JW Insider

I am so sorry @bruceq if you think such experiences would need turn someone sour and bitter. I am happy for all the experiences I've had in the organization, and a few eye-opening experiences can enhance our appreciation. A look at our history might cause some embarrassment now and then, but look what Jehovah has been able to accomplish. We look at the history of God's people in the Scriptures the same way. There is no reason for responding the way you describe. Such things are easily dismissed by those who focus on the more important things. There were legalistic men leading the Jewish religion in Jesus' day, and they bound heavy burdens on people, telling them that they must follow them. But Jesus said to go ahead and do whatever they tell you to do. (Matthew 23:3-4) 3 Therefore, all the things they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds, for they say but they do not practice what they say. 4 They bind up heavy loads and put them on the shoulders of men, . . . We don't "grouse" about such burdens but come to love and respect all our brothers, because none of us expect perfection from each other. Besides, such burdens are to be considered as "nothing" among the true Christian congregation. Activity properly motivated is a joy. Our load is light and we find daily refreshment in spiritual things. Do you ever see someone read about David and Uriah, and say, "Oh No! Now I'm bitter and sour"? Instead it makes us all the more aware that Jehovah can allow grave imperfections and still love us, and all the injustice that goes on in this life is easily made up for in Jehovah's timetable. Anything happening to us now can be overcome with Jehovah's help. Everything that ever happened to us, happened to us in the past. We should not be so self-centered as to think that we need to carry issues from the past and pretend that we still need to carry them today. (Matthew 6:34) . . .So, never be anxious about the next day, for the next day will have its own anxieties. Sufficient for each day is its own badness. We can certainly LEARN from past problems, and we should. All things can be for our instruction and discipline. If we see lessons in these experiences, we can help others learn from those experiences and lessons. On your points about doctrine, well that is just a philosophy that works for you. There are certain traditions that are strongly entrenched, and some of these can make the word of God invalid. If you lived in a congregation in the first century and the the body of elders taught that the resurrection had already occurred, you really think you would be obligated to believe it, just because the Bible said that you must be obedient to those taking the lead among you? Following the lead referred to imitating the faith of those whose examples strengthened faith. It meant following the instructions of those who took the lead in good works. When it comes to doctrine, we are required to use our powers of reason, we are required to test it, we are required to question, if we wish to be noble-minded. We have the Bible itself to speak in agreement about, not someone's specific or current interpretation. One of the reasons I bring up past issues with doctrines is so that we can remember the lessons learned. For example, you can replace the date 1914 with the date 1925, since the Governing Body taught that as an undeniable truth, even more sure than 1914. During those years are you really saying it was your obligation to believe and teach and promote 1925, or was it your obligation to "make sure of all things"? I'm really interested in your answer to that question. Are you willing to respond to it?

This is interesting. What publication before Russell specified 1914AD? show the reference publications, please! You and I have already shared photocopies on this forum showing how John A Brown pointed to the 1914 period as a potentially significant time. What I said above is based on the Proclaimer's book: *** jv chap. 10 p. 134 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth *** As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in London, England, calculated the “seven times” of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length. But he did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did, however, connect these “seven times” with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. In 1844, E. B. Elliott, a British clergyman, drew attention to 1914 as a possible date for the end of the “seven times” of Daniel Those were the two sources from Christendom where Nelson Barbour would have picked up on 1914, at least indirectly for the first, and evidently directly for the second. I think you already know that John A Brown said that the Mohammedan Imposture started in 622 and ends 1,260 "days" later in 1844. The 1,290 ending in 1873, and that the 1,335 days ending in 1917. Therefore the three-and-one-half Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. ended in 1844, per Brown. (For these he used "lunar" years.) But the 7 times of Daniel 4 (not the Gentile Times) would run from 604 BC to 1917 AD. (Starting at approximately the beginning of the Babylonian empire, 18 years before Jerusalem was burned, and claiming that the "destruction or first captivity of the Jewish nation" started even before Nebuchadnezzar became king, back in 606, the same year that Russell mistakenly took for the destruction of the Temple. Brown said: "This second judgment synchronises with the war of Gog of Magog, at the close of the 1290 years, and extends until the close of the 1,335 years of Daniel. This attended by the general judgment . . . " (page xxxvii). In other words the prophecy for this war ran from 1873 until 1917, not only including 1914, but covering almost the exact time period of Nelson Barbour's harvest, in this case 1873-1917. × Page 130 and 131 mention that this is the time for the sitting in judgment of the beasts, especially "Rome," and the period of gradual decay and burial of Gog of Magog. As you must be aware, it was not Miller but E. B. Elliott in Horae Apocalypticae, who first in the 1844 edition, and also in the 1847 edition, included the following: (text version here: http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/history/05 Horae Third Edition Chronology.htm ) And, 1st, on the seven times of Nebuchadnezzar's insanity and state of bestialism: {1} These calculated after the year-day system, on the hypothesis of the Babylonish king's insanity figuring that of the great empires which he then headed, in their state of heathen aberration from God, (an hypothesis on the truth of which I do not myself entertain much doubt,) terminate, -- if dated from the time, B.C. 727, . . . -about the year 1793; . . . Of course if calculated from Nebuchadnezzar's own accession and invasion of Judah, B.C. 606, the end is much later, being A.D. 1914;

Thanks for showing such true concern. It's deeply appreciated. Those old posts are still in this thread. The ones that were moved to a separate thread (so far) made up 6 or 7 of the 20 pages of this thread. So those posts are still here, and in the same order, but by moving so many near-adjacent posts, they fall on different pages now. Regarding Bethel experiences, I look back on all of it overall with fond and happy memories. I know there was an initial shock, not so much at the existence of cursing and abusive behavior, but at the pervasiveness and acceptance of it among those with high levels of responsibility. I just typed up two cases that I thought were informative to your point but removed them to avoid raising new topics. The point was that I sometimes mistook mildness and meekness for humility, when it could also be paired with the height of egotism. And in another case where a brother ranted loudly and even slammed a newly published book across the room, I came to appreciate that he really thought he was protecting the worldwide congregation from error. As a young person, I didn't have the tools to understand people very well, and for many years still we continue to learn from new experiences that shed light on old ones. But when we realize and accept that some negative type of behavior is widespread, we also tend to accept it ourselves too easily, I think. And I'm sure the level of privilege has something to do with that. I had excellent and wonderful assignments, and I wouldn't have risked them to give any kind of feedback to someone who could control my assignments. I would expect an argument here and there in the bindery or pressroom, and yet I heard they were rare. I wondered if they were worse among persons of greater responsibility. These weren't daily occurrences, of course, because we always tend to remember and highlight the exceptions. Even if those exceptions are negative. Obviously, when it comes to doctrinal questions, I do the same thing here on the forum. I could go on and on about why our stance on war, hell and Trinity, for example, is such a good thing in that doesn't just set us apart, but also produces a much healthier Christianity than we could expect from those who see things differently. But instead, I assume we all know that alrady and try to share something that I think we probably do wrong, and which I believe can hurt our Christianity and spirituality unless we look into it. (By the way, I mostly push the idea that we look into something even if my reasons appear too strongly promoted. I don't usually have a specific solution about exactly what we must do to resolve the issues that arise. I think that's what a Governing Body is for. I might have ideas but don't think it's my place to push a specific solution when there are multiple choices of solutions. However, I always think that discussions can help prepare us for change, and will promote less dogmatism, and therefore more humility in the meantime. This helps us empathize with those we meet in field service and other interested persons.) On the issue of false rumors starting from nothing, I know it doesn't make much sense. We'd rather believe there was a kernel of truth to them. But in this case, I think I was there to watch the germination of a different kind of phenomenon. I saw brothers and sisters change from being loving to almost literally "spitting" in a split second when they heard about the "apostasy" charges that several persons received. It was the incongruent variety of extra charges that were heaped upon some of the brothers and sisters that got to me. Within days, these might have coalesced into only one or two charges that were finally settled upon, but even these were clearly far-fetched and sometimes contradictory. I think it's more of a matter of our own minds not being able to manage the "justice" of casting out brothers and sisters that were so loving and kind and would do anything for you yesterday, but were called a disgusting cancer today. I think the mind just needs to create a story to solve the dissonance. Your point about looking forward instead of back is so apt. I have three children, and in raising them, we often made the mistake of trying to draw out every detail of a conflict between any two of them. We wanted the whole story each time. Each person's version, and then as parents we know doubt imposed on our own compromised versions on top of it to make it coherent. What a waste of time! Your counsel to look forward, and focus on what we'll all do in the future to help each other avoid conflict creates on-going trust and therefore misconceptions and imputed bad motives don't have so much "breeding" room. I have a feeling that the current GB get along many times better than the 17 at once during my tour of duty. I hear from a friend that these kinds of issues are more likely only from the more competitive among the "helpers." I visited Patterson early last year (and Brooklyn Bethel, too, but it doesn't tell you as much any more) and I see a much more professional group who appear less likely to let education levels, class differences, and various insecurities get in the way.

It's back on your post in this thread from Monday, 8/21/2017 time-stamped at 5:20pm in my time zone (EST). In that post you asked: " Should "series" always be in quotes, when referring to these clay tabs of Babs?" You can tell from the context (of your original post) that she is discussing the fact that Grayson calls ALL of them a part of the "Babylonian Chronicle Series" which she sees as appropriate only up to a point, but does not see the same continuity especially between certain of the chronicles and major eras represented in the "Series" with such a long gap in between. Grayson almost always refers to the entire set of chronicles as the "Babylonian Chronicle Series:" And Grayson defends the use of the term "series." So, you are right. And I did not catch the full gist of your question. I thought you were asking about the grammar of requiring quotation marks when referring to the "Babylonian Chronicle Series." You can see that the answer to the grammar question is 'NO' by her use of quotation marks only in the capitalized word, and comparing it with his use, without quotation marks, in the non-capitalized word. But if you were referring to the point of her argument itself, then it's obvious you already know that she takes exception his continued use of the term "Babylonian Chronicle Series" because she thinks the word "Series" connotes too much continuity. Â Â

Of course that could be part of what he has in mind, but Russell never predicted the start of the Great War we now call World War I.

Really? And what was that spot-on prediction that Russell made? Please provide a reference if you have it.

Not to worry. This isn't a real thread. Not exactly anyway. I was asked to try my hand at splitting off some of the diversionary topics from the thread called: Perhaps you heard of it. Well, as you can tell from the image attached to the link, above, it quickly turned into thread about buzzards and elephants and even took a detour down Broadway. So I did a quick review of the thread and decided that it might be good to just see if I can split off only several of the side topics, so that this new thread becomes a place for the obvious side topics that always come up in a 1914 discussion, such as: You have no right to discuss this because it's apostasy even to bring it up! You must be a follower of Carl Olof Jonsson You must be a follower of Raymond Franz You are not being loyal and faithful to the Governing Body You must have bad motives, ego issues, etc. etc. In addition since that other thread is at least 15 pages too long, this new one will likely have a lot of free space, comparatively. So we might also just move over a few of the posts that weren't directly responding to the subject, although they might make interesting side topics, which could even be broken off of this thread someday. Feel free to make suggestions. I wouldn't worry about this too much. In a few days, probably both of these threads could move to the back of the line. For anyone who worries about such things I won't move posts if I find out that it loses any reactions it had. Wouldn't want to change that. But I'm also worried about the chronological order of the posts and continuity of comments. So if it's not working out, then most things will just stay where they were.

You think I can control this thing? I'm at least half the problem! [edited to add:] Notice: Since this thread is so long. I might be splitting off some of the unrelated topics to other threads. I just learned that I can do this, so I will only move my own at first to get used to this awesome power. Also, I have no interest in moving around every little comment that people make just because it's off topic. There would be no point to breaking off to a musical-themed thread, for example, because I don't think anyone expected to start a full-blown discussion on that topic. But there have been a few topics that might be interesting as stand-alone topics.

Spiritism and astrology have had in influence on a lot of our words. Speaking of "influence," consider how the word "influenza" was also a reference to how a certain illness was due to the "influence" of bad stars. And speaking of "consider," the word comes from Latin for concerning oneself "with the stars" con=with + siderial=star, although that one could have been made up by some "lunatic" (influenced by the moon). And even "chronology" is from the god Saturn who was "Chronos" in Greek, the god of time. Ultimately we even get words like martial from Mars, and more obvious ones like mercurial, saturnine, capricious (Capricorn), jovial (Jove/Jupiter), venerial (Venus) Love your library.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that Josephus did not mention it, because it was not an ancient Jewish idea. If you have anything on that I'd appreciate knowing where it comes from. And if Josephus had said it, we would not have gotten it from him, anyway. The first known mention of the possibility of man being on the earth exactly 7,000 years appears in Pseudo-Philo which would have been written about the same time as the Greek Scriptures, and this would make it contemporaneous with Josephus and Philo, but neither one wrote the work. They think it might have started out in Aramaic/Hebrew but is only known in Latin, although a Hebrew translation was made of the Latin. Of course, this has nothing to do with the length of the creative days. It says the following in chapter 28, in a kind of "creation" account ( http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/bap/bap44.htm ): Hearken now, ye that dwell on the earth, even as they that sojourned therein prophesied before me, when they saw this hour, even before the earth was corrupted, that ye may know the prophecies appointed aforetime, all ye that dwell therein. 7. Behold now I see flames that burn not, and I hear springs of water awaked out of sleep, and they have no foundation, neither do I behold the tops of the mountains, nor the canopy of the firmament, but all things unappearing and invisible, which have no place whatsoever, and although mine eye knoweth not what it seeth, mine heart shall discover that which it may learn (or say). . . . And when the foundation was laid, I beheld, and from that spring there was stirred up as it were a boiling froth, and behold, it changed itself as it were into another foundation; and between the two foundations, even the upper and the lower, there drew near out of the light of the invisible place as it were forms of men, and they walked to and fro: and behold, a voice saying: These shall be for a foundation unto men and they shall dwell therein 7000 years. 9. And the lower foundation was a pavement and the upper was of froth, and they that came forth out of the light of the invisible place, they are those that shall dwell therein, 1 and the name of that man is <Adam>. And it shall be, when he hath (or they have) sinned against me and the time is fulfilled, that the spark shall be quenched and the spring shall cease, and so they shall be changed. The Talmud from sometime around the 2nd to 5th centuries also mentions 6,000 years with chaos during the last thousand, but this was based on the length of the entire creative week, not that each day was 7,000 years long, but usually that all things were literally created at the beginning in literal days, but that this time count started from creation, and since then "a day is 1,000 years" so that every thousand years since then has been part of the creative week starting with Sunday, so that the 7th millennium is a rest day, a sabbath. (Babylonian Talmud Rosh Hashana 31a and Sanhedrin 97a). I think there are about 222 years left before "Year 6000" in the common A.M. Jewish calendar. An entry in Wikipedia called "Year 6000" gives some of the sources. In the book "Life of Adam and Eve" the book Testament of Adam is quoted where the end and was prophesied by Adam in chapter 3, verse 5. A book on the subject words it like this: Next Adam predicts the Flood because of the daughters of Cain 'who killed your brother Abel because of passion for your sister Lebuda, since sins have been created through your mother, Eve.' The end of the world will be 6,000 years after the Flood. That was actually a so-called Christian book, at least it was redacted in all the known versions to be a Christian book, and the end of the world referred to Christ coming. In the Ethiopic version the 6,000 year prediction for Christ is missing. Furthermore, thou must know, O my son, Seth, behold a Flood shall come and shall wash the whole earth because of the children of Kâyal (Cain), the murderer, who slew his brother through jealousy, because of his sister Lûd. And after the Flood and many weeks the latter days shall come, and everything shall be completed, and his time shall come and fire shall consume everything which is found before God, and the earth shall be sanctified, and the Lord of Lords shall walk about on it." A Although the 6,000 year prophecy is gone, there is a mention in the verses leading up to it where God tells Adam that even though he sinned and would have to die that God would come down to earth in flesh and die on the Cross in five and one-half days to save him. And besides [these things] God spake unto me, saying, "Be not sorrowful, O Adam, for thou didst wish to become a god and didst transgress my command. Behold, I will stablish thee, not at this present, but after a few days." And again He spake unto me, saying, "I am God Who made thee to go forth from the Garden of Joy into the earth, which shall shoot forth thorns and brambles, and thou shalt dwell therein. Bend thy back, and make thy knees p. 247 to totter in old age, and I will make thy flesh food for the worms. And after five days and half a day1 I will have compassion upon thee, and shew thee mercy in the abundance of my compassion and my mercy. And I will come down into thy house, and I will dwell in thy flesh, and for thy sake I will be pleased to be born like an [ordinary] child. And for thy sake I will be pleased to walk in the market place. And for thy sake I will be pleased to fast forty days. And for thy sake I will be pleased to accept baptism. And for thy sake I will be pleased to endure suffering. And for thy sake I will be pleased to hang on the wood of the Cross. All these things [will I do] for thy sake, O Adam." To Him be praise, and majesty, and dominion, and glory, and worship, and hymns, with His Father and the Holy Spirit from this time forward and for ever and ever. Amen. In several apocalyptic books (non-canonical) a day is 1,000 years, so this is interpreted to mean that Christ would appear 5,500 years after Adam. Again, however, these were parts of predictions about Christ's first appearance and second appearance. The Ethiopic probably was trying to work out a second appearance of Christ within 500 years of Jesus' birth. It was not about 7,000 year creative days. The 6,000 years of mankind with a 1,000 year millennial reign idea began popping again up in many places after Christopher Columbus used it, and later Martin Luther and many other reformers.

It's a curious idea. There was a lot of speculation about this 6,000 year cut-off for many years as you are aware. The idea that the angels would have known the exact time of the 6,000 years seems so obvious. For the speculators, it's odd that this fact escaped their notice. But this idea is also interesting because for many years the Watchtower taught just the opposite, that we could know the beginning and not the end. In fact the beginning of the tribulation was timed to 1914, with a break in the tribulation that would last either a few months or a few years, and now, of course, until nearly just before Armageddon. Another thought to ponder is that this whole idea that there was some significance to 6,000 years or 7,000 years came to us from Christendom. Perhaps no two creative days were the same length, perhaps some a few years, some a few million years. The Bible doesn't say they how long they were. And the idea that the 7th day would be 7,000 years is never in the Bible either. It was a thought that came to us from "speculators" in Christendom. We have absolutely no Biblical reason to think it might be some exact number of years divisible by 1,000. We don't even have scriptural reasons to say that the millennium must happen within the 7th day. What if the 7th creative day, the day of rest, is 7,326 years long. But no matter how long it is, it doesn't seem likely that its length would determine any portion of the time of judgment day, whether it be an early judgment beginning with a "temple inspection" or the final day of judgment. Remember that the warning about coming as a surprise also referred to the day of judgment that swept upon the people of Noah's day who weren't paying attention, and it was the day of judgment that swept upon the people of Lot's day who weren't paying attention, and it would also refer to the day of judgment that swept upon Jerusalem, when very few were paying attention. (Mark 13:35) . . .Keep on the watch, therefore, for you do not know when the master of the house is coming, . . . This was not about the tribulation specifically or some invisible presence, it was about the time when the master comes in judgment, right?

I'm happy to see Ann O'maly engage in the conversation about 539. From what I have seen, she is much more well-read on the subject than I am. I may have some questions for her, too. But I think this other portion of your post was directed at something that I wrote: I would agree that there is always a reason that a person is disfellowshipped and it's usually something like what you describe. The process usually works, and the more often than not, the person disfellowshipped understands that they were in the wrong and the congregation was right to take action. This is how I have always seen it work in a congregation setting. I have agreed with every congregational case I have seen, even though I have heard about some that I would have disagreed with, as would most of us. But I think the information you are are probably missing is that, from 1979 to 1982, there was a completely different style of justice inside of Brooklyn Bethel. 50 were dismissed in one day about 2 years before I got there. When I first arrived, Brother Knorr was using a style very much like Rutherford before him. The method was to talk to the entire Bethel family and rant and berate brothers who crossed him. Or, at breakfast, to announce dismissals right there on the spot for stealing, adultery, fornication, etc. Not a week would go by without something like this. If you saw an older brother doing hard sweaty work in an unlikely place for an old man (like a bindery or a hot laundry job, or something that seemed demeaning), there was always a story behind it, and it was usually about something he had said that crossed up against a more powerful brother's ego. When Knorr died, several wonderful older brothers (like CQ, the editor of the Awake! magazine, for example) started getting invited back to Bethel after having been dismissed in the previous 5 to 10 years or more. Sometimes, even their adult children or relatives were also now allowed to work at Bethel. Persons were suddenly recalled from their factory and toilet-cleaning jobs and put back to work in the responsible positions they had held during Knorr's administration. Even A.H.MacMillan, one of the persons imprisoned with Rutherford in 1918, the person who wrote Faith on the March, was berated and humiliated for daring to have the audacity to write a book. (Even though --or perhaps because-- it was a book that everyone wanted and loved.) So there was a mindset at Bethel about justice that was quite different from a congregation setting. It had developed from 1917 to 1977. A lot of the talk at Bethel from overseers reflected the language of the army, and those in the "rank and file" often saw discipline that seemed to follow army patterns. So it was not a surprise to see a kind of bunker mentality and "military tribunal" style judgments -- especially when "apostasy" was suspected. These were usually quick, on the spot, judgments. I have to admit that I paid close attention to what was going on because I knew that I had associated with persons like Brother Schroeder, Brother Sydlik and Brother Swingle who I was afraid might also find themselves on the chopping block, too. (Brother Sydlik was also serving time as an overseer relegated to the factory, the only Governing Body member assigned there, and there was a Knorr-Sydlik story behind it.) Sydlik and I had talked about chronology issues, and 1914-talk was one of the things that F.Franz was cracking down on based on comments at 'morning worship.' Sydlik, in fact, warned me that "we" (meaning he and I, both) had to watch what we say from now on because the "tongue can start a wildfire." Schroeder had "apostate" views about 1914 and the "generation" and had even spread them at his talks he gave on his trips to other countries. I was reporting directly to him on research projects at this time. He knew he could be in trouble himself, but protected himself by taking over as the prosecutor, and setting up actual "tribunal" committees to handle interrogations that only resulted in dismissals and disfellowshippings at his say-so. People joked that he was using "Star Chamber" techniques, and literally offering "plea deals" for information about higher-ups. Neither my roommate or I ever got one of these interrogations, but 4 of my friends did, and about 10 of my roommate's friends did. No one was joking when they called them "Inquisitions." Altogether, I don't know how many recanted, or finally got disfellowshipped, or just dismissed or just demoted, but everyone seemed to get a different deal. Schroeder was in a flurry of activity and I had to leave several times when tribunals reported back to him. But in any group, there are always going to be some ego-driven persons who pride themselves on their so-called knowledge, and spread beliefs, or reveal things about others, not out of concern or love, but out of maliciousness, or to cause contentions and division. I think that it's probably very difficult for most of us to distinguish whether there is any difference between the kinds of doctrinal differences we might discuss with others. For example, let's say that one person here, I won't say who , appears to be going off the deep end about all the issues surrounding 1914. He claims that it is because he sees the possibility that we are taking a false step in terms of following the Christian teachings of not serving for a date along with the rest of the counsel in Matthew 24 & 25, or not producing works motivated by fear of an imminent judgment, or not being presumptuous in proposing to others that Jehovah has blessed us with specific revealed knowledge about the times and seasons, etc., etc., etc. But let's say that another person, who might have also proposed some beliefs that are different from the doctrines of his fellow Witnesses, claims that he knows for sure that the last days are over in 2034, the 144,000 will all be picked within a few years of that point, and that by 2054, the judgment day begins. Those two examples might both appear just as equally "apostate." At the very least they both could appear to be equally motivated by persons who believe they are better or smarter than the Governing Body. In fact, the 2034 proposal might seem to be a little less apostate, because it is slightly more in line with the general teachings of JWs, and it surely won't be that far off anyway. And the one who wants to drop the 1914+generation formula altogether is hoping for something much more drastic and disturbing because it, to some, attacks the core of our ministry. So, I understand and expect the response to this that I have been receiving -- or even worse. I just hope that people will look into it and share their own reasons in defense of their faith and hope. Although you appear not to believe it, I will accept the Biblical evidence over the secular evidence any day. So far, I still see that we (Watch Tower publications) are stuck on pieces of the secular evidence, and have been using this secular evidence to try to override the Biblical evidence and Biblical counsel. I think it's always important to look more deeply into any issue like that, even to look into how it started and why we have held onto a tradition that positions itself in such a way. But I understand completely that most of us won't see it the same way. I certainly don't expect any accolades or respect for bringing up the subject. But I do think that for reasons of conscience, concern and love for the brotherhood, and faith in Jehovah, that it's important to discuss it in a serious manner. (Philippians 4:8) 8 Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are of serious concern, whatever things are righteous, whatever things are chaste, whatever things are lovable, whatever things are well-spoken-of, whatever things are virtuous, and whatever things are praiseworthy, continue considering these things. Â

Threadmeister? Great. I hereby rule that no one can make more than two posts in this thread containing lyrics from My Fair Lady. So show me you understand, and, if you did it, then just you wait because I know the street where you live, and with a little bit of luck, we'll carry on without you. But right now, I've got a customer to face.

I can't tell if you are just making up things as diversions. Should I assume this when you make statements that are not backed up with evidence? For example, I have COJ's book as a PDF and just searched through it for anything about Israel/Palestine/1946/1967 and it looks like there is no evidence for what you claimed previously. Do you have any evidence? I mentioned this already, and rather than respond, you changed the subject to how COJ insists that people believe the Watchtower was associated with WIlliam Miller. So I look up every instance of William Miller in his book, and, as I've come to expect by now, there was nothing there that ties William Miller to the Watchtower. He merely mentions Miller in the list of persons and groups that are part of the history of various Gentile Times doctrines. So how can COJ be insisting on something that he doesn't even mention is connected with the Watchtower? Again, do you have any evidence? Or am I supposed to assume that you made this up? I have found closer connections in our own publications, than in COJ's book about a relationship with the movement of William Miller: *** jv chap. 4 p. 40 The Great Apostasy Develops *** In the United States, William Miller predicted the return of Christ in visible form in 1843 or 1844. The German theologian J. A. Bengel set the date for 1836; . . . Such efforts to keep on the watch served to awaken many to the prospect of our Lord’s return. Russell wrote some interesting things about Miller as I said. As I also said, he did not want to be associated directly with William Miller or tied in any way to the failure and disappointment of Miller. But he did speak of the work of Miller as being foreordained through prophecy, and therefore the references to various dates with respect to Miller as fulfilling Bible prophecy, such as 1829, 1844, and later 1859, too, although this date was dropped early because it had referred solely to the work of Barbour as the vehicle of the Midnight Cry in the parable of the 10 virgins. Here is some of what Russell wrote and published, among other things, about Miller, in Volume 3, Studies in the Scriptures, p.86,87: The May 1883 Watchtower contained the portion you quoted, and some other points: The above article was written by J.C.Sunderlin, and only approved and published by Russell. But the most important connection to Millerism was what Russell himself had described a couple years earlier. The article below is from October 1881, and was the very important announcement that the "door was shut." No more persons would be chosen for the 144,000 as of October 3rd, 1881. So, evidently, the initial tie-in to Millerism was that Miller's movement was even more integral to the leading of God's people, and that these movements were of God. Miller and Barbour were both instruments for leading God's people. The midnight cry was made through Barbour, a Millerite from the beginning of that movement. The parable of the 10 virgins was not about an invitation to all persons, or even all Christians, but had a specific fulfillment from those "virgins" who were associated with the Millerite and Advent movements. And the difference was all in their response to Miller's and Barbour's chronology, nothing else. Foolish virgins were of the Millerite "class" who almost had it right but then gave up on the time element (chronology) out of fear of being disappointed again. And the prudent virgins were from that same class of Millerites, but who listened to Barbour about his chronology. (Initially, Russell accepted Barbour's chronology that claimed the "midnight cry" started going out in 1859 when Barbour first understood that this "midnight" was the halfway point between 1844 and 1874. Russell himself had not picked up on this midnight cry until he became associated with Barbour around 1877.) Baptist preachers, like Miller, do not ever call themselves "Father" as a religious title. Neither do Second Adventists. Bible Students today agree that it was due to his being the "Father" of the Second Advent movement, so it was out of respect for his continued leadership of 50,000 or so Second Adventists even after the failure of 1843 and 1844.

The Watchtower associated themselves with the "William Miller" movement by accepting the 1844 date as a date given in Bible prophecy. This does not mean that Russell was a Second Adventist, or even wanted to be associated with William Miller. He was embarrassed at their date failure, and was hesitant to admit that his fascination with the Second Adventists was primarily about their chronology. As he studied he found that he did not agree with the Adventists on a lot of things, but he always remained absorbed with their chronology. When Russell published Watch Towers that called William Miller "Father Miller" he was offering unnecessary respect to the man. But he claimed that the Millerites showed themselves to be foolish virgins whose lamps had run out of oil because they stopped setting dates.

I had no idea that COJ was into legitimizing the Jewish wars of 1947 and 1967. Sounds pretty strange to me. And of course I had no idea that he was trying to deceive R.Franz into using the accepted timeline to get him to legitimize. I had no idea what you meant previously by saying that I had the same ideology as COJ. And of course, I didn't know that this was the reason that I hadn't answered your simple question yet. Seriously, though, although I know that it's a common belief about Israel among Bible scholars and pretend Bible scholars, I did not know that COJ got into this, too. Where did you find this? In spite of @Nana Fofana's experience, I can't find anything about COJ when I look for his full name plus 1967 war, 1947 Palestine, etc.

I think this is usually true. If I were asked about my activity here, and it's bound to happen, I can say that I did what I thought was right at the time (which I do) but that I can do whatever it takes to make amends. I have seen this stuff go on for 40 years, and I am a very patient man . . . I'm a very gentle manEven-tempered and good-natured who you never hear complain Who has the milk of human kindness by the quart in every veinA patient man am I, down to my fingertipsThe sort who never would, never couldLet an insulting remark escape his lips A very gentle man Of course, sometimes the brothers who have to do the questioning might have a completely different idea of motivations or reasonableness. Galileo could avoid disfellowshipping by just admitting that he was wrong, but it's hard to put all that stuff back in the telescope once it's been seen. It takes a lot of humility to recant when you think someone is asking you to: "Admit that 2+2=5, because Jehovah says so!!" You just have to be able to empathize, put yourself in their shoes, and remember that the roles could so easily have been reversed if they had had the same experiences you had, and you had the same experiences they had.

I can tell what happened here. Even though I wasn't familiar with this supposed controversy and had never read about it in COJ's book, it seemed obvious that you missed the actual point of the statement you quoted above, and which I highlighted in red. COJ did not word this statement very well, but you can catch his meaning perfectly from the context you provided. I'll add a little more context from that section of the book so you can see if this makes sense: So COJ has already explicitly stated that the Society does indeed argue that Thermistocles died about 471/70. (He also points out that it's an argument the Society gets, at least indirectly, through Christendom, originating with a Jesuit theologian and an archbishop in the 17th century.) COJ's point here is that the Watch Tower Society leaves out information which would show what the real point of the source material is. As you saw from a previous question you asked, the Society did exactly the same thing in another place in the "Insight" book when they claimed they were giving the "Jewish understanding" from Soncino, but left out just enough words to hide the fact that they were only pretending to give the Jewish understanding. In this case COJ is saying that although the WTS was quoting Diodorus Siculus in support of Thermistocles death in 471, they were actually quoting source material that never claimed anything about a death in 471, but another event in his life that must have happened well before he died anyway. So it should have been worded: I've learned that it doesn't take much to catch the Society in these bits of "scholastic dishonesty." It's hard to say whether it's incompetence or deliberate or they just read with a kind of "wishful thinking" that some secular sources might somehow be found to offer support. I didn't know this particular one at all, but I am very disappointed that it keeps happening. I'm not sure if COJ ever noticed the previous one we talked about (the "Jewish understanding") but I can see that COJ has seen several more of these examples, and I know I have seen several too that COJ probably never deals with in his book. It turns out, however, that COJ was right in this case, and the Watch Tower Society was wrong. This was from your post about Grayson's book. (Which is excellent, btw) The reason this book review uses the term "Series" like this is to avoid the repetition of the longer phrase, "Babylonian Chronicle Series." The book itself has some very good information about why 539 is no better a date to call "absolute" than any other date in the Neo-Babylonian chronology, and why the supposed break at 539 is arbitrary. The reviewer alludes to it, saying: In Grayson's book, what was meant by this is that there is a 50 year gap in the Series after 539, but excellent coverage in the 50+ years prior. (The book review you mentioned takes exception to Grayson calling ALL of the chronicles the "Babylonian Chronicle Series" especially because she sees no real continuity between ALL the chronicles in this "Series" especially due to the long break in the eras covered.)

There you have it!

Apologies if this sounds too blunt, but that is simply a false statement. Sorry.

Congratulations, seriously!!

You do realize that we got this doctrine from Christendom, right?

Seriously, I would be happy to try to address your question. Just ask it! I might not know the answer but I am happy to learn, especially if it means I get the excuse to do some more research. Still not sure why you appear to obsess about COJ's findings. If he found something, I'd rather go to the source of the evidence he found, not go second-hand through him. If you have a question about what other scholars have found, and their different conclusions, that might be interesting. Do you plan on being specific about any of this? I'm getting the impression that you must want people to think you are obsessed with COJ. Why be so concerned about him? This is exactly like having 1,000 persons tell you that World War II started in 1914, but you want to believe it started in 1894, so you'd obsess about the fact that just one of those 1,000 persons had rabies. Ignore COJ. I think the only reason a person would try to associate the Neo-Babylonian chronology with COJ is because it probably plays to an audience who don't realize that COJ had nothing to do with confirming or disconfirming the Neo-Babylonian timeline. OK! That's a start. I take back everything I said above. That's a real question. When I break it down, however, I see that you have disqualified it from being a sincere question by adding the phrase: "since you keep insisting the chronology mentioned in COJ's book is FACT." I have never insisted that the chronology mentioned in COJ's book is FACT. I don't know that it is FACT. You are the one who is always concerned about COJ. I don't need COJ to learn about what he discovered. This should be about evidence not a man called "COJ." But I can try to remove the distractions from your question and see if I can understand what you really intended to ask. You can tell me if you think I am guessing correctly. I'll try to do this later though. Right now my full attention is being totally eclipsed by a separate distraction.

Your last paragraph there is preaching to the choir. I agreed 100% with @Arauna on those sentiments. But I disagree that we, (in representing and promoting the Watchtower's doctrines), should so slavishly put faith in the secular date 539/8 as if it is some holy grail that stands by itself. In truth, the evidence for 539/8 is excellent, but it really is NOT as good as the evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's "18th/19th" corresponds to 587/6. (Sorry about the slashes.) I like something that @Gone Fishing said, about how we rely on secular chronology for a doctrine that seems so important to a lot of us here. What you said about 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 is actually what opened my eyes to finally look at the evidence myself. And that's why I blame-shifted and projected the same useful counsel right back onto Russell himself. Why would any doctrine for Christians need to be based on a secular date like 539/8? Our 1914 doctrine REQUIRES that we put slavish faith in this secular date, in spite of everything we are willing to denigrate about secular dates, scientists, archaeologists. I have no problem at all pointing to the times we have been living in since 1914 as evidence that we need God's Kingdom to be manifested for all mankind. It's the only solution, and it is all the more proved to be the only solution, as man gets himself further and further into trouble. The more advantages and knowledge we have for solving problems, the worse things get, based on greed and the human condition. Sorry . . . .now who's preaching to the choir? You also asked that question about "What preaching campaign did he . . . found?" I don't think he would have had patience to work on this from 1968 to 1975 if he was really looking to start something himself. Of course, I can see how ego might have come into play, but I don't know him, and I've heard that he was one of those who likes a low profile. It's easier for me to picture someone who likes to do research as a person who wants to keep a low profile, because that's also the way I am in front of people in the congregation. Probably true of most nerdy types. He must have respected the brothers in Brooklyn enough to want to ask the full question correctly, dotting all the i's and crossing all t's (assuming they have those letters in cuneiform). I'm sure he thought the brothers would be interested because it was obvious that what he was learning was very relevant to the 1914 doctrine. I talked to two brothers on the Aid Book project who said they already knew what was coming even before they had seen what COJ had sent. They said they could guess what was in it, and had known themselves since the 1960's. But both of these brothers thought it better to just discuss it only with trusted friends. By 1980 every researcher associated with the 1969 "Chronology" article in the Aid Book was under suspicion, and most were dismissed from Bethel before the end of 1980. But they remained elders and special pioneers because this is what they really wanted. It wasn't until someone came around to disfellowship one of them that he was forced out, not because he wanted to be disfellowshipped. From what I have read, it's the same with R.Franz. He wanted to stay in the brotherhood, and in his congregation, and had nothing against any and nothing against the Society, and no reason to "badmouth" it. It seems that in both cases, the books they wrote were published only after they believed there was false information being spread. In a related case, when I was at Bethel, I knew a few of the proofreaders especially because they often needed reference books to look up exact quotes, even for translating to other languages. When I heard that 4 of them were under questioning, 2 married couples, I saw one brother's wife trying to hide tears at lunchtime. When I told the brother that I heard the rumor, he said it was tough but, fortunately, Brother Sydlik had said he thought it would be OK for them because as he supposedly said "I can tell that you and your wife really love Jehovah, and that's why you don't really have anything to worry about." By the next morning, I had learned that it was later on that same afternoon the previous day that they had learned they were all being disfellowshipped. But within hours, the rumor had surfaced that they must not have been just apostates but must have also been "swingers" who changed marriage partners, and that the men must have also been homosexuals. I was appalled by how fast those two rumors spread. Later we discovered that one of the wives was not disfellowshipped, but somehow that didn't stop the ugly rumors from being stated as solid facts by then. My point is that none of the brothers I knew who had been either involved or semi-involved in this apostasy had really wanted to leave and start anything on their own.