AT Jeff,
Thanks so much for sharing your letter.Great expose of the lies and presumptuous pomp that is the hallmark of the BORG and the GB.
Just a thought...but it seems like there was a transitional period, just prior to and after the publication of the "Aid to Bible Understanding," with respect to the kind of research you did on the 607 BCE date.
During the years leading up to the publication of the "Aid" Book the BORG encouraged deep study of the scriptures...especially as it related to doctrinal issues. For quite a few years we only had a mini "Aid" book with articles A - E. I remember spending many hours with the Diaglott and the Kingdom Interlinear to fully grasp the nuances of grammar surrounding John 1:1 that related to the Trinity. I was taking Latin in high school (early 70s) at the time, so the grammar analyses that the BORG offered for John 1:1 and other scriptures intrigued me.
But after "Insight on the Scriptures" and the "Proclaimers" books, it seemed as though the BORG tried to squelch any research other than the prepackaged answers they provided. In retrospect, it's clear they realized they had painted themselves into a corner and that anyone with half a brain would quickly find the discrepancies and flawed logic if they spent just a little time "researching."
I doubt that very many active Dubs even have the skill to research and critically analyze anything. They are expected to just blindly swallow everything and anything that the BORG tells them is historical fact. Funny thing is that this is exactly the criticism the BORG used to level at the Catholic Church...it was sufficient for the clergy to explain things to an unquestioning congregation.
Today the BORG is a mere shadow of it's former pseudoscholarship (that unfortunately dazzled enough people into thinking it was real scholarship).
Your observations are always appreciated.
Thanks,
Alex