JW Insider

#4. It is based on a false premise about a supposed belief in 1914 that didn't even exist in 1914. The simplest Watchtower explanation of the teaching is found here: *** ws14 1/15 pp. 30-31 pars. 15-16 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? *** Jesus said: “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.” (Read Matthew 24:33-35.) When Jesus mentioned “this generation,” we understand that he was speaking about two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was present in 1914 and understood that Christ began ruling as King in that year. Those who made up this group were not only alive in 1914, but they had also been anointed by holy spirit in or before that year.—Romans 8:14-17. All those in the second group included in “this generation” were not simply alive but were anointed with holy spirit during the time that some members of the first group were still alive on earth. So not every anointed person today is included in “this generation” whom Jesus spoke about. Today, those in the second group are getting older. Yet, Jesus’ words at Matthew 24:34 make us confident that at least some of “this generation will by no means pass away” before seeing the start of the great tribulation. This convinces us even more that soon . . . It only makes sense that this first group must have discerned the sign as it was occurring in 1914. Especially because the phrase in the Watchtower was "readily discerned." The above was from the Simplified version of the 2014 Watchtower. The version from the main Watchtower, where slightly different, is included below: *** w14 1/15 p. 31 pars. 15-16 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? *** Jesus was referring to two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was on hand in 1914, and they readily discerned the sign of Christ’s presence in that year. . . The second group included in “this generation” are anointed contemporaries of the first group. . . . This should add to our conviction that little time remains . . . The Simplified version of the Watchtower said that the first group understood that Jesus Christ began ruling as King in 1914. The regular version of the Watchtower said that the first group discerned the sign of Christ's presence in 1914. But that first group did not actually discern either event in 1914. In 1914 that first group of anointed still only "discerned" that Jesus had begun his reign as king in 1878. They continued to believe that Jesus had begun his presence in 1874. Nothing changed in 1914 regarding the discernment of either event. In fact, it was until 1943 that the Watchtower continued, officially, to teach that Christ's presence had begun in 1874: *** ka chap. 11 pp. 209-210 par. 55 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” *** In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published the book “The Truth Shall Make You Free.” . . . Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning of his invisible presence or parousia. But, the teaching about when Jesus became King is a little different. Years after 1914, the Watch Tower Society was still publishing that Jesus began his reign as King in 1878. And they continuing promoting that date in literature campaigns until 1933 or so. By 1922 there were already statements, not 100 percent explicit, but hints that the official doctrine might change, perhaps even as early as 1919. By 1925, the doctrine had officially changed that Jesus became King, not in 1878, but in 1914. To review, today the official doctrine is as follows: 1914: Jesus' presence began 1914: Jesus' Kingdom reign began From 1879 to 1922, and 1933, and even 1943, the teachings were: 1874: Jesus' presence began - (changed in 1943) 1878: Jesus Reign as King began - (changed between 1922 through 1933)

I managed to move all the other posts on this topic to a new thread, already mentioned. I didn't move this particular one, however, because it includes more about the topic of emojis than about chronology. True it's a normal emoji used by everyone. I'm happy with it, and I use it myself. Not necessarily. Some people are probably very concerned about the number of upvotes and downvotes they get. Personally, if someone wants to downvote a post of mine, I'm interested in what they are downvoting. Sometimes, I might post only Scripture and I get downvoted by another Witness. I know this doesn't necessarily mean they don't like the Scripture, but it must mean they don't like my application of it. If I say something in a post that is wrong or needs correction, I'm even more interested in a downvote, and I hope the downvoter will explain themselves. But using the normal "HaHa" emoji as an alternative to a downvote is more ambiguous. Of course, if something was meant to be funny, then the HaHa emoji is perfectly understandable, and that's not an alternative to a downvote. So it's interesting that you admit that the HaHa emoji is being used as an alternative to a downvote. When a post is completely serious and a person uses a HaHa emoji as a downvote, then it sounds more like a snide, scornful sneer, right? But if they truly thought that something serious actually sounded funny to them, then the emoji is ambiguous unless the person explains their use of it. I can understand easily why he was removed. It was clearly stated by the admin/moderator and was very much related to the verse I quoted: (Proverbs 22:10) . . .Drive away the scornful man, And contention will disappear; Disputes and insults will cease. But I disagree that it should have been done, permanently at least, considering, as you say, the atmosphere here. I've already explained why under previous topics. Mostly because it's too difficult to be consistent and fair to every participant. And I don't think it's fair to wipe away someone's "good" history, along with their "bad." It's almost a perfect analogy to the proverb about the baby and the bathwater. I merely went to your profile and displayed exactly what was showing up there at the time. It doesn't constitute poking fun unless you think that what you were doing was ridiculous. For all I knew you might have been very proud of your posts and reactions to other posts. It wouldn't have been fair to AllenSmith34 to imply that he was the only one who used the "HaHa" as an alternative to a "downvote" to such an extent. As I recall, he used this method at least TEN TIMES more often than anyone else here. At present, I'd say that you use this method at least TEN TIMES more often than anyone else here. At the rate you are going, there is a good chance you may even pass his record.

..

Because @JOHN BUTLER brought up some speculation that Armageddon is likely far off, I mentioned the following: @BillyTheKid46 responded: When I responded to BillyTheKid, I ended up taking a part of this discussion far off the original topic, and there were several more posts that veered to this topic. Some contained intriguing content. However since they are off topic, I am going to move them under new topics. The original topic about the problem with the updated definition of the "generation" is in one new topic, here, and these other points by BillyTheKid will be under another topic: For reference, these are the responses from THIS topic that will be discussed in the new topic here: And this one: And this one:

There are evidently FOUR basic problems in the latest explanation of the "GENERATION" teaching. Of course, this is the teaching based on Jesus' words in Matthew 24:34 where he says that "This generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur." The latest update to the explanation is that Jesus was referring to two groups of anointed persons: the first group who could discern the meaning of the sign they witnessed in 1914, and a second group of anointed persons, whose lives overlapped with that first group. #1. It creates a set time limit for Armageddon to occur. #2. It is based on the idea that the date 1914 was predicted in the Bible. #3. It is based on a false definition of the word "generation." #4. It is based on a false premise about a supposed belief in 1914 that didn't even exist in 1914. If we're serious about: paying constant attention to ourselves and our teaching, (1 Tim 4:16) handling the word of God aright, having nothing to be ashamed of, (2 Tim 2:15) not paying attention to false stories, (1 Tim 1:4-7) making sure of all things, (1 Thess 5:21) knowing that teachers will receive heavier judgment, etc., (James 3:1) then we would not be very good Christians if any of us taught something that we were not sure about. On this forum, participants have already dealt extensively with #1 and #2 above, but there has not yet been a thorough discussion and focus on points #3 and #4.

Not much of a difference from 1874 to 1878, though, was it? The recent Watchtower stated: *** ws14 1/15 p. 30 par. 15 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? *** When Jesus mentioned “this generation,” we understand that he was speaking about two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was present in 1914 and understood that Christ began ruling as King in that year. But when Bro Rutherford gave his famous 'Advertise, Advertise, Advertise' talk at Cedar Point, Ohio in 1922 (nearly a decade after 1914) he said this: “Do you believe it? Do you believe that the King of glory is present, and has been since 1874? Do you believe that during that time he has conducted his harvest work? Do you believe that he has had during that time a faithful and wise servant through whom he directed his work and the feeding of the household of faith? Do you believe that the Lord is now in his temple, judging the nations of earth? Do you believe that the King of glory has begun his reign? . . . Behold, the King reigns! You are his publicity agents. Therefore advertise, advertise, advertise, the King and his kingdom.” – Watchtower, November 1, 1922, p. 337. There was not yet an official change that Jesus had become king in 1914, nor that Jesus presence had begun in 1914. The presence was clearly still dated to 1874. The beginning of his kingship was still dated to 1878, and this was still being published in service campaigns at least until 1933. Finished Mystery, published in 1917, and sold until 1933, put it like this:

I really miss AllenSmith34. For reasons I've explained before, there should be no such thing as "permanent" disfellowshipping on a forum such as this one. The rebuke of the majority should be sufficient. I miss the comments that he often put a lot of thought into, and that honestly revealed what he was thinking. One thing I don't miss about him was his constant habit of taking serious posts and tacking a "HaHa" emoticon on them. It seemed like a lazy person's mischievous way of showing derision and scorn, and trying to stir up contention instead of taking time to explain his view in a mature manner. Many days AllenSmith would produce more "HaHa" responses than actual posts. (Proverbs 22:10) . . .Drive away the scornful man, And contention will disappear; Disputes and insults will cease. Fortunately, we don't have as much of that any more. Oh...wait, sorry...what's this:

In the past, God let people know what he is doing and when. Jesus said that this time would be different. He said we would be warned about WHAT he was doing, but not WHEN. *** w03 1/1 p. 18 par. 2 “Keep on the Watch”! *** On this account you too prove yourselves ready, because at an hour that you do not think to be it, the Son of man is coming.” (Matthew 24:42-44) A thief does not announce in advance when he is coming. One person cannot produce a teaching that gets advertised to the entire world. Even if the rocks had to cry out, it would not have been just one rock. An organization provides the efficiency to get a message out in such a way that it is generally appealing, or understood. The members of the organization are willing to explain it if it is not understood. We all stand on our own in the end. The organization is a tool or means to declare that message in an efficient and consistent manner, to help people understand it and therefore accept or reject it. (Romans 10:14-18) 14 However, how will they call on him if they have not put faith in him? How, in turn, will they put faith in him about whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach? 15 How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent out? Just as it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who declare good news of good things!” . . . Why, in fact, “into all the earth their sound went out, and to the ends of the inhabited earth their message.” I think Paul speaks in general terms here that the message has gone out through God's actions toward Israel, and God's obvious backing of the early Christians, so that Gamaliel would say: (Acts 5:38, 39) . . .For if this scheme or this work is from men, it will be overthrown; 39 but if it is from God, you will not be able to overthrow them. Otherwise, you may even be found fighters against God himself.” Like you, and like Brother Jackson of the GB, I would also not be so presumptuous as to claim that God is using only one group of 8 men as his mouthpiece or channel. But you'll notice that the important thing is not the so-called "inspiration" or "perfection" of those who preach. It's the message. What would those rocks be saying if they were needed to cry out, instead of Christians?

That's the same kind of mistake I was referring to above. We can't base our beliefs about the timing of Armageddon on anything we think might have to happen first here on earth. Jesus wove the first century parousia on Jerusalem right into the parousia on the entire earth using the word immediately to tie the two together. (Matthew 24:29-31) 29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity. It was in Peter that we have the explanation that "immediately" could easily be 1,000 years or more, because: (2 Peter 3:4-9) . . .“Where is this promised presence of his? . . . 8 However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 9 Jehovah is not slow concerning his promise. . .

Perhaps, but it's not obvious yet to me. You haven't been clear about what "it" is that active JWs understand, and do not minimize or dismiss. Perhaps there are, and perhaps the current understanding of what 1914 represented is 100 percent correct. But the Watchtower does not speak of a first group of the this generation who merely "have understood what 1914 represents and what has always represented" does it? No, the Watchtower speaks of those who understood the sign that they were seeing in 1914, at the time they were seeing it. *** ws14 1/15 p. 30 par. 15 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? *** When Jesus mentioned “this generation,” we understand that he was speaking about two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was present in 1914 and understood that Christ began ruling as King in that year. Those who made up this group were not only alive in 1914, but they had also been anointed by holy spirit in or before that year. This doesn't fit the current Watchtower explanation that they had it wrong at the time. They didn't even teach that this supposed sign in 1914 meant that Jesus had begun his presence. (His presence had begun in 1874, and this was still the official teaching until 1943/1944. No one we know recognized this in 1914.) So it would be difficult to claim that anyone saw the sign and understood it in 1914, unless you happen to know of someone who understood it that way. Fred Franz admits that he misunderstood it until 1943, and he is used as a primary example of a person in the first group.

For what it's worth, I noticed that you did bring up several other issues besides child abuse. Child sexual abuse (CSA) seemed to be the issue that remains most unresolved for you, and it spilled over into discussions of elders, GB, the congregation fear of elders, two-witness rule inconsistency, clergy privilege, etc. To be fair these other topics were often already related to the CSA issue. Jehovah can use any of us, and any government, ruler or organization to accomplish his will. He can use our mistakes to accomplish his will, and he can use our feeble and foibled attempts to minister to him, too, of course. I think Jehovah continues to cleanse "JW Org" every time we show humility as an organization and show ourselves malleable to his will. (Like the potter's vessel illustration from @Bible Speaks you commented on.) You made a comment under that topic to the effect that Jehovah does not "mold" us to his will through congregation elders. This made no sense to me, because the utilization of congregation elders is very much a part of Jehovah's will as we can see in the Biblical direction given to congregations. Of course, if there are specific things elders do, you could address those things, but the generalization is not scriptural. On the issue of Armageddon, there is a range of belief among Witnesses, so I assume you mean the standard idea that Jehovah destroys all the wicked, especially the wicked organizations, and only Jehovah's people survive. That range of belief might include questions about who really get counted as "wicked," who really get counted as Jehovah's people, or whether a large number of JWs actually do not survive, too. What happens with children and those who remain innocent by lack of hearing, or inability to comprehend? What happens with those who would gladly have joined us, but who were stumbled at haughty elders, or false prophecies, or issues of child abuse that seemed to them to be the fault of an organization, rather than just the perpetrators? Also on the issue of Armageddon, you know that while it might not be dangerous to think that it might be a long way off, it is dangerous to live our lives according to the idea that it might be a long way off. The point is to keep it close in mind because it could come at any time, without further warning. We are warned that it will arrive, but we have absolutely no warning as to the times and seasons. This makes me wonder about what several members have done on this forum by speculating about what things are "obviously" going to happen in the near future that will prove this or that scripture to have been accomplished. I think this is also a mistake, because even if we think a certain action on the part of a government, a person, the UN, or anything else must happen first to fulfill some Bible prophecy before the end, then I think we have failed to understand that Armageddon can actually arrive 5 minutes after you fall asleep tonight. And it must be just as wrong to speculate that it must happen before the deaths of the entire second group of anointed who overlapped with an earlier group of anointed who would later admit that they misunderstood what they saw happening in 1914. This is just as un-Biblical and therefore un-Christian because it claims we know something about the times and seasons with respect to the time of the end. An organization is not a person with motives you can judge. Yes, many JWs are blind to the faults of the Organization. But you should know members of the "Private" club for JWs as opposed to the "Public" club for JWs (now called "Open") is just as apt to discuss faults of the Organization as it is in the Open Club. As TTH pointed out, it has actually become easier to discuss these criticisms without people changing the subject at will, or asking people to defend their choices on some barely related topic.

I'm finding a lot of the poetry here: The last link is this: http://ww.delightfulpoetry.com/introduction-4.html (which resolves with www or the "ww" as the subdomain.) There are many poems from both Cynthia Becker and Grace Straley. For example: http://www.delightfulpoetry.com/broken_reed.html The other links in the list might be resolved through the "waybackmachine" or "web archive." For example: Life Everlasing is Promised from the above list is not available: http://www.poetsbranch.com/PPT/LifeEverlasting/LifeEverlasting.html But an earlier version of it is available here: http://web.archive.org/web/20160327223513/http://www.poetsbranch.com/PPT/LifeEverlasting/LifeEverlasting.html Didn't test any others.

I should add that some scientists who study these things agree that the time when dinosaurs and other contemporary animals and plants were on earth was a time when the atmosphere was very thick and heavy, atmospheric pressure at the earth's surface was much higher than now, and water vapor must have filled the air so that the sun's energy was fairly equally diffused, and those "thermals" that large birds seem to "float" on would have been a constant phenomenon. Some interesting thoughts on the pterosaurs and their ability to fly are found here: http://theconversation.com/pterosaurs-should-have-been-too-big-to-fly-so-how-did-they-manage-it-60892 But pressure alone would not explain it, because continuous flight without flapping is really a matter of the difference in pressure above and below the wing, creating lower pressure above the wing; it's therefore not a factor enhanced by higher pressure above the wing. And the entire book of several chapters, found here, provides some very interesting reading as an attempt to bring in a lot of available evidence on the topic. https://dinosaurtheory.com/big_dinosaur.html The book is well done from a didactic point of view, and the link above is only to chapter 2: The Paradox of Large Dinosaurs and Flying Pterosaurs. Chapter 3 is called, The Science of Flight and the Paradox of Flying Pterosaurs. The book should be read at least through Chapter 7, but the book gets uncomfortably "evolutionary" after that until the end at chapter 11. The last chapter (11) is about the age of fossils, however, tying back to the subject.

Actually there are fossils in the remotest parts of the earth that are now totally uninhabitable areas. To be clearer, I should have said that the idea that the earth was a temperate, tropical climate just before the time of the Flood is also unprovable. It very well may have been temperate and tropical for many thousands of years, or even for many millions of years. However, without accepting the methods of dating the various eras and eons on earth, we can't tell if this state of climate was true in all parts of the earth at the same time. We can only theorize. And it might be a very good theory. When Genesis describes Adam and Eve leaving the Garden of Eden, it describes an immediate time of hardship in planting and cultivation, trying to eke out produce amidst thorns and thistles. This is not the state of affairs usually associated with a temperate and tropical climate and it was likely meant for a time more than 1500 years before the time of Noah. (Genesis 3:17-19) 17 And to Adam he said: “Because you listened to your wife’s voice and ate from the tree concerning which I gave you this command, ‘You must not eat from it,’ cursed is the ground on your account. In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life. 18 It will grow thorns and thistles for you, and you must eat the vegetation of the field. 19 In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.” It's a very common claim that has been theorized by fundamentalist authors for many years. And it might be true, but is still only a theory. I would love to be able to communicate with your brother, but no paper can "prove" anything about radiation levels before and after the Flood. Nor can anyone determine a specific reason for the sudden 90% drop in human lifespans. That's interesting, but it's still not possible to use the word "prove" even when matching a formula to the Biblical time period. It's a kind of holy grail for scientists. When working from one set of "true" non-quantum assumptions you can get one good answer, and when you work from a set of "true" quantum assumptions you get another good, sensible answer. The problem is that those answers are several orders of magnitude apart from each other. Other methods of mixing the math from the small scale energies of the electro-magnetic world and trying to map them to the large scale energies from the the gravitational space-time world will devolve into string theories. Not just one string theory, but several different string theories, some of which result in a "necessary" postulation of several simultaneous universes. So there really is no string theory, or at least it has gotten nowhere. My son graduated from Harvard with a degree in theoretical physics (also music) and we have discussions about this quite often, and of course it's over my head. But he claims that many scientists have tried it, even attempting to use the ideas to "prove for God" as the source of the dynamic energies that would explain dark matter, and poorly understood energies -- even gravity itself. You'll notice that the WTS does not teach us that this condition lasted until the Flood, implying that it is likely it was a condition limited to the context (day 3) in the creation account summary of Genesis 2. *** it-2 p. 728 Rain *** At an early point in the history of the preparation of the earth, “God had not made it rain upon the earth,” but “a mist would go up from the earth and it watered the entire surface of the ground.” The time referred to is evidently early on the third creative “day,” before vegetation appeared I'm sure you are aware, as you have already mentioned several of these points, but for those who don't know that these same theories have been common in Christendom for many years, one need only look at various commentaries of Genesis. Here's some excerpts from one example, which will take up the rest of the post: https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_685.cfm . . . Water Vapor Canopy . . . Astronomer Donald B. DeYoung lists the arguments in favor of a water vapor canopy. . . .

@BillyTheKid46 made some statements in another thread that claimed the necessity of demonstrating the difference between early Zion's Watch Tower views and current Watchtower views. He says it was a totally different understanding with the same goal of 1914: To get a fair context of the discussion, I'll show the entire relevant portions of each response from the original topic here: The above response from BillyTheKid was because @JOHN BUTLER brought up some speculation that Armageddon is likely far off, and I mentioned the following: After BillyTheKid's response to that, already shown at the top of this post, I said: To that @BillyTheKid46 responded: I have not yet responded to BillyTheKid's other points, which I may attempt to do here. But I did respond to his statement, "This is why there is a difference between Jesus presences in 1874 to that of enthronement, taking his rightful seat in 1914." To which BillyTheKid responded: And BilyTheKid also responded in another post: Hopefully, I'll get a chance respond to BillyTheKid here, and to understand how he thinks we should understand the idea that there was more than one 1260, among many other points made.

To me, you do not give the impression of being careless at all. I get the impression you have not only been careful but very thorough in looking for evidence defending creation. And not just from a single source but clearly by being selective among some of the best ideas from many sources, which also means rejecting bad ideas. I think this is great! What I did hope to convey was the difficulty we have in simply re-interpreting every bit of existing evidence into a simple version of creation. All of us tend to do this because most of us want simple answers. A good scientist should look at ALL the evidence related to her or his branch of science and continue to readjust an overarching theory that fits every bit of it, including all the anomalies. We can't really make a good counter-claim in defense of our own position until we have done the same. As TTH above has said: More importantly, we can't "judge" the conclusions of individual scientists, if they are based on a cache of thousands of pieces of evidence that we have not ourselves been able to explain. As TTH aleady added: Creationists have unprovable theories, too. We often invoke the problems of the unknown antediluvian atmosphere to counter evidence from Carbon 14 that appears to measure things fairly well back to 50,000 years. But our counter theory is not proved at all. It's just our own conjecture (actually the conjecture of previous fundamentalists). That the air pressure was different during a time of pterodactyls is also an unprovable theory. That the entire earth was a temperate, tropical climate is also unprovable. We do have a small piece of evidence in favor of our theory in the Bible, but there are no details provided in the Bible, so some Witnesses and a lot of Fundamentalists simply impose a lot of conjecture upon the "water canopy" theory. In fact, the water canopy theory is very weak. From the standpoint of physics, the claims made for it are not even possible. So we are really invoking a kind of "miracle" that held a theorized "band" of water in the sky. Even the evidence from the Bible on the "water canopy" is not definitive. For one thing, you can see from the footnotes in the NWT that the word translated heavens is actually the same word for "sky." Genesis 1:1 is really saying: "In the beginning God created the sky and the earth." And this word for "expanse" in Genesis 1:7 is apparently just a reference to the visible sky that holds the rain clouds above us. We can't really say for sure that this separation of the waters and the waters is any more than just the fact that Jehovah made it possible for water to be both on the surface of the earth and also high above our heads in the form of water vapor in the form of clouds. A reason for saying this is that Proverbs apparently replaces the idea of this water separation, merely with the word for "clouds" when referring to the major milestones of the earth's creation: (Proverbs 8:28) . . .When he established the clouds above, When he founded the fountains of the deep, And rather than support the theory that this separation of the waters disappeared at the time of the Flood, Psalms says it's still there: (Psalm 148:3-7) . . .Praise him, sun and moon. Praise him, all shining stars. 4 Praise him, O highest heavens And waters above the heavens. 5 Let them praise the name of Jehovah, For he commanded, and they were created. 6 He keeps them established forever and ever; He has issued a decree that will not pass away. 7 Praise Jehovah from the earth, You great sea creatures and all deep waters, In fact, just like Proverbs referring to these waters as clouds, Psalms (see also Job) also credits these waters from above as the "rain" that continued to make things grow during the days of the Psalmist: (Psalm 104:12-14) . . .Above them roost the birds of the sky [heaven]; They sing among the thick foliage. 13 He is watering the mountains from his upper rooms. With the fruitage of your works the earth is satisfied. 14 He is making grass grow for the cattle And vegetation for mankind’s use, To grow food from the land. (Job 38:36, 37) 36 Who put wisdom within the clouds Or gave understanding to the sky [heaven] phenomenon? 37 Who is wise enough to count the clouds, Or who can tip over the water jars of heaven? (Psalm 147:8) . . .The One who covers the heavens with clouds, The One providing rain for the earth, The One making grass sprout on the mountains. In fact, based on similar texts and language used in other near eastern ancient documents the idea of this sky/expanse was the vault or dome that held the clouds above, and allowed the stars to shine through at night. Amos, too, shows it had not disappeared, and that it included the process by which sea water was turned into rain water. (Amos 9:6) . . .‘The one who builds his stairs in the heavens And establishes his [dome, vault] over the earth; The one who summons the waters of the sea, To pour them out on the surface of the earth —Jehovah is his name.’

I agree that it should not bother us that dinosaurs may have had hollow bones like birds and may have had feathers, and may have even been beautifully colorful. But it can be misleading to claim that the bone structure of dinosaurs falls into two categories: birds and reptiles. Dinosaurs themselves are categorized into "bird" and "non-bird" dinosaurs, but not their bone structures. In fact, the bone structures of the most reptilian theropods have three birdlike toes/claws and hollow bones, and many of them show evidence of feathers, even though they did not fly. The Tyrannasaurus Rex was a theropod. Wikipedia shows the following theropod, stating that it has three toes and hollow bones: And here is the Anchiornis, also a theropod, with the skeletal structure of other theropods, but with feathers: Here is the approximate bone structure of the Anchiornis. It could not fly, just as many species of birds cannot fly. Of course, even if this idea of feathers on dinosaurs doesn't bother us, it sure bothered researchers at Bethel. This is because claims were made that created a kind of logic trap. If you look up feathers and dinosaurs in the Watchtower Library you will find this one reference: *** g 7/07 p. 24 Feathers—A Marvel of Design *** FORGED “EVIDENCE” Some fossil “evidence” that was once loudly hailed as proof that birds evolved from other creatures has since been shown to have been forged. In 1999, for instance, National Geographic magazine featured an article about a fossil of a feathered creature with a tail like a dinosaur’s. The magazine declared the creature to be “a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds.” The fossil, however, turned out to be a forgery, a composite of the fossils of two different animals. In fact, no such “missing link” has ever been found. Clearly, the Awake! wasn't ready for a feathered dinosaur. (The forgery was created in China, where true feathered dinosaur fossils would soon be discovered and studied. It was unveiled by National Geographic in October/November 1999, and NG announced the investigation into the probability that it was a forgery about 4 months later, and took until October 2000, a year later, to publish the results of the investigation, with an apology.) The same article also said: Feathers give no indication that they ever needed improvement. In fact, the “earliest known fossil feather is so modern-looking as to be indistinguishable from the feathers of birds flying today.” Yet, evolutionary theory teaches that feathers must be the result of gradual, cumulative change in earlier skin outgrowths. Moreover, “feathers could not have evolved without some plausible adaptive value in all of the intermediate steps,” says the Manual. Further, if feathers developed progressively over a long period of time, the fossil record should contain intermediate forms. But none have ever been found, only traces of fully formed feathers. “Unfortunately for evolutionary theory, feathers are very complicated,” states the Manual. The perfection of feathers is just one problem for evolutionists, for practically every part of a bird is designed for flight. For instance, a bird has light, hollow bones . . . The fossil feather is from archaeopteryx, an extinct creature sometimes presented as a “missing link” in the line of descent to modern birds. Most paleontologists, however, no longer consider it an ancestor of modern birds. Of course, contrary to the above claim, most paleontologists do consider the "bird-dinosaurs" to be an ancestor of modern birds. Those necessarily lighter, hollow bones have also been verified throughout many dinosaur species, and now even the evidence of only partially formed feathers has been seen, which the Awake! magazine had called "intermediate forms" and suggested that such a find, if it ever happened, would indicate evidence of evolutionary theory. It would have been better to just accept that there might be hundreds of new discoveries indicating a variety of life created for purposes we cannot yet understand.

Not that libraries or science-related databases will always be perfect, but "research" is so different now from when I was in school or getting research assignments at Bethel. Today, interest in a topic starts with a link that is usually purposely worded to attract attention by being provocative. Even major newspapers now use "click-bait" to get someone to read an article about a scientific report or discovery. A serious report about the effects of various carbohydrates on various types of cancer would get a title like: "New Report Shows Sugar Causes Brain Cancer." Maybe it does, but things like this happen even if that idea was never in the report at all. And then it will get repeated in other newspaper and television reports and YouTube channels and long advertisements on websites that purport to be from a respected doctor. Almost no one will actually read the report, sometimes not even other scientists who will also need to make "educated guesses" and assumptions, because they would get nowhere these days if they had to read every word on every subject that came before them. Getting to the truth of the matter in research is sometimes harder now than it was back in the days when research required a lot more legwork.

Good catch! I noticed that too, but did not want to start a 607 discussion. The Watchtower has accepted C-14 to get within about 100 years for some manuscripts, including the DSS, and to defend a more Biblical date for Hezekiah's tunnel, and also accept the limits of C-14 dating only for things in the last few thousands of years, etc. But it is rarely accepted as the only piece of evidence on which to draw a conclusion: *** w13 2/1 p. 14 What Is the “Gospel of Judas”? *** Carbon-14 dating authenticated the codex as likely coming from the third or the fourth century C.E. However, the scholars surmised that the Coptic text of the “Gospel of Judas” had been translated from its original Greek at a much earlier period. What was that original period and setting in which the “Gospel of Judas” was composed? *** w59 4/15 p. 243 Christianity’s Origin and the Dead Sea Scrolls *** Not without good reason these scrolls have been described as the “greatest manuscript discovery of modern times.” They have been definitely dated as of the second century B.C. by experts in the fields of archaeology, paleography (the science of deciphering ancient writing) and the carbon-14 process. Previously the oldest-known Hebrew witness to God’s Word had been the Nash papyrus . . . . *** w09 5/1 p. 27 Did You Know? *** Dr. Amos Frumkin of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem says: “The carbon-14 tests we carried out on organic material within the plaster of the Siloam Tunnel, and uranium-thorium dating of stalactites found in the tunnel, date it conclusively to Hezekiah’s era.” An article in the scientific journal Nature adds: “The three independent lines of evidence—radiometric dating, palaeography and the historical record—all converge on about 700 BC, rendering the Siloam Tunnel the best-dated Iron-Age biblical structure thus far known.” *** w97 6/15 p. 10 Jerusalem in Bible Times—What Does Archaeology Reveal? *** Did they exist in David’s time? Was this the water tunnel used by Joab? Dan Gill answers: “To test whether Warren’s Shaft was in fact a natural sinkhole, we analyzed a fragment of calcareous crust from its irregular walls for carbon-14. It contained none, indicating that the crust is more than 40,000 years old: This provides unequivocal evidence that the shaft could not have been dug by man.” The WTS general position on carbon dating is still described here: *** g86 9/22 p. 21 The Radiocarbon Clock *** The Radiocarbon Clock There was also a discussion started here: Can we trust carbon 14 dating?

Not at all. Respecting the teaching of older men in the congregation is a longstanding theme in the Christian Scriptures. (1 Thessalonians 5:12, 13) . . .Now we request you, brothers, to show respect for those who are working hard among you and presiding over you in the Lord and admonishing you; 13 and to give them extraordinary consideration in love because of their work.. . . (3 John 9, 10) 9 I wrote something to the congregation, but Di·otʹre·phes, who likes to have the first place among them, does not accept anything from us with respect. 10 That is why if I come, I will call attention to the works he is doing in spreading malicious talk about us.. . . (1 Timothy 5:17) 17 Let the elders who preside in a fine way be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching. Honor is not worship. (Romans 12:10) 10 In brotherly love have tender affection for one another. In showing honor to one another, take the lead. (1 Peter 2:17) 17 Honor men of all sorts, have love for the whole association of brothers, be in fear of God, honor the king. (1 Peter 3:7) . . .Assign them honor as to a weaker vessel, the feminine one, since they are also heirs with you of the undeserved favor of life, . . . (1 Timothy 5:3) . . .Give consideration to [Greek, "honor"] widows who are truly widows. This idea of "double honor" is scriptural and has nothing to do with worship. Sure! If we think he is "presiding in a fine way" or presiding over us "in the Lord." (For me, he is not, although I respect the fact that he appears to be presiding in some ways that are better than previous Popes.) There is nothing wrong with showing respect toward the Pope. He is one of those "men of all sorts." It's not worship. But again we consider the type of honor we show based on how their faith has turned out (Heb 11), whether they are related to us in the faith, whether their position makes them a "superior authority." (For many years, historically, Christians in certain countries would have had to consider the Pope a kind of "king." Note the end of 1 Peter 2:17, above.) This is not true. We can choose the ideas that encourage us and build us up, and keep talking about these. No one forces us to accept what our conscience won't allow. If we focus on what we agree with, the rest of the congregation is built up. We need not focus on those ideas we don't agree with. Personally, I think it's important to communicate our questions and concerns about questionable teachings, too. But this is not up-building in the congregational setting. It's not the purpose of the meetings. (Philippians 4:8, 9) 8 Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are of serious concern, whatever things are righteous, whatever things are chaste, whatever things are lovable, whatever things are well-spoken-of, whatever things are virtuous, and whatever things are praiseworthy, continue considering these things. 9 The things that you learned as well as accepted and heard and saw in connection with me, practice these, and the God of peace will be with you. (Hebrews 10:23-25) . . .. 24 And let us consider one another so as to incite to love and fine works, 25 not forsaking our meeting together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, and all the more so as you see the day drawing near. I believe there is a time and place for everything, and even a time to tear down, rather than build up. A time to speak and a time keep silent: (Ecclesiastes 3:1-7) 3 For everything there is an appointed time, . . . a time to plant and a time to uproot what was planted; 3 . . . a time to break down and a time to build; . . . 5 a time to throw stones away and a time to bring stones together; . . . 6 a time to seek and a time to give up as lost; a time to keep and a time to throw away; 7 a time to rip apart and a time to sew together; a time to keep quiet and a time to speak; (Matthew 9:16, 17) 16 Nobody sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old outer garment, for the new piece pulls away from the garment and the tear becomes worse. 17 Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins. If they do, then the wineskins burst and the wine spills out and the wineskins are ruined. But people put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.” I've used this particular forum as a place, outside the congregation, for the time and place to speak up about things I have sought, and things I have given up on. It's a place to discuss whether certain deeply entrenched things should be thrown out, preserved, or whether they should just be patched up. (Edited to add: If JW.ORG had a place for comments it would be a mess, but I look forward to a time when this is possible in some way. In the meantime, I'll try to refine and question my own beliefs here or another place where I might find persons willing to discuss questionable issues.)

Also: Smartphones Tablets Internet Sugar

I know this was to Srecko, but I was thinking the same thing. It's nice to have a unified message. And to answer the next part of your points, I think that this particular forum provides a answer, of sorts, to see the expected results of such an experiment. It could be chaos, but need not be. All of us can have our own opinions as long as we respect the doctrines promoted by the the Governing Body. The Governing Body would be respected for the number of years they have spent in Bible study and teaching and therefore "worthy of double honor." There are many ways to manage both personal opinions and respect the currently accepted doctrines held by the majority. One way is for all of us to try to remember to always make sure people know we are expressing our own personal opinion even if we personally have absolutely no doubt about the correctness of that opinion. Many people have already come on this forum in the last few years, presenting themselves as JWs, and all the while making sure predictions about end-time events they expected in the next few months. All of them will surely be just as wrong as everyone else has been for these last 2,000 years. And if we are just exploring an opinion we should be clear that we are anxious for others to share any clarifying, supporting, or non-supporting evidence to add to the discussion. The Governing Body should also be willing to express any current doctrine in terms of its probability according to the best evidence they have accepted, and if they are rejecting more evidence than they accept, they should explain their reasons for rejecting the majority of the known evidence. The Governing Body has already done this on several minor teachings, and I always find it refreshing. In other words, every single doctrine we have, need not be expressed as an unchangeable dogma. Everything can be expressed as a current belief based on the evidence we currently accept. There would NEVER be an embarrassment over the past, and the new level of open-mindedness would result in more input from persons who run across new evidence all over the world.

True. I apologize to @The Librarian. I know that he or she had just broken off this particular topic to a new thread which is a bit of a hassle in itself. I pushed the envelope a bit, but mostly to just highlight how the Librarian was correct. Completely new topics can be frustrating. But to the small group participating in this topic, I think it was understandable that Watchtower doctrine of the seven thousand year day would come into this. That would inevitably lead to why there are changes to our doctrines. That would inevitably lead to a discussion of the spiritual guidance of the GB (because it was already a concurrent discussion among a couple of the participants, here). On a serious note, I think it would be better to just say that there is a discussion about the GB that includes the topic of spirit direction already in progress, so that this part of the topic can be continued over there.

I made tacos last night. I ate 4. My wife ate 4 (usually eats 2), and my sons came over and ate about 8 between them. I make tacos once every two weeks. Soft corn tortillas are very inexpensive, but I also buy a small box of the crispy "Ortega" hard shells. I find that shopping for the ingredients is simple, because I just imagine a taco and the order in which I always put the items on it. Problem is that the store is set up in such a way that I have to buy the ingredients all out of order. I buy a head of lettuce, a small bag of limes, 2 tomatoes, 1 onion, 1 jalapeno pepper, 1 bunch of cilantro, hard tortillas, salsa, hamburger, cheddar cheese, sour cream, soft tortillas. (Other spices and hot sauce etc are already in the house.) In my youth, I used to fry the soft tortillas in corn oil, but now, I have evolved. I just put a cookie pan in the oven and put a layer of soft tortillas on the bottom and then stand up the hard tortillas on top of them, and another flat layer of soft tortillas on top of the hard ones. This way the crispy ones will bake but will be protected from getting too brown on the portion that is nearest the electric elements of the oven. I can start shopping at 5pm and be completely done chopping the ingredients, cooking the hamburger, and baking the tortillas to serve tacos by 5:55. I find that the leftover lettuce, cilantro, and salsa doesn't stay fresh enough for two weeks so I use it for salads and spaghetti sauce within the next week. Also, if there are any tortillas, cheese, onions, tomatoes, jalapeno, etc., left over I just sprinkle it all onto flat tortillas and bake them into "chips" for dessert, which can last through the next day. Sunday morning I make scrambled eggs. But mostly, I like tacos. I'm kind of set in my ways. Like an old fossil.

Of course, per the title of this thread, it is THE subject. I hoped we could get into it a bit more here. You made some interesting points and it shows you have really looked into the topic. I don't know enough about the topic yet to know what the evolutionist's counter-arguments would be. It's something I just don't try to get into with others, at least in person. Having the topic here might encourage those like you to keep contributing some good information. From what I can tell, since the 1980's, the Society has COMPLETELY dropped the 7,000 year day idea, and they have said nothing against the possibility that some of these "days" could be millions of years long. So there is even the possibility that some fossils could be 541 million years old. I didn't pay much attention to the previous thread from which this one broke off, but I see that you are using C14 evidence to date ALL fossils on the order of thousands instead of millions of years. Without looking, of course, I'm sure there is a counter-argument among scientists, and I'd be interested in looking it up to see which argument has the best evidence behind it.