Evacuated

Possibly you do not understand what I meant by the phrase "review the judgements Jehovah makes". A dictionary puts it this way: Judicial review (noun) (in the UK) a procedure by which a court can review an administrative action by a public body and (in England) secure a declaration, order, or award. ("the exercise of these powers may be challenged by judicial review" (in the US) review by the Supreme Court of the constitutional validity of a legislative act. I can only repeat Ro 11:33 "O the depth of God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge! How unsearchable his judgments are and beyond tracing out his ways are!" Excellent question. Whether indicating intention or being used predictively, both implications would always be answered "Yes" in connection with Jehovahs Witnesses. That's good. With regard to the true significance of the year 1914, I am not really in a position to critique the manner in which Jehovah enlightens His servants other than observe the fact that He does. Other posts have discussed at length why the year 1914 has received sufficient attention to highlight it, both prior and since it's occurrence, regardless of it's true significance. As previously mentioned, for me, even the disproportionate vehemence of those who oppose the application of the events described at Rev. 12:7-12 to that year serves only to draw more attention to it's significance. Well, progressive understanding has enabled us to move on from unnecessary slavery to the typical/antitypical method of exposition as you probably know. But if Jesus could reference (Luke 19:40) that "the stones would cry out" if necessary to enlighten others regarding Jehovah's purposes, then surely Jehovah can provide correction to the men on the Governing Body by any means He deems expedient at the time? Where are you coming from @HollyW?

First definition for "grace" given by Merriam-Webster is: unmerited divine assistance given humans for their regeneration or sanctification so it would appear not.

I still do not believe humans are in a position review the judgements Jehovah makes. One thing that is clear is that these judgments are not based on limited human capacity.. For me this will always be a question for the present and not the past in view of the principle at Proverbs 4:18. If understandings need correction, Jehovah will provide it for His servants as He did with Apollos (Acts 18:26). What is important is how we respond to His correction and enlightenment, not that we get everything right. Apollos was "aglow with the spirit" despite teaching inaccurately.

Amen to that.

This a logical view, but unfortunately is taken from a human standpoint with all the limitations that imposes so, really, what would be accomplished?. It is easy to look at past teachings now. For example, I think today only a small minority would look at the pyramidology persuasion and view it as anything other than "nonsensical gibberish", a conclusion which Jehovah's Witnesses came to themselves. However, there are also those who look at our teachings on the human soul, hellfire, Trinity, evolution, and such like and view them similarly. I personally don't feel qualified to review Jehovah or Jesus's judgement processes. I don't think I am party to all the facts of the matter and even if I was, to weigh and test those facts against a criteria that I am also not party to is, frankly, way above my pay grade. There is also the business of what it is that Jehovah evaluates. The statements at 2 Chr. 16:9 "For the eyes of Jehovah are roving about through all the earth to show his strength in behalf of those whose heart is complete toward him", and Pro. 21:2 "All of a man’s ways seem right to him, But Jehovah examines the hearts" take the business of judgement into a completely different arena, way out of human experience or capability. Paul got it right about Jehovah's judgements at Ro 11:33 "O the depth of God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge! How unsearchable his judgments are and beyond tracing out his ways are!" and I am quite happy to accept them on that basis.

Oh! You didn't read Psalm 119 yet. That will help you resolve your problem.

Obviously, they would have to make that evaluation. And I suspect Jehovah and Jesus' evaluation of what qualifies a faithful servant would have a little more substance than what is cited here.

Millions now Living Will Never Die booklet has the first reference I have seen, 1920? I think that result would be a better word than response for the very reason that they didn't understand what they were seeing. For example, a building may collapse due to subsidence, or it may be demolished by it's owners due to subsidence. The first is a result and the reasons may be later discerned. The second is a response for those same reasons. To apply, world conditions since 1914, including the varied reactions to them, are the result of what is described at Rev 12:7-10. The real reasons have been later discerned, and the activity of Jehovahs Witnesses has transformed into a response to an ever clearer understanding of those reasons. It is a miracle we have the words of Jehovah and Jesus at all given the measure of opposition to them. Jehovah's blessings are undeserved kindnesses however, and His promise at Malachi 3:10 to those who give Him His proper due guarantees a blessing until there is "no more want". I have experienced this throughout my time associated with Jehovahs people. As far as I am concerned, my place is to continue chasing the chariot. We will have plenty of time to polish the coachwork once we have survived "the great tribulation." Hope you get my drift.

Holly quoted: "Nonsensical gibberish" Well, this is up to the individual to determine isn't it? It is of no consequence what "events you would be expecting when you imagine yourself in the dining room that day in October 1914 when C.T. Russell announced that the Gentile times had ended." What is of consequence is that they did actually end, regardless of the expected events.

Well, I only had in mind the point in discussion at that moment, that Jesus had power and authority granted before he returned to the heavens, which power and authority he excercised, for example, in commissioning his followers to preach and make disciples. It would be interesting to consider the proposition that his kingship was as good as granted earlier, at the earliest in the words spoken at Genesis 3:15, but that's for another time and thread. You seem to have misunderstood me here. My list of events attributable to Jesus excercising his kingly authority were not "included as events of the 1914 doctrine". They were examples of the way in which a reigning king (Jesus) could become a king, by expressing rulership in a particular instance. Obviously, events were included that have not yet occurred even now in 2017. These include the Daniel 12:1 event where Michael is described as 'standing up' and this despite the fact he is already "standing on behalf of your (Daniel's) people". With regard to further points raised in the response by @JW Insider. Quoting a load of chronological rambling from old Watchtower publications does nothing to dissuade me from the fact that 1914 remains a significant year in the collective conciousness of vast numbers of people for all sorts of reasons. I have quoted the Advent Manifesto which, whilst not specifying the year, has a focus on the time period and indicates the view of some of the leading lights of evangelical Christendom. Who cares what other rubbish they attached to this manifesto? The views of leaders in other disciplines are easily retrieved. The Jan 1 1914 Watchtower said "the Year 1914 is the last one of what the Bible terms "Gentile Times"-- the period in which God has allowed the nations af the earth to do their best to rule the world. The end of their "times" marks the date for the beginning of Messiah’s kingdom, which the Bible declares is to be ushered in with a great time of trouble, just such as we see impending." The further quote attributed to Charles Taze Russell in Oct 1914, (whatever day it was made), the "(Gentile) kings have had their day" is indicative of the significance of that year in the minds of the Bible Students, regardless of any nonsensical gibberish attached to their beliefs at the time. It matters not to me what interpretation was put on the events of that time by Bible Students, Adventists, politicians, clergymen or anyone else, the fact remains that the year was sufficiently forseen, was experienced by vast numbers of people, and remains sufficiently significant. Also for me, the subsequent pattern of worldwide events, which includes the worldwide preaching activity of today's Jehovah's Witnesses and the reaction to it, unmistakably marks this time period, starting in 1914, as being headed up by the event described at Rev. 12:7-10: "And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled  but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them any longer in heaven.  So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him.  I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the Kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God!" Satan's attempts to obscure his ultimate embarrassment and his desparate humiliation as a result of this event, from the collective consciousness of mankind is........ a dismal failure! I have yet to to hear a convincing argument to the contrary. I think it's time for me to bow out of this particular topic.

Well, he was faithful wasn't he? He will be back. The date of the talk is the crucial clue anyway!!

Absolutely. The first picture has the same little girl there behind him. The cart titles are the same. However, the date 1944 is accurate whereas 1930 is questionable.

No implication here. The point is the quotation where the present perfect progressive tense describes an action that began in the past, continues in the present, and may continue into the future: "has been". By this I think you are referring to the year 1914. Well I would say a very large proportion of the earth's population noticed it. Regardless of the perceptions, correct or incorrect, ascribed by Bible Students who had been looking forward to that year and publicising it for some time in advance, that year has been a focus of attention ever since by those who see it as a punctuation mark in history. Even those who are obsessessed with debunking the year as significant seem to make it so by their efforts. The internet is awash with quotes from every perceivable source on these matters so I will limit my reproducing here to only one: The Advent Testimony Manifesto published on November 8, 1917 seemed to indicate considerable spiritual interest in that time period judging from the status of those signatories listed below the seven point manifesto: Well, for me, all things considered, I believe that the expression of Jehovahs rulership through His Anointed King Christ Jesus that took place in 1914 is described at Rev. 12:7-10: "And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled  but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them any longer in heaven.  So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him.  I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the Kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God!" and for me, the current world scenario involving all people, including Jehovah's Witnesses, since that date is the evidence of that invisible event. I know that your feeling on this matter as stated below: But to be honest, despite your eloquence, experience, and excellent attention to detail in research in many areas, in this element I perceive not just a "smashed and burned, orange "Volkswagen"", but the devastation and wreckage of a traincrash! I hope the coming congegational bible study using the publication "God's Kingdom Rules" will enable at least a salvage operation to be successful.

Is this the same boy? Can we get some clarity on this? Maybe more information on the brother in the picture who you tell us was a missionary and died in Sep 2014. The talk advertised "The Kingdom of God is Nigh" was given at the Assembly in1944, much later than 1930. As you can see in the attached photo here, this seems to be the same little brother with a book released that same year 1944, "The Kingdom is at Hand". Any further detail would be much appreciated. Thanks

Who said we cannot? Jehovah has never relinquished His Sovereignty ever in the face of Satan's attacks. So when in, for example, Ps 47:7 it says that Jehovah "is King" and then in Ps 47:8 that Jehovah has "become King" do we mean that Jehovah stopped being King for a while? That is nonsense! He cannot stop being King any more that the proverbial leopard can change it's spots! So Jehovah only stops being King in the minds of those who rebel against Him. And that erroneous concept is soon debunked when He expresses His rulership and actually does something. Nebuchadnezzar was on the receiving end of such an experience as recorded in the account at Dan. 4:1-37 much quoted or alluded to in this thread. And on that occasion he fared better than many others who have opposed (or will oppose) Jehovah's sovreeignty. With regard to Jesus, as he said, "all authority on heaven and earth has been given to me" (Matt 28:18) even before his return to the heavens. So, whether he 'sits on a throne at God's right hand' for some time after, (Acts 2:34, Heb.1:13); at a later date "goes forth conquering and to complete his conquest" (Rev.6:2); as Michael, battles with and hurls down Satan and his angels (Rev 12:7-9); as Michael again, 'stands up' at a time of unprecendented distress (Dan.12:1); as the angel with the abyss key, bounds the original serpent for 1000 years (Rev. 20:2); and then, mission accomplished, "subjects himself to the One who subjected all things to him" (1 Cor.15:28); what of it? Is he any less a king? All these are actions whereby Jesus becomes king in the same way that Jehovah becomes king, whilst never relinquishing His Sovereignty. So then, as Jehovah's delegate and appointed king, by any action taken by Jesus in his ruling of God's kingdom in Jehovah's name, Jehovah becomes king also on every expression of that rule, whether in the destruction of opposition, or the enhanced appreciation in the minds of those who accept these actions as expressions of His rulership through Christ. So don't tell me that no one noticed 1914!!!!! Whether they appreciated the true significance of the events at that time in their true nature might be arguable, but the simple statement that the "(Gentile) kings have had their day" remains true, no matter which way you look at it. Rev. 22:20

Depends which country you donate from. You select that from the drop down don't you?

The question needs a bit of context though I suspect Janice is on the right track.

Wow! You should join this team @Jay Witness!! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34544199

What news?

4 hrs ago @Nicole said: "Radical hate preacher Anjem Choudary has renounced his Muslim faith after being forced to share a cell with a particularly persistent Jehovah’s Witness." Pah! Complete garbage!

For me at least it matters not how far references go back either in Watchtower (WT) or any publications cited in these postings. I quoted from an 1823 publication in a recent post myself because I felt it relevant to a point I was making. I suppose I have an advantage over some in that I am able to check the context of any of the old WT quotes because I have a pretty extensive archive of publications, although of course anyone can build or access a pretty comprehensive electronic library these days if they wish. I suppose what is more important than the vintage of the quoted references is the point they are being used to substantiate and I suspect that this would be more the cause of irritation for some rather than the age of the quotes themselves. I think the point referenced in the WT of 2/15/1981 which is quoted above is relevant: "at times, it has been necessary, as understanding became clearer, to correct views. (Prov. 4:18) However, this has resulted in a continual refining of the body of Bible-based truth to which Jehovah’s Witnesses subscribe." Corrected views? I see it as a continuation of the process described at Acts 18:26 regarding Apollos "Pris·cilʹla and Aqʹui·la heard him, they took him into their company and explained the way of God more accurately to him" and similar to what Paul said at 1Cor 9-13 "For we have partial knowledge and we prophesy partially," So for me, apart from satisfying my curiosity in the development of understanding amongst Jehovah's Witnesses and it's historical context, little more is gained from these "hoary, old chestnuts" of WT quotes apart from proof of the italicised statement above. They are often used to support veiled or overt inferences to some sort of conspiracy theory scenario enacted by "old men in Brooklyn" (not so old these days). These arguments abound on the internet and their appearance on a public forum such as this is unsurprising. But even this designation will need a refinement soon to "old men in Warwick" won't it? These innuendos I do find offensive, but then I can choose to ignore them quite easily. Let freedom of expression prevail, but if you do claim to represent the Master Teacher, let his style of expression dominate also: "And they all began to give favorable witness about him and to be amazed at the gracious words coming out of his mouth" Luke 4:22

Singing Parrot.mp4

There is a great deal of text and personal reasoning expressed in this thread reflecting doubt in the current application Jehovah's Wittnesses make regarding the period of 7 times featuried in Daniel's account of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar recorded at Daniel chapter 4. In a nutshell, the current belief, as I understand it, is as follows: The period of 7 times for the abasement and restoration of rulership described in this dream is understood as having an initial and literal application to a period of 7 years during which time Nebuchadnezzar suffered a debilitating period of temporary insanity at the hand of God. This blow was dealt to him as a result of his haughtiness and refusal to recognise that his great rulership, including the overthrow of the Davidic (Messianic) kingdom of Judah, had only been possible due to the specific excercise of Jehovah in allowing him to carry out judicial execution on the renegade kingly line of David. Nebuchadnezzar learned his lesson as described in verses 34-35, and his rulership was restored. Without labouring the explanation, dealt with in great detail elsewhere, the dream is also seen as having greater application to the dethroning of the Messianic, Davidic kingly line seated in literal Jerusalem and, specifically, the time period until its restoration in the hands of Christ Jesus as the king of God's heavenly kingdom enthroned in heavenly Jerusalem. In my mind, this is cross-referenced to Ezekiel 21:26-27 where the forfeited Davidic crown woud be eventuallly restored by Jehovah to the one who has "the legal right". In the meantime, a period of time for uncontested human rule on earth that Jesus referred to at Luke 21:24 would run it's course. (popularly known as the Gentile Times). Amongst a multitude of interpretations of the time period referred to often as the "Gentile Times", Jehovah's Witnesses understand this time period as encompassing 2520 years of undisputed Gentile or non-theocratic domination of mankinds affairs. This is applied to the period 607BCE down to 1914CE which concurs with (our acceptance of) the date of Jerusalem's desolation (607BCE), terminating in the enthroning of Jesus as king in the heavens (1914CE) and described at Rev.12:10. The first execution of kingly power as described at Rev. 12:9 is the casting of Satan and his demonic supporters out of heaven. This is seen to be the prime cause of the escalation of disorder in earth's affairs and the commencement of the sign Jesus gave at, for example, Luke 21:10-11 and is paralleled at Rev.6:1-7. With regard to the understanding of the 2520 literal 7 times or 7 years of madness experienced by Nebuchadnezzar, the interpreting of this period as being of much lengthier duration is not new. In the 19th Century, this dream was a topic of conversation among various bible students with John Aquila Brown making this interesting statement in c.1823, "The "seven times" would, therefore be considered as a grand week of years, forming a period of two thousand five hundred and twenty years". (The Eventide p.135). Part of his reasoning for an extended application of Nebuchadnezar's dream is the way in which Daniel's explanation of Nebucahdnezzar's earlier dream of a mighty, metallic image (Dan. Chap.2) refers in the first instance to Nebuchadnezzar being the "head of gold". However, the succession of metals in the image, down to the eventual destruction by the kingdom stone, are evidently successions of dynasties of kings or empires. This corroborates with the interpretation of Daniels own dreams of successions of wild beasts experienced later and recorded in Chapter 7 and 8, especially Dan.8:20. Convoluted counter arguments, both using scripture or historical references are not very convincing, so for me, there appears to be no current need to reinvent the wheel at this particular time. Some difficulty has been raised in equating Nebuchadnezzar as a type of Jesus and inconsistency in the comparison. Well, I fail to see Nebuchadnezzar as a "type" of Jesus even under that now-obsolete method of interpretation. What Nebuchadnezzar typifies (for want of a better word), is rulership gone wrong and we can certainly draw a parallel in the Davidic dynasty with it's prideful rebellion against Jehovah and it's forgetting that it owed it's very existence to Jehovah. This is what was debased in a manner like that experienced by Nebuchadnezzar (Ez. 21:26-27). As for Jesus being the "lowliest of men", it is true he was viewed as accursed dirt by his opposers and of no regard by many since. Far more significant is the statement at Ph. 2:7-8. The words at v 9-11 also have significance in connection with both Dan 4:17,and 4:32. Also important is the kind of lowliness Jesus described at Matt.11:29 and exemplified in his statement at John 5:30. Jesus far exceeded even the example of Moses in this regard (Nu12:3). There are many things that could and probably will be said on this matter. But, for me anyway, I am quite satisfied that Jehovah, who "puts one man down and exalts another" (Ps 75:7), is quite able to steer the thinking of His people into a correct understanding of His word. And any adjustments that need to be made will be disseminated through the faithful and discrete slave that His son has appointed to feed His people at this particular time. And, at the risk of irritation to some maybe, there are no indications for me that the critical comments on this particular thread form any part of that direction.

The anwer to this question is quite categorically NO! and the scriptures quoted by @HollyW substantiate this. However, there needs to be clarity about just what it was that Jesus said would have an unknown day and hour as referenced at Matt. 24:36, Mk.13:32. The important thing is that these words were given in answer to the question as to when the "conclusion" would be. So the timing of that event and all that it encompasses is what is unknown as to day and hour. With regard to Jesus' presence, about which enquiry was also made, a composite sign was given. To me, if I am on a journey to arrive at an important destination with which I am unfamiliar, road signs become important. I know when I need to look out for a sign as I make myself aware of my location. Then, when the sign becomes visible, I take the necessary course of action and reach (hopefully) my destination. And if I have an appointment time to meet, then I know about what time I need to be seeing the sign if I am to arrive on schedule. I am not using this analogy to illustrate nuances of difference between the meanings of words like "coming", "arrival" and "presence". Enough has been said on that subject in many other postings. Suffice it to say that Jesus does not need to geographically relocate to be "present" any more than his father does. Just a change in focus is all that is required. And as for Jesus ruling his followers since the first century, of course that is true. But just as Jehovah has become king on numerous occasions just by excercising His authority (Ps 97:10), so Jesus can do the same. I am suggesting that it could be seen as unreasonable to provide a sign of something important and then not to provide some indication of when the sign would be visible. Whilst there are of course "times and seaons that the Father has placed within His own jurisdiction", there are also those that He has seen fit to reveal. I happen to believe that the timing of Jesus full investiture in kingdom power is one of those times and that this is what took place in 1914CE. The sign, a collection of world events not limited just to those listed in the Olivet discourse, have unmistakeably coincided with that event and are sufficiently attested to in order to command my attention and effect my direction of travel.

Case closed.