JW Insider

Of course. The first thing to remember is that any time the Watchtower tries to defend a chronology that is not based on Biblical or secular evidence, you should start by looking at the words that the Watchtower has left out when a quote is made. In other words, the resources that the Watchtower uses are often well-respected resources, such as the Soncino commentary. When the topic is chronology, you can just assume that a respected commentary doesn't actually say what the Watchtower is trying to make you think that it says. So, without even looking you will know that these commentaries have probably been misused, misquoted, or selectively quoted. This way it will give the appearance that respected scholarship supports the Watchtower view, when of course, it doesn't. Here's the full Soncino quote from Insight, but with the Soncino chronology added back in where the Watchtower left it out: *** it-1 p. 462 Chronology *** The Jewish understanding of this prophecy, as presented in the Soncino Books of the Bible (commentary on Ezekiel, pp. 20, 21) is: “The guilt of the Northern Kingdom extended over a period of 390 years ([according to the] Seder Olam [the earliest postexilic chronicle preserved in the Hebrew language], [and Rabbis] Rashi and Ibn Ezra). Abarbanel, quoted by Malbim, reckons the period of Samaria’s guilt from the time when the schism took place under Rehoboam (c. 932 BCE). . . until the fall of Jerusalem. [*footnote] . . . The right [side, on which Ezekiel lay] indicates the south, i.e. the Kingdom of Judah which lay to the south or right. . . . Judah’s corruption lasted forty years beginning soon after Samaria’s fall. According to Malbim, the time is reckoned from the thirteenth year of the reign of Josiah (c. 626 BCE). . . when Jeremiah began his ministry. (Jer. i. 2).”—Edited by A. Cohen, London, 1950. *[footnote] The entire Soncino Ezekiel commentary is consistent at dating the destruction of the Temple in 586 BCE, as is the Soncino commentary on Jeremiah, etc. The Watch Tower publications follow the very unethical practice of tacking on an extra 20 years to the prior dates before 607, without any explanation. This is why it isn't just 587/6 that they invariably leave out of scholarly quotations, but they must leave out most other dates related to the period. But in this case, they not only left out the dates, they also completely left out the "Jewish understanding of the prophecy." To save space I didn't include those explanations in the two other places where words were left out. The Jewish understanding, per Soncino, is that Ezekiel meant what he said: 390 years PLUS 40 years. The Watchtower completely disagrees saying: *** w72 5/15 pp. 310-311 Do Not Try God’s Patience Too Far *** However, in the actual fulfillment upon ancient Jerusalem, the forty days for the “error” of the “house of Judah” would run concurrently with the last forty days of the three hundred and ninety days for the “error” of the “house of Israel.” The unit of time measurement that Jehovah gave to Ezekiel was, “a day for a year,” made emphatic by being repeated. Accordingly, the forty years for the “error” of the “house of Judah” were to run concurrently with the last forty years of the 390-year period for the “error” of “the house of Israel.” The last forty years of that time period began in the year 647 B.C.E. Both time periods, the longer one and the shorter one, had to converge on the same date, for ancient Jerusalem was destroyed only once, namely, in 607 B.C.E. You see what they did? They pretended they were giving the "Jewish understanding of this prophecy, as presented in the Soncino Books of the Bible." Yet, they not only left out the chronology of the Jewish understanding, they completely left out the "Jewish understanding," too. And of course the Watchtower added about 20 years to the thirteenth year of Josiah to change 626 to 647. If you did this in any scholarly setting, it would be considered devious. It's called "academic dishonesty."

I've mentioned this before on the forum, but I was traveling with Brother Schroeder (along with Charlotte and Judah) in 1978 where we visited several countries in Europe together (England, France, Spain, Italy) but I had to do work for about a week in the Athens branch and didn't catch up to him again when he went to Innsbruck, Bern, Wiesbaden, Hamburg, Copenhagen, and a couple other places for meetings specifically about Carl Olof Jonsson. I knew in early 1978 that Jonsson had sent his manuscript a few months earlier, and had asked for comment, but no researchers at Bethel would touch it. I saw a photocopied portion of it in 1978, but actually never saw the entire manuscript until Brother Rusk had it in 1980. (Rusk and I were going over logistics for my upcoming wedding, but I asked him about it when he had it across his desk, and was making some notes.) He never responded to the manuscript either. One brother in Writing told me that no one even wanted it on their desk because they knew it was the same information, basically, that they had already come across in researching the Aid book. Similar information had come in from two different sources in the 1960's, too. None of the research projects that Brother Schroeder assigned to me were directly related to it, and I was not aware of Schroeder's specific actions he was taking with reference to Jonsson, until I read about it decades later. But Jonsson has put copies of his correspondence with the Society up on a website: http://kristenfrihet.se/english/corr.htm Jonsson admits to making at least one mistake in this correspondence, but the Society does appear to be the one "playing dirty." I would love to say that I don't believe it, but I was working even more closely with Schroeder back when he showed all the same "qualities" in his campaign to get rid of R.Franz from late in 1979 right up into the 1980's when he was finally successful. It was not something that a squeamish person (like me) wanted to see. I don't really know what kind of a person Jonsson was, but I suspect that he is mostly right in the claims he makes about how he was treated. Also, I can just imagine even some of the personalities that show up on this forum and imagine what they would be like if they thought they had the actual power to cast someone into Gehenna, for example.

"Spring of 1918" is no longer considered the definitive time for the first resurrection, and the temple inspection is no longer dated to 1918, either. That's because these were both based on time parallels and type-antitype utilization that were not specifically sanctioned by Scripture. Therefore "spring of 1918" as the time of the first resurrection, was turned into just "an interesting possibility." *** w07 1/1 p. 28 par. 12 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! *** Jesus Christ was anointed as the future King of God’s Kingdom in the fall of 29 C.E. Three and a half years later, in the spring of 33 C.E., he was resurrected as a mighty spirit person. Could it, then, be reasoned that since Jesus was enthroned in the fall of 1914, the resurrection of his faithful anointed followers began three and a half years later, in the spring of 1918? That is an interesting possibility. Although this cannot be directly confirmed in the Bible However, the marking of dates in 1918 has not been rejected for the 1,260 days interpretation. These are considered to be almost literal days from December 28, 1914 up until June 21, 1918. The "World Government" book came out while I was at Bethel, and when it was pointed out that the number of days is wrong, future references to this interpretation stopped using the specific days and just rounded off to the nearest month. *** go chap. 8 pp. 128-129 pars. 16-18 Marked Days During the “Time of the End” *** 16 The “finishing of the dashing of the power of the holy people to pieces” evidently occurred on June 21, 1918. On that day the American federal court sentenced the president and the secretary-treasurer of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society and five of their headquarters associates to long prison terms, amounting to a total of 140 years. It is true that it was on May 7, 1918, that these officers of the Society and their prominent companions were arrested by federal officers, but they yet had to stand trial and be sentenced, without benefit of bail. So the close of World War I on November 11, 1918, found these seven leading representatives of the International Bible Students, and a close co-worker, in the federal penitentiary at Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A., to which they had been shipped from Brooklyn, New York, on July 4, 1918. Thus a high court of the Anglo-American Dual World Power did deliver a shattering blow to Jehovah’s “holy people” on June 21, 1918. 17 When, therefore, did the three years and a half, which were to be climaxed by that shattering action against dedicated, baptized Christians, begin? How was that beginning marked? 18 Well, June 21, 1918, fell, according to the Biblical lunar calendar, on Tammuz 11, 1918. Three lunar years back from that, or Tammuz 11, 1915, fell on June 23, 1915. Then the half of a lunar year, or six lunar months, back from that would be Tebeth 11, 1914, which coincided with December 28, 1914.—See The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, under the heading “Jewish Calendar for 200 Years,” pages 634-639. The last paragraph is little more than a sleight-of-hand trick. The actual number of days is 1,271 here, not 1,260. Counting back from June 21, 1918 actually only reaches to January 8, 1915. That doesn't change at all by invoking a Jewish calendar. But the writer, Fred Franz, was pretty good at these things, and found a way, through obfuscation, to make the range reach back into the year 1914, which was his obvious goal. He was only able to get it to include the last 4 days of 1914, but at least it included the all-important year. When I was baptized (1967) the 1,260 days were the 1,277 days from November 7, 1914 to May 7, 1918. When I was born (1957) however the 1,260 days were the 1,278 days from about October 1, 1914 to about April 1, 1918. Just 2 years later (1959) the 1,260 days were the 1,233 (min) to 1,247 (max) days from the first half of November 1914 until April 1, 1918. And while at Bethel, the 1,260 days were the 1,271 days from December 28, 1914 to June 21, 1918. The problem with all of these dates is that if you give it an actual event in 1918 then you can't reach any significant event in 1914, and if you give a significant event in 1914, you can't reach any significant date in 1918.

Found a couple of the references. In the second one, the brackets are in the original quote. *** w56 6/1 p. 343 par. 3 Keep Pace by Conforming to Theocratic Requirements *** After 1919, and especially since 1935, great crowds of people, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, began to assemble to the New World society for theocratic instruction. *** w51 12/15 p. 752 par. 14 Release Under Way to the Ends of the Earth *** 14 Have this “great crowd” come to Zion and submitted to the theocratic rule of Jehovah who is seated on the heavenly throne? They have; for one of the elderly persons identifies the crowd to John and says: “These are the ones that come out of the great tribulation [this locates their coming between 1919 and Armageddon] . . . " *** w62 6/1 p. 340 par. 16 Why Should Christians Accept and Discharge Responsibility? *** As one of the elderly persons informed John concerning the “great crowd” of “other sheep”: “These are the ones that come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” (Rev. 7:9-14) These meek, sheeplike people, who, according to John’s vision, are an unnumbered great crowd, began to come to the royal house or temple after they heard God’s kingdom preached to them from A.D. 1919 onward. I think that after enough years, it was not thought that those who were alive in 1919 could survive long enough to be part of a "great crowd" who come out of the great tribulation and survive into the new order (i.e., new world, new earth). Technically, we should typically add the term "other sheep" so that it doesn't appear to apply only to those who live long enough (even from 1935) to survive out of the great tribulation. Now, 1919 is almost exclusively with reference to the "anointed." *** w07 11/1 p. 15 par. 6 Highlights From the Books of Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah *** Since 1919, anointed Christians have been collected together “like a flock in the pen.” Being joined by the “great crowd” of “other sheep,” especially since 1935 . . . *** w02 2/1 p. 18 par. 16 Are You Among Those Loved by God? *** Since 1919, they have brought forth Kingdom fruitage in abundance, first other anointed Christians and, since 1935, an ever-increasing “great crowd” of companions. *** w91 1/15 p. 26 The Pure Language Unites a Great Crowd of Worshipers *** Ezekiel pictures the spirit-anointed remnant, particularly since 1919. Especially since 1935 have they been joined by the “great crowd.” *** w91 5/1 p. 22 Thrilling Visions That Strengthen Faith *** Blowing the fifth calls forth locusts that picture anointed Christians swarming forth to do battle from 1919 onward. With the sixth trumpet blast, a cavalry attack takes place. In fulfillment, anointed ones, reinforced since 1935 by the “great crowd,”

That article from 1951 does indeed indicate that the Watchtower had been teaching that from the death of Jesus (until 1931) all Christians were only allowed to be in line for the heavenly gift, the heavenly calling. Note this from 1965: *** w65 3/1 p. 148 pars. 18-20 Part Two *** However, down till recently, the Fine Shepherd Jesus Christ was not calling out and gathering his “other sheep” in hope of everlasting life on earth.—John 10:16. 19 The inspired Scriptures show that God set a definite time for himself to gather together the “other sheep” for whom he reserves everlasting salvation on the Paradise earth under the kingdom of his dear Son. God’s provision for such “other sheep” is not a sort of safety net to catch all those whom he calls to the heavenly inheritance but who do not meet the requirements for it by a Christian course faithful to the death. Christians who have the heavenly inheritance reserved for themselves must either prove worthy of entering into it or else fail altogether without any other life prospects to fall back on. . . . 20 According to the historical facts, the gathering of the “great crowd” of other sheep began not before 1931 C.E., but particularly from 1935 C.E. forward. So the 1951 and the 1965 articles said that the heavenly hope to be one of the 144,000 was the only hope open to Christians during those centuries following Christ's death [up until 1931]. *** w52 1/15 p. 62 Questions From Readers *** . . . the Scriptural limitation of 144,000 placed on the number being in Christ’s body, and which position was the only one open to Christians during those centuries? The answer to that "Question From Readers" implied that most of these ones must have been only "professed Christians" and "not in line for the high [heavenly] calling." The reader might assume therefore that they could have been in line for an earthly calling, the "other sheep." But we were still teaching even in 1965 that there was no other calling between 33 CE and 1931.**[see footnote] **footnote: Actually, for a time, up until the 1950's and 1960's, it was taught that the group identified in 1935, had not only been called since 1931, but since 1919, and we just hadn't recognized it yet. The reasoning, if I remember right, is that John saw them come out of the Great Tribulation, and we believed (at the time) that the Great Tribulation was still in effect up until 1919, before a break in the tribulation (on account of the chosen ones). I'll find the reference if anyone is interested. I asked Brother Fred Franz about this, and he said that many of these 100's of thousands of Christian martyrs must be in Gehenna. He said even if they were just swept up in the Christian movement, they must have had a taste of the heavenly gift. (Hebrews 6:4-6) 4 For as regards those who were once enlightened and who have tasted the heavenly free gift and who have become partakers of holy spirit 5 and who have tasted the fine word of God and powers of the coming system of things, 6 but have fallen away, it is impossible to revive them again to repentance,. . . This idea (that hundreds of thousands of persons who were willing to die for their Christian faith ended up in Gehenna) didn't sound right to my wife, who asked Brother Rusk about it. Brother Rusk was the Watchtower's Editor at the time, and he also was the brother who performed our wedding ceremony. He implied that all these reported numbers of martyrs were just too high, so that these reports were all probably exaggerations in the first place, and so not to worry about it. If you knew the two men, you might have easily guessed that Franz would be judgmental, but Rusk would be more flexible with the Gehenna idea. At least Rusk never made the same claim that we could judge them to Gehenna, but he wouldn't deny it either. I wanted to believe, of course, that if they had not made it to full Christian maturity, then Hebrews 6 didn't apply. After all, the verses leading up to Hebrews 6:4 are these: (Hebrews 5:12-6:2) 12 For although by now you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. 13 For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong. 6 Therefore, now that we have moved beyond the primary doctrine about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying a foundation again, namely, repentance from dead works and faith in God, 2 the teaching on baptisms and the laying on of the hands, the resurrection of the dead and everlasting judgment. JUST ONE LITTLE PROBLEM . . . Of course, as ex-JWs will often point out, since upwards of 56,000 were partaking around 1931-1935, and there are something like 19,000 partaking now, this would mean that more than half the 144,000 are already accounted for among Jehovah's Witnesses. That would mean that in those 1,898 years (between 33 and 1931) that only about 69,000 Christians existed on earth. That works out to be about 36 new Christians every year. But we also know that there were at least 10,000 Christians in the very first century. Leaving us with 59,000 in about the same number of years, or 31 new Christians every year. It would almost look like the Gates of Gehenna had overpowered Christianity.

I watched your video that you linked to one of your posts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMTlCfyOHVs I was wondering if you still believe in all the content of this video. I've numbered the 10 different screen messages in the same order you presented them. The Last Days that began in 1914 are approaching their end The 144,000 are almost completed. Gathered in the Last Days of the Age. 1919 + 120 yrs. 2039 The gathering of the Great Crowd. 1935 + 120 yrs. 2055 The separating of the sheep and goats to commence at the half an hour of silence in heaven's time. 2034 + 21 yrs. 2055 Treat those coming for you with hospitality and kindness and don't be afraid. "I am with you" says Jehovah. We will lose our Kingdom Halls and our Meeting Places. Remember the account of Daniel in Babylon. Stay Faithful! Maintain and keep your personal relationship with Jehovah in good standing. He is protecting you, keep walking! Will you listen and keep on living? To learn more about the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ, visit JW.org today! Our message to change soon and then the end abrublty [sic], those on the outside will be dying the second death. It's Spiritual. This is 'the way' Walk in It ! Obviously, out of the 10 lines, five of them are basic and vague enough not to be of much concern. But naturally, the chronology is intriguing. It reminds me of exactly the kind of thinking that William Miller, Nelson Barbour, Charles T Russell, and Fred Franz were so caught up in, before 1914. #1 above is slightly clarified in your post above where you say: You have the 144,000 being gathered in these last days + an extra 5 years until 2039. Then the Great Crowd get an extra 16 years beyond 2039, until all gathered in 2055, which is also when the sheep and goats are separated. (I see you used the formula 1 day = 1000 years, and solved for 1/48 of a day (1/2 hour) = 21 years. [1000/48=20.83333] I'm surprised it doesn't bother you to see that you have written about "the times and seasons" in spite of Jesus' words about no one knowing the day or the hour, and the times and seasons are in the Father's jurisdiction, and Paul saying that we need nothing to be written to us about the times and seasons because that day will come as a thief. I wonder if you think that these words no longer apply or if you believe there is no contradiction in what you have claimed above and those paraphrased scripture references.

What Jesus said bears repeating: (Luke 21:8) . . .He said: “Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The due time is near.’ Do not go after them.

[sarcasm] It's too bad there was no pure worship during the time of Jesus and during the lives of the apostles. Otherwise the true Christian faith could have been built upon the foundation of Jesus and the apostles. [/sarcasm]

@Kurt Thanks for highlighting this particular site, HRWF. The focus is on religious intolerance, and I must say I was surprised at the hundreds of incidents around the world that are so similar to ours. Must say, though, that currently it's the JWs getting hit the hardest in Russia.

The foundation you gave for your question indicates that you missed the point about special definitions. You have mixed up interpretations with definitions. What this topic was about was how using unlikely definitions of certain words has contributed to the interpretation. Here's an example. Suppose you tell me the following phrase, which I just picked from one of your posts in this thread: This is a sentiment that should be easy to understand, and it's one I agree with whole-heartedly. But let's say that I start using the least likely meanings of the words you used, and it becomes the basis of a completely different interpretation. For example: Bruceq refers to the sins of Babylon the Great, which obviously refers to the current problems of the city council in the town of Babylon, New York. And we know that just as in the expression "Greater Boston area" ( Greater Boston - Wikipedia ) this refers to not just the area within the city limits of Babylon, New York, but the other suburban areas that come under the jurisdiction of the "Town of Babylon." Bruceq says he wants to share in the mistakes of Jehovah's people. Well, we know that Jehovah's people were the Jews in the Hebrew Scriptures, and so what were those mistakes he wants to share in? (1 Corinthians 10:6-11) 6 Now these things became our examples, for us not to be persons desiring injurious things, even as they desired them. 7 Neither become idolaters, as some of them did; just as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink, and they got up to have a good time.” 8 Neither let us practice fornication, as some of them committed fornication, only to fall, twenty-three thousand [of them] in one day. 9 Neither let us put Jehovah to the test, as some of them put [him] to the test, only to perish by the serpents. 10 Neither be murmurers, just as some of them murmured, only to perish by the destroyer. 11 Now these things went on befalling them as examples, and they were written for a warning to us upon whom the ends of the systems of things have arrived. Even less likely, I could assume that you were referring specifically, to the idea of perishing by serpents, which I highlighted above. So I therefore interpret your phrase to mean the following: "But I would rather perish by serpents than join the Town Council of the town of Babylon, New York." And I could even defend my special interpretation by pointing out that the "correct" interpretation must always be the least likely because persons in Christendom would have more likely understood it to mean exactly what you intended. Obviously, what most people thought you meant must be wrong, because people in Christendom would agree with it. Similarly, we have formed the foundation of the invisible parousia interpretation by accepting the least likely meanings of words and terms like "lightning" "shine" "observableness" "parousia" "synteleia" "sign" "generation" "appointed times of the nations." The most important of these special interpretations were inherited from the "private interpretations" of Nelson Barbour. And they therefore came to us as long-standing traditions that started back around 1875.

Christendom likes to take verses out of context. Many people in Christendom take this verse to mean exactly what most of us Witnesses do. Hundreds of commentators, preachers, and commentaries from Christendom also say that Jesus here predicted signs that would give us an indication of what the last days will be like before the great tribulation. Without the context it might sound like Christendom is right. But here's what Christendom was missing. Note the difference between these two conversations: Jesus: These buildings you are so impressed with are all going to be toppled to the ground? Disciples: Tell us when that's going to happen, Jesus. What will be a sign we should look for so we know when the END is about to happen? Jesus: Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another. Now if that is what happened, then Christendom and the Watchtower Society would be correct about their interpretation. But now look at what Jesus really said with more of the chapter's context. The differences will be highlighted in red: Jesus: These buildings you are so impressed with are all going to be toppled to the ground? Disciples: Tell us when that's going to happen, Jesus. What will be a sign we should look for so we know when the END is about to happen? Jesus: LOOK OUT THAT NOBODY MISLEADS YOU. FOR many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ AND WILL MISLEAD MANY. 6 You are going to hear of wars and reports of wars. SEE THAT YOU ARE NOT ALARMED, FOR THESE THINGS MUST TAKE PLACE, BUT THE END IS NOT YET. FOR Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another. ALL THESE THINGS are a BEGINNING of pangs of distress. . . . Many false prophets will arise and MISLEAD many. . . . But the one who has endured to the END will be saved. . . . THEREFORE, when you catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation . . . begin FLEEING. . . . Keep praying that your FLIGHT may not occur in wintertime nor on the Sabbath day. For THEN there will be great tribulation. . . . “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look! Here is the Christ,’ or, ‘There!’ DO NOT BELIEVE IT. For FALSE Christs and FALSE prophets will arise and will perform great signs and wonders so as to MISLEAD, if possible, even the chosen ones. Look! I HAVE FOREWARNED YOU. Therefore, if people say to you, ‘Look! He is in the wilderness,’ DO NOT GO OUT; ‘Look! He is in the inner rooms,’ DO NOT BELIEVE IT. For just as the lightning comes out of the east and shines over to the west, so the presence of the Son of man will be. . . . . Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. Yes, that's a lot of context. But when you look at all of it you see that Jesus isn't just saying "OK. You want signs? Here are your signs." Instead he is saying "OK. You want signs? DON'T BE MISLED!" So if this were any other situation we could probably guess what the problem is: Jesus is saying that it's going to be easy to misled about SIGNS! That really starts to be obvious when we begin noticing phrases like "THE END IS NOT YET." "IT'S THE ONE WHO ENDURES TO THE END." "THEN THE END WILL COME.". Jesus says that these are not signs of the END they are just the BEGINNING! Remember that they are asking about a PAROUSIA and a SYNTELEIA, both terms they associate with the FINAL END. And they obviously associate a judgment event on Jerusalem with the FINAL END. In fact Jesus had just done this for them at the end of the previous chapter leading up to the question: (Matthew 23:33-38) . . .how will you flee from the judgment of Ge·henʹna? . . . 35 so that there may come upon you all the righteous blood spilled on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zech·a·riʹah . . . 36 Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. 37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem,. . . 38 Look! Your house is abandoned to you. So, they were asking about this final end, this final judgment event on Jerusalem, asking WHEN these things will happen, and asking for a warning sign either to save themselves in time, or sound the alarm in time for others. So Jesus keeps repeating "DON'T BE MISLED," and states very clearly that wars and earthquakes are no reason to "sound the ALARM." (The word for alarmed here is from the term to cry out.) It can only be one of two things: either there is no sign to look for or it is something besides wars, earthquakes and famines. That would be completely logical to us in any other context. It's just that this one has already been explained a certain way, and we don't really WANT to believe that way could be wrong. It's the same way that a lot of folks in Christendom see it too. But true Christians are asked to "pay more than the usual attention" to what Jesus says. It's tempting to believe it in the traditional way we have been taught, because everyone wants to believe that Jesus was talking about their own generation here. Bible commentators going back to the 1700's also tried to confirm that this must refer to their own generation, and how things just couldn't get worse. But that was Jesus' point. Wars and famines and earthquakes were not the sign of the end, because when the end came you would know it from that fact that it would be much worse. You might have to survive through persecution and even being killed. But even this wasn't necessarily the end yet. To answer the question about a warning sign, Jesus did say that there would be a chance when the tribulation was cut short, for them to flee. When they saw that opportunity it was too late to do anything else. It would be a flight. And they were still being warned about being misled. What would these false Christ's and false prophets be saying that could mislead them? Clearly, they would claim that they knew the signs to declare that the end was close. They could claim that Christ had already returned even though they couldn't see him. They could claim he was just off in the wilderness, or in an inner room. In other words, invisible. But Jesus made it clear that no one could miss a parousia (judgment event) like this one. He said it would be like lightning -- not invisible lightning as some here have claimed -- but like lightning that shines from one horizon to the other horizon. Also they are reminded that in spite of their request for a sign, no one was going to know the timing of this parousia. It would be a surprise just like in the days of Noah when suddenly one day it started to rain.

Wrong?? I guess you'll have to explain what you mean.

Exactly! That's even better! I know we've discussed the other points here already under their own topic heading.

On everything important, I agree. I'm not claiming that we need to interpret it. After all the Bible already gave the interpretation. As you said before: "No need for another interpretation but thanks anyway." [Emphasis added.] If the Bible says that it already gave us the interpretation, don't we risk adding to or taking away from the words of the scroll if we decide that we need another interpretation? And it can also lead to all kinds of scriptural problems and inconsistencies, which so far no one has responded to with scripture. (Changing the topic isn't the same thing, and, fwiw, I don't celebrate Christmas.) A mere claim that "the Governing Body" has all interpretational authority is probably fine for most of us. But when the scriptures demand that we search them and not accept "a letter as though from us" on the topic of the parousia, but suggests that we use "reason" my own conscience tells me that I have a responsibility to follow the Bible as best I can and follow the lead of the Governing Body as best I can, too. Wherever there might be a difference, however, I think we know who we should obey. (2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2) 2 However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . 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. (Luke 21:8) . . .He said: “Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, . . . ‘The due time is near.’ Do not go after them. . . (Galatians 1:10) 10 Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ’s slave. (Acts 5:29) . . .: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men.

That's fine as a philosophy, but the topic was the Scriptural point of view.

This was already covered previously in this thread, but I'll be happy to answer this again, too. Although I know that Ann also knows the Bible's answer to this topic, and it's always great to see anyone take the side of the Bible's advocate, here. Yes we agree that Jesus knew more than Daniel did. And Jesus actually gives us the ACTUAL length of the "appointed times of the nations." Here's a quote from the NWT of Luke 21:24, where Jesus spoke of the appointed times of the nations to trample Jerusalem, followed by a place where Jesus attached a specific length of time to these "appointed times of the nations." (Luke 21:24) 24 . . . .into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. (Revelation 11:2) . . .to the nations, and they will trample the holy city underfoot for 42 months. In case anyone missed the connection, let's try a paraphrase of both of them: (Luke 21:24) 24 . . . .into all the nations; and Jerusalem, the holy city, will be trampled underfoot by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. (Revelation 11:2) . . .to the nations, and Jerusalem, the holy city, will be trampled underfoot by the nations until 42 months, 1260 days, are fulfilled. Of course, you could argue that one said "Jerusalem would be trampled underfoot by the nations" and the other one said "the holy city would be trampled underfoot by the nations." (Nehemiah 11:1) . . .to live in Jerusalem, the holy city, . . (Isaiah 52:1) . . .Clothe yourself with strength, O Zion! Put on your beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city!. . . (Daniel 9:16) . . .may your anger and wrath turn away from your city Jerusalem, your holy mountain; . . Of course, you could argue that one said the city would be "trampled on by the nations" and the other said the city would be "trampled underfoot by the nations." But the Watch Tower's Kingdom Interlinear Translation puts that argument to sleep. It's the exact same word. For ease of lookup I'll include the Strong's Dictionary reference for each Luke 21:24 -- g3961 πατέω pateō : to trample, crush with the feet Rev. 11:2 -- g3961 πατέω pateō : to trample, crush with the feet In fact, the NWT prior to 2013 prided itself on always using a consistent English word or term to translate specific Greek words wherever they came up, but not here. There is not even a cross reference here, and no explanation in any Watch Tower publication about why this verse in Revelation 11:2 echoes Luke 21:24. Revelation 11:2,3 is also an excellent citation for showing how 3.5 times = 42 months = 1,260 days, which could have been used in the "Bible Teach" book that was just quoted. But notice how this verse is always avoided for making that point. And Revelation 12:6,14 is used instead. So one of the verses says there will be appointed times for the Gentiles trampling the holy city, and the other says that those appointed times were 42 months, or 1,260 days. The Watchtower must avoid this verse for any purpose except to apply it to a time from December 1914 as literal days so that they end in the spring of 1918. And what do we say happened in December 1914? Good question. Nothing! It just happens to be where 1,260 days lands if we work backwards from the spring of 1918!

It's not a mystery to a lot of people. You saw it in the Insight book, so it's not a mystery to the persons who put that book together. I'd wager that even AllenSmith hasn't changed his mind about this particular idea. I'm pretty sure you won't find a lot of support for this idea even among your own congregation.

Not inconsistent at all. This dream did have a future fulfillment. The Bible said it would. The the Bible said that it did! The Bible says it was fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar. What's inconsistent is that every dream and prophecy in Daniel has ONE fulfillment, but the Watchtower needed this one to have TWO fulfillments to support a tradition. Besides, I'm the one who believes it has a FUTURE fulfillment, just like the Bible says. But the Watchtower tradition indicates that it could have a PAST fulfillment. Jerusalem is clearly already destroyed at this point, as Nebuchadnezzar is already proudly and haughtily upon upon the vast great "world" empire that he himself has built. So if this dream happens AFTER Jerusalem is destroyed, then it is a prophecy about a time in the past when Nebuchadnezzar already destroyed Jerusalem. Furthermore, if the Watchtower claims that it was fulfilled in 607, and if they truly believe that 539 was an assured, secular, pivotal year, then 607 MUST be a time 2 years before Nebuchadnezzar even became king of Babylon.

I forgot to respond to this last portion you wrote: The Bible does not speak of the month as only thirty days. As already shown, the Bible, speaks of the measurement of months as lunar, from new moon to new moon. The Bible contains several places where numbers representing time and chronology were rounded off. Sometimes this rounding might have been done to make large numbers easier to remember, time periods easier to remember, or easier to calculate. We'd only be speculating if said we knew exactly why the Bible often appears to round the numbers. For example, Jesus may have been in the grave for as few as 29 hours? So if it was just a few hours more than one full day, why do we call it 3 days. Why was it called 3 days and 3 nights? Our solution is to say it was PARTS of three days. Because of the book of Jonah, perhaps this was the easiest way to remember that it was part of Friday (from afternoon until sundown which was the start of Saturday), all of Saturday, and part of Sunday (already raised before sunrise). In this case it's possible that "Parts" of three days were rounded off to three days. Another example, why does Matthew say it was 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 from David to the deportation, and 14 from the deportation to Christ? If you count the generations listed here, or even the variations in the Hebrew Scriptures, or the LXX, or what's listed in Luke, you still don't get 14 for each of those. (Matthew 1:17) . . .All the generations, then, from Abraham until David were 14 generations; from David until the deportation to Babylon, 14 generations; from the deportation to Babylon until the Christ, 14 generations. *** it-1 pp. 915-916 Genealogy of Jesus Christ *** This division may have been made as a memory aid. However, in counting the names we find that they total 41, rather than 42. When the Bible says that 4,000 men were struck down (1 Sam 4:2) then 30,000 foot soldiers fell (1 Sam 4:10) do we always believe that it could not have been 3,998 or 30,002, respectively? Large populations are always rounded off to numbers like 5,000, 18,000 or even 500,000, 600,000, 800,000 etc. (2 Sam 24:9) Joʹab now gave to the king the number of the people who were registered. Israel amounted to 800,000 warriors armed with swords, and the men of Judah were 500,000. Note this from the Chronology article in Insight on page 461: the beginning of 1077 B.C.E. 40 years David’s reign to the beginning of 1037 B.C.E. 40 years Solomon’s reign to the division of the 997 B.C.E. 40 years kingdom Deuteronomy 2:7; 29:5; Acts 13:21; 2 Samuel 5:4; 1 Kings 11:42, 43; 12:1-20 *** it-1 p. 461 Chronology *** . . . the . . . three periods all may have included fractional figures. Thus, David’s reign is shown to have actually lasted for 40 1⁄2 years, according to 2 Samuel 5:5. If, as seems to have been the practice, regnal years of these kings were counted on a Nisan-to-Nisan basis, this could mean that King Saul’s reign lasted only 39 1⁄2 years . . . But there is another point you made above, if a month is only to have thirty days and this is for consistency in working out prophecies, then why do we not use 30-day months when deciding to translate these time periods into so-called modern day fulfillments? A year of 12 30-day months is only 360 days, so these supposed 2,520 years would be 360-day years. Yet the Watchtower uses 365.25 day years, and the Watchtower uses an average of 30.4375 days in a month for the fulfillment. So what's all the fuss about consistency if the Watchtower isn't concerned about it? [Edited to add:] And if as you say "it was to have consistency when we work out the prophecies," then why do we make a "day for a year" in the 7 times of Daniel, but do NOT make a day for a year in the three-and-one-half times in Revelation, and why do we NOT USE EITHER days or years, when Revelation 11:9,11 says "three and one half days"?

As @Ann O'Maly already said, none of this proves the Bible to be incorrect. As you say, the Bible gives a rounded number of 30 days, whenever it speaks of a range of dates. We don't know the exact reason. Probably for the same reason that anyone uses rounded numbers, for simplicity, for ease of calculations. I can't think of too many reasons that the Hebrews would need to calculate the exact number of days over a long period. Perhaps you can. Thinking about a farmer, as your did, if experience tells you that barley takes about 105 days from planting to harvest, you could easily translate that to 3.5 months. If you planted on the new moon, you could expect to harvest at the full moon (always on the 14th or 15th). If someone tells you that wheat takes 120 days, then you could translate that to 4 months, and if you do all your planting at the same time, then you could expect to plant on the same new moon with the barley and expect to harvest on the first new moon after the earlier barley harvest. (Oats, if they had them, might take 115 days to ripen.) It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable that you might want to know these number of days if you were hiring laborers, or for planning, but it also seems reasonable that a quick, close estimate was all that was needed, and thus there was no need to worry about the fact that a time period of 3 months might have 88 days in some cases or 89 days in some cases. (29+30+29) or (30+29+30). What we DO know is that if a previous month had 30 days, the next month is going to be closer to 29. If you try to call 2 months in a row with 30 days, the next new moon is going to show up about 28 or 29 days later. Ann is right that this was not always in a strict alternating pattern (which is why I said that the farmer would never be more than one day off). It is true that some Jews experimented with 364 day calendars, to be a little more in line with a solar calendar, but even these could also not be used for very long periods without adjustments. The Dead Sea Scrolls shows that they tried months of 30+30+31 days for each quarter of the year, for a total of 364. There is a possibility that Daniel was referring to such a calendar, but we don't know. I am sure you already know that Insight book says the following: *** it-1 pp. 389-390 Calendar *** Early calendars were mainly lunar calendars, that is, the months of the year were counted by complete cycles of the moon, as, for example, from one new moon to the next new moon. On the average, such lunation takes about 29 days, 12 hours, and 44 minutes. The months were usually counted as of either 29 or 30 days, but in the Bible record the term “month” generally means 30 days. . . . Hebrew Calendar. The Israelites used such a lunisolar, or bound solar, calendar. This is evident from the fact that Jehovah God established the beginning of their sacred year with the month Abib in the spring and specified the celebration of certain festivals on fixed dates, festivals that were related to harvest seasons. For these dates to have coincided with the particular harvests, there had to be a calendar arrangement that would synchronize with the seasons by compensating for the difference between the lunar and solar years.—Ex 12:1-14; 23:15, 16; Le 23:4-16. . . . The Jewish months ran from new moon to new moon. (Isa 66:23) Thus, one Hebrew word, choʹdhesh, rendered “month” (Ge 7:11) or “new moon” (1Sa 20:27), is related to cha·dhashʹ, meaning “new.” Another word for month, yeʹrach, is rendered “lunar month.” (1Ki 6:38) In later periods, fire signals were used or messengers were dispatched to advise the people of the beginning of the new month. *** it-1 p. 392 Calendar *** In postexilic times the names of the months used in Babylon were employed by the Israelites, and seven of these are mentioned: Nisan, the 1st month, replacing Abib (Es 3:7); Sivan, the 3rd month (Es 8:9); Elul, the 6th (Ne 6:15); Chislev, the 9th (Zec 7:1); Tebeth, the 10th (Es 2:16); Shebat, the 11th (Zec 1:7); and Adar, the 12th (Ezr 6:15). The postexilic names of the remaining five months appear in the Jewish Talmud and other works. They are Iyyar, the 2nd month; Tammuz, the 4th; Ab, the 5th; Tishri, the 7th; and Heshvan, the 8th. The 13th month, which was intercalated periodically, was named Veadar, or the second Adar. Eventually the length of most of the months was fixed as having a specific number of days. Nisan (Abib), Sivan, Ab, Tishri (Ethanim), and Shebat regularly had 30 days each; Iyyar (Ziv), Tammuz, Elul, and Tebeth regularly had 29 days each. Heshvan (Bul), Chislev, and Adar, however, could have either 29 or 30 days. The variations in these latter months served to make necessary adjustments with the lunar calendar but also were used to prevent certain festivals from occurring on days viewed as prohibited by later Jewish religious leaders. We don't have any evidence of the standard Hebrew calendar ever just adding a few days in a year, but there is plenty of evidence that the Jews lived under a calendar in Babylon that added a full month to every leap year, 7 times in a 19 year period. We know that even in Bible times the Hebrew calendar had already adopted the Babylonian names for the months. We also know that only about 250 years after Revelation was written that the Jews had already documented a formal a system that also added 7 full months at various places within every 19 year period. (One difference between them was that the Babylonians would use either the 6th or the 12th month for the intercalary month, and the Hebrew calendar settled on just adding it at the 12th month for each of those seven different times.) But we don't have to go to the Talmud or later Jewish writings to know that the Biblical month was from "new moon" to "new moon." (Isaiah 66:23, NWT 2013) 23 “And from new moon to new moon and from sabbath to sabbath, All flesh will come in to bow down before me,” says Jehovah. (1 Kings 6:37, 38, NWT 1984) 37 In the fourth year the house of Jehovah had its foundation laid, in the lunar month of Ziv; 38 and in the eleventh year, in the lunar month of Bul, that is, the eighth month, the house was finished as regards all its details and all its plan; so that he was seven years at building it.

You are right. Of course they didn't do the calculations. It was up to the priests to declare the holidays. The peasants, farmers, fishermen, traders, etc., paid attention to the priests because they needed to know when at least 3 of the holidays occurred. Turns out it was surprisingly easy to second guess the priests, though. You could almost always get the calendar right in Jewish society even without a priest, and you'd probably never have to check with a priest but once every two or three years. But that wasn't a problem either because heads of households, sometimes with family members, traveled to Jerusalem up to three times a year to celebrate the major holidays in Jerusalem. The priests would already know if a leap year was going to be declared at the end of that particular year, and probably knew years in advance which years would require it. It was easy for everyone to tell when the new month started. You could never be more than one day off, and could usually guess it right even with a strong cloud cover for two or three days. But I can tell you missed a couple of important points, if you really thought that anything said above meant that the farmer would need to do calculations. No. This isn't true. Jehovah is the one who gives us the average 29.5 days in a month, and it has always been exactly the same for thousands of years. So the new moon showed up every 29.5 days and they had to "round it off" based on whether they could see the new moon after sundown at the end of the month. This means that when they saw the new moon show up after the sun went down, they started counting that night until the next sundown as DAY 1. Then they could count off 29 days and know (by how small the sliver was getting) whether the new moon was going to occur the next sundown or if it might take until the day after. (1 Samuel 20:18) . . .Jonʹa·than then said to him: “Tomorrow is the new moon,. . . If it was obvious it was going to happen the next evening, then they wouldn't even have to watch, because that next evening started DAY 1 of the following month, and the month they were in just had 29 days. Because the current month had 29 days, the next month was going to have 30 days. Because that next month would have 30 days then the month after was clearly going to have 29 days. The new moons are going to be seen like that for many months in a row. The pattern could go on almost forever: 29+30+29+30+29+30+29+30+29+30+29+30 That's why you can say that the year had 254 days, and that the average month was 29.5 days. Because the pattern was so obvious, the highest priest in charge of such things, could declare that a certain 29 day month was going to have 30 days, but this would force an extra 29 day month into that same year. If they wanted to force a regular 30 day month to have only 29, then they would have to force an extra 30 day month into the year. Because the average is not precisely 29.5 they had another reason to declare an extra 30 day month after several years, without a 29 day month. This is one reason that the month added every leap year (Adar) could always be a 30 day month. Instead of the "plain" month of Adar, they would add a 30 day Adar I and call the next month Adar II. The above quote is from "Judaism 101" on http://www.jewfaq.org/calendar.htm But the pattern was so easily learned that anyone, even a completely illiterate farmer, could know the next 12 months just by knowing the day that the New Year was declared. He would never be more than one day off from Jerusalem's count for the entire 12 months. Two ideas from this sentence are wrong: It was not an extra short month, in fact it was almost always a 30 day month, rather than a 29 day month. It was not every fourth year. The year of 12 lunar months had 354 days which was about 11.25 days shy of a solar year. So after only 3 of these years, they would already be nearly 34 days behind the sun, more than a full month off. So they needed to add a full month, every 3 years, and even this left them short by 4 days to make up a whole solar year. So a couple times every 19 years they even needed to add a full, long month every 2 years. A typical solution that developed was to add the extra month every 3rd, 6th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, and 19th year of every 19 year cycle. That's 7 times every 19 years, or every 2.7 years on average. It was a full, long month in every case. Since you asked. The motive is truth and accuracy and defense of the Bible. Also it's out of love for people, and the fact that a lot of people don't understand this and begin to believe that if you try to tell the truth then you must not be accepting the Bible. This results in unnecessary judgmentalism and sometimes even rejection of obvious truth. We should always be aware of this when we can, and always tell the truth about such things. Also, I believe you will find that the Watchtower accepts every bit of what I just said above as true. You may even find that the same persons who down-vote these posts where they do not LIKE the facts, already understand that these are still the facts. A down-vote without a defense is evidence to me that the point was probably made clearly enough.

And here I thought I had at least two-thirds of the angels, too.

Don't know if you saw it, but I quickly edited out a line in that last post that said that the Jews had experimented with a calendar of 30-day months after they had lived in Babylon. I was thinking of a post you had made several months ago when I wrote that. But I edited this out for two reasons. One is that it would be difficult to explain how these 12x30=360 day years were actually calculated as 364 day years without getting into resources like Enoch, the DSS, and perhaps even the potentially late timing of Daniel. Another reason is that the Flood account in Genesis counts the 5 month range as 150 days, even though it would have been about 147 or 148 days using "new moons." This could also have been a late redaction but thought it was more likely a reference to the way that date ranges were commonly described. I think there is some evidence that even though the Jews did experiment with "solar" 360 day calendars and 364 day calendars, that the 30-day month was referenced for practical reasons over ranges of dates, too. Even with a solar calendar we still do this because our own solar calendar today uses an average of 30.4375-day months. Describing a 3.5 year period as a 42 month period would involve an average of 30.125 days per month which is still pretty good for financial calculations, since there was typically only one leap year in the period. However, describing a 7-year period as 2,520 days (which the Bible NEVER does) would have involved a larger practical error since there would have been at least 2 and sometimes 3 leap years in that period. I do agree, at least, with the idea that a 30-day month was considered the "ideal" month in the Jewish calendar, and played a part in referencing this number of days in Daniel, and Revelation of course, references the same because it is based primarily on Daniel. (Revelation was the unsealing of the scrolls that Daniel said would have to remained sealed until the last days.)

Now who's going back to Russell? The Bible might be consistent, but we aren't. We don't believe the 1,260 days means exactly 1,260 days in the fulfillment of any prophecy about the 1,260 days. (in either Daniel or Revelation). Also we don't teach that 1,260 days means 1,260 years in either of of those prophecies. Also, a Biblical Jewish month was not thirty days. A Biblical Jewish month was always based on the "new moon." So that it was really 29.5 days long. This means that in practice there were six 30-day months, and six 29-day months every year. A 30-day month was only used as a way to give a close approximation to a range of months, a calculation from a starting point to an ending point. For example, the distance from the 17th of the 2nd month to the 17th of the 7th month was sometimes 146, sometimes 147, and sometimes 148 days. But because it is a multi-month span, the Bible rounds it off to 150 days. The distance from the 17th of the ninth month to the 17th of the 2nd month (of the following year) was sometimes 146, sometimes 147, sometimes 148, and sometimes 176, sometimes 177, and sometimes 178 days. The longer time periods over came up every 3 years or so, so if they are averaged in, then the average for a 4-year period using the ideal number of months in 4 years (48) would give often give you a 30.15 day month. So you can see why the 30 day month was useful for a quick approximate calculation of date ranges. That 30.15 day month average over 4 years, was still actually made up of months, where half of them were 29 days and half were 30 days. Here's a specific example that often happened. Each year was typically 354 days and every 2 to 3 years it could be 384 days, when an entire month was added for a leap year. So: 354+384+354+354 equals 1,446 days Assuming 12 months a year, that's 48 months Divide 1446 by 48 = 30.15 But it was really 49 months because there was one leap year in the mix: 1446 divided by 49 = 29.51, which is the distance from one new moon to the next new moon. So it should be clear why the Bible would use an average of 30 days to approximate a time span of 42 months as 42 x 30 = 1,260. In real life a real 42 month period was always 1,239 or 1,240 days. It was NEVER 1,260 days. But a 3.5 year period that was called 42 months, was actually a 43-month period (very rarely it was 44 months). Which means that the 3.5 year period was 1,269 days. If you have worked in banking or finance, you probably know that we still use the 30 day month, and therefore the 360 day year in some financial calculations. It's one of the built in functions in Microsoft Excel. There is evidence, I'm told, that the Babylonians used it, too. The DAYS360 function in Microsoft® Excel is used to calculate the number of days between two dates based on a 360-day year ...

Funny to look at the names of Bethelites on page 34-38: Charles Russell Coultrup (p.35) Charles Russell Hessler (p.36) Charles Taze Russell Peterson (p.37) Rutherford was said to have complained to MacMillan as early as 1918 or 1919 that he inherited a Russellite "cult." The men were known for dressing in black coats like his, wearing beards just like his, etc. He said they were "worshipping" Russell. *** jv chap. 6 p. 65 A Time of Testing (1914-1918) *** Others, on account of their deep respect for Brother Russell, seemed more concerned with trying to copy his qualities and develop a sort of cult around him. Oddly, one way to counter it was to suggest that beards be cut or you lose privileges. I heard from family members who go back to Russell's time (but can't verify yet) that a suggestion went out in the 1930's that Witnesses should wear more blue instead of "Russell" black at some of the assemblies. The Watch Tower publications reported that the audience at the 1942 St. Louis assembly looked like a "sea of blue."