Malum Intellectus

What do you mean by fruits?  Jesus tells us it is teachings.  It has nothing to do with visible growth of any kind.  What type of fruit is hanging on the Watchtower’s trees (anointed are compared to trees in scriptures, Ps 1:3; 92:12; Jer 17:8; 61:3;Rev 22:2; Zech 4:3,14) in comparison to the Catholics or other religions?  Are the Watchtower’s fruits truly any better, and is this how we choose who is the ‘better game in town’ by weighing both the good and bad fruits then choosing who has the least ‘bad’ fruit?
“ A good tree can’t produce bad fruit; neither can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 Every tree that doesn’t produce good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.  So you’ll recognize them by their fruit.”  Matt 7:18-20
We recognize all “trees” by the quality and consistency of their fruits.  There is not one Watchtower leader who is a good tree since they either profess false doctrine or support false doctrine.  Their words weigh in heavier than Christ’s words, because they expect every JW to obey their words, whether good or bad. Prov 20:10  They expect every JW to obey them.  Matt 24:48-51
Amid the signs of the end times, Jesus said,  “He answered, “Watch out! Don’t be fooled! For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and, ‘The time has come!’ Don’t go after them.” (CJB)  Luke 21:8
These are “christs”, anointed ones deceiving with simply, dates which are false doctrines; starting with Russel.  Rev 13:11
The connection to Luke 21:8 is,
“Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you,  not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, (from anointed ones) as though the day of Christhad come.”  
Surely, this happened many times over the years to deceive God’s people. To show we are close to the Lord’s arrival, Paul continues,  Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” 2 Thess 2:3,4
Okay.  We’re there, close to the return of Christ.  I can say this with confidence, because the Temple of God is comprised of the living stones - the anointed ones.  How would a man of sin/lawless “sit” in or on the “living stones”, since they are people and not a physical building?  It has happened because the delusion of Satan (2 Thess 2:9-12; Rev 13:6) requires “Gentile” elders to rule over the “living stones”.  Priests are replaced with false priests.  The “Temple” has been defiled, which causes Rev 11:1-3 to commence.(Zech 4:10; Amos 7:7,8)  The true priests are individually being measured according to God’s righteous standards - how their own desirous passions within the heart will react with those standards.  Will they love truth in Christ, or Satan’s lie/delusion?  Should they continue eating fruit from a “tree” that is bad?   
The wolves deceive many, they sprinkle truth with lies, those professing to have a godly devotion but “deny” its power reject the pureness of Christ’s word, a delusion overcomes a large number of people who choose to love the LIE instead of the TRUTH, they are  a people who would shun their own by throwing them out of the congregations for speaking truth in Christ.  (John 16:2; Rev 13:15)  TRUTH comes from a “good tree” that CAN’T produce a lie/bad fruit.
The Watchtower is the delusion…of Satan’s.  In John 4, Jesus was telling the woman at the well, that there would come a time (which was even then) that we wouldn’t worship through our fleshly, earthly desires of what we physically see, but in spirit and truth. 
Spirit and truth:  Both are found in Christ.  And for those branches still attached to the vine; for those trees who produce only good fruit, you will find it in them, when you recognize their consistent good fruits that last. (Perhaps some here may call it, OCD)  They have come out of the delusion, refined of Wt’s sins, and suffered for their testimony to spirit and truth – to Christ and experienced all the results of doing so, that Jesus spoke of for those who defend him and pure truth.  Rev 12:11   The “restoration” of true worship is the restoration of his Temple priests, the “living stones” restored to Christ the Head of the Temple.  Zech 4:6,7
 You will not find it in an established religion that is seen with the eyes – “neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.”  You will find it through the desire to have a personal relationship with God and Christ.  Jesus said, narrow is the road leading to life. It is a path where the focus is on Christ and his teachings; not a broadway leading to “fiery” destruction. (God’s Word is like “fire”, Jer 23:29)  He isn’t the destroyer and neither is Christ.  Satan leads one to destruction, as nothing in this world can give life.)  Wt. pictures of Armageddon show a mass of people walking a wide open road leading to a “paradise” while mankind behind them is being visibly massacred.  They make the claim, stick with the organization and salvation will be granted.  Each claim of theirs is a counterclaim made by Christ.  The true Zion is not seen with the physical eye, but through its “living stones” that speak fruit that will last. A good “tree” would not center on themselves, but on the original Tree of Life – Jesus Christ.   Truth is out there, JTR, and God will see to it that we find it if we are motivated to find it.  When I was in the organization and read Luke 11:9,10, I believed it wasn’t necessary to seek or ask, since the organization seemed to fulfill the scriptures; although I never was searching diligently when the organization found me, (2 Tim 3:6,7; Ezek 13:18; Gal 4:26; Rev 12:15) which didn’t begin until the hypocrisy showed its ugly head, the lies became transparent and disappointment in teachings took me right back to that scripture.  I was not disappointed by doing what it said. 
 
 
 

Exaggeration is a feature of this area of debate and (for me) has no place in informed discussion on such a serious matter.
I haven't seen any analysis on the religious persuasion of child abusers and agree that some apostates contribute to fueling the biased reporting on the religious identity of child abusers who are or may have been connected at some time with Jehovah's Witnesses.
I recognise that the reporting on the religious identity of child abusers amongst religions other than Jehovah's Witnesses is biased toward "clergy" or other religious officials. However, in view of their imaginary office, I still view them just as members. Obviously, a cursory look at the vast numbers of reported child abuse cases indicates that the proportion of non-clerical membership of various religious groups engaging in this crime must be higher than commonly perceived.
And as you have now explained that your "never" means "rarely", I hold to my view.
 
21 Nov 2007 JW Press release.pdf

My point was an attempt to counter the idea that such terrible things will always, unavoidably get worse due to the implication that this means we give up on trying to do all we can to help. It sounds defeatist. Also, even if we knew absolutely that things would get worse and worse, would this mean that we would not wish to do everything in our power for our brothers and sisters, if not also to even set an example as a light to the world?
Sometimes, when humans put some effort toward it, we learn how to counter serious problems. That's why I brought up the huge effects of correcting the common belief that germs didn't cause disease (and corollary beliefs). When these ideas were corrected, most plagues and many other causes of death also became much more manageable. I consider AIDS to be a major plague, the Spanish Influenza, and similar flu strains. There are still deadly ebola outbreaks, cholera, etc. But we as a human race have learned about cause and effect factors.
I used 1919 as the last date because I believe this was the year in which the last major big "plague" (the Spanish Influenza), tapered off. Wikipedia says  it killed some 50 million to 100 million people worldwide over about a year in 1918 and 1919. I wasn't saying that this can't happen again. I was saying that humans have found ways to minimize the former devastating effects of these to such an extent that the world's population growth rate has been effected.
(Also, of course, I don't know why your point about 1855 should serve to modify the remark. For me, it's part of the evidence I was presenting.)
For me it wasn't just Ameri/Eurocentric. At the time I was including progress albeit slowly, against female circumcision, female infanticide, child labor, child brides, excessive corporal punishment, and many related issues that slowly progress through exposure of these as international human rights issues. Again, however, it may get worse, but we still want to avoid using the idea as a kind of defeatism against doing what we can to expose the issue wherever we become aware of it. It's a good work to expose it, and especially to help those related to us in the faith.

I suspect that it really is much worse in other religions. I have already seen people who take the data that comes out of the Australian studies to try to show that it must be about 10 to 50 times worse, as a ratio, among Jehovah's Witnesses as it is among Catholics. I think this interpretation of the numbers is ludicrous. I found it to be a useful point when you pointed out that the numbers among JWs may refer to both "higher ups" AND the "rank and file," while the numbers from the Catholic Church refer mostly to "higher ups."
I was trying to find a way of saying that it was not all four "higher ups" at the London Branch who had been accused. You might have already been aware of the news when three of the persons with the highest responsibilities at the Branch were dismissed at the same time, and I did not want to cast aspersions against all of them. But you have put me in the awkward position of thinking I should defend the truthfulness of what I said. In Australia not only does the list include circuit overseers, and a former district overseer, but the accused included a person who had been a former Australian Branch overseer himself. One of the very cases that we listened to testimony about in the ARC was a case where the accused was one of these at the top of the Australian Branch organization.
So I mention the parallels as a way of showing the seriousness, even though all of us have the desire to protect the reputation of the Organization. I think it's just as dangerous to minimize the cases as it is to exaggerate them.
With respect to the Interview you mentioned, it's hard to imagine this in any institution, but there really are parallels even if we are not trying to equate our problems with Catholic problems. Although I am not speaking of child abuse, exactly, there have been cases of collusion among some accused of wife-swapping, two or more elders who all committed fornication with the same young sister, and in at least one of these cases, more than one of the accused Witnesses ended up being friends with each other, and supposedly had used this friendship to cover for each other. Something related to this has been claimed for a couple of Australian congregations and three California congregations.
I can't claim direct knowledge of those things that I just mentioned in the last paragraph, but I can claim almost direct knowledge, or at least knowledge that came to me from a member of the GB, whom I worked for. At the time there were about 16 active members of the Governing Body, and one had been accused of homosexual tendencies (Chitty), while two others had been accused of multiple child abuse instances (Greenlees and Jaracz). Another was a 80+-year GB member (Fred Franz) who had made it a longstanding practice to meet with more than a dozen naked and semi-naked 19-year olds in the sauna (steam room), who came there to listen to his Bible discussions for up to two hours every Wednesday night. Two of those GB members were dismissed from Bethel, the other two remained at Bethel until they died. I mention all of these because it reflects on 25% of the highest organizational leadership at the time. We know that it's often those with a measure of authority who use their position to manipulate the situation allowing for the crimes and the cover-up of their crimes.
So, unfortunately, I cannot accept some of the excuses about needing to slap down those who see problematic parallels. Finding the parallels with other institutions might even be a way to find more solutions that have seemed to work in some of these other institutions. I don't think it matters who is better or worse, it matters that we find more ways to help the situation, help the victims, and keep the organization clean. Making the organization appear cleaner is not the same as truly working to make it clean. I'm a firm believer in facing the issue head on as the fastest way to clean it up.

"What does Jehovah doing things in certain unusual ways have to do with child abuse?"
This was the thinking also of a certain other poster on a similar thread, and I hate saying this, but perhaps this kind of mentality has been the reason for non reporting and other inefficiencies regarding the handling of child sexual abuse. Yes, it is true that Jehovah should figure in our trying to solve problems, since being a JW is a way of life, but when it comes to handling of child sexual abuse, "waiting on Jehovah" and other perceived theocratic sensibilities just don't seem appropriate in this situation.

Not every problem needs to get worse as the system goes down. Plagues and flu that have killed millions of people may have seen their worst days from the Middle Ages until about 1919. Soap and a better understanding of germs and cleanliness (clean water, etc) has likely been the reason that the population of the world has grown so rapidly especially in the last two or three generations since 1919.
The Watch Tower publications were not the only sources of bad (false) information about germs, up until as recently as 1931. Note: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/08/09/yes-there-really-are-people-who-dont-acc/
Of course, we have had multiple plagues in the world from the even before Jesus predicted that these things would continue to occur. And we could be hit with something unexpected and terrible in the near future, but plagues are no longer the kind of worry they were during the days of exploration from the 13th to the 17th centuries. Lack of plagues results in rising populations and therefore food shortages, however.
Child abuse might actually be another matter that gets better, not worse, as the system heads towards the end. More public awareness (including families of course), and more education, and more alert institutions (religious, educational/academic, health, government services) can make a huge difference, especially as children are made aware of the potential problem at younger ages. Although there is still scrutiny and a lot of news about the problem, I think the situation might already be improving. The circuit overseer in my parent's congregation, Kent K*rr*s.,  in private conversation, claims that the problem is much rarer in the past few years than it was 10 years ago. I suspect the same is, or will soon be true with better vetting in the Catholic churches, too. My aunt is a lapsed Witness who attended a funeral for a friend in a Catholic Church about 4 years ago, and picked up a letter from the archbishop to all members in the back "foyer" of the church that announced that their new priest was on leave for an investigation into such a scandal, and that this was especially difficult on all church members since their bishop had just been removed indefinitely although he claimed innocence of similar charges. The archbishop promises that great care will be taken to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again.
I understand your point about bringing the incest problem from 1 Cor 5 into the mix, although that was not at all about child abuse. The idea that even the world might have handled this particular problem better than the Corinthian congregation was handling it is an interesting point. I hadn't thought of that. 
But the real point I wanted to make was that it seems like a real non sequitur when you add this:
Of course Jehovah's way is best! But your logic is hard to follow here. What does Jehovah doing things in certain unusual ways have to do with child abuse? And how is handling child abuse in any way akin to telling Jehovah he was wrong in Genesis 22?
It comes across as a kind of defense of the long-standing way in which the Organization has handled child abuse cases just because, for example, we were trying to make excessive(?) use of the two-witness rule (which had the supposed advantage of keeping most of these cases quiet from both the rest of the congregation and the press). Even now there are very few Witnesses who know the identity of more than just a few of the 1,003 child abusers in Australia, for example. I happen to know for an absolute fact that just a very few of these were men that were regularly seen by tens of thousands of fellow Australian Witnesses due to their high positions. There had been an unofficial move-them-around policy similar to what happened in some Catholic dioceses. Something very similar came up in the UK Branch Office so that a few people at the very top lost their positions (a couple years ago) so that the branch in the UK would be in a better position to save their threatened status as a charitable organization. By the way, if you happen to know the three or four top persons who lost their positions, I am not referring to whether or not any or some had been personally accused of crimes, I'm also referring to a claim of undeniable knowledge of crimes that were not handled correctly, ethically, or even according to law in some cases.
Also, I should mention that it is now the Governing Body's position that certain things must be done by the law of the land even if we know that the Bible itself recommended a different process under the nation of Israel. This is why Brother Jackson refused to admit that the Bible supports corporal punishment of children and focused on only one scripture in that regard that could be said to have a non-literal meaning. The rights that Jehovah has to create a prophetic drama by having a specific situation played out is not relevant at all to how we handle matters of abuse today. (When Jehovah asks a prophet marry a prostitute, or cook his food with excrement, or even see just how far a person will go when asked to kill their son: none of these have anything to do with how we should handle child abuse or defend processes just because Jehovah may do certain things in unusual ways.)

Actually this is a valid point but is also an overstatement. The word "never" exaggerates. The Roman Catholic church, as an example, has received considerable publicity over this matter, albeit with a focus on clergy crime. 
This topic provokes strong reactions wherever it is raised, not least because it seems to be one of the final frontiers of morality left in this broken system. Many Jehovah's Witnesses have little detailed knowledge of the topic from a media perspective, both because of it's extreme distastefulness as well as the aforementioned negative media bias with it's apostate links.
It is difficult to get a rational grasp on the matter, even more so on the real facts behind what appears in the media. I have found the factual element of what has been posted on this forum to be very useful along with links to information sources. The various viewpoints expressed, including those I do not share, have been enlightening. 
In field ministry recently, I met the director of a national mental health organisation. He is known for having very strong and negative views on Jehovah's Witnesses in general, and particularly in the area of handling child abuse. He is not averse to loudly disputing with Witnesses on the street, hailing facts and figures to support his views to such an extent that most cannot engage with him. The information I had gleaned from postings here was very useful, and I was able have have a fact-driven conversation with this vociferous man, with an insight into his pattern of thinking. At least the level of emotion  and speech volume was reduced, and I think that being able to engage rationally and factually was a factor in that. A position held in ignorance of facts in an emotional exchange is guaranteed to fuel an angry reaction.
Hopefully, this topic will generate a useful contribution.

This subject is unlikely to subside.
@AnneOMaly has related that "there is a campaign to have the UK JWs' child abuse allegation procedures officially investigated due to failings that have come to light in high profile cases over the past few years." This thread was started. due to publicity around the issue. The Times has reported on the campaign, (although a subscription is required to get the full account).
The campaign includes pressure to include the matter in the investigation, currently in the UK, of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse which has commenced hearings despite an extremely shaky start.  https://www.iicsa.org.uk/investigations.
So with this backdrop, don't miss an enlightening BBC drama looking at a particular series of incidents in Rochdale, UK. This illustrates some context around this disgraceful crime, and provides insight regarding the failings of institutional response, highlighting something of the general social and institutional environment that all, including Jehovah's Witnesses, find themselves within, particularly in the UK.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08r8pvh/three-girls-series-1-episode-1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08r8s12/three-girls-series-1-episode-2
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08r8vp5/three-girls-series-1-episode-3
As these are time limited links, the drama is also available on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_V35N7SgUU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gglEX3LdFs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILMaglVyU4c
 

The quotes I gave are a Literal Translation and are from my Interlinear Bible by Jay P. Green Sr. You might also want to look up Young’s Literal Translation.
 
The rest of what you say is a complete and utter load of bias rubbish oozing from you distorted mind. You have no idea whatsoever on any of the things you say, none. It is no wonder you agree with that dishonest Space merchant…birds of a feather…<><

Mr. Rook,
 
Please note the following Scriptures.
 
“For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things made, both His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse.” (Romans 1:20)
 
“For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col 2:9). <><

Mr. Rook
 
It amazes me how many times you get so many things wrong.
 
You imply that Revelation 1:1-2 should be enough to prove that Jesus is not God, because as you reason, Jesus is given the Revelation from God.
 
But you forget that Jesus is the mediator between the Godhead and mankind, in His mediatorial role He is given the Revelation to pass on to man.
 
The fact is, Jesus has been resurrected as man and His role as mediator and revealer is not over. The fact is Jesus has a great more to say to His true followers (compare John 16:12).
 
But you JWs won’t understand this as Jesus is not directly your mediator as such because the Watchtower falsely teaches that He is only the mediator for the 144,000.
 
Let me make this point plain, Jesus, in His role as mediator represents the matters of God to man, and as mediator He is revealing to man the revelation of the Godhead, the verse speaks of Him in His meditorial role, to claim as you do that this proves He is not God is quite ridiculous, and ignores what Scriptures says elsewhere.
 
The Revelation comes from the Godhead, and it is given to Jesus as mediator to pass on to man. And Jesus is qualified to perform the role of mediator because He is both God and man, do you get it…probably not! <><

Space merchant,
 
I read through your response and I am astounded by the amount of your contradictions, not only that but you even deliberately alter my statement to try to cover up for something you said.
 
I said on January 20;
 
 
Note carefully that my above statement does NOT contain the word “eternal”!
 
You responded on January 24 with this comment;
 
 
I replied on January 28
 
 
Now here comes your contradiction and deliberate altering of what I said;
 
 
 
You added the word ‘eternal’ to my statement and then made up the excuse that that was what you were responding to.
 
This shows me your true character (John 8:44) and to which I will not waste anymore of my time addressing your dishonest claims any further! <><
 

Space merchant,
 
I will keep this response short because a long post is difficult for some to read.
 
I only touched on the Hebrew word echad in my other post and how the basic meaning is “united” from the root “to unify”, which apparently is only “half correct”.
 
Consider this, if the Bible writers, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote that God is multi-personal, as is claimed by most Bible believing Christians, then we would expect to find that these authors would write about God in such a way as to indicate this to their readers, right?
 
There are some nine different Hebrew words, which at times are translated as the word “one” (also there are many variants of these nine).
 
Now, the question that comes to mind if the Unitarian claims are correct, is which of these nine words would they apply to God to indicate that God is a moneity, not a plurality?
 
Out of the nine Hebrew words only one would indicate that God is one solitary person. And if that word is applied to God in the Bible, then I and all Bible believing Christians would not have a leg to stand on.
 
The word is yachiyd (Strong’s #3173), and means an absolute or solitary one. It is even translated “solitary” in Psalm 68:6, and refers to someone who is absolutely alone. This is its general meaning throughout Scripture (see Ps. 25:16; 68:6; Prov. 4:3; Jer. 6:26; Amos 8:10; etc.).
 
A  Arian/Unitarian should naturally expect to find that the word yachiyd be applied to God in the Bible, at least once...
 
On the other hand, Bible believing Christians would not expect to find yachiyd applied to God because we believe that there are three Persons within the Godhead.
 
And so, when we turn to the Bible, what do we find? Scripture never applies yachiyd to God, and never describes God as a solitary person. 
 
 On the other hand, if the writers of Scripture under inspiration of the Holy Spirit believed God to be multi-personal, then we would expect to find that they would apply the word echad to God because this would mean that God is “one” in a composite sense.
 
And as a matter of fact, echad is the only available Hebrew word they could use to express this reality.
 
So when we open the Bible, what do we find?
 
We find that echad is applied to God.
 
He is “one” in the sense of a composite unity. This is central to the Biblical concept of God.
 
The use of echad in Duet. 6:4 is exactly what Bible believing Christians expect to find in the Bible because it is the only way in the Hebrew language to indicate to the reader that God is a composite unity of Persons and not just a solitary person (for confirmation see Zech 2:5-11 which is an example of this).
 
Like it or not, there are no other words in the Hebrew language by which such a thought could be expressed.
 
It is interesting to note also that the Greek word heis performs the same function as the Hebrew echad.
 
Bible believing Christians everywhere, following the teachings of Jesus (John 10:30, Matt. 28:19) believe, without a doubt, that while there is only one God, numerically speaking, yet, within this one God, there exists more than one person. This is the fundamental principle underlying the doctrine of the Trinity.
 
I want to look at John 17: 3 as this seems to be the preferred go to verse of Arian/Unitarians in an attempt to deny the Deity of Christ and the Trinity.
 
Look, similar language to John 17:3 appears in Jude 4, where the more reliable Greek texts read that Jesus is “our only Master and Lord”. Here the same adjective “only” appears in the same grammatical position (attributive).
 
So if we were to use the line of interpretation that you do for John 17:3, then Jude 4 restricts the Master and Lord to one person, Jesus Christ.
 
How can Jesus be our only Master and Lord when the Father is also our Lord and Master?
 
Or put another way, how can the Father be our Master and Lord if Jesus is, as Jude 4 says, our ONLY Master and Lord?
 
The same reasoning being applied by you to John 17:3 would deny that any other Person other than Jesus Christ could be our “Master and Lord” according to Jude 4!
 
Do you apply the same exegetical principles to Jude 4 as you demand in John 17:3? If not why not?
 
Now, what then is the correct understanding of the language in John 17:3?
 
Jesus says, that they might know you…and me.
 
Imagine that… we might know a creature and that our eternal life depends on it!
 
We need to know God to have life and that includes our knowing Jesus Christ, the one who had made Himself to occupy a lower POSITION than the angels in order to pay the toll. And by looking at Jude 4 might help you to see how superficial some are when reading John 17:3.
 
Only by understanding Jesus Christ as an ultimate and equal member of the eternal Godhead can we rightfully say that He's our ONLY Master and Lord.
 
See how easily the Trinity accommodates this? Without the Trinity the passage appears to be an outright contradiction to Scripture elsewhere.
 
Jesus states emphatically that eternal life is this:  Knowing the Father in an intimate way as well as His Son.
 
Salvation depends on knowing both! The Son is one with the Father.
 
The Son is God in every sense the Father is (John 1:1) and is confessed as Lord and God (John 20:28).
 
It would be strange, indeed, a created being, sent to reveal the Father, would equate knowing Himself with knowing the Father, in the context of salvation.  Unless, of course, He is essentially equal as the one true God, who alone grants life eternal to those who believe in Him.
 
I will look at and respond to your other long post at a later date. <><

Bible have much  more verses :))) 

also exist many other who doing same or similar :)))

Here is another:
Matthew 24:24-27  "For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand. 26 So, if they say to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. If they say, ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man."
Clearly here we are told that there will come some who proclaim that Jesus returned and you just didn't see Him, because He came invisibly. That just isn't true and doesn't line up with the Bible which clearly states His return WILL be visible. 

but this admittance proves that they were NOT a continuation of the disciples as you claim. If they were then they would not have deviated, unless of course they were led by a power not from God. 
Then why did you claim that there was? Here is your quote:

yes Shiwiii you are right.
This two "past and old truths and lights" you mentioned about WT are possible to understand with also "new and getting bright light". And this "new" is in explanation how, according to 2015 WT study edition, FDS aka GB are not EVEN/ AT ALL  appointed in 1919. So, all wrong and error doctrines in the past time and in this present time and of course in particular future time, are not prove hor JW are in any wrongs. Because all things will be in place when Jesus in fact WILL APPOINT THEM IN SOME FUTURE TIME. 
SO IT is OK to have all this and that ERRORS in INSTRUCTIONS and DOCTRINES. IT is quite NORMAL :))))))  

Hi!
Last explanation in WT magazine say how GB and FDS are the same. FDS task is to spread "spiritual food". GB spreading food, so GB is FDS. FDS have its beginning in 1 century in form of apostle who are, as WT said prototype of modern GB. If you are be careful in reading WT magazines (i am speaking about magazines in my language, croatian, to confirm the same i would need to go to original english version)   you will notice how first century governing body is with small first letter "g" and "b". But when they are talking about 20th century main church body they using big letter B and G - Governing Body. WHY? 
With the end of first congregations, i think that we have no  reports to confirm CONTINUATION you mentioned. And WT magazines also not writing about any continuation, just mentions about these or that small groups that was in some sort of opposition to beliefs of Catholic church. No gb or GB. No FDS or fds. Nothing. Then suddenly at the end of 19 century in period of many turbulent events, social movements and religious movements, one man after wandering, changing few religious belongings and searching for the "truth", founded the company  in 1881 as Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society for the purpose of distributing religious tracts. 
Do you want to believe that Jesus inspired him to give such corporative start of/to His Church, His Body?? For me it is very strange such idea - because Jesus start His Church in very different way. :))

but it is a practice that the jws/bible students participated in prior to 1935 or so. So what this means is, your claim  "they are the ones who did not follow the false teachings........" cannot be true based on your ideas of what is false teachings.
There is no mention of jws/bible students, as the groups we know today/last century,  in the Bible. So your claim that they are the continuation of the disciples, is false unless you can provide proof otherwise. 

Thanks for providing this. In fact, this entire question, as worded, was what I was originally going to discuss with @Nana Fofana in response to this particular post of hers, so I'll go ahead and do that now:
@Nana Fofana,
First of all it should be obvious that this debate has gone on much longer than 41 years. Among Watchtower readers alone, it has gone on for over 100 years as you can see above. In the May 15, 1922 Watchtower, Rutherford was still dealing with the same issue about the 19 to 20 year "gap" in the Watchtower chronology that does not exist in the actual Biblical or secular evidence. Note this from page 147, which are the opening words in the article called "Chronology:"
"WE HAVE no doubt whatever in regard to the chronology relating to the dates of 1874, 1914, 1918, and 1925. Some claim to have found new light in connection with the period of "seventy years of desolation'' and Israel's captivity in Babylon, and are zealously seeking to make others believe that Brother Russell was in error." Of course, the article goes on to use as its primary proof that Russell (the one and only  faithful and discreet slave) had God's approval and therefore would not have been wrong about this chronology. Still, it does offer a few additional reasons why these dates are correct:
"SOUGHT TO DISCREDIT BIBLE . . . The worldly-wise have always disliked the Bible . . . The adversary [Satan] has always endeavored to deceive people. No doubt he has had much to do towards causing the confusion in the historical records of ancient history." [Always trying to put the argument into a polemic light, so that it appears that whoever is asking is some kind of "Devil" or antagonist to the truth, or an apostate. Some things never change.]  "Practically all agree that B. C. 536 was 'the first year of Cyrus'" [Not a true statement at the time, nor when Russell stated the same, nor is it true today.] "There is no contention about the first year of Cyrus being B. C. 536."  [This was also not a true statement, of course.] "The Bible locates the time definitely as 3522 A. M. ( 606 B. C.), the 19th year of King Nebuchadnezzar. Secular historians vary considerably." [This was also a false statement, of course.] "We find the Jews still under the yoke of Babylon, bringing the date down 12 years later, or to 442 B.C. This would make a period of 94 years after the return of borne in 536 B.C. If we add the 70 years to that we have a total of at least 164 years, 606 to 442 B.C. under the king of Babylon." [Obviously false about the king of Babylon and the dates, but it was a way of avoiding the possibility that the 70 years applied to the kingdom of Babylon, as stated in Jeremiah.] "UNRELIABLE SECULAR CHRONOLOGY How can this be harmonized with secular chronology, which states that Nebuchadnezzar began to reign in 606 B.C., reigned 43 years, and died in 561 B.C.? We are not called upon to harmonize the Bible with secular chronology any more than we are expected to harmonize the gospel of the Bible with secular creeds." [Notice that Rutherford does not seem to notice that he is relying on secular chronology for his dates, too.] Recapitulating then, the Bible record is conclusive that the first year of Nebuchadnezzar synchronizes with the fourth year of king Jehoiakim, which was the year 3503 A. M. or 625 B. C. [Of course there is nothing "conclusive" here, only evidence that Rutherford wants to use a different secular date than the secular date supported by evidence.] And of course, the main point of the argument is really about Russell, even though it adds some new dates that Russell hadn't mentioned, but which were promoted as supposedly clear and obvious extensions of Russell's original chronology:
"STAMPED WITH GOD'S APPROVAL  It was on this line of reckoning that the dates 1874, 1914, and 1918 were located; and the Lord has placed the stamp of his seal upon 1914 and 1918 beyond any possibility of erasure. What further evidence do we need? . . . it is an easy matter to locate 1925, probably the fall, for the beginning of the antitypical jubilee. There can be no more question about 1925 than there was about 1914." With this in mind, notice how important it must have been to position any questioning of the chronology as angry and prideful Satan-like questioning against a humble and thoughtful Biblical position that had Jehovah's stamp of approval. This is merely a way to "tickle the ears" so that people think they are hearing a "pattern of healthful words." Note how antagonistic the questioner is meant to sound when in the question to Russell the question was characterized like this: "Are you humble enough to acknowledge that I have struck some new light and that you and all DAWN readers have been 'all wrong,' walking in darkness?"
But the actual arguments had been presented in the same scholarly works that Barbour and Russell had depended on, without any antagonism towards those who had used wrong evidence for their dates. There were many different ways of attaching a chronology to the Bible prophecies and Russell himself had admitted this in the past. Some Bible commentators had been discussing these types of discrepencies since the 1850's and 1860's. But it clearly served a purpose to try to present the questioner as antagonistic toward not just Russell, but all people who considered themselves to be seekers of truth and light.
Rutherford did the same thing as you can see in his article. Yet, ironically, the words turned out NOT to be true, even though it was Satan who was behind the questioning and Jehovah who had given his stamp of approval. In spite of this everything that had been said about 1874, 1914, 1918, and 1925 - beyond any possibility of erasure - had to be "erased." This includes even what was being said about 1914 at this time. It turned out NOT to be the time of violence and chaos that had been predicted. It turned out NOT to be the time that resulted in the end of the Gentile domination over the Jewish nation as predicted. None of what was predicted for 1914 turned out to be true.

scholar JW pretendus wrote:
I and others have explained this to you ad nauseum: both dates had been advanced since the 19th century. In the 1940s Edwin Thiele did a major study in "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings", and came down on the side of 586 for reasons he explained fairly clearly. Other scholars pointed out that he had missed a few things and came down on the side of 587. The discrepancy is entirely due to the Bible's ambiguity: did Nebuchadnezzar destroy Jerusalem in his 18th or 19th year?
And as I have repeatedly brought out, all descrepancies about 587/586 were resolved in a 2004 JETS article "When Did Jerusalem Fall?" by Rodger C. Young ( https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiImfT-_-rYAhVK62MKHbEuDYAQFggpMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rcyoung.org%2Farticles%2Fjerusalem.pdf&usg=AOvVaw04If9xNNWAyGO0tlNGmHv9 ).
But you know all this, and so your protestations and false dilemmas are deliberate lies.
Most importantly, the 587 date does not occur in a vacuum. As you well know, a host of contemporary Neo-Babylonian documents peg Nebuchadnezzar's accession year at 605 BCE, the capture of Jehoiachin and Jerusalem at 597, Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year to 568, and the fall of Babylon to 539 BCE. These are all derived from the same global set of data. The secular data alone fixes these dates, and biblical data supports them. The Bible, of course, is the only source for the date of Jerusalem's fall. And since the Bible puts Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of Jerusalem in his 18th/19th year, and secular/biblical history puts his reign from 605 to 562 BCE, 607 is impossible, and either 587 or 586 must be correct.
Furthermore, as I have said several times before, biblical scholarship advances glacially slowly. Even though Rodger Young's paper is definitive, and he and others have published other papers confirming the 587 date (and set forth all the biblical evidence in support), it takes a long time in scholarly circles for the information to circulate and be evaluated and gradually accepted.
Here is a list of some modern scholarly sources that cite Rodger Young's work:
"The Reliability of Kings and Chronicles", Michael Gleghorn ( https://probe.org/the-reliability-of-kings-and-chronicles/?print=print ):
<< Thiele did not recognize that a problem he had with the texts of 2 Kings 18 is explained by a co-regency between Ahaz and Hezekiah.{17} His chronology also needed slight adjustments for the reign of Solomon and for the end of the kingdom period.{18} In our own studies we have followed the corrections to Thiele published in several articles by Rodger Young.{19} . . .
Young has also written extensively on why 587 BC, not Thiele’s 586 BC, is the correct date for the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians. See “When Did Jerusalem Fall?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 47, no. 1 (2004): 21-38 >>
In a book review on "From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology", by Andrew E. Steinmann (
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2012/07/12/Book-Review-From-Abraham-to-Paul-A-Biblical-Chronology-Part-II.aspx ) the reviewer states:
<< Chapter 8 deals with the divided kingdom. The kingdom period ended with the capture of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587 B.C., a date that is in agreement with all Scriptural sources for the period and also with Babylonian records for the years preceding and following the capture. >>
An extensive webpage on modern views of Neo-Babylon chronology ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Last_kings_of_judah_synchronisms_20141118_-_PDF_version.pdf ) contains a fairly large table of dates (not reproducible here) and the following information about "Last kings of judah synchronisms":
<<<<
The 37th year of the Neo-Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar has been unambiguously dated to 568/567 BC based on an ancient astronomical diary (VAT 4956)[1][2]. That, in turn, allowed precise dating of events described in other Babylonian documents of particular importance for Jewish history:
the last Egyptian intervention in Assyria[3]:20 in the summer of the 17th year of Nabopolassar was recorded on tablet BM 21901[4] and has been linked[5]:12-19[6]:416[7]:108[8]:180 to the biblical battle of Megiddo[9][10] and the death of Josiah[11] (usually dated to Sivan[5]:18[6]:418[7]:108[12] or early Tammuz[7]:108[8]:181 609 BC), the three-month reign of Jehoahaz (while Necho II was engaged in fighting for[13]:43[14][15]:184 Assyrians)[8]:181-182[3]:32 and the subsequent installment of Jehoiakim (placed either before[6]:419 or after[8]:181-182 Tishri 1, 609 BC);
the battle of Carchemish in the spring or summer of Nabopolassar's 21st year mentioned on tablet BM 21946[16] took place around Sivan[17]:25[18]:226 605 BC and was identified as the event spoken of in the book of Jeremiah 46:2[17]:24[18]:226[5]:20[19]:290 while the subsequent conquest of Syro-Palestine by Babylonians has been associated with the siege of Jerusalem described in Daniel 1:1[15]:190[13]:66-67[8]:182ff.[17]:26 which in turn enabled scholars to synchronize a number of events recorded only in the Hebrew Scriptures[20][21][22];
the above mentioned tablet BM 21946 speaks of a military campaign in Syro-Palestine during Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year[23], seizing the city of Yaahudu[17]:72 on Adar 2 (dated to March 15/16 - evening to evening -, 597 BC)[17]:33, capturing its king and appoining there a new ruler. This series of events has been unanimously associated with a story found in 2 Chronicles 36:10[17]:34[8]:190 which deals with a siege of Jerusalem by Babylonians (a few months after the death of Jehoiakim)[24], the ensuing deportation of Jehoiachin and the installment of Zedekiah sometime around Nisan 1[25];
the fact of Jehoiachin, his family and servants having been captives in Babylon in the 13th year of Nebuchadnezzar and onwards has been verified following the publication of the so called Jehoiachin's Rations Tablets[26]
the accession year of Amel-Marduk was dated to 562/561 BC on the basis of various documents the best known of which is the Uruk King List (tablet IM 65066)[27]; this information was in turn used to date king Jehoiachin's release from prison on April 3 (Adar 27), 561 BC[28].
No chronicles recording military activities of Nebuchadnezzar during 593 - 562 BC exist except for tablet BM 33041[29] dated to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar (568/567 BC) and containing description of his army invading Egypt, which has also been cited in the context of predictions found in Ezekiel 29:17-20[30][31][32]. Due to this scarcity of extrabiblical sources one of the most important dates in Jewish history relating to the destruction of Jerusalem[33][34] is a matter of debate with some scholars favouring 587 BC[35][36] while others opting for 586 BC[37][38]. Neither view seems to be a majority[39]:21 and the interpretation depends on a number of factors, especially:
assuming either the accession year system or the non-accession year system for the last kings of Judah;
counting regnal years of the last Jewish rulers from either Nisan 1 or Tishri 1;
chossing either Adar or Nisan 597 BC as the beginning of king Zedekiah's reign and Jehoiachin's exile[40].
An indepth analysis of the subject seems to favour the 587 BC solution at the same time showing that the last kings of Judah may have employed Tishri-based non-accession year system[39]:21-38.
. . .
[39] Young, Rodger C. (March 2004). "When Did Jerusalem Fall?". JETS 47 (1).
>>>>
And of course, you're well aware that the most modern scholarly references prefer 587 over 586. For example,
"The Cambridge Ancient History" (Second Edition, Volume III, Part 2, 1991) on page 234 says that Jerusalem fell "25 August 587" BCE, and a footnote says that other authors date the fall to 15 August 586 BCE.
A quick internet search using Google Scholar for "587 jerusalem" yields the following, among about 60,000 hits:
"Edom and the Fall of Jerusalem, 587 b.c.", Palestine Exploration Quarterly, Volume 114, 1982 - Issue 1
"The Prophecies of Isaiah and the Fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.",  R. E. Clements, Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 30, Fasc. 4 (Oct., 1980), pp. 421-436
"Guilt and Rites of Purification Related to the Fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.", Walter Harrelson, Numen, Vol. 15, Fasc. 3 (Nov., 1968), pp. 218-221
"The Archaeology of the East Slope of Jerusalem and the Terraces of the Kidron", Lawrence E. Stager, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Volume 41, Number 2 | Apr., 1982: "The Neo-Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem in 587 B.C."
"The Status of Jerusalem under International Law and United Nations Resolutions",  Henry Cattan, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Spring, 1981), pp. 3-15: "... destroyed by the Babylonians in 587 BC, Jerusalem was then successively occupied by the Persians ..."
"The Bible and Western Culture", Sam Armato, Author House, 2014: "587 Jerusalem sacked, temple destroyed, Zedekiah taken prisoner, and Judah absorbed into the Babylonian empire."
And some web pages using Google and "587 jerusalem":
https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(587_BC).html
<<In 589 BC, Nebuchadnezzar II laid siege to Jerusalem, culminating in the destruction of the city and its temple in the summer of 587 BC. . .
The Babylonian Chronicles, published in 1956, indicate that Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem the first time putting an end to the reign of Jehoaichin, on 2 Adar (16 March) 597 BC.[11]
There has been some debate as to when the second siege of Jerusalem took place. There is no dispute that Jerusalem fell the second time in the summer month of Tammuz (Jeremiah 52:6), but William F. Albright dates the end of Zedekiah's reign and the fall of Jerusalem to 587 BC, but Edwin R. Thiele offers 586 BC.[12]
Thiele's reckoning is based on the presentation of Zedekiah's reign on an accession basis, which was occasionally used for the kings of Judah. In that case, the year that Zedekiah came to the throne would be his zeroth year; his first full year would be 597/596 BC, and his eleventh year, the year that Jerusalem fell, would be 587/586 BC. Since Judah's regnal years were counted from Tishri in autumn, that would place the end of his reign and the capture of Jerusalem in the summer of 586 BC.[12][13]
However, the Babylonian Chronicles support the enumeration of Zedekiah's reign on a non-accession basis. Zedekiah's first year, when he was installed by Nebuchadnezzar, was, therefore, in 598/597 BC according to Judah's Tishri-based calendar. The fall of Jerusalem, in his eleventh year, would then have been in the summer of 587 BC. The Babylonian Chronicles allow the fairly precise dating of the capture of Jehoiachin and the start of Zedekiah's reign, and it also provide the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar's successor Amel-Marduk (Evil Merodach) as 562/561 BC, the 37th year of Jehoiachin's captivity according to 2 Kings 25:27. The Babylonian records, related to Jehoiachin's reign, are consistent with the fall of the city in 587 BC and so are inconsistent with a 586 date. >>
http://www.galaxie.com/article/bspade18-1-05
"Jerusalem Fell in 587 Not 586 BC" -- By: C. Ermal Allen
http://www.religion.ucsb.edu/faculty/thomas/classes/rgst116b/JewishHistory.html
"The kingdom of Babylon conquered Judah in 587 BCE."
We also know that Josephus clearly dated the beginning of Temple reconstruction after the Return to Judah to Cyrus' 2nd year, and Ezra dates it to the 2nd month of the 2nd year of the Return. Cyrus' 2nd year began Nisan 1, 537 BCE, and Josephus states, in Against Apion, Book I, Chapter 21:
<< Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius. >>
Going back 50 years from 537, we get to 587 BCE.
Given the above information, there is no reason whatsoever not to accept 587 BCE as the date of Jerusalem's destruction.
You continue to misrepresent the situation, which I have rectified with the above information.
No blame, just the facts. As shown below, the Bible most certainly contains an apparent ambiguity. But modern scholars have resolved it with real evidence, rather than pretending it does not exist. Again I refer the reader to Rodger Young's paper for an in-depth look.
Very simple: "WT scholars" ignore the many problems. And because the 1914 doctrine requires 607, that's what they've settled on.
The fact that the Bible itself is ambiguous on the date of Jerusalem's destruction is easily illustrated with two quotations from Jeremiah:
<< . . . in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard . . . came into Jerusalem. 13 He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem. . . 15 Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took into exile some of the lowly people and the rest of the people who were left in the city. >> -- Jer. 52:12-15
<< In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem. >> -- Jer. 52:29
So which is it? Did Nebuchadnezzar take exiles in his 18th or 19th year?
This is the fundamental ambiguity the Bible presents regarding the date of Jerusalem's destruction. Bible commentators have wrestled with this for centuries. Only relatively recently have the many thorny problems been solved by proper scholars such as Rodger Young -- and "WT scholars" have ignored most of the problems.
     
As I said, biblical scholarship moves slowly. But as I showed above, more and more modern scholars are moving away from the 586 date and Thiele's handful of unresolved issues that led to his acceptance of 586, given that Young and others have resolved them.
     
 
Proof of my above statements:
The WTS knew that the 536 and 606 BCE dates were wrong for many years prior to 1943. The 1917 book The Finished Mystery listed 607 BCE as the start of the Gentile times. The March 13, 1935 Golden Age listed on page 369 both 537 BCE for the "Edict of Cyrus" and 607 BCE for the start of the Gentile Times. One of Russell's trusted lieutenants, P. S. L. Johnson, later wrote that in 1912 he approached Russell with the information that 606 was wrong, and 607 was the correct date, but Russell ignored it. In 1913, British Bible Student and confidant of Russell, Morton Edgar, published "Great Pyramid Passages", in which he also used 607 BCE for Jerusalem's destruction. The two books of Edgar and his brother John were widely read among Bible Students, and Russell and other "WT scholars" would surely have known of Edgar's contributions to WTS chronology.
Many scholars over the centuries accepted 536 BCE as Cyrus' first year, and it was accepted as such at least as far back as the 17th century. For example, the famous Bible chronology given by Bishop Ussher used that date. So did the chronologies given by the many commentators who engaged in prophetic speculation that Barbour and Russell so heavily relied upon, such as E. B. Elliott and Joseph Seiss. But Barbour and Russell gave no references in their 1877 book "Three Worlds" to any scholarly works that would support their claim about 536 BCE. They also claimed that Ptolemy's canon supported a date for Nebuchadnezzar's first year as being "nineteen years before the seventy years captivity of Jerusalem." Their book does support Nebuchadnezzar's accession year as being nineteen years before Jerusalem's destruction, but their chronology implies that Nebuchadnezzar's first year was in 625 BCE, whereas Ptolemy's canon implies 605 BCE for his accession year.
The table below shows three reference works that had put Nebuchadnezzar's first year in 605 or 606 BCE; other scholars of the time agree closely with these dates. Given the attention to detail Barbour and Russell showed elsewhere it seems almost impossible they could have missed this point. It seems they simply wanted to believe that their interpretation of the 70 years was correct, and they ignored, at least in print, all evidence against their interpretation. It is enlightening that they claimed Ptolemy's canon supports the 536 BCE date, but were silent about what the canon implies for the actual date of Nebuchadnezzar's first year. They were also silent about scholarly support of dates for the destruction of Jerusalem, which the table below shows scholars said occurred in 588 to 586 BCE, whereas Barbour and Russell claimed it occurred in 606 BCE.
An examination of some scholarly works available in the latter half of the 19th century proves Barbour and Russell's claim that their dates were firmly established was not true. Virtually every reference work used a slightly different set of dates for key events in the Neo-Babylonian period, but they generally differed by only one to three years. The following table shows three sets of dates for important events from this period, from reference works available in the period in which Barbour and Russell, and later Russell alone, wrote. These are: McClintock and Strong's Cyclopaedia, 1871; Smith's Bible Dictionary, William Smith, 1864; Encyclopaedia Biblica, Cheyne and Black, 1899. Compare these with the currently accepted dates, which are also listed. See also Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75, R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein, Brown University Press, Providence, 1956, 1971.
    Event                              McClintock   Smith's Bible   Encyclopaedia    Current
                                             & Strong's     Dictionary         Biblica
Nebuchadnezzar's accession   606           605                605                      605
Jehoiachin's deportation           598           597                597                      597
Jerusalem's destruction            588           586                586                      587/6
Babylon's fall                               538           539                538                      539
Cyrus' 1st year                            538           538                538                      538
Return of Jewish exiles             536           536                538                      538/7
From the table it is clear that Barbour and Russell's key date of 536 BCE for Cyrus' first year was not universally accepted, since it is not listed in any of these references. They could have chosen any of the dates as a basis for their calculations, but only by choosing 536 BCE could they claim that six thousand years of human history ended in 1873, which Barbour had done as early as 1868.
This is yet another example where you use weasel words to convey a false impression. You mention "recent scholarship that began in 1942" as if that were new to the world of scholarship, whereas it was only "new" to Fred Franz -- and it was not even "new" to him, because the reality is that Franz merely began to take account of it in his writings in WTS literature in 1944, whereas it was actually known to "WT scholars" since 1912 and to secular scholars long before that.
In your previous post you wrote a grossly misleading statement:
<< and yet WT scholars since 1944 have established 607 BCE as such a precise date following on the back of scholarship first published in 1942, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations, University of Chicago. >>
The fact is that they did not "establish" 607 as a precise date, but merely stated that it was a precise date
You imply that "WT scholars" came to recognize their 607 date only a bit after some new scholarship appeared in 1942. Yet in the above exposition I've proved that these "scholars" knew the "correct" date as early as 1912. And in the August 15, 1968 Watchtower an extensive series of articles was published that contained a chart showing that the correct information was known by "the chronologers of Christendom" at least as far back as 1907 (The Catholic Encyclopedia is referenced, showing Nabonidus' reign as 555-539 BCE).
Furthermore, your reference to "Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations" is flawed. No such reference is listed anywhere in WTS publications, so far as I can see, but searching the Internet brings up an apparently equivalent study in "Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization (SAOC)" in an article "Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C. - A.D. 45" by Richard Parker and Waldo Dubberstein ( https://oi.uchicago.edu/research/publications/saoc/saoc-24-babylonian-chronology-626-bc-ad-45 ), who also in 1942 published their booklet by the same title, which has become the most accepted modern reference on Babylonian chronology. So far as I can see, the 1942 booklet is virtually identical to the 1942 SAOC article.
This material by Parker and Dubberstein also proves that correct dates for the Neo-Babylonian period were known long before 1942. The introduction on the above-linked page states:
<< Recent additions to our knowledge of intercalary months in the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods have enabled us to improve upon the results of our predecessors in this field, though our great debt to F. X. Kugler and D. Sidersky for providing the background of our work is obvious. >>
Francis Xavier Kugler published his most significant work (in German, several volumes) in 1907-1924 in "Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel" (something like "Astronomy and Astro Services(?) in Babylon"). Kugler in turn based some of his work on the late-19th century writings of Strassmaier and other scholars.
Assuming that Jehovah was on top of things, surely he would have guided the eminent scholars in the Watch Tower organization to the correct information immediately upon it becoming available in the 19th century, rather than waiting until 1944.
The fact that no such guidance occurred proves that "WT scholars" are as disconnected from God as you are.
Not a bit. What troubles me is when supposed scholars lie in God's name, as I've shown that Mommy Watch Tower and you are so proficient at.
Yes.
Not in the way that Mommy Watch Tower claims. The population killers (earthquakes, famine, pestilence, war) that it claims have been operating on an unprecedentedly massive scale since 1914 are simply not here. The fact that we are experiencing an unprecedented population explosion is unassailable proof.
JWs continue to mistake what Mommy Watch Tower claims for what the Bible says.
Nonsense. See above.
AlanF

....
 

Totally clueless.
AlanF

I am amazed at how easy it was to predict this.