Watchtower's 1914 Chronology - Ad Nauseum

[JW Insider]

On 6/18/2024 at 12:47 AM, BTK59 said:

I mentioned Adam Rutherford to expose the falsehoods that you and COJ persistently propagate regarding the Babylonian chronicles. 

You say you brought up Adam Rutherford to expose falsehoods that I and COJ persistently propagate regarding the Babylonian Chronicles. This makes no sense to me, because I am in perfect agreement with what Adam Rutherford says about these Chronicles. I think COJ would also be in agreement. His understanding of the Chronicles appears just fine, and it adds nothing new to what other specialists have said about them. It's not the Chronicles, but his need to ignore the completely separate astronomy data that I have a problem with. To match his interpretation of the 70 years and his special interpretation regarding "sabbaths" etc., he finds a need to work around and even dismiss the astronomy data so that he can use dates that are two years different from all the astronomy evidence. 

On 6/18/2024 at 12:47 AM, BTK59 said:

It is clear you lack compjrehension skills. It's obvserious you haven't read Adam rutherfords volume three in its proper context. You just want to mamipulate words to comeo ut ahead, your just a loser that can't being wrong.

I don't know in what other context I'm supposed to read it. I found another work that heavily references both Adam Rutherford's book on Bible Chronology and also compares the points it makes with other scholarly resources. Turns out that this author comprehended it exactly as I had, and he highlights the exact differences I made note of. I had not seen this work until AFTER I had looked through most of Adam Rutherford's Pyramidology, Volume III, when you introduced it here. I have not yet found anyone who has explained Adam Rutherford's work any differently from the way I comprehend it -- and so far that includes you, too. You have also not shown any specific places or ways where I should comprehend it differently. 

The other work discussing Adam Rutherford's theories is 140 pages (pdf) and it's found here:

https://2043ad.com/timeandprophecy.pdf

It has an extensive bibliography which includes several names you are obviously familiar with. I have skipped most of them, but these were the most recognizable and often mentined on this forum:

• Barbour-Russell, The Three Worlds, Harvest Gleanings I, 1877, Chic . Bible Stud . Bk . Repub . Com ., ca . 1980
• BSM = Bible Study Monthly, “Darius the Mede,” September/October 1980
• Edgar, John and Morton, Great Pyramid Passages, Volume 2, Glasgow, 1913 Encyclopedia Judaica, McMillan & Co ., New York, 1971
• Froom, Leroy Edwin, The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers, Four Volumes, Review and Herald, 1948 edition
• Grayson, A . K ., Texts from Cuneiform Sources, Volume V, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles,  J . J . Augustin Publisher, 1975
• Jewish Encyclopedia, New York, Funk & Wagnalls, 1901
• Jonsson, Carl Olof, The Gentile Times Reconsidered, Commentary Press Atlanta, 1986
• Jonsson, Carl Olof, Supplement (to above), Odeon Books (PO Box 2071, Danville, CA 94526), 1989
• Josephus, Flavius (trans . William Whiston), Josephus Complete Works, Kregel Publications, 1978
• Keil, C . F . & Delitzsch, F ., Commentary on the Old Testament, 10 Volumes, William B . Eerdmans, reprinted 1985
• McClintock & Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, 1871, Baker 1969
• McFall, Leslie, “Did Thiele Overlook Hezekiah’s Coregency?,” Bibliotheca Sacra, October-December 1989,  393-404
• Miller, William, Evidence from Scripture and History of the Second Coming of Christ About the Year 1843, published by Joshua Himes, 1842 . Republished 1979, Leaves-of-Autumn Books, Box 440, Payson, AZ 85541
• Newton, Robert R ., The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1977
• Parker, R . A . and Dubberstein, W . H ., Babylonian Chronology 626 bc - 75 ad, Brown University Press, 1956 Parker, R . A ., “The Lunar Dates of Thutmose III and Ramesses II,” JNES 16, 39-43, 1957
• Pritchard, James B ., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd edition, Princeton, 1969
• Ptolemy, Almagest, Britannica Great Books, Volume 16, 1952 Rogers, Robert William, Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament, 2nd edition, The Abingdon Press, 1926
• Russell, Charles Taze B = The Time is at Hand, 1889 C = Thy Kingdom Come, 1890 R = Zion’s Watch Tower, 1879-1916, Reprinted Rutherford, Adam, Bible Chronology, London, 1957 
• Sachs, A . J . and Hunger, H ., Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia, Volume 1,  Diaries from 652 bc to 262 bc (Vienna, Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1988)
• Thiele, Edwin R ., The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, Eerdmans Publishing, revised edition, 1965
• Wiseman, Donald J ., Chronicles of Chaldean Kings (626 - 556 bc) in the British Museum, published by  The Trustees of the British Museum, London, 1961

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

The other work discussing Adam Rutherford's theories is 140 pages (pdf) and it's found here:

https://2043ad.com/timeandprophecy.pdf

Here are some of the excerpts I found most interesting:

Page 119 endnotes [Rutherford is quoted extensively by this author] 

13. A small adjustment to this date was proposed by Bro. Adam Rutherford, whose devoted labors in this field are familiar to many brethren. He believed there should be a two-year shift in all the dates of the Neo-Babylonian empire, so that the fall of Babylon occurred in 537 bc. By this means he was able to mark the beginning of Babylon’s 70 years at 607 bc, and thus end the Gentile Times at 1914, without disputing the historical testimony about the span of years between Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus. (For his interesting and thorough discussion see Rutherford, 25-67 .) However, these points should be noted regarding his presentation. (1) The observation that “no astronomical fixing has as yet been possible from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar to Cyrus inclusive” (526) is controverted by VAT 4956 which astronomically dates the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar to 568 bc . (2) His suggestion of a two-year stagger between Cyrus and his son Cambyses (535) is disputed by the 18-year eclipse cycle tablets which span the period from Nabopolassar through Artaxerxes, and the evidence of over 1400 commercial tablets published in list form in the late 1980s which cover the reigns of Cyrus and Cambyses . The latter was published after Rutherford’s death, and he may have been unaware of the former. 

...

He remarks on the Adda-Guppi Stele to support a two-year stagger in linking Assyrian history with Babylonian (540-544) . This tablet recites the long life of Adda-Guppi, who was the mother of Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon . It says she was born in the 20th year of Ashurbanipal (Assyrian king), and lived through his 42nd year, then 3 years of the reign of Ashur-etil-ilani (Assyrian king), 21 years of Nabopolassar (Babylonian king), 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar (Babylonian king), 2 years of Amel-Marduk (Babylonian king), 4 years of Neriglissar (Babylonian king), and to the ascension of her son Nabonidus to the throne of Babylon . The age given her in the tablet at that time is 95 years . Indeed, 22 + 3 + 21 + 43 + 2 + 4 = 95 years . Yet conventional history assigns to this span 93 years . The answer? Evidently Adda-Guppi moved from the jurisdiction of the Assyrian kings to the jurisdiction of the Babylonian kings when she was 25 years old, during the 3rd year of the reign of Ashur-etil-ilani . This neither requires that he died in his third year (in fact there is a tablet from his fourth year, see Jonsson 210, note 63), nor that she moved in the accession year of Nabopolassar (conventional history implies she made the move in his second year) . 

Page 122 has another of several examples where Adam Rutherford's scholarship sometimes contains dubious assumptions:

Rutherford also holds that the Egyptian sojourn was precisely four hundred years, but his arguments involve two other conclusions: (1) Jacob took three years to journey from Padan-Aram to Canaan, (2) ten years after crossing Jordan Joshua divided the land in a fuller way than Joshua 10:14 refers to. The first is required for his argument, the second is supplementary, but both points are dubious . (Rutherford, 139-150)

Page 135, another example:

Rutherford also reckons Tishri years for Judah, and he also does not assign Jehoiakim an accession year, which he surmises may have been because Jehoiakim came to the throne so close to (even though after) the start of Tishri (Rutherford, 29) . His chart seems to obscure the 12th year problem, which nevertheless exists (Rutherford, 321) . Further, he concludes that Daniel 1:1 also uses the  non-accession year system for Jehoiakim, and therefore adopts the unique but untenable position that the first conquest of Jerusalem preceded the battle of Carchemish . That three such thoughtful reviewers differed slightly on such details hints at the complexity of harmonizing all the data . If the Babylonian Chronicles for the year Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem from Zedekiah were extant, giving the Babylonian month and year for that event, these technicalities would be resolved immediately . But there is a resolution which brings harmony to all the details: (1) all writers used Tishri years for Judah, (2) Kings and Chronicles allow an accession year for Jehoiakim, and so correctly assign him 11 years, (3) Jeremiah uses the non-accession year system for both Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, but never stipulates the length of Jehoiakim’s reign, which would have been 12 

I have not read Jonsson's (COJ's) Supplement to GTR, but note that the author treats it as a carefully documented work of scholarship that can even be used to correct the scholarship of other resources:

117. Listed in Johnson, Supplement, 56 . He cites Ben Zion Wacholder, “The Calendar of Sabbatical Cycles During the Second Temple and the Eary Rabbinic Period,” Hebrew Union College Annual, Volume XLIV, ed . Sheldon H . Blank (1973), page 184 . Evidently this article is also published in “Essays on Jewish Chronology and Chronography,” KTAV Publishing House, New York, 1976 . I have not read Wacholder’s article, but my preliminary investigation is consistent with his sabbatical list . Rutherford also gives dates, but they are one year earlier: 164 bc, 38 bc, 68 ad (Rutherford, 36-37) 

I get the impression that Jonsson (COJ) may have been well aware of Adam Rutherford's writings.

[TrueTomHarley]

On 6/18/2024 at 10:56 PM, BTK59 said:

This is a profound expression of Christian love, as it serves to protect the purity of the congregation by preventing the influence and corruption of dissenters.

You realize, of course, that no one facilitates and  magnifies this ‘corruption’ more than you.

It is rather like a hot potato on a shelf that everyone tiptoes around, and in time it will cool. Then Allan/BTK/George/Alphonse etc says, “HEY, LOOK AT THIS POTATO! LET’S PUT IT IN THE MICROWAVE AND HEAT IT UP!”

[JW Insider]

35 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Then Allan/BTK/George/Alphonse etc says, “HEY, LOOK AT THIS POTATO! LET’S PUT IT IN THE MICROWAVE AND HEAT IT UP!”

I’m cool with that!

[BTK59]

20 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I know that several people have considered the possibility that your many accounts represent an embittered Witness or ex-Witness who asserts himself here because he has lost privileges in the congregation. It is difficult to imagine a person so nasty, divisive, judgmental, haughty and presumptuous being allowed to represent Jehovah's Witnesses in any public capacity

This is nothing but your and Tom's falsehood, isn't it? However, you are nobody. Your ignorance is evident once again, as you continue to be unpleasant, divisive, and judgmental towards the Elders, the Governing Body, and the Watchtower as a whole. What position does it leave you in before God, being a false witness?

20 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I sincerely and honestly believe that the Watchtower will someday adjust their traditional chronology to align with the Biblical and archaeological evidence. If and when that happens, I'm sure you will begin fighting just as adamantly for the Biblical and archaeological evidence instead of arguing against it as you do now. 

If you don't like it, simply leave. They won't alter facts to please individuals like you.

20 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Also, as a reminder: I am not asking anyone to believe as I believe. I am merely honestly and sincerely expressing my own belief with full knowledge that it differs from the traditional WTS teachings about chronology. In doing so, I will continue to honestly explain why the evidence leads me to hold these beliefs.

You have consistently perpetuated falsehoods for a decade, and individuals such as "comformypeople" continue to support these lies out of ignorance. Even your current statement is deceitful. Speaking the truth and presenting evidence is not an act of hostility. Calling you a liar, suggesting that you are an apostate posing as a witness, and using biblical terms such as ignorance and foolishness are not acts of hostility.

If Tom uses profanity, and you acknowledge it, that indicates compliance and a lack of respect, especially when you support derogatory comments like you did with Xero. You are the one in the wrong, especially in the eyes of God.

20 hours ago, JW Insider said:

So far, in every case where you have responded to the evidence presented, you have simply made empty attacks without addressing that evidence. This does not mean I am right in my beliefs, because someone else may come along with actual evidence to counter it. There are a few times when you have included items you apparently believe have constituted "evidence." I have most often ignored it, hoping no one is confused by it, and in the hopes that those who read your "evidence" will recognize that it has never addressed the evidence presented. Very often your supposed "counter evidence" actually provides excellent support for the evidence I have already presented. Obviously this isn't your intent, but I know that others have also noticed when this happens. 

Although you may believe that, your refusal to acknowledge facts and your utilization of distorted interpretations to perpetuate falsehoods render you untrustworthy. I will demonstrate this to the public, allowing them to make an informed judgment based on verifiable truths rather than your deceitful claims.

Your perception seems to be clouded by an inability to see the truth, rather than interpreting things as being nasty.

20 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Sometimes I get the feeling that you might honestly believe that when you create an empty attack on someone that you have actually said something meaningful. You might honestly believe that you have made a point. All of your posts contain attacks, but they are empty because they don't address any actual points. 

You are mistaken. It's not I who has mental issues, it's you. Your personal judgments of me are irrelevant. What you perceive as an attack is simply telling the truth. That conclusion is yours, not mine.

Do you rely on "Pudgy" to fight your battles with sheer nastiness because you keep losing your arguments? Is that what's bothering you?

21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But there are also people -- I've seen them respond -- who don't actually care to look into the details of the evidence for themselves. Some of these ones are quite happy that you have supposedly stood up to someone who disagrees with the WTS chronology traditions. There aren't many of these persons remaining here who will support your attacks, but some have probably assumed that your responses are valid just because they seem to support the WTS. That's always been enough for most of us (myself included for many years) to at least see that there is "controversy" which leaves room for "doubt" and for which it's easiest and best to err on the side of the WTS. At least that's a somewhat honest response for those who don't care to look into the details for themselves. 

There are very few people like you in the organization. However, I am constantly receiving emails speculating about your disfellowshipment, if it hasn't already happened. It seems that you are using this platform to create conflict, division, and discord among God's people, much like an apostate. At least they comprehend.

21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If I get time, I wll address some of the ideas you have presented from Adam Rutherford and other sources, and other ideas you have made about Assyrian, Egyptian and Babylonian military campaigns, and the order of various events, etc. But you should know that none of these ideas address even one bit of the Biblical and archaeological evidence. In fact, I have left them alone because they often very directly contradict the Biblical evidence itself, and I just hoped people would notice that without me pointing it out. 

I am confident that you will manipulate the information to suit your agenda, but what I have said still stands – the public can delve into the book series and form their own opinions, rather than relying on misleading descriptions of others' work. I will caution the public against your tendency to misrepresent information, as you often do with Watchtower publications by taking things out of context.

[BTK59]

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

ou say that the "major distortion here is the belief of 539 BC rather than what Pastor Russell and His own Bible Students thought the 70 years ended in 536 BC." I have pointed this very fact out many times before. You were too focused on the actual BCE year, and not the Biblical evidence I was pointing out. Russell thought that Babylon was captured in October 537 and that the decree to release the Jews was made at the beginning of the first year of Cyrus, which would have been 536. Russell had the relative chronology correct and in line with the Biblical evidence. The only thing he had wrong is being off by two years with the "absolute" date of 539 BCE. The WTS has since corrected the absolute date, but now needed TWO years instead of ONE to reach 537 so that they can count back 70 years to 607. Otherwise 1914 would still be off by one year. 

The distortion that you observed is actually an antidote to your tendency of fixating on a specific, less relevant date – in this case, 539 BC.

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

So you provide no evidence that I was incorrect, only evidence that I was correct, and then you use it to attack with the long ad hominem just requoted above. Considering your typical and repeated problem with "projection," you might have been concerned that all those attacks on someone else may have reflected more correctly on yourself.

Firstly, let's put an end to this absurd discussion about the so-called "ad hominem" nonsense. It is important to acknowledge that both parties are guilty of this behavior, so it's time to move on from it. Secondly, it is clear that you are the one distorting words and attempting to portray yourself as a victim. However, people have already caught onto your tactics, and they are not as effective as you may think.

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I noticed something else in the actual quote you provided that gives further evidence to the point I made previously that the WTS found it necessary to change the definition of "Gentile Times" after the expectations for 1914 failed. You quoted Russell as saying: "The period ends with the overthrow of the Gentile nations, which will occur at the end of the forty year harvest period, at the close of the present Gospel Age. Gentile times began then with . . . "

It seems clear that the "gentile times" persist as they always have. What specific failure are you alluding to? Also, it's noticeable that you often interject your own opinions alongside shared articles to create a certain effect, potentially as a distortion tactic. Please be more precise about the sources of your quotes.

It seems to me that Russell's prophecy was fulfilled with the liberation of the Jews in Palestine and the beginning of World War 1. Do you disagree with this interpretation of historical events? If so, how will you show the public how those events didn't happen?

 

 

[BTK59]

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

This "failure" is only another example of your accidental support for what I had just said. It's true that I didn't go as late as November-December. Instead, I used the October date based on archaeological evidence which the WTS also supports:

Your presentation is false since you are speaking about secular facts, and it does not rely solely on the Watchtower Chronology, which is based on historical data. It seems like you are trying to have the best of both worlds but using unrelated facts to support your flawed assumptions.

Under the historical context, it is October-November, as it falls within the latter part of those months. The Watchtowers employ specific details, as everyone else does, for the sake of simplicity. Therefore, please refrain from making nonsensical arguments solely to impress your audience.

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Then you go on to present a piece of "evidence" that you have presented before (under a different account). I think you are trying to support the "delay" that the Watchtower needs here, but you probably don't realize that you have not provided enough of a delay to match the Watchtower adjustment:

Your delay is evident. History itself makes the case. If you wish to disprove your own conclusions, then disprove history. Question your own misleading tactics instead of those of the Watchtowers. There is no delay, and historical facts demand no delay. Your falsehood lies in asserting a 1 or 2-year discrepancy. That misinterpretation is yours. At most, you might argue for "months" – a considerable difference from 1 or 2 years.

Instead of trying to conceal your distorted perspective by inundating the comments section with irrelevant remarks, consider presenting your views more accurately.

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I also have many times stated that believe it was around March/April of 538 BCE. @Arauna has also insisted that it had to be March/April of 538 BCE. But the Watchtower has decided to move it to the near the end of 538, or even the beginning of 537, but without evidence. This way it would force the seventh month of Ezra 3:1,6 to be 537 (instead of 538 as even your "evidence" would allow).

You need to have a thorough and accurate understanding of the "historical" facts being presented. It's important to address any misinterpretations and provide compelling reasons for your arguments. Additionally, considering the preparation and journey of the Jews themselves is crucial. Simply mentioning the date of 539 BC is not enough; you must provide a well-founded and factual conclusion to justify its significance.

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The Bible does NOT say however that the decree could not have been made in 539, shortly after he became king in his accession year, because the Bible often calls the accession year the FIRST year. So, it's a possibility, but like you I personally prefer the official FIRST year here (538), not the accession year (539). 

This is exactly what I'm referring to when I mention your distortion tactics. You consistently blend biblical texts with historical facts. It becomes a question of whether you choose to believe the Watchtower or accept secular history. It is a well-established historical fact that Cyrus issued the decree in 538 BC, and you yourself have previously acknowledged this. However, you then present a misleading narrative that implies the Bible does not mention it. I am genuinely curious, which viewpoint are you advocating for? What aspect of your reasoning supports this position? I find it perplexing why you persist in confusing the general public with such contradictory information.

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The Insight book does not try to stretch the journey beyond 4 months, based on Ezra 7:9. There are historical records that show that it COULD be done much faster, but 4 months sounds reasonable for people in groups taking along belongings, perhaps even with beasts of burden. And of course we know even from the Bible evidence along with historical records that many Jews never left Babylon, choosing to stay. Makes me think that those who wanted to leave might have left as soon as possible, but there is nothing specific either way. Only that the Bible indicates that Jews were back in their homeland in the 7th month of the FIRST year of Cyrus, and the WTS prefers the 7th month of the SECOND year of Cyrus.

I was unaware that some individuals were present at the specific event, rather than providing a rough estimation. It appears that by attempting to vindicate your beliefs through the Watchtower, you are only making yourself appear more foolish. According to secular estimates, the time spent on the journey alone could have been as long as five months. As for the Jews' preparation time, only they are aware of the specifics. It seems that you want people to believe that this was a "second" exodus from Egypt by the Jews, but that is not the case. Some Jews chose to remain while others ventured to different parts of the land. Therefore, there was no coercion or urgency involved.

Despite this argument, you actually acknowledge a mere "months" discrepancy between 538-537 BC, rather than the 1 or 2 years you previously suggested. It's time to make a clear decision.

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Your idea that the Bible might be wrong about the FIRST year just because the SECOND year can be fully substantiated based solely on historical facts sounds like something you might call "apostasy," if I had said it.

TYour feeble attempt only highlights your desperation. The real apostate here, contradicts scripture - and that is you. Quit trying to shift the blame onto others.

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

No matter what that supposed "evidence" was, I'm sure it wasn't strong enough to counter the Bible evidence.

The historical facts I share align with scripture, while your apostate views do not. It is clear to the public who is deflecting in this situation.

[BTK59]

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

On 6/18 you made the above statements, as if my claims lacked historical support and factual evidence. But you make an odd comparison to "proving the occurrence of an event in 587 BC" and "relying on the unreliable VAT 4956." As I'm sure you should already know, VAT 4956 is much more reliable than the tablet the WTS relies on for the 7th year of Cambyses in order to prove 539. But ultimately NEITHER or open to multiple interpretations. But neither one matters. Even without either of them, you still have 50 more DIRECT astronomical evidences that the entire period from Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar, Nabonidus, Cyrus and Cambyses is completely and reliably and consistently attested to. You could throw out VAT 4956 which opposers of the evidence seem to obsess over because they believe it is somehow "critical" to the astronomical evidence. It wouldn't make a bit of difference. There is still too much completely consistent factual evidence to overcome.

You seem to enjoy twisting and distorting facts to suit your narrative. You rely on astronomical evidence to support your claim of 587 BC, but it's clear that the confusion lies with you. Your misleading statements about 587 BC, VAT 4956, 539 BC, and the Watchtower's position only serve to confuse the public further. The truth is, the Watchtower supports the dates of 607 BC and AD 1914.

 

[BTK59]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Strange counter-argument to my argument that we should ALWAYS be prepared. But at least we are in agreement with the idea that we should always be prepared, and should always value our Christian life.

Your argument was completely erroneous. You seem to imply that we shouldn't concern ourselves with thieves invading people's homes, and that we need not be vigilant or proactive in detecting early warning signs. However, this careless attitude is unacceptable.

Before you start using your nonsensical counterarguments to refute my statement, allow me to use my words to accurately represent your ultimate perspective on the matter you were attempting to convey.

Absolutely! Scripture clearly outlines how God's people should be vigilant and attentive to His signs. The people of God should not be led astray as is happening here.

[BTK59]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

When you made two clearly false statements about COJ, I did not understand why. You explained that one part of your false statement was because you had used a period instead of a comma. But even that correction didn't change the major false statement. When I asked you about it, you acted like my understanding of your clear statement was somehow a childish game and display of arrogance and a comment on your grammar. It wasn't. Your grammar was perfect. 

You attempted to force an unrealistic argument by using a false narrative on grammar. It's worth noting that, despite your numerous grammar mistakes, I don't excessively dwell on them as you do. So, this post is meaningless.

[JW Insider]

59 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

It seems clear that the "gentile times" persist as they always have. What specific failure are you alluding to?

I couldn't have said it better myself: It seems clear that the "gentile times" persist as they always have. Yet they were supposed to have ended in 1914. That's the specific failure I alluded to, and now you have alluded to the same.

[JW Insider]

2 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

You attempted to force an unrealistic argument by using a false narrative on grammar.

Projection again. You were the one who made it an issue of grammar, by claiming it was your own punctuation mistake.