ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view

[Arauna]

Let Jehovah fly the plane - do not do it yourself!

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Jehovah ... of course!

Flesh and blood people I evaluate on a case-by-case basis.

.

[JW Insider]

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It is the uneasy passenger who tried to redirect the plane - for he has studied flying himself -  and the pilot's response was 'inadequate.'

I've mentioned this before on the forum, but I was traveling with Brother Schroeder (along with Charlotte and Judah) in 1978 where we visited several countries in Europe together (England, France, Spain, Italy) but I had to do work for about a week in the Athens branch and didn't catch up to him again when he went to Innsbruck, Bern, Wiesbaden, Hamburg, Copenhagen, and a couple other places for meetings specifically about Carl Olof Jonsson. I knew in early 1978 that Jonsson had sent his manuscript a few months earlier, and had asked for comment, but no researchers at Bethel would touch it. I saw a photocopied portion of it in 1978, but actually never saw the entire manuscript until Brother Rusk had it in 1980. (Rusk and I were going over logistics for my upcoming wedding, but I asked him about it when he had it across his desk, and was making some notes.) He never responded to the manuscript either. One brother in Writing told me that no one even wanted it on their desk because they knew it was the same information, basically, that they had already come across in researching the Aid book. Similar information had come in from two different sources in the 1960's, too. None of the research projects that Brother Schroeder assigned to me were directly related to it, and I was not aware of Schroeder's specific actions he was taking with reference to Jonsson, until I read about it decades later.

But Jonsson has put copies of his correspondence with the Society up on a website:

http://kristenfrihet.se/english/corr.htm

Jonsson admits to making at least one mistake in this correspondence, but the Society does appear to be the one "playing dirty." I would love to say that I don't believe it, but I was working even more closely with Schroeder back when he showed all the same "qualities" in his campaign to get rid of R.Franz from late in 1979 right up into the 1980's when he was finally successful. It was not something that a squeamish person (like me) wanted to see.

I don't really know what kind of a person Jonsson was, but I suspect that he is mostly right in the claims he makes about how he was treated. Also, I can just imagine even some of the personalities that show up on this forum and imagine what they would be like if they thought they had the actual power to cast someone into Gehenna, for example.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Nana Fofana said:

Can anyone tell me if something is wrong with this chronology?

Of course. The first thing to remember is that any time the Watchtower tries to defend a chronology that is not based on Biblical or secular evidence, you should start by looking at the words that the Watchtower has left out when a quote is made. In other words, the resources that the Watchtower uses are often well-respected resources, such as the Soncino commentary. When the topic is chronology, you can just assume that a respected commentary doesn't actually say what the Watchtower is trying to make you think that it says.

So, without even looking you will know that these commentaries have probably been misused, misquoted, or selectively quoted. This way it will give the appearance that respected scholarship supports the Watchtower view, when of course, it doesn't. Here's the full Soncino quote from Insight, but with the Soncino chronology added back in where the Watchtower left it out:

*** it-1 p. 462 Chronology ***
The Jewish understanding of this prophecy, as presented in the Soncino Books of the Bible (commentary on Ezekiel, pp. 20, 21) is: “The guilt of the Northern Kingdom extended over a period of 390 years ([according to the] Seder Olam [the earliest postexilic chronicle preserved in the Hebrew language], [and Rabbis] Rashi and Ibn Ezra). Abarbanel, quoted by Malbim, reckons the period of Samaria’s guilt from the time when the schism took place under Rehoboam (c. 932 BCE). . . until the fall of Jerusalem. [*footnote] . . . The right [side, on which Ezekiel lay] indicates the south, i.e. the Kingdom of Judah which lay to the south or right. . . . Judah’s corruption lasted forty years beginning soon after Samaria’s fall. According to Malbim, the time is reckoned from the thirteenth year of the reign of Josiah (c. 626 BCE). . . when Jeremiah began his ministry. (Jer. i. 2).”—Edited by A. Cohen, London, 1950.

*[footnote] The entire Soncino Ezekiel commentary is consistent at dating the destruction of the Temple in 586 BCE, as is the Soncino commentary on Jeremiah, etc.

The Watch Tower publications follow the very unethical practice of tacking on an extra 20 years to the prior dates before 607, without any explanation. This is why it isn't just 587/6 that they invariably leave out of scholarly quotations, but they must leave out most other dates related to the period. But in this case, they not only left out the dates, they also completely left out the "Jewish understanding of the prophecy." To save space I didn't include those explanations in the two other places where words were left out. The Jewish understanding, per Soncino, is that Ezekiel meant what he said: 390 years PLUS 40 years. The Watchtower completely disagrees saying:

*** w72 5/15 pp. 310-311 Do Not Try God’s Patience Too Far ***
However, in the actual fulfillment upon ancient Jerusalem, the forty days for the “error” of the “house of Judah” would run concurrently with the last forty days of the three hundred and ninety days for the “error” of the “house of Israel.” The unit of time measurement that Jehovah gave to Ezekiel was, “a day for a year,” made emphatic by being repeated. Accordingly, the forty years for the “error” of the “house of Judah” were to run concurrently with the last forty years of the 390-year period for the “error” of “the house of Israel.” The last forty years of that time period began in the year 647 B.C.E. Both time periods, the longer one and the shorter one, had to converge on the same date, for ancient Jerusalem was destroyed only once, namely, in 607 B.C.E.

You see what they did? They pretended they were giving the "Jewish understanding of this prophecy, as presented in the Soncino Books of the Bible." Yet, they not only left out the chronology of the Jewish understanding, they completely left out the "Jewish understanding," too.

And of course the Watchtower added about 20 years to the thirteenth year of Josiah to change 626 to 647. If you did this in any scholarly setting, it would be considered devious. It's called "academic dishonesty."

 

[Arauna]

It was with sadness that I read a certain comment above. In the end - if Jehovah is truly a reality - then he is the one who will dispense  justice and will judge those who use their positions of trust for in-fighting etc.  Has there been injustices perpetrated ? I do not doubt it at all! -  but some things we cannot resolve now.  Let it go,    

Jehovah will compensate all people for whatever they lost.  Will some of the anointed beat up their brothers? - Yes!  Jesus predicted the possibility.  Can worldly courts sort this out?  NO.

Some CEOs (even of Fortune500 companies) mess up a company and then quickly leave with a golden handshake and then move on to the next company to go and mess it up too!  I have seen this in the world and yes - I knew a soft-spoken elder who did this.....and got away with it -  it happens- rarely - but it does happen.

I am fortunately a sister so I do not have to deal with male egos but I am savvy enough to know that a definite sign of the spirit of the world or Satan is a love to control others - not necessarily openly.... but subtly.  I am very aware that not all have left their egos behind (as instructed by scripture) and hence to not handle all matters in kindness and love.......

Jehovah will take all mitigating factors into account. Jehovah deeply cares for victims of injustice.....  I personally think injustice does hurt any victim very deeply.  

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

And worst of all, assuming honest mistakes (Hahahahahaa),

there is NEVER an apology ... just MORE clouds, MORE smoke, and mirrors.

... and of course ... blaming the uninvolved.

[Guest J.R. Ewing]

I would have to question the validity of Carl Olof Jonnson research that is assumed was made with “excitement and love” to benefit the Watchtower, however more likely to discredit it. That would calumniate later by his own actions and words, to relate to the Watchtower, abandon your chronology because I know better, and I found the proof that confirms the Watchtower is erred, by his own “erred” chronology. One only needs to read, COJ’s letters to the Watchtower and his book of errors (treatise) to understand his opposition. Personally, I like “Fritz” untenable rhetoric about the Watchtower.

I would also ask, if the historical assigned dates can’t be compromised by historian writings, or mistaken, since, there is no number designation on the Babylonian cuneiform tablets related to Nebuchadnezzar to make a 100 percent concrete proof of his Kingship due to that fact that no numbers appear assigned to Nebuchadnezzar name.

Another small problem that COJ didn’t research was the “genealogy” of Nebuchadnezzar’s family. According to “recorded history”,

1.      Nebuchadnezzar 1 reigned, 1125BC

2.      Belibni (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar ll), son of Nebuchadnezzar l / born on 685BC, = 440-year difference. The question is, was Nebuchadnezzar (l) a prophet pre-flood, to have lived so long? to have children 440 years later?

3.      Nabopolassar (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar lll) son of Belibni, born on 658BC / Nabopolassar ll ?

4.      Nebuchadnezzar ll (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar lV) son of Nabopolassar, born on 634BC

Now according to some 19^th century and early 20^th century historians

1.      Belibni (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar l)

2.      Nabopolassar (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar ll) Book of Judith

3.      Nabopolassar ll ?

4.      Nebuchadnezzar ll (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar lll) House of Igibi

 

The rest of the discussion dealing with loyalty, and about the association is self-evident!

 

 

Philippians 2:1-2New Living Translation (NLT)

Have the Attitude of Christ

2 Is there any encouragement from belonging to Christ? Any comfort from his love? Any fellowship together in the Spirit? Are your hearts tender and compassionate? ² Then make me truly happy by agreeing wholeheartedly with each other, loving one another, and working together with one mind and purpose.

After all, how can one have Jesus attitude if there are “divisions” in Faith? Scripture, then, becomes an instrument for personal gain.

 

Romans 16:17New Living Translation (NLT)

Paul’s Final Instructions

¹⁷ And now I make one more appeal, my dear brothers and sisters. Watch out for people who cause divisions and upset people’s faith by teaching things contrary to what you have been taught. Stay away from them.

Of course, this sentiment is always confused by “love your enemy”. However, we aren’t talking about outsiders are we. We’re referring to people that decided to dedicate their life’s to serving God and were baptized under that banner of righteousness.

2 Corinthians 6:14New American Standard Bible (NASB)

¹⁴ Do not be ^[a]bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?

 

  By examining for ourselves what is written in publications, means, do those publications agree with scripture? What is being published, in harmony with scripture? It has nothing to do with personal opinions or having to cause divisions by those that compose a different view. The Church of Christ is a Church of Unity. Philippians 2:1-3

1 Thessalonians 5:21-23New American Standard Bible (NASB)

²¹ But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; ²² abstain from every ^[a]form of evil.

²³ Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This is the “test” of what is written in opposition to Scripture, can it be seen as blameless, good(Beneficial) and without it being a form of evil?

Romans 16:17Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

Warning against Divisive People

¹⁷ Now I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause dissensions and obstacles contrary to the doctrine you have learned. Avoid them,

1 Timothy 4:7Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

⁷ But have nothing to do with irreverent and silly myths. Rather, train yourself in godliness,

1 Timothy 6:20Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

Guard the Heritage

²⁰ Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding irreverent, empty speech and contradictions from the “knowledge” that falsely bears that name.

 

I believe some have come to a conclusion that these objectionable statements are to silence those with a different view or to have their free speech rights removed. That’s the consensus here. It’s wrong. The objective here it seems, to demonstrate to the public, the sharp contrast between someone calling themselves a “witness” to that of a true loyal GOD-FEARING WITNESS!!!!(Ecclesiastes 8:12-13) And what it means to be guilty by association by GOD’S STANDARDS (Scripture), not the Watchtower or the Governing Body.

 

Psalm 26:4-5New American Standard Bible (NASB)

⁴ I do not sit with deceitful men, nor will I go with pretenders. ⁵ I hate the assembly of evildoers, And I will not sit with the wicked.

[TrueTomHarley]

7 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Yep, if you trying to go someplace, and the pilot(s) are disoriented and wrong ... and in crisis you CAN fly an airplane yourself, depending on them to be competent may get you killed.

The reason you have a conscience is to be able to evaluate calculated risks.  

If you are wrong ... you die

If THEY are wrong ... you STILL die.

There is such a thing as 'God,' you know.

[Anna]

11 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

His 'discovery' was, in fact, what had long been already known and established in ANE and biblical scholarship.

Yes, I am aware of that, but it was "news" to him

11 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

His downfall was believing that the Society was interested in the truth of the matter.

Yes, in the truth of the matter in his opinion. I know, you are going to say there are thousands others with the same opinion, but still, no matter how right you think you are or how much support you have, when you see you are not getting anywhere the wisest thing is to move on. Which he eventually did, but he could have spared himself the alienation. Now, from what I can see, he has adopted so many of Christendom's reasonings, and criticizes other beliefs of JWs.  He didn't just stay with disputing chronology.

11 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Unfortunately, the responses from HQ were inadequate, rehashing what had already been questioned or rebutted, and they repeated platitudes and promises to address the evidence - which they didn't do. Instead, they urged him to keep quiet

I am familiar with the correspondence between him and the society

 

11 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

In the end the truth will eventually always come out'? The truth had already come out - several times before COJ's treatise. The truth had been flagged up in Russell's day, in Rutherford's day, and many times since, by those inside the org and by never-been-JWs.

"The truth coming out"...I mean on a much bigger scale than just a few people inside the org. I mean that the truth will eventually be known by ALL.

11 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Could it be that Jehovah has been nudging and jabbing the leaders of His people to make corrections all along, but they've been ignoring Him?

Possibly...

[TrueTomHarley]

14 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

His 'discovery' was, in fact, what had long been already known and established in ANE and biblical scholarship. His downfall was believing that the Society was interested in the truth of the matter.

How does this fit with 1 Corinthians 1:26-29?

"For you see his calling of you, brothers, that there are not many wise in a fleshly way, not many powerful, not many of noble birth, but God chose the foolish things of the world to put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world to put the strong things to shame; and God chose the insignificant things of the world and the things looked down on, the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, so that no one might boast in the sight of God."

I'm not on familiar ground here, as I had never heard of COJ prior to this discussion, though I knew there must be someone to fill his role.  To the extent there is an appeal that the intelligencia are the only ones qualified on such things, God appears contemptuous of it. He not only puts up with the foolish things of the world - he chooses them over the 'wise men.'  Pure academic 'muscle' carries little weight with him, much less 'credentials.' It doesn't quite make sense to me, but there it is.

The twelve were decidedly not intellectuals. They were 'workmen' who had learned to handle the Word aright. Paul had intellectual cred, but I would not be quick to suppose he thereby did all the brainwork. He took direction from his educational inferiors. Plus, his lasting stature is not that he was an in-house thinker. He was primarily a doer, whereas the superfine apostles who were always trying to thwart him, boasting of their credentials, were not.

There is the biblical scholarship that starts on the premise that the biblical sayings are innocent (of untruth) until proven guilty, and biblical scholarship that presumes them guilty until proven innocent. It makes a difference in the conclusions derived, just as it does in the justice system.

I should do research to see if this COJ was a doer like Paul, or did he mainly fancy himself an in-house thinker? But probably someone will clarify this for me.

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

I would also ask, if the historical assigned dates can’t be compromised by historian writings, or mistaken, since, there is no number designation on the Babylonian cuneiform tablets related to Nebuchadnezzar to make a 100 percent concrete proof of his Kingship due to that fact that no numbers appear assigned to Nebuchadnezzar name.

Another small problem that COJ didn’t research was the “genealogy” of Nebuchadnezzar’s family. According to “recorded history”,

1.      Nebuchadnezzar 1 reigned, 1125BC

2.      Belibni (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar ll), son of Nebuchadnezzar l / born on 685BC, = 440-year difference. The question is, was Nebuchadnezzar (l) a prophet pre-flood, to have lived so long? to have children 440 years later?

3.      Nabopolassar (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar lll) son of Belibni, born on 658BC / Nabopolassar ll ?

4.      Nebuchadnezzar ll (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar lV) son of Nabopolassar, born on 634BC

Now according to some 19^th century and early 20^th century historians

1.      Belibni (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar l)

2.      Nabopolassar (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar ll) Book of Judith

3.      Nabopolassar ll ?

4.      Nebuchadnezzar ll (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar lll) House of Igibi

Well, this is something new and refreshing. Someone appears to be willing to discuss the actual issues at hand. Unfortunately nearly all these issues had been brought up before by a certain @AllenSmith , and the answers are still the same as were given before.

I would say that of course, yes, the historical assigned dates CAN be compromised by historian's writings, or mistaken. This is one of the reasons you look for several different independent lines of evidence. In this case all the different independent lines of contemporary evidence all point to the same thing: 587/586 BCE for Jerusalem's destruction. The evidence is just as powerful, and in some ways more powerful, than the evidence for 539, which the Watchtower has called "absolute" and "assured." That's the problem with trying to punch holes in half-a-dozen independent lines of evidence. It's the same as saying that the evidence for 539 is potentially compromised or mistaken, except that we need that date in order to have a starting point to manipulate the earlier date. So we're kind of trapped: all the evidence that we are accepting is the same as the evidence that destroys our theory. The best we could ever hope for is that no one would have ever noticed the evidence. And for the most part, that has worked just fine, because very few Witnesses will look into this kind of research, even when -- or especially when -- it becomes evident that it creates conflicts with our strongly entrenched traditions.

5 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

since, there is no number designation on the Babylonian cuneiform tablets related to Nebuchadnezzar to make a 100 percent concrete proof of his Kingship due to that fact that no numbers appear assigned to Nebuchadnezzar name.

You are talking about Nebuchadnezzar I, II, III, and IV. These are well understood. Also, any kings that ruled less than a year have no effect on the timeline. That's the beauty of having half-a-dozen independent lines of evidence that also interact smoothly and support each other. It turns out that ALL the evidence still creates only one timeline that fits. There aren't even like two or three top choices. One of the Nebuchadnezzars you speak of was not even part of the Neo-Bablonian timeline. He reigned hundreds of years outside of the timeline we are concerned about. And the other two are outside the part of the timeline we care about (and reigned only a few months each). Besides, the Watchtower already accepts the Neo-Babylonian timeline if they ever mention that the date 539 is accurate. If it's accurate, then it's because we are admitting that the Neo-Babylonian timelline is accurate. If we say that 587/6 is NOT accurate, then we are saying that 539 is not accurate. The argument you are making could be made about anything. Why question if there were only four Nebuchadnezzars? Why not propose that 2,000 different tablets that mention Nebuchadnezzars refer to 2,000 different kings named Nebuchanezzar? If all of them referred to a different Nebuchadnezzar, you would have to ADD all the regnal years from every tablet in such a case. This would also mean that (since year 20 is the average regnal year on these tablets) the Neo-Babylonian timeline was about 20 x 2000 or 40,000 years long. From your vantage point, as an opposer of the evidence, you could surmise anything you wanted about the evidence.

The other points you enumerated are not valid because you have no right to use any BCE dates for comparison if you don't accept the dates of the Neo-Babylonian period. You should never even use the date 539 or 538, if you don't really accept the chronology evidence that got you there. Just throwing out some questions, and claiming things are "perceived" when they really aren't perceived the way you say is a good way to try to poke holes. But it's meaningless unless you have an alternative theory that fits ALL the evidence, or at least tries to fit all the evidence. Then, to really test if that theory works with ALL the evidence, you put it out there and see if someone can find any contradictions in your proposal. I'm sure you have heard the expression "blowing smoke." It refers to the tactic of just throwing anything out there and hoping that it will stick. [It's not really a mixed metaphor, it just looks like one.] It's done without a concern about what it does to the rest of the evidence, or if it creates impossible contradictions. That's why you haven't really poked holes until you can hypothesize what it would mean as an alternative.

[JW Insider]

On 8/20/2017 at 11:33 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

How does this fit with 1 Corinthians 1:26-29?

"For you see his calling of you, brothers, that there are not many wise in a fleshly way, not many powerful, not many of noble birth, but God chose the foolish things of the world to put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world to put the strong things to shame; and God chose the insignificant things of the world and the things looked down on, the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, so that no one might boast in the sight of God."

Good question.

It reminds me of when a letter was written to Russell about the fact that there was no zero year. Russell answered the question and decided that we don't really know, but he would rather believe that there must have been one because if you count from 606 and other BC dates, this is how you reach 1874 and 1914, for example. It's kind of an embarrassing answer to have put in the Watch Tower for 100 years of posterity to look at. Of course, since then we discovered that the "questioner" was correct all along, and Russell was wrong, so we ultimately had to change the destruction date from 606 to 607. It took us until about 1943 to finally admit it, decades after it was pointed out and rejected.

The problem is that Russell pretended he was wise in a fleshly way rather than humbly looking into the evidence. It's fine to be foolish in the sense of being humble and accepting that we don't NEED such worldly knowledge, and we therefore never get puffed up with our supposed knowledge. But when you base half your doctrines on secular dates, as Russell did, you are stuck in a trap of trying to show that you are wise in a fleshly way. Russell tried this and ended up "boasting" in knowledge that turned out not even to be true.

On 8/20/2017 at 11:33 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

I should do research to see if this COJ was a doer like Paul, or did he mainly fancy himself an in-house thinker? But probably someone will clarify this for me.

If you would like to read the way Jonsson frames it, you can see below that I just grabbed this from a pdf version of his book. He claims he was a pioneer who was challenged by one of his Bible studies. The actual typewritten manuscript was collecting dust on a shelf in an office just outside the Bethel Library for a couple years.  In 1978, I heard it referred to as "that treatise from the elder in Sweden." This next long quote is from his book:

It was in 1968 that the present study began. At the time, I was a “pioneer” or full-time evangelist for Jehovah’s Witnesses. In the course of my ministry, a man with whom I was conducting a Bible study challenged me to prove the date the Watch Tower Society had chosen for the desolation of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, that is 607 B.C.E. He pointed out that all historians marked that event as having occurred about twenty years later, in either 587 or 586 B.C.E. I was well aware of this, but the man wanted to know the reasons why historians preferred the latter date. I indicated that their dating surely was nothing but a guess, based on defective ancient sources and records. Like other Witnesses, I assumed that the Society’s dating of the desolation of Jerusalem to 607 B.C.E. was based on the Bible and therefore could not be upset by those secular sources. However, I promised the man I would look into the matter. As a result, I undertook a research that turned out to be far more extensive and thoroughgoing than I had expected. It continued periodically for several years, from 1968 until the end of 1975. By then the growing burden of evidence against the 607 B.C.E. date forced me reluctantly to conclude that the Watch Tower Society was wrong. Thereafter, for some time after 1975, the evidence was discussed with a few close, research-minded friends. Since none of them could refute the evidence demonstrated by the data I had collected, I decided to develop a systematically composed treatise on the whole question which I determined to send to the headquarters of the Watch Tower Society at Brooklyn, New York. That treatise was prepared and sent to the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1977. The present work, which is based on that document, was revised and expanded during 1981 and then published in a first edition in 1983. During the years that have passed since 1983, many new finds and observations relevant to the subject have been made, and the most important of these have been incorporated in the last two editions. The seven lines of evidence against the 607 B.C.E. date presented in the first edition, for example, have now been more than doubled.