JW Insider

18 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Who normally would have spend money to buy building in this old  wicked system just before 1975 Armageddon ??  

We also paid for people to move out of the building and ended up with about a dozen elderly persons who could not be bought out at any price. We would not be able to use the entire building until they died. We moved them all onto a couple of floors that Bethelites couldn't move into until they died. The construction crew had a kind of pseudo-celebration when the last one died.

It's a curious thing, though, that the Watch Tower's history has seen this happen several times. Russell spent his and his father's money in 1877 because 1878 was going to be the "resurrection" and change from fleshly body to spiritual body. Russell bought into Barbour's Herald and helped him distribute Barbour's "Three Worlds" / "Tabernacle Shadows" and then Russell's own "Object and Manner of the Lord's Return" in huge quantities in 1877 and 1878. Then in 1913 and 1914 almost all the finances of the Society were gone. MacMillan says the Society was completely broke by mid-1914. They had spent a tremendous amount on "Photo-Drama of Creation." There was not much need to hold anything back, as everyone involved in the Society was "going home" to heaven in 1914. Then, in 1924, just one year prior to the resurrection of the ancient worthies, Rutherford took possession of a couple of houses and a couple of expensive cars for David and Abraham to drive. (This is not your fore-fathers Oldsmobile!) Also in 1924, they completed gathering the money to build their own first factory at 117 Adams Street - 8 stories, taking up an entire block.

On 10/31/2017 at 5:02 PM, Nana Fofana said:

However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ+and our being gathered together to him,+ we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement*+ or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah*+ is here.

I figure that, even if I didn't want to, I should do my part to bring this topic back to the 1290 and 1335 days. I requote the verses from 2 Thessalonians that Nana Fofana already quoted because so many of these recent speculations appear to me to fit the same idea that Paul warns us about. It's as if these speculations are intended to quickly shake us from our reason or "alarm" us into thinking that the "day of Jehovah" might be so imminent as to be immediately upon us. And there is often a sense that we must listen because this is just as important as hearing it from the apostles themselves: if we don't pay attention then we aren't paying attention to the Bible! This makes it fit the idea of "a letter as if from us [the apostles and inspired Bible writers]."

I say this, of course, while also admitting that prophetic speculation is interesting. Obviously, I do more than my share of such speculation myself. And I also believe that the day of Jehovah can come at any time now -- and will come as a surprise, as a thief in the night. I do not believe that we are still waiting for an additional specific fulfillment of the man of lawlessness, before the day of Jehovah can arrive. (2 Thess 2).

As I've said before, however, my take on this is rather boring. I expect exciting times ahead, but not because we can now see any specific events that would make us know anything about the times or seasons. It's one of the reasons I see a good portion of our current chronology as "broken." In Brother Splane's latest video about the generation, he points out the advancing age of some representatives of persons in "Group 2" to show how this system cannot last much longer. Pointing out that the system appears not to be able to go on much longer seems intuitive enough for a lot of reasons. But a claim that we "know" it due to Bible chronology, is a claim of knowledge that Jehovah says clearly he has not given to us, and we therefore need nothing to be written to us about it, because it's not for us to know; it comes as a thief! Instead, our current version times it to a time prior to the deaths of those in Group 2. In other words, we are now in exactly the same state we were when we were looking for a time prior to the deaths of those in Group 1, before a Group 2 was ever hypothesized.

• (Acts 1:7) . . .“It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction.
• (1 Thessalonians 5:1, 2) . . .Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night.
• (Daniel 2:19-21) . . .So Daniel praised the God of heaven. 20 Daniel declared: “Let the name of God be praised for all eternity, For wisdom and mightiness are his alone. 21 He changes times and seasons,. .
• (Matthew 24:36) . . .“Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.

I'm not saying that anyone here is trying to foretell the day and the hour, only that I see a parallel in what Paul said above, and in the common implication about identifying specific events that will reveal an end-times timeline.

I do have a couple ideas for the meaning of the 1290 and 1335 days that provides a specific lesson for Christians at all times, but which already had a prior application that was specific to those time periods. It's not necessarily correct, and of course something could still come up in the future that would reveal how silly all this speculation (on my part, at least) has been.

2 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

THE WICKED PLACE EVEN MAKES BABIES WORK!!!!

Bethel has a long history of child labor:

• (Genesis 35:16) 16 Then they pulled away from Bethʹel. . . .  Rachel began to give birth, and her labor was very difficult.

And wickedness too:

• (Amos 4:4) Come to Bethʹel and commit transgression,. . .

1 minute ago, Anna said:

So who is the father?

He's the one on the right side of the picture.

6 minutes ago, Anna said:

Who was that?

Persons who are still alive and who are not having their names appear in public elsewhere are probably not looking to have their names appear here either. But I will be happy to show you his picture. We were at Bethel together for several years. He's the one in the middle. One year younger than me.

50 minutes ago, Nana Fofana said:

And I know   the only reason this story appeared simultaneously  everywhere  in 2007 [and then disappeared] was that a patented product was going to be rolled-out, but then turned out not -effective, after all.

So you think that the headline "Blood Transfusions Kill Millions" was a hyped-up lie to try to sell a patented solution to a problem that didn't work?

50 minutes ago, Nana Fofana said:

"Some tests indicate that stored blood has lost most of it's nitric oxide - hence most of it's oxygen-carrying capacity - within three hours of being removed from a donor."

Wasn't this also found to be incorrect information (disinfo)? [The site quoted above also shows studies and experiments that include finding certain freezing/thawing methods to keep blood effective after storing for 37 years.]

At any rate, my point was that even if blood were 100% effective and safe, we should still avoid it if we truly believe this is Jehovah's will. If we begin selectively picking out negative studies, and ignoring more positive studies, we end up looking like we are embarrassed to hold to a Biblical position on the subject, and are hoping that we can find a secular reason to bolster our position.

It reminds me of what a Jewish person under the Mosaic law should do if he were starving to death and the only meat available to him that could save his life was the meat from a pig. Would he begin telling people that pig meat can be prone to trichinosis, and people have died from it? Or will he say that it's against God's law? (Of course, if he were truly dying, the position of Jesus appears to be that he should do what is unlawful in order to save a life.)

• (Matthew 12:1-7) . . .disciples got hungry and started to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 At seeing this, the Pharisees said to him: “Look! Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3 He said to them: “Have you not read what David did when he and the men with him were hungry? 4 How he entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, something that it was not lawful for him or those with him to eat, but for the priests only? 5 Or have you not read in the Law that on the Sabbaths the priests in the temple violate the Sabbath and continue guiltless? 6 But I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 However, if you had understood what this means, ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice,’. . .

There is more than one way to understand that passage, but it is clear that the conscience of some would allow them to get one thing out of it, and the conscience of another would allow them to get something else out of it.

By the way, I agree completely that there should technologies by now that would help with both increased volume and increased oxygenation. The position of JWs along with the financial costs of collecting and storing blood have already combined to help produce advances in these areas. Hopefully, more will be done sooner than later.

3 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

Blood Transfusions Often Kill the Patients.

This is true. Blood is dangerous. Heart surgery is dangerous too and has killed many patients. But it has also saved many patients. It's the same with blood, which is why so many thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses take blood. They take it in fractional components. Most blood is stored in fractional components anyway. And most blood is supposed to be used within 42 days. This was true long before the Duke study, because it was already known that blood stored for 4 months was only about half as efficient for carrying oxygen.

The Duke study (this is only one of many Duke studies) was one of the most repeated in the media because it was the "scariest." But attempts to repeat the study with more randomized data did not fully confirm it. And the failure to show any difference by trying to bump up the nitrous oxide might be evidence that they were on the wrong track anyway.

None of this is evidence one way or another that Jehovah's Witnesses should reverse their conscience on blood. Blood saves lives in the same way that heart surgery saves lives. Just because something might save our life doesn't mean it's right. But we shouldn't have to find ourselves always trying to defend our position based on specific secular studies of risk vs benefit. Are human scholars that important to us? If we are right, why would it matter even if blood only saved lives 80% of the time or 50% or 20%? Is it men we are trying to please, or God?

The apostle Paul obviously didn't mind getting some blood in his meat, and said it was a matter of conscience. So let each one decide for himself, he said. As adults, we have the right to our own conscience in this matter. None of us should question the conscientious choice of another. I have a concern over whether we should force our conscience on unbaptized members of our household including small children, or should we follow the "higher authorities" of Romans 13:1.

Obviously, this discussion should go under another topic.

Edited to add: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851210/

14 minutes ago, Noble Berean said:

matters like the rejection of blood transfusions and shunning df'ed children are crossing a line of control. I just can't stand behind those things. It violates my Bible conscience.

A son of a Governing Body member was handling the Watch Tower's Public Relations department just before J.R.Brown took over that position. He said that these particular two items were the two items that, if changed, would resolve 90% of our public relations problems. (This was just prior to the child abuse debacle which J.R.Brown was immediately thrown into.) I suspect people understood him to be saying he disagreed with our position on these issues, but I don't recall him ever saying that. He was fired from the position anyway.

With reference to the current topic at hand, Gertoux had already said the following about the film, indicating that it was made "from this article" and from "the simplified version of the book" on this subject.

• God's name: readable but unpronounceable, why?
• Fritz Poppenberg a German filmaker made a DVD from this article ( http://www.dreilindenfilm.de/shop/der-name-gottes_en.html ) which is available for free on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oazE-CL06BA The understanding of God's name YHWH is so controversial that it is eventually the controversy of controversies, or the ultimate controversy. Indeed, why most of competent Hebrew scholars propagate patently false explanations about God's name? Why do the Jews refuse to read God's name as it is written and read Adonay "my Lord" (a plural of majesty) instead of it? Why God's name is usually punctuated e,â (shewa, qamats) by the Masoretes what makes its reading impossible, because the 4 consonants of the name YHWH must have at least 3 vowels (long or short) to be read, like the words ’aDoNâY and ’eLoHîM "God" (a plural of majesty), which have 4 consonants and 3 vowels? At last, why the obvious reading "Yehowah", according to theophoric names, which all begin by Yehô-, without exception, is so despised, and why the simple biblical meaning, "He will be" from Exodus 3:14, is rejected.

• The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH Which is pronounced as it is Written I_Eh_oU_Ah. Simplified edition
• Fritz Poppenberg a German filmaker made a DVD from the simplified version of the book ( http://www.dreilindenfilm.de/shop/der-name-gottes_en.html ) which is available for free on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9mtlexbaWA . . . [the remainder of this paragraph is exactly the same as the above].

5 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

I wouldn’t know. I received my doctorates without a problem, and I disagree with COJ’s assessment. But, you keep insisting Gerard Gertoux is still a witness, but then again, you claim, the same!

Actually, I have never insisted. Are you saying that if he himself claims to be a JW that you might not believe him? By the way, I did just get a response from him, and he preferred that I only use only one particular article of his when discussing 587/6 BCE. He says:

• "To avoid any controversy on this controversial subject you can quote my article 'Basic astronomy for historians to get a chronology' . . . [link] . . . which was validated by Professor Hermann Hunger who is a reference in Babylonian astronomy."

[Thanks to the person who gave me his most recent email address. I had tried the same one before without a response, but it is still correct. I received the above response a few minutes ago.]

11 minutes ago, Anna said:

I don't know how up to date this list is, because as far as I know, at least one of the authors is no longer a Witness, but he was at the time of writing his book.

I saw that too. In the explanation at the top he says that the Yes/No in the box refers only to the time when they wrote the book:

• I have indicated whether each book was written by a brother or not at the time that the book was released

4 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

having NO formal higher education to substantiate his accusations

Yes, I understand the all-important emphasis that you and opposers put on "higher education." But Gerard Gertoux DOES have formal higher education. How can we explain his agreement with COJ with regard to chronology?

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

That's why I place "zero" value in up-votes. You can remove it!

Curious. I've often wondered why Bible Speaks and Queen Esther and, to a much lesser extent, "you and yours" engage in self-up-voting. (TTH did this at least once, too.) But I agree that they are of zero value. There is a whole generation of people today who seem to live and die (sometimes literally) over the concept of digital approval. Facebook had to get rid of the down-vote because it caused the break-up of so many real and "social" friends. 

But the up-vote is still useful as a way to react to a good or funny comment, or express appreciation for the good and useful research that has gone into comments. You have received at least a dozen from me for the latter reason; probably a couple of them are in this very topic. I don't believe I have ever given a down-vote.

So credit where credit is due. I don't see any reason to remove it.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

However, you're mistaken when you assert not pitting scholars over the GB.

I hope not. I didn't think you were doing it on purpose. I just thought you sometimes saw a book with an impressive sounding title and assumed that the book supported something the GB was saying before you read the actual book. I have access to JSTOR and a lot of the full books you have referenced through a university alumni account. So, you probably don't know how much time I've nearly "wasted" trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

Then you would, in essence, be voiding all your arguments placed over the years about 607BC and your agreement with COJ's assessment with his scholar's view, about the Watchtower doctrine.

Curious, again. You have usually been more careful to always deny that COJ had a scholar's view. I wonder if you would consider Gerard Gertoux to be a scholar. A few minutes ago, I just emailed him, asking for his permission to quote and discuss his view on the chronology of the destruction of Jerusalem. He appears to agree with COJ that the date must be either 587 or 586, not 607 BCE. The purpose of the email was also to double-check if it is still his current view.

39 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

When you give “scholars” more authority than GOD. What does that tell the world?

I've never accused you of giving "scholars" more authority than God just because you often quote scholarly authorities who contradict the Governing Body in almost every way possible. That includes the "Kyrios Christos" book you just introduced above as an "example" which says basically that the New Testament was influenced by false religion. And I've never accused the Governing Body of giving "scholars" more authority than God just because they use and quote outside scholars, too, but usually in a much more judicious manner than several of your recent examples.

You include in your answer that Jesus was explicitly referring to the Pharisees and applying the verse as if he were saying that the Pharisees themselves were gods. I think this goes beyond any claim in the Watch Tower publications, which seem carefully worded to avoid this same implication. Note:

*** si p. 196 par. 19 Bible Book Number 43—John ***

• In answer to their charge of blasphemy, he reminds them that in the book of Psalms, certain mighty ones of earth are referred to as “gods,” whereas he has referred to himself as God’s Son. (Ps. 82:6) He urges them at least to believe his works.—John 10:34.

Other than your wildly inaccurate personal accusations, however, I found several parts of your answer to be useful, which is why I have given you another "up-vote." Thanks.

12 hours ago, Witness said:

if we do not obey the faithful and discreet slave

9 hours ago, Anna said:

By the way I couldn't find that quote in the WT you cited. I'm sure its there somewhere. I personally don't like the term "obedience" with respect to humans, but rather cooperation.

• https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/402011525
• We can enter into Jehovah’s rest if we obey him and work with his organization. ¹⁷ But we are acting against Jehovah’s purpose if we do not obey the faithful and discreet slave or if we choose to obey only what we think is important.

It has become harder to search on text from the Simplified Watchtower in WOL.jw.org.

@Anna, BTW, I only commented up until near the first half of this. There are things in the second half I found to be just as bad. But I didn't want to spoil anyone else's chance to comment first.

On 10/25/2017 at 1:30 PM, Anna said:

It is to be noted that both Rolf Furuli and Gerard Gertroux are both Jehovah's Witnesses.

Don't know how long Gerard Gertoux has been a Witness, but two years ago I was asked to look over a paper (thesis-length) he had written on chronology. I went to get it about a year later and all the links had this item removed, but no others. Fortunately there was still a roundabout way to get a copy. I think this is his most complete work on chronology and it's excellent and comprehensive but it "demolishes" any chance that he could have believed 607 was the date for destruction of Jerusalem, at least at the time he wrote the paper. It was actually a very good paper, and I don't really know why it was removed from so many places. (I can guess, of course, but I could be wrong.) The next time the subject comes up, I'll be happy to quote at length from his paper, although I would respect his wish not to quote directly from it, if this is his wish.

Does anyone here have a current contact for him? If so, please PM me. Does he frequent any forums that anyone here knows about?

15 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

Once these time periods are properly understood, I have a feeling there will be no ambiguity at all, and a lot of people will be saying "There. I always said it was something like that!".

That time isn't now however............ 

Tomorrow?

16 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

But, don't know about you, but these are issues that are SOOOO not a reason to have shaky faith over. And what is all this about:  

I certainly hope not. Even our most current explanations have begun to admit a less dogmatic perspective: "The angel gives no clues as to when this period begins or ends." (Daniel's Prophecy book, quoted above.) This is a far cry from 1977's comments on the same time period:

*** go chap. 8 p. 133 par. 27 Marked Days During the “Time of the End” ***

• The fact that the once secret and sealed “words” are now unsealed and brought out of secrecy adds to the abundance of proof that, since the end of the Gentile Times in 1914, we have been in the exciting “time of the end.” We see how the “appointed time, appointed times and a half” of Daniel 12:7 have fitted into this “time of the end.”

I fully expect an update in 2021, when we'll have 2020 hindsight.

10 minutes ago, Israeli Bar Avaddhon said:

Dear JW insider,
I congratulate you for the accuracy of the information. I did not want to go too far into the merit that it would not seem too controversial.

Thanks. I usually go with a policy of: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." So it is useful to test whether there is anything broken in the current explanation before trying to see if a "fix is possible."

41 minutes ago, Israeli Bar Avaddhon said:

There will be no new intentions from the official channel.
Wait and see.

That sounds a bit too inflexible, and prophet-like for my taste. There have been many new explanations on such things. We hardly go a year or two these days without some former understanding changing. And I'm sure you don't know just how close the Watch Tower came to making some changes on this back in 1977, starting just after the "World Government" book came out.

45 minutes ago, Israeli Bar Avaddhon said:

Prophecy clearly says that Jehovah will punish his own people exactly as it has happened in the past.
So I encourage you to personally know what the Bible teaches and what will happen in the near future

Yes. A judgment starts with his people. If you mean punishment in the sense of discipline, I will accept the probability. An outright negative judgment for all (punishment) is not what we expect from a merciful and loving God, especially in light of Jesus' words. But maybe you mean something a little different when you say "his own people."

I think it's about the same as it has been for decades. In the US, sports in school were once provided in a gym / PE class, which has become rarer, so that the only way to participate in some schools is to join a team where competition with other schools comes into play, along with the likelihood that practice and games will interfere with meetings. We have less meetings, shorter assemblies, and a bit more flexibility in our schedules on the one hand. On the other hand, kids have less opportunities to participate in sports without a larger time commitment. Balance is a difficult thing.

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

It seems you want to slow walk me into an epiphany, your point being is?

Same as always. As I said: I thought you were saying you had addressed this with scholars, so I was interested.

I was interested in whether you had run across some useful information that either debunks the connections that several scholars have made, or perhaps put them in a more understandable light. You quoted from some sources that, as far as I can see, just take us further down into the same connections I was hoping to avoid, so I have my doubts that any of these sources can help. But I try keep an open mind. Which is why I was interested in your take on this.

2 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Read full article HERE. 

I just read the article. Interesting -- and today would be the anniversary of that eclipse, if true. Also noted that it works fairly close to the Bible chronology of several modern scholars, but does not fit the chronology of most religions who pay attention to that sort of thing. (Witnesses, for example.)

Just another note. An older publication of ours (One World Government - God's Kingdom) from 1977, attempted to put exact days (Month, Day, Year) on each of these time periods, but the inconsistent lengths never made sense to anyone because none of them matched, often being more than a month off, and beginning and ending at times when there was no event to pin it to.

Here's an example:

Beginning date:

*** go chap. 8 p. 131 par. 23 Marked Days During the “Time of the End” ***

• This they accomplished by the end of the foretold three and a half years on June 21, 1918. Thus this period began on December 28, 1914, in the first northern winter of World War I.

End date:

*** go chap. 8 p. 140 par. 43 Marked Days During the “Time of the End” ***

• September 14, or, Elul 21, 1922, Bible calendar time, when would the 1,335 days end? As the 1,290 days amounted to three lunar years and seven months, so the 1,335 days would amount to three lunar years, eight months and fifteen days. Counting now from Elul 21 (or, September 14), 1922, we find that three lunar years from that date would end on Elul 20 (or, September 9), 1925. To this we add eight lunar months and fifteen days and arrive at the date Sivan 6 (or, May 19), 1926.

Seemingly referring to this same book which was under discussion at a dinner table at Bethel in the summer of 1977, Brother Sydlik said we ought to just scrap our entire chronology and start from scratch. There was an embarrassing amount of discussion about how the math didn't work out on any of these time periods.

But more importantly, overall the entire period of these 1260, 1290 and 1335 days from about December 28, 1914 to May 19, 1926 is a total of 4,160 days. If we were to add 1260+1290+1335 they total 3,885 days. So there are obvious gaps between the time periods, too.

On 10/27/2017 at 11:44 AM, Israeli Bar Avaddhon said:

By the way, to match these dates day were "greatly rounded" (Rutherford and his associates were released March 26, 1919, not January 1919; see Watchtower, 5/16/2016 all ' article entitled "to whom was entrusted the work"), but even more importantly the writing of Daniel, after mentioning the 1290 days, he says, "Happy is he who waits and who gets to 1335 days!" - Daniel 12: 12

"Getting to ..." means to add to what was there before.

I think you are right that the basic idea here is more likely a set of time periods from the same starting point. If I were to tell someone that they are going to have to wait 1260 days for something, but that they might really have to get to 1290 before seeing it, and that they will be truly happy if they wait for 1,335 days, then I don't think it's likely that anyone would guess that I meant 3,885 days in total. And yet this is something like the Watchtower's view. I also think that if such a specific number of days were intended for us today that they would match to a specific number of days in a calendar. I agree, too, that the 1,260 of Revelation 11 & 12 is key. (And of Daniel 7:25; 12:7) The Watchtower also generally agrees on this point, even though they move the 1,290 as a completely new time period away from the 1,260.

The explanation given in the Watch Tower publications, as you say, are "greatly rounded." None of them can even reach back as far as October 1914, the most important date/event in modern history according to the new "God's Kingdom Rules" book. The best they can do is start it near the end of December 1914, just a few days from January 1915. In fact, since they end it around June 21, 1918 it must start around December 21, 1914. To even catch this little piece of the tail-end of the all-important year 1914, they must end this period with the sentencing, rather than the actual imprisonment. In the scheme of things, the sentencing was just another part of a process that had begun in the "scheming" that began back in March 1918 when the FBI was building a case based on the Finished Mystery book.

*** dp chap. 9 p. 142 par. 28 Who Will Rule the World? ***

• God’s witnesses would preach dressed in sackcloth for 42 months, or 1,260 days, and then be killed. When did this time period begin and end? . . . Hence, beginning in December 1914, that small band of witnesses preached “in sackcloth.” . . . Harassment of God’s anointed ones climaxed on June 21, 1918, when the president, J. F. Rutherford, and prominent members of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society were sentenced on false charges to long prison terms. Intending “to change times and law,” the “small” horn had effectively killed the organized preaching work. (Revelation 11:7) So the foretold period of “a time, and times and half a time” ended in June 1918.

The start of the next period 1,290 days does not even attach to the first period without a several month gap. And again, even to get it as close as possible they used the "proposal" of the League of Nations rather than the actual start of the League of the Nations:

*** dp chap. 17 p. 300 pars. 22-23 Identifying True Worshipers in the Time of the End ***

• The League was officially proposed in January 1919. At that time, then, both conditions of Daniel 12:11 were met. So the 1,290 days began in early 1919 and ran until the autumn (Northern Hemisphere) of 1922. During that time, did the holy ones make progress toward becoming whitened and cleansed in God’s eyes? They certainly did! In March 1919 the president of the Watch Tower Society and his close associates were released from prison. They were later exonerated of the false charges against them. Aware that their work was far from over, they got busy immediately, organizing a convention for September 1919. In the same year, a companion magazine to The Watch Tower was first published. Originally called The Golden Age (now Awake!), it has always supported The Watchtower in fearlessly exposing the corruption of this world and in helping God’s people to remain clean. By the end of the foretold 1,290 days, the holy ones were well on the way to a cleansed and restored standing. In September 1922, right about the time when this period ended, they held a landmark convention at Cedar Point, Ohio, U.S.A.

Notice again that the periods do not work out. 1290 days is about 17 months, so that a starting date in January would have to end in August, and the convention wasn't until September 1919, which is why it ends at a time when they were only "preparing" for this assembly.

And the next period of 1,335 days is even looser in terms of anchoring to any specific occasions. Note:

*** dp chap. 17 pp. 303-304 pars. 24-26 Identifying True Worshipers in the Time of the End ***

• “Happy is the one who is keeping in expectation and who arrives at the one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days!” (Daniel 12:12) The angel gives no clues as to when this period begins or ends. History suggests that it simply follows on the heels of the preceding period. In that case it would run from the autumn of 1922 to the late spring of 1926 (Northern Hemisphere). Did the holy ones come to a state of happiness by the end of that period? Yes, in important spiritual ways. 25 Even after the convention in 1922 (shown on page 302), some of God’s holy ones were still looking longingly to the past. The basic study material for their meetings was still the Bible and the volumes of Studies in the Scriptures, by C. T. Russell. At that time, there was a widely held view that pointed to 1925 as the year for the resurrection to begin and for Paradise to be restored to the earth. Thus, many were serving with a fixed date in mind. Some proudly refused to share in the work of preaching to the public. This was not a happy state of affairs. . . . The issue of March 1, 1925, carried the historic article “Birth of the Nation,” giving God’s people a full understanding of what had happened in the 1914-19 period. After 1925 passed, the holy ones no longer served God with an immediate, explicit deadline in view. . . .  At the convention in May 1926, the book Deliverance was released. (See page 302.) This was one of a series of new books designed to replace Studies in the Scriptures. No longer were the holy ones looking to the past. They were looking confidently to the future and the work ahead. As prophesied, the 1,335 days therefore ended with the holy ones in a happy state.

If Daniel had spoken of the 1,335 days as culimating in the most unhappy time period ever for God's people, then this could have made more sense. It would have been very easy to show why this was the most UNHAPPY time period in our organization's history. 1925 had been hyped since 1918 as one of the most important prophecies that the "prophet" -- the Watchtower -- had ever proclaimed, and it turned out to be a miserable failure: a false prophecy. People were now leaving in larger numbers, even those who had hung on past the 1917 organizational debacle. In 1926 Rutherford began to systematically throw away all the old foundations for the time prophecies of Russell. More people were upset. Although Rutherford claims that he had been fighting against Russellite creature worship all along, this was actually the time when Rutherford himself stopped making great claims for Russell and began pushing against Russell's teachings almost "en masse."   Rutherford was beginning to fight with colporteurs and pioneers because they no longer wanted to sell Russell's books if they were pushing doctrines that were now considered "from Satan" (pyramids, etc). But Rutherford still had large stockpiles of these books and insisted that the Lord wanted them sold to the public. The "Bulletin" (Later Informant, later Our Kingdom Ministry) claimed that anyone who balked at this particular edict by Rutherford was going against the Lord himself. More people left the organization over this, and from 1926 to 1932 the campaigns to sell Russell's books continued.

We could go on and on comparing this particular period of sadness and gloom with the periods before and since, but there is definitely enough to make us wonder why these particular time periods were chosen for the 1260, 1290, and 1,335 days. I think there are enough weaknesses in it, that the Society will revisit it -- especially if they realize that more and more Witnesses are looking at the prophecy more closely.

If I get a chance, I'll explain more of the problems I have with the primary solution that is being promoted from the original post in this topic. I think there is a much simpler solution -- it's one we already have used in the publications on a closely related set of time periods related to the half-week (3.5-year period) in the final 70th week in the week-of-years prophecy. I don't doubt there are other possibilities that might seem more exciting, but some of those ones here imply that we can currently predict the times and seasons, and this particular period is one in which Jesus said the end events would come like a thief in the night.

I admit that this is more boring than tying current events to Daniel and Revelation, but there are some excellent reasons to look at it this way (I think) starting with the "two witnesses" and the "olive trees" in Revelation 11. Paul explains the two olive trees very well in Romans 11, and we had already used this tie-in to a 3.5 year period in the discussion of the "keys of the kingdom." Note:

*** w79 10/1 p. 23 pars. 1-2 “The Keys of the Kingdom” and the “Great Crowd” ***

• IN THE year 36 C.E. a marked event in Christian history took place in Caesarea on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. Whether Philip the evangelizer had settled there by that year we do not know for certain. If he had done so, then why was he not used in connection with a certain army officer of the Italian band of soldiers then stationed there? Philip had preceded the apostle Peter in Christian activity in Samaria, so why not now in Caesarea in 36 C.E.? The inspired Scriptures give us the answer. The Law covenant that Moses had mediated between Jehovah God and Israel at Mount Sinai in Arabia was abolished on the basis of the impalement of Jesus Christ, the descendant of Abraham and King David. That was three years and a half from the water baptism and spirit-anointing of Jesus back in 29 C.E. Nevertheless, Jehovah continued to give preferential treatment to the natural Jews and Samaritans also during this period for three years and a half more, to fulfill the prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27a. This “week” or period of seven years terminated in the seventh lunar month (Tishri) of 36 C.E. From then on the Israelite descendants of Abraham would be put on the same spiritual level as the people of the non-Jewish nations, the uncircumcised Gentiles. After that no more preferential treatment to the Jews by the God of Abraham! How was this demonstrated in 36 C.E.?

From here, we already have a Biblically consistent tie-in between the two witnesses (the witness to the Jews, and the witness to the Gentiles) and the two olive trees (natural Jewish olive tree and the grafted Gentile olive tree) the 42 months or 1260 days. If we look at a few other events with respect to the week of Pentecost of 33, Christ's ascension, etc., we can attempt to work out the differences between a simple 1260 and 1290 and 1335, but I don't even think this is necessarily the answer here.

10 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

I find the Watchtowers research in the matter of “El/Elohim” to be satisfactory. There’s NO reason to go beyond the research conducted by the Watchtower, that many “modern” scholars have come to the same conclusion.

The Watchtower never mentions the Canaanite or Ugaritic texts with respect to ELOHIM, or the Divine Council of EL, although it does refer to these texts with respect to EL (the Bull; or "Father Bull"). Our references never mention that YAHWEH was considered to be one of the sons of EL, just as BAAL was another son of EL. A couple of intriguing points are made in the Insight book, however:

*** it-1 pp. 976-977 Gods and Goddesses ***

• Canaanite Deities. Extrabiblical sources indicate that the god El was considered to be the creator and sovereign. Although El seems to have been somewhat remote from earthly affairs, he is repeatedly shown as being approached by the other deities with requests. . . . In the Ras Shamra texts El is referred to as “father bull” and is represented as having gray hair and a gray beard. His consort was Asherah, who is referred to as the progenitress of the gods, whereas El is placed in the role of progenitor of the gods. . . . Most prominent of the Canaanite gods, however, was the fertility god Baal, a deity of the sky and of rain and storm. (Jg 2:12, 13) In the Ras Shamra texts, Baal is often called the son of Dagon, though El is also spoken of as his father. Baal’s sister Anath is shown referring to El as her father and he, in turn, calls her his daughter. Hence, Baal probably was regarded as the son of El, though he may also have been viewed as El’s grandson. In the mythological accounts Baal is depicted as assaulting and triumphing over Yamm, the god who presided over the water and who seems to have been El’s favorite or beloved son. But Baal is slain in his conflict with Mot, who was viewed as a son of El and the god of death and aridity. Thus, Canaan, like Babylon, had its god who died a violent death and thereafter was restored to life.—See BAAL No. 4. . . . Hence, at times Asherah and then again Ashtoreth may have been regarded as wives of Baal.—Jg 2:13; 3:7; 10:6; 1Sa 7:4; 12:10; 1Ki 18:19

We spoke of the Mesha stele as being the oldest extant mention of YHWH from about 890 B.C.E. Some of the next oldest extant mentions of the divine name YHWH are from Kuntillet Ajrud about which Wikipedia says the following:

• (Arabic: كونتيلة عجرود‎‎) is a late 9th/early 8th centuries BCE site in the northeast part of the Sinai peninsula.^[1] It is frequently described as a shrine, though this is not certain.^[2]

  The inscriptions are mostly in early Hebrew with some in Phoenician script.^[4] Many are religious in nature, invoking Yahweh, El and Baal, and two include the phrases "Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah" and "Yahweh of Teman and his Asherah."^[5] There is general agreement that Yahweh is being invoked in connection with Samaria (capital of the kingdom of Israel) and Teman (in Edom); this suggests that Yahweh had a temple in Samaria, and raises a question over the relationship between Yahweh and Kaus, the national god of Edom.^[6] The "Asherah" is most likely a cultic object, although the relationship of this object (a stylised tree perhaps) to Yahweh and to the goddess Asherah, consort of El, is unclear.^[7]

  An image on the piece of pottery (belonging to a pithos vase) found at Kuntillet Ajrud is adjacent to a Hebrew inscription "Berakhti etkhem l’YHVH Shomron ul’Asherato" ("I have blessed you by Yahweh of Samaria and [his] Asherah").

The connection to the false gods of Canaan and surrounding areas are to be expected, based on the Bible's continuous warnings to the Hebrews about the influence of false gods. The shared language of the region probably facilitated such syncretism, too. For example, the Insight book mentions Yamm, the god of the Sea. The Hebrew word for sea was also Yam. The Insight book mentions Mot as the god of death. The Hebrew word for Death is also Mot. The Mesopotamiam Sun-god was Shamash, the Hebrew word for sun was Shemesh.

But there is also a sense that gods could rise to the Most High of the "Council of Gods" (ELOHIM) and effectively replace EL. EL himself supposedly killed his father to reach this position, per the Insight book. Insight implies what some scholars have said: DAGON for a time might have been seen as the new EL making BAAL the son of DAGON rather than just the son of EL. This may also be an indication that as any god was seen to be the most powerful and ascendant, he became the "ONLY GOD" and that GOD becomes the MOST HIGH, therefore the ruler of the COUNCIL. Even in the Bible, the term MOST HIGH, does not just imply "The Most High over all the earth" but over all the other [non-existent, imagined] gods of other nations. (Psalm 77:13) ". . .What god is as great as you, O God?"  Poetically, at least, the Hebrews could still imagine a heavenly scene reminiscent of the common view of a "Divine Council of Gods."

• (Psalm 82:1-8) God [ELOHIM] takes his place in the divine assembly [literally, "Council of EL"]; In the middle of the gods [ELOHIM] he judges:  2 “How long will you continue to judge with injustice And show partiality to the wicked? (Selah)  3 Defend the lowly and the fatherless. Render justice to the helpless and destitute.  4 Rescue the lowly and the poor; Save them out of the hand of the wicked.”  5 They do not know, nor do they understand; They are walking about in darkness; All the foundations of the earth are being shaken.  6 “I have said, ‘You are gods, All of you are sons of the Most High.  7 But you will die just as men do; And like any other prince you will fall!’”  8 Rise up, O God, and judge the earth, For all the nations belong to you.

It's possible, of course, to make these "gods" simply powerful men who are judges, but then you have the problem of verse 7 which says that these "men" are going to die just as "men" do. And, of course, Jesus invokes verse 6 as a way of showing that he has every right to call himself the "Son of God" because the Father sanctified him and sent into the world from heaven. The Christian view is, of course, clarified here:

• (1 Corinthians 8:4-6) . . ., we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is no God but one. 5 For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.

So, our position on all of this is very clear, and I'm sure we are in agreement about it. I was only asking if you had found points that are useful in countering the claims of too much similarity. I think Mormons have embraced some of these similarities, but they are obviously foreign to core Hebrew and Christian concepts.

The points you copied above that are found on the site: http://www.garshin.ru/linguistics/historical/author-comparisons/jehovah_eng.htm are very interesting. I see that this source is in agreement with some of the points we have brought up before, but the source also takes some liberties that might not be warranted.

The book you have pictured deals with a very similar theme of syncretism in early Christianity. In both cases these questions are likely dealt with improperly by most authors. The book you reference apparently treats the subject in a way that I find awkward based on a publisher's description (below). I know nothing about this book, except from excerpts I have just looked at today, but wonder what relevant information you might have learned from it. There is nothing relevant or useful on the pages you chose to copy. (I'm assuming you might have read more of it.)

• In Kyrios Christos, Wilhelm Bousset argues that the Hellenistic Church's declaration of "Jesus as Lord" is a transformation of the pre-Christian Judaic community's understanding of Jesus as the Son of Man. This unique distinction between the primitive Palestinian community and Hellenistic Christianity reveals how the earliest Christian beliefs were informed by existing religious influences.