I looked it up on google and it says there are 8 million results. The first 100 items returned (first 10 pages) have nothing to do with JW's.

nGrams says the word has lost popularity in the last few decades. But there were plenty of modern entries: "5 ways to inculcate good eating habits" etc.

I'm sure there's a medicine for people who suffer from chronic hyperbole syndrome. ?

21 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

JWI was his usual pithy self

I was only pithy because I thpilled the urine thample.

5 hours ago, Anna said:

As I understand it, the emphasis might be on the imperfection rather than a number. That we are so far removed from perfection.

The daily text example was not as much of an echo of the "6,000 year" doctrine as other examples have been. But it's still not hard to see how so many of the references to and emphasis on 6,000 years still reverberates from the old 1975 issue.

For one thing, we could compare it with another time expression: such as "2,000 years" ago. We know that this expression must be used a lot because there there are dozens of reasons to use this particular time expression, not just two or three with reference to "6,000 years" ago. It might be used when referring to the birth, life, ministry, words, death and resurrection of Jesus, or the time of the apostles and other Bible writers, or the completion of the Bible itself, or the age of the oldest known extant texts of the Bible, such as the "Dead Sea Scrolls."

If we look at the Watchtower Library "DVD," which is now a free 2GB download from jw.org, we can see something interesting. Just look up the quoted phrases "6,000 years" and "six thousand years" and then compare this to "2,000 years" and "two thousand years." A quick click-through survey of a hundred or more examples of each tells a very interesting story. Over a long period, we get almost the same number of results for 6,000 years as we do for 2,000 years, but with much more consistent content in the 6,000 years examples. (Most of the 2,000 year examples are not specifically about Jesus, but about age of dead sea scrolls, when Paul wrote a specific verse, or the completion of the Bible canon.)

But we can probably boil it down to the essence by looking at the numbers of references to each expression from the years 1968 to 1976, when it was NOT equal and we can pretty much know the reason for this without even looking.

• 	6,000 yr	2,000 yr
  1968	21	4
  1969	16	5
  1970	12	5
  1971	6	1
  1972	10	2
  1973	7	3
  1974	13	1
  1975	22	7
  1976	13	2

Now for just a few more recent examples:

*** w18 January p. 26 par. 19 What Kind of Love Brings True Happiness? ***

• 19 After some 6,000 years of human misery, SatanÂ’s world is coming to its end.

*** w12 9/15 Peace for a Thousand Years—And Beyond! ***
[Study Questions]
1. What exciting prospect awaits the “great crowd”?
2. What have humans experienced during the past 6,000 years?
3. What will the Thousand Year Reign bring about?

*** ws12 10/15 pp. 15-16 par. 2 Obey God and Benefit From His Sworn Promises ***

• The Bible does not tell us exactly when it started. But we know that it started sometime after AdamÂ’s wife, Eve, was created about 6,000 years ago. The thousand years of ChristÂ’s reign will soon begin, and during this time God will fulfill his purpose for the earth. God wants the earth to be a paradise where perfect humans can live forever. (Genesis 1:27, 28; Revelation 20:6) You can be sure that you can have that happy future! “God proceeded to bless the seventh day and make it sacred.” This was a promise that no matter what happened, God would make sure that his purpose would come true by the end of his rest day.

*** w10 1/15 p. 32 par. 18 JehovahÂ’s Way of Ruling Vindicated! ***

• And consider, Satan has been causing harm for some 6,000 years, but God, through Christ, will undo all that harm within 1,000 years!

Many of the other dozens of references also mention that we've had six thousand years of human rule and therefore it's time for Christ's rule. True statement, but the connection of six thousand and one thousand recurs more often than not.

What we do less of now is taking our supposed knowledge to the level of just showing off. We have no idea if our promoted chronology is exactly correct, and we know for a fact that most of the years through the Neo-Babylonian period do not match any of the evidence. Yet we would say things like this:

*** w89 8/1 p. 10 par. 2 God Purposes That Man Enjoy Life in Paradise ***

• This occurred some 6,000 years ago, in the year 4,026 before our Common Era, according to the count of time given in the Holy Bible. It occurred in the land area of what is today known as Turkey, or in the southwestern part of what is now called Asia, somewhere in the neighborhood of the Euphrates River and the Tigris River, and thus in the northern half of our earthly globe. The time would be about October 1, since mankindÂ’s most ancient calendars began counting time near that date.

Really? October 1st? This is what I meant by "gnosis" or "falsely called knowledge." We don't really know if 4026 BCE is right, much less October 1.

This itself echoes the presumptuous way that the earlier Watch Tower publications speak of chronology, such as in the May 1881 issue referred to recently:

• The favor of the present (and which we believe will end in October, 1881) is not to the nominal church but to individuals in her, that they may come out and receive the present Lord. . . . Now, it was on the strength of this prophetic "shadow"which shows that the "door" would not close until this fall, that we said, the living would not be changed before that time. As to when our change is due we can only say: To our understanding it will be due at any time after October 2nd, 1881 . . . 

Really? Not a minute before October 2nd? 

*** w79 9/15 p. 24 par. 11 The “Cup” That All Nations Must Drink at God’s Hand ***

• But the reason simply is that about October 4/5, 1914, or 2,520 years from the desolating of Judah and Jerusalem after the Babylonian conquest, the Gentile Times of uninterrupted world domination ended. Jehovah God did not then set up at earthly Jerusalem “JehovahÂ’s throne” for an earthly heir of King David to occupy it, thus reviving the typical earthly kingdom of God.

*** w75 11/1 p. 661 par. 15 The Time for Choosing God as Sovereign ***

• since the year 1914 C.E. In that year “the times of the Gentiles,” or, “the appointed times of the nations,” ended about October 4/5, when counted from the desolation of Jerusalem and the land of Judah by the Babylonians in the year 607 B.C.E.

Really? October 4/5, 1914 was 2,520 years from the desolating of Judah and Jerusalem? We can't even find evidence for the year 607 B.C.E. and yet we want to put a specific day which happens not to even coincide with Jerusalem's destruction, where all the known evidence, Biblical and secular, points to the summer of about 587 B.C.E.

 

4 hours ago, Gone Away said:

Which (with respect)  is what you are taking, judging from some of the comments here.

For anyone who might have missed the joke I was (and therefore now you, too, are) referring to, it was here:

4 hours ago, Gone Away said:

Isn't all of this just a person (s) stating what they believe at the time of writing? Why all the hot air regarding honesty?

I guess it depends on how seriously we consider "honesty" and "truth" to be in our teaching:

• (1 Timothy 4:15, 16) 15 Ponder over these things; be absorbed in them, so that your advancement may be plainly seen by all people. 16 Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. Persevere in these things, for by doing this you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.
• (Philippians 4:-8) .5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men. The Lord is near. . . . 8 Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are of serious concern, . . . continue considering these things.

• (Proverbs 14:25) . . .A true witness saves lives,. . .

• (2 Timothy 2:18) 18 These very [men] have deviated from the truth, . . .  and they are subverting the faith of some.

• (James 3:1-5) 3 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive heavier judgment. . . . . 5 So, too, the tongue is a small part of the body, and yet it makes great brags. See how small a fire it takes to set a great forest ablaze!

• (John 4:22-24) . . .. 23 Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth.”

  (John 14:15-17) . . .. 16 And I will ask the Father and he will give you another helper to be with you forever, 17 the spirit of the truth, which the world cannot receive, because it neither sees it nor knows it. You know it, because it remains with you and is in you.

  (Psalm 40:10, 11) . . .I do not hide your loyal love and your truth in the great congregation.” 11 O Jehovah, do not withhold your mercy from me. May your loyal love and your truth constantly safeguard me.

  (Psalm 51:6)  6 Look! You find pleasure in truth in the inner person; Teach my innermost self true wisdom.

If a person is stating something that's untrue, then, yes, it's true that they might just be stating a falsehood that they believe to be true. But in that case what is the reason for the lack of care, the lack of attempted verification, the reason for the willingness to believe something false when it often would have been no trouble at all to make a true statement in its place. Is there a motive that tends to make someone blame others when they themselves are to blame? Is there a motive for a string of repeated falsehoods, even when the person believed each falsehood to be true at the time. Should we learn from our mistakes? Is it worse if the promoter of their own private interpretations of scripture is forced to defend against clear scriptural counsel in order to continue promoting a private interpretation of scripture.

If this type of dishonesty keeps happening, even though it requires kicking against the goads, then there is likely a problem worth looking into.

2 minutes ago, Anna said:

The other day in FS a sister who I admire and who has her head screwed on right, made a surprising comment. She said that if the Slave told her to do anything she would do it.

To most it just means that we have faith in the Slave that they will not ask us to do anything unreasonable, even though they have asked us to obey in the future even if it does seem unreasonable. I don't think they will ask us to do anything more unreasonable than some of the unreasonable requests on blood doctrine inconsistencies, organ transplants, divorce for "spiritual" adultery (but not for areas of immorality they have not yet defined under the scope of porneia), etc.

They will, evidently, ask us to believe things that are unreasonable or even patently untrue. Men in leadership positions can't usually go more than a few weeks without needing someone to believe something that isn't reasonable or true. That's also the nature of human leadership. That seems to get worse with committees as often as it gets better.

I used to watch sports a bit but have lost interest now that I'm retired. But the company I worked for was a major sponsor for the U.S.Open, both golf and tennis, so I went to plenty of those particular matches for about 20 years running because they always had lots of free unused tickets. Now my daughter and son-in-law are stepping into my tennis shoes with a different company that she works for. My wife and I babysat for them so that they could go on Tuesday night to see Serena Williams and Nadal -- two of their favorite players. Her interview speech on Tuesday after the match wasn't much of a "witness" but she did dress a bit more modestly (except for the price of the outfit).

In the conversation, that's me in blue. They loved the matches.

22 hours ago, Anna said:

There was so much insinuation that went unchecked, that it was no wonder 1975 became a fact, instead of what it was said to be, a maybe.

Russell himself said he was ashamed of Second Adventism with all its false predictions. He was embarrassed by the Adventists yet he took little else from them besides their chronology. From the start, he was drawn to their chronology system. He often claimed that he was not so interested in the chronology but focused on Christian character instead, yet he made belief in the updated Second Adventist chronology the single criteria that separated the Foolish Virgins from the Wise Virgins.

Here's an example of the kind of dishonesty I refer to that always seems to accompany the topic of chronology in every religion that focuses on it. It goes all the way back to the first few months of Watch Tower publications:

Here are some statements from the January 1881 Watch Tower magazine:

• This is a question doubtless that many ask themselves, viz: "How soon will our change come?" This change many of us have looked forward to for years, and we yet with much pleasure, think of the time when we shall be gathered unto Jesus and see Him as he is. In the article concerning our change, in December paper, we expressed the opinion that it was nearer than many supposed, and while we would not attempt to prove our change at any particular time, yet we propose looking at some of the evidences which seem to show the translation or change from the natural to the spiritual condition, due this side or by the fall of our year 1881. The evidence that our change will be by that time, increases since we have seen that the change to spiritual bodies is not the marriage. While we thought the marriage to be the change, and knowing there was three and a half years of special favor to the Nominal Church (now left desolate) from 1878, we could not expect any translation this side of 1881, or during this three and a half years. But since we recognize that going into the marriage is not only being made ready (by recognizing His presence) for the change, but also, that going in includes the change itself, then the evidences that we go in (or will be changed) inside of the time mentioned are strong, and commend themselves to all interested as worthy of investigation. Aside from any direct proof that our change is near, the fact that the manner of the change can now be understood, is evidence that we are near the time of the change, for truth is "meat in due season," and understood only as due. It will be remembered that after the spring of 1878, (when we understand Jesus was due as King) that the subject of holiness or the wedding garment, was very much agitated. And aside from the parallel to the end of the Jewish age, and favor at that time being shown to the Jewish nation, which implied the presence of the King, the consideration of the wedding garment, was also proof of the correctness of the application, for "the King had come in to see the guests," [Matt. 22:11] and hence all were interested in knowing how they stood before Him. Now as the inspection of guests is the last thing prior to our change, which precedes the marriage and we are all now considering the change. It would seem that the time for it, is nigh.
• We shall now present what we adduce from the types and prophetic points as seeming to indicate the translation of the saints and closing of the door to the high calling by 1881. . . . [skipping a large portion on these evidences, some of which were considered "proofs" of 1874 that evidenced the correctness of 1881.] If this be a correct application (and it seems harmonious) and the time of building is seven years, then we would expect our change by or before the fall of 1881, as from 1874 to then would be the time given for building. . . .  by coming into a knowledge of the Bridegroom's presence, etc., during the seven years harvest [from 1874 to 1881] . . . and as the seven years are about complete, that we will soon follow by being changed. Matt. 25 and the parallelism of the Jewish and Gospel ages, seem to teach that the wise of the virgins "who are alive and remain" must all come in, to a knowledge of the bridegroom's presence, by the fall of 1881, when the door—opportunity to become a member of the bride—will close.
• . . . We suggest as quite possible, that the change may come to some prepared before that time.
• . . .  "Yet seven days [years] and I will cause it to rain upon the earth," should be significant, because we have expected trouble, in a special sense, about 1881, and, according to the type, we must enter in by that time. . . . We used to think it would be in the midst of a great trouble that we would be changed, but now we do not. . . .  If the three years mentioned in connection with Aaron has any bearing, then it would teach our change as coming this side of 1881, as three years from 1878 would bring us inside of that time. . . .  We now have taken prophetic measurements and allegories together, [R182 : page 5] five different points seeming to teach the resurrection of the dead in Christ and change of the living between the fall of 1874 and 1881. Two or more witnesses are enough to prove any case, as a rule, and certainly God has given us abundant evidence. We are also glad to notice that all these things only corroborate previous truths, thus proving to a certainty each application as correct and causing the old jewels to shine brighter. The five lines of argument briefly stated are these:
• 1st. The days of Daniel ending in 1874, at which time the resurrection commenced, and since which, the dead have been going in to the marriage.
• 2d. The end of the seven years from that time, as marked by the parallel, of the end of the "seventy weeks" in the Jewish age ending in our year 1881, at which time we all should be in and the door closed, being the end of time of special favor to the nominal church before commencement of trouble which follows our change.

[skipping more, etc. etc. etc.]

There are some cautionary statements built into the article, and statements that this is not proof, just evidence. But note what is done with the evidence. Intelligently-minded people know what this evidence means. And spiritually-minded people know that the faithful and wise servant is providing "food at the proper time" [meat in due season] and that this is the proper time for wise virgins to distinguish themselves from foolish virgins. Also, all this evidence is only evidence on its own, but as it adds up, it becomes "proof" to those who appreciate that God is giving us this evidence in abundance, and that even two of these five lines of evidence should therefore constitute enough to "prove any case" as a rule.

Here are some statements from the May 1881 Watch Tower magazine, p.224, on the same topic, now that the time for hesitation was due:

• The WATCH TOWER never claimed that the body of Christ will be changed to spiritual beings during this year. There is such a change due sometime. We have not attempted to say when, but have repeatedly said that it could not take place before the fall of 1881.

This was a true statement. The Watch Tower had not claimed that the body of Christ will be changed in 1881, only that the evidence about 1881 should be seen as proof by intelligent and spiritually minded persons who have a true faith and appreciation for God's truths. From this point forward, after failure was obvious, it would be easy to cherry-pick quotes that showed that no one had specifically said it would happen by the fall of 1881  -- even though it was supposed to obvious that for some it would likely happen even before the fall of 1881. But even this is just technicalities and semantics. It's true that they hadn't said it would definitely happen.

Still, there is dishonesty in the attempt to sweep all the embarrassment away. It's in the phrase: "We have not attempted to say when . . ." Is this a true statement? Was there really no attempt to say when the change would take place? That previous article on the topic of when, in January 1881 --only four months earlier--  might as well have been called "When Will the Change Take Place?" It was nothing if not an attempt to say when!

The claim might be technically true. But is it honest?

Curious that this post instantly triggers an advertisement related to sports and running for me. And the related posts listed on the page are as follows, all about Nike, even though the post never says the word Nike anywhere:

Similar Content

Nike Is Joining the United States of Amazon

By Nicole

If you thought Amazon’s retail domination would slow down any time soon, you were mistaken.
...

Nike Reveals the ‘Pro Hijab’ for Muslim Athletes

By Nicole

Nike, a company whose brand is estimated to be worth $27 billion, understands the difference apparel can make to an athlete. And like any viable...

Apple’s New Nike Watch Will Harass You Into Running

By Nicole

At today’s live Apple event, the fruit unveiled the iPhone 7, Apple Watch Series 2, and the Apple Watch Nike+.
...

On 9/7/2018 at 10:45 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

I wonder how that might be refined with today's teaching committees so that Fred Franz doesn't expound without checking in with the rest of the brothers. Or did he?

Fred Franz was called the "Oracle" even while I was there at Bethel, although it was with the utmost respect until about 1978 when I first heard it used sarcastically. His very odd demeanor, and his own sarcastic and pontificating haughty manner, made him considered to be the channel of all "new truths" at the time. Knorr deferred to him to write his speeches. No "deep" book on prophecy could be written by anyone else even long after the failure of 1975 was obvious. No one would write on any prophetic subject (OT prophecy or Revelation) of any length without using Franz' previous writing as a basis. No one has really tried to replace "Revelation  - Its Grand Climax at Hand" yet, and it's going on 30 years since he died.

I worked directly with (for) Brother Schroeder when he as good as admitted that he wanted to be the next Fred Franz, assuming Fred Franz did not outlive him. Of course, that meant removing Raymond Franz who was the obvious but unassuming heir apparent. He privately expressed jealousy that Raymond Franz had worked on the Aid book. Schroeder tried his hand at coming up with "new truths" when he went abroad, especially his yearly trips to Europe. He came up with several ideas that would have been considered apostasy if promoted by anyone else, and nearly got in big trouble himself. He looked for areas where he could make his mark that he was "like" Fred Franz.

I don't know him, but I think there is talk that Brother Splane should now be seen as the primary one who needs to approve prophetic explanations. But fortunately it does not seem like he is involved exclusively as Fred Franz was. The committee is much safer.

3 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Say what you will about Brother Franz; nobody can say that he was not some Bible teacher.

True, but they were not even candid about this until 1988. The "candid" letter of 1977 never even mentioned "some Bible teachers."

It was quite similar to the counsel the previous year:

*** w76 7/15 p. 440 A Solid Basis for Confidence ***

• BE CAREFUL TO KEEP A BALANCED VIEW
• 10 Jehovah’s word or message is true when it speaks about our entering into God’s rest now and remaining in it through the “great tribulation,” after which Christ’s thousand-year reign will transform the earth into a paradise garden. God’s word is indeed ‘sharp like a two-edged sword.’ It will show what we really are, revealing what our thoughts and the intentions of our heart are. Are we serving Jehovah God because we love him, trust him and have full confidence in what he says? Or are we ‘becoming weary in well-doing,’ looking for a certain date primarily as bringing a relief to ourselves, with little concern for the lives of other people? (Gal. 6:9) Are we appreciative of all the good things we have had from Jehovah and from association with his people? Have not the things we have learned helped us in our family lives? Do we not love the many genuine friends we have now gained as a result of knowing the truth?—Mark 10:29, 30.
• 11 It may be that some who have been serving God have planned their lives according to a mistaken view of just what was to happen on a certain date or in a certain year. They may have, for this reason, put off or neglected things that they otherwise would have cared for. But they have missed the point of the Bible’s warnings concerning the end of this system of things, thinking that Bible chronology reveals the specific date.
• 12 What do Jesus’ own words show concerning the proper attitude as to the end—to look for a date, or what? He said: “Pay attention to yourselves that your hearts never become weighed down with overeating and heavy drinking and anxieties of life, and suddenly that day be instantly upon you as a snare. For it will come in upon all those dwelling upon the face of all the earth. Keep awake, then, all the time making supplication that you may succeed in escaping all these things that are destined to occur, and in standing before the Son of man.”—Luke 21:34-36.
• 13 Did Jesus mean that we should adjust our financial and secular affairs so that our resources would just carry us to a certain date that we might think marks the end? If our house is suffering serious deterioration, should we let it go, on the assumption that we would need it only a few months longer? Or, if someone in the family possibly needs special medical care, should we say, ‘Well, we’ll put it off because the time is so near for this system of things to go’? This is not the kind of thinking that Jesus advised.

It was blamed on the selfishness of brothers looking for their own relief, some who had a mistaken view, but these "some" people obviously missed the point of the Bible's warnings due to their own "thinking" that Bible chronology reveals the specific date.

This is why I brought up the question of "honesty" in the title of another 1975 topic. Because the Society was willing to conceal their own responsibility for several years, evidently to avoid embarrassment, many brothers were very quick to follow their lead and also avoid embarrassment, claiming that they were never fooled into such wrong thinking. I noticed that by 1977, even brothers who cashed in insurance policies, put off dental work, went into debt, and even some who sold their houses in 1973 through 1975 quickly claimed that they never bought into all that talk about 1975. Within a few short years after 1980, I heard brothers begin claiming that there never was a 1975 problem except for just a few disgruntled brothers and ex-brothers who had been serving Jehovah with a date in mind. Even now, I have very close Witness relatives in responsible positions who lived through it but now believe that the Society "never really said anything about 1975," and that it was started by some of the brothers on their own.

15 minutes ago, A Nice Guy said:

Anybody interested in buying my condo on the lake?

I would, but Jubilee math gets so complicated, as the Insight book shows:

*** it-1 p. 1200 Inheritance ***

• The sale of land was, in effect, only the leasing of it for the value of crops it would produce, the purchase price being on a graduated scale according to the number of years until the next Jubilee, at which time all land possession would revert to the original owner if it had not been repurchased or redeemed prior to the Jubilee.

I heard that @James Thomas Rook Jr. has a graduated scale that he might loan me, but I think he said it's for measuring urine samples.

A 1988 Yearbook example from one representative country explains it pretty well:

*** yb88 pp. 189-191 ***

• All seemed well in the spring of 1975. The Bethel family moved into their spacious new facilities, and Brother Lloyd Barry visited . . .  to give the dedication talk. The 1975 service year ended with an outstanding field report—including 8,120 baptized that year. Thus, in just three years’ time 19,600 were baptized. Well over half of the . . .  Witnesses had been in the truth for less than three years.
• However, the first few months of the 1976 service year began with a marked decrease in publishers and home Bible studies. This downward trend was to continue for over three years, bottoming out in a 26-percent decrease in publishers, from 32,693 in August 1975 to 24,285 in November 1978. Memorial attendance dropped too, from over 68,000 in 1975 to 49,545 in 1978 [27 percent drop]. The brothers at the branch were perplexed. Would the trend be reversed?
• Of course, neither they nor the Society were just letting it slide by. The Society’s letter of April 4, 1977, stated:
•    "We hope the brothers are careful in their teaching. Evidently some were very strong on the 1975 date, and so a good foundation was not laid. The foundation, of course, should be faith in Christ Jesus and the ransom sacrifice, and the dedication should be with understanding.”
• A very candid observation indeed! Too much emphasis was placed on a date by some Bible teachers. Many newly baptized ones took up the truth on a wave of emotion. Even some elders had their hopes pinned to 1975. . . . The effect: apathy among the brothers.
• THE ROAD BACK, LONG BUT CERTAIN
• More than 24,000 Witnesses, solid in the faith, were not shaken by any date. Still, the road back to a new peak of publishers was to take eight long years and was not reached until August 1983.

Very "candidly," the Society was still blaming the problem on "some Bible teachers." And the fact that newly baptized ones had taken up "the truth" based on a wave of emotion over a current falsehood. And the fact that even some elders had their hopes pinned to 1975. But if you look carefully, none of that was said in the 1977 letter, which only blamed it on the fact that "some were very strong on the 1975 date." Even the historical rewrite of this letter appearing in the 1988 Yearbook never blames it on the source, just some Bible teachers, some newly baptized ones, and some elders.

13 hours ago, Gone Away said:

Any thing more recent than 50 years ago?

There are, of course. There have been several references as late as 1989 that, as Witnesses, we are involved in a work that will end before the end of the twentieth century (before 2000/2001). This time prediction became obsolete only about 18 years ago, and the predictions for such a date continued until 1989. "Echos" of that prediction continued until about 1993. -- I grabbed the following from https://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/quotes/20th-century-2000.php

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."

And there is still a more subtle kind of obsession among some brothers who think it is important for us to consider that we are "some 6,000 years" removed from human perfection in Eden. In fact it was the opening line of today's "Text."

*** Text for Friday, September 7, 2018 ***

• We must consider that all of us are some 6,000 years removed from the human perfection that existed in Eden.

Although the fact might be interesting, what is it that makes this particular number of years something that we "must consider"? There is nothing in the Bible, no evidence anywhere, that this particular number of years has any significance. Yet, most JWs are at least vaguely aware that it is used as a "sign" that we are deep into the end. We are led to believe that there is some kind of gnostic privilege that only Witnesses truly know the significance of. 

Yet there is only one reason why 6,000 specifically is considered. It is because, without any Bible evidence, we have taught that the 7th creative day should be 7,000 years long, and that Christ's millennial reign must punctuate this 7th creative day, and therefore begin 6,000 years after the creation of Eve in Eden.

Using the 6,000 years as a gnostic sign that the end is upon is has been part of the Watchtower's doctrines since the 1800's when the Watchtower first started to be published. The "Photo Drama of Creation" also made a point of showing how each creative day was 7,000 years long, and the 7th creative day would end with Christ's Millennium, and thus the Millennium had "dawned" at the 48,000th year from the start of creation, which had just passed in 1873. The end of the 49,000 years would start a Great Jubilee of perfection. None of this is Biblical, but pieces of it are still echoed in the focus on the idea that we are now "some 6,000" years after Eden, and that this is something we "must consider."

The "Proclaimers" book adds:

*** jv chap. 8 p. 104 Declaring the Good News Without Letup (1942-1975) ***

• The Witnesses had long shared the belief that the Thousand Year Reign of Christ would follow after 6,000 years of human history. But when would 6,000 years of human existence end? The book Life Everlasting—In Freedom of the Sons of God, released at a series of district conventions held in 1966, pointed to 1975.

The book "Life Everlasting" just mentioned had said on page 28 and 30:

• According to this trustworthy Bible chronology six thousand years from man's creation will end in 1975, and the seventh period of a thousand years of human history will begin in the fall of 1975 C.E. . . . How appropriate it would be for Jehovah God to make of this coming seventh period of a thousand years a sabbath period of rest and release, a great Jubilee sabbath. . . . It would also be most fitting on God's part, for, remember, mankind has yet ahead of it what the last book of the Holy Bible as the reign of Christ Jesus over earth for a thousand years, the millennial reign of Christ.

So, for as long as the idea is put out there that we "must consider" the significance of 6,000 years, it will always carry with it this same idea found in one of the Awake! articles leading up to 1975:

*** g68 10/8 p.14 What Will the 1970s Bring?

• There is another way that helps confirm that we are living in the final years of this "time of the end." The Bible shows that we are nearing the end of a full 6,000 years of human history.

That statement is meaningless unless combined with the non-Biblical gnosis about a conjectured 7,000-year-long 7th day.

In my own experience, I was born in '57, baptized 10 years later, and had to read the "Life Everlasting" book as one of the two books assigned for baptismal candidates, along with the "Lamp" book questions. I auxiliary pioneered for several months in 1972, and quit school to regular pioneer for 3.5 years from 1973 until leaving for Brooklyn Bethel, where I worked full-time for 4 years, and then part-time, on projects, for another two while going to college in NYC.

I give this portion of my "resume" only because I can speak to the experience of being baptized prior to 1975, and was part of the Bethel build-up from the influx of workers and financial contributions that Bethel received around 1975. I pioneered for several years both before and after 1975.

Your experience may vary, but I can still tell you pretty much what I was thinking just prior to 1975, because I had to clear my plans with my parents, my school, and two circuit overseers, since I quit school while I was still 15 to begin regular pioneering in 1973.

@Space Merchant, @Anna @James Thomas Rook Jr., et al.

With near unanimous approval (thanks, Anna!) I have moved some of the portions of this topic that dealt with 1975 to another topic, here:

https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/69838-1975-was-in-the-past-are-we-honest-about-it-today/?tab=comments#comment-106775

I think there was another post in another recent topic that I might move over there, too, because it also seemed out of place in its current location. A few of the responses here might not make perfect sense any more now that a few posts have been moved.

I'm sure @Jesus.defender meant to present a fairly comprehensive view of the issues that are involved. In some cases the issues are not Biblical, but they point out that Witnesses (or the WTS) have admitted to making errors of judgment in presenting vaccinations and organ transplants as unclean in God's eyes, and have changed their stand on those medical treatments. That's true, and although it might be evidence that we have been careless in our medical-related doctrines, it is not evidence that we are necessarily wrong in our stance on blood transfusion.

I think a better "outside" presentation of a practical, doctrinal Biblical discussion and then a slightly more scholarly Biblical discussion of the issues as presented by NON-JWs can be found in these places, respectively:

• Must Christians Today “Abstain from Blood”?

• Acts of the Apostles: Decree of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) Part 1: The Literary Flow of Acts 15

• Acts of the Apostles: Decree of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) Part 2: The Decree’s Purpose

The first link ends up admitting that Christians should not eat blood. The last link says something interesting about the same question that James T. Rook brought up commenting on the possibility that Acts 15 might have had reference to bloodshed/murder when it said "Abstain from blood." The point is that several early Bible manuscripts of Acts left off "and from things strangled." Perhaps they (the copyists of Western Bible manuscripts) assumed that this was unnecessarily redundant if it was just another way of stating that an animal should be properly bled. But another assumption is that the manuscript copyists thought that it was problematic in that it interfered with the much more understandable position that James and the elders were stating something much more obvious: that Gentiles were being told that the most important things to remember were to abstain from bloodshed (murder), idolatry, and immorality.

• Endnotes

• ¹⁵In some Western Greek manuscripts, the decree contains only three ethical admonitions: Avoid idolatry, blood (in the sense of bloodshed) and sexual immorality. This fits in with “the rabbinic tradition which considers the three primary sins of the Gentiles to be precisely idolatry, shedding of blood and immorality” (Stephen G. Wilson. Luke and the Law. [Cambridge: University Press, 1983], p. 80). However, Wilson also observes that “the Western version consists of such widely accepted ethical norms that a decree to this effect would be superfluous” (Stephen G. Wilson. The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts. [Cambridge: University Press, 1973], p. 188).
• All major English translations, including the King James and the NIV, use a Greek text with four prohibitions. The textual questions are discussed in detail in Bruce Metzger. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1971), pp. 429-433.
• ...
• ⁴²Christians in the West would be less likely to know that strangled things were associated with pagan customs. Perhaps this explains why the word was omitted in the Western text.

Under another topic, @James Thomas Rook Jr. brought up a question about what James (the brother of Jesus) and others in Jerusalem may have meant when they decreed: "Abstain from blood." (Acts 15:20) In this area of the site, it seems that we often point to breakthroughs in bloodless therapies, successful stories of surgery without blood, and now and then report on a death or lawsuit related to the Witness stance on the blood issue. However, we do not often discuss the Biblical viewpoint of the blood doctrine itself.

@Jesus.defender had started this topic in that direction, but makes several errors about the actual view of Jehovah's Witnesses. For example, we do not defend the view based on Genesis 9 and Leviticus 17, as claimed. They are used as "clues" but if it were not for Acts 15, we would likely think of eating and transfusing blood as non-issues.

I'll quote the primary scriptures we refer to with some context, but the entire context is extremely important here and these verses should really be read at least with the full chapters surrounding them:

• (Acts 15:1-29) Now some men came down from Ju·deʹa and began to teach the brothers: “Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”  But after quite a bit of dissension and disputing by Paul and Barʹna·bas with them, it was arranged for Paul, Barʹna·bas, and some of the others to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem regarding this issue. . . .  On arriving in Jerusalem, they were kindly received by the congregation and the apostles and the elders, and they related the many things God had done by means of them.  But some of those of the sect of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up from their seats and said: “It is necessary to circumcise them and command them to observe the Law of Moses.” . . . Peter rose and said to them: “. . .  And he made no distinction at all between us and them, but purified their hearts by faith. So why are you now making a test of God by imposing on the neck of the disciples a yoke. . . ?  On the contrary, we have faith that we are saved through the undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus in the same way that they are.” . . .  After they finished speaking, James replied: “. . . God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name. . . .   Therefore, my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God,  but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood.  For from ancient times Moses has had those who preach him in city after city, because he is read aloud in the synagogues on every sabbath.” . . .  We are therefore sending Judas and Silas, so that they also may report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”

• (Acts 21:11-32) . . .: “Thus says the holy spirit, ‘The man to whom this belt belongs will be bound like this by the Jews in Jerusalem, and they will give him into the hands of people of the nations.’” 12 Now when we heard this, both we and those who were there began begging him not to go up to Jerusalem. 13 Then Paul answered: “What are you doing by weeping and trying to weaken my resolve? Rest assured, I am ready not only to be bound but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” 14 When he would not be dissuaded, we stopped objecting and said: “Let the will of Jehovah take place.” 15 Now after these days we prepared for the journey and started on our way to Jerusalem. 16 Some of the disciples from Caes·a·reʹa also went with us, taking us to Mnaʹson of Cyʹprus, an early disciple at whose home we were to be guests. 17 When we got to Jerusalem, the brothers welcomed us gladly. 18 But on the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 And he greeted them and began giving a detailed account of the things God did among the nations through his ministry. 20 After hearing this, they began to glorify God, but they said to him: “You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the Law. 21 But they have heard it rumored about you that you have been teaching all the Jews among the nations an apostasy from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or to follow the customary practices. 22 What, then, is to be done about it? They are certainly going to hear that you have arrived. 23 So do what we tell you: We have four men who have put themselves under a vow. 24 Take these men with you and cleanse yourself ceremonially together with them and take care of their expenses, so that they may have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know that there is nothing to the rumors they were told about you, but that you are walking orderly and you are also keeping the Law. 25 As for the believers from among the nations, we have sent them our decision in writing that they should keep away from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality.” 26 Then Paul took the men the next day and cleansed himself ceremonially along with them, and he went into the temple to give notice of when the days for the ceremonial cleansing would be completed and the offering should be presented for each one of them. 27 Now when the seven days were about to end, the Jews from Asia, on seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd, and they seized him, 28 shouting: “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches everyone everywhere against our people and our Law and this place. And what is more, he even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.” 29 For they had previously seen Trophʹi·mus the E·pheʹsian in the city with him, and they assumed that Paul had brought him into the temple. 30 The whole city was in an uproar, and the people came running together and seized Paul and dragged him outside the temple, and immediately the doors were closed. 31 While they were trying to kill him, word reached the commander of the army unit that all Jerusalem was in confusion; 32 and he immediately took soldiers and army officers and ran down to them. When they caught sight of the military commander and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul.

More of the context is provided for Acts 21, because it makes the situation very clear about how and why the decision from Acts 15 was so appropriate.

@TrueTomHarley, It's the end of the service year. If you rush, you might be able to get this experience into the next Yearbook. ?

7 hours ago, Gone Away said:

Whilst not exclusively a WT magazine expression, it seems to have been used there fairly consistently in a similar context since March 1st 1951.

I'm pretty sure this is just a data anomaly, but if you check the use of the word ("with quote marks around it") as found in full text searches of many thousands of books available in Google Books (through 2007), it would (at first) appear that the Watchtower was using it even before it was widely found outside the Watchtower:

But that was my mistake. That was just with quote marks around it; otherwise it was apparently used since the 1800's.

By the way, those Watchtower numbers are just the Wt magazine alone. I notice that it was used almost as often in the Yearbooks, 27 times since 1970. It's especially frequent in personal experiences where a person says they "recognized the ring of truth" after reading one of our publications.

Several posts from some recent topics have veered into a discussion of 1975 (yet again). My personal concern about the topic is that, like others have just mentioned, I have also been seeing a lack of honesty about it from both JWs and ex-JWs/non-JWs. We shouldn't be as concerned about what others on the outside say, but perhaps we need to take another look at the accuracy of statements that we make ourselves, in our own defense.

To start, I would say that I agree that no Watchtower article or Watchtower publication ever said that the world was going to end in 1975.

But when we try to convince people today about what was really said back then, what is our purpose in only selectively choosing things that were said and printed in Watchtower publications? Is it possible to be dishonest by what we omit when we defend this topic?

*GA: The upvote is an artefact of this post when it was under another topic. You may wish to remove it from this topic.

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I should have made that clear. My bad.

Not a problem. I notice the same issue with a lot of threads that just seem to include the assumption that we must be totally wrong about an issue that isn't implemented well (or consistently), when the actual fix does not require throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Of course, if someone found an old Watchtower that recommended that we start literally disfellowshipping babies by throwing them out with the bathwater, then I would think it's time to scrap the whole doctrine and start over from scratch.

That man in the picture is a lot smaller than I thought he was.

@James Thomas Rook Jr., I'll be happy to start a whole new topic on the subject if you promise not to fill it with too many cartoons.

11 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I guess I would be happier with all these shunning threads if they started with:

"Well, we know how vital it is for worshippers of Jehovah to stay separate from the world, but ..."

I know the person very well who made the claim, but I was not a part of that particular conversation. I only repeat it because I already knew this to be pretty much the way the brother felt at the time -- on shunning the elderly and on shunning disfellowshipped family members.  I admit that I don't know about his viewpoint on blood, although this was stated at a time when the WTS was clearly relaxing our stance on blood therapy. And I mentioned his position of authority within the organization at the time because it should be obvious that anyone who is given the responsibility to speak for the organization to the public on such issues is trusted to have considered our Bible-based based position on those issues, and be able to defend what we believe is Jehovah's viewpoint.

So, I guess I was hoping that anyone could easily read between the lines and know that I was trying to say the following:

• I have anecdotal evidence on this topic about a person who was trusted with the responsibility to consider and defend how vital it is for worshipers of Jehovah to stay separate from the world -- and even such a person realized that we are bringing a lot of this shame on ourselves, on our own organization, by overplaying the hand that Jehovah gave us to follow.

In the past, I heard a person in a similar position at Bethel make the same case about no longer forbidding family birthdays, weddings, funerals, bar-mitzvahs, etc., when these are held under another religious "roof." His idea, right or wrong, was that these situations made us more accessible to our extended family members and provided unparalleled opportunities for witnessing. (He held that a very high percentage --he would say "most"--of the persons who become Witnesses after a study with us, even those initially met in door to door, already had a positive connection to a friend or relative who was a Witness.) This brother might have been wrong, of course, on both ideas. Just as the brother I first spoke about above might have been wrong.

When I first heard this, I thought he was right about shunning as I had already been involved in caring for Percy Harding, mentioned earlier. I did not think he was right about blood, and this surprised me at the time, but it made sense considering the changes we were then making to our blood policy. But even the primary Bethel blood-doctrine expert who once handled most of the public discussion on blood for the WTS has now evidently changed his mind about our stand on the blood issue. (I'm speaking of Brother G.Smalley, still alive, not Brother F.Rusk who died a couple years ago, and who handled public questions about blood policy before G.Smalley.)