JW Insider

3 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Then you need to clarify the word "skin" to specifically refer to "animal skin." The commonly employed term in the lexicon is "tunic." This corresponds with another term, "linen."

Do you understand the definition of either word?
A tunic is a garment for the body, usually simple in style, reaching from the shoulders to a length somewhere between the hips and the knees. 
a: cloth made of flax and noted for its strength, coolness, and luster
b: thread or yarn spun from flax
2: clothing or household articles made of linen cloth or similar fabric
3: paper made from linen fibers or with a linen finish

Therefore, God would NOT have resorted to a savage deed to cover an otherwise flawless couple in the garden with your presumed animal skin. 

Friberg, Analytical Greek Lexicon

[Fri] χιτών, ῶνος, ὁ tunic, an undergarment worn next to the skin by both men and women, a sleeveless shirt reaching below the knees; more generally clothing, garment; plural clothes

כֻּתֳּנֹת & כָּתְנֹת Ex 3927, cs. כָּתְנוֹת, sf. כֻּתֳּנֹתָם: long shirt-like (under-)garment Gn 373 (« passîm); not nec. of linen; of skin Gn 321; for women 2S 1318f; for priests Ex 284. (pg 167)

Another concept to contemplate is "being covered in righteousness." This idea is reinforced when considering the notion of a paradise, a perfect garden. Did God clothe the pair within the garden or outside as they were exiting the garden?

No one here has presented a convincing argument for "animal skin" inside the garden.

Genesis 3 simply suggests that there was a covering over their "skin," but it really doesn't imply animal skin if we use the original language in present tense. People should learn to understand the bible. God had the option to create a covering from vegetation, tree bark, and other materials. They might have resorted to using animal skins after being expelled. With that understanding in mind, it becomes straightforward to interpret the message conveyed in Genesis 3:7.

NAS  Genesis 3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings. (Gen. 3:7 NAS)

That's why the interpretations of biblical definitions by "Strongs" can be misleading at times. The Strong's concordance relies on terminology that comes after the events, instead of using terminology from before.

This is completely wrong, Billy. Before I realized how you might have made the mistake, I thought you were attempting satire, @BTK59, but that would be quite a stretch from the @BillyTheKid-55  and previous B.T.K.s we've all come to know and love on this forum. 

First, you say:

Quote

Then you need to clarify the word "skin" to specifically refer to "animal skin." The commonly employed term in the lexicon is "tunic." This corresponds with another term, "linen."

I'm assuming this could have been an innocent mistake, probably because you saw: "(Genesis 3:21) . . .And Jehovah God made long garments from skins . . ." and you looked up the wrong word. You appear to have looked up the Bible lexicon word(s) for "garment[s]" instead of "skin[s]."

What seemed odd though is that in other forum topics you have praised the scholarly abilities and translation abilities of the GB and the WTS, yet here you simply reject the Watchtower's view:

*** w54 7/15 p. 427 May Christians Eat Meat? ***
Nor can Jesus’ words, “Happy are the merciful,” be used to advocate vegetarianism, for then Jesus himself would have been unmerciful, for he certainly ate flesh, as we have seen. Jehovah glories in the fact that he is merciful, kind and loving, and in view of all his commands, to eat the passover lamb and to offer animal sacrifices, and his own use of the skins of animals to clothe Adam and Eve, it must be apparent that being merciful does not require man to refrain from using lower animals for his benefit.—Matt. 5:7, NW.

3 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Therefore, God would NOT have resorted to a savage deed to cover an otherwise flawless couple in the garden with your presumed animal skin. 

As an aside, and in line with the Watchtower's comments just quoted, how "savage" do you think it would have been for God to clothe them with animal skins, and yet the same God, who does not change, demanded that if His priests were vegetarian, they would have to be disfellowshipped or perhaps even put to death. In fact, even for the average Hebrew, they MUST eat meat by God's command:

(Exodus 12:8-14) . . .“‘They must eat the meat on this night. . . . “‘This day will serve as a memorial for you, and you must celebrate it as a festival to Jehovah throughout your generations. 

(Leviticus 8:31-35) . . .: “Boil the flesh at the entrance of the tent of meeting, and you will eat it there . . . just as I was commanded, ‘Aaron and his sons will eat it.’ . . . Jehovah commanded that we do what we have done today in order to make atonement for you. . . . and carry out your obligation to Jehovah, so that you may not die; for so I have been commanded.”

However it happened, your argument as quoted above, ends up talking about the word "garment" and then takes a turn to tunics and linen, and argues that the word had a different meaning from the one it later came to be used for. And you have also diverted to fig leaves in Genesis 3:7 instead of the question about the "skins" in Genesis 3:21.

3 hours ago, BTK59 said:

Friberg, Analytical Greek Lexicon

χιτών, ῶνος, ὁ tunic, an undergarment worn next to the skin by both men and women,. . . not nec. of linen; of skin

Because Friberg said a "garment" could be made not necessarily of linen but also of skins, you are apparently concluding that these particular garments in Genesis 3 must not have been from skin but could have been from linen. By that fallacious reasoning, if Friberg had said that garments were not necessarily made from frilly lace but also from skin, you could have concluded that Jehovah made those garments from frilly lace. 

3 hours ago, BTK59 said:

No one here has presented a convincing argument for "animal skin" inside the garden.

Actually, it's pretty simple when you look up the corerct word used in Genesis 3:21:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h5785/kjv/wlc/0-1/

Here's how it's used elsewhere in Genesis, Exodus and I stopped in the middle of Leviticus, but you can get the picture:

57 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Whose? Can you type in your sleep?

Thought I could. Typed a brilliant response, then woke up and the screen was blank. 

7 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

What do you think about the reasoning?

Yes. I saw it, and I agree with almost all of it. That's why I used the term pollution here. But it misses a very important point I think. Right now I'm babysitting an 8 month old wiggle-worm [grand-daughter] and am having trouble typing. But will respond in a couple hours or naptime whichever comes first.

2 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

Such measures could of been for a particular group, or a particular season, because of what was needed for a particular time or circumstance. Paul could be saying that this is what he believed Jehovah was calling them to do in that time for some particular reason.

Right. I was just trying to show how this is also how Paul may have understood the Acts 15 decree, if he was able to rescind the part about 'food polluted by idols.'

30 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Are there no rules against engaging in sexual relations (fornication)?

Yes. I think that's correct. There are no RULES against engaging in fornication. That doesn't mean it's not sinful, just as murder and theft and creating divisions and contentions are sinful.

33 minutes ago, BTK59 said:

Did Paul claim that non-believers were free from sinning against God because they were not under any rules?

No. Paul explained quite the opposite. 

(Romans 2:12-15) . . .For all those who sinned without law will also perish without law; but all those who sinned under law will be judged by law. For the hearers of law are not the ones righteous before God, but the doers of law will be declared righteous.  For when people of the nations, who do not have law, do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves.  They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, . . .

But Christians still end up being "doers" of the law by fulfilling the law without written rules, i.e., the "royal law" of Christ. They have the law written in their hearts (their true motivations). 

(James 2:8) . . .If, now, you carry out the royal law according to the scripture, “You must love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing quite well. 
 

By the way, we look at the decree in Acts 15 and say that because it was "guided by holy spirit" that it becomes some kind of "law" for Christians today. But don't we believe that Paul was also "guided by holy spirit" in writing Timothy?

Yet how many congregations make a list of widows 60 and over and base it on the requirements listed here?

(1 Timothy 5:9, 10) . . .A widow is to be put on the list if she is not less than 60 years old, was the wife of one husband,  having a reputation for fine works, if she raised children, if she practiced hospitality, if she washed the feet of holy ones, . . .

Was this one of those cases where you might think the Pauline decree to Timothy turned out not to be a wise thing to do?

7 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

The only question remaining is whether changing the law, stipulation, precept, principle, pastoral discipline is a wise thing to do. If the Congregation finds out it is not wise, she can restore them the way they were before.

1 hour ago, Juan Rivera said:

In 1 Corinthians 9:9, for example, Paul says, “For it is written in the Law of Moses: “You must not muzzle a bull when it is threshing out the grain.”

Yes. Those principles do not become rules, however. When the Law is written on our hearts, we don't need rules of any kind.

The imposition of ANY rule is a kind of "judaizing."

There is no rule against fornication, there is no rule against eating blood. But we don't and won't do either, because we will continually want to know more about God and his love, and try to reflect it wherever possible. If we love God we would want to try to understand, as best as we are able, the Law to Noah and the Law to Moses. Even if we can't figure out all the details behind those laws, we will likely appear to be following rules to those on the outside, but our motivation will be a much higher motivation: love for God, his Son, and love for neighbor. Jesus spoke to actual Jews under Law and was already transitioning them toward this new teaching, showing them that you will never murder because you will work on removing hate, you will never commit adultery or steal because you will work on not even desiring what would take away from your neighbor/brother.  To someone on the outside you might seem like a much stricter rule-follower than they are, but you won't even be thinking about any rules.

However, you are right that a congregation is going to set rules that make sense to keeping order and making it possible for Christians to fellowship, and they are based on mutual agreement. These are mundane things, however, and have nothing to do with the New Covenant or salvation. A congregation can decide through mutual agreement to have a gathering on Sunday at 10am, or Wednesday at 8pm, or Saturday at midnight. Older men and overseers can help preside over such decisions, wisely, and their love and respect for the flock will help them avoid the decision to meet at midnight on Saturday. It would be a hardship on the congregation, and they would waste their hard work preparing to teach when there will be no one to hear. But those "rules" might even claim to be based on Mosaic principles, as we used to emphasize for our 3 conventions a year. They are still mundane, like the "widows on the list who are least 60 years old" in 1 Timothy. 

1 hour ago, Juan Rivera said:

decided to incorporate those particular principles into the New Covenant.  At the present time, the Old Covenant’s purpose is to serve as a model, a precedent, a teacher, for the divine principles that will be needed to allow the New Covenant to function as efficiently as it possibly can.

It's hard for me to imagine it that way. Efficiency is not any part of the purpose of the New Covenant. During a time of transition the Old Covenant served as a model, precedent, and teacher -- but it doesn't make those things a part of the New Covenant. Notice:

(Galatians 3:23-25) . . .However, before the faith arrived, we were being guarded under law, being handed over into custody, looking to the faith that was about to be revealed.  So the Law became our guardian leading to Christ, so that we might be declared righteous through faith.  But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a guardian.

6 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

The idea that the New Covenant would borrow principles from the Old should not be hard for us to understand.

I have some trouble with your reasoning here. You can't put new wine in old wineskins. The New Covenant should not borrow principles from the Old in the creation of laws and rules. The book of Hebrews appears to me to show how there are principles that can help explain the full transition from Old to New. We can find shadows in the Old that hinted there was going to be something new and better. But the Old covenant was a matter of "do this, do that, don't touch this, don't touch that." This is precicely what the "law written on the heart" changes from the "law written on stone."

The New Covenant does not require us not to murder, for example, as part of a continued rule to follow. Christians don't follow a rule that tells us not to murder. We simply do not murder because it is not a reflection of our love for God who even extends love to enemies, and it is not loving to our neighbor. 

(1 John 3:15-20) 15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has everlasting life remaining in him. By this we have come to know love, because that one surrendered his life for us, and we are under obligation to surrender our lives for our brothers.  But whoever has the material possessions of this world and sees his brother in need and yet refuses to show him compassion, in what way does the love of God remain in him?  Little children, we should love, not in word or with the tongue, but in deed and truth. By this we will know that we originate with the truth, and we will assure our hearts before him regarding whatever our hearts may condemn us in, because God is greater than our hearts and knows all things. . .
 

(1 John 4:20, 21) . . .If anyone says, “I love God,” and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar. For the one who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And we have this commandment from him, that whoever loves God must also love his brother.

Thanks @scholar JW for a succinct and clear summary of your position on the 20-year gap (several pages back).

MY SUMMARY below adds 4 or 5 items that I didn't spell out in posts yet, but the rest are a subset of the points from posts already in this thread.

The Watchtower publications depend on SECULAR chronology to be able to attach a BCE date to any Bible event. There are no BCE or CE (AD) dates in the Bible anywhere. Per the current Watchtower Library going back to 1950 for the Watchtower and the 1970's for other publications: there are 11,857 separate references to BCE dates in the current "Watchtower Library" and the MAJORITY of them are for the three dates: 539, 537 and 607.  Every time we ever read in a WTS publication the term "B.C.E." it means the WTS has depended on SECULAR chronology.

• The WTS fully accepts the SECULAR chronology indicating Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BCE.
• The exact same SECULAR chronology indicates that the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 586 BCE.
• The exact same SECULAR Chronology indicates that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 587 BCE.
• The Bible associates Jerusalem's destruction with the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar
• The Bible also associates Jerusalem's destruction with the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar
• The Bible associates both years with this event, so SECULAR scholars must choose between 587 and 586
• The Bible's ambiguity here is "cleverly" reassigned from the Bible to SECULAR scholars so that it can repeatedly be used as a means to discredit scholars -- so that both dates can be dismissed
• Discrediting scholars feeds into the repeated idea that 539 is now part of Bible chronology but 587/586 is only SECULAR chronology
• This allows the WTS to keep the original theory promoted by Barbour and Russell that all one has to do is go back 70 years from 536 (now 539*/538/537) to get the destruction of Jerusalem in 606 (now 607) and both of these dates can be promoted as BIBLE chronology.
• Any attempt to show the fallacy of the argument, or the evidence against the interpretation, can now be associated with choosing SECULAR experts over the BIBLE, and not recognizing that the SECULAR "wisdom of the world is foolishness with God"
• This tradition/theory/interpretation that we now call "BIBLE chronology" now requires that ALL the evidence for the SECULAR chronology that we accept for 539 must otherwise be rejected in order to support 607.
• Therefore the WTS must add 20 years to ALL the chronology evidence BEFORE 539 and not touch any dates from the same evidence AFTER 539.
• Unfortunately for the WTS theory, the Bible locks in the length of the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar to 43 years, and in support of external evidence for 539, the WTS is partially reliant on SECULAR inscriptions referring to the length of the reign of the last king conquered by Cyrus in 539 (the 17 years of Nabonidus)
• That would mean that the 20-year gap must be theorized to fit within a period known to be only 6 years long according to ALL the existing chronological evidence of the period (from the exact same set of evidence accepted for 539)
• The need to turn that 6-year period into a 24-year period becomes an awkward quest because of the inscriptions, kings lists, and astronomy tablets that give consistent evidence that there is not even a one-year gap anywhere in the period.
• NOT PRESENTED YET: The evidence from the TENS of THOUSANDS of mundane business documents is just as damaging to the WTS theory. These small clay tablets are spread throughout EACH and EVERY year of the entire documented period from Nebuchadnezzar's father, Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Nabonidus, Cyrus, etc. They even exist for EACH and EVERY year for the short reign of the two kings in those 6 years where the WTS needs to place the 20-year gap.
• NOT PRESENTED YET: There are business tablets for EVERY year of the known reigns of EACH king, and sometimes thousands of tablets for some of those years, but still absolutely NONE to show evidence for any of the theorized gap of 20 years. (Out of say 50,000 existing tablets, we should therefore expect about 20,000 additional tablets to cover those years, yet not one of those "20,000" missing tablets has shown up. (The WTS has proposed that evidence may exist but has just not been discovered yet.) Therefore, while 100% of the tablet evidence supports the known chronology, there is still ZERO tablet evidence for any possible longer reigns or additional reigns for anyone during the period. Worse yet for the WTS theory, there are even connecting tablets that give us the transition between each king and the next king which makes the gap theory impossible, according to all the evidence.
• NOT PRESENTED YET: There is even a subset of these business documents all related to the same "banking institution" that provides a separate chronology of transitioning "bank presidents" throughout the same entire period. They provide the exact same connected, relative chronology as the Babylonian king lists, the astronomy tablets, the official Babylonian chronicles, and other inscriptions.
• NOT PRESENTED YET: The WTS admits that the Babylonians were able to predict eclipses based on various nearly-18-year lunar cycles. If they weren't using an extremely accurate calendar they couldn't have done this. Any currently undocumented gap in the chronology would have completely thrown off their ability to predict eclipses.
• To add "support" for the 20-year gap theory, the WTS quotes from experts about evidence from astronomy and inscriptions and often adds (with no explanation) the WTS chronology in parentheses or brackets in very close context to the quotations from experts and scholarly references and encyclopedias. Sometimes even adding the bracketed WTS chronology within the quotation marks from the expert sources, giving the impression that there is expert scholarly support for WTS chronology.
• To add further "support" for the 20-year gap, the ACTUAL evidence that has been consistently supported and presented for the last 150 plus years by HUNDREDS of other scholars, is often simply called to "Carl Olof Jonsson's evidence" or "COJ's evidence." Because COJ was disfellowshipped for presenting the evidence already supported by hundreds of others, it "cleverly" leads the average JW to believe that SECULAR evidence is apostate evidence. (Except when the WTS uses the same set of evidence for 539.) 
• To add further "support" for the 20-year gap theory, the WTS made use of Rolf Furuli's book in two articles in the Watchtower in 2011  (*** w11 11/1 p. 25) claiming that some of the lunar data on a tablet dated to a specific year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign is a better fit for a different year of his reign, 20 years earlier. (Same idea had been tried for a different reign in a 1969 Watchtower, *** w69 3/15 pp. 185-186)
• Furuli's ideas about this tablet and the WTS focus on it has tended to imply to that this tablet (VAT 4956) is somehow all-important to the secular chronology. But it is only one piece of many that consistently point EXACTLY to the 587 date for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar and EXACTLY to the 586 date for the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar.
• NOT PRESENTED YET: Furuli's ideas about the tablet have been thoroughly debunked and shown to contain numerous amateurish errors. Furthermore the book inadvertently contains evidence against itself which indicates the real strength of the evidence against the WTS use of "607."
• Russell did not directly use the 7 times of Daniel 4 to prove 606 (now 607) and indicated that methods using the 7 times (based more on Leviticus, not Daniel) were inferior methods to the use of "God's dates" (meaning counting forward 40 years from 1874).
• The use of (and definition of) what happened in 1914 changed after 1914, and the predicted fulfillments were moved to 1915, then 1918, then 1925. The Watchtower even temporarily used the expression "End of the Gentile Times in 1915."
• After the slippage and failures of expectations, the only useful prediction that remained was that the "Gentile Times Ended in 1914." But this was not about Jesus' invisible parousia (still 1874) or Jesus' invisible enthronement as King (still 1878) but was an expression directly related to the visible Zionist movement in Palestine.
• After an adjusted emphasis on Zionism AFTER 1914, along with a new emphasis on on Jesus' coming/arriving/returning to his temple for judgment in 1918, Rutherford finally dropped the Zionist connection to the "End of the Gentile Times" around 1929, and 1874/1878 was also soon dropped so that both the parousia and the kingship both were now associated with 1914. And the Gentile nations merely lost their "lease" to rule, even though they were now ruling more powerfully than ever.

21 minutes ago, xero said:

I would like to know if there are any verifiable astronomical events which all agree tie in to any of these chronologies

Yes, there are several.

10 hours ago, George88 said:

I just looked at my library. If the book you reference is the same author as this book, then I'm correct, I'm not interested.

I just looked at "my library," too, and it has exactly the same book with the exact same bar code number from "School of Theology at Claremont"

And in fact, this book, and this book, and this book . . . maybe 1,000 books all have a very similar "School of Theology at Claremont" sticker on them:

It is quite a good library. And I point this out again even though I have already provided links to this library at archive.org a couple of times in this very thread. Many books are available for free to read, or at least free to check out for an hour at a time. But more and more in the last two years, especially, there has been a copyright crackdown and some books can only be read online if you have "print disabilities." I don't know exactly what that means. I guess it's for people allergic to paper or who get some kind of headaches or dizziness or epileptic seizures reading books. I had never heard of it before. 

29 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

After reading through this thread, I thought for sure that AI and MISINFORMATION would be neck and neck.

1 minute ago, George88 said:

For some people, it may appear that way at first, but once you delve into his perspective, it becomes clear that his support for the Jews was rooted in biblical conviction, not political motives.

That I agree with. I don't think his motives were political. I do agree that his motives were based on Biblical convictions.

13 hours ago, George88 said:

The truth is that 1914, regardless of attempts to rationalize modern perspectives on conflicts, is simply another sign that the time of the Gentiles ended in 1914 CE and that the true worship described in the bible as the faithful nation waiting for God's judgment began to rise, without actually using that specific term.

The point of the thread is the self-imposed 20-year gap in the Watchtower's chronology schema. This discussion about 1914 is definitely related even if it looks out of place. I think it's good to see just how far one needs to stretch things to make it look like SOMETHING happened in 1914 that might be visible to the world AND that supposedly gives the WTS bragging rights for having predicted it in advance. 

The only thing we have left of all the predictions that Russell made is not about the War, but simply the expression he used: that it would be "The End of the Gentile Times." To Russell that meant what it said: the complete and final end of the national (gentile) governments. Originally that they would be brought to nothing, and no nations or governments would exist after October 1914 because the ONLY legitimate government on earth after 1914 would be a Jewish government out of Palestine. The timeframe kept slipping and the WTS gave up on that idea completely around 1929/30. 

Now the entire expression "End of the Gentile Times" has drifted so far away from its original meaning that it has nothing to do with Gentiles vs Jews at all. And the Gentiles don't stop ruling after all. There are more Gentile nations now than ever! And they are more powerful now than ever! And the "Jews" are now identified spiritually as the remnant of spiritual Israel, and yet they somehow get trampled and made captives after 1914 (especially 1918-1919). Some are even killed and put in prison, especially in the 1940's.

So all that's left of that expression now is empty: the nations still rule even though their "time" has ended, but they have lost their "lease" to rule, but they aren't even aware of that. 

13 hours ago, George88 said:

Your viewpoint on the conflict between Arabs and Jews, likening it to a biblical prophecy, introduces an interesting perspective.

Just to be clear then. I absolutely do NOT liken the conflict between Arabs and Jews to currently applicable Biblical prophecy. Jesus said "nation would fight against nation" but the end is not yet. In other words not even world wars were a sign of the end. All nations fighting other nations is just another sign that we are living in a world that cannot govern itself and needs Jehovah's Kingdom as the ONLY permanent solution. Conflicts between nations provide an opportunity for Christians to prove their neutrality and to prove that they do not sacrifice lives to the god of this world by supporting wars and divisive politics. But there is no specific spiritual significance to conflicts between natural, physical Jews today and any other nations. Biblical lessons, yes, specific currently applicable prophecy, no, imo.

13 hours ago, George88 said:

especially considering that you have been unable to disprove historical evidence.

And I hope I never try.

13 hours ago, George88 said:

Did he [Russell] examine Zionism, or the situation of the Jews as mentioned in the bible?

Good question. He definitely examined Zionism, repeatedly.

13 hours ago, George88 said:

I don't remember Pastor Russell being involved in politics or supporting the Jewish nation politically.

You should read the following book if you haven't aleady:

As far as Russell's general involvement in politics, I agree it wasn't as steeped as Rutherford's, but it was there. Did you read C.T.Russell's open letter to President McKinley (and openly racist, too) about how Japan should get the Philippine Islands because Filipinos are basically lazy, and the Japanese are industrious?

Anyway, here's the Watchtower's answer to your question in the 1975 Yearbook. The last paragraph is also my position on the prophetic angle you mentioned.

*** yb75 pp. 53-54 Part 1—United States of America ***
Then, again, it might have been New York city’s noted Hippodrome Theatre, where Russell addressed a large Jewish audience on Sunday, October 9, 1910. Regarding that discourse, the New York American of October 10, 1910, said, in part: “The unusual spectacle of 4,000 Hebrews enthusiastically applauding a Gentile preacher, after having listened to a sermon he addressed to them concerning their own religion, was presented at the Hippodrome yesterday afternoon, where Pastor Russell, the famous head of the Brooklyn Tabernacle, conducted a most unusual service.” Scores of rabbis and teachers were present. “There were no preliminaries,” said the newspaper. “Pastor Russell, tall, erect and white-bearded, walked across the stage without introduction, raised his hand, and his double quartette from the Brooklyn Tabernacle sang the hymn, ‘Zion’s Glad Day.’” As reported, eventually the audience ‘warmed up’ to the speaker. Next there was applause, finally enthusiastic response. The discourse over, Russell signaled again and the choir “raised the quaint, foreign-sounding strains of the Zion hymn, ‘Our Hope,’ one of the masterpieces of the eccentric East Side poet Imber.” The effect? This, according to the press account: “The unprecedented incident of Christian voices singing the Jewish anthem came as a tremendous surprise. For a moment the Hebrew auditors could scarcely believe their ears. Then, making sure it was their own hymn, they first cheered and clapped with such ardor that the music was drowned out, and then, with the second verse, joined in by hundreds. At the height of the enthusiasm over the dramatic surprise he prepared, Pastor Russell walked off the stage and the meeting ended with the end of the hymn.”
Times have changed, and so have Christian views of Biblical prophecies once thought to apply to natural Jews in our day. With increased light from God, his people have discerned that such words foretell good things for the spiritual “Israel of God,” Jesus Christ’s anointed followers. (Rom. 9:6-8, 30-33; 11:17-32; Gal. 6:16) But we have been reviewing the early twentieth century, and this is how things were in those days.
 

1 hour ago, George88 said:

It is considered proper etiquette to credit the author when posting content, especially when we lack permission to share a lengthy post that does not qualify as academic use. Failing to do so neglects the author's rights and goes against proper etiquette.

While this is sometimes true, there has been a lot of leeway given to what is considered "academic use" in terms of discussion forums. Especially if we are commenting on the contents. The Watchtower Society, for example, has both won and lost in different cases attempting to keep people from posting and/or discussing copyrighted content.

I think you are aware, however, that it neglects the author's rights even more to post their work without attribution, or to post it in such a way that it makes it appear the author said something they didn't. And this happens more often when the poster assumes something about the contents, but doesn't try to comment on the actual contents or the context. 

1 hour ago, George88 said:

This will help demonstrate that 1914 did not mark the end of the gentile times, especially considering that Palestine was still under the Ottoman Empire.

And then the Gentile British Empire up until about 1947. You can read in old Watchtowers that Rutherford thought Britain was the "disgusting thing standing where it ought not" because they were standing on soil intended for Zionists.

1 hour ago, George88 said:

the Zionist movement has assumed vast proportions to put into a practical shape the proposal for the reorganization of a Jewish state in Palestine. D604 These buds will thrive, but will bear no perfect fruit before October 1914--the full end of Gentile Times.

I assume you know that as an organization we are no longer Zionists. You have claimed to be mostly supportive of the Governing Body, and you are clearly if not rabidly supportive of certain doctrines. Russell's prophecies and predictions about Zionism were copied from fellow Zionist supporters. They were right. As expected by Herzl and others, Zionism did "put into practical shape the proposal for the reorganization of a Jewish state in Palestine." And Russell was right that it would bear no perfect fruit before October 1914 -- the full end of the Gentile Times. 

Obviously has not born perfect fruit yet either. A lot of rotten fruit. Yet October was supposed to be the "FULL END" of Gentile rulership. But Gentile Rulership continues. I think you were making the point that Britain and Turkey were "non-Jew" therefore Gentile nations. Russell said Israel would go on increasing while the other nations crumbled into chaos. At first this would happen in October 1914. Then it would happen between October 1914 and October 1915. Finally it would happen within a few months or perhaps even a few years after. Rutherford still bought into it in spite of his anti-Semitic statements against the Jewish race. He thought Russell's prophecies would come true but just delayed until 1917, then 1918, then 1925.

Have you read Rutherford's 1925 book "Comfort for the Jews?"

At any rate. It's all been dropped, and for reasons that were becoming painfully obvious between 1914 and 1925, officially dropped right around 1930. And no one wanted to go support these predictions again after 1947 either. You are the first Witness I know of that still pushes the Zionist predictions as something to support. 

1 hour ago, George88 said:

What's another name for Turkey? Ottoman Empire. What is Britain considered? Non-Jew.

I agree. These are Gentile nations. And you have provided multiple sources now showing how these Gentile nations ae still subjugating Israel. Israel has been relegated to a puppet state that does the bidding of the United States. It has recently reared its own ugliness and has more openly done exactly what that last book Wistrich's book claimed were "scurrilous accusations" that Israel would never do because they are too morally superior. As an aside, the book also unwittingly  exposed the moral emptiness of nations like the United States and Britain. (Several examples, but just to give one, the book claims that Hamas or like groups say that Israel threatens terrorism with weapons like "depleted uranium" so that Palestinians die more slowly and painfully. The book shows attempts to appeal to the American and Western mindset to make sure it remains on Israel's side by calling such accusations scurrilous, yet the author likely didn't know that the US has supported and manufactured such shells, and the US and Britain recently approved shipments of them to Ukraine to fight Russians.)

There has been no moral high ground in the Israeli-Palestine conflict, historically or currently. I think Russell meant well because he didn't know that Zionists are often radicalized. They are religious fundamentalist and are supporters and exporters of terror, just as is the majority of Israel at the moment.

Israel, currently, is a failed state. If not propped up with billions of dollars and promises of protection by the U.S. its economy and "place" in the region would collapse. 

57 minutes ago, George88 said:

The “Liberation” of Palestine

It's still best practice and discussion forum etiquette to identify the sources you copy from. This makes it easier for readers to recognize the context and perspective of the source. In this case, yes, the source is easy to find as A Lethal Obsession: Anti-Semitism from Antiquity to the Global Jihad, by Robert S. Wistrich · 2010. 

This book is probably more damaging to your premise than the last one you quoted. It is selective and biased, but it is a good source for understanding the hateful, anti-semitic underbelly of several fundamentalist and terrorist anti-Israeli ideologies. It shows how whole, entire nations surrounding Israel are constantly fighting and killing and trampling the rights of Israelis in Palestine, and have been ESPECIALLY SINCE 1914. It picks the worst of the racist rhetoric from Muslim national leaders and militant group leaders not just from Hamas and Hezbollah, etc., but from "respected" national and political and religious leaders in the region. The book shows how a lot of this is echoed, not just in the region, but those taking sides all around the world. 

If one needed a textbook to show how Jerusalem and Israel continue to be trampled on by the nations, especially since 1914, then this would be an ugly place to start, but it makes the point unequivocally. 

1 hour ago, George88 said:

Gain a deeper understanding of the historical origins and significance before attempting to criticize and erroneously assert the ability to debunk them.

That's good advice. I've seen people who think they can do something like a Google search on words like "Israel and 1914" and then immediately interpret a snippet from a returned source as if it supports their opinions. But then, when one reads it carefully, or reads a few sentences of context, they could easily see that it actually debunks their premises. That's why it's always best to try to get a deeper understanding before attempting to criticize and assert a false premise. It's excellent advice for me, and for all of us. Thanks.

1 hour ago, George88 said:

I invite you to take on the responsibility of disproving historical facts.

LOL.

Reminds me of the words of a recent commentator here:

6 hours ago, George88 said:

This seems like quite a demand.

1 hour ago, George88 said:

Remember, you need to disprove ideology such as this.

"that only a small proportion of the Jews either of this country or of the world at large sympathise with the Jews in Palestine who have adopted methods of violence in their struggle against the British Government. I happen to be one of those Jews who sympathises with the Jews in Palestine who are fighting for their national liberation. . . . I believe that the Jews of Palestine are as right to fight as were all the other peoples in history, ancient and modern—including the British in 1914 and 1939—who have found themselves faced with the alternatives of fighting or
submitting to national subjugation and destruction. . . . page 163

I think you just did a pretty good job yourself demolishing your own premise. Recall that your challenge was basically to disprove that the Jews were liberated from Palestine at the "End of the Gentile Times" in 1914:

2 hours ago, George88 said:

If you doubt that the "times of the Gentiles" concluded in 1914 when non-Jews (Gentiles) liberated the Jews from Palestine, then challenge the course of history itself.

So now you quote (without attribution, btw) British Jewry, Zionism, and the Jewish State, 1936-1956, by Stephan E. C. Wendehorst · 2012. By highlighting the words "British in 1914" you have apparently misread the sentence. He is not saying anything about the Jews fighting in Palestine relative to 1914. He is quoting a letter from Ivan Greenberg to the London Times dated May 23, 1947. In it he, Greenberg, is saying that the British fought against British subjugation and British national destruction in WW1 and WW2 (1914 and 1939), therefore the Jews should be given the same opportunity and support to continue fighting, even though much of their fighting was called Jewish "terrorism" in 1947 (and beyond, even up until today). Also, that Jewish persons in Britain still felt pressure from Britain not to side with the Jewish "terrorists" in Palestine for fear of reprisals in Britain. Look more carefully at the entire paragraph or the entire section starting with "Revisionist Zionism" starting on page 156) and you and other readers here will be able to see this:

In other words, the Jews, especially the British Jews, still felt under the subjugation of Britain and could not speak or act freely. There goes your supposed "freedom for the Jews in Palestine at the end of the Gentile Times in 1914." Jews in Palestine were still fighting against the British in 1947. In fact the entire rejuvenation for Zionism was the extreme subjugation of Jews by European nations, especially Germany, over the previous recent years since 1939. This entire book gives details on a perspective only summarized blandly by statements like the following:

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/creation-israel

Although the United States supported the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which favored the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had assured the Arabs in 1945 that the United States would not intervene without consulting both the Jews and the Arabs in that region. The British, who held a colonial mandate for Palestine until May 1948, opposed both the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in Palestine as well as unlimited immigration of Jewish refugees to the region. Great Britain wanted to preserve good relations with the Arabs to protect its vital political and economic interests in Palestine.

Soon after President Truman took office, he appointed several experts to study the Palestinian issue. In the summer of 1946 . . . . Under the resolution, the area of religious significance surrounding Jerusalem would remain a corpus separatum under international control administered by the United Nations.

Although the United States backed Resolution 181, the U.S. Department of State recommended the creation of a United Nations trusteeship with limits on Jewish immigration and a division of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab provinces but not states. The State Department, concerned about the possibility of an increasing Soviet role in the Arab world and the potential for restriction by Arab oil producing nations of oil supplies to the United States, advised against U.S. intervention on behalf of the Jews. 

The details show that there has continued to be trampling and subjugation by other nations over Israel and Jerusalem. History tells us that not just a few, but MILLIONS fell by the sword, and Jerusalem continues to be trampled on by the nations. Israel is little more than a client of the US and sometimes Britain. A supposedly "safe," non-democratic national military base, weapons testers and purchasers of US manufacturers, and an appeasement to religiously fanatic Zionists and Christian fundamentalists.

So tell me again how this was fulfilled in 1914:

(Luke 21:24) . . .And they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.
 

1 hour ago, George88 said:

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I don't know what you mean. Dr. Wiseman didn't say he was confused did he?

No, you are

LOL. Of course, I was confused about why you asked:  . . . 

5 hours ago, George88 said:

What is the reason for Dr. Wiseman's confusion between the Nebuchadnezzar he refers to and the one located in Uruk?

If you didn't think he was confused, I wondered why did you ask about "the reason for Dr. Wiseman's confusion"?

At any rate, I'm not worried about it, and I'm no longer confused. LOL.

1 hour ago, George88 said:

So, what you're suggesting is that we should question the works of Dr. Wiseman, AK Grayson, Furuli, and all modern scholars. I'm glad you're in agreement.

Good. Absolutely. Question them all. Verify what you can directly from evidence or photos of the evidence. (I took hundreds of my own photos in London, Paris, and Berlin.) Get multiple translations. You can even go so far as to look up at least some of the cuneiform for yourself if it bears on some questionable or controversial difference of opinion in translation. And it's a lot easier than most people think to double-check the readings on some of the astronomical tablets if you work from trusted translations. And for the record, I have no problem with the translations that Furuli used, but then, he did not offer any of his own anyway, but copied the translations provided by others prior to his work. 

14 minutes ago, George88 said:

If you doubt that the "times of the Gentiles" concluded in 1914 when non-Jews (Gentiles) liberated the Jews from Palestine, then challenge the course of history itself.

I'll gladly take the challenge. See if you (or anyone you know) can prove that the Jews were liberated from Palestine in 1914. Done.

For good measure, also see if you (or anyone you know) can prove that no Jew "fell by the edge of the sword" at the behest of any nation after 1914. 

19 minutes ago, George88 said:

So far, we have World War 1 occurring unexpectedly, even though it was mentioned approximately 40 years prior as a sign of the end of the "gentile times."

Decades prior to WW 1, Russell said that 1914 would be bringing an END to the time of trouble not the beginning. It was printed in Studies in the Scriptures and in the Watchtower magazine.

*** "Can it be Delayed Until 1914?", Zion's Watch Tower, July 15, 1894. ***

We see no reason for changing the figures—nor could we change them if we would, They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of the trouble.

So he predicted the OPPOSITE of World War! What kind of World War is the END of a time of trouble and not the BEGINNING of a time of trouble?

And that mistaken prediction was only 20 years prior to 1914, not 40. It wasn't until the big prophetic errors that Russell made around 1904, 10 years prior, that Russell also decided the entire harvest period would need to be a complete 40 years of relative peace from 1874 to 1914 to preach the gospel, and THEN the world's institutions and all kingdoms would collapse in October 1914 or within a few months afterwards. 

Of course, Rutherford moved that 40-year "harvest' that was once 1874 to 1914, and moved it to 1878 to 1918.

*** "The Concluding Work of the Harvest", The Watch Tower, October 1, 1917, pg 6148-6149. ***

"and the evidence is very conclusive that it is true, then we have only a few months in which to labor before the great night settles down when no man can work."

*** The Finished Mystery. Studies in the Scriptures. Vol. 7: International Bible Students Association. 1917 ***

In one short year, 1917–1918, the vast and complicated system of sectarianism reaches its zenith of power, only to be suddenly dashed into oblivion . . . . One large part of the adherents of ecclesiasticism will die from pestilence and famine.

22 minutes ago, George88 said:

Then this means you lack understanding in language and are using something that is not there as an excuse, as usual. However, I agree, that Dr. Wiseman isn't clouding the issue; you are.

I can only assume that these vague, unspecified accusations are some kind of response to the fact that you had misread Wiseman to say that this other Nebuchadnezzar was also Nabopolassar's son and therefore Nebuchadnezzar's brother. If so, I apologize for pointing out the mistake. We can move on, I hope. 

2 hours ago, George88 said:

What is the reason for Dr. Wiseman's confusion between the Nebuchadnezzar he refers to and the one located in Uruk?

I don't know what you mean. Dr. Wiseman didn't say he was confused did he?

2 hours ago, George88 said:

Are you insinuating that the mistakes pointed out in past claims by scholars should discredit their credibility?

Yes. Of course it's true that mistakes pointed out in "past claims by scholars" should discredit the credibility of those scholars who made those past claims. That's always true that mistakes can discredit credibility, but not always.

Your question is more likely asking about when current scholars point out mistakes from the past. In that case, does it discredit the credibility of those current scholars when pointing out those past mistakes by others (such as scribes from 2,500 years ago, or even other scholars from 10 to 1,000 years ago). And if that's the question then it does not necessarily discredit their own credibility, unless of course, they are pointing out irrelevant mistakes needlessly, or especially if they are merely replacing those past mistakes with their own current mistakes.

But I don't see Dr Wiseman doing anything wrong here, and he does not claim there were any scribal mistakes in this context. He does mention some mistakes made by some past scholars but nothing substantial to this discussion. 

So my take on this is: Always question, always be skeptical and verify as best we can. Never trust our own understanding either. All of us can be wrong. All of us fall short. The purpose of discussion is to look for ways in which I might be wrong so that I can correct my wrong opinions.

3 hours ago, George88 said:

Are you suggesting that only illogical non-scholars should be deemed trustworthy? This seems like quite a demand.

Yes. Of course, see how that works out for you!! LOL. Only trust illogical unstrustworthy non-scholars, if you wish. LOL. 

In reality, you should not put TOO much trust in either non-scholars or scholars either. Evidence that you can see for yourself should be looked at and validated yourself as much as possible. A lot of evidence that people think is too difficult to check out for themselves is extremely simple and we have nothing to be afraid of. As Watchtower publications have long suggested for other contexts:

*** tr chap. 2 p. 13 par. 5 ***
We need to examine, not only what we personally believe, but also what is taught by any . . .  are they based on the traditions of men? If we are lovers of the truth, there is nothing to fear from such an examination. 
 

2 hours ago, George88 said:

The mention of Nebuchadnezzar I is irrelevant to this period. So, you shouldn't cloud the issue.

I was referring to what Wiseman said about Nebuchadnezzar I in the same context where he mentioned the brother of the governor. It had to do with other people named Nebuchadnezzar. I didn't think he was clouding the issue. I thought he was making a good point.