where the 20 missing years should be found. VAT 4596. A proposition to synchronize Neo-Babylonian chronology with Egyptian chronology.  

Lol - that is my turf.  My eyes are so bad I cannot do the research like I used to..... I write from memory alone.

‪I estimated a word reduction of Chapter 6 (Statecraft) of 50%. In fact it is even more, 52%, 11400 words is reduced to 5460. Far too rambling previously. Tightening it up. 

I would never kick you out. Not just because I don't have that ability, but because I think your posts are some of the most revealing. You probably don't even realize how much they help people realize the  of the depths of dishonesty that even a Witness will stoop to, in order to try to defend the WTS chronology here. Your writing is one of the strongest evidences against the WTS chronology for those who may not have the time to consider the facts and evidence.
Also, if you look, you will see that the post I moved was only because Arauna wrote up a very good defense of creation and against AlanF, who was trying to make a big deal out of a typo again. Just click on the link and go to page 7 or 8, and you'll see why the posts were moved. https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88407-creation-evolution-creative-days-age-of-the-earth-humanoid-fossils-great-flood/page/7
"Ignorant French"?? Are your prejudices showing?
Goodness! I don't know what he did with them. Did you know that Rutherford thought that people were Satanic if they didn't agree with him about 1925? Calling someone Satanic is simply the ultimate ad hominem. It's usually good evidence that there is something wrong with the thing you are trying to defend. Especially if the only other defense is gibberish.

I changed my mind about creating a table of the Jon/Cameron comments and then commenting on various portions. It seemed that it was just a repetition of what we have already gone over, and are still going over elsewhere.
Although this is mostly true, I think a lot of Witnesses don't realize that almost all Bible commentators and scholars count 70 years back from around 537 (plus or minus two years) and end up believing that 607 BCE is acceptable (plus or minus two years). Because of the "controversy" a lot of Witnesses might believe that this general time period for the 70 years is being disputed by ex-Witnesses like AlanF, Ann O'maly, COJ and others. People some might think that Witnesses like Gertoux are disputing the 70 years during this general time period. For myself, I have mentioned that I think that 607 BCE to 537 BCE is just fine for the period of 70 years (plus or minus a couple of years).
Even AlanF believes that the 70 years is within a couple of years of 607 to 537. (Specifically, from 609 to 539).
The reason so many Bible commentators use 539 back to 609 is because this is a 70-year period with actual, definable, and dateable events at each end.
So there is nothing so far off about the date 607 BCE for the beginning of the 70 years. It implies that the actual end date of the 70 years was 537, and although this would only be 2 years off the most Biblically acceptable date, it implies that the Israelites were still serving Babylon even after Babylon was destroyed. But the sense is not impossible in my opinion, because most of the exiles were still in exile in Babylon until Cyrus probably decreed they could go home in the first month of 538. (Arauna has often insisted that the decree MUST have happened in the first month of 538 at the New Year's Akitu festival. This would mean that they were back by the seventh month of 538 (c. October 538) which is actually only a couple months from January 537.)
 
Of course, the Watchtower publications, although they once used 606 to 536 for these dates, do not allow for an adjustment even by a month. Since Jerusalem was destroyed in the summer, it must be October 607 for the start, and since we claim (without any evidence) that Cyrus waited until months after the beginning of the year to make the decree, and therefore NOT at the festival of Akitu and 538, that it must have been the following year 537 in the 7th month (Tishri/October) when the Jews returned. (And we count back a few more months to give them time to prepare and travel, putting the decree as likely in the first month of 537, not 538.)
Here's how INSIGHT puts it:
*** it-1 p. 568 Cyrus ***
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.
I think a lot of Witnesses don't realize what INSIGHT means by "In view of the Bible record . . ." It has nothing to do with anything written in the Bible about Cyrus or the exile or the return. It means, basically: "In view of our interpretation of Jesus' words in Matthew 24 and Luke 21, Cyrus must have made the decree late enough after the beginning of 538 so that they could not have resettled in 538, otherwise WWI and our interpretation of 1914 would not quite fit, and the "parousia" would have started in 1913."  I'm not kidding in the least about that. Those words are about our interpretation of 1914 and nothing else.
And of course the big difference between any scholars who might start the 70 years in 609/608 and the Watchtower publications is that the Watchtower says that 609/8 is when the siege on Jerusalem began, resulting in it's final destruction in 607. That's Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. The other scholars and Bible commentators indicate that the archaeological date of 609 is 4 years before Nebuchadnezzar even began his first accession year after his father died, but that it was marked by the Battle of Harran in 609 BCE, not the destruction of Jerusalem which happened about 22 years later. So the Watchtower chronology says 607 is Jerusalem's destruction 18 or 19 years into Nebuchadnezzar's reign, and the archaeologically-supported chronology says 607 is near the end of Nebuchadnezzar's father's reign, more than 20 years different.
Saying that Babylon began dominating the region for 70 years fits the Bible's account, but the Watchtower publications would like an easier explanation of Daniel 4, which requires a different event in 609/608/607. The ending of the Davidic/Messianic kingdom makes for a better event, so the destruction of Jerusalem is arbitrarily changed from 657 to 607. Other commentators note that the death of the last good king Josiah in 609 (archaeological time not Watchtower time) makes for a pretty good demarcation of the 70 years with respect to Judea and Jerusalem. A commentary by Albertz considers the start of the reign Jehoiakim to be the reason that the Chronicler begins discussions of deportations (exiles) in the reign of Jehoiakim which would have started in 609/8 after the death of his father Josiah.
If the Watchtower wanted to save 607 (plus or minus a couple of years), and if they decided to begin using archaeological evidenced chronology instead of arbitrary Watchtower chronology, it could be done with this verse:
(2 Kings 24:1, 2) . . .In Je·hoiʹa·kim’s days King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came against him, and Je·hoiʹa·kim became his servant for three years. However, he turned against him and rebelled. 2 Then Jehovah began to send against him marauder bands of Chal·deʹans, Syrians, Moʹab·ites, and Amʹmon·ites. He kept sending them against Judah to destroy it, according to Jehovah’s word that he had spoken through his servants the prophets.