You were right. I have become a victime of a scam. I checked my on-line bank and the credit card transaction for the support services had not yet gone through, my bank has frozen my account until I can go into the bank and reset my account. I will ring Microsoft to see what they can do as as to any technical issues with the computer. It certainly does run much better as I did have some issues with it so will see what happens. Thanks for your alert.
It is important that you remove any software that was installed or any additional user accounts that were created by the 'tech', as they may leave a 'backdoor' giving them future access to the computer without any visible sign. It would be best to hire a local IT professional to check the system for malware. Specifically tell them you've been the victim of a phone support scam. You should also change your computer and banking passwords.
Still trying to help you with the other scam you've fallen victim to...
As I have said before chronology is more than arithmetic for the numbers are 'mysterious' and problematic.
Some intelligence and insight are required, but the numbers are not 'mysterious'. Just because something is 'more than arithmetic', it doesn't mean arithmetic is not relevant or that obvious arithmetical problems should be ignored.
I do not believe that we have a preconceived numerology to prop up unless of course you are referring to the Gentile Times
LOL. You don't have any preconceived numerology apart for your preconceived numerology.
or to the Seventy Weeks of Years in Daniel
The 'seventy weeks' has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus. It really really doesn't. The fact that the Watch Tower Society additionally distorts the reigns of Persian kings should be a clue.
but if you omit these prophecies then you put a cloud over the entire Bible making just a book of stories with no modern day relevance.
How very poetic. Reality is what it is. Along with myths (mostly borrowed and adapted from other cultures), the Bible contains some historical accounts, often framed as 'prophecy'. It's not magical. And Santa's not real either. (Oh, you already know that one.)
I will when I have proper access to my library should be able to provide additional sources for our understanding of Hoshea' reign and I will notify you of this but in the meantime from the materials I have at hand sufficiently address the issue that you have raised and I see no evidence that our understanding of Hoshea's reign is incorrect.
You mean, you see no evidence that it is correct. I have already indicated specifically why the Watch Tower Society inserts these periods prior to the reigns of Hoshea and Zechariah. But if you can find support in any modern scholarship, go ahead.
Chronology requires a 'corrective' at some point and this is acknowledged by chronologists so we have simply used a corrective to overcome the twenty year difference thus our chronology can be harmonized with the secular. No surprises here.
Even without the 'twenty-year gap', the Watch Tower Society's chronology has many other problems. For example, the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar's reign is badly distorted in relative terms. Your claim about a 'corrective' is just an attempt to make an incredibly weak excuse sound 'technical'. There is no need for this 'corrective' when correctly interpreting the Bible's reference to 70 years of all the nations serving Babylon. The biblical account of the Neo-Babylonian period is already consistent with secular history.
The reading of Jeremiah 29:10 as 'at Babylon' rather than 'for Babylon' makes the meaning much clearer so it simply refers to the place of occupation or exile which the Jews would remain in until the seventy years for their captivity would expire soon after the Fall of Babylon, their captor. It really is quite easy.
Misdirection! Go back and read what I actually said about the context of verses 10-15 apart from the parenthetical remark about the error of "at Babylon". Your 'explanation' does not address the problem of the context at all. For a start, in the Watch Tower Society's chronology, the Jews exiled in 607 weren't even "at Babylon" for a whole 70 years. The letter in Jeremiah chapter 29 was sent to Jews already in Babylon 7 years prior to Jerusalem's destruction, so it makes no sense at all to tell them that they would be 'at' Babylon for 70 years. (Jeremiah 25:11-12 clearly indicates that the 70 years were a period during which all the nations were subject to Babylon (under its 'yoke') and not a period of Jewish exile. Jeremiah 27:8-11 further indicates that exile was only a punishment for nations that would not submit to Babylon.) But apart from all that, Jeremiah 29:10-15 directly states that attention would be given to the Jews' return after that 70 years had ended, so the 70 years cannot logically refer to a period that ends only once the Jews had already returned.