Evacuated

Now you're just being plain nasty. You are listening to AllenSmith too much!! Eloquent! Advent Testimony folk and Armstrong's WWCG's may have demonstrated weird beliefs on various issues, but a common factor in their beliefs was that of an imminent return of Jesus Christ to rule as Jehovahs King. That is pretty amazing despite it's obscure expression... regardless of their eccentricities, even they could see it. More than can be said for others of the self-proclamied intelligensia. Who said that?? Anyway, your attempts to convince me have been unsuccessful on this occasion. It's not about your quotes of what's written in Watchtower's period literature, it's more about the paucity of them. I have answered JWInsider a little more comprehensively on this matter. So I don't see the point of repeating it all here. Actually, there's a thing. He does have communication skills so why not take a lesson there? 0 Quote Options

Thanks for your kind expressions @HollyW. I hope they are as sincerely meant as they sound.

That is my point. And for me, the fact that the understanding has since developed into a clearer discernment of the significance of 1914 events (including the discarding of the 1874 nonsense), means I am quite happy with the statement that they "began to discern" in connection with 1914. They did not know much about what they were discerning I will grant you, but looking back it all makes sense. To me anyway. This is really a bit of an understatement because the expectation of the Bible Students of a time of trouble after the end of the Gentile Times bears no comparison to what has really happened in the period from Ocober 1914 down to the present day. As for the expectation of a time of trouble beginning in 1914, I agree with you absolutely that there is a clear indication in the many issues of the ZWT of the 19th and early 20th Centuries that 1874 to 1914 would encompasss a time of trouble ending in the Gentile Times. However, a ZWT article of Feb 1 1904 is entitled Universal Anarchy - Just Before or After Oct. 1914. And a quote from ZWT Nov 1 1904 commenting on a newspaper article states: "The above clipping, we believe, is from The Saturday Evening Post. We print it not for its own sake as an item merely, but also because it so closely coincides with our expectations, based on the divine Word - regarding the ending of “Gentile Times” in October, 1914, when will follow the time of trouble such as was not since there was a nation;“-the anarchous period which will in divine providence be followed by the kingdom rule of everlasting righteousness." Later in Dec 1 1904, after some gobbledegook about Israel's restoration, the WT mentions: "It is to be accomplished in the day of trouble, shortly after October, 1914, we believe." I do not care much about the context of these articles which is, frankly, often indecipherable. However, without any further trawling, I have to submit that there was definitely a view that "a (particular) time of trouble would begin in that marked year" (1914). I am not going to argue about the clarity of that view, but on the basis of these quotations I cannot agree with the following statement regarding 1914: Given that, I can see that the view in hindsight, which enables selection and prioritising of ideas, gives us an advantage not enjoyed at the time. I enjoy the detailed information and background you provide. It interests, stimulates discussion and careful evaluation. But I think I'll let the inimitable Glen Baxter have the last word about keeping it all in context.

Certainly will. But probably will be more objective than you seem to be. I'm not looking for faults. And I'm not solely looking at Bible Students. I'm looking at the overall picture.

This is just insulting. It isn't possible to weaselly word unintentionally. You must be struggling here for some reason to use this sort of strategy. You or (@Holly) just cannot know exactly what Bible Students did or did not begin to discern in 1914 or at any other time by selectively quoting from old publications no matter how interesting they are. You are at best surmising to support your own views. However, I do note that your copied extract of the Cedar Point report reflects a discernment of Christ being "present" in 1922, despite the rather premature starting point of 1874. That is a little earlier than 1930, the date of the earlier (earliest) quote from the Golden Age. So that's 8 years knocked off the 16 previously referenced in one go. We'll be back to 1914 in no time at all at this rate! You are entitled to your own views of course. But I personally have no compelling reason to reject the current testimony (as I understand it) on the basis of these statements. The contrary, in fact. Thanks for confirming the fascinating Advent Testimony's appearance in 1917. I was particularly impressed by: Point 1. The present crisis points to the close of the Times of the Gentiles. Point 5. That all human schemes of reconstruction must be subsidiary to the Second Coming of the Lord, because all nations will then be subject to His rule. And this from non-Bible Students? Amazing indeed! As discussed elsewhere, it is of no consequence to me what views or "versions" regarding the significance 1914 (or the general period since) are represented in statements, doctorines, manifestos, disputes, interpretations or whatever other debating feature they generate, save that they do. Even those who dispute the significance of this period only serve to draw further attention to it. To my mind that is, of course. I see all the events associated with that year, and the period since that time to the present, as adequately fulfilling features described at Rev 12:7-12; Rev 6:1-8; The Synoptic renditions of the Olivet discourse; 2Tim.3:1-6, 2Pet. 3:3-4 to cite but a few passages. And, so far, although I have gained some terrific insights into late 19th and early 20th Century history, particularly in connection with Bible Students, I have not seen anything here to dissuade me of that view, yet.

Hi. @HollyW. I have indeed been shown the truth. BUT...no rewording required on the basis of what you have submitted so far. I think it's probably fair to conclude that you do not actually know what the Bible Students began to discern in 1914.

To be fair, I am pretty sure that if this comment was published in 1930, then the thought would have been around a lot earlier. The quote in question says "began to discern" in 1914. The word "discern" means "to distinguish with difficulty by sight or with the other senses " Clear discernment obviously takes time and may well be difficult. Despite the erroneous view that Christ's presence started in 1874, there are enough references in the literature earlier than 1930 associating the events of 1914 and onwards as evidences of Christ's continuing presence. Enough for me to accept that discernment about what those events signified had it's beginnings at that time.

Hi @HollyW I know you are diligent in your research, but still I am not getting the impact of these arguments as you present them. My reading of the Page 20 quote is that it refers to the sign of Christ's presence. Now it is patently obvious that the sign of Christ's presence was not discerned in 1874, because the presence referred to did not commence in that year. So for Bible Students to have said that it did was a mistake, regardless of the convictions they held at the time. However, I see no error in stating that Bible stdents began to discern the sign of Christs invisible presence in 1914 nothwithstanding their actual beliefs at the time . People everywhere did, regardless of whether they understood the significance of the events or not. And indeed, with the "Advent Testimony" given wide attestation and distribution at least from late 1917 onwards, it appears that the Bible Students were not the only ones seeing divine significance in these events. With regard to your quotation from page 22, there was an incorrect expectation that "the battle of the great day of God Almighty" would be fought and finished in the year 1914, but surely it was better to be be awake than asleep as Jesus advised Matt.24:42. But, you know these are all obvious and well-known facts that are in the public domain. They are easily obtained by anyone wishing to dig into the detail and are held as common currency by many witnesses that I know. So I cannot see what all the fuss is about, as if some mysterious conspiracy to mislead and beguile is afoot. Presumably, this is the crux of the matter for you. Am I right in thinking that you feel that the belief of Jehovah's witnesses in the fulfillment of Rev 12:7-12 being proven by the events commencing in 1914 is a similar mistake to those made in connection with the year 1874? Also, do you think that believing this prophecy to be in concurrence with the events highlighted by Jesus in answer to his disciples questions recorded, for example, at Matt 24:3. is similarly mistaken? Have I understood that correctly?

Actually, I have moved this post from the thread on the Millions campaign as it is moving off topic and better suited here. 1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said: What are they? Well, I am a bit disappointed by your reference to the picture caption above (actually on Page 20, not 21, of God's Kingdom Rules). As Christ's presence did not start in 1874, regardless of anyone believing that it did, then surely it would not have been possible to discern a sign of it, equally regardless of anyone who thought they did? And as Christ's presence did start in 1914, then the sign of it surely would begin to be discerned by Bible Students regardless of whether they interpreted all the detail and significance of it correctly?

What are they?

Anna, further to the excellent comment and reference posted by @ThePraeceptor, I do not understand all the fuss about this idea. It is not an inspired expression. And neither can I see a Bible "rule" on what constitutes a "generation" I mean, what was a generation in the time of Noah? Was it the time until his first child?, his lifespan? It is merely a way of looking at a time period and providing what I see as a very simple suggestion on how a period of time that might exceed the lifetime of an individual in the 20th or 21st Century could still be viewed as a "generation". I didn't actually need a chart to grasp that concept myself. And anyway, surely the "system of things" comes to an end for the individual either as soon as one accepts the fact that Jehovah's kingdom in the hands of Jesus Christ cast Satan out of the heavens in 1914CE as described at Revelation 12:7-12?. Or at the latest, as soon as one accepts Christ's ransom sacrifice, and disowns oneself in harmony with his instruction at Matt.8:34? Let's get real here! I'm not going to worry about the colour of my shoelaces when I am out in the pouring rain! Thanks for the prophecy .pdf by the way. Most interesting.

Fair comment. But as I stated earlier, I use this interesting criteria to identify a false prophet's activity: I do not think we can apply this description to the activity of Jehovah's Witnesses. Quite the opposite in fact, regardless of the mistakes that others cite as "false prophecy".

1971 The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah p. 70 par. 33 Commissioned To Speak In The Divine Name 33. Likewise it was a trying mission upon which the modern Ezekiel class was sent, to religious people the same type as those in Ezekiel's day, But regardless of how Christendom views or regards this group of anointed witnesses of Jehovah, the time must come, and that shortly, when those making up Christendom will know that really a "prophet" of Jehovah was among them. wt 08 7/15 p. 11 par. 17 Meeting the Challenges of the House-to-House Ministry Jehovah assured Ezekiel that when the judgments he proclaimed came true, the rebellious house of Israel would “certainly know also that a prophet himself happened to be in the midst of them.” (Ezek. 2:5) Similarly, when God carries out his judgments against the present system of things, people will be forced to recognize that the message Jehovah’s Witnesses preached in public places and from house to house actually originated with the one true God, Jehovah, and that the Witnesses really did serve as his representatives. I am not sure we have such a rigid interpretation now as in the Nations Shall Know days. Well don't you feel that the honesty should extend to defining "prophecies" in a way that reflects the non-scriptural understanding of this word? Mistakes, misjudgements, misapplications, errors etc. are well within the province of imperfect men who are unable to 'bridle the tongue' (compare Ja. 3:2). But given the scriptural association of the term "false prophecies" I feel this designation is exceeding even James' earlier words at Chap 3:1 regarding the "heavier judgement". And in the context of the divinely commissioned role of an inspired prophet of Jehovah, simply not possible. There, I feel, lies a distinction with distinction. I agree with this statement entirely and I am looking forward to revisiting this whole area in our consideration of the book God's Kingdom Rules.

I think this issue has to do with Jehovah's witnesses' understanding of the terms "prophet" and "prophecy" and how they are scripturally applied, whether "true" or "false". And we would have to include our understanding of the role of Jehovah's witnesses in the mix. Much has been said on this matter with vast supporting references and quotations elsewhere in the forum so I will be as brief and simple as I can. Whilst Merriam-Webster includes a semblance of the comparatively narrow scriptual definition of a "prophet", it also indicates a rather broader application in modern speech. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prophet . However for Jehovah's Witnesses, the scriptural understanding of the word is summed up in the article "Prophet" in the book Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2 with such statements as: "One through whom divine will and purpose are made known.." ; "..true prophets were no ordinary announcers but were spokesmen for God, ‘men of God’ with inspired messages." ; The messages (prophecies), whilst often connected with future matters, are not limited to this, but share the common factor of being divinely inspired of God, thus without error. (2Tim 3:16). As such, if predictions, they would be fulfilled, and if in the form of statements of fact, divine judgement, intention, direction, or instruction, they would be correct, and binding upon those to whom the message was directed. These prophecies, regardless of form, would be uttered with the overall aim to enable man to bring his ways, desires, and goals into line with the divine will. (Rev.19:10; Eph.1:10) The role of prophet would thus be greatly privileged, but, by it's nature of divine appointment, highly accountable. This can be seen in the severe biblical condemnations of what are termed "false" prophets. (De.18:20) Self-appointed or corrupted, these false prophets made pronouncements that "lulled the people and their leaders with soothing assurances that, despite their unrighteous course, God was still with them to protect and prosper them." The activity of false prophets is not limited to ancient times either (Matt. 24:11; 2Pet.2:1). As such, they serve the interests of the Devil, and are termed even as "inspired by demons".(Compare 1Jn 4:1-6; 1Tim.4:1;Rev.13:14) Jehovah's witnesses do not see themselves as divinely-inspired in the sense the prophets of old were. Therefore, they do not see their teachings in quite the same light as the divine pronouncements of the prophets of old. So in view of the scriptural anathema attached to the term "false prophecy" and the specific scriptural understanding of that term as opposed to additional secular definitions, I can understand why we would be reluctant to apply the term "false prophecy" to any mistaken views we may have held in the past or even will hold in the future. These are mistakes, misjudgements, misapplications, errors etc. But by the same token, I see no contradiction in applying the term "false prophecy" to any teachings or pronouncements from any source that serve to lull the people and their leaders with soothing assurances that, despite their unrighteous course, God is still with them to protect and prosper them, particularly in this "time of the end". Rev.13:13-16.

It is pretty clear that it is impossible for millions who were living in 1925 and prior to never die as they are likely already ...dead! But you know, I am loathe to term the famous slogan "Millions Now Living Will Never Die" as a false prophecy similar to something like "infants who die will be safe in the arms of Jesus and will spend eternity with Him in heaven." This is the sort of thing used by some religious groups to comfort those bereaved of infants. Or how about "Put the Church Behind Pershing. To win this war the boys at the front need strength of spirit " used by the American Bible Society to fund-raise for Bible distribution to soldiers during WW1? Intrinsically,"Millions Now Living Will Never Die" is a true statement. What was wrong about it was the timing and the context of it's application. To borrow Paul's illustration, Christians are likened to runners in a race. Well, most of us have seen a false start haven't we? The tension and excitement of the moment can carry away even the most seasoned athletes on occasion. And the alertness and eagerness of sincere Christians to the return of Christ has given rise to false alarms in modern times, even as it did amongst the disciples. The good thing about a Christian "jumping the gun" is that they can always get back in the race. As a rallying cry, the Millions slogan certainly captured the attention of many. Preaching in the 70's, I still met people who had attended one of these lectures by Judge Rutherford. Many may have dropped out with expectation unfulfilled, but any who were alerted to the Bible's message by the Millions campaign, and who are still active Jehovah's witnesses, are unlikely to have regretted that decision although their number would only be a fraction of the "Millions" expected at the time. Would it have been better to use a slogan like "Billions Now Living Will Die For Ever" ? Attention grabbing maybe, but I think I prefer the original. Someone said "False starts may be considered illegal, but in life, I’d rather have a false start than no start at all."

Our concern for who will be saved is best transformed into action on two counts. 1. 2Tim.4:2: "Preach the word; be at it urgently in favorable times and difficult times" 2. 2Pet.3:14 "Therefore, beloved ones, since you are awaiting these things, do your utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished and in peace" Paul reinforces this second point: Phil.2:12 "keep working out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

Reminds me of these:

Imaginative, but of course the big "IF". (My formatting). Subsequent speculations on "Martha" are subject to that suppposition. Were you(@HollyW a Jehovah's Witness during the period you reference in your hypothesis? I was, but your scenarios bear only a 60% resemblance to what was my experience so, unfortunately, there is a bit of a credibility gap in your assertions. I wish we could get some authenticity into these postings....................................

https://www.jw.org/en/news/releases/by-region/russia/anti-extremism-law-part1/

No. More in the sense of Jer 31:33.

Works better than this one " We praise Thee, Blessed Trinity. With the Angels' sacred hymn, "

In view of the @HollyW comment above, I would add that Rutherford opened the door of opportunity to those who have no desire or inkling to go to heaven in order to be close to Jehovah and Jesus, but would that come under this heading?

Paul's words from 1Thess. 5:4 are the most significant in this thread for me.

No, not somewhere else. I have made a personal judgement indeed in accepting that Jehovah through Christ has appointed the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses to direct an operation to "preach the good news of the kingdom", particularly with reference to it's heavenly establishment in 1914. Also, that in view of this, that same group fits the description of a "faithful and discreet slave" as scripturally described. In that capacity, they direct a program to provide information and encouragement (feeding) worldwide to those who accept this message. What I do not question is Jehovah's personal judgement through Christ in making that selection, regardless of the many criticisms submitted by those who oppose this understanding, based on their disagreement with the qualifications of that group. In other words, I do not subject what I consider to be the judgement of Jehovah to some sort of "judicial review" by a human tribunal. Hope that clarifies? Actually, whilst the question is great, the conclusion here does not make sense to me. There are many religions who do not use God's Word as a constitutional element at all, and a good many others, whilst claiming a Biblical connection, have no desire or intention to conform to "the pattern of healthful words" in a moral or theological sense both now or in the future. Ps 119:165 "Abundant peace belongs to those who love your law; Nothing can make them stumble." Didn't we already established that point in your second quote?? Who knows indeed. I mean, the points and questions you raised in this thread alone have certainly reinforced my conviction in the reality of Gods heavenly kingdom and it's establishment in the heavens in 1914 CE (as we currently count time). Was that your intention behind the facade?