ComfortMyPeople

I think everyone knew that this was one of his favorite subjects along with his favorite numerology topics. I'm sure he was the one who wrote the article in 1956. I have been assured that he was the one who often repeated the idea that 999 people out of every thousand would die at Armageddon. This was even included in assembly speeches open to the public. The 99.9% figure was also included in the Watch Tower publications a few times.
*** w58 10/15 pp. 614-615 What Will Armageddon Mean for You? ***
Revelation 9:16 gives us an inkling of the size of Jehovah’s forces when it speaks of him as using, on a certain occasion, cavalry to the number of 200,000,000. And 2 Kings 19:35 tells of just one of these destroying a host of 185,000 warriors in one night. . . . On Satan’s side will be all the rest of mankind, more than 99.9 percent, even as we read: “The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” He was also the one who said that due to the current laws of the land, we aren't allowed to kill our apostate children even though they are our own children.
*** w52 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers ***
In the case of where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship?—P. C., Ontario, Canada. We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. “Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, . . . And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee.”—Deut. 13:6-11, AS. Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship. That's a very useful reminder not to kill our children, based on a question probably sent in by Percy Chapman, the Branch Servant in Ontario at the time.
And of course, Fred Franz was the one who assured me that the hundreds of thousands of Christian martyrs who were willing to die for their faith in the 2nd and 3rd centuries were mostly all in Gehenna now, with no hope of a resurrection.
Yes, he had a dark side. But at least he could snicker and joke while saying such serious things. I don't know if that makes it better or worse, though.

What does this one mean at Ezekiel 39:15?
"When those who pass through the land see a human bone, they will set up a marker beside it. Then those assigned to do the burying will bury it in the valley of Hamon-Gog...And they will cleanse the land."
Bethel has never commented on this verse, so I am not allowed to speak of it until they tell me what to think. (I just threw that in for @Albert Michelson and crew)
But if I could comment on it, I might offer that it tells how every last vestige of human thinking is cleared out after Armageddon, some of which are so skillfully interwoven by governments, business, contemporary thinkers and the like, that their effects are unnoticed, yet they affect us nonetheless. After Armageddon - gone!
For example, even without ill intent, we are hearing endlessly of the displaced in Houston where (at last count) 37 have died, and are completely ignorant - or it is mentioned only in passing - that over 1000 have died in India - same cause. Repeat this to Americans again and again, as with any other news story, and it plants the subtle notion - not easily dislodged - that American lives are the ones that matter. It is probably the same in all nations. 
Now it is an ongoing struggle. Paul says we are 'overturning reasonings against every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God.' Every dividing thought, every undermining thought, every debased thought - thoughts that cannot be completely screened out even if we live and breathe jw.org - in the new system - gone in the new system!
Unless there will just be a lot of bones to pick up, and the mens' wives drive them, as mine does me to my howls of protest, to keep everything neat and tidy. 

*** w56 8/1 p. 465 pars. 16-17 Jehovah’s Message Against Gog of Magog ***
16 In the wake of Armageddon’s carnage, disease and pestilence from the rot and decay would plague the survivors were it not for the fact that Jehovah sends forth an invitation to the birds and beasts to attend this great slaughter. “Speak unto the birds of every sort, and to every beast of the field,” Jehovah says, and say to them, “Assemble yourselves, and come; gather yourselves on every side to my sacrifice that I do sacrifice for you, . . . Ye shall eat the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth.” This certainly shows the contempt in which Jehovah holds the proud and haughty of Gog’s system, letting the wild beasts and vultures feed upon them as worthless carrion!—Ezek. 39:17, 18, AS.
17 With such a glorious feast of victory concluded, only the bones, bones from one end of the earth to the other, will be left for burial. What a task that will be for the survivors, to cleanse the earth of every remaining evidence of Gog’s forces! Even with the work well organized it will take seven months, Jehovah says, just to bury the bones. Scouting corps will be sent out on a full-time basis to search the land thoroughly and, when bones are found, markers will be set up for those with the spades and shovels who follow. (Ezek. 39:14, 15) Those privileged to share in that cleanup work will not view it as a revolting and disgusting assignment but will rejoice to be alive when Gog’s long and oppressive rule has come to an end and when the wicked are no more. Survivors of Armageddon will be happy and will greatly rejoice to have a share in preparing the earth for a global paradise of beauty and perfection under the reign of the King Christ Jesus. But first, before that happy day, this message against Gog must be delivered in its completeness.

---------------
In 1965, or so, several congregations used to put on skits for the Circuit Overseer's visit. ("Circuit Servant" in those days.) We did one where we re-enacted this scene from Ezekiel. To prepare, we literally gathered some sun-bleached skulls and bones from long-demised cattle, always plentiful on the acres of land and farms in Missouri. Then we set up some sand-piles on the platform of the Kingdom Hall behind the back curtain, with the bones already placed there. Then, when time for the "drama" came around during the meeting, we opened the curtain, had some little kids play the scouts who put markers by the bones, and then had some more mature brothers put the bones in their large burlap sacks. In rehearsal, one brother picked up a skull and would say things like, "looks like this one died because he was too bull-headed," etc. But the conclusion of the actual drama went like this. One sack-toting brother asks the others, "Hey. Has anyone seen Brother One-hour?" After learning that no one has seen him, he then says: "You don't suppose!?!?!?!?!  . . . . . and then, of course, he gets all dramatically wide-eyed, and throws the whole sack across the stage. Lights go to dark. Applause!!

Years ago, when reflecting about this same fact, I came to the same conclusion: Jehovah propitiated, tolerated in some way that His people was taught with a false, or incorrect idea, in order to a higher benefit:  strengthen the resolution of witnesses during IIWW in order to face the cruel persecution.
But, some questions arise:
·        Did the Christians of the first century need to think incorrectly about Romans 13 in order to resist the persecution of Nero? ·        When our point of view was finally rectified (I believe in 1963 or close) did the brethren under the steel curtain begin to be less faithful then? The answer is obvious. Isn’t it?
I fully agree with you regarding Moses, Israelites, loyalty and faith. So, perhaps you’re  annoying, to some extent, with thoughts openly exposed here by @JW Insider or myself, in the sense that certain teachings or explanations of the "slave class" are incorrect.
·        In the first place, is it necessary to be faithful to accept all the explanations provided by the slave? ·        Can I be faithful if, although I am not convinced of certain explanations, I try not to disturb others and I go ahead? Let me explain what I’m trying to do with this kind of situations.
In the recent regional convention, in the last talk, was mentioned the end is imminent (well, the Spanish expression was “inminente”, I suppose in English was used another equivalent). Now, not that I do not believe that the end is imminent, is that I do not know. My base: our Master declaration: “…at an hour that you do not think likely, the Son of man is coming.”
I’ve watched the danger of these kind of imprudent (in my view) declaration many times, during many years (1914, 1925, 1975, 1994 end of generation, now overlapped generation). Brothers disappointed, at some degree bitter. The clear majority of Jehovah’s servants don’t need a false sense of immediacy. We give Him the most day by day. The end will come at his own due time. Concerning this, one question:
·        Is it more loyal if you strive because you believe that the end is imminent? ·        What happens to those who do not know when the end comes, and despite this we give Jehovah one hundred percent? ·        Are we therefore less loyal? Do you know, in my zone, the most repeated expression after the convention? “the end is imminent, the slave said this”. My answer: “oh yes, when I was a child also believed the end was imminent, in 1975. Sometimes our wishes are so strong that make this kind of statements”.
Oh, I wish go further, but for several weeks I’ll be busy
 

I think your reasoning on this is wrong on several levels.  The JW religion is not about how many numbers it has. If that were the case, then we could more efficiently and easily bolster our numbers by doing what religions of Christendom have done; water down the scriptures and tell the people what they want to hear and what is comfortable for them. We could allow smoking, turn a blind eye to adultery, fornication and homosexuality, support patriotism, celebrate all the holidays and Birthdays, have blood transfusions......you get the drift. 
The objective of the JW organization is not about numbers but to keep it morally and spiritually clean. It's about quality not quantity. And as @JW Insider remarked on the other thread, which puts it in a nutshell "We are counting on Jehovah's spirit to help us find the ministry that feels the most like what we would expect if we saw the first-century Christians trying to fit into the twenty-first century"
 

Depends on the kinds of teachings you are talking about. Most things are repeated so often that you can't miss them. Any child in the organization can rattle off a list of things we don't approve of, and they will be correct. The general idea of baptism is that the person realizes that he wants to associate with a people who have high moral standards and who are best known for getting out there and preaching the good news of the kingdom that will someday step in and solve man's problems and turn the earth into a paradise.
(By the way, I didn't include those items on a previous list of core doctrines, but I also agree that God's will through the Kingdom will be done both in heaven AND on earth, and therefore there are a "new heavens" AND a "new earth" that we are awaiting according to his promise. I also think that the basis for preaching about this good news is best done through a world-wide house-to-house ministry, wherever possible, so I should also have included this practice into the core teachings of Christianity, although I don't think that preaching and teaching is the only ministry of sacred service.)
A few months ago, our Circuit Overseer and a couple of elders were here at the house and I was thinking about something I had just written over here on the forum. It was following the funeral of an anointed sister,  and someone said something about what she might have said last week when she met "Saint Peter at the Golden Gates" in a joking manner, and I said "well now, of course, we say it's only an interesting possibility to say that Peter is already in heaven." I knew I shouldn't have said it, but the Circuit Overseer said that Peter has been in heaven since the spring of 1918. The other two elders quickly agreed, "That's right," "That's right." So I said, "Oh I thought I read somewhere that we didn't put an exact date on that any more," and I quickly changed the subject.

I've aleady said a lot more than my share in the last couple months here. And it has probably dipped the popularity of this particular forum to its lowest levels in a long time. But I would like to share some points that might be right or wrong. They're just opinions.
I too have serious doubts about the 1914 doctrine, but I have not been disfellowshipped. It is true that you have to "muzzle" yourself, and as you say, basically take a vow of silence among your friends, even some of your most trusted friends. I have seen brothers who have "covered" for each other by not turning them in, and even lying for them. I've known this to have happened among brothers (and sisters) on issues ranging from drugs, fornication, belief in evolution, disbelief in our blood doctrine, habitual drunkennes, etc -- but I would never imagine that brothers like that would be trusted to understand how to respond to a fellow Witness on the topic of 1914.
A recent couple of discussions here have shown me that, for some, almost all semblance of Christianity goes out the window when something so basic to our comfort level is threatened. There are books that discuss this phenomenon from a psychological perspective, too, and I have been surprised and saddened to see the precise, predictable patterns emerge among us.
However, if one wishes to stay, work, and serve among Jehovah's Witnesses, as I do, then I'm pretty sure it's possible for almost anyone to remain as a Witness in good standing. There are some with ebullient personalities who will have more trouble than others, but there are other outlets for sacred service that are just as acceptable to Jehovah besides teaching 100% of the current doctrines. (There are 100 other, more important doctrines to emphasize.) There are especially good works, which could be visiting the elderly, offering rides, helping brothers out financially, helping them find jobs, volunteering to help them with food, chores, errands. For me Christianity is not strictly the doctrinal part of the religion on its own, but our form of Christianity is (to me) a clear stepping stone to mature Christianity. The emphasis on the Bible is higher than most religions, and the most important need that it meets is to provide comfort to those who are sighing, learning to throw our burdens on Jehovah, and recognizing that Christianity is primarily the strong bond of brotherhood, the social structure, by which we help and encourage one another to keep our faith.
I have never believed that all the doctrines have to be in order as long as our motivations are out of love for God and neighbor. If they did all have to be in order, then no person associated with the Watchtower and Jehovah's Witnesses from 1919 until 2016 even passed the test anyway, because so many doctrines have changed during that time. And ye we have no problem believing that Jehovah accepted these persons as Christians, in spite of the false doctrines. (In 2018, we will no doubt change more doctrines, which means that none of us had all our doctrines in order this year either.) However, I still find that all the important core doctrines fit the Bible much better than any other set of core doctrines I have seen anywhere else. (war, neutrality, morality, ransom, Trinity, hell-fire, torment, soul, spirit, sovereignty, outworking of kingdom in history, millennium, Armageddon, resurrection, salvation) I question plenty of other things too, but do not reject them outright.
I could still be wrong on 1914, but at the moment, I currently have no doubts; I'm sure it's wrong, and I'm sure it's wrong to emphasize the date even if it were right. But as a Christian brotherhood, we are not much different in our thinking about the final end than first-century Christians. They, too, expected the final end in their own generation. They too wondered how long that "generation" could go on. They knew that times were getting worse and worse for them and comforted themselves knowing that the time for their salvation was nearer to them every day. So we all remain watchful of our conduct and our motivations, but also patient. 1914 has probably created some unscriptural adjustments to that idea of patience, and has no doubt created an air of anticipation about date for the end of the generation that supposedly started in 1914, and  this is spiritually unhealthy. With enough failed expectations behind us, however, we are fairly unlikely to fall into the specific trap of serving for a specific time or season. But humans are humans and the presumptuousness of believing we have been given some kind of special knowledge or special interpretation has affected many, right up to the highest levels of responsibility in the organization.

The Librarian    2 434
Advanced Member   Administrators 2 434 6 964 posts     "Read it here = http://www.portaldeangola.com/2017/08/mais-de-400-fieis-desmaiam-no-congresso-da-igreja-testemunhas-de-jeova/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
Posted samedi at 22:07

According to news sources in Luanda, Angola (read it here, although it's in Portuguese language), a regional convention of the JW's taking place this weekend at the outskirts of capital Luanda was targeted yesterday, friday, by what may be described as a 'terrorist attack'.

More than 400 attendees (mostly female) passed out in rapid succession in the vicinity of a toilet at the convention place. Reportedly, toxic gas devices were planted there by 3 young members of UNITA, the main political party that opposed MPLA, the dominant regime party in Angola since its independence in 1975. 43 people were rushed to the hospital and a few remain there, under medical surveillance. No deaths were reported.
The attack seems to be a retaliation for the fact that JW's do not vote - and Angola just underwent presidential elections during last week. 3 perpetrators were seized by the police while trying to change clothes at the convention hall, and 2 more are being hunted down.

(Luke 12:47, 48) . . .Then that slave who understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do what he asked will be beaten with many strokes. But the one who did not understand and yet did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few. Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him.
 
Anna, everyone of us know who has the responsability to fix the situation: "his master on coming" (Lu 12:43)
So, what can we do? Wait, be busy in the work and making fine things, and pray.
Pray for these brothers in th GB, that they have the wisdom and courage to act. Pray for the humble ones, that Jehovah grant them faith to wait without stumbling

Interesting. I was just now going to type up several reasons why salvation is not dependent on us believing in 1914. I have read this 1986 article before. But thank you for mentioning it, as a reminder on here.  Put in context of the time period this article was written, (post Bethel apostasy) it is understandable to a certain extent why it was written. It would be interesting to see if such a view was still strictly adhered to today, and put into the same words as is was back then. A lot of doctrinal water has gone under the bridge since then, and some beliefs had to be revised. (None that are mentioned above though). Because of that, it seems the GB is a lot more careful recently when it comes to insisting on certain past teachings. Knowledge and truth are progressive, that is why the article also mentions "Through Jesus Christ, Jehovah God provided for this purpose “some as apostles, . . . some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers . . . until we all attain to the oneness in the faith and in the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to a full-grown man.” Ephesians 4:11-13  Evidently we have not attained all the accurate knowledge yet. Perhaps not even the oneness in the faith as is also evident by the discussions on this forum....
 
Not really, since the Good news is and has remained the same regardless of a date. The Good news is about the blessings for mankind brought through the Messianic kingdom, regardless of when established.
 

Sure. From 1919 to 1927 the Governing Body promoted the doctrine that the Great Pyramid was as Russell called it: "Jehovah's witness" and "the Bible in stone." The books stating this doctrine were promoted until about 1933. After Rutherford changed the doctrine, he even called the Great Pyramid, "Satan's Bible." (1928)  So if you believe that what was taught from 1919 to 1927 was "God's doctrine" then the Governing Body under Rutherford changed it.
Of course, in 1925 Rutherford also used the term "Satan" to refer to the larger part of the Governing Body at that time and he finally got rid of the entire Editorial Committee, which he had previously referred to as "Satan," in 1931.
The Watchtower also claims that Rutherford changed Russell's "correct view" of Romans 13 to an incorrect view, and says that it stayed that way in the 1930's until the 1960's. If you believe the current doctrine is "God's doctrine" and that the Watchtower is correct when it says that this doctrine was "correct" under Russell, then you should accept the Watchtower's view that Rutherford changed what you now call "God's doctrine."

During the "Middle Ages" these types of discussions consumed people for HUNDREDS of years ... and the synopsis was the phrase "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
I try to keep my life simple, and since no one can prove that invisible things that SUPPOSEDLY happened a hundred or so years ago, using "evidence" that can be interpreted a hundred different ways ... and all with internal reasoning that makes sense to the proponents, and, I ...having ALSO been consumed with such things earlier in my life ... have come to the conclusion that it is ALL a complete and utter waste of my time,.
Soon enough ... too soon, perhaps ... we will ALL KNOW !!!
AND ... since there is absolutely NOTHING I can do to change reality ... whatever it is ... to quote Rhett Butler ...
 "Frankly Scarlett, I don't give a damn!"
I have a long list of REAL concerns, I CAN do something about.
..based on HARD EVIDENCE.
Remember EVIDENCE?
 

Yes. Of course. It's our obligation and our responsibility. See the list of scriptures that are currently in the very first post under this topic/thread. And there are at least a dozen more such scriptures that I didn't include. We should always pick and choose right from wrong. It's the very reason for having and training our conscience.
Otherwise, you could be led astray by various doctrines. Imagine if no one had questioned it when Russell said that the Great Pyramid was, "Jehovah's witness" as he called it, or "the Bible in stone." How long would Rutherford have gone on bragging about how when he changed the correct belief about Romans 13 to the incorrect belief that this was direct proof that prophecy was being fulfilled through the Watchtower Society?
Yes, indeed. You need to say more. How about including the very next sentence in the context. AllenSmith had just said he "KNOWS" that this claim makes me believe this particular lie. So I answered:
I know that @Anna wanted me to give you the benefit of the doubt, that you weren't actually scouring my words to find some way to dishonestly twist them. I wonder what she or other readers of your words think now? And I'm back to wondering if you really have no concern to represent Jehovah's Witnesses as honest and studious. You could end up giving the impression that . . . well, I'm sure you already know what impression this gives. But I would ask you to remember that Jesus said "By their fruits you will recognize them."
(Matthew 7:20) 20 Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those men.

During the "Middle Ages" these types of discussions consumed people for HUNDREDS of years ... and the synopsis was the phrase "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
I try to keep my life simple, and since no one can prove that invisible things that SUPPOSEDLY happened a hundred or so years ago, using "evidence" that can be interpreted a hundred different ways ... and all with internal reasoning that makes sense to the proponents, and, I ...having ALSO been consumed with such things earlier in my life ... have come to the conclusion that it is ALL a complete and utter waste of my time,.
Soon enough ... too soon, perhaps ... we will ALL KNOW !!!
AND ... since there is absolutely NOTHING I can do to change reality ... whatever it is ... to quote Rhett Butler ...
 "Frankly Scarlett, I don't give a damn!"
I have a long list of REAL concerns, I CAN do something about.
..based on HARD EVIDENCE.
Remember EVIDENCE?
 
 

You know I'll always respond to a direct question. So the answer is YES, I can absolutely say you were wrong. What you did is make note of the fact that I had pointed out something where the current evidence differs from what the GB is saying about a specific subject, and then you said that I must believe that I had (in your words) "the 'power' and 'authority' to question the dispensation of spiritual food by GOD?" So yes you are absolutely wrong about that.
Why? The apostles didn't have the right to want to change his doctrine and neither do the GB have that right, and neither do you or I. Unless you are arguing that the GB do have that right, and I don't believe that's what you are arguing. Therefore, I believe you agree with me.
You should be ashamed of yourself Allen! The added words that you are complaining about were not added by me. They were added by the Governing Body. That scriptural quote is the pre-2013 NWT taken directly from the 2016 Watchtower Library! I think the fact that you didn't recognize this shows just how much one can be blinded by their own emotions. I'm not sure if that is what happened to you here, but I have seen examples before where it seemed like anger was the probable emotion involved. At any rate, you are inadvertently claiming that the Governing Body was "dispensing their own thought, NOT God's."
Again, you have asked me a direct question, otherwise I would just let most of your snide comments and insults slide. So, "NO," this is not the very essence of wordplay. I am guessing that it was November 2013 when I joined jwarchive, and probably later in 2014 when I first posted anything doctrinal. In truth, since you asked, I have heard you mention this so-called problem of "wordplay" for years, but I have always noticed that it was you  engaging in the "wordplay" -- especially if by "wordplay" you meant some kind of twisting of words to make them mean something negative or sinister when I clearly meant something more positive. Take, even this supposed example where you just made the accusation that this is the very "essence" of wordplay. Of course, you might be referring back to the same point where you were trying to make this accusation about me, but were inadvertently attacking the Governing Body for the words they added to the New World Translation. (And the only reason this was taken from the pre-2013 NWT, was because I had just looked up a verse in that version so it was already open in front of me. I actually prefer the 2013 version in this case anyway, but only within the full context of course.)
You got it! That's exactly what I believe, and exactly why I used the verse. So what was that question about the freedom to undermine God's intended words all about? Are you still concerned with the way you thought the pre-2013 version of the NWT undermined God's words? Let it go.
Jesus and Jehovah, and even elders and the GB, to the extent these elders are taking the lead in matters of faith and love and teaching and good works and other instructive conduct, we should follow their lead, too. Hebrews 13:16-18 itself is also about our local congregation elders, too. In fact, the following article shows that, even though Hebrews 13:17 is especially for the congregation elders, some of the principles here are not merely about elders, but can have application to the entire congregation.
*** w10 10/15 p. 18 Do You Take the Lead in Honoring Fellow Believers? *** A Specific Assignment for All    Who should take the lead in showing honor? In his letter to the Hebrews, Paul describes Christian elders as “those who are taking the lead among you.” (Heb. 13:17) True, elders take the lead in numerous activities. Still, as shepherds of the flock, they surely need to take the lead in honoring fellow believers—including fellow elders. For instance, when elders meet to consider the spiritual needs of the congregation, they honor one another by carefully listening to the comments made by any of their fellow elders. Further, they show honor by taking into consideration the views and expressions of all the elders when making a decision. (Acts 15:6-15) We should remember, though, that Paul’s letter to the Romans was directed not only to the elders but to the entire congregation. (Rom. 1:7) Thus, by extension, the admonition to take the lead in showing honor applies to all of us today. Obviously, it's true that there are ways in which each encourage one another to follow in faith and fine works. If you see a good example, and are encouraged by it, then by all means follow that example. Personally, I believe that the primary application is to elders, however. So I have no problem at all applying this to elders in the congregation and the elders on the Governing Body.
(Hebrews 10:23-25) 23 Let us hold firmly the public declaration of our hope without wavering, for the one who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider one another so as to incite to love and fine works, 25 not forsaking our meeting together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, and all the more so as you see the day drawing near. (Hebrews 13:7) 7 Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith.

Although I agree with everything that you expressed above the point I just re-quoted, I thought that this point had more to do with the topic, so I will comment on it:
How are we in the harvest time right now if the wheat and the weeds are still growing UNTIL the harvest? You just said that harvest time is when the bundles are bundled up, some tossed into the fire, and some bundled for a better purpose. Do you not believe that the wheat is still growing? Isn't the good news still being preached?
As you might have noticed, this is all part of the same 100% consistency among all the scriptures on the subject that point to a Parousia as a judgment event, the Synteleia as a final end involving the judgment event, and the "Harvest" also involving the judgment event AFTER the wheat and weeds are no longer allowed to grow.

Clever wordplay. I see how you worked in the words "intellectual dishonesty" without having to give an example, or mention any evidence.
For a few hours, this thread had one of your comments at the top of it, and I thought it wasn't fair to you because you didn't request that such a topic be "started" by you. And it would also have given the impression that you had created the topic title. (Or maybe it was J.R.Ewing, although it was a silicon copy of your sentiments.) But once the first post is there at the top, I can't move that post back again, or anywhere else. (just the nature of the software) After trying several things that didn't work, I noticed that the solution was easier than I thought. Just find an earlier post on the topic and it sorts to the top. When the new older post pushes the original post down out of the top position then I can move it back to the original thread or move it to another topic altogether.
I say all that because I finally figured it out, and if you have a suggestion for another post to be at the top of this thread, I can make it happen. If you want one of your own at the top, that would be great, I could always put the one I quoted from in the new top position.
Thanks. I'm glad you see that was written is in harmony with scripture.
You obviously don't know what my experience at Bethel makes me believe. Because it definitely does NOT make me believe that I have "power" and "authority" to question the dispensation of spiritual food by God. If you "knew" of course, your guess could not have been so wrong.
On the use of a straightforward style that obviously angers so many people, I can only say that it sometimes feels a bit hypocritical to appear less assured if I really am assured that the evidence is on the side of the argument that I agree with. And another thing is that, during the years when I hadn't looked into enough of the evidence, I would not have felt that it was right to try to present so much of it on a public forum. I don't think it does much good to present evidence about such a longstanding and widespread doctrine (as 1914) if I still had all the doubts I had about it a few years ago. I knew it would be best to wait until I had prayerfully considered it, compared all the scriptures I could find on the subject, and study the history of the doctrine throughout all the publications to see if I had missed something. It was only after I was convinced personally that the Bible evidence was consistent, that I decided to look into whether the secular evidence supported the Bible evidence. It would not have made a difference at that point, because the secular evidence is not as important as the Bible evidence. But it turned out that the Bible is supported quite well from the secular evidence. The two recent threads that I started on 1914 however, were never about the secular evidence. They were about the wording of the scriptures. Someone else asked about the 70 years and 539 and it became the big talking point. There is also a verse that may or may not apply about the confidence we should have in what we are proposing with respect to presenting evidence for a teaching from the Bible: 
(1 Peter 4:11) 11 If anyone speaks, [let him speak] as it were [the] sacred pronouncements of God; if anyone ministers, [let him minister] as dependent on the strength that God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. The glory and the might are his forever and ever. . . . There could be any number of ways to misinterpret this scripture, and I'm not saying it applies to me in any way more than it applies to you or anyone else here. And perhaps it applies to none of us. But there is still a principle buried in the verse about confidence through strength that God supplies.
(Ephesians 3:11, 12) . . .Christ, Jesus our Lord, 12 by means of whom we have this freeness of speech and free access with confidence through our faith in him. So I can apologize that I likely sound too sure of myself. I can start changing that right now. Of course, looking at enough evidence to make oneself feel sure and confident does not make me right, anyway. But my conscience still tells me that I should share it, and not mince words about why I am sharing it, in spite of the insults and name-calling and whatever else. For me, it's a matter of following Christ wherever he goes. For me, it's a matter of paying more than the usual attention to what Jesus actually consistently said in Matthew 24, not changing a few definitions that make it seem like Jesus said something contradictory.
Thanks for adding it then. I thought that verse 17 had already been included here in this thread at least twice, even before you repeated it 3 more times under the "AllenSmith" moniker. But I also see that some have apparently interpreted it to mean that the Governing Body are the equivalent of God. That would be a form of idolatry, of course, so I'm surprised that some would claim that we should practice our religion as if idolatry were nothing to be ashamed of.

 
How does what I said above make you conclude that I rely on man instead of Jah? And I did make it clear that there was nothing wrong with sitting on the fence with regard to SOME issues, obviously not all.  In this case, I don't think believing or not believing in 1914 really makes a blind bit of difference in the grand scheme of things. Prove me wrong.

Years ago, when reflecting about this same fact, I came to the same conclusion: Jehovah propitiated, tolerated in some way that His people was taught with a false, or incorrect idea, in order to a higher benefit:  strengthen the resolution of witnesses during IIWW in order to face the cruel persecution.
But, some questions arise:
·        Did the Christians of the first century need to think incorrectly about Romans 13 in order to resist the persecution of Nero? ·        When our point of view was finally rectified (I believe in 1963 or close) did the brethren under the steel curtain begin to be less faithful then? The answer is obvious. Isn’t it?
I fully agree with you regarding Moses, Israelites, loyalty and faith. So, perhaps you’re  annoying, to some extent, with thoughts openly exposed here by @JW Insider or myself, in the sense that certain teachings or explanations of the "slave class" are incorrect.
·        In the first place, is it necessary to be faithful to accept all the explanations provided by the slave? ·        Can I be faithful if, although I am not convinced of certain explanations, I try not to disturb others and I go ahead? Let me explain what I’m trying to do with this kind of situations.
In the recent regional convention, in the last talk, was mentioned the end is imminent (well, the Spanish expression was “inminente”, I suppose in English was used another equivalent). Now, not that I do not believe that the end is imminent, is that I do not know. My base: our Master declaration: “…at an hour that you do not think likely, the Son of man is coming.”
I’ve watched the danger of these kind of imprudent (in my view) declaration many times, during many years (1914, 1925, 1975, 1994 end of generation, now overlapped generation). Brothers disappointed, at some degree bitter. The clear majority of Jehovah’s servants don’t need a false sense of immediacy. We give Him the most day by day. The end will come at his own due time. Concerning this, one question:
·        Is it more loyal if you strive because you believe that the end is imminent? ·        What happens to those who do not know when the end comes, and despite this we give Jehovah one hundred percent? ·        Are we therefore less loyal? Do you know, in my zone, the most repeated expression after the convention? “the end is imminent, the slave said this”. My answer: “oh yes, when I was a child also believed the end was imminent, in 1975. Sometimes our wishes are so strong that make this kind of statements”.
Oh, I wish go further, but for several weeks I’ll be busy
 

Sometimes we mistakenly think a source is incorrect due to our own preconceived ideas or lack of knowledge. Sometimes quoting sources we believe are incorrect is necessary for critical analysis, discussion, or to acknowledge an alternate POV exists.
Again, the methods and primary sources from which we deduce 539 BCE as being the correct year for Babylon's fall, are the same methods and primary sources from which we deduce 587 BCE as being the correct year for Jerusalem's destruction. I understand your caution and I get that it feels 'wrong' to you. Once you become more familiar with the lines of biblical, chronological and archaeological evidence, you should see how all those lines converge into one inescapable conclusion.
This is why I tried to get you to follow a linear track of reasoning instead.
I wish you had. It would have been interesting to explore.
Well, I can see that the reasoning and information I presented have gone whoosh over your head and you're restating what prompted my questions about whether you really understood how BCE dates are arrived at for Babylonian regnal years and events. Never mind. Maybe one day it'll click. Thank you for responding anyway.
Edit to add: If "there are no dates given so that one can properly synchronize to BCE dates," on what basis do you trust 539 BCE, since it is a date that derives from the Babylonian Nabonidus Chronicle and other Babylonian sources?

OK. This line of discussion has been left unfinished ...
... so it's probably time to wrap it up.
@Arauna had expressed her belief that the date 539 BCE for the fall of Babylon was "truly verified." However, she indicated mistrust of Babylonian sources because "their dates are all over the place - not reliable," the reigns are "impossible to correlate," and that the "Persian and Greek sources gets (sic) us to the truth." She cited the battle of Opis as an example of how the date 539 BCE is verified, apparently unaware that the battle was primarily recorded in a Babylonian source. So I was curious to know if she knew how the relative chronologies of the ancient near eastern world were fixed to BCE dating.
The only answer she could provide were reiterations of what scholarship had already concluded (that Babylon fell in 539 BCE), that Cyrus reigned 9 years and she cited the Olympiad counting system used in some Greek sources. But how do we nail down this data onto a BCE calendar time-line? I asked.
Maybe Arauna doesn't know, or doesn't care, or knows and won't say. So this is the point I've been leading to:
We nail down 'floating chronologies' like Babylonian kings' regnal years and Olympiads to the BCE/CE calendar by means of numerous dated Babylonian astronomical observations. The sky is the 'universal clock' I was hinting at. Babylonians were excellent sky-watchers and wanted to understand the motions of celestial objects, so they observed and measured distances and times, and they recorded what they saw. It was vital that they noted down the date for the observations otherwise their records would be useless for researching and calculating periodicities and so on. The year date would be their king's regnal year. Therefore, these dated astronomical tablets are snapshots of time, with celestial configurations often unique to that time period. So, when we combine the data from known kings regnal years with dated astronomical records from the same era, we can derive the BCE years the kings reigned.
This is the method by which it was deduced that 539 BCE was Nabonidus' 17th year, when the battle of Opis happened, and when Babylon fell to the Persians.
The same method and same Babylonian astronomical sources yield,
605 BCE as Nebuchadnezzar II's accession 597 BCE as the siege of Jerusalem and Jehoiachin's surrender and exile 587 BCE as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year and Jerusalem's destruction We cannot accept 539 BCE as being verified for certain events, while rejecting the dates for other events that have been verified by using the exact same methods and sources that were used to confirm 539 BCE. This would be an intellectually dishonest approach. Counter to what Arauna stated about the unreliability of Babylonian sources to get at the truth about dating Babylon's fall to 539 BCE, we cannot get to the truth about 539 BCE (or the year of Jerusalem's destruction) without Babylonian sources.
 
 

You should still be able to find at least one quotation that indicates this. You shouldn't say "done already" if it wasn't done. And as I explained above, I do already know that it isn't true. Russell did not predict any kind of war resembling WWI in 1914. This must be one of the reasons that Russell (after 1914 came and went) began using the year 1915 as the date for the end of the Gentile Times.
That doesn't say a lot for whether there were any anointed in 1914 who were truly able to discern the sign in 1914, does it? Yet, that's how we define the beginning of the "two-group generation." In fact, the Watch Tower continued saying that Jesus' Parousia had begun in 1874 all the way up until the formal change in 1943/4, nearly 100 years after Barbour first started promoting 1874 as the date for Jesus' Parousia. It might even be why it wasn't until the 1920's that the Watch Tower ran the story of Russell announcing the End of the Gentile Times in early October 1914 (Can't give the exact day when that announcement happened, because it's also changed 3 different times.)
As I said, I don't receive "special interpretation." I was referring to the way YOU defended a "special interpretation" by claiming that it was OK to use the least likely definitions of someone's words. The analogy I used was probably confusing. Sorry.
By the way, these topics that reverted back to 1914-related subjects will probably go back to their respective topics where they started from.

It's possible, so I'll assume you're right. I'm going to try to get in some late edits that don't cause too much confusion so that I can remove my previous assumption that he purposefully pulled it out of context. In some ways, I felt it was a different kind of insult to him to assume he hadn't really understood what he was doing. Hard to find a middle ground here. 
I think I know what he misunderstood here. I've seen A.S. do the exact same thing with the exact same reaction on a similar expression. In context, of course, he said he would ALWAYS prefer the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses to the Bible even if he knows that specific teachings might be different. Several times I spelled this out and was clear that it was only "specific teachings" that he might know are wrong. But because it was clear from context, I left out the idea about certain "specific teachings" and accidentally wrote "the teachings." He was able to jump on that and decide that I must have meant that ALL the teachings must be different from what the Bible teaches.
Historically, most of us have a bad habit of supporting "proof texts" vs. "context," so I should have seen it coming. I got a little more careful when engaging with A.S. because I'm sure you've seen how 'black and white" thinking with no room for subtlety or "gray areas" often results in this type of misunderstanding. It seems that words get culled and re-culled to find little snippets of "proof texts" for a preconceived notion. I've purchased CD's from bruceq, one of which contained several resources we have quoted from. I realized that this is an even bigger problem than I had ever noticed before, when we look to outside sources for quotes and support. Very often we just take a "proof text" without realizing that the context says almost the opposite. Even G.S., a writer at Bethel, was infamous for this kind of misunderstanding. He would read through newspapers and magazines searching for little phrases he could pull out of context. But as smart as he is, I don't think he always noticed when the context was saying the opposite. That's approximately what happened in both of these recent misunderstandings with bruceq. 

I agree with all your prior thoughts except this one.
Jehovah promised he will have a people (a group, not individuals scattered throughout the world) who will be united in worship of him. These peoples will beat their swords into plowshares and will not learn war anymore. They will have love among themselves, and they will follow in his son's footsteps. Whatever Jesus did, and told his followers to do, they will do to their utmost ability. This includes preaching the Kingdom as the only solution to mankind's problems. I do not see that this will ever stop until Jehovah says it is done. These peoples as a group, a great crowd, are the ones to inherit the earth.
"In the final part of the days,*The mountain of the house of Jehovah+Will become firmly established above the top of the mountains,And it will be raised up above the hills,And to it peoples will stream.+  2  And many nations will go and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah And to the house of the God of Jacob.+ He will instruct us about his ways, And we will walk in his paths.” For law* will go out of Zion,And the word of Jehovah out of Jerusalem.......
 5  For all the peoples will walk, each in the name of its god,But we will walk in the name of Jehovah our God+ forever and ever". - Micah ch. 4
 

@bruceq how does this have anything to do with what JW Insider said above? All he did was indirectly quote you, and said he finds it hard to understand. You might need to read it again, several times. It's a claim you made, after all!