Alithís Gnosis

JW Insider
COJ most certainly advocates that the whole Neo-Babylonian Period is one of an Absolute Chronology discussing 17 lines of evidence in support of his thesis. His treatment of 597 BCE does not instil any confidence that this date should be treated as a pivotal date in comparison to that of 539 BCE. In the General Index under the heading 'Dates, specific'597BCE he simply states:'deportation of Jehoiachin, 293,294'. Now, when one reads these two pages have little comment on 597 BCE simply stating another's opinion that this date was one of the very few secure dates. the footnote 15 on p. 293 refers the reader elsewhere in GTR to Appendix 5, pp.335-49.
It is in this section that complexity reigns regarding 597 BCE.regarding the synchronism between the Bible and the Babylonian Chronicles at this point: In particular Jonsson only introduces BM 21946 which pertain to Neb's 'seventh year during the reign of Jehoiachin' on page 342 and attempts to reconcile this Dan 1:1 with the 'third year of Jehoiakim'  based on his own interpretation of Jehoiakim's vassalage as discussed in par.3, p.343. By introducing Dan 1;1 Into the mix raises much complexity concerning the reign of Jehoiakim and his vassalage to Nebuchadnezzar thus making 597BCE as a pivotal date ridiculous and unwise.
scholar JW

That's what a lot of people at Bethel must still think. Can't blame them, I guess. But this bit of history is rarely described as it actually happened. But even if it had been predicted, it wouldn't make the theory true. The biggest problem is that 1914 was to usher in an era of peace. Initially 1914 was predicted as a time when there would NOT be war. Here is the prediction as it stood just 20 years prior to 1914, in the Watch Tower, July 15, 1894 p.226:
But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble. How many times have you read that in the publications describing what was supposedly predicted "decades in advance"? Instead, because chronology usually accompanies dishonesty, unfortunately, we had this to say at a time when the Society was trying to bolster belief and speculation in 1975: (from the Awake! January 22, 1973, p.8
"Jehovah's witnesses pointed to the year 1914, decades in advance, as marking the start of "the conclusion of the system of things." One of the very reasons that Adventism became so popular in the early 1800's is that a Bible prophecy that had been predicted through chronology in the late 1600's had actually come true near the end of the 1700's. Russell was a strong believer that this prediction had come true, and was therefore also a believer in some of the same predicted prophetic phenomenon that was seen in the early decades of the 1800's. I've described this before, so perhaps I'll find a link to the post rather than describing it again here. It was that amazingly accurate prediction, however, that got so many religions caught up in this search for more dates.

If that’s the case? Then the disgusting froglike visitation, though from a different source. It consists of Satan’s “unclean inspired expressions,” clearly symbolizing propaganda designed to maneuver all human rulers, “kings,” into opposition to Jehovah God. Satan thus makes sure that they are not swayed by the pouring out of the bowls of God’s anger but are firmly on Satan’s side when “the war of the great day of God the Almighty” begins has reared its ugly head once again.

The symbolism of those that reject their own doctrine so defiantly would need to be considered. Errors expressed don’t seem practical, then...

If that’s the case? Then the disgusting froglike visitation, though from a different source. It consists of Satan’s “unclean inspired expressions,” clearly symbolizing propaganda designed to maneuver all human rulers, “kings,” into opposition to Jehovah God. Satan thus makes sure that they are not swayed by the pouring out of the bowls of God’s anger but are firmly on Satan’s side when “the war of the great day of God the Almighty” begins has reared its ugly head once again.

The symbolism of those that reject their own doctrine so defiantly would need to be considered. Errors expressed don’t seem practical, then...

I have my doubts that this was the lesson. But you never know. The apology that appeared in the 1980 Watchtower over 1975 was actually as good as written back in 1976, and should have been the idea included in that same 1976 issue. But some brothers on the Governing Body were very vocal that you never admit a mistake because it will be used against you. (R.Franz wrote the 1980 apology but admits that he had to keep it weak because it had to be approved by those same brothers who would not agree to a stronger, clearer apology.)
Even the following portion of the "Choosing" book caused no little skirmish, because it claims that "many stumbled" and blames it on looking to a particular period or year, but didn't clearly blame it on the individuals themselves, which could have implied guilt on the part of the WTS. I'm including the surrounding context only because I like it for the fact that it finds a way to discuss the "presence" and still ignores 1914. (This, of course, got the writer, R.L., dismissed from Bethel, even though he continued working for the Writing Dept.)
*** bw chap. 10 pp. 169-170 pars. 41-43 Safeguard Your Christian Hope ***
Like Peter, the other faithful apostles taught their fellow believers to keep ever before them the certainty of Christ’s coming to execute judgment and to reward his loyal disciples. A prime objective of such teaching was to aid Christians to be found approved on the Son’s arrival “with power and great glory.” (Matthew 24:30) As Jesus had done, the apostles continued to emphasize the importance of proving faithful to the end. That end could come either at their death or at “the presence of the day of Jehovah.” (2 Peter 3:12) Since even the resurrection of Christ’s joint heirs is linked in the Scriptures with his return, the hopes of all true disciples are bound up with the arrival of the Son of God in the capacity of a glorious heavenly King. (Matthew 10:28; 24:13, 36-44; 1 Thessalonians 1:9, 10; 4:14-17) Thus, during the entire history of the Christian congregation, unshakable faith in the Master’s coming “with power and great glory” has been an aid in a person’s proving loyal to him.  42 Partly because of eagerness to be alive when Jesus Christ reveals himself in glory, there have been believers throughout the centuries who began looking to a particular period or a year for the windup of the ungodly system of things. This has happened right down to these “last days.” Since certain expectations were not realized, many stumbled and returned to the ways of the world. In fulfillment of Peter’s words, even today we hear the voice of ridiculers. (2 Peter 3:3, 4) In effect, they say: ‘What reason is there to believe that the Son of God is going to execute the ungodly and to reward his disciples? Why, nothing has changed since the time of creation. The original processes of life are continuing and give no indication of coming to a disastrous end in the near future. Men are marrying, and women are being given in marriage, babies are being born, and men continue to grow old and die.’ Thus they imply that the Lord Jesus Christ never will come to execute judgment or that this event is so far off in the future that it is of no immediate concern.  Such ridiculers have totally lost sight of the fact that either death or “the day of Jehovah” will inescapably overtake them. In either event, they will have no further opportunity to lay up treasure in heaven in the form of fine works. (Luke 12:15-21, 31, 33-40) Hence, for disciples of Jesus Christ there has never been a period of history when they could afford to be neglectful of their responsibilities. Certainly, the risk in doing so is even greater in our time.

We can't know exactly what the writer was thinking, but we can all see ways in which the scenario ties back to the theme "Don't give up!" One of the worst things you can do to a child waiting for a reward is to make promises about the time and place and then when you get there, reset the goal line, as they say. Going back to the illustration of running toward a final goal in Sinutko's talk, imagine if you were promising your child that if he could run a mile, you would buy him an ice cream cone. He had never run a mile before, and he struggled especially in the second and third quarter-mile lap. But seeing the goal ahead, he puts on that final burst of speed, amazingly, through pain and sweat, in the final lap -- and succeeds in running a mile for the first time!
Then you tell him he needs to run another mile.
(Proverbs 13:12) . . .Expectation postponed makes the heart sick, But a desire realized is a tree of life. The idea or lesson is that this "expectation postponed" became a trial, a sickness. It could even be traumatic in the illustration of the running child.
 

I was hoping that the reason why 1975 was brought up again (at convention) was because it was a reminder that the Slave err, and that some of the new things i.e. the OVERLAPPING GENERATION theory was perhaps to be treated with caution.
But how wrong I was!....... listening to Br.Herd.... we have finally got THAT part figured out!

I think this series of stages, while not definitive of course, helps put a framework on statements made during this time period and others too. For example, before 1925 the statements were very definitive about the "end" in 1925, and all caution was thrown to the wind in 1924. The statements became more cautious in 1925. There was another stage somewhere between 4 and 5 in those days where the Watchtower just denied that they ever said the things they said. Naturally, those who wish to defend the Watchtower Society against having made a false prophecy about 1925 will quote the stage#4 and stage#4.5 statements, and those who wish to embarrass the WTS will quote the stage#2 and stage#3 comments.
As to the "finger-pointing" stage#5 note the similarity between the following two statements, especially the portion highlighted in red:
*** yb75 p. 146 Part 2—United States of America ***
God's people had to adjust their thinking about 1925. . . . . A. D. Schroeder states: “It was thought that then the remnant of Christ’s anointed followers would go to heaven to be part of the Kingdom and that the faithful men of old, such as Abraham, David and others, would be resurrected as princes to take over the government of the earth as part of God’s kingdom.” The year 1925 came and went. Jesus’ anointed followers were still on earth as a class. The faithful men of old times—Abraham, David and others—had not been resurrected to become princes in the earth. (Ps. 45:16) So, as Anna MacDonald recalls: “1925 was a sad year for many brothers. Some of them were stumbled; their hopes were dashed. They had hoped to see some of the ‘ancient worthies’ [men of old like Abraham] resurrected. Instead of its being considered a ‘probability,’ they read into it that it was a ‘certainty,’ and some prepared for their own loved ones with expectancy of their resurrection. *** w76 7/15 p. 441 par. 15 A Solid Basis for Confidence ***
If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint, seeing that it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him and brought disappointment, but that his own understanding was based on wrong premises. *** w80 3/15 p. 17 par. 5 Choosing the Best Way of Life ***
. With the appearance of the book Life Everlasting—in Freedom of the Sons of God, and its comments as to how appropriate it would be for the millennial reign of Christ to parallel the seventh millennium of man’s existence, considerable expectation was aroused regarding the year 1975. There were statements made then, and thereafter, stressing that this was only a possibility. Unfortunately, however, along with such cautionary information, there were other statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility. It is to be regretted that these latter statements apparently overshadowed the cautionary ones and contributed to a buildup of the expectation already initiated.

About Charles Sinutko, the District overseer who was one of those who publically, in  front of a very wide audience made several very pointed remarks about 1975 including those already stated on this thread such as ““they know what’s coming, and don’t wait till 75, the door is going to be shut before then!”. No doubt he was one of the contributor to the 1975 “frenzy”.
However, Reading his life story in the  2004/8/22 Awake  it is evident that he is one of the ones “who made the needed adjustments” and who “didn’t run away and didn’t give up” (as per the video) Did he suffer selective amnesia? Surely not...   We don’t know what he thought, because he doesn’t say, but I can picture there must have been some interesting discussions between him and others after 75.
The question has been raised on here, what was the purpose of bringing up 1975 again at the last (2017) convention, and then some theories as to why.
The video was part of the talk “How you can by no means ever fail" based on 2 Peter 1:5-10; Isaiah 40:31; 2 Corinthians 4:7-9, 16
I don’t have time to figure out how to isolate the video from the rest of the talk to post it on here,  but here is a “transcript” beginning with Rachel’s father talking to his grandson with whom he had just attended pioneer school:
“Hard to believe this system would last so long, and I certainly would never believe I would be a grandfather”. Then he goes on to relate how his wife died and how “with Jehovah’s help and the support of the brothers we got through it”.
We learned to rely on Jehovah in ways we never had before – and that helped us when years later, another test came our way. You see, back then, some were looking to a certain date (1975) as signifying the end of this system of things and a few even went as far as selling their homes and quitting their job. I admit, I was ready to see this old system go away too. But something just didn’t seem right. Both at meetings and personal study – I was reminded of what Jesus said “nobody knows the day or hour” . I was dedicated to Jehovah, not a date. After that year came and went most of those who had wrong expectations made the needed adjustments…..and they stayed. We didn’t run away and we didn’t give up. We trusted in Jehovah. And when I see older ones now, I don’t just see grey hair, I see living breathing examples of endurance”.
So what IS the lesson?

Just steering a little back to 1975, I think maybe the confusion and conflict in this thread regarding what "really" happened apparently come from the fact that some of us are talking about stage 2 and 3, and others about stage 4 and 5. So two different aspects of what was said about 1975, and both aspects are true.
The 5 stages as posted by JWI, as a refresher:
1.The initial idea is floated, often with a bit of caution.
2.Then someone is sure enough to begin championing the prediction and begins to stake their reputation on it.
3.Then as confidence builds, those statements become more and more direct and less careful.
4.Then as the time approaches and the kinds of surrounding expectations that might have validated the prediction aren't there yet, real caution kicks in, and if necessary, some backtracking begins.
5. After the failure is obvious, we can expect blame and finger-pointing.
 

I don’t read into religious Ideologies. Since there seems to be a discussion on relevant and irrelevant times? Then it was out of curiosity that my statement was made.

It’s been 70 years since the USA officially recognized Israel as a state. I have heard, when the United Nations proclaimed peace and security, it would signal a turn for humanity. The purpose of my statement was to reflect on that. Many people believe, that invocation didn’t need to come from the UN, but an independent nation. Donald Trump affirmed the right for Israeli to hold Jerusalem as its capital. Therefore, he equivocally “stated” PEACE AND SECURITY for *all* nations to follow in his speech he made today. 1 Thessalonians 5:3

That in itself would merit consideration for those that follow bible prophecy.

Correct. Free speech should NOT BE CENSORED just because someone doesn’t like the outcome. Political correctness should not be part of a religious forum.

As an agnostic? Censoring everyone that opposes a view by demonstrating facts from fiction shouldn’t be used against anyone that expresses “free will”, with their opinion. I have seen enough, to see it doesn’t matter to imply rudeness if everyone here has done that in some fashion.

Simple opinions without malice have also been removed. This is an “open” forum to be expressed by all…

Correct. Free speech should NOT BE CENSORED just because someone doesn’t like the outcome. Political correctness should not be part of a religious forum.

As an agnostic? Censoring everyone that opposes a view by demonstrating facts from fiction shouldn’t be used against anyone that expresses “free will”, with their opinion. I have seen enough, to see it doesn’t matter to imply rudeness if everyone here has done that in some fashion.

Simple opinions without malice have also been removed. This is an “open” forum to be expressed by all…

AL,
Saw this in "The Atlantic." You made it hard to read, however:
The following (down below) is taken from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/two-concepts-of-freedom-of-speech/546791/
I have quoted too much of it, but this is the whole of the first few paragraphs. I understand your point, and I assume that you are referring to methods of trying to disrupt speech on this forum that have backfired, thus the dozens of alternate names that continue the disruption. But I also know that the person or persons behind all this recent disruption likely feel that an injustice has been done, and without taking sides on this, I understand that too. Unfortunately, it's difficult to police a forum without some injustices and biases, and those who feel over-policed will typically lash out.
I bring this up because it's more on-topic than most people think. The question arose earlier about why we tend to hear so much from those ex-JWs who are boisterous and vindictive and yet so many others just go on their way and "live and let live." I think that "censored speech" is one of those injustices that I should have included more explicitly on the list I made earlier. More to the topic, I think that the reason the Watchtower Society brought up 1975 again this year, after having dropped it, is directly because of the noise being made online by ex-JWs. The WTS is, in effect, now involved in a social media dispute with ex-JWs. This makes me curious about how people will understand the discussion of Social Media and the dangers of addressing concerns of "apostates" online, if it is observed that the WTS is now doing the same thing, obliquely, through videos and presentations that also end up online (via jw.org, tv.jw.org, etc).
---------- quote from The Atlantic --------------
Socrates (right) teaches Alcibiades. The Two Clashing Meanings of 'Free Speech'
Today’s campus controversies reflect a battle between two distinct conceptions of the term—what the Greeks called isegoria and parrhesia.
Little distinguishes democracy in America more sharply from Europe than the primacy—and permissiveness—of our commitment to free speech. Yet ongoing controversies at American universities suggest that free speech is becoming a partisan issue. While conservative students defend the importance of inviting controversial speakers to campus and giving offense, many self-identified liberals are engaged in increasingly disruptive, even violent, efforts to shut them down. Free speech for some, they argue, serves only to silence and exclude others. Denying hateful or historically “privileged” voices a platform is thus necessary to make equality effective, so that the marginalized and vulnerable can finally speak up—and be heard.
The reason that appeals to the First Amendment cannot decide these campus controversies is because there is a more fundamental conflict between two, very different concepts of free speech at stake. The conflict between what the ancient Greeks called isegoria, on the one hand, and parrhesia, on the other, is as old as democracy itself. Today, both terms are often translated as “freedom of speech,” but their meanings were and are importantly distinct. In ancient Athens, isegoria described the equal right of citizens to participate in public debate in the democratic assembly; parrhesia, the license to say what one pleased, how and when one pleased, and to whom.
When it comes to private universities, businesses, or social media, the would-be censors are our fellow-citizens, not the state. Private entities like Facebook or Twitter, not to mention Yale or Middlebury, have broad rights to regulate and exclude the speech of their members. Likewise, online mobs are made up of outraged individuals exercising their own right to speak freely. To invoke the First Amendment in such cases is not a knock-down argument, itÂ’s a non sequitur.