JW Insider

True, I only meant that if you agree we are are now living in a time near Armageddon that your statements would apply at a time near Armageddon. Not intending to read into it anything more specific, but wondering just how close to Armageddon your words might still apply (for some). The "great crowd which no man was able to number" were to become "spirit creatures" in heaven. The 144,000 were "more than conquerors" but the "great crowd" (great multitude) were also conquerors, yet unworthy to become "more than conquerors." Page 297 of "What Pastor Russell said" includes the question and his answer: Does the Great Company receive life direct from God on the spirit plane? Answer -- Yes, they receive life direct in that they have been begotten of the Holy Spirit, and when they are begotten they are just the same way as the little flock, because we are called in the one hope of our calling. They do not make their calling and election sure, but not being worthy of second death, they therefore receive life on the spirit plane." I don't know how we would know Russell's "first inclination" even if you are right. One of the very first issues of the Watch Tower that Russell published included the following, in November 1880, p.4 (R156): As the exemption from the seven last plagues in Goshen preceded the final deliverance from Egypt, so it seems that the "sea of glass" condition which is "mingled with fire" precedes the final entering of the temple in heaven of this "great multitude" of victors. And one of the last issues of the Watch Tower that he published, February 1916, page 75-76 states virtually the same thing. Here, then, we see the difference between two classes in the Church, all of whom are spirit-begotten, all of whom are called with the same High Calling . . . But although they cannot be recognized as the Bride class, we praise God for His mercy in indicating that they all belong to the company of virgins, the Bride's companions who follow after her. . . . The water of life which Jesus will give the second class will be everlasting life on the spirit plane like unto the angels. . . . Rutherford repeated this same position about the "great crowd" (great multitude; great company) going to heaven up until at least 1932.

I'm sure you are correct. And speaking of the time near Armageddon as a literal decision point might be very appropriate, too. But none of us knows exactly when that final decision point would be for those who do not yet know better. Jesus is given authority to judge the heart, and we might wonder why Jesus said what he did about those in Sodom. (See the comment about Abraham and Sodom from @Melinda Mills.) He said that if those persons in Sodom had seen the miraculous signs that Jesus was then giving persons the opportunity to see, that those men in Sodom would have repented. Jesus was here claiming that he could judge the heart condition of the men of Sodom. Why? Around Armageddon, which could be a literal time for that final "decision point" we envision that there will be clear signs from heaven. Will any persons at this time, who see these signs from heaven, have a heart condition like those persons in Sodom, who would have repented? Does this have any meaning to the one who judges the hearts? The same could go for the billions of unrighteous who are expected to be resurrected. Our teaching about them says that many of these will be kept around and remain alive for 1,000 more years and then finally destroyed at the end of that 1,000 years. But won't many of these billions of unrighteous persons see the obvious signs from heaven that are transforming the earth during this time? If a person sees this and still doesn't want it, their heart condition is clear. Many persons, we expect, will be so steeped in their wicked lifestyle at Armageddon that they will prove their inability to repent and deserve a judgment of eternal death. They receive this judgment because Jehovah and Jesus, righteous judges who can read the heart, will make that judgment -- knowing in advance how they would react even if offered an opportunity for 1,000 years of signs from heaven. But some of the billions who are resurrected will be allowed to stick around for up to 1,000 years, even though it is therefore clear that they too could have been judged again almost immediately upon resurrection, long before they get destroyed at the end of the 1,000 years. If our view of the 1,000 years is right, there is some other reason that they are treated differently or even judged by a somewhat different set of criteria. This is not something for us to worry about now. Just as it is not something for us to try to judge in place of Jehovah. Historically, C.T.Russell envisioned all the millions or even billions of Christians going to heaven, and only 144,000 of them chosen to be Christ's bride. But he also expected about 20 billion "worldly" non-Christians to stay on earth through resurrection or survival where, over the years, they would be transformed into perfect subjects of God's kingdom. Russell, as you know, sometimes said things that made people believe he supported nearly a "universal salvation." Rutherford, too, as part of the argument for "Millions" of "worldly" people then living being able to survive Armageddon into God's new world, also saw post-Armageddon as a time of transforming the minds of billions of persons who would see these signs from heaven and repent. Rutherford, in the "Millions" campaign, argued that a person could hardly be expected to want to go back to their "worldly" wicked ways once he has seen this transformation to paradise in the Millennium. Even with the scriptures you quoted, we don't know the final time when you could say of these persons, "but that is what some of you were." It's also clear that many have already had opportunity to transform their lives based on knowledge of God and Christ and have already had opportunity to present themselves as either "sheep" or "goats."

At airports, three times now, I have been caught by the TSA at airport security with several ounces in my possession. Each time they let me go, but it was confiscated. Embarrassing.

Yes. Some Witnesses would take that literally. But in the last couple of decades, there has been a toning down of the talk about who will be destroyed and who will survive. JWs expect to survive as a people, but there has been a lot more talk about Jehovah's justice and how we can't predict just how many others will survive, based upon their circumstances, age, mental capacity, opportunities to know about true Christianity, or even to know about Christianity in general. Witnesses rarely say they will be the only ones to survive Armageddon. We are not the judges. We don't know if thousands of other persons will survive, or millions, or even billions. Jonah, we recall, thought he was calling down destruction on the capital of a world empire, in effect, therefore, the entire world -- and for a while he was disappointed when Jehovah saved all the people he expected would die. From another perspective, #3 in that list was Armageddon, which we believe will be an obvious display of Jehovah's purposeful and selective judgments through his chosen King and Commander, Christ Jesus. This will not simply be a completely chaotic time of destruction. A scenario similar to the one Witnesses envision is that Gog/Magog will attack, and Jehovah will selectively protect the persons he wishes to protect. Many persons will no doubt witness such spectacles of Jehovah's selective judgments, and realize they are not random, but purposeful. This would have to be interpreted as a true and spectacular judgment message from heaven. That means that, in effect, EVERYBODY who witnesses Jehovah's judgments will now be one of Jehovah's witnesses at this point, even prior to the spectacular and miraculous resurrection of persons brought back from just recently and long ago, with their memories intact. The newly resurrected, too, therefore, become witnesses of Jehovah's judgments, power, purpose. You will have to ask other Witnesses if they anticipate God's judgments working out differently. For me, this is a personal opinion but it can still fit the range of variations possible from current Witness teachings. It might have been difficult to allow for such variation even 25 years ago.

The way we understand it is a way that makes "simple" sense when we have already accepted the entire context of all that we aleady teach about the end-times. By end-times we can start from the the Russell-related messenger of the late 1800's preparing the way, and up to 1914 when Jesus is crowned king, along with a 1914 battle where Satan and his demons are released for a short time to wreak havoc on the earth and persecute God's people, along with a "first resurrection" that we say might have begun around 1918 or at least probably somewhere between 1914 and 1935. So it is due in large part to accepting these beliefs about the "recent" past, that we believe the next things that will happen must include the following, in this order: Great Tribulation Gog of Magog surround God's people to attack (before the 1,000 year reign) Armageddon Destruction of Gog of Magog (before the thousand year reign) Binding of Satan and his demons The 1,000 Year Reign Release of Satan (at the end of the 1000 years) Gog and Magog surround God's people to attack (at the end of the 1,000 years) Destruction of Gog and Magog (at the end of the 1,000 years) Satan and demons thrown into lake of fire This is spelled out in text and in "charts" here: *** w15 5/15 p. 29 Questions From Readers *** https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20150515/gog-of-magog/ So from the viewpoint of someone who has already accepted a different solution to the order of these events, our "simple" solution, might seem rather confusing. I'm not suggesting that we have it completely wrong, or that we should adopt a completely different solution. But I know that many persons might be confused as to why we (or the Bible) speak of Gog/Magog poised to attack God's people twice, and even more confusingly, why Gog/Magog is destroyed twice. One of the alternate solutions even seems to remove the need to add parentheses to a portion of the verse in Revelation 20:5, as if it's an interruption to the order of events. Those parentheses are not in any of the original manuscripts of the Bible, so someone might wonder if it can make sense without seeing them as an interruption. I don't think most of these other solutions are any more convincing than our own. Ours has a couple flaws, but so do some of the other solutions in my opinion. I'd be interested in Shiwiii's opinion on this whole end-times scenario to see if it can be made to fit any better.

I also don't think flippant reporters who make fun of cats and dogs on the same page that reports deaths: "Hundreds of dogs and cats defy mandatory evacuation order" along with Florence leaves at least 9 dead further down the page.

You are a thinking person. I'm sure that spending time in prison for reasons of conscience or religion will do that to you. I don't believe that Jehovah will forget the good works of all persons and religious persuasions. And I'm not one who believes we as Witnesses are handling every possible Christian ministry in the world that helps attract persons to Christianity. We are Christians, and we try to be the best we know how to be. We handle a particular ministry of evangelizing and teaching spreading knowledge and appreciation of the Bible, and of doing good for one another, especially those related to us in the faith, and we look for others who will share our particular faith and hope (paradise earth, etc.). Others may handle some of the charitable ministries in a better way, we constantly try to improve our teaching ministry. This takes nothing away from Albert Barnes or Matthew Henry or Tyndale or Wycliffe etc, who were key players in the past, and I would not doubt that there are many individuals who excel at Christian teaching today, too. As you know the Watchtower often quotes from scholars and experts in many fields, including history, theology and Biblical studies, manuscripts, ancient languages, etc.

True. That's when we prefer to invoke Galatians 6:10: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1999442#h=1 Love Toward Those ‘Related in the Faith’ GENUINE Christians have a familylike bond among themselves. Indeed, since the first century C.E., they have referred to one another as “brother” and “sister.” (Mark 3:31-35; Philemon 1, 2) These are not just words; they constitute a description of how worshipers of God feel about one another. (Compare 1 John 4:7, 8.) Jesus said: “By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.”—John 13:35. Such love was evident in July 1997 when a prolonged drought was followed by torrential rains and flooding in Chile. Suddenly, many were in need of food, clothing, and other items. In disaster situations, Jehovah’s Witnesses strive to follow Paul’s admonition to the Galatians: “Really, then, as long as we have time favorable for it, let us work what is good toward all, but especially toward those related to us in the faith.”—Galatians 6:10.

Even if everything we taught doctrinally was incomplete or tainted with some error, I could still find truth in this statement just quoted. You can find waters of truth at your local Kingdom Hall, because there are people of varying backgrounds and age and former beliefs who have come together to learn and be motivated by Christian activity and a Christian lifestyle. It's the "heart" (desires/motivation) of the individuals that makes it pure. Morally, we are a very clean people, and we give morality a very high priority. There is a kind of joy in the oneness of purpose of the worldwide association of brothers and sisters. Racism and ageism is reduced to a minimum. Anyone would be willing to help out any other one. We are built up and encouraged by the experiences of others. In dire circumstances, we know we will be offering extra support to our brothers, and we can expect support from our brothers. We have come very close to recreating the first-century Christianity (even with its expectation flaws) in the twenty-first century. Of course, I know there are specific exceptions here and there to all the good things we could say about Witnesses in general. And if we have been in other churches, religions or ideological associations, then we probably know that many of the things we cherish about the worldwide brotherhood are available even in a secular social club or band of brothers in an army platoon. But I think ours can go a little wider and deeper, meaning that we have support in a wider array of life situations and circumstances. And as to "depth," ideally, we should be willing to protect one another, or even give our life for one another as if we were all members of the same literal family. As to doctrines, 85% or more appear absolutely correct to me. We still thirst for Bible knowledge from trusted sources. We assemble not just for the association, but because we hope to learn something new or be fortified anew by something we have nearly forgotten. But it's true we are often ready to believe all things to the point of excessive gullibility. Yet, if it were really true that the negative/positive ratio were 85%-15% then we'd be 'of all men most to be pitied.' But even on a day when I'm most ready to "make sure of all things," I can still run through one of the most recent Watchtowers and find very little that moves the needle on my "Beroean" sensors. I think it's our duty to point out where something seems unreasonable to us (or if the "food" might be spoiled now and then) but this should have almost no effect on our relationship with our brothers and sisters. I'd love to see us remove what appears to be some of the more obvious errors from our doctrine, and that's my focus on this forum of course. We don't have that ability to discuss on jw.org or in the congregation.

In my opinion it smacks of the kind of legalism that Paul railed against. I have even heard it explained as a perceived need to treat fellow workers as children who are expected to go wildly crazy or just lazy if they aren't given a set of legalistic rules to follow. Here is how Franz/Knorr put it in the July 1, 1943 Watchtower (p.205), just months after Rutherford died: Now, the apostle says, Jehovah speaks to us through his Son. (Heb. 1: 1, 2) The Son has returned as King; he has come to his temple. He has appointed his "faithful and wise servant", who is his visible mouthpiece, and says to those who are privileged to represent him upon the earth, "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations" ... These expressions of God's will by his King and through his established agency constitute his law or rule of action for the "faithful and wise servant" and for their goodwill companions today... The Lord breaks down our organization instructions further . . . . He says, 'Let us assign the field, the world, to special pioneers, regular pioneers and companies of Jehovah's witnesses. . . . He [the Lord] says the requirements for special pioneers shall be 175 hours and 50 back-calls per month, which should develop into a reasonable number of studies; and for regular pioneers 150 hours and as many back-calls and studies as can be properly developed during that time. And for company publishers he says, 'Let us make a quota of 60 hours and 12 back-calls and at least one study a week for each publisher.' These directions come to us from the Lord through his established agency directing what is required of us; . . . This expression of the Lord's will should be the end of all controversy. It is for your good that these requirements are made; for thereby you are enabled to prove your integrity and magnify the Lord's name. These directions from the Lord come to us as individuals and as collective units called "companies". ... They are to carry on all the forms of magazine work in that assignment. ... ... The Lord through his "faithful and wise servant" now states to us, "Let us cover our territory four times in six months." That becomes our organization instructions and has the same binding force on us that his statement to the Logos had when he said, ''Let us make man in our image." It is our duty to accept this additional instruction and obey it.

In my last post I wanted to make it clear that there is more than one way to set up a kind of equivalence so that one might be seen as the near or practical equivalent of the Lord himself. I ended up mixing up all these methods into the examples I used in the last post, rather then itemize them clearly. One way is to just claim that you represent the Lord, and make it clear that "evil" will be called down upon those who disagree. Another way is to allow others to say outright that if anyone goes against yourself (Rutherford, Russell, Governing Body, Pope, etc) that they have gone against the Lord. Another is to take the specific things that have been attributed to yourself and repeating the point that it was actually the Lord who did these things. (Rutherford made getting rid of the elder arrangement a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. He made the false doctrine of the higher authorities a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. He and later writers both claimed that it was Jehovah who "caused" the Millions/1925 campaign. et cetera.) Also, I didn't put specific quotes (evidence) of the cases where very specific rules put into place by Rutherford and later by F.Franz (N.Knorr) were attributed to the Lord. In the past I already shared some of the ones about Rutherford arguing that they should still keep selling the remaining stocks of obsolete books from Russell with "campaigns" even up to about 1933. I'll point back to that post if anyone cares to see it again. For some reason, more recent versions of WTS history have tried to place this time back in 1927: *** ka chap. 17 p. 347 par. 33 The “Slave” Who Lived to See the “Sign” *** Later in the year 1927 any remaining stocks of the six volumes of Studies in the Scriptures by Russell and of The Finished Mystery were disposed of among the public. In the next post I'll include at least one of the quotes about just how strictly we were to hold to the idea that the Society speaks for the Lord.

Yes. Not worth an argument. I would gladly admit that I [evidently] use the terms a bit differently than you, and that there can be a close relationship between the two terms. I skipped the synonyms since those are not intended to be equivalent definitions. I can also see that those two definitions you provided might not be saying anything different from the point I was making. I take that above definition of "proof" to mean that proof is not the same as evidence, but it is only the evidence that establishes a fact or the truth of a statement. I went to OED and must admit that there was nothing at all wrong about the way you used the word, and therefore I'm sorry I overreacted on that point. Although I never found the word "proof" in any of the current definitions of evidence, until I got to a special definition #5, I did see that the word "proof" can sometimes be synonomous with evidence. (Also, even the 5th definition of "evidence" is the idea of facts tending to prove.) EVIDENCE I. 1.I.1 The quality or condition of being evident; clearness, evidentness. b.I.1.b in evidence [after F. en évidence]: actually present; prominent, conspicuous. †2.I.2 Manifestation; display. Obs. II.II That which manifests or makes evident. 3.II.3 An appearance from which inferences may be drawn; an indication, mark, sign, token, trace. Also †to take evidence: to prognosticate. to bear, give evidence: to afford indications. b.II.3.b In religious language: Signs or tokens of personal salvation. †4.II.4 Example, instance (frequent in Gower). Also, to take (an) evidence. Obs. 5.II.5 Ground for belief; testimony or facts tending to prove or disprove any conclusion. But the definition of "proof" in the OED was more generous to your view, allowing even contributing evidence to be called proof: PROOF Signification. I.B.I From prove v. in the sense of making good, or showing to be true. 1. a.B.I.1.a That which makes good or proves a statement; evidence sufficient (or contributing) to establish a fact or produce belief in the certainty of something. †to make proof: to have weight as evidence (obs.). 2.B.I.2 The action, process, or fact of proving, or establishing the truth of, a statement; the action of evidence in convincing the mind; demonstration. 4. a.B.II.4.a The action or an act of testing or making trial of anything, or the condition of being tried; test, trial, experiment; examination, probation; assay. Often in phrases to bring, put, set, etc. (something) in, on, to (the, †a) proof. ------------------- Also, I mentioned that Rutherford sometimes wrote of the idea in the way I was using it: that it should take multiple instances of good, solid evidence before we can truly say we have proof. But Rutherford didn't always use it this way either. But I still think it's clear that Rutherford reserved the word "proof" for his own idea of "definiteness" and strength of the evidence. For example, Rutherford made several statements to the same effect as this one about the year 1799 in the book: "The Harp of God" (1921) "Twelve-hundred sixty years from A.D. 539 brings us to 1799--another proof that 1799 definitely marks the beginning of 'the time of the end." (p.230)

I think you might be confusing "evidence" and "proof." Rutherford, in more than one article, showed he knew the difference. He knew that evidence was not proof. But he was anxious to use this idea of the ability to draw stronger and stronger conclusions if a "second witness" and "third witness" to his idea were available. The Biblical idea of requiring a second witness, and the idea that a three-fold cord cannot be broken were utilized to make evidence seem like the equivalent of proof. Of course, most of these multiple evidences had actually been bent a bit to support each other. Today, it's easy to go back and see "confirmation bias" in his sloppy reasoning. But he had another means of covering over the weaknesses of his evidence which had probably helped him to convince himself that he was right. And it would definitely draw over many of the persons who had remained hold-outs on the basis of unconvincing evidence. This was the fact that his "cause" (conclusion) was considered righteous and he had therefore associated his conclusion with faith. He was able to use "faith" in God's promises as the final glue to hold his weak "cord(s)" together, and hide its flaws, even from himself. This worked for Bible Students who followed him after Russell because they were anxious to believe that these men and their "Society" represented "the Lord." Rutherford had already been accepting of the idea that he had been made the equivalent of the "Lord." This is the easiest explanation to me as to why so many people would merely accept the flimsy evidence without questioning. You don't question the Lord! Some later examples might show you what I mean. *** w74 11/1 p. 651 How Would You Treat an Ambassador? *** The question is, How does the individual treat a visible representative of Christ who has clearly shown that he truly represents Christ? *** w55 6/1 p. 333 Part 11—Restoration of Theocratic Organization *** [quoting from 1938] . . . the following was the resolution suggested to and adopted by all congregations who desired to be welded together under the Society’s theocratic leadership: “We, the company of God’s people taken out for his name, and now at ___________, recognize that God’s government is a pure theocracy and that Christ Jesus is at the temple and in full charge and control of the visible organization of Jehovah, as well as the invisible, and that ‘THE SOCIETY’ is the visible representative of the Lord on earth, and we therefore request ‘The Society’ to organize this company for service and to appoint the various servants thereof, so that all of us may work together in peace, righteousness, harmony and complete unity. We attach hereto a list of names of persons in this company that to us appear more fully mature and who therefore appear to be best suited to fill the respective positions designated for service.” Hints of the impact of this idea are found in the kind of reasoning we still use today, even when something turns out to be wrong. For example. The idea was that the Lord [Jehovah] came to his temple in 33 CE, through Jesus and his message. Then the Lord came to his temple again in 1918. *** w55 11/15 pp. 692-693 par. 15 “Jehovah Is in His Holy Temple” *** Since the preparatory messenger had come, it was therefore in Jesus’ day that the Lord Jehovah was to come suddenly to the temple . . . He [Jesus] came as the visible representative of the Lord Jehovah, and by putting his spirit on Jesus Jehovah was with him in coming to that temple at Jerusalem in 33 (A.D.). . . . Has the Lord Jehovah now come to his spiritual temple with his Angel of the covenant? Christendom says No! . . . Down here Jesus came and began the cleansing in the spring of 1918 three and a half years after the birth of God’s kingdom in 1914 and the heavenly enthronement of Jesus Christ as reigning King then. Let Christendom deny that 1918 is the date of the Lord Jehovah’s sudden coming to his spiritual temple as the God of judgment, accompanied by his Angel of the covenant Jesus Christ. . . . Jehovah caused to be preached from 1918 onward the startling public message “Millions Now Living Will Never Die,” and in 1923 he provided the interpretation of “the parable of the sheep and the goats.” The foundation of this idea is good: that Jesus would inspect his congregation and act according to good judgment, and that his true followers would be tested and disciplined in order to meet the challenges of the last days. But notice how the idea that the Society is the representative of the Lord becomes a reason not to question even the specific dates assigned to such a doctrine, which would otherwise be a healthful teaching. Wicked, unfaithful Christendom denies the 1918 date and therefore they come under the judgment of Jehovah. It was Jehovah who caused the preaching of what we now know to be a false prophecy. So how could anyone have questioned a false prophecy or false doctrine under this kind of bullying pressure and name-calling? As it turns out, of course, just a couple of years ago the Society finally dropped the idea that Jesus had come to his temple for a specific judgment in 1918. For that matter, the interpretation that Jehovah provided for the "the sheep and the goats" has also changed. There seems to have been an abuse of authority here that could be tied to the idea of "beating one's fellow slaves" as @Anna mentioned recently. I think we have become much more sophisticated in our wording and presentation of this same idea, but the same idea has not changed much. Here are just a few small examples of how much "less sophisticated" it was in Rutherford's time. Those Bible Students who publicly disagreed with Rutherford were branded "the evil slave" class. Yet, we today also find ourselves disagreeing with Rutherford on the pages of the same Watchtower. In Rutherford's day they published a book in 1917 that claimed that Russell was "Christ's representative in the world, the sole steward of the 'meat in due season.'" They kept selling that book until the early 1930's until "remaining stocks" were depleted. When Bible Students and even the newly named, "Jehovah's witnesses" asked if they should really be spreading false information among the unsuspecting public, Rutherford got angry, and the Bulletin (later, Our Kingdom Ministry) threatened the publishers by saying that if they went against Rutherford they were going against the Lord. But even less controversial issues were common. When the goals and quotas of special pioneers, regular pioneers and publishers were set, it was stated that these quotas were 'what the Lord wants.' Basically, if the Lord says pioneers need to get 100 hours a month, then, Who are we to go against the Lord? Even if we have become more sophisticated in our methods of producing this kind of theocratic world view, I see a danger in this. I think you can see it too.

In my last post I called it a booklet, instead of a book because I've only seen it in soft-cover. And because it was 128 pages long and 20 cents, this was a little smaller than the format they usually called a book. I do believe that some "diversionary" games have been played with this, since we can't make it go away. I don't think it started out in any sinister way, but there have been some real problems in the methods used to minimize it. There are a lot of parallels between 1925 and 1975, which might seem disturbing if looked at too closely, but the real problem, I think is that the conditions at the beginning of the post 1914 era were of "Biblical proportions" in the sense of how the world probably surprised itself at the viciousness and scope of the war, and famine and pestilence were also of "Biblical proportions" especially the Spanish Influenza. The 1975 era required a bit more propaganda to create the necessary levels of fear to make it seem to be of "Biblical proportions" but as G.R. pointed out, we weren't creating that propaganda, we were just collecting all doomsday propaganda that fit our assumed timetable. We were collecting it because it fit other pieces of the puzzle, like the generation of people who would not pass away, and who were around 15 in 1914, making them 90 years old in 1975. But these supposedly "perfect storms" of conditions can't work without someone in authority driving it. Especially not with the training of Bible Student and Witness mentality. We are sheep. We can be told how to feel, what to fear, when to hide, when to come out and be bold. In the case of 1925 it took a man who was willing to drive the point home over and over again that these were the strongest evidences that the Bible Students would ever see about anything like this. And by a man who needed to understand evidence and proof for his previous livelihood as an attorney. Yet this same man was willing to forego all real evidence for the sloppiest kind of thinking: The basic idea was that there would be a "Great Jubilee" and -- without any Biblical support -- he agreed that 70 sounded like a good number of 50-year jubilees to make a "Great Jubilee." 70 times 50 is 3,500, so all he needed was to agree to a significant starting point that was about 3,500 years earlier and which would end a few years after the current year. After 1914 failed, Bible Students (in 1916) were already looking at the idea (based on an assumed but flimsy chronology) that the previous jubilee had ended around 1875, and they figured that the next one was 1925. Russell didn't like the idea, but it had already been offered as a question for him. This was because if they started it at one of the popular (but flimsy) dates for the entrance of Israel into the Promised Land, then 3,500 years supposedly ended in 1925. This was how flimsy and unbiblical the actual calculation was for 1925. Of course, they also had the supposed "double" punishment for Israel's sins which they took to mean that the number of years would be duplicated for the time of spiritual Israel. They found some supposed historical dates for the final desolation of Judea in 73 C.E. based on Eusebius and Josephus, and found a way to make this look significant (33 + 40) and then used this and some vague notions about how much had happened already since 1914: Jewish Zionism, Spanish Flu, Russian Revolution, etc.

Yes, the Millions campaign was the 1925 campaign. The 1918 sermon was based on the 1925 date as found in the 1917 book, "The Finished Mystery." The "canvas" offer for that book, remember, only required that people stay alive until 1925 in order to be among the "millions" who would never die. By, 1920, the entire talk was published and expanded upon a bit, in the booklet "Millions Now Living Will Never Die." They would never die because millions of people alive in 1918 would still be alive in 1925. By 1921, the new book, "The Harp of God" came out, which also used the 1925 promises as a theme. In fact, note what is embossed on early covers of that famous book. If it's hard to read, it's repeated on the inside title page. "Proof Conclusive that Millions now Living will never Die." (This was removed in the 1928, 2nd edition.) It was advertised in newspapers with the year printed in the advertisement. The following example from April 1921, saying: "to apply it to ourselves requires positive knowledge based upon indisputable evidence. Thousands of profound Bible scholars can prove from Bible prophecies which have been fulfiled during the last 5 years that those living until the year 1925 can live forever if they choose to do so." ". . . [H]ear and consider definite Scriptural proof for this proclamation."

Nothing needed to be done to explain it away for nearly 100 years, because there was still a chance within the first 100 years, that the prophecy might have come true. (At least the prophecy made in the title of the talk might still have come true, even if almost all the other details of the prophecy and its foundation had still failed.) And after 100 years any "scandal" over it is long past, and could easily be dismissed with favorite phrases like "the light gets brighter." The statement made in March 1918 ("Millions now living will never die.") has only recently become a truly "false" prophecy in that a fulfillment of sorts was still possible up until a couple years ago. Technically, you would need at least 2 million persons to make the plural "millions" part come true, and we would evidently have needed Armageddon to come sometime around 2016 in order for 2 million 98+ year-olds to still be alive, who had just born in March 1918. Perhaps, some worldwide estimates of the number of 99+ year-olds in 2017 could have been around to potentially survive Armageddon. As of now in late 2018, however, there would have to be 2 million 100.5-year-olds, going on 101 in the next few months. According to average best estimates there are now far less than 1 million 100-year-olds. In fact, barely over 500,000 as seen in the PEW chart that Google returns if you ask "how many centenarians are currently alive in the whole world." Another point that would make it even more difficult to be fulfilled would be the fact that back then these millions were going to be unbaptized, worldly people who would simply begin "not to die" as of 1925 and thereafter. It did not refer to the great crowd of Revelation 7. It referred to people of all religions and non-believers who would survive Armageddon because it was Jehovah's purpose, as stated at the time, to save almost everyone through Armageddon into a time when they would simply stop dying. Remember that the "great crowd" of Revelation 7 were still going to heaven along with the 144,000 kings and priests, according to Russell's and Rutherford's teachings. The only difference between the 144,000 in heaven and the great crowd in heaven is that the great crowd were not of the "higher" heavenly calling and were not part of Christ's Bride. By normally obscuring this fact, and wrongly claiming that the "millions" were the equivalent of the "great crowd,"Â the Watch Tower publications have been able to just "chalk up" the prophecy to over-optimism in thinking so many would respond to the Bible Students in such a quick period of time after 1918. It is very rare for the Watch Tower publications to admit how closely this prophecy was tied to the year 1925. In other words, when the great tribulation does come in the next few years, as expected, it will only have been a few years off. Understanding the original prophecy in its full context is a good idea, in order to understand how and why the references to it have evolved over time. Maybe in another thread?

That's not really the story, in my opinion. The Watchtower has often admitted that the title of the talk used the word "May" in February 1918, but that it was changed to "Will" in March 1918, and it never changed back. Looking at over 200 references to it in more recent decades, there were some time periods when the talk was referred to only with "May" and no reference to "Will" was given. This is likely what JTR refers to, but it wasn't as blatant as he implies. Overall, in recent decades, there were over 200 recent references to it as "Will" and only about 20 references to it as "May." The Proclaimers book gives a fairly accurate account of the talk, even if the discussion and impact of the talk and prophecy appears purposely minimized.

@AllenSmith34, In just the last couple days, in my opinion, the following aliases have all been juggled by the same person. There may have been others but these are the ones that have interacted with posts I have been reading. @DespicableME @Malum Intellectus @Alithís Gnosis @Grey Reformer In some of the recent threads, some of these aliases have only been used for up-voting and down-voting. And no, All, I did not hack your account to expose this. Except for Gray Reformer, which didn't show up until August 7, the first three just mentioned were all created by you in the same month, December 2017, and I knew all of them to be you within minutes. Anyone here who was alert to the way they were used immediately after they appeared, and who watched the "Who's Online" list, would have known this just by watching carefully. From now on, as you apparently know, you can mask some of the exposure by keeping several of your aliases logged in at the same time by using multiple computers and/or by using multiple browsers on the same computer. There are several different popular browsers that can all be used simultaneously, and each can be logged in to a different alias account. The downside to that is that you might find it necessary to set up a new set of names since about two dozen of your aliases are already fairly well-known. Again, these ideas are based on opinion and coincidences; you do not have to worry that anyone has hacked your account(s) to expose these things.

True. (Although I expect you intentionally misspelled it, just then.)

Sounds like a waste of time. But I'm retired, so I'll tell you what I would come up with: ..."millions now living will never die."... This was a risky prophecy to make. But the risk probably didn't seem too high at the time since, after the failure of 1914, Rutherford said that people had more on which to base their faith in this prophecy than Noah had on which to base his faith in Jehovah telling him there would be a Flood. He said that there was more Bible evidence for 1925 than there was for 1914. But it turned out to be a false prophecy. So it turned out to be a "lie" in the Biblical sense, but it might not have been intentional if the human sources of this false prophecy believed it, and those who repeated it had faith in that human source. "'The Finished Mystery,' the posthumous work of Pastor Russell" . . . This book quoted many times from Russell, but was definitely not the posthumous work of Pastor Russell. (For that matter, the title of the book was a lie, because it promoted itself as the final explanation of the mysteries of Ezekiel and Revelation, yet almost every explanation of the "mystery" in it is now considered to be false.) The Watch Tower publications explained why they called it the "posthumous" work of Pastor Russell in a very odd way. It was because, as a spirit creature who had just died, Russell was supposedly still alive in the spirit world (heaven) in 1917: "Though Pastor Russell has passed beyond the veil, he is still managing every feature of the harvest work." according to "The Finished Mystery" page 144. It was clearly believed that Russell could still continue to influence the Watch Tower Society's publications in a way analogous to how Jehovah influenced the Bible writers. "Since 1881 everybody ridiculed Pastor Russell . . ." Not everybody. Some believed him. Most people in the world had still never heard of him. According to current WT publications, many created a "cult" around him. Rhetorical hyperbole, not necessarily a "lie." "Since 1881. . . the International Bible Students Association" . . . The International Bible Students Association [IBSA] did not exist until 1914 when it was incorporated in London. Before then Bible Students used the simple name "Bible Students" or "Associated Bible Students." Some refused a name, and some even called themselves Russellites and names related to Millennial Dawn, etc. This is not a "lie," just a potentially misleading ambiguity. "Since 1881. . . Pastor Russell's [and IBSA's] message that the Bible prophesied a world war in 1914." The Bible never prophesied a single world war between multiple nations, but this could be a matter of interpretation. The Bible never prophesied anything whatsoever to do with the year 1914. In 1881, and for the next 20-some years, Russell and the IBSA promised that 1914 would be the year when the expected worldwide trouble would end, not begin. All human systems would collapse in 1914, governments, institutions, religions. There would be chaos for several months, but there would be no earthly governments remaining who would be capable of prosecuting such a war. The 7/15/1894 Watch Tower, p.226 said: "But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble." "but the war came on time." Very misleading. By the time late 1913 had rolled around, Russell pretty much gave up hope and faith in this 1914 date and moved it to 1915. For a few months even into 1914, Russell even gave up altogether and talked about there being no chance of all that was expected actually happening on time, and he conceded that they must have been wrong, and talked about the prospect that 100 years from now [2014], people might wonder what all this talk had been about. As it was, in about 1904 they had moved the expectation of the great time of trouble to 1914 (sometimes 1915) and began holding to the idea that this time of trouble might happen around October 1st or 2nd 1914. A world war broke out in July and gave them hope that this might be the beginnings of a worldwide collapse of all nations, governments, religions and other human institutions, where the only government with continued authority would be that of literal Israel in Palestine, and God would take a spiritual Israel to rule from heaven in 1914. It turned out, instead, to be a world war between several nations, and many more nations existed after the war, than were numbered before the war -- the opposite of the expectation of all nations disintegrating. Also Israel didn't get back on the map until decades later, and Israel never did become the only remaining human government on earth. Nothing predicted about 1914 ever came true. The most important things proved to be quite the opposite. "and now the message of his final work" . . . Again with the false attribution to Russell who did not work on this book. It was written by George Fisher and Clayton Woodworth along with the claim that Russell had communicated from beyond the veil as a spirit creature to write it posthumously (after he died). "It is an absolute fact. . ." . . . The phrase most often prefixed to bigger than usual lies, especially to sell products. You don't usually have to look at the next phrase to know that it won't usually be true. "It is an absolute fact, stated in every book of the Bible. . ." Like I said, you didn't need to look. It's absolutely false. "It is an absolute fact. . . foretold by every prophet of the Bible" . . . Just like with the books, it turned out that it was not predicted by any book of the Bible nor any prophet of the Bible. Calling it thus is just an embarrassing way of trying to say you are a prophet speaking in Jehovah's name, sticking your neck out further to make sure that people will later see you as a false prophet if your fantastic guesses don't happen to come true. "well worth a few evenings' time for investigation." . . . Quite the opposite. In fact, anyone who wants to discuss the book today among Witnesses will usually be suspected of apostasy. Even though it is still touted as a book that supposedly had the "ring of truth" no one can go more than a couple pages in the book without coming across something that Witnesses now recognize as false, if not embarrassingly false. And remember, the purpose of this investigation was to prove to yourself that Armageddon was culminating in 1925. "The Golden Age" . . . The idea was that the Golden Age had already begun when the Millennium dawned back in 1874 and various advances in the world, new technology, and even medical advances and theories (that turned out to be from quacks and fraudsters) were supposed to give evidence that the Millennium had started 45 or more years earlier. "both for two seventy-five (don't say dollars)" . . . This speaks for itself. Internally, the persons who distributed most of these books were spoken of as selling the book, and book salesman could make a profit if they sold enough. The sales process was not so different from the way "colporteurs" in those days were selling books along with Fuller Brushes, Carter's Little Liver Pills, Bibles, Encyclopedias, etc. (Books by Mark Twain [Samuel Clemens] were a profitable moneymaker for colporteurs for many years. See below.) If you followed the sales instructions and learned the pitch you could make a profit, whether you believed in the content or quality of the material or not. This reminds me of a story I heard about colporteurs who used to sell the books of Mark Twain in the late 1800s and early 1900's. They could be had in about 4 or more levels of quality. The idea was also to upsell them on a better quality book if the householder agreed to a lower quality, or if they said no to the price of the highest quality (leatherbound, embossed, lithographs, etc.) then they might finally agree to a lower quality. It was a very irritating process to the householder. The goal of course was to get them moved to absolute most they might pay, so they might even split it up with part now and part cash on delivery. Just a quick search didn't find me the story, but I did notice this in a book called "Mark Twain's Road to Bankruptcy," below. You can see that "colporteurs" were not considered the best of society at the time.

This is just a small aside, for entertainment purposes. But I was reminded that it might be worth mentioning when I read about smear campaigns, ad hominem attacks, desperation, frustration and negative discourse. A lot of people have probably noticed that over on the right side of the page you can usually find a little box like this one: Out of habit I glance at it whenever I read a recent post, for reasons that might become obvious in a minute. Less than an hour ago "Grey Reformer" disappeared and I suspected that another name might take its place. Sure enough, within a couple minutes "Gray Reformer" was no longer online and the name "Alithís Gnosis" took its place. I knew what to expect, because I recognized the name as an alias of someone who evidently keeps a couple dozen such alias names. I expected a barrage of down votes or laughter votes or "sad votes." This time it was a short campaign of "sad votes." Then, as expected, "Alithís Gnosis" disappeared from the "Who's Online" list and the name "Grey Reformer" was found it its place again. Probably just a coincidence ?, but the same thing happened a few days ago when another of his aliases went offline (I won't say who this time) and it was immediately replaced by "Grey Reformer." This was right after that other easily recognized alias also took the opportunity to offer a short barrage of down votes. Full disclosure: I have seen this same coincidence happen literally dozens of times with the same set of aliases. Coincidences don't necessarily give a true picture, but they can certainly be entertaining.

Exactly! I gave actual facts and you just keep giving non-specific generalities and complaints that a small percentage of the actual facts and evidence from Watch Tower publications were also found on an apostate website, and therefore you seem to feel that they can therefore be ignored or distorted. Unfortunately, this is the kind of thing that sincere people will see right through, and they will see us as more and more dishonest. It's disappointing. How about some actual facts?

Curious that the first primary public use of the word as reported in OED was spelled "malaky" which is very much like your suggested Greek etymology. OED says 1929 by J.P.McEvoy. It reminded me of the book of Malachi which has a different meaning, of course: *** Rbi8 Malachi *** Meaning “My Messenger (Angel).” Heb., Mal·ʼa·khiʹ; Gr., Ma·la·khiʹas; Lat., Ma·laʹchi. See 3:1 ftn, “Messenger.” Of course, with the Biblical Malachi, the Greek is actually "malakhi[as]" instead of malakia because it uses a "chi" instead of a "kappa" for the "k" sound. So of course there is no reason to think it could have been based on the Bible book of Malachi. . . . . Unless it was because people who focused too much on Malachi were the kind who . . . .wait for it..... IGNORE AMOS*. [Click here for the drum sound rimshot] *ignoramus, n. 2.2 An ignorant person.

Let me make it easy for you. In this post I will include every single word I have ever quoted from the jwfacts.com site, where it was not merely a quotation from a Watch Tower publication. THIS TOPIC: ZERO (nothing under this topic was remotely related to jwfacts, not even a Watch Tower quotation!) The 1925/1975 TOPIC: ZERO (two posts; only using WT quotes from jwfacts, nothing except WT quotes) The Armageddon Predictions TOPIC: ZERO (in only one post, all quotes from jwfacts are only direct WT quotes) I admit that I also quoted a Watch Tower publication from his site (Trey Bundy's) about two years ago to show where his site was factually wrong about the timing of the transition from 1874/78 to 1914. This again was not anything he had written himself, but a quote from a Watch Tower publication. After I have included the complete list of every word I quoted from jwfacts, you will have the opportunity to tell everyone what you thought was wrong with the Watch Tower quote. If a Watch Tower quote is wrong just because it was typed out on an apostate site, then all someone would have to is try to put ALL Watch Tower publications on an apostate site and you could never quote from hardly any Watch Tower publications again! In fact, I think "avoidJW" did that very thing. So again, you should notice that I never quoted a word from his site that was not part of a direct quote from Watch Tower publications. The reason for this is that the Watchtower Library only takes Awake! magazines back to 1970, and only includes books that go back to the late 1970's, and I thought I might be quoting from 1966 thru 1968 Awakes and both the Truth book and the Life Everlasting book from 1968 and 1966, respectively. I also noticed while I was there that he had already retyped the Watch Tower's words from after the failures of 1925 and 1914. ======reference======= FOR REFERENCE, here is everything that was quoted from the site jwfacts.com, repeated below. In each post where I took the Watch Tower quotes directly from his site, I referenced jwfacts, because he had done the work of formatting the Watch Tower reference publication title and page numbers, and in some cases he had included his own highlighting of specific words. FROM THE "ARMAGEDDON PREDICTIONS" TOPIC: The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah p. 216 "Shortly, within our twentieth century, the "battle in the day of Jehovah" will begin against the modern antitype of Jerusalem, Christendom." Watchtower 1984 Mar 1 pp.18-19 "Some of that "generation" could survive until the end of the century. But there are many indications that "the end" is much closer than that!" "Let Your Kingdom Come" (1981) p.102 But now in our 20th century, we have come to the time for harvest, "a conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are angels"! Watchtower 1989 Jan 1 p.12 "He was laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our 20th century." There is also a quote from the 1966 Life Everlasting book and a 1968 Awake! where I picked up some of the Watch Tower's words from his site rather than retype them myself. The rest of the quotations from Watch Tower publications I quoted directly from looking them up in the Watchtower Library, except for the long quotes from 1881 Zion's Watch Tower which I picked up from a Bible Student site called agsconsulting.com. In both cases I ended up at jwfacts because I had typed: "Shortly within our twentieth century" in Google and jwfacts was the first choice, and when I typed "Zion's Watch Tower May 1881" into Google, the Bible Student site was the third choice. FROM THE 1925/1975 . . . Why did so many people leave? TOPIC (found in two separate posts): “It was stated in the 'Millions' book that we might reasonably expect them to return shortly after 1925, but this was merely an expressed opinion; besides it is still shortly after 1925. ... Some anticipated that the work would end in 1925, but the Lord did not state so. The difficulty was that the friends inflated their imaginations beyond reason; and that when their imaginations burst asunder, they were inclined to throw away everything.” Watch Tower 1926 pp.196,232 “So, as Anna MacDonald recalls: “1925 was a sad year for many brothers. Some of them were stumbled; their hopes were dashed. They had hoped to see some of the ‘ancient worthies’ [men of old like Abraham] resurrected. Instead of its being considered a ‘probability,’ they read into it that it was a ‘certainty,’ and some prepared for their own loved ones with expectancy of their resurrection.”” Yearbook 1975 p.146 “Ever since the 1870's, Bible Students had been serving with a date in mind - first 1914, then 1925. Now they realized that they must serve for as long as Jehovah wishes.” Watchtower 1993 Nov 1 p.12 Also, the picture of a portion of a 1920 WTS "Bulletin" “There is no doubt that many throughout this period were overzealous in their statements as to what could be expected. Some read into the Watch Tower statements that were never intended.” Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose p.52 “There were also other expectations concerning 1914. Alexander H. Macmillan, who had been baptized in September 1900, later recalled: "A few of us seriously thought we were going to heaven during the first week of that October. Had some been attracted by the thought of their own early salvation rather than love for God and a strong desire to do his will?” Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom p.61 If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint, seeing that it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him and brought disappointment, but that his own understanding was based on wrong premises.” Watchtower 1976 Jul 15 p.441 "The brothers also appreciated the candor of this same talk, which acknowledged the Society's responsibility for some of the disappointment a number felt regarding 1975." Yearbook 1980 pp.30-31 [I changed the word cantor to candor due to a typo on his site.]

Sounds like an excuse for murder to me.