Jump to content

JW Insider

Member
  • Content Count

    3,813
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    124

Posts posted by JW Insider


  1. 2 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    Another sinister feather in the cap of the northern king. Did he want to tie in the Daniel prophesy?

    No idea. The primary point was that people would tremble at such signs in the heavens. A space race with military implications was already hinted at in part of the yw book, which was already about Daniel and therefore had the king of the north in its sights.


  2. 1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    And now you propose that it should all go? What would be the effect of this strange new teaching of yours that Jesus began to rule in 1933–period, end of story—and that WWI was just “boys will be boys?” How will it affect “last days,” ‘urgency of the end,’ ‘the end of all things has drawn close’ ‘ridiculers will come with their ridicule’ and so forth?

    Since you are asking, I'll take a cue from 1 Peter 3:15 and let you know what I'm thinking here.

    First of all we already believe that Jesus began to rule in 33. (I hope that was a mistake where you said 1933.)

    (Colossians 1:13-20) . . .He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist, 18 and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might become the one who is first in all things; 19 because God was pleased to have all fullness to dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all other things by making peace through the blood he shed on the torture stake, whether the things on the earth or the things in the heavens.

    There is no indication here that the Kingdom of God's Son is any different than the Kingdom of God which had now become the Kingdom of his Christ. In fact, you might notice a couple of other parallels between Colossians and Revelation, including the hurling down of Satan (rescuing us from the authority of the darkness). Also, perhaps by coincidence, the immediate context of Colossians also discussed the salvation and the power and the Kingdom and the authority and the conquering through the blood of the Lamb.

    (Revelation 12:10, 11) . . .Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the Kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God! 11 And they conquered him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their witnessing, and they did not love their souls even in the face of death.

    The idea that Satan was cast down in 33 is also repeated several times in the Greek Scriptures.


  3. 14 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    Did he? Forgive me if it has already been mentioned. On what basis? The bomb was dropped in 1945–or is it that Sputnik is 1957? A hard sell, I would think.

    Sputnik specifically. (Or perhaps he knew my birthday was in 1957. His own son's birthday was in 1958.) Yes, it's a hard sell when FWFranz was still the strongest voice on the GB, but he managed to get two other members of the GB to sign on with him in order to present the idea. The basis of the idea comes from a combination of factors, some from the older "yw" Daniel book (Your Will Be Done on Earth), which discussed signs in the heavens from things like Sputnik, and nuclear fears. And some from the then-current explanation of Matthew 24 in the "ka" book which broke the prophecy into 3 different parts, so that the beginning of "this generation" didn't have to be directly tied to the part about the beginning of the parousia with its wars and earthquakes, etc.


  4. 4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    Moreover, I thought of talks I had put together over the years, using some of the details in those verses. I thought of how I had made a big deal of Rutherford & crew unambiguously ‘advertise, advertise, advertising’ the King and his Kingdom

    To coin a phrase: Me too!

    The 1914 doctrine has a lot going for it in terms of creating urgency and creating a dramatic interlocking picture of our times. The only thing it doesn't have going for it is a consistent Biblical picture (in my opinion).

    But that urgency --based on 1914, specifically-- is already leaving the picture. The urgency for the world is based on a more common sense look at the "critical times" we live in. We often mention the nuclear age, and this is what Brother Bert Schroeder had in mind when he proposed we change the beginning of the generation to 1957. We are looking at climate-related crises that result in wars and migration from lack of fresh water, lack of arable land, soon-to-be food shortage fears just like those of 1975, fires, and more frequent and powerful storms.  

    We can still point back to 1914 as a time when the "spirit" of the world took a turn, became more selfish, more violent, and the stability of nations was proven to be illusory.

    I don't think we will lose as much as we currently fear.

    4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    I thought of how I had made a big deal of Rutherford & crew unambiguously ‘advertise, advertise, advertising’ the King and his Kingdom at almost the exact same moment that the Federal Counsel of Churches was hailing the League of Nations as the political expression of the kingdom on earth today—each side publicly parting ways at the fork in the road.

    I'm not sure why this would no longer have importance, either. Still, Jesus did not have to just begin ruling just 4 or 5 years prior to our stance on the League of Nations for this to still be a significant turning point in the historical path of our ministry. Jesus did not need to have only been ruling for 8 years when Rutherford made an advertising splash to focus on the idea that Jesus had returned in 1874 and would begin a very visible resurrection in 1925. (As you might recall, 1914 was only a small part of the overall picture that Rutherford was pushing at Cedar Point, OH in 1922.)

    And of course, the Watchtower had only very recently (1918) hailed the League of Nations as a very positive political expression of Christ's kingdom on earth, while other groups, including those Rutherford would refer to as the "Evil Slave" were already warning against this kind of fellowship with the world.

    But none of those errors negate what you said. There was indeed a very public parting of the ways between mainstream religion and the Bible Students starting around 1919 which reached a culmination over the next decade.


  5. 1 minute ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    I don’t see any backing off of 1914 whatsoever.

    Yes, of course. And this issue of the 1,260 and Revelation 11 from this week's meeting was actually the real reason I started this topic. But I do not expect that any trend is being looked at for the purpose of backing off from 1914. I think that this is a bit backwards. I think that the fewer and fewer discussions of Jesus' kingship and presence in 1914 will result in a rethinking of this particular use of the 1914 date.

    Also, 1914 will ALWAYS have a place in our preaching, just because it helps us to mark the times we live in now as a fulfillment of prophecy for a time when men will become faint out of fear and expectation, and a time when the creation is groaning for release.


  6. Here's a start. But I can't get into Daniel 4 without something like the following as a "preamble:"

     

    "What Does Bible Chronology Indicate About the Year 1914?"

    The Bible’s answer

    I will come again and will receive you home to myself, so that where I am you also may be. (John 14:4)

    For the creation is waiting with eager expectation for the revealing of the sons of God. (Romans 8:19)

    Bible chronology is a topic that has intrigued many Bible readers for centuries. The desire to see Jesus return has driven many to focus on combinations of Biblical numbers and dates so that these combinations will usually point to Jesus' return in their own lifetime, or at least the very near future.

    Now that we are 2,000 years from the time that Jesus walked the earth, preached, and died, there are very few ways to manipulate prophetic numbers so they will reach our own time period. There are the 1,260 days of Revelation and Daniel, which are also called "three and one-half times." And there are some other periods mentioned in Daniel including the 1,290 days, 1,335 days, and 2,300 evenings and mornings.

    The common method for making such periods end in our own day has been to turn each day into a year. But this leaves us in the "middle of nowhere" if we were to count back from today. For example, 2020 minus 1260 brings us to 760 C.E. somewhere in the Middle Ages. Adding 1,260 to the date of Jesus' birth, baptism, death or resurrection would similarly bring us to dates in the 13th century C.E. Using the number 2,300 from any event in the lifetime of Jesus life would point to a time nearly 300 years in the future, and this would have very little appeal to a Bible chronologist or anyone with an "eager expectation." And pointing back 2,300 years from today takes us to 280 B.C.E., another point that is nearly 300 years before Jesus and as much as 300 years after any major event in the kingdom of Israel or Judea. 

    Other "clever" methods have been used to reach modern times. In the 18th and 19th centuries it was common for Protestants to point back only about 1,260 years to reach some seemingly important events in Catholic history. (For example, 1799 CE minus 1,260 years brings us to about 539 CE., when the Holy Roman Empire was losing its grip on Europe.) Another method was to look at the number of years between the time of Jesus and a "modern" date, and then look at that same period of time in the B.C.E. period, looking for a potentially significant event. In other words, if it were nearly 1843 C.E., for example, they would look to see if anything interesting might have happened around 1843 B.C.E. If this method pointed near to any significant time (like the birth of Jacob/Israel or the death of Jacob/Israel) then there was only a need to adjust a few years in either direction to find many other potentially significant dates that were "exactly" a certain number of years before events in Jesus' life. Counting forward that same number of years might be expected to result in dates of parallel significance in their own modern times.

    A natural goal would be to find a Biblical time period that was either closer to 2,000 to reach events in Jesus' lifetime on earth, or as high as 2,600 or more to reach back to the end of the kings of Israel or Judea.

    In the 19th century, several writers and preachers began looking for just such a period of time, and they found it in the "seven times." After all, if "three and one-half times" was 1,260 days, then "seven times" would a period that was twice that long: 2,520 days, i.e., 2,520 years. This was an ideal way to reach from the 19th century back to the final kings of Jerusalem. Some found that 2,520 years reached back to King Josiah and found some significance in that. Some found it reached back to the time when Babylon began attacking the people of Judea and Jerusalem and found some significance there, too. Ideally, it would seem more significant if the event were even more spectacular, such as the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple which almost all scholars in the 19th century were dating to about 586 BCE. Today, more than a century later, this is still considered to be about the most accurate date by almost all scholars of that period, especially after literally thousands more pieces of evidence have come to light.

    Any date 2,520 years from the destruction of the Temple (the end of the line of kings in Jerusalem) was too far in the future for most Bible chronologists of the 19th century. It reached as far forward as 1934, which was 90 years after 1844, the peak time of speculation in the United States. But after 1844 had failed, there were still small groups who had continued their speculation. One of these groups had focused on a version of the BCE-to-CE "parallel dispensations" method and had a chronology system that therefore already included 539 CE, 1799, 1844, 1874, 1878, 1881 and 1914. With only a 20-year adjustment to the 586 date that nearly all scholars pointed to, they used the date 606 BCE for Jerusalem's destruction, which therefore made it fit the 1914 date which was already part of their chronology system.


  7. 23 minutes ago, Anna said:

    Could you post the link to one?

    There are dozens. When I mentioned going back 300 years I was thinking that a lot of people start with Matthew Henry's from the 1700's.

    https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/mhc/Dan/Dan_004.cfm?a=854001

    But there are many more modern ones these days that might appear too long, but that's partly because they also reprint the entire Bible text, split up into sections.

    https://wernerbiblecommentary.org/?q=node/732

    https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/jfb/Dan/Dan_004.cfm?a=854001

    https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/smith_chuck/c2000_Dan/Dan_001.cfm?a=854001

    The Chapter 4 portion of this one, above, includes the following supposition:

    The seven times are probably a year and three quarters. Referring to the summer, fall, winter, spring, rather than seven years. And so for a year and three quarters, king Nebuchadnezzar was to be insane. He was to live with the ox and out in the field. He was to eat grass like a wild animal. This was to continue until he realize that the God in heaven is the One who rules over the earth as far as establishing kingdoms and setting in power those whom He will. God still rules in the overall sense. And sometimes God puts evil men into power in order to bring judgment upon the people. But God rules over all. So after Daniel interprets, he said, "Now look, king, straighten up, man. Live right. You know, it may be that you can increase the days of your peace because you know this is going to come on you. But maybe by living right you can forestall it a bit."

    [Others have guessed 7 "time periods" were 7 months. But the point is, that we don't know for sure]

    https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/guzik_david/StudyGuide2017-Dan/Dan-4.cfm?a=854001

    That one, above, includes the idea that if there is any further prophetic significance to the dream, that it could mean this:

    Some find prophetic significance in this account. Since Babylon is used in the Scriptures as a figure of the world system in general, we can say:

    · Nebuchadnezzar’s madness foreshadows the madness of Gentile nations in their rejection of God.

    · Nebuchadnezzar’s fall typifies Jesus’ judgment of the nations.

    · Nebuchadnezzar’s restoration foreshadows the restoring of some of these nations in the millennial kingdom.

     


  8. 41 minutes ago, Anna said:

    You go first  😎.

    Do you mean go first to explain 1914 as a true possibility in a simpler way? Or do you mean go first to explain Daniel 4 in a simpler way (with or without 1914)?

    The funny thing is that Brother Splane without realizing it, I think, already gave a very appropriate analogy for what's wrong with the 1914 doctrine when he decided to point out some particularly ridiculous "typologies" that did things like try to make something out of the number of fish caught by the disciples after Jesus was resurrected, namely, 153. Then he went on to show the ridiculousness of trying to read too much into the story of Jacob and Esau and the bowl of stew. Brother Splane said:

    One scholar made much of Jacob’s purchase of Esau’s birthright with a bowl of red stew. Very significant that the stew was red. To him, the red stew pictured the red blood of Christ. The inheritance pictured the heavenly inheritance. It’s all… By that reasoning, Jacob pictures Jesus, Esau’s birthright pictures the heavenly inheritance, and the red stew pictures Jesus’ precious blood.

    Now on the surface that might sound plausible to some, until you think about it. When you think about it you see three problems. First of all, Jehovah didn’t design the type. Jehovah did not tell Esau to sell his birthright. Selling his birthright was wrong, and Jehovah never tells us to do something that’s wrong. Second, who ate the stew? Esau did. So are we to conclude that, by giving up his inheritance, Esau put himself in line for the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ? That doesn’t make any sense. And most importantly, nowhere in Scripture do we read that the event was a type.

    The temptation to go for chronological numerology over 153 fish should remind us of how we take 7 times and turn them into 7x360 to get the number of Jewish prophetic days using a 360 day year, and then turning each of those 2,520 days into solar years of 365.25 days apiece so that we can get 2,520 solar years, to reach from the fall of Jerusalem down to modern times. And then we must readjust the archaeological dates by about 20 years to make them reach 1914 instead of 1934. 

    But the biggest problem is the same as the sentences about Esau above, which we can correlate with a similar problem with Nebuchadnezzar:

    Second, who ate the stew? Esau did. So are we to conclude that, by giving up his inheritance, Esau put himself in line for the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ? That doesn’t make any sense. And most importantly, nowhere in Scripture do we read that the event was a type.

    Now we can have the same situation regarding Nebuchadnezzar in Splane English

    Second, who was forced to lose his kingdom and then became insane? Nebuchadnezzar did. So are we to conclude that, by giving up his kingdom and acting insane for a time, that Nebuchadnezzar put himself in line to represent the Messianic kingdom of Jesus Christ? That doesn't make any sense. And most importantly, nowhere in Scripture do we read that this event was a type.


  9. 1 hour ago, Anna said:

    During 1950 to 1959, it was mentioned 891 times, and during 2000-2009 it was mentioned 216 times. I don't have data for the years 2010 to 2019.

    For 2010 to 2019, it was 213 times for those years. But this includes the superspike for the 100 year anniversary when both 2013 and 2014 included 121 between them, representing more than half of the decade in just those two years. If those two years had been normal years, the total would have been just 213-121+9+9=110.

    2013 and 2014 included the preparation and finale of a big push for a 1914 centennial. And maybe it's just me, but I have a feeling that it fell kind of flat.

    There was another of these "anniversaries" (70th) that was built up in 1983 and 1984, where that decade's yearly average was doubled in '83 and tripled in '84 -- very similar to what happened in 2013 and 2014 when that average was quadrupled in 2013 and then septupled in 2014.

    (BTW, if you made a chart that broke this into 5 year intervals, a trend would seem much more obvious.)

    Still, I don't think it's being slowly phased out. I think that it gets mentioned less as it seems less important, and less practical to our current issues. It is no longer a field service "draw" based on the generation that would not die out as it would have been in 1983/4 when the generation meant something else. Once something has lost some of its importance, someone will start reconsidering whether it was ever that important at all, and this might encourage a reconsideration of the Gentile Times doctrine into a simpler, more Biblical teaching. (Just my opinion of course.)

    1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

    Nothing has changed with word manipulation.

    My sentiments exactly!

    1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

    I don't wish to give anything.

    I noticed. I was speaking about giving evidence.

    1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

    I could go even further about Russell's spoken words.

    You should have. It would provide even more evidence for what I was saying.

    1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

    Put you're the researcher and ranking expert here. Your supposed to know all that already.

    You are the only one I know who repeatedly tries to call me an "expert." I have never claimed this about myself. I just happen to have had several assignments that gave me an opportunity to read all of Russell's writings in the Bethel Library between about 1977 and 1982. And I have enjoyed reading further and refreshing my memory on some of this now that almost everything Russell wrote is so easily accessible online, and checkable against my physical library that contains most (but not all) of Russell's writings.


  10. 3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

    Usually, when I start to prove people wrong is when people get banned from this forum.

    Watch out, you just admitted that it was you who got people banned from this forum. And up until now, I'm sure no one had any idea that it was you getting yourself banned all those times. 🙄

    3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

    CHRONOLOGY--Pyramid Re 1910.
    Q77:1:: QUESTION (1910)--1--What event is to take
    place in 1910, which is pointed out in the Pyramid?

    You said: "Russell didn't care for the Pyramid scheme" and now it appears you wish to give, as evidence, the fact that Russell wasn't sure if the Pyramid indicated anything for the year 1910. If you read what Russell said, however, he claimed that the Pyramid perfectly supported 1874, 1878, 1881 and 1914. He had several times predicted related events timed to about 1910, but he could not distinctly find them in the Pyramid, as he claimed to have found for other dates.

    Even in 1911, just months after this 1910 question was answered, Russell said in the March 15, 1911 Watch Tower:

    "No doubt all of our readers have read STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES, Vol. III, the last chapter of which describes the Pyramid and sets forth much of the wonderful symbolic teachings shown in its construction. It shows the Pyramid to be in exact harmony with the Bible. Indeed, some, after reading this volume, have referred to the Great Pyramid as 'The Bible in Stone.'"

    Just because Russell didn't care for how well the scheme supported 1910, doesn't mean he didn't care about how it was in EXACT harmony, he claimed, with 1874, 1878, 1881 and 1914.

    The 1917 Finished Mystery book bragged about how Russell's chronology was written before he ever saw the Pyramid, and before he even saw any of Edgar's abundant evidences of the accuracy of Bible chronology in the Pyramid.

    In 1920 Rutherford went to see it, and the Watch Tower in Dec 15 reported that all the other pyramids were built under the direction of Satan except "the Great Pyramid, which was built under the Lord's supervision."

    In the June 15 1922 Watch Tower Rutherford published that the "present-truth chronology . . . the correspondency of dozens of measurements proves that the same God designated both pyramid and plan. . ."

    By 1924, it was claimed of course in the May 21, 1924 Golden Age that the Pyramid, the "Scientific Bible" verified the importance of 1874, 1914 and 1925. (This addition of the 1925 date is actually kind of hilarious if you have carefully read Charles Piazzi Smyth and Joseph Seiss, and see how Russell had re-used their material.)

    Also in 1924, The Way to Paradise, showed the Pyramid with the caption "GOD'S PLAN WRITTEN IN STONE." Here, it was conjectured that Shem probably built it. Russell had conjectured it was Melchizedek.

    This was repeated in 1925, and as late as 1926, the Watch Tower said that "advanced Bible Students believe that the Great Pyramid at Gizeh is the witness to the Lord in the Land of Egypt mentioned by the Prophet. (Isa. 19:19)"

    It was not until 1928 that it became a monument built "under the direction of Satan the Devil." It was now Satan's Bible and no longer "Jehovah's Witness" in stone. This was one of the reasons for the controversy when Rutherford insisted that this false information in Volume III, continue to be sold and advertised in 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, etc. And still made available for sale by the Society even in the 1940's. Special deluxe editions of the Studies in the Scriptures were still mentioned in the Kingdom Ministry as late as July 1967.


  11. 1 hour ago, Anna said:

    I have not noticed 1914 diminishing in importance.

    Probably depends on the book or article and the particular writer assigned. For example, 1914 is mentioned in Chapter 8 but the whole big section on 1914 with charts and diagrams in "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" were moved to the Appendix, whereas they had previously been in the main text.

    • The 2018 Watchtower Study edition never mentioned 1914 once.
    • The 2018 Watchtower Public edition only mentioned 1914 once.*
    • The 2019 Watchtower Public editions never mentioned 1914 once.

    *And only as a fulfillment for Jesus' prophecy about wars and reports of wars, NOT as a fulfillment related to Christ's enthronement.

    Compare this to 76 mentions in the Watchtower for 2014.

    This is not enough to measure a trend yet, but it's something to watch for.

    4 hours ago, Anna said:
    4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

    in the past we said that Nebuchadnezzar represented Christ, but the Watchtower has now explicitly stated that this is not the type of parallel.

    I hate being a bother but do you have the reference for that at hand?

    *** w79 9/15 p. 23 par. 8 The “Cup” That All Nations Must Drink at God’s Hand ***
    Why did Jehovah call King Nebuchadnezzar “my servant”? Because He used him to punish the people of Judah for their refusal to listen to His prophets. Punishment through this king of Babylon also extended to the neighboring countries that maliciously exploited Jehovah’s people out of contempt for Him. This does not mean, however, that Nebuchadnezzar was a type of Jesus Christ, who worshiped Jehovah alone as God. Rather, it is the executional work that Nebuchadnezzar performed for Jehovah upon the guilty nations that is typical. It prefigures the world-conquering work that Jesus Christ as Jehovah’s Chief Executional Officer carries out during the approaching “great tribulation,” in which all the enemy nations will be reduced to dust under the feet of Jehovah’s topmost Servant.

    *** w50 11/15 p. 444 par. 17 Subjection to the Higher Powers ***
    So it must be remembered that both Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus were used as types. In destroying Jerusalem in 607 B.C. and taking the Jews captive to Babylon Nebuchadnezzar was being used as Jehovah’s executioner against the unfaithful Jewish nation. For this reason Jehovah spoke of him as “my servant” and gave him the domination over other nations of this world. In this capacity Nebuchadnezzar was a type of Jesus Christ.

    The 100 plus teachings that would be impacted by the October 2014 Annual Meeting talk, and the subsequent Watchtower in March 15, 2015 would include these 42 from the book "You May Survive Armageddon into God's New World":

    image.pngimage.png

    80 more of these were included in a 1981 Watchtower:

    *** w81 3/1 p. 27 Do You Appreciate the “Faithful and Discreet Slave”? ***
    OVERWHELMING CREDENTIALS
    The “faithful and discreet slave” has abundant credentials. Following is a partial list of Scriptural and prophetic designations applying to or being represented in the remnant of Jesus Christ’s anointed followers since the notable year 1919:
    (1) Noah’s wife, Gen. 7:7; (2) angels sent to Lot, Gen. 19:15; (3) Rebekah, Gen. 24:64; (4) Joseph and Benjamin, Gen. 45:14; (5) gleanings left behind, Lev. 19:9; (6) two spies to Rahab, Josh. 2:4; (7) Barak, Judg. 4:14; (8) Jephthah, Judg. 11:34; (9) Naomi and Ruth, Ruth 2:2; (10) David’s Israelite warriors, 2 Sam. 18:1; (11) Jehu, 2 Ki. 10:11, 15; (12) Mordecai and Esther, Esther 4:13; (13) Job, Job 42:10, 13; (14) King’s daughter, Ps. 45:13; (15) men of loving-kindness, Ps. 50:5; (16) intimate group, Ps. 89:7; (17) Shear-jashub, Isa. 7:3; (18) light of the nations, Isa. 60:3; (19) big trees of righteousness, Isa. 61:3; (20) ministers of our God, Isa. 61:6; (21) cluster preserved, Isa. 65:8; (22) servants called by another name, Isa. 65:15; (23) men trembling at God’s word, Isa. 66:5; (24) new nation born, Isa. 66:8; (25) Jeremiah, Jer. 1:10; (26) Jehovah’s people in the new covenant, Jer. 31:33; (27) enduring watchman, Ezek. 3:16-27; (28) man in linen, Ezek. 9:2; (29) cleansed people, Ezek. 36:29-32; (30) dwellers in center of earth, Ezek. 38:12; (31) the host of heaven, Dan. 8:10; (32) sanctuary restored (cleansed), Dan. 8:14; (33) they that are wise, Dan. 11:33; (34) the happy one who is keeping in expectation, Dan. 12:12; (35) all flesh receiving the spirit, Joel 2:28; (36) Jonah, Jon. 3:1-3; (37) apple of Jehovah’s eye, Zech. 2:8; (38) liberated remnant, Zech. 2:7; (39) a Jew, Zech. 8:23; (40) sons of Levi, Mal. 3:3; (41) wheat, Matt. 13:25; (42) sons of the kingdom, Matt. 13:38; (43) workers for the vineyard, Matt. 20:1; (44) those invited to marriage feast, Matt. 22:3-14; (45) chosen ones, Matt. 24:22; (46) eagles, Matt. 24:28; (47) faithful and discreet slave, Matt. 24:45; (48) discreet virgins, Matt. 25:2; (49) brothers of the king, Matt. 25:40; (50) little flock of sheep, Luke 12:32; (51) beggar Lazarus, Luke 16:20; (52) sheep in “this fold,” John 10:1-16; (53) branches of the vine, John 15:4; (54) royal palace of David, Acts 15:16; (55) heirs with Christ, Rom. 8:17; (56) the remnant, Rom. 11:5; (57) branches in the olive tree, Rom. 11:24; (58) holy ones or saints, 1 Cor. 6:2; Rev. 16:6; (59) temple, 1 Cor. 6:19; (60) new creation, 2 Cor. 5:17; (61) ambassadors for Christ, 2 Cor. 5:20; (62) congregation of God, Gal. 1:13; (63) part of Abraham’s seed, Gal. 3:29; (64) Israel of God, Gal. 6:16; (65) body of Christ, Eph. 1:22, 23; (66) soldiers of Christ Jesus, 2 Tim. 2:3; (67) house under Christ, Heb. 3:6; (68) holy priesthood, 1 Pet. 2:5; (69) holy nation, 1 Pet. 2:9; (70) association of brothers, 1 Pet. 2:17; (71) seven congregations, Rev. 1:20; (72) twenty-four persons of advanced age, Rev. 4:4; (73) spiritual Israel, Rev. 7:4; (74) locusts, Rev. 9:3; (75) two witnesses, Rev. 11:3; (76) two olive trees, Rev. 11:4; (77) seed of the woman, Rev. 12:17; (78) New Jerusalem, Rev. 21:2; (79) the bride of Christ, Rev. 22:17; 19:7; (80) Jehovah’s witnesses, Isa. 43:10.


  12. 6 hours ago, Anna said:
    7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

    Brother Splane said when he admitted that over 100 teachings that had turned Bible parables and Bible historical narratives into specific prophecies

    Do you have a reference for that?

    It was Splane's "historic" (they called it) Annual Meeting talk in October 2014, especially when he referred to how Brother Bert Schroeder had counseled exactly this, many years earlier. Schroeder's statement was kind of a "motto" that Brother Splane repeated as the primary takeaway for this new way of looking at these portions of Scripture.

    That point was rewritten in the March 15, 2015 Watchtower, p.18 as follows:

    “Humans cannot know which Bible accounts are shadows of things to come and which are not. The clearest course is this: Where the Scriptures teach that an individual, an event, or an object is typical of something else, we accept it as such. Otherwise, we ought to be reluctant to assign an antitypical application to a certain person or account if there is no specific Scriptural basis for doing so.

    The original video is now here: https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODPgmEvtAnnMtg/pub-jwbam_201410_1_VIDEO "Types and Antitypes." It starts at about 2 hours:8 minutes into the video. At 2h:13m:07s he says:

    "Now we know that these [ones spoken of by Jesus and Paul] are genuine types because the word of God says they are. But here is the question: Who is to decide if a person or an event is a type, if the word of God doesn't say anything about it? Who is qualified to do that? Our answer? We can do no better than to quote our beloved Brother Albert Schroeder who said, 'We need to exercise great care when applying accounts in the Hebrew Scriptures as prophetic patterns or types if these accounts are not applied in the Scriptures themselves." Wasn't that a beautiful statement! We agree with it.

    After giving several examples of this "typology" (as he called it) from several different religions, including religions the Bible Students had been part of. And these religions often applied these types to themselves, just as the Watchtower applied many of them to Bible Students and Witnesses in modern times.  Brother Splane repeats that the most important problem with them is that these applications were not found in the Scriptures themselves. He even asks, "If the study of a certain subject makes chills run up and down your spine, could it possibly be mistaken?' And the answer was YES!" Then at 2h:19m:22s he repeats this idea again, and says:

    "Well, in recent years the trend in our publications has been to look for the practical application of Bible events and not for types where the scripture themselves do not identify them as such. We simply cannot go beyond what is written!"

    There's a funny thing Splane does in the video where he almost makes it look like the Pyramid idea came from a Brother A. Smith who wrote the Society from time to time to tell them his ideas about how the Pyramid told of God's purpose. He gives the impression that Russell only mentioned it once, but that this brother was so "emotionally" involved with the idea that he wrote to the Society about it several times. You can compare this to the actual things that Russell and Rutherford said about the Pyramid, and draw your own conclusion as to what Brother Splane is doing here. I also think it's curious that Albert Schroeder had died many years before, and this particular idea had been first expressed by others and finally by Brother Schroeder, too, several years before he died. Evidently not enough members of the Governing Body agreed with it at the time. But, even though it was now several years later, Brother Splane in 2014 can say it was a beautiful statement, and that 'we agree with it.'


  13. 1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

    A well grounded researcher will not accept the finding of an ex-witness Carl Olof Jonnson.

    No one needs to read a word of what Carl Olof Jonsson wrote. For the most part all he did was corroborate what the majority of the most well-grounded researchers already had said well before he agreed with it. If there was any added value in what Jonsson wrote, it was that he showed how neo-Babylonian archaeology supports the Bible record.


  14. 4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

    If you look further, you will find most of the articles you post don't convey the hole truth.

    That's false. I did look further, several times, and found that all the articles I posted conveyed exactly the truth of what Russell said. If you are saying he was being dishonest when he said these things, that is a different matter that I cannot speak to. I personally believe Russell was sincere on this issue. Rutherford was also a very strong believer in the Pyramid doctrines, according to his own words. (Until about 1927/1928.)

    4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

    I hope you're not getting paid for a campaign of misinformation.

    LOL! Then someone would surely be wasting money if they paid for misinformation, but ended up getting only real and truthful information.

    4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

    I hope you are an honest researcher in order to get to the truth

    Thank you very much.


  15. 5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

    Since Russell didn't care for the Pyramid scheme since he already had a good handle on chronology, the pyramid scheme simply endorsed Russell's established chronology.

    Russell obviously cared for it deeply enough to write many articles and chapters about it. He visited Egypt to see it in 1892 and 1910. He NEVER rejected it, but kept referring to it from his very first books, especially Volume 3, right up until the year he died.

    In fact, in the year he died he updated Volume 3 with the following dated ONE MONTH before his death:

    "The Great Pyramid of Egypt discussed in this Volume has not lost any of its interest to the author. . . . We . . . still believe that the structure of this Pyramid . .. was designed of the Lord and intended to be a Pyramid and a witness in the midst and on the border of Egypt (Isaiah 19:19.) . . . It's wonderful corroboration of the Divine Plan of the Ages is astonishing to everybody who really grasps it."

    And of course, it turned out to be a lie that it had ever endorsed even ONE date in Russell's "established" chronology -- which has now been "established" to be false anyway, of course.

    When you say Russell didn't care for the Pyramid scheme you seem to ignore some of the things that Russell said about it. Russell said that Christians don't build their faith around it of course, but that it's purpose was to make believers out of non-Christians by leading them to the truth of God's plan of the ages through a "rational" means. Therefore Russell could say things like the following in several different places (references available upon request):

    "It has well been called 'A Miracle in Stone,' and it commends itself to us a work of God and not planned by men, for it seems in every respect to be in perfect accord with God's plan as we are finding it written in His Word; and this it is, that causes our respect for it."

    "The Pyramid corroborates scripture ... "

    "The ancient structure being thus repeatedly referred to in the Scriptures, we cannot doubt that, if questioned, this 'Witness' of the Lord in the land of Egypt will bear such testimony as will honor Jehovah, and fully correspond with his written Word."

    "[God] placed the Great Pyramid 'in the midst and in the border of Egypt,' for a sign . . ."

    "So striking and clear are its teachings that some of the foremost astronomers of the world have unhesitatingly pronounced it to be of Divine origin."

    It doesn't pay to try to rewrite, twist and spin historical facts, because Russell already documented his thinking in many different places.


  16. 3 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    The unrighteous judge that will not grant justice until the widow nags him half to death and that judge is used to illustrate the Father.

    If that kind of comparison were intended to create a representative analogy, then the Devil represents "glorious" congregation elders in Jude, where, according to one interpretation, we shouldn't speak abusively of "glorious" elders in the congregation just as Jesus/Michael wouldn't speak abusively of "glorious" Satan when arguing over Moses' body. 😎 (Note: I still don't believe this was the intent of the comparison at all.)


  17. 9 minutes ago, Anna said:

    I can't think right now, but there any other instances where we have used someone, or something wicked to represent something good?

    Because wicked persons can become Jehovah's executioner, persons like Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, and Cyrus could be considered to be Jehovah's "servants." But we have really had to stretch ideas in the tree parable. In the past we said that Nebuchadnezzar represented Christ, but the Watchtower has now explicitly stated that this is not the type of parallel. Still, we have tried to explain that Nebuchadnezzar's low beastly state of insanity somehow parallels the fact that Jesus was "low" in the sense of being humble, born as a human [in a manger], etc. I haven't seen that negated, but it hasn't been used in quite a while.


  18. 7 hours ago, César Chávez said:

    A reason, Rutherford dismissed the edger pyramid scheme straight up. Russell, used it as a comparison, nothing more.

    This is quite strange. Russell didn't dismiss the Edgar pyramid scheme. He dismissed Russell's pyramid scheme that Russell had mostly plagiarized from Joseph Seiss. If you think Russell used it as a comparison and nothing more then you probably have not read all the things Russell said about the Great Pyramid. He even called it "Jehovah's Witness" (with a capital "W" no less).

    7 hours ago, César Chávez said:

    Therefore, Russell essentially started from scratch. There are far more reasons why those dates were accepted. Mainly, by events of that time.

    Obviously not! If he had started from scratch, he would not have simply copied the dates that Barbour had published. These were not plagiarized, because Russell ADMITTED clearly where he copied them from. Barbour ADMITTED that he based his dates on a readjustment of William Miller's dates. The primary events of the time that Russell was influenced by were "New England's Dark Day of 1780, and a spectacular meteor shower in 1833." The meteor shower was considered by Russell (and Adventists) to be the "stars falling." Russell admitted this in the Watch Tower, and in Studies in the Scriptures.

    7 hours ago, César Chávez said:

    Bible Students still believe, the Jewish nation has a pivotal role in the last days. According to Christ everyone became relative in the last days including the Jews.

    I'm not sure why the particular mistake that Russell and Rutherford made concerning the Jewish nation is still so important to you. Rutherford corrected this mistake around 1930.

    7 hours ago, César Chávez said:

    Remember, even the most conservative view which is Bishop Ussher, his calculation referenced 586BC as the 3rd instance of judgment by Nebuchadnezzar. The third, not the first nor the second as historians and scholars claim, but the third.

    This is false.

    7 hours ago, César Chávez said:

    This is why history itself is flawed, since they continue to insist, there were only 2 campaigns against Judea and Jerusalem. Mainly 597-587BC.

    This is false.


  19. 5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

    I have not found an insistence where the Watchtower has gone beyond what is written.

    Sounds like you disagree with what Brother Splane said when he admitted that over 100 teachings that had turned Bible parables and Bible historical narratives into specific prophecies were examples of going beyond the things written.

    But if you think about it, almost every single past error where the Watchtower has made an interpretation that was later changed was also a matter of going beyond the things written. Whenever there was a changed teaching where the Watchtower had said "this is what it means" instead of "this is what it might mean" was a matter of going beyond the things written.

    Therefore, there are hundreds of additional examples. And we should be very happy for this kind of progress.

    5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

    Another thing is with the comparison made. The GB are following the true spirit of God like the apostles. Therefore, they have NOT taken the position of the Jerusalem counsel.

    Yes. You've said this same thing previously, and I questioned you about it. Thanks for repeating it so I know it wasn't a mistake. You have compared the current Governing Body as a group much closer to modern-day Apostles than merely a modern-day version of the Council of Elders in Jerusalem. I still think this is a dangerous mistake, no matter how much we appreciate their work for the world-wide congregation. It sounds like you might disagree specifically with recent humble remarks made by Brother Herd. Sounds like you believe this was only "mock humility."

    5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

    If you have, then you sit in Moses seat. Matthew 23:2

    No, it merely means that I have seen what the Watchtower has said (and admitted) about this topic, and you apparently do not wish to accept what they have said on the topic..

    5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

    If the passion is to correct, as God corrected his people, Then I would suspect there is a resemblance to be equal to Christ as the Pope seems to indicate.

    That would be quite an accusation against the Watchtower, since the point made was about the desire of the GB to make corrections for us in the Watchtower. Obviously you don't believe this as can be seen in the sentence you wrote right after that one. If their passion is to correct, I see this as a very good thing, not trying to be equal to Christ (or the apostles, for that matter).

    5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

    Since you claim the Watchtower is misrepresenting an issue that has become an obstacle to your personal faith, then I would make light of JTR and TTH comments about contacting the Watchtower directly.

    I believe the Watchtower is misrepresenting a couple of issues, but these have not become an obstacle to my faith. I was fortunate enough to be given some heads up and preparation for things that would have otherwise been painful to discover on my own. I was happy to know that others had already discovered these things and still wanted to continue associating and encouraging their brothers and sisters to accept our situation and navigate through it with faith intact. And I think that exposure of such issues has had a very positive impact on the doctrinal changes we have seen in the last couple of decades especially.

    I skimmed over what JTR and TTH said about contacting the Watchtower directly. I have done this several times myself with surprisingly good answers at times. It's nothing to make light of in my opinion.

     


  20. 23 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    It’s hard to believe that those slimy ones of Jude’s letter would have acquiesced to Jude’s description of them. It is far easier to believe that many of them would have repackaged themselves as reformers, whistleblowers, even escaped cult members. The congregation they left was simply too strict, too unyielding, even abusive in “forcing” its version of morality on others, and they would change that.

    An interesting take with a lot to say for it.

    When Jude mentions these "rocks beneath the surface" for example, it always reminds me of the first time I read "Paul and Thecla" while at Bethel, but at the NYPL, via a book about Christian widows in Early Christianity. Paul and Thecla is an early Christian short story or novella with Thecla, not Paul, as the hero. It's one of a few stories of this type, probably written by and for women in the early Christian congregations. The antagonists of some of these stories are the 2nd century "circuit overseers" who would go from congregation to congregation saying all the right things from the "platform" but then they would also quietly worm their way into the houses of well-meaning sisters and widows, and try to take advantage of them sexually.

    I was quite surprised when the Watchtower last year mentioned Paul and Thecla for the second time in nearly 100 years, and was again surprisingly supportive of the work as containing possible reflections of true traditions believed in the 2nd century:

    *** w18 March p. 13 par. 3 Questions From Readers ***
    The Acts of Paul and Thecla was highly regarded in early centuries, as confirmed by the fact that 80 Greek manuscripts of it exist, as well as versions in other languages. Thus, our artistic presentations are in line with some ancient indications of what the apostle looked like.

    I personally have never experienced a "bad" circuit overseer. All of them have been exemplary and I have always looked forward to their visits, especially when hearing a new one for the first time. But I think all of us old-timers have had experience with congregational drifters, and we often look at them with the same kinds of suspicions. Sometimes it's a young brother who is very vague about his last congregation and who quickly latches on to an association with another eligible sister. Sometimes it's a more elderly brother, perhaps even a special pioneer, looking for an alternate congregation, hoping the trouble he caused in the last congregation won't get reported in too much detail. (Speaking from a real example, this elderly brother also latched onto a "relationship," and place to stay, with a family of sisters: a sister with an unbelieving and ailing husband, and a couple of daughters. It was a recipe for disaster.) The younger brother caused some heart-ache by getting engaged to a sister, and the engagement was later broken off. 

    It's hard for me not to imagine such cases when I read Jude. So, at first, it was hard for me to see them as drifters into forums like this one to cause other kinds of trouble, but I can definitely see a similarity now.  


  21. 11 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    I think that’s very unlikely. I mean, come on, are you going to cuss out an angel—dare him to a fight? Unless you no longer believe in angels, but then the phrase loses its meaning.

    Maybe this was in the sense of these "bad elders" rejecting the counsel given by "good elders" who were quoting Bible books and the Mosaic Law (as transmitted through angels), or these "bad elders" were speaking out against sayings of Jesus and inspired writings of the apostles, as if they held no value to this time they were in, so many decades after Jesus originally spoke them. Also (less likely) Jude quotes the book of Enoch, specifically a part about the judgment of angels, and he appears to refer to another book about the "Assumption of Moses." We don't know how much more of those books were accepted other than the portions referenced, but these books were part of a genre that gave names to dozens of angels and referenced many more hierachies of thousands of angels.

    11 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    the aspect of Law that Paul recalled when he cussed out the high priest: “You must not speak injuriously of a ruler of your people.”

    Good point!

    11 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    “I suppose you are proud of yourself, are you?!” She doesn’t actually think you are proud—just disobedient, maybe that you think you know better.

    I doubt it. There are too many scriptures, and too much context that shows what Paul was up against in trying to get the congregations to accept and understand the concept of "grace" or "undeserved kindness." (Along with "law" "legalism" "works" "righteousness" "sin" "conscience" etc.) Paul had to write chapters, nearly whole long letters, on the subject, and it even put him for a short while at odds with the Jerusalem council.

    11 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    Still, Shultz on my Twitter feed (of deVienne & Shultz) observed that whistleblowing in the case of JWs is often just a blind for not wanting to live the morals and principles that Witnesses do.

    Probably it is sometimes. But I'd guess there are some exceptions, too. For example, the whistleblowing of the CSA cases all over the world has drawn attention to a lot of things that go on in the world where the abused victims felt powerless. In many institutions, including once-hostile work environments, this is actually changing for the better. The threat of monetary sanctions has made even rich men who could once get away with anything (as Trump claimed), think twice. It has definitely helped in some suburban schools and even corporations I once worked for. I suspect that many priests and elders who once thought they would get away with anything are now more apt to think again before abusing persons.


  22. 1 hour ago, Anna said:

    In this case it really doesn't make sense to call something old truth and new truth because truth can only be one. If it's not truth, its falsehood.

    The old method of handling this was to use the expression "present truth." Many adventists including Seventh Day still use the expression. It's based on a mistranslation of 2 Peter 1:12 where the KJV said:

    Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth.

    The tendency among 19th century Adventists was to see a "chronology" element or "time" element in the English expression that did not exist in the original Greek. Therefore, the idea was that: even when in the midst of learning or teaching falsehood, it was still "present truth" at the time, and what is now "present truth" could turn out to be false in the future, but it will always have been "present truth" because it's always the best we had at the time.

    From the Greek, this is better translated as "the truth that is present in you" (American Standard and NWT). 

    A similar rush to see a time element in the English translation was done by Barbour and Russell and others who had been associated with Adventists. Here's an example from Leviticus:

    (Leviticus 26:28) 28 I will intensify my opposition to you, and I myself will have to chastise you seven times for your sins.

    This was originally the primary source for Russell's 7 times = 2,520 years, and the 7 times of Nebuchadnezzar's dream about his own insanity was only a secondary source. But we have since learned that Leviticus here didn't refer to chronological "times" but the sense was "7 times as much" as in "I will hit you twice as hard, or three times as hard, or seven times as hard." This was already in the context, but chronologists and numerologists rarely notice the context until they have already formed a time related doctrine.

    (Leviticus 26:18-21) . . .“‘If even this does not make you listen to me, I will have to chastise you seven times as much for your sins. . . . 21 “‘But if you keep walking in opposition to me and refuse to listen to me, I will then have to strike you seven times as much, according to your sins.

    Now that we have noticed this, we have been stuck with using Nebuchadnezzar as if his wicked Gentile kingdom somehow represented Christ's Messianic non-Gentile kingdom. (Another contradiction between 1914 and the Bible.)

    We still tend to make a "chronology word" out of things having to do with time when we translate the Greek word for time as "appointed time" instead of what might better be translated as "opportune time."

    Note that it's the exact same word "time" in these two verses:

    (Ephesians 5:16) 16 buying out the opportune time for yourselves, because the days are wicked.

    (Luke 21:24) . . .and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.

    Neither the word opportune nor appointed is found in the Greek, only the word time. But the more typical meaning is "opportunity" as in:

    • Will you find the opportunity to do this?
    • Will you find the time to do this?

    Not:

    • Will you find the appointed day and hour to do this?

    We have added a more specific chronological sense that usually isn't necessary in the Greek.
     


  23. 23 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

    The same Elon Musk

    Elon Musk shows himself to rather out of touch with science. He is using his money to make a name for himself by driving forward with some outlandish plans. He is an embarrassment to his own employees sometimes when he quotes pseudo-scientific ideas that have been obsolete for decades. (One of these was the idea of using nuclear explosions to make Mars inhabitable.)

    But his optimism to get employees to "make it happen" will drive some scientific progress in spite of himself. Even here, however, he has often just attached his name to some idea that came out of Japan or China or some US or European scientific think tank that was never associated with Musk. He attaches his own unrealistic timelines to these ideas, however, and then begins to lose credibility. 

    This particular idea has some merit, but there is a lot more expense in creating the infrastructure than people realize. There is the mining of the elements that go into solar cells, the manufacture of solar panels, the trucking of materials to such a solar hub, the infrastructure to build out the lines from the hub across the USA. Currently these types of expenses reduce the ROI value of this particular type of renewable energy so much that it makes carbon (coal/oil/petroleum) seem much more desirable for generating power, and for which an infrastructure is already in place.

    When viable, I would like to see how close to Hoover Dam this could be built to re-use some power lines that emanate from there, and already reach to many southwest states. Perhaps an even better idea would be to find a place near Yuma or Mexicali, so that half of the power would be used to desalinate water for Mexico and the US by piping saltwater from the Gulf of California, then freshwater piped elsewhere with a mountain or salt and minerals as a byproduct.


  24. 3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

    I believe the action of the people made it to where the angels sent by God did not find any good hearts to sway that decision. I don't believe Abraham or anyone else was speaking as though they were higher than God.

    I think that's exactly correct. But we know that as Christians we are still under under a duty to question, reflect, test, prove, meditate, and "make sure of all things." We must do this even if it were an angel out of heaven giving us the interpretation, according to Galatians 1 and 2. And Paul specifically applied that thought to the way the Galatian congregation(s) should have tested and made sure of the incorrect counsel coming from council of elders at Jerusalem, because evidently some were too quick to accept that counsel just because it came from those who seemed to be pillars in the congregation. To Paul, he said, it didn't matter who those men were, or what they seemed to be, and he even included Peter, James and John in that idea of who to question. John himself later wrote that we should test the inspired utterances (1 John 4:1).

    3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

    However, I have not found any misinterpretation of prophecy by the Watchtower given to them by God to warrant a redefinition of that interpretation.

    I have. And the Watchtower has also claimed to have found MANY previous misinterpretations of prophecy which interpretations they said came from God, and yet warranted a redefinition of that interpretation. In fact I quoted you one of several places where the Watchtower has admitted exactly what you say you have not found:

    *** ws17 June p. 13 par. 16 Set Your Heart on Spiritual Treasures ***
    At times, our understanding of a Bible prophecy or a scripture may be adjusted. When that happens, it is important to take the time to study the adjustment and meditate on it. (Acts 17:11; 1 Timothy 4:15) We not only need to understand the main differences between the old understanding and the new one, but we also need to pay attention to the details of the new understanding.

    3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

    However, just like those earlier prophets, the people didn't also like or accept the message given to them by the prophets just as witnesses question the findings given by the Watchtower.

    I've seen you accuse others here of blasphemy, when they defended the Bible, and yet you are able to make a statement such as that!

    3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

    I believe, certain Bible Student congregation continued to follow the advent timeline, however, Russell determination to understand chronology made a conservative effort with God's help to finally understand his own chronology. I believe not even the Edgar's pyramid scheme influenced Russell even though he found it helpful. Perhaps, that is where the confusion lies, the distinct separation of the Bible Student Association and their separate ideologies.

    Yes, certain Bible Student congregations continued to follow the Barbour/Russell advent timeline, which included Rutherford and the Watchtower editorial board, up until about 1927, with some intermediate adjustments over time to what Russell had said about 1914, and 1915, and with some brand new ideas about 1918, and 1925.

    Russell's concerted effort to "finally understand his own chronology" barely changed a thing, except for a few changes to some Great Pyramid measurements, and some vacillations between 1914 and 1915, and a change around 1904 to push the period of tribulation to the few months after 1914 instead of the few months (or years) before 1914.

    I would agree that Edgar's pyramid scheme hardly influenced Russell. That's because Edgar only wanted to get even more details on the subject, and completed most of this work after Russell had already published all he had to say on the Pyramid. Also, Russell was already satisfied enough with the details he had borrowed from Joseph Seiss.

    You say: "Perhaps, that is where the confusion lies" but there is no need for any confusion at all. Russell's works include all the necessary details, and they are all easy to find. If we wish to discuss Russell's own published views, we don't need to worry about the many other groups that sprung from Barbour's and Russell's teachings.

    3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

    I have seen the disappearance of many, at times without uttering a word but adding an emotion as a “like” or “dislike” manner on a subject or post.

    I think I know what you are talking about. I think the admins or moderators here consider it spamming when someone overuses a long string of a dozen or more dislike emojis at the rate of one per minute on the posts of people they dislike, and a string of a dozen or more "like" emojis at the rate of about one per minute on their own accounts of different names. I think once a person is caught doing this once, it's dangerous to keep doing this with even with a smaller string of up-votes and down-votes. Sometimes the give-away to the game is when the down-vote is simply a negative response to a Scripture or a direct quote from the Watchtower.


×
×
  • 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.