b4ucuhear

We should all be concerned with what we preach as being the honest truth - that's what "truth" seekers do. But it is also fair to say that while God knows absolute truth, Bible truths have been gradually revealed from the first prophecy in Gen. 3:15 regarding the seed (and other prophecies) until now. The Patriarchs, Jews, early Christians and JW's today have always had to revise their understanding/expectation of certain things they had assumed/believed to be true as more information was forthcoming. Some see that as a bad thing - being "wrong" about certain beliefs or expectations, while I see it as a positive/progressive trait - which is what one would expect from truth "seekers." The fact that JW's have made  changes and continue to do so shows they are humble enough to admit their mistakes and correct matters. (That assumes as well that other changes will likely be made as they are confronted with more realities. Some dates have gone by the wayside and maybe even 1914 could be discarded eventually. Who knows?) Dates are of little concern to anyone who intends their dedication to God to be forever. In fact, on studies with other people, I qualify these types of things as our "present understanding" organizationally, but if a change in thinking takes place don't be too upset about it. It's part of the growing process all humble servants of God have rolled with. On other things, like war, hellfire, Trinity, Christmas...I'm certainly more definite about. 
 "Going around frightening people with an 'end is nigh' message and a 'only baptized JW's will be saved' message is not teaching truth to anyone." First of all as you should already know, our preaching work is not to go around "frightening people." If that was our purpose, we would be preaching what almost every other religion on earth you would have a choice of going to would preach: Hellfire. So we are different in that respect. What we preach is the gospel or good news. Good news about what? As everyone knows, it is the "good news of God's Kingdom" that we preach in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations before the end comes. (Matt. 24:14). Also to make disciples. (Matt. 28:19, 20; Acts 28:28, 30) We even look at Armageddon as a positive in clearing the world of Satan's system and those who aren't interested in doing God's will in favour of those who are. We are informing people they have a choice. There is nothing new there:
Deut. 11:26-28: "See, I am putting before you today a blessing and a curse 27 the blessing if you obey the commandments of Jehovah your God that I am commanding your today 28 and the curse if you do not obey the commandments of Jehovah your God and you turn aside from the way I am commanding you to follow..." There are many other Bible passages in the same vein.
  "To pretend that JW's door to door witnessing is doing God's will, well I'm sure you know it isn't." If you can't be honest then don't project that on us. Of course we believe witnessing is something Jehovah's "Witnesses" should be doing. While you may disagree with our message you can't say we don't "walk-the-walk" when it comes to witnessing/preaching about God's Kingdom and what it will accomplish. It is one of the main focuses of our organization. While we may not know the "day and hour" and can't predict the future regarding dates, the message about God's Kingdom to us, is a clear focus in the Bible. So if you don't think we are doing God's will as to our door-to-door work, then you are welcome to your opinion - but at least be honest about it. I for one, DO believe we are.
2 Tim> 4:2 "Preach the word; be at it urgently in favourable times and difficult times..." Romans 10:14 "How in turn, will they hear without someone to preach..." Matt. 10:7 As you go, preach saying: 'The Kingdom of the heavens has drawn near." Heb. 10:15 "How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent out?" Acts 10:42 " Acts 10:42 "Also, he ordered us to preach to the people and to give a thorough witness..." Luke 9:2 "And he sent them out to preach the Kingdom of God and to heal." ... 
 

We should all be concerned with what we preach as being the honest truth - that's what "truth" seekers do. But it is also fair to say that while God knows absolute truth, Bible truths have been gradually revealed from the first prophecy in Gen. 3:15 regarding the seed (and other prophecies) until now. The Patriarchs, Jews, early Christians and JW's today have always had to revise their understanding/expectation of certain things they had assumed/believed to be true as more information was forthcoming. Some see that as a bad thing - being "wrong" about certain beliefs or expectations, while I see it as a positive/progressive trait - which is what one would expect from truth "seekers." The fact that JW's have made  changes and continue to do so shows they are humble enough to admit their mistakes and correct matters. (That assumes as well that other changes will likely be made as they are confronted with more realities. Some dates have gone by the wayside and maybe even 1914 could be discarded eventually. Who knows?) Dates are of little concern to anyone who intends their dedication to God to be forever. In fact, on studies with other people, I qualify these types of things as our "present understanding" organizationally, but if a change in thinking takes place don't be too upset about it. It's part of the growing process all humble servants of God have rolled with. On other things, like war, hellfire, Trinity, Christmas...I'm certainly more definite about. 
 "Going around frightening people with an 'end is nigh' message and a 'only baptized JW's will be saved' message is not teaching truth to anyone." First of all as you should already know, our preaching work is not to go around "frightening people." If that was our purpose, we would be preaching what almost every other religion on earth you would have a choice of going to would preach: Hellfire. So we are different in that respect. What we preach is the gospel or good news. Good news about what? As everyone knows, it is the "good news of God's Kingdom" that we preach in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations before the end comes. (Matt. 24:14). Also to make disciples. (Matt. 28:19, 20; Acts 28:28, 30) We even look at Armageddon as a positive in clearing the world of Satan's system and those who aren't interested in doing God's will in favour of those who are. We are informing people they have a choice. There is nothing new there:
Deut. 11:26-28: "See, I am putting before you today a blessing and a curse 27 the blessing if you obey the commandments of Jehovah your God that I am commanding your today 28 and the curse if you do not obey the commandments of Jehovah your God and you turn aside from the way I am commanding you to follow..." There are many other Bible passages in the same vein.
  "To pretend that JW's door to door witnessing is doing God's will, well I'm sure you know it isn't." If you can't be honest then don't project that on us. Of course we believe witnessing is something Jehovah's "Witnesses" should be doing. While you may disagree with our message you can't say we don't "walk-the-walk" when it comes to witnessing/preaching about God's Kingdom and what it will accomplish. It is one of the main focuses of our organization. While we may not know the "day and hour" and can't predict the future regarding dates, the message about God's Kingdom to us, is a clear focus in the Bible. So if you don't think we are doing God's will as to our door-to-door work, then you are welcome to your opinion - but at least be honest about it. I for one, DO believe we are.
2 Tim> 4:2 "Preach the word; be at it urgently in favourable times and difficult times..." Romans 10:14 "How in turn, will they hear without someone to preach..." Matt. 10:7 As you go, preach saying: 'The Kingdom of the heavens has drawn near." Heb. 10:15 "How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent out?" Acts 10:42 " Acts 10:42 "Also, he ordered us to preach to the people and to give a thorough witness..." Luke 9:2 "And he sent them out to preach the Kingdom of God and to heal." ... 
 

We should all be concerned with what we preach as being the honest truth - that's what "truth" seekers do. But it is also fair to say that while God knows absolute truth, Bible truths have been gradually revealed from the first prophecy in Gen. 3:15 regarding the seed (and other prophecies) until now. The Patriarchs, Jews, early Christians and JW's today have always had to revise their understanding/expectation of certain things they had assumed/believed to be true as more information was forthcoming. Some see that as a bad thing - being "wrong" about certain beliefs or expectations, while I see it as a positive/progressive trait - which is what one would expect from truth "seekers." The fact that JW's have made  changes and continue to do so shows they are humble enough to admit their mistakes and correct matters. (That assumes as well that other changes will likely be made as they are confronted with more realities. Some dates have gone by the wayside and maybe even 1914 could be discarded eventually. Who knows?) Dates are of little concern to anyone who intends their dedication to God to be forever. In fact, on studies with other people, I qualify these types of things as our "present understanding" organizationally, but if a change in thinking takes place don't be too upset about it. It's part of the growing process all humble servants of God have rolled with. On other things, like war, hellfire, Trinity, Christmas...I'm certainly more definite about. 
 "Going around frightening people with an 'end is nigh' message and a 'only baptized JW's will be saved' message is not teaching truth to anyone." First of all as you should already know, our preaching work is not to go around "frightening people." If that was our purpose, we would be preaching what almost every other religion on earth you would have a choice of going to would preach: Hellfire. So we are different in that respect. What we preach is the gospel or good news. Good news about what? As everyone knows, it is the "good news of God's Kingdom" that we preach in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations before the end comes. (Matt. 24:14). Also to make disciples. (Matt. 28:19, 20; Acts 28:28, 30) We even look at Armageddon as a positive in clearing the world of Satan's system and those who aren't interested in doing God's will in favour of those who are. We are informing people they have a choice. There is nothing new there:
Deut. 11:26-28: "See, I am putting before you today a blessing and a curse 27 the blessing if you obey the commandments of Jehovah your God that I am commanding your today 28 and the curse if you do not obey the commandments of Jehovah your God and you turn aside from the way I am commanding you to follow..." There are many other Bible passages in the same vein.
  "To pretend that JW's door to door witnessing is doing God's will, well I'm sure you know it isn't." If you can't be honest then don't project that on us. Of course we believe witnessing is something Jehovah's "Witnesses" should be doing. While you may disagree with our message you can't say we don't "walk-the-walk" when it comes to witnessing/preaching about God's Kingdom and what it will accomplish. It is one of the main focuses of our organization. While we may not know the "day and hour" and can't predict the future regarding dates, the message about God's Kingdom to us, is a clear focus in the Bible. So if you don't think we are doing God's will as to our door-to-door work, then you are welcome to your opinion - but at least be honest about it. I for one, DO believe we are.
2 Tim> 4:2 "Preach the word; be at it urgently in favourable times and difficult times..." Romans 10:14 "How in turn, will they hear without someone to preach..." Matt. 10:7 As you go, preach saying: 'The Kingdom of the heavens has drawn near." Heb. 10:15 "How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent out?" Acts 10:42 " Acts 10:42 "Also, he ordered us to preach to the people and to give a thorough witness..." Luke 9:2 "And he sent them out to preach the Kingdom of God and to heal." ... 
 

Well said. The sooner we stop "going beyond the things written" and stick to our Christian mandates the better. The fact that we have been totally wrong about numerous other dates (every other date?) should give anyone legitimate pause for concern and to be skeptical that not only might the hallowed date of 1914 be wrong (including the fact that certain expectations regarding that date never materialized) but whether Jehovah even blesses that presumptuousness. We have lots of more important things to accomplish than to pin our hopes on the prognostications of well-meaning, but uninspired, imperfect men who sometimes go beyond what they have been authorized to do. Making predictions is not part of our mandate. Proclaiming what Jehovah and Jesus actually tell us in his Word are. Yes, I believe Jehovah is using his organization and the GB is doing an admirable job in organizing his people to accomplish many great things. But since it is (generally) forward-moving, it should not surprise us or cause us to get too excited about discarding things we may have held dear - as in the past - and may need to let go of now. Maybe 1914 is one of those things. Although we each individually may have "core" truths we adopt as proof this is the right organization, I personally don't believe 1914 should be included in those core truths - or any artificial, man-inspired date for that matter. Maybe we need to put 1914 on the "date pile" along with the others promoted as being significant. Even if per some unexpected chance the date turns out to be right, should our relationship and dedication to God be based on a date anyway - or either way? I think too much focus has been place on dates anyway. Stuff will happen when Jehovah says it should happen. We should be more concerned with whether we will be ready for it.

I agree with you. The problem with this date is that no one can actually prove that it is wrong, but it can't be proved that it is right either. Jesus' enthronement was "conveniently" invisible, so we can claim he was enthroned in1914, in correlation with WW1, because that is when he was supposed to have thrown Satan down to the earth. The truth is, I feel its a little bit like a fortuneteller predicting someones future. You can always find something applicable, and it makes it look like the fortuneteller has got it right.....
 Exactly
 
 

Well said. The sooner we stop "going beyond the things written" and stick to our Christian mandates the better. The fact that we have been totally wrong about numerous other dates (every other date?) should give anyone legitimate pause for concern and to be skeptical that not only might the hallowed date of 1914 be wrong (including the fact that certain expectations regarding that date never materialized) but whether Jehovah even blesses that presumptuousness. We have lots of more important things to accomplish than to pin our hopes on the prognostications of well-meaning, but uninspired, imperfect men who sometimes go beyond what they have been authorized to do. Making predictions is not part of our mandate. Proclaiming what Jehovah and Jesus actually tell us in his Word are. Yes, I believe Jehovah is using his organization and the GB is doing an admirable job in organizing his people to accomplish many great things. But since it is (generally) forward-moving, it should not surprise us or cause us to get too excited about discarding things we may have held dear - as in the past - and may need to let go of now. Maybe 1914 is one of those things. Although we each individually may have "core" truths we adopt as proof this is the right organization, I personally don't believe 1914 should be included in those core truths - or any artificial, man-inspired date for that matter. Maybe we need to put 1914 on the "date pile" along with the others promoted as being significant. Even if per some unexpected chance the date turns out to be right, should our relationship and dedication to God be based on a date anyway - or either way? I think too much focus has been place on dates anyway. Stuff will happen when Jehovah says it should happen. We should be more concerned with whether we will be ready for it.

Well said. The sooner we stop "going beyond the things written" and stick to our Christian mandates the better. The fact that we have been totally wrong about numerous other dates (every other date?) should give anyone legitimate pause for concern and to be skeptical that not only might the hallowed date of 1914 be wrong (including the fact that certain expectations regarding that date never materialized) but whether Jehovah even blesses that presumptuousness. We have lots of more important things to accomplish than to pin our hopes on the prognostications of well-meaning, but uninspired, imperfect men who sometimes go beyond what they have been authorized to do. Making predictions is not part of our mandate. Proclaiming what Jehovah and Jesus actually tell us in his Word are. Yes, I believe Jehovah is using his organization and the GB is doing an admirable job in organizing his people to accomplish many great things. But since it is (generally) forward-moving, it should not surprise us or cause us to get too excited about discarding things we may have held dear - as in the past - and may need to let go of now. Maybe 1914 is one of those things. Although we each individually may have "core" truths we adopt as proof this is the right organization, I personally don't believe 1914 should be included in those core truths - or any artificial, man-inspired date for that matter. Maybe we need to put 1914 on the "date pile" along with the others promoted as being significant. Even if per some unexpected chance the date turns out to be right, should our relationship and dedication to God be based on a date anyway - or either way? I think too much focus has been place on dates anyway. Stuff will happen when Jehovah says it should happen. We should be more concerned with whether we will be ready for it.

Well said. The sooner we stop "going beyond the things written" and stick to our Christian mandates the better. The fact that we have been totally wrong about numerous other dates (every other date?) should give anyone legitimate pause for concern and to be skeptical that not only might the hallowed date of 1914 be wrong (including the fact that certain expectations regarding that date never materialized) but whether Jehovah even blesses that presumptuousness. We have lots of more important things to accomplish than to pin our hopes on the prognostications of well-meaning, but uninspired, imperfect men who sometimes go beyond what they have been authorized to do. Making predictions is not part of our mandate. Proclaiming what Jehovah and Jesus actually tell us in his Word are. Yes, I believe Jehovah is using his organization and the GB is doing an admirable job in organizing his people to accomplish many great things. But since it is (generally) forward-moving, it should not surprise us or cause us to get too excited about discarding things we may have held dear - as in the past - and may need to let go of now. Maybe 1914 is one of those things. Although we each individually may have "core" truths we adopt as proof this is the right organization, I personally don't believe 1914 should be included in those core truths - or any artificial, man-inspired date for that matter. Maybe we need to put 1914 on the "date pile" along with the others promoted as being significant. Even if per some unexpected chance the date turns out to be right, should our relationship and dedication to God be based on a date anyway - or either way? I think too much focus has been place on dates anyway. Stuff will happen when Jehovah says it should happen. We should be more concerned with whether we will be ready for it.

Well said. The sooner we stop "going beyond the things written" and stick to our Christian mandates the better. The fact that we have been totally wrong about numerous other dates (every other date?) should give anyone legitimate pause for concern and to be skeptical that not only might the hallowed date of 1914 be wrong (including the fact that certain expectations regarding that date never materialized) but whether Jehovah even blesses that presumptuousness. We have lots of more important things to accomplish than to pin our hopes on the prognostications of well-meaning, but uninspired, imperfect men who sometimes go beyond what they have been authorized to do. Making predictions is not part of our mandate. Proclaiming what Jehovah and Jesus actually tell us in his Word are. Yes, I believe Jehovah is using his organization and the GB is doing an admirable job in organizing his people to accomplish many great things. But since it is (generally) forward-moving, it should not surprise us or cause us to get too excited about discarding things we may have held dear - as in the past - and may need to let go of now. Maybe 1914 is one of those things. Although we each individually may have "core" truths we adopt as proof this is the right organization, I personally don't believe 1914 should be included in those core truths - or any artificial, man-inspired date for that matter. Maybe we need to put 1914 on the "date pile" along with the others promoted as being significant. Even if per some unexpected chance the date turns out to be right, should our relationship and dedication to God be based on a date anyway - or either way? I think too much focus has been place on dates anyway. Stuff will happen when Jehovah says it should happen. We should be more concerned with whether we will be ready for it.

I guess I should respond to this point too, since you added "Some scholars have updated their chronology . . . Why haven't you updated yours?"
First of all I don't care about Wiseman and Grayson or your COJ references. I believe Jesus was right when he said chronology is in the jurisdiction of the Father, and that it does not belong to us to get to know the times and the seasons. Paul said that as for the times and seasons brothers you need nothing to be written to you.
So while I don't have any personal interest in even trying to see how a secular chronology might match the Bible, I am only concerned that we aren't getting overly concerned about certain specious claims that turn out to be untrue, and have already resulted in expectation postponed that makes the heart sick. One of our responsibilities as Christians is to encourage one another and build one another up. If false stories and genealogies are likely to end up disturbing our brothers in the long run, our obligation is to make sure of all things so that we can hold fast to what is fine.
To that end I've read some of Wiseman and Grayson and Delitzsch, etc. I've checked out several of the major books they've produced, especially to read parts on the Neo-Babylonian period. The NYPL allowed me to make hundreds of pages of photocopies of some of these books that are only allowed for reference. And, of course, these days it's easy just to take a smartphone snap every relevant page.
But I don't know why you think these particular adjustments are important. You didn't even say for sure which adjustments you were referring to. May I assume you didn't give details because it has absolutely no effect on the date for the destruction of Jerusalem. Most of the adjustments I know of in Wiseman and Grayson are about the Assyrian period: Assurnasurpal, Shalmaneser, etc. There have also been typos in Babylonian tablets, even by trained scribes of the time. And sometimes the typos might have been in an original that was not corrected when copied. And sometimes the scribes made a note when they were making a correction of a previous typo when copying. None of this surprises me.
But even a dozen corrections of the sort I've read about could never override the evidence of hundreds, even many thousands of tablets that give us the entire picture of the Neo-Babylonian period. Even if there were only 7 lines of independent evidence, you could prove that 3 of them were complete frauds, and it would still not overturn the remaining lines of independent evidence. For a long time, the Watchtower publications hinted that Ptolemy was wrong and therefore they can claim anything they want about how to cherry-pick dates for a chronology and reject others. This turned out to be a fantasy, because no one needs Ptolemy at all to understand the overwhelming evidence for the neo-Babylonian chronology.
For evidence of what I am saying, I'll just ask you to share how these supposed adjustments in Grayson and Wiseman would have any effect on the date for Nebuchadnezzar II's 18th and 19th year. If you are are anything like the predecessor accounts you have emulated, I'm sure you won't oblige.

Maybe. But like I said, I would not be comfortable in an association that got involved in divisive politics and war either, and I think we're right on the idea of a paradise earth. Find me another church with approximately the same teachings and practices JWs have on war, politics, trinity and hell, and a future paradise on earth, and I will visit it with an open mind.
Shunning is a bit like what Jesus said regarding divorce. Even though it came from the perfect law of God, Jesus said it was just a concession that came from Moses out of regard for human hard-heartedness. We all have a lot to learn about love, but this doesn't mean we associate so freely with just anyone, either.
I can find it at almost any meeting, especially visible at the very largest of our conventions, but I also can see it from afar when I happen to drive near a group of Witnesses working a local suburban territory. I can wave and see all smiles, no matter what kind of a day they are having.  I have even run across Witnesses in Paris and other places and can get the same reaction. Yes, up to a point this is at least partly true of many clubs, associations, and even other religious groups. But I know what is driving that smile among Witnesses, and I like it.
Not all congregations have the same level of joy, love, "spirit" etc. Revelation 2 & 3 lets us know that this shouldn't be surprising.
Speaking of southern England, I was using a flight simulator just last night and took off out of London over satellite-imaged terrain to see if I could keep a purely visual course from Gatwick to Paris just by guessing when to adjust slightly over a SSE direction. I just watched the compass, and altitude, and crossed the Channel from Eastbourne to Dieppe to Paris. Did OK, but then I thought of "you" and turned around to see if I could find a house I thought you and your wife were working on, which I had found a year ago from satellite imagery and some Google help. Even at 400 mph it was going to take too long, and when I got closer I switched to a slow prop plane to get a better look at the ground. This time I couldn't find that house from memory, although I'd recognize the area from a few thousand feet.
Now it turns out you are in "southern England" a whole new spot no doubt.from the place I thought you were at. 😉

Obviously we must be witnesses for Jehovah and Jesus. We would do this out of appreciation for what Jehovah has done for us, especially his purpose and kingdom through Jesus. No matter who we associated with, we would have to watch out for ourselves, and pay attention to our teaching, too. There are many churches, and all of them have problems from traditions and human leadership. Problems of an obsolete chronology are more common in the history of churches than you might think, too.
Perhaps, like TTH said, the "carrot and stick" of a chronology that gets us motivated at first is not a terrible thing, as long as we start serving for the right motivation.
I will still go back to how, if we are honest hearted Christians, we will be attracted to association with groups of Christians or wannabe Christians who try very hard to maintain a brotherhood that is marked by love for one another, who attempt to overcome national, political and racial divides. There are many imperfections and exceptions, but I see this in the brotherhood of Witnesses, much more often than not. Then I would personally only be attracted to a Christian association that speaks out against wars and warmongering. Who will not go to battle against another nation, especially because we have Christian brothers in those other nations too. I happen to think that our teachings on Trinity, Hell, Paradise in a New Earth, etc., are far more important than a chronology tradition we have been stuck with. It's about the same to me as if we were told that all our Kingdom Halls should have 4 windows and a light blue carpet. Maybe we'd be stuck with such a dumb rule for 100 years, but I couldn't care less about it. It would not be important to me, no matter how authoritative the demand to follow that rule sounded. Perhaps someone might even find scriptures that made it seem important, too. I could safely ignore it without feeling conflicted, and I could safely go along with it in the congregation itself, so as not to cause trouble. But then again I might find an outlet where I could safely speak my mind if I thought it went beyond the things written.

Boring to you or not, it's a valid point that is not made less valid by you trying to minimize it as "boring."
Many people claim to be "Christian," as God's Word said would be the case. And in fact, there are tens of thousands of different Christian religions alone. So handing yourself a "Christian" label doesn't add much weight to your argument. But it appears you have your own personal ideas that are not entirely in line with any denomination or "church." (I don't know that for sure, but it is looking that way). If that is the case, you seem to assume that your version of Christianity is the true one and everyone else (or at least JWs) is lacking/wrong somehow. That all of a sudden you pop up out of nowhere with your personal diatribe and that gives you credibility how? That Jehovah God is dealing with you personally and you alone have the truth? I think there's a pill for that.
 
I wouldn't go too far beyond the scope of your reference here. I think the operative word here is "blindly." I don't recommend anyone follows any imperfect individuals blindly. The Bible counsels otherwise as do our publications at times. We are encouraged to not just read the material on new understanding but take the time to "understand" the reasoning why any changes occur. True that reasoning isn't always supplied in great measure, but it is good practice - even if we may feel we have to wait for a better explanation in time. 
 
Actually, I'm not on this site all that often and so haven't noticed any positive input from you before. As for the rest of what you think will happen, I respect your right to see things according to your understanding, but I also respectfully disagree. What happens if, 10 years from now, JW's and the GB continue to flourish and be productive (despite their failings) and none of your prognostications have come true? Awkward, no? All that time on the internet wasted. On the other hand, to be fair to you, what if Jehovah sees it necessary to make the changes you envision? I guess we'll just have to roll with them... won't we? 

"We "MUST" obey God as ruler rather than man." To me, Jesus' words here sound like more than just a general "standpoint" (or point of view by definition) that can change depending on the opinion/situation of the observer. I don't want to get into an endless semantic debate of what "standpoint" means to you or to me, since I may be misunderstanding your line of reasoning here. (I am assuming English is not your first language and so while you may have what you are thinking clear in your mind, it may be that articulating those thoughts may lose something in translation. It also may be that I am too slow to pick up on what your are trying to say at times - sorry )  I think of Jesus' statement here similarly to his statement at Matthew 22:21: "Pay back, therefore, Caesar's things to caesar, but God's things to God." To me that was a clear command/directive that was to be in place at all times - more so, especially as long as Satan's systems is in place, along with the proviso of "relative" obedience as quoted above of "obeying God as Ruler rather than man." If, you prefer to think of both of these statements in terms of a principle, I would agree with you there as well.  
 
Fair enough if you prefer to view it that way. But this, as well as other examples, show that what has sometimes been viewed as "new light" has not proven true at all. I can't speak for anyone else, but I do not feel mindless unquestioning obedience or acceptance of ongoing teachings is a mark of loyalty to God. It is a mark of loyalty to an imperfect uninspired organization. Still, I haven't come across any organization (religious or otherwise) that has MORE going for it. I believe there are many strong positives that set us apart - not perfect and lots of room for improvement, but I expect that will come - if gradually. After all, it has taken thousands of years to shed the blatantly false and God-dishounoring doctrines of nominal Christianity. If you feel your religion is better, let's hear about it and then we can scrutinize your beliefs as well - (instead of constantly sniping at us from the safety of a remote computer terminal with nothing positive to say.) 

"We "MUST" obey God as ruler rather than man." To me, Jesus' words here sound like more than just a general "standpoint" (or point of view by definition) that can change depending on the opinion/situation of the observer. I don't want to get into an endless semantic debate of what "standpoint" means to you or to me, since I may be misunderstanding your line of reasoning here. (I am assuming English is not your first language and so while you may have what you are thinking clear in your mind, it may be that articulating those thoughts may lose something in translation. It also may be that I am too slow to pick up on what your are trying to say at times - sorry )  I think of Jesus' statement here similarly to his statement at Matthew 22:21: "Pay back, therefore, Caesar's things to caesar, but God's things to God." To me that was a clear command/directive that was to be in place at all times - more so, especially as long as Satan's systems is in place, along with the proviso of "relative" obedience as quoted above of "obeying God as Ruler rather than man." If, you prefer to think of both of these statements in terms of a principle, I would agree with you there as well.  
 
Fair enough if you prefer to view it that way. But this, as well as other examples, show that what has sometimes been viewed as "new light" has not proven true at all. I can't speak for anyone else, but I do not feel mindless unquestioning obedience or acceptance of ongoing teachings is a mark of loyalty to God. It is a mark of loyalty to an imperfect uninspired organization. Still, I haven't come across any organization (religious or otherwise) that has MORE going for it. I believe there are many strong positives that set us apart - not perfect and lots of room for improvement, but I expect that will come - if gradually. After all, it has taken thousands of years to shed the blatantly false and God-dishounoring doctrines of nominal Christianity. If you feel your religion is better, let's hear about it and then we can scrutinize your beliefs as well - (instead of constantly sniping at us from the safety of a remote computer terminal with nothing positive to say.) 

"We "MUST" obey God as ruler rather than man." To me, Jesus' words here sound like more than just a general "standpoint" (or point of view by definition) that can change depending on the opinion/situation of the observer. I don't want to get into an endless semantic debate of what "standpoint" means to you or to me, since I may be misunderstanding your line of reasoning here. (I am assuming English is not your first language and so while you may have what you are thinking clear in your mind, it may be that articulating those thoughts may lose something in translation. It also may be that I am too slow to pick up on what your are trying to say at times - sorry )  I think of Jesus' statement here similarly to his statement at Matthew 22:21: "Pay back, therefore, Caesar's things to caesar, but God's things to God." To me that was a clear command/directive that was to be in place at all times - more so, especially as long as Satan's systems is in place, along with the proviso of "relative" obedience as quoted above of "obeying God as Ruler rather than man." If, you prefer to think of both of these statements in terms of a principle, I would agree with you there as well.  
 
Fair enough if you prefer to view it that way. But this, as well as other examples, show that what has sometimes been viewed as "new light" has not proven true at all. I can't speak for anyone else, but I do not feel mindless unquestioning obedience or acceptance of ongoing teachings is a mark of loyalty to God. It is a mark of loyalty to an imperfect uninspired organization. Still, I haven't come across any organization (religious or otherwise) that has MORE going for it. I believe there are many strong positives that set us apart - not perfect and lots of room for improvement, but I expect that will come - if gradually. After all, it has taken thousands of years to shed the blatantly false and God-dishounoring doctrines of nominal Christianity. If you feel your religion is better, let's hear about it and then we can scrutinize your beliefs as well - (instead of constantly sniping at us from the safety of a remote computer terminal with nothing positive to say.) 

Associated comments state: "Notice that in examining the experiences of God's people at this time, it appears that while the 42 months represent a literal three and a half years, the three and a half days do not represent a literal period of 84 hours. LIKELY, the specific period of three and a half days is mentioned twice (in verses 9 and 11) to highlight that it would be only a short period compared with the actual three and a half years of activity that precede it."
So it may well be that a contrast is being made regarding the time periods mentioned. But, on the other hand, I also see that one time period (three and a half days) is not consistently rendered as a literal time period whereas the three and a half years is understood to be literal - both time periods within the span of a few verses in the same chapter of Revelation 11. While I understand their reasoning for that - there was nothing to suggest anything of significance happened on the three and a half days, it does seem arbitrary - to make things fit. But for now, until they come up with more details, I'll roll with it. 

From '66 WT: (Just to throw something else into the mix as to the original post)
"Questions From Readers
● At times there are changes in viewpoint on Biblical subjects discussed in the Watch Tower Society’s publications. We speak of what we believe as “the truth.” But does “truth” change?—W. P., U.S.A.
Really it is the Bible that speaks of beliefs that are in harmony with the Scriptures as “the truth.” At 2 Peter 2:2 the worship based on such beliefs is termed “the way of the truth.” Yet concerning that “way of the truth” we read at Proverbs 4:18: “The path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established.” So we do not know all there is to know. In fact, even when the post-Armageddon system of things is ushered in we will not know everything. Throughout all eternity there will always be more to learn. This is indicated by what the apostle Paul wrote in Romans 11:33: “O the depth of God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge! How unsearchable his judgments are and past tracing out his ways are!”
It is to be expected, then, that at times there may be changes in viewpoint. Our basic belief may be sound Scriptural truth, but there may be some details that we did not fully understand in the past. In time, with the aid of Jehovah’s spirit, we get those matters cleared up.
For example, a few years ago we had a fine series of articles in The Watchtower on the “superior authorities.” (Issues of November 1–December 1, 1962) Before those articles were published, we knew and taught that Jehovah is the Most High, and that Jesus Christ is the second to Him in power and authority. We knew that we should be law-abiding persons, but that, when there was a conflict between man’s law and that of God, we would obey God as ruler rather than men. Those basic truths are the same today as they were before; they have not changed. However, by careful scrutiny of the Scriptures we have come to appreciate that certain Bible texts ought to be applied in a different way. For example, we realized that the “superior authorities” mentioned in Romans 13:1 are, not Jehovah God and Jesus Christ, but the political rulers. That is also true of Titus 3:1 and; 1 Peter 2:13, 14. Yet the basic truth is unchanged. Our viewpoint toward God and toward the State is the same as before.
Similarly with our study of the resurrection. We believed in the resurrection of the dead before our recent series of Watchtower articles (issues of January 15–March 15, 1965) on the subject and we believe in it now. We also believed that 144,000 would be raised to heavenly life with Christ. We believed that many more would be resurrected as humans; that some of them would be persons who had faithfully served God in the past, and that others would be those who had lived ‘unrighteously.’ We also believed that a great educational work would take place when they would be raised. Those truths have not changed. But now we see that, according to the Scriptures, more are to return than we expected. So, rather than setting aside the truth of the resurrection, it has been magnified, and our appreciation of Jehovah’s love and mercy in providing for the resurrection has been enhanced.
This is in direct contrast to what occurred among certain men of whom the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy, as recorded at 2 Timothy 2:18: “These very men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred; and they are subverting the faith of some.” Those men no longer had any hope in the resurrection; they believed that what was in the past was all there was to it. But they were setting aside the truth that Jesus had taught. Likewise in Christendom there have been changes in viewpoint; but they are rejecting the Bible as myth and setting aside its moral code as out-of-date.
What a tremendous difference between what is taking place among them and what Jehovah is doing for his people in order to bring our thinking even more closely in line with his inspired Word of truth!"
As stated above: "Our basic belief may be sound Scriptural truth, but there may be some details that we did not fully understand in the past. In time, with the aid of Jehovah’s spirit, we get those matters cleared up."
I'm hoping we get more away from claiming some human ideas/dates (that go beyond the things written), as divine revelations/new light from God. I believe we are getting there, which is a far cry from what established Christendom  accepts: i.e.. thinking in war God blesses one side over the other of nations in Satan's system; that God has people tortured for all eternity in a fiery hell; there is no real need of a resurrection since all humans have an immortal soul that automatically goes to heaven of Hell when they die; Trinity...and on it goes. Nor do JW's claim infallibility as hundreds of millions believe of the Pope and similar views (although not official) to protestant leaders as well. Yes, I do believe we have a lot to work on, but I don't see any other religions offered on this site by the "nay-sayers" as a better alternative. And even if they don't believe other religions have the truth either, having their own viewpoints, they might as well be a religion unto themselves - an army of one - since even among themselves they don't see eye-to-eye on everything either. That doesn't mean I believe that means we need to believe we are correct on everything we currently believe. As stated in the article quoted above, we should accept there will be clarifications and changes in understanding - in some ways our understanding is fluid and that's a good thing, (despite how some people view it.) That is a huge difference from believing blatantly unscriptural doctrines from apostate Christianity - some of which we at one time accepted ourselves organizationally. I know some people would be highly agitated if some "sacred cow" date/idea turned out not to be so sacred. But remember, we didn't dedicate ourselves to a date and while we respect the imperfect, uninspired "channel" we accept guidance from today, we don't and shouldn't worship an organization any more than the Israelites were to worship Moses and Aaron. We worship the creator, not the creation. 
 

"We "MUST" obey God as ruler rather than man." To me, Jesus' words here sound like more than just a general "standpoint" (or point of view by definition) that can change depending on the opinion/situation of the observer. I don't want to get into an endless semantic debate of what "standpoint" means to you or to me, since I may be misunderstanding your line of reasoning here. (I am assuming English is not your first language and so while you may have what you are thinking clear in your mind, it may be that articulating those thoughts may lose something in translation. It also may be that I am too slow to pick up on what your are trying to say at times - sorry )  I think of Jesus' statement here similarly to his statement at Matthew 22:21: "Pay back, therefore, Caesar's things to caesar, but God's things to God." To me that was a clear command/directive that was to be in place at all times - more so, especially as long as Satan's systems is in place, along with the proviso of "relative" obedience as quoted above of "obeying God as Ruler rather than man." If, you prefer to think of both of these statements in terms of a principle, I would agree with you there as well.  
 
Fair enough if you prefer to view it that way. But this, as well as other examples, show that what has sometimes been viewed as "new light" has not proven true at all. I can't speak for anyone else, but I do not feel mindless unquestioning obedience or acceptance of ongoing teachings is a mark of loyalty to God. It is a mark of loyalty to an imperfect uninspired organization. Still, I haven't come across any organization (religious or otherwise) that has MORE going for it. I believe there are many strong positives that set us apart - not perfect and lots of room for improvement, but I expect that will come - if gradually. After all, it has taken thousands of years to shed the blatantly false and God-dishounoring doctrines of nominal Christianity. If you feel your religion is better, let's hear about it and then we can scrutinize your beliefs as well - (instead of constantly sniping at us from the safety of a remote computer terminal with nothing positive to say.) 

Associated comments state: "Notice that in examining the experiences of God's people at this time, it appears that while the 42 months represent a literal three and a half years, the three and a half days do not represent a literal period of 84 hours. LIKELY, the specific period of three and a half days is mentioned twice (in verses 9 and 11) to highlight that it would be only a short period compared with the actual three and a half years of activity that precede it."
So it may well be that a contrast is being made regarding the time periods mentioned. But, on the other hand, I also see that one time period (three and a half days) is not consistently rendered as a literal time period whereas the three and a half years is understood to be literal - both time periods within the span of a few verses in the same chapter of Revelation 11. While I understand their reasoning for that - there was nothing to suggest anything of significance happened on the three and a half days, it does seem arbitrary - to make things fit. But for now, until they come up with more details, I'll roll with it. 

Nice and lively here today 😀
 
Now don't lie JTR, there was definitely a point
 
I am sorry. I should have prefaced it with "no need to read" . I really just posted it to illustrate that we don't do this anymore and that we have progressed as with the "WT 66 Question from readers" @b4ucuhear posted, about changes in truth where it says "at times there may be changes in viewpoint. Our basic belief may be sound Scriptural truth, but there may be some details that we did not fully understand in the past. In time, with the aid of Jehovah’s spirit, we get those matters cleared up". It is a little ironic though that after this WT was printed, the next WT- 68, the article I posted, there was the attempt at arriving at a specific date, so then THAT had to be cleared up after 1975. But now, not only are things cleared up, but they are also simplified, and as Br. Splane said in his 2014 talk, we no longer ascribe types and antitypes to everything and we try hard "not to go beyond the things that are written".
I can understand why the early Bible students felt the need to unravel every "mystery" in the Bible. After all, why are they there? All these numbers and prophesies are there for a reason. But as the same 66 WT says: "...we do not know all there is to know. In fact, even when the post-Armageddon system of things is ushered in we will not know everything. Throughout all eternity there will always be more to learn". 
So we are slowly learning. Perhaps this will also apply to the 1914 doctrine one day....

I was thinking that this was part of the normal run of the buses, and knowing you can't tell if a bus was speeding by checking the mileage.
So it reminded me of the joke about the two fishermen, who normally had bad luck, but rented a boat so that they finally found a place way out on the water where the fish were biting exceptionally well. When fishing was done for the day, the first fisherman says to the second, 'Make sure you keep track of where this place is so we can get here again tomorrow.' The second fisherman say, 'I already did. I put a big X on the side of the boat right here.' The first fisherman says: 'But how do you know we'll get the same boat tomorrow?'

All you really must remember is that if you got ot wrong back then you would be dismembered and your house turned into a public privy. (Daniel 2:5, 3:29)
It is Holy Spirit by the truckload. Anyone else takes a wrong understanding to his grave, either through natural death or walking off a precipice with it and leading others with him.  Holy Spirit makes people honest, humble, and hungry enough to continually look at Scriptures anew in light of ongoing developments. Go read @b4ucuhear‘s comment again, not just the single sentence you quoted. Read all of them. Notice how they tie together and modify each other. That is what sentences do.

From '66 WT: (Just to throw something else into the mix as to the original post)
"Questions From Readers
● At times there are changes in viewpoint on Biblical subjects discussed in the Watch Tower Society’s publications. We speak of what we believe as “the truth.” But does “truth” change?—W. P., U.S.A.
Really it is the Bible that speaks of beliefs that are in harmony with the Scriptures as “the truth.” At 2 Peter 2:2 the worship based on such beliefs is termed “the way of the truth.” Yet concerning that “way of the truth” we read at Proverbs 4:18: “The path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established.” So we do not know all there is to know. In fact, even when the post-Armageddon system of things is ushered in we will not know everything. Throughout all eternity there will always be more to learn. This is indicated by what the apostle Paul wrote in Romans 11:33: “O the depth of God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge! How unsearchable his judgments are and past tracing out his ways are!”
It is to be expected, then, that at times there may be changes in viewpoint. Our basic belief may be sound Scriptural truth, but there may be some details that we did not fully understand in the past. In time, with the aid of Jehovah’s spirit, we get those matters cleared up.
For example, a few years ago we had a fine series of articles in The Watchtower on the “superior authorities.” (Issues of November 1–December 1, 1962) Before those articles were published, we knew and taught that Jehovah is the Most High, and that Jesus Christ is the second to Him in power and authority. We knew that we should be law-abiding persons, but that, when there was a conflict between man’s law and that of God, we would obey God as ruler rather than men. Those basic truths are the same today as they were before; they have not changed. However, by careful scrutiny of the Scriptures we have come to appreciate that certain Bible texts ought to be applied in a different way. For example, we realized that the “superior authorities” mentioned in Romans 13:1 are, not Jehovah God and Jesus Christ, but the political rulers. That is also true of Titus 3:1 and; 1 Peter 2:13, 14. Yet the basic truth is unchanged. Our viewpoint toward God and toward the State is the same as before.
Similarly with our study of the resurrection. We believed in the resurrection of the dead before our recent series of Watchtower articles (issues of January 15–March 15, 1965) on the subject and we believe in it now. We also believed that 144,000 would be raised to heavenly life with Christ. We believed that many more would be resurrected as humans; that some of them would be persons who had faithfully served God in the past, and that others would be those who had lived ‘unrighteously.’ We also believed that a great educational work would take place when they would be raised. Those truths have not changed. But now we see that, according to the Scriptures, more are to return than we expected. So, rather than setting aside the truth of the resurrection, it has been magnified, and our appreciation of Jehovah’s love and mercy in providing for the resurrection has been enhanced.
This is in direct contrast to what occurred among certain men of whom the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy, as recorded at 2 Timothy 2:18: “These very men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred; and they are subverting the faith of some.” Those men no longer had any hope in the resurrection; they believed that what was in the past was all there was to it. But they were setting aside the truth that Jesus had taught. Likewise in Christendom there have been changes in viewpoint; but they are rejecting the Bible as myth and setting aside its moral code as out-of-date.
What a tremendous difference between what is taking place among them and what Jehovah is doing for his people in order to bring our thinking even more closely in line with his inspired Word of truth!"
As stated above: "Our basic belief may be sound Scriptural truth, but there may be some details that we did not fully understand in the past. In time, with the aid of Jehovah’s spirit, we get those matters cleared up."
I'm hoping we get more away from claiming some human ideas/dates (that go beyond the things written), as divine revelations/new light from God. I believe we are getting there, which is a far cry from what established Christendom  accepts: i.e.. thinking in war God blesses one side over the other of nations in Satan's system; that God has people tortured for all eternity in a fiery hell; there is no real need of a resurrection since all humans have an immortal soul that automatically goes to heaven of Hell when they die; Trinity...and on it goes. Nor do JW's claim infallibility as hundreds of millions believe of the Pope and similar views (although not official) to protestant leaders as well. Yes, I do believe we have a lot to work on, but I don't see any other religions offered on this site by the "nay-sayers" as a better alternative. And even if they don't believe other religions have the truth either, having their own viewpoints, they might as well be a religion unto themselves - an army of one - since even among themselves they don't see eye-to-eye on everything either. That doesn't mean I believe that means we need to believe we are correct on everything we currently believe. As stated in the article quoted above, we should accept there will be clarifications and changes in understanding - in some ways our understanding is fluid and that's a good thing, (despite how some people view it.) That is a huge difference from believing blatantly unscriptural doctrines from apostate Christianity - some of which we at one time accepted ourselves organizationally. I know some people would be highly agitated if some "sacred cow" date/idea turned out not to be so sacred. But remember, we didn't dedicate ourselves to a date and while we respect the imperfect, uninspired "channel" we accept guidance from today, we don't and shouldn't worship an organization any more than the Israelites were to worship Moses and Aaron. We worship the creator, not the creation. 
 

From '66 WT: (Just to throw something else into the mix as to the original post)
"Questions From Readers
● At times there are changes in viewpoint on Biblical subjects discussed in the Watch Tower Society’s publications. We speak of what we believe as “the truth.” But does “truth” change?—W. P., U.S.A.
Really it is the Bible that speaks of beliefs that are in harmony with the Scriptures as “the truth.” At 2 Peter 2:2 the worship based on such beliefs is termed “the way of the truth.” Yet concerning that “way of the truth” we read at Proverbs 4:18: “The path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established.” So we do not know all there is to know. In fact, even when the post-Armageddon system of things is ushered in we will not know everything. Throughout all eternity there will always be more to learn. This is indicated by what the apostle Paul wrote in Romans 11:33: “O the depth of God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge! How unsearchable his judgments are and past tracing out his ways are!”
It is to be expected, then, that at times there may be changes in viewpoint. Our basic belief may be sound Scriptural truth, but there may be some details that we did not fully understand in the past. In time, with the aid of Jehovah’s spirit, we get those matters cleared up.
For example, a few years ago we had a fine series of articles in The Watchtower on the “superior authorities.” (Issues of November 1–December 1, 1962) Before those articles were published, we knew and taught that Jehovah is the Most High, and that Jesus Christ is the second to Him in power and authority. We knew that we should be law-abiding persons, but that, when there was a conflict between man’s law and that of God, we would obey God as ruler rather than men. Those basic truths are the same today as they were before; they have not changed. However, by careful scrutiny of the Scriptures we have come to appreciate that certain Bible texts ought to be applied in a different way. For example, we realized that the “superior authorities” mentioned in Romans 13:1 are, not Jehovah God and Jesus Christ, but the political rulers. That is also true of Titus 3:1 and; 1 Peter 2:13, 14. Yet the basic truth is unchanged. Our viewpoint toward God and toward the State is the same as before.
Similarly with our study of the resurrection. We believed in the resurrection of the dead before our recent series of Watchtower articles (issues of January 15–March 15, 1965) on the subject and we believe in it now. We also believed that 144,000 would be raised to heavenly life with Christ. We believed that many more would be resurrected as humans; that some of them would be persons who had faithfully served God in the past, and that others would be those who had lived ‘unrighteously.’ We also believed that a great educational work would take place when they would be raised. Those truths have not changed. But now we see that, according to the Scriptures, more are to return than we expected. So, rather than setting aside the truth of the resurrection, it has been magnified, and our appreciation of Jehovah’s love and mercy in providing for the resurrection has been enhanced.
This is in direct contrast to what occurred among certain men of whom the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy, as recorded at 2 Timothy 2:18: “These very men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred; and they are subverting the faith of some.” Those men no longer had any hope in the resurrection; they believed that what was in the past was all there was to it. But they were setting aside the truth that Jesus had taught. Likewise in Christendom there have been changes in viewpoint; but they are rejecting the Bible as myth and setting aside its moral code as out-of-date.
What a tremendous difference between what is taking place among them and what Jehovah is doing for his people in order to bring our thinking even more closely in line with his inspired Word of truth!"
As stated above: "Our basic belief may be sound Scriptural truth, but there may be some details that we did not fully understand in the past. In time, with the aid of Jehovah’s spirit, we get those matters cleared up."
I'm hoping we get more away from claiming some human ideas/dates (that go beyond the things written), as divine revelations/new light from God. I believe we are getting there, which is a far cry from what established Christendom  accepts: i.e.. thinking in war God blesses one side over the other of nations in Satan's system; that God has people tortured for all eternity in a fiery hell; there is no real need of a resurrection since all humans have an immortal soul that automatically goes to heaven of Hell when they die; Trinity...and on it goes. Nor do JW's claim infallibility as hundreds of millions believe of the Pope and similar views (although not official) to protestant leaders as well. Yes, I do believe we have a lot to work on, but I don't see any other religions offered on this site by the "nay-sayers" as a better alternative. And even if they don't believe other religions have the truth either, having their own viewpoints, they might as well be a religion unto themselves - an army of one - since even among themselves they don't see eye-to-eye on everything either. That doesn't mean I believe that means we need to believe we are correct on everything we currently believe. As stated in the article quoted above, we should accept there will be clarifications and changes in understanding - in some ways our understanding is fluid and that's a good thing, (despite how some people view it.) That is a huge difference from believing blatantly unscriptural doctrines from apostate Christianity - some of which we at one time accepted ourselves organizationally. I know some people would be highly agitated if some "sacred cow" date/idea turned out not to be so sacred. But remember, we didn't dedicate ourselves to a date and while we respect the imperfect, uninspired "channel" we accept guidance from today, we don't and shouldn't worship an organization any more than the Israelites were to worship Moses and Aaron. We worship the creator, not the creation.