A Difficult Doctrine. With an easy explanation.

[TrueTomHarley]

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Sputnik specifically.,,,Yes, it's a hard sell...which discussed signs in the heavens from things like Sputnik, and nuclear fear

What year did robocalls from the cloud begin besieging every man woman and child on earth, causing them to look to the heavens and curse, day and night?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

 

2011, after the Nation realized they could NOT keep their doctor, they could NOT keep their health plan, and the $2500 every person was going to save on their Health Care, was going to cost them about $10,000 more, and if they did not buy it, the IRS would add a whopping fine to their Income Tax return.

On a related note, in 1980, the Governing Body in considering the "signs in the heavens ..." actually considered declaring Sputnik to be the fulfillment of Bible Prophesy, Schroeder, Karl Klein and Grant Suiter proposed moving the beginning of the "generation" to the year 1957, to coincide with the 1957 Sputnik event,  and it almost became "new light", except a 66-2/3 majority vote was needed to adopt that policy, and one member of the Governing Body went to the restroom, and when he came back, he changed his vote, and it failed by one vote.

In retrospect, perhaps the Brother should have held his water.

 

 

[Srecko Sostar]

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Also, perhaps by coincidence, the immediate context of Colossians.......

 

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him.

I am not so sure that Colossians speaking about coincidence. 

I never thought this way, but questions comes after reading this Colossians verses. What sort of "created lordships or governments or authorities" already existed in the heavens and on earth, especially in time period before, in the moment and after Adam and Eve were created? Have some idea? 

New born human society was made of two. I see, in Genesis, how Adam had sort of "power" over animals. Eve had free will and autonomy, just like Adam. Only after Cain's crime we see how he had big fear over his life because there was possibility, that some people (who they are, where they lived, what structure they created??) will kill him because of what  he has done. 

I see here some issues. God didn't punished Cain (God is Lord, Government and Authority). Adam didn't punished Cain (Adam was his father, but he didn't show he had any power over his son). Some unknown people, living who knows where have some thoughts about killing Cain, because he murdered Abel. Why would they be interested in this Adam's family "business"? And why they were interested in "punishing" Cain? 

What sort of structure, legislative (lordships or governments or authorities) existed inside this outside group, tribe, society, that show us how they had something what Adam and Eve family, tribe hadn't ?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

27 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Some unknown people, living who knows where have some thoughts about killing Cain, because he murdered Abel. Why would they be interested in this Adam's family "business"? And why they were interested in "punishing" Cain? 

Answer:

Hatred borne of jealousy ...

.... because the people  covering the Earth, outside of Adam and Eves' family, were NOT directly created beings of Jehovah, and did NOT have an opportunity to live forever ...

...and they KNEW that to be the case.

That is why Cain was afraid that wherever he went in his enforced exile to wander the Earth, those evolved  humans would kill him.

I do not "have Polaroids", but that idea solves a LOT of problems, including millions of tons of hard fossil evidence, all over the Earth, that only the willfully stupid would say means nothing ... and it solves the problem of who Cain married.

[TrueTomHarley]

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

but he managed to get two other members of the GB to sign on with him in order to present the idea [Stutnik]

It is worth a simulated launch, I guess—presenting the idea—but I’m glad that it blew up on the pad.

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The primary point was that people would tremble at such signs in the heavens. A space race with military implications

It would have been lost on most people. Relatively few catch the implications of anything. They take it at face value—“Space: The final frontier: these are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise—it’s continuing mission: to seek out new world’s, to boldly go where no man has gone before.”

On a flight to Damascus, Bill had a vision of such. Some odd fellow that he took for an angel presented the idea to him right there on the Shatner wing. Like Paul, it disoriented him completely for a time, and the other passengers heard of the disturbance, sure enough, but witnessed nothing themselves.

As a boy, I never once trembled when they launched a rocket from Cape Canaveral. I always took it in the spirit of advancing technology, advancing exploration. It’s one of the few accomplishments of men that has NOT been quickly put to military use, as airplanes were. 

In contrast, WWI was not only perceived by just about everyone, but it was instantly perceived as a negative. Probably that’s what the other—how many were there then—GB members pointed out, sending Bert and his co-astronauts scuttling off to the pantry for a donut.

Robocalls from the cloud, on the other hand, ARE perceived as an instant evil, as any time-share owner in the Everglades knows.

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

As a boy, I never once trembled when they launched a rocket from Cape Canaveral. I always took it in the spirit of advancing technology, advancing exploration. It’s one of the few accomplishments of men that has NOT been quickly put to military use, as airplanes were. 

You know, I can see how the idea might come up for discussion at Bethel. Despite my innocuous take expressed about it—a take that has mostly played out (but may someday not)—there certainly were military overtones in JFKs speech rallying Americans to support a moon launch. 

We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say that we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.

There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again. But why, some say, the Moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask, why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

We choose to go to the Moon! We choose to go to the Moon...We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too.

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Does Russell make any distinction for 1844 other than to suggest it was a great disappointment for the second coming churches?

Yes, Russell does make a distinction for 1844 that goes a little beyond just suggesting it was only a great disappointment for the second coming churches.

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Did he use 1844 to further his calculation? Does he mention 1844 to be part of his calculation?

Yes. He absolutely does. He says that according to the Lord's prediction it was 1844 when the Wise Virgins went out to meet the Bridegroom, 30 years before his arrival in 1874. In the parallel dispensations, of course, this mapped to the time when Jesus was born until his baptism at age 30. 1878 mapped to Jesus' death and resurrection.

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Does he stipulate 1910-1911 is referenced in scripture?

No. Russell was definitely going beyond the scriptures when he spoke of what may be expected around 1910. (But then, he was going beyond the scriptures with all the other dates, too.) 

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

It far more interesting, that some continue to project Russell as an Adventist, when Russell was “clearly” criticized for having a negative view of Adventist.

True. They probably do that just because so many of his early associates were Adventist leaders, preachers and publishers. It's important to note that Russell himself claimed to be embarrassed and ashamed by Adventists, not only for all their failed dates, but for exactly what they were expecting on those dates. It was pretty much ONLY in the area of chronology could we say that Russell remained trapped in Adventist thinking for his entire life after the 1870's. For this reason, Russell had some trouble distancing himself from the failures of Adventism, especially after beginning an early publishing venture with NH Barbour, who had been a Millerite Second Adventist and continued to use Miller's chronology as a foundation for his own, including the year 1844.

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Therefore, Russell did not have any influence with Miller’s 1844 prediction nor did Russell use it as basis for comparison.

He absolutely used it as a basis for comparison. He published that it was the wise virgins who came out in 1844, at the same time that the foolish virgins came out in 1844. But he compared the wise and the foolish by saying that those who only stayed stuck on 1844 were foolish, but those who went ahead and began believing that 1874 was the actual date for his arrival (after 30 years of tarrying) were the wise virgins. Being WISE meant accepting the 30 years from 1844 to 1874. Being FOOLISH meant only accepting 1844 and giving up, letting their oil lamps burn out. The LIGHT in their LAMPS was the truth about 1874.

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

It is indeed sad when people try so hard to end up empty. As stated earlier by an architect of misrepresentation said, it’s an embarrassment.

If I didn't know better, I'd say you are being too hard on yourself. It's a common tendency we all have to just look for things that fit an agenda, and then we miss a lot more evidence that would have given us a more complete picture.

 The 1840 book you quoted: A Treatise on the Chronology and the Prophetical Numbers of the Bible, in a letter addressed to William Cuninghame by Duncan MacDougal is available here: https://books.google.com/books?id=aOliAAAAcAAJ

So yes, it's true that others before Barbour and Russell had already mentioned possibilities for 1914 and dates not that far from it. By one estimate there had been a "[pseudo-]Biblical" prediction for at least half the individual years between 1850 and 1925. You can see some of this in B W Schulz book on Barbour, his other on ZWT, and some comments by Jonsson in GTR, too.

Russell doesn't appear to acknolwedge any of these others directly, but focuses his predictions on those related to William Miller. In fact Russell believed:

• 1,260 days of Daniel ended in 1799
• 1,290 days of Daniel ended in 1829 - because this is when William Miller's adventism got into full swing.
• 1,335 days of Daniel ended in 1874 - also because William Miller's 1844 date corresponded with the Jewish Advent of Jesus, but 1874 with the Christian Advent of "Christ" baptized and anointed (made Christ).

As late as 1925 (Feb 15), the Watch Tower said:

"No doubt Mr. Miller was correct in locating 1844 as a Bible date."

Russell had said the following in Studies in the Scriptures; from the very first 1891 editions, on up to the 1927 editions:

Mr Miller's application of the three and a half times (1260 years) was practically the same as what we have just given . . . It was nevertheless the beginning of the right understanding of the prophecy; for after all, the 1260 period, which he saw correctly, was the key;

In 1881, Russell said:

. . . we believe that this much of this parable met its fulfillment in 1843 and 1844, when William Miller and others, Bible in hand, walked out by faith in its statements . . . . As the former movement in the parable had been represented by Miller and others, so to this second movement we give a similar application. A brother, Barbour of Rochester, was we believe, the chosen vessel of God through whom the "Midnight Cry" issued. . . . proving that the night of the parable was 30 years long, and that the morning was in 1873, and the Bridegroom due in the morning in 1874.

I should mention that just because something was disappointing and included mistakes, it didn't indicate to Russell that God wasn't behind the events and the dates. After all, I think the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem was a disappointment, too.

Also, one should note that it was a large majority of Russell's early influencers who had been associated with the Millerite movement: Jonas Wendell, George Storrs, George Stetson, N. H. Barbour, B. W. Keith, J. H. Paton, and H. B. Rice. This is why his vocabulary and topics and several doctrines continued to reflect Second Adventism for the rest of his life.

[JW Insider]

On 12/13/2019 at 12:35 PM, Anna said:

1914 is such an attractive doctrine.

Very much!

On 12/13/2019 at 12:35 PM, Anna said:

The numbers from Daniel 4 add up quite nicely

The only numbers in the text of Daniel 4 are "7" and "12" (It's 12 months later when he is struck down to the state of a beast) and although we have fairly good Biblical reasons to turn "7 times" into 7 years and therefore 2,520 days, we have very few if any good reasons to turn those 2,520 days into 2,520 years. Remember that the Watchtower NEVER uses 1,260 days to mean a day for a year, so why should 2,520 days mean years?

I have a feeling that if we had not already accepted this particular inconsistency, we would laugh to ourselves if we found out that the Mormons or Catholics or some other religious group had told us: "Well it says 7 years, but it really means 2,520 years." Or, "It says 12 months, but in the greater fulfillment this means 360 years after the dream."

We would think it just as crazy as if they told us that when Jacob worked for Laban to pay the bride-price for Leah for 7 years, and then another 7 years for Rachel, that there was a "greater fulfillment," where the "greater Jacob" must work 2,520 x 2 = 5,040 years, and this means that the end of the millennium will be 5,040 years after the initial fulfillment, or let's say, for example, from 1750 BCE until the "greater promised land," the New World at the end of 1,000 years in 3290. (Therefore the beginning of the 1,000 year reign will be in 2290 CE.) Had this particular year landed some time between 1878 and 1914, instead of 2290, Barbour (and therefore Russell, too) might have latched onto it and made it fit into their chronology.

On 12/13/2019 at 12:35 PM, Anna said:

and then when applied to 607 BCE we arrive at a momentous and significant world event

(Decided to play Bible's Advocate on your post, even though you weren't asking.)

But nothing of that much import actually happened in 607, since this would have been almost 2 years before Nebuchadnezzar became king. At best, it might be within a few months of when Nebuchadnezzar, as a general of his father's army, took a few exiles from Judea to Babylon. And these exiles might have included Daniel. It would also have been within a couple years of the time that Babylon took over from Assyria as the new "world power" with respect to the Middle East. Babylon's hegemony really was of Biblical prophetic significance, but this is a prophecy that the Watchtower is forced to ignore because it would mean that the Bible already corresponds completely with the secular/historical evidence. We need for it NOT to correspond so that we can say it's off by 20 years. Only then can we make it reach 1914.

But you are right in that we do arrive at a momentous and significant world event. (Russell and Barbour had actually used 606 and didn't realize that this actually brings them to October 1915.) But 1915 was also part of a significant world event.

On 12/13/2019 at 12:35 PM, Anna said:

which could be said to be the time when Jesus fought with Satan, (as per Revelation) throwing him out of heaven, to the the vicinity of the earth

Satan is already seen falling from heaven in Luke 10, referring to the defeat of his power over Jesus and his disciples. Then Satan is defeated from heaven in 1914 where he is angry because he has a short period of time. (Has he accepted defeat? Because he nearly had the Bible Students back in 1918/19, but has apparently barely hindered the rate of expansion since the 1940's without any significant persecution among at least 92 percent of Witnesses today. Is his time less short now? Is he tired? Has he changed his methods? Have we changed our understanding of his methods? Was he roving about the earth seeking to devour Christians in Paul's day?)

On 12/13/2019 at 12:35 PM, Anna said:

causing him to be so mad that he arranges for an Archduke to be shot, setting in motion the beginning of a world wide war (pretty significant).

For some reason, we still like Russell's "October 1914" chronology. (See the chart you copied earlier.) Yet, the archduke was shot in July. July, interestingly, was actually much closer to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, which might indicate just how loathe anyone is to tweak the 1914 doctrine. Probably because we need for Russell to be right about something in his chronology, even though he never predicted a war of this kind. He only predicted the fall of all Gentile institutions on earth, while the Jewish Zionist nation would rise unhindered -- therefore it was called the End of the Gentile Times. It's also partly why, when this failed in 1914, he moved the predictions to 1915.

On 12/13/2019 at 12:35 PM, Anna said:

Also he (Satan), has a short period of time before all his evil shenanigans are brought to an end by a warrior king, Jesus,

This will be a little repetitive. According to the scriptures, Jesus defeated Satan through his life and sacrifice and resurrection. Then in 1914, it's not really much of a defeat, I guess, mostly just sending him down to earth where he needed to be anyway, to be closer to Jesus' disciples in order to persecute them, to walk about like a roaring lion, seeking to devour, just as he was doing in Paul's day. But can we think of any evil shenanigans that Satan tried after 1914 that he had not tried prior to 1914? After Jesus defeats him in 1914, does he defeat him again at Armageddon, perhaps in an even greater way? Then does Jesus defeat him again at the end of the 1,000 years when he is let loose from an abyss.

Most of this makes Biblical sense, except that the 1914 defeat seems the most redundant to me. The kind of defeat he received in the first century has brought Satan to the place where he continues to wage war with the seed of the woman all these centuries since. The "short period of time" phrase is odd, but then even 100 years is an odd short period of time. How long did that battle with Satan last? What changed after that battle? The Bible tells us what changed after he was thrown down in the first century.

What if one of Satan's most clever tactics was to get us to think of 1914 as the beginning of the parousia, so that we would begin to ignore Jesus words about no one knowing the day or the hour? After all the parousia was to arrive at a time when no one expected.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

Quote @Anna "This could still buy us another 10 years, and it could still be said that it was one generation." 

@TrueTomHarley Didn't I say the Judgement is another 10 years away ? 

Seems like Anna might agree with me  

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

I don't bother to visit here so often as I'm too busy, but the last 4 or 5 pages here are heavy reading that's for sure.  But it seems that most of you JWs are saying, as some of us 'opposers' say anyway, that the Soc/Org/ GB et al, have got it all wrong. 

I've been saying to Mr Harley that there must be another ten years left, if not more... And I note that one or two of you have said that the GB and others always expect the 'end' to come within their lifetime. 

Selfishness of course. Many people 'serve God' and / or join JW Org just to survive the Judgement, so they want it in their lifetime. 

1914 ? The choosing it / using it as a pivotal date/time wasn't inspired, we know that much. 

But keep it up, it gives me more confidence in what I believe. 

[TrueTomHarley]

2 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

I've been saying to Mr Harley that there must be another ten years left, if not more... And I note that one or two of you have said that the GB and others always expect the 'end' to come within their lifetime. 

Anna says 10 years and she’s just being speculative, just putzing around, with the existing arrangements.

You say 10 years, I think in earnest, with a brand spanking new anointed from somewhere or other—everything new from the ground up.

You are both wrong. It is ten days. Be ready.