Jump to content
The World News Media

lentaylor71

Member
  • Posts

    17
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    1

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    lentaylor71 reacted to The Librarian in STUDY GUIDES | Remain in God’s Love (Part 1)   
    How can you maintain a close relationship with Jehovah? This study guide can help you to explore your beliefs and explain them to others.
    Source
  2. Like
    lentaylor71 reacted to Bible Speaks in They were disloyal—Delilah to the man who loved her, Judge Samson. – ???⚖️?⚖️???   
    They were disloyal—Delilah to the man who loved her, Judge Samson.
    ???????????
    "How loyal and righteous and unblamable we proved to be."—1 Thess. 2:10.
    Disloyalty and betrayal cause pain and suffering. Indeed, such acts are an ominous sign of the times! 
    ???????????
    Samson Triumphs in the Strength of Jehovah!
    VINDICTIVE captors bore out his eyes and consign him to hard labor. Then they bring him out of the prison house into a pagan temple to provide amusement for the crowd. They parade him before thousands of onlookers and make sport of him. The prisoner is neither a criminal nor a commander of an enemy army. He is a worshiper of Jehovah and has served as judge in Israel for 20 years.
    ???????????
    Samson was single-minded in the pursuit of his objective, his fight against the Philistines. His staying at the house of a prostitute at Gaza was for the purpose of fighting against God’s enemies. Samson needed a lodging place for the night in an enemy city, and it could be found in the house of a prostitute. Samsonhad no immoral purpose in mind. He left the woman’s house at midnight, grabbed the city gates and the two side posts, and carried them to the top of a mountain near Hebron, which was some 37 miles [60 km] away. This was done with divine approval and God-given strength.—Judges 16:1-3.
    ???????????
    The way the holy spirit operated in Samson’s case was unique because of the unusual circumstances. Faithful servants of God today can rely on the same spirit to empower them. Jesus assured his followers that Jehovah will “give holy spirit to those asking him.”—Luke 11:13.
    ???????????
    It came about that Samson fell in love with a woman named Delilah. The five axis lords of the Philistines were so eager to eliminate Samson that they enlisted her help. They approached Delilah and said to her: “Fool him and see in what his great power is and with what we can prevail over him.” As a bribe, each of the five axis lords offered her “one thousand one hundred silver pieces.”—Judges 16:4, 5.
    ???????????
    If the silver pieces were shekels, the offer of 5,500 shekels was a huge bribe. Abraham paid 400 shekels for a burial place for his wife, and a slave sold for just 30. (Genesis 23:14-20; Exodus 21:32) The fact that the axis lords—rulers of five Philistine cities—appealed to Delilah’s greed and not to her ethnic loyalty suggests that she was perhaps an Israelite woman. In any case, Delilah accepted the offer.
    ???????????
    Three times Samson gave Delilah misleading answers to her inquiry, and three times she betrayed him by trying to deliver him to his enemies. But “it came about that because she pressured him with her words all the time and kept urging him, his soul got to be impatient to the point of dying.” Samson finally revealed the truth—his hair had never been cut. Were it to be cut, he would grow weak and become like all other men.—Judges 16:6-17.
    ???????????
    That was Samson’s downfall. Delilah maneuvered him into a situation to have his head shaved. Samson’s power, however, was not literally in his hair. His hair merely represented his special relationship with God as a Nazirite. When Samson allowed himself to get into a situation that affected his Naziriteship because of the shaving of his head, ‘Jehovah departed from him.’ Philistines now overpowered Samson, blinded him, and put him in prison.—Judges 16:18-21.
    ???????????
    “Sovereign Lord Jehovah,” prayed Samson, “remember me, please, and strengthen me, please, just this once, O you the true God, and let me avenge myself upon the Philistines with vengeance for one of my two eyes.” Then he braced himself against the two center columns of the building, and “he bent himself with power.” The result? “The house went falling upon the axis lords and upon all the people that were in it, so that the dead that he put to death in his own death came to be more than those he had put to death during his lifetime.”—Judges 16:22-30.
    For physical strength, Samson was without equal among men. His mighty acts were notable indeed. But most important, Jehovah’s Word counts Samson among those strong in faith.—Hebrews 11:32-34.
    https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2005206?q=samson&p=par#h=21

  3. Downvote
    lentaylor71 reacted to JW Insider in Matthew 24:34 "this generation"   
    I don't see how we would ever know when such a new period of time started. As far as we can tell it started immediately after the tribulation in those days. (i.e., immediately after the tribulation on Jerusalem and its final parousia/synteleia in 70 C.E.)
  4. Like
    lentaylor71 reacted to JW Insider in ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view   
    Well, this is something new and refreshing. Someone appears to be willing to discuss the actual issues at hand. Unfortunately nearly all these issues had been brought up before by a certain @AllenSmith , and the answers are still the same as were given before.
    I would say that of course, yes, the historical assigned dates CAN be compromised by historian's writings, or mistaken. This is one of the reasons you look for several different independent lines of evidence. In this case all the different independent lines of contemporary evidence all point to the same thing: 587/586 BCE for Jerusalem's destruction. The evidence is just as powerful, and in some ways more powerful, than the evidence for 539, which the Watchtower has called "absolute" and "assured." That's the problem with trying to punch holes in half-a-dozen independent lines of evidence. It's the same as saying that the evidence for 539 is potentially compromised or mistaken, except that we need that date in order to have a starting point to manipulate the earlier date. So we're kind of trapped: all the evidence that we are accepting is the same as the evidence that destroys our theory. The best we could ever hope for is that no one would have ever noticed the evidence. And for the most part, that has worked just fine, because very few Witnesses will look into this kind of research, even when -- or especially when -- it becomes evident that it creates conflicts with our strongly entrenched traditions.
    You are talking about Nebuchadnezzar I, II, III, and IV. These are well understood. Also, any kings that ruled less than a year have no effect on the timeline. That's the beauty of having half-a-dozen independent lines of evidence that also interact smoothly and support each other. It turns out that ALL the evidence still creates only one timeline that fits. There aren't even like two or three top choices. One of the Nebuchadnezzars you speak of was not even part of the Neo-Bablonian timeline. He reigned hundreds of years outside of the timeline we are concerned about. And the other two are outside the part of the timeline we care about (and reigned only a few months each). Besides, the Watchtower already accepts the Neo-Babylonian timeline if they ever mention that the date 539 is accurate. If it's accurate, then it's because we are admitting that the Neo-Babylonian timelline is accurate. If we say that 587/6 is NOT accurate, then we are saying that 539 is not accurate. The argument you are making could be made about anything. Why question if there were only four Nebuchadnezzars? Why not propose that 2,000 different tablets that mention Nebuchadnezzars refer to 2,000 different kings named Nebuchanezzar? If all of them referred to a different Nebuchadnezzar, you would have to ADD all the regnal years from every tablet in such a case. This would also mean that (since year 20 is the average regnal year on these tablets) the Neo-Babylonian timeline was about 20 x 2000 or 40,000 years long. From your vantage point, as an opposer of the evidence, you could surmise anything you wanted about the evidence.
    The other points you enumerated are not valid because you have no right to use any BCE dates for comparison if you don't accept the dates of the Neo-Babylonian period. You should never even use the date 539 or 538, if you don't really accept the chronology evidence that got you there. Just throwing out some questions, and claiming things are "perceived" when they really aren't perceived the way you say is a good way to try to poke holes. But it's meaningless unless you have an alternative theory that fits ALL the evidence, or at least tries to fit all the evidence. Then, to really test if that theory works with ALL the evidence, you put it out there and see if someone can find any contradictions in your proposal. I'm sure you have heard the expression "blowing smoke." It refers to the tactic of just throwing anything out there and hoping that it will stick. [It's not really a mixed metaphor, it just looks like one.] It's done without a concern about what it does to the rest of the evidence, or if it creates impossible contradictions. That's why you haven't really poked holes until you can hypothesize what it would mean as an alternative.
  5. Like
    lentaylor71 reacted to Arauna in ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view   
    I am going back to the ancient Jewish Calendar because I used the word "biblical" above.  
    I do not think that the average farmer on his little plot of land did all the calculations which I see above in great detail (for the pure love for detail) while the individual does not realize that the people who lived on the ground in ancient israel did not care or know about scholarship. It is easy to look back now and put your own view on things - but real life was not like that in ancient times. Yes they had their Levites and later the rabbinical teachers who looked after these calculations BUT....
    An average Israelite farmer looked at the new moon to remind him of the festivals he had to attend that month and also for the planting season.  They had on average 30 days in the month and every fourth year when the seasons did not look right (because they were behind according to the sun calendar - the earth has it seasons as its turns around the sun) - they then put in the extra short month to tally the moon calendar up with the sun. 
    Most cultures went with the moon calendar, so this calendar was prevalent and well-known to all. 30 days per month and then the 4th year had a small extra month.  The Jews were savvy about the planets but they were NOT allowed to go into future predictions (using the planets, moon and stars) like Babylon for instance (who used the sun calendar and did endless calculations for predictions).
    Word of mouth and passing knowledge from one generation to another was the way things were done. So this is why the Bible does not stipulate 29. point (whatever the faction you mentioned) to describe the lunar month. It used (in all its consistent) writings in the bible - 30 days per month in all cases.  The extra DAY you speak off (which we now still put in every 4th year) is part of the SUN based calendar.
    So either you accept the Bible as it presented things to the people as they were used in ancient times (30 days per month was their tradition and ALL references to months in the Bible have consistently given 30 days as the number)  - or you add you own brilliant calculations to the mixture with FRACTIONS and all - and the problem with this is: you will make yourself a god in your own myopic brilliance and reject what the Bible has to say about 30 days per month. (This was ancient tradition not modern life calculus on computers).
    You either accept the Bible or you do not. God did not ask any of the prophets to write about a month as 29.....fraction, fraction...days .... so why even go there?   What is the motive? 
  6. Like
    lentaylor71 reacted to Shiwiii in Gog and Magog who?   
    My question is about who the wt says Gog and Magog is in Ezekiel and what the historical beliefs of the society were and what the thought is today. A brief account of what the wt thought and around what time they thought it:
    Russia - June 1880
    A Demon prince - 1932
    Satan's Field Marshall - 1934
    A spiritual ruler but not a demon prince - 1953
    Satan - 1954
    A Coalition of nations - 2015
    Why, if God was/is leading this organization, did it take until 2015 for the wt to arrive at the same position that the rest of Christianity has believed for years?
    Why would God allow the org to be in the dark, so to speak, about this for so long?
    Why did God reveal this to the rest of Christianity first?
    Did the wt provide spiritual food at the proper time and what was the food in the 1940's? Was it accurate knowledge?
  7. Like
    lentaylor71 reacted to Melinda Mills in No! Please!! Not another thread about 1914!!!   
    What about the effects of the website on those lands where people are poor and neither have computers nor the Internet, including JWs?  I remember an Article in the Watchtower recently wherein the Gov Body was asked if whose Witnesses who don't have access to the Website are well fed and they said Yes.  
     
    Here is the quote:
    *** w14 8/15 p. 5 Are You Receiving “Food at the Proper Time”? ***
    3. If you do not have access in your language to all the publications that are produced, will you become spiritually undernourished?
    The answer is no. And it should not surprise us that some of Jehovah’s servants might, at times, have access to more spiritual food than others do. Why not? Consider the apostles. They received more instruction than many other disciples in the first century did. (Mark 4:10; 9:35-37) Even so, the other disciples were not spiritually undernourished; they received what they needed.—Eph. 4:20-24; 1 Pet. 1:8.
    It is also worth noting that much of what Jesus said and did while on earth is not recorded in the Gospel accounts. The apostle John wrote: “There are also, in fact, many other things that Jesus did, which if ever they were written in full detail, I suppose the world itself could not contain the scrolls written.” (John 21:25) Even though Jesus’ first-century followers had more information about the perfect man Jesus than we do, we are not deprived. Jehovah has made sure that we know enough about Jesus for us to be his footstep followers.—1 Pet. 2:21.
    Think, too, of the letters sent by the apostles to the first-century congregations. At least one letter written by Paul was not preserved in the Bible. (Col. 4:16) Is our spiritual food inadequate because we do not have access to that letter? No. Jehovah knows what we need and has given us enough to keep us spiritually strong.—Matt. 6:8.
    Today, some groups of Jehovah’s servants have more spiritual food available to them than others have. Do you speak a language in which only a few publications are available? If so, know that Jehovah cares for you. Study the material you have, and if possible, attend the meetings in a language that you understand. And be assured that Jehovah will keep you spiritually strong.—Ps. 1:2; Heb. 10:24, 25.
    4. If you do not have access to material that is published on jw.org, will you become spiritually weak?
    On our Web site, we publish copies of our magazines and other Bible-study publications. The Web site also provides material that helps couples, teenagers, and those with young children. Families benefit by considering this material in their Family Worship sessions. In addition, our Web site reports on special programs, such as Gilead graduations and the annual meeting, and it keeps our global brotherhood informed about natural disasters and legal developments that affect Jehovah’s people. (1 Pet. 5:8, 9) The Web site is also a powerful preaching tool, making the good news available even in lands where our work is restricted or banned.
    However, you can remain spiritually strong whether you have access to our Web site or not. The slave has worked hard to provide enough printed material to keep each domestic spiritually well-fed. Therefore, you should not feel obligated to buy a device just to access jw.org. Some may make private arrangements to print a limited amount of material published on our Web site and give it personally to those who do not have Internet access, but congregations are not required to do this.
    We are grateful to Jesus for keeping his promise to care for our spiritual needs. As these difficult last days rapidly draw to a close, we can be confident that Jehovah will continue to provide spiritual “food at the proper time.”
     
  8. Like
    lentaylor71 reacted to Melinda Mills in Could Someone Be Disfellowshipped For Not Believing In The "Overlapping Generation" JW Doctrine AFTER Being Baptized?   
    Agree with above. Holding a personal belief is different from causing divisions.  How did we get to the stage where Christians would get into trouble for believing something different which is not an essential Christian teaching.  Is overlapping generation in the Bible?
    "Acts 15: 28  For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!” "
    We don't wish to add further burdens to others. If we have personal thoughts on matters - that is freedom of thought and conscience. We don't have to share them and cause divisions.  But we are free to hold them. That's God given.
    The days of Inquisition passed  a few hundred years ago.  Are we forgetting history? Why are we attracting trouble by asking persons what we can or cannot personally believe?
  9. Like
    lentaylor71 reacted to ComfortMyPeople in ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view   
    WAITING… AND FIGHTING
    ARchiv@L, I appreciate your advice. Very laconic, but appropriate. Only to develop a little further my attitude, let me mention David example in, perhaps, the most difficult part of his life, when persecuted by Saul.

    He had the temptation (as myself sometimes) to escape and wait if Jehovah fix the situation. But Jehovah had another plan for him:
    (1 Samuel 22:5) In time Gad the prophet said to David: “Do not stay in the stronghold. Go from there into the land of Judah.” So David left and went into the forest of Heʹreth” And again in the middle of the fight…

    And sure you remember when the future king was forced to run away between the Philistines, even in that painful situation, he continued to support the people of God… commanded by his worst enemy.
     
    (1 Samuel 27:7, 8) “The length of time that David lived in the countryside of the Phi·lisʹtines was a year and four months. David would go up with his men to raid the Geshʹur·ites, the Girʹzites, and the A·malʹek·ites, for they were inhabiting the land that extended from Teʹlam as far as Shur and down to the land of Egypt”.  These wars, in spite of the opinion of his enemies, were considered, in reality “the wars of Jehovah” (1Sa 25:28)

    To meditate in this example has helped to me to wait and fight. TO FIGHT against the outer enemy: the false religions and their false teachings: hell fire, trinity and so. I don’t meant fighting holding a banner in our conventions and shouting “the 1914 teaching is untruth”.

    As I consider the Congregation has a Leader more wise and powerful than me, I WAIT he will fix any situation he considers worth of change when he considers the proper moment.
  10. Like
    lentaylor71 reacted to Evacuated in ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view   
    I agree with this entirely! Compare Pro.4:18; 1Cor.13:12 
  11. Like
    lentaylor71 reacted to ARchiv@L in ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view   
    NO - NO ,,,, I just wanted to say about the "waiting"..... I always thank you all for your comments, ...
    seems that humans always like to know the future, and the history showed that we must wait to see what the future has for us, even the Governing Body is watching the world news, and also many people are wondering "what is going on" with some worldwide conditions, ..
    we see that (before) that we had understand many things from the bible, progressively ... and this is what we must do, wait untill we see something happen .... 
    it is amazing that the bible verses are already in the bible for years now, but our understanding changes !! (for some topics).
    thank you! 
     
  12. Like
    lentaylor71 reacted to TrueTomHarley in ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view   
    If you move the day back 20 years, does that fit with any verses? Should it be expected to?
  13. Like
    lentaylor71 reacted to JW Insider in ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view   
    I think the content of the verse in Micah about having a "waiting attitude" is good, but the context might seem a bit harsh in that the verse applies to waiting on Jehovah when it's an enemy we are up against. I don't think of the Governing Body as an enemy here, and I don't think you do either.
    In fact, the only issue I see is that a long-standing tradition made sense for many years, but has turned out to cause more problems than it solved at this point. Still, I don't think it is even that big of a problem when it comes to the day-to-day life of an average Witness.
    After all, whether 1914 is a necessary doctrine or not:
    We still know that we are living in the time of the end, or the "last days" even if that phrase had the same meaning to Christians in the first century. We still know that Satan has been cast down and walks about like a roaring lion, seeking to devour someone, because his time is short. This is also true even if it had the same meaning in the first century. We also wait for his final abyss and subsequent final demise. We still have a preaching work that is just as important as ever. Jesus is still "King of Kings" and ruler of those who rule the earth. The kingdom is still our focus, and continues to be the theme of our hopes and prayers. We still know that we must overcome critical times, hard to deal with, just as Paul warned Timothy that he would meet up with. We still know that Jesus is present, wherever even two or three are gathered in his name. We know that Jesus will be with us right up until the conclusion of the system of things. We don't live for a date, or serve for a date anyway, so whether or not the end comes in our lifetime or we find out about it after a moment of "sleep" in death, the important thing is still our love for God and neighbor, and "what sort of persons we ought to be." So probably the only thing that we might consider to be different is the idea that the Gentile kings had their day and the times of these nations and their kings ended 103 years ago. This, ironically, is the only prediction that we ever said we got right about 1914 in the first place. So it might end up requiring a bit of humility, but there's nothing wrong with a bit of humility, either.
  14. Like
    lentaylor71 reacted to ARchiv@L in ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view   
    https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001061137?q=waiting+attitude&p=par
  15. Like
    lentaylor71 reacted to JW Insider in ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view   
    The general view by the Governing Body is likely that this is exactly what they have been doing for as long as possible, but I'm sure that all or most of them believe they have been doing it for the right reasons. I have no reason to believe that any of the current Governing Body doubt the general idea about 1914, whether or not all of them specifically believe in the Daniel 4 foundation or not. (For many years, Daniel 4 on its own, had nothing to do with the "foundation" for 1914, although it was considered to be a weaker, but still valid, bit of corollary evidence by Russell.)
    If it were only true. What this "scholarly type," R.Furuli, had done was take the 10 pieces of independent archaeological and historical evidence and not even address 8 of them except with flippant false claims that shows he doesn't even care to research them. He pins all the importance on only ONE of those pieces of evidence, which is odd because 607 as the year when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem is falsified just as easily by the other pieces of evidence without even needing to rely at all on this one piece of evidence. But then, even at that, he comes up with the most convoluted reasons for rejecting this one item: VAT 4956.
    VAT 4956 is one of several astronomical diaries that would ultimately identify Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year as the year 568/567 BCE, based on the astronomy that fits no other possible year. Of course, if the tablet is correct, then it's the same as saying Nebuchadnezzar's 36th year would be 569/8 BCE, his 35th would be 570/569 BCE on back to his 19th (or 18th) year, which would be 587/6 BCE, which is a year that Jeremiah and 2 Chronicles associate with the destruction of Jerusalem. In other words, it's just another of several items of evidence that consistently fits the "secular" chronology -- which also happens to fit the Biblical chronology, even though these particular bits of Biblical evidence are not accepted by the Watch Tower Society.
    But even though Furuli grasps at all kinds of straws to invalidate the tablet, most JWs don't even realize that Furuli ADMITS that most of it actually does refer to the date 567 and no other possible date. That is an admission that MOST of this tablet still invalidates the Watch Tower Society's preferred date of 607 BCE for the Temple destruction. He even says that the museum curators might have taken a grinding tool and forged the "37" onto it to look exactly like all the other cuneiform letters that were made when the clay was still wet. Since it's a two-sided piece of clay, he even thinks that one of the two sides might have been faked and didn't originally go together. This is in spite of the fact that he admits that the number 37 on the tablet (in more than one place) is the correct year for most of the readings.
    He thought he could find some trouble with the lunar readings, based especially on the fact that there is a known copyist's error on the tablet. He admits that he was an amateur when it came to trying to figure out the astronomical readings, but it does not take a genius to try to duplicate his readings and see that his mistakes were worse than amateurish. They have been discussed elsewhere on the site, and so far, everyone who has tried to duplicate them has seen the errors.
    But as you said: "That's all you need." Unfortunately, this is true for many persons. I think that most of us believe that if someone makes a claim that fits a preconceived notion, it must be true. It's a lot like watching CNN and MSNBC fall over themselves to find new ways to use the phrase "Russia hacked our 2016 election." Very few point out that one of the candidates failed to even visit states where she had a preconceived notion of a sure win.
  16. Like
    lentaylor71 reacted to JW Insider in ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view   
    I haven't invoked the part of this story that involves the "political" powers that have played no small part in keeping the 1914 doctrine written into our own history. But as you already admit that it applies to everything, I will oblige. Not that this has anything to do with real evidence for anything, but for me, it at least counters the common idea that if something is believed by non-Witnesses or ex-Witnesses it must be wrong. In this case, the same evidence I have already presented was also believed by several members of our own Governing Body, and even more members of our own Writing Department, plus at least one Gilead Instructor and at least two respected members of the Service Department. One is a current Governing Body Helper, and another still works in Writing and both still give convention talks, etc.
    As a New Yorker you are not living too far away from some of those who were close friends of many of the people I mention, and you might have an opportunity to validate any part of what I'll mention below:
    Daniel Sydlik of the Governing Body once said to me "off the record" that he thought we should just scrap the entire chronology and "start from scratch." I had heard that he had said this to several brothers prior to 1974, and I wanted to know (in 1978) if he still felt that way now that he was on the Governing Body. At the time I was only willing to question the 1918 and 1919 doctrines, and I went to him because I had been told by several people that he dismissed them as fantasy. Ewart Chitty, Ray Franz and Lyman Swingle had also made similar comments even about 1914, not just 1919. I had only heard Lyman Swingle say it personally, but I knew people who said that Chitty and R.Franz had also no longer believed that 1914 was a doctrine we should promote in the way we were doing it. The people who told me this were two of my best friends in Writing and one more very good friend in the Service Department. When Brother Schroeder complained to me about people willing to dismiss 1914, he inadvertently gave me 3 more names in the Writing Department when he said that it included everyone currently in Writing who worked on the Aid Book. The brother who gave my wedding talk, Brother Rusk, was a hard-line loyalist to anything that Fred Franz believed, and he also warned me against my friendship with 3 brothers in Writing, two of whom worked on the Aid Book.
    I would never have had the nerve to ask why no member of the Governing Body had not stood up to Fred Franz and questioned the chronology doctrines outright. But several members of the Writing Department explained what they thought was happening. And their ideas were consistent: When serious doctrinal issues were being questioned (like chronology) there was very little that could be done prior to 1977 because it didn't matter what the Governing Body thought anyway, because Nathan Knorr and Fred Franz would override it in favor of "conservative" policies and doctrines. Also, neither Grant Suiter nor Milton Henschel ever cared much for scriptural discussions, which was obvious by the way they handled morning worship only as if it were "business reporting." So any scriptural matters were decided by the Oracle (Fred Franz). The Governing Body from 1971 to 1977 was not really a Governing Body yet anyway in the sense that they could actually bring up major doctrinal issues for questioning. Swingle could grumble about 1914, and R.Franz had already done the research for the Aid Book chronology article, but when R.Franz was added to the Governing Body in 1971, it was with Gangas, Greenlees, and Jackson -- and those three just mentioned were 100% supporters of Fred Franz. In 1974, when Sydlik and Schroeder were added and were known wild-cards, it was still at a time when the Governing Body had no authority to decide anything of any consequence. Also, of course, they were added at the same time as Ted Jaracz, Charles Fekel, Karl Klein, and Ewart Chitty were added. Those four were considered to be 100% Fred Franz supporters, even sycophants was the word used of most of them. Chitty admitted to a very close and respected friend of mine that he had grave reservations about 1914, but I have my doubts he would have pushed against the strength of Fred Franz on a doctrinal issue. (Of the last four, Jaracz, Fekel, Klein, and Chitty, I will not break down all the different rumors about each one, but I will say that it might have seemed obvious, based on their histories, that they would always vote with Fred Franz.) Barber, Barr and Poetzinger were added in 1977 and it was assumed by at least one friend in Writing that they filled out an even wider safety net to keep all votes for change from ever reaching 66.67%. I have to say that I knew almost nothing about any of these last three, and they never said anything during morning worship that gave a hint that they might have had preferred views or teachings that they felt were priorities.
    By the time any dangerous questions could have been asked, Schroeder spearheaded a crack-down on such questions, starting in early 1980, and I even watched him try to position himself as the new "Oracle" in the event that "King Saul" died. (The expression, "That won't change until King Saul dies" was heard as a kind of joke many times in the Writing and Service Department, and it actually referred to someone else before Fred Franz.) Some people were very serious about it, however. At any rate, "King Saul" kept his power by minimizing the work Schroeder was doing throughout the 1980's and sometimes pushing for explanations that were exactly the opposite of what Schroeder proposed. (To be fair Schroeder proposed some fairly odd changes, which I won't get into here and now.) But one of the specific items that Schroeder had proposed was the idea that the "generation" should be seen as the generation of the "anointed." He even went to give talks in Europe promoting this new view. In response, Franz pushed for making it the generation of the "wicked" which actually made more sense in light of some scriptures. Schroeder also pushed one last time on trying to prove that the heart was not just a figurative, but a literal seat of emotion, love, hate, envy, etc. Franz responded with a long Gilead Graduation talk in excruciating detail about the meaning of the liver and fat, and why the fat was forbidden just as blood was forbidden. It seemed very serious, but Schroeder told me what he thought of it.
  17. Like
    lentaylor71 reacted to JW Insider in ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view   
    Yes. Partly 607, and partly the inconsistent views and inconsistencies in translation and explanations surrounding the 70 years desolation and captivities, the 70 years of Babylonian hegemony. Each of these bullet points could probably be expanded into 10 more bullet points, and a lot more scriptures than the ones listed. I'll give just a few examples which would all be included in the first bullet point:
    The NWT has a fairly obvious mistranslation in Jeremiah 29:10. It has been discussed ad nauseum, but the general view from Hebrew scholars is that we have chosen the word "at" instead of "for" because the more obvious translation would lead people to notice that the verse is directly about Babylon and only indirectly about Judah. Our current doctrine requires the opposite. There was a time when the entire NWT was only translated into a dozen additional languages, and in order to say that these were actual "Bible translations" and not just translations from the English into another language, brothers in a couple countries with Biblical language skills translated directly from Hebrew. Two of these translations came out with the dreaded "for" instead of "at" and had to be changed back to match the NWT English. After many consistent denials of the validity of "for" here, the Isaiah's Prophecy book made use of the exact same point about Babylonian hegemony in the discussion of Tyre. The Insight Book admits that Zechariah 1:12 and 7:4 must have been written almost 90 years after 607 BCE, which would be 90 years after the destruction of Jerusalem, if it had happened in 607. Ten different independent "witnesses" and literally thousands of dated contract documents all combine to provide evidence that it was only 70 years earlier that Jerusalem was destroyed, not 90. Yet, Zechariah 7:4 also indicates that it was only 70 years earlier, showing that Bible history is confirmed by archaeology. This is something that we would normally get excited about, whenever archaeology confirms the Bible record. But in this case we don't say anything because we have a doctrine that has forced us to add 20 years to every date prior to 539, all the way back to the creation of Adam. [edited to add:] Also I had included the reference to Ezra 3 in that initial bullet point because it says that the sound of those who must have been 70-plus-year-olds (per Zechariah) wept with such a loud voice that some people couldn't distinguish the shouts of joy from the weeping. This is far from definitive, but in the Watchtower's theory of events, this would have referred to the sound of the 90-plus-year-olds. If we accept the history from Zechariah 1 & 7, they would have been within the range of the expected life-span, 70-plus. (Psalm 90:10) . . .The span of our life is 70 years, Or 80 if one is especially strong.. . .
    (Ezra 3:12,13) Many of the priests, the Levites, and the heads of the paternal houses—the old men who had seen the former house—wept with a loud voice when they saw the foundation of this house being laid, while many others shouted joyfully at the top of their voice. 13 So the people could not distinguish the sound of the joyful shouts from the sound of the weeping, for the people were shouting so loudly that the sound was heard from a great distance.
     
     
  18. Like
    lentaylor71 reacted to TrueTomHarley in ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view   
    If this is a reference to 607 (it is not JWI's fault if I do not do my homework), I think of the expression 'it is the victors that write history.' It is a political statement regarding world powers, but it applies to everything. Certainly, science is fraught with accounts of one view coming into vogue, and then crushing the opposition for as long as possible.
    My understanding is that some scholarly type has written a defense of 607. That's all you need. Not one Witness teaching is the majority view today; should we insist this one must be? For all the hype about 'critical thinking' today, the pattern remains what it has always been; in fact, it intensifies: choose your belief (largely based on 'heart') then go find some 'experts' to back you up.
    Will 1914 fall? If it does, it does. But I am far from burying it just yet. Nor do I feel I should encourage the GB to have the wisdom and courage to do whatever is right. If I drop dead tomorrow, they will do just fine.
     I have grown used to explaining that 'if the greatest war in history, the ONLY time until then that the entire world went to war at the same time (China & region excepted, as it was isolated at the time), AND if the greatest pestilence in history does not constitute fulfillment of Matt 24:7 and Luke 21:10, 11, what does? Vs 8 of Matt indicates it starts off with a bang, but continues for some time.
    Will I have to change my tune on this?
    On the vs 8 'you ain't seen nothin' yet' front, terrorist knife or vehicle attacks, unheard of not long ago, are now just 'one of those things.' The gay revolution took decades; whereas the transgendered revolution has taken mere months, and a 9 year old girl can be, on National Geographic, not just transgendered, but a transgendered activist. 'Fake news,' absolutely unheard of just 3 years ago, is now a staple of life, one more of many pitfalls to mess with us.
    Perhaps 1914 will suffice to get us through to the end. Maybe that won't be so far off after all.
  19. Like
    lentaylor71 reacted to ComfortMyPeople in ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view   
    (Luke 12:47, 48) . . .Then that slave who understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do what he asked will be beaten with many strokes. But the one who did not understand and yet did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few. Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him.
     
    Anna, everyone of us know who has the responsability to fix the situation: "his master on coming" (Lu 12:43)
    So, what can we do? Wait, be busy in the work and making fine things, and pray.
    Pray for these brothers in th GB, that they have the wisdom and courage to act. Pray for the humble ones, that Jehovah grant them faith to wait without stumbling
  20. Like
    lentaylor71 reacted to Anna in ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view   
    "So.....what we gonna do"?? 
    (Vultures from jungle book- in case someone is not familiar with the scene)

  21. Like
    lentaylor71 reacted to ComfortMyPeople in ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view   
    Lately I've been too busy to post anything. But these last ideas put forward by JWI fit so well with what I've been thinking for years that I wish to express my totally agree. I hope that those on charge, have the humility to recognize their mistakes and the courage to explain it openly, no matter what happens and whoever falls, however sad it may be. The truth can not, it should not be covered more time. The servant must be prudent, true, but first he must be faithful.
  22. Like
    lentaylor71 reacted to JW Insider in ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view   
    Even before C.T.Russell was born, commentaries on Bible prophecy included  dozens of potential dates. Nearly 200 years ago, a couple of them even included 1914 as potentially significant time period. The "1914 presence" doctrine, however, is only about 75 years old.
    All the ideas behind the Watch Tower's version of the 1914 doctrine have already been discussed for decades now, and all of them, so far, have been shown to be problematic from a Scriptural point of view. Since the time that the doctrine generally took its current shape in 1943, the meanings and applications of various portions of Matthew 24 and 25 have already been changed, and the timing of various prophesied events and illustrations have changed. Most recently, the meaning and identification of the "faithful and discreet slave" has changed. And the definition of "generation" has changed about half-a-dozen times. This doesn't mean that the current understandings are impossible, of course, only that it has become less likely from the point of view of reason and reasonableness.
    Besides, for most of the years of teaching this doctrine, we have had the flexibility of extending the "1914 generation" from a possible 40 years, up to 70, then 75, then 80 years. And this has been applied to teenagers who saw 1914, 10-year-olds who saw 1914, then even newborns who saw 1914. With every one of these options already tried and stretched to their limits, we finally were forced to convert the meaning of generation from its most common meanings and give it a new "strained" meaning that has no other Biblical parallel. (See Exodus 1:6; Matthew 1:17; 16:4; 23:36; Luke 11:50)
    But that flexibility is still seen as the last reason for hope that the Watch Tower Society might have still been correct in hanging on to 1914. Since the Bible says that a lifespan is 70 or 80 years and 1914 + 80 = 1994, the "generation" doctrine in its original form (1943) could remain stable until about 1994. Of course, a lifespan could technically reach to 120 years or more, and Gen 6:3 even gives vague support to the idea that the "1914 generation" could last 120 years, until 2034.
    The current alternative solution is to make the generation out of the length of two lifespans, which technically could be double 120 years, or nearly 240 years from 1914. That would have had the potential to reach to the year 2154 (1914+240) except for the caveat that it can, by its new definition, only refer to anointed persons who discerned the sign in 1914 and whose lives overlapped (technically, by as little as one second) with the lifespan of another anointed person representing the second group. If persons from each group don't really discern their own "anointing" until age 20, for example, this would effectively remove 40 years from the overall maximum. 1914+120-20+120-20 = 2114. We could also assume a possible lifespan of more than 120 years, but otherwise, the new two-lifespan generation could potentially make the generation last 200 years. This "technical maximum" is not promoted currently, because for now we look at examples like Fred Franz who was part of that original generation already anointed and who saw the sign, and the typical example of an anointed brother who was apparently "anointed" prior to Franz' death in 1992 would be someone like Governing Body member, Brother Sanderson, who was born in 1965, baptized in 1975, and was already a "special pioneer" in 1991. His is currently 52.
    However, the generation problem is just one more problem now which we can add onto the list of all the other points that make up the 1914 doctrine. Here are several points related to 1914 that appear problematic from a Scriptural point of view:
    All evidence shows the 1914 date is wrong when trying to base it on the destruction of Jerusalem. (Daniel 1:1; 2 Chron 36:1-22; Jer 25:8-12; Zech 1:12, 7:4; Ezra 3:10-13) Paul said that Jesus sat at God's right hand in the first century and that he already began ruling as king at that time. (1 Cor 15:25) Jesus said not to be fooled by the idea that wars and rumors of wars would be the start of a "sign" (Matt 24:4,5) Jesus said that the "parousia" would be as visible as lightning (Matt 24:27). He spoke against people who might say he had returned but was currently not visible. (Matt 24:23-26) Jesus said that his "parousia" would come as a surprise to the faithful, not that they would discern the time of the parousia decades in advance. (Matt 24:36-42) Jesus said that the kingdom would not be indicated by "signs" (Luke 17:20, almost any translation except NWT in this case) The "synteleia" (end of all things together) refers to a concluding event, not an extended period of time (Matt 28:20) Jesus was already called ruler, King and even "King of Kings" in the first century. (1 Tim 6:15, Heb 7:2,17; Rev 1:5; 17:14) Wicked, beastly King Nebuchadnezzar's insanity and humiliation does not represent Jesus as the "lowliest one of mankind." (Heb 1:5,6; 2:10,11; Daniel 4:23-25; cf. Heb 2:7; 1 Pet 3:17,18) The demise of a Gentile kingdom cannot rightly represent the time of the rise of the Gentile kingdoms (Daniel 4:26,27) The Gentile kings did not meet their demise in 1914. (Rev 2:25,26) The time assigned to the Gentile Times that Jesus spoke about in Luke 21:24 is already given as 3.5 times, not 7 times (Revelation 11:2,3) The Devil was already brought down from "heaven" in the first century. (1 John 2:14,15; 1 Pet 5:8; Luke 10:18; Heb 2:14) The Bible says that the "last days" began in the first century. (Acts 2:14-20; 2 Tim 3:1-17; 1 Peter 3:3-5; Heb 1:2, almost any translation except NWT in this case.)
  23. Like
    lentaylor71 reacted to JW Insider in ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view   
    In the previous post I mentioned the big rush that Russell got behind to finance Barbour's "Three Worlds." It might be confusing to some that they thought the end of the time of trouble would occur in 1914. (Later, in 1904 this was changed to the start of a time of trouble, lasting until about 1915, or the end of 1915.)
    If they thought that the end would be in 1914, how could they think of the rapture in 1878? It's because they thought that there was a higher heavenly calling in 1878 for people like Russell and Barbour and other "wise virgins" who recognized that Barbour was the one whom Jesus had used to call out the "midnight cry" beginning right around 1859 -- halfway between Miller's 1844 and the "dawn" or the "morning" in 1874. Russell later recognized that the word for "midnight" in Greek was not an exact time but a range of time, and pretty much removed Barbour from the equation as God's mouthpiece.
    Those of the higher calling would go to heaven, called to the marriage of the Lamb for the 144,000, while other Christians would stay on earth for as long as they lived, at least up to 1914, and be changed when they died. This is how the "great crowd" would get to heaven. After all the Christians were in heaven, the millennium activity would be mostly about Christians working from heaven to transform the non-Christians who would inherit the earth.
    Another interesting piece of information is that the chart that folds out at the beginning of "Three Worlds" uses 606 BCE, when Nebuchadnezzar received universal domination. This is actually much closer to the Bible's timetable, because it does not depend on when Babylon finally destroyed Jerusalem, 20 years into that domination, after several deportations of Jews. Note the image which can also be found here:
    https://archive.org/stream/N.H.BarbourThreeWorldsAndHarvestOfThisWorld.ABriefReviewOfThe/Barbour_threeWorlds_harvestOfThisWorld_1877#page/n3/mode/2up
     

  24. Upvote
    lentaylor71 got a reaction from Martha Braun Amistadi in They Will Have To Know I Am Jehovah   
    Very soon you will have to know. 
  25. Upvote
    lentaylor71 reacted to Bible Speaks in They Will Have To Know I Am Jehovah   
    TIME  DISCOVERS  TRUTH 
    23 "And I will certainly magnify myself and sanctify myself and make myself known before the eyes of many nations; and they will have to know that I am Jehovah.’"
    ( Ezekiel 38:23) NWT
    jw.org

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.