JW Insider

23 minutes ago, Arauna said:

As I said earlier - the ONLY secular date that is without question is when Cyrus sent the Jews back to Jerusalem. 

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

1 minute ago, bruceq said:

I was just appointed a Ministerial Servant so I am not as experienced and as smart as you but I know what Loyalty is.

Congratulations, seriously!!

31 minutes ago, bruceq said:

I would rather "PROMOTE"  the "foolish" Governing Body to feed us than you and Christendom's "wise" scholars. Why do you continue to promote the teachings of Babylon the Great? 1 Cor. 1:24-31.

You were suppose to "get OUT of her my people" not go BACK to her my people. Rev. 18:4.

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

Quote

*** jv chap. 10 p. 134 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth ***
The matter of Bible chronology had long been of great interest to Bible students. Commentators had set out a variety of views on Jesus’ prophecy about “the times of the Gentiles” and the prophet Daniel’s record of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream regarding the tree stump that was banded for “seven times.”—Luke 21:24, KJ; Dan. 4:10-17.
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, but he also set out an alternate view that pointed to the time of the French Revolution. Robert Seeley, of London, in 1849, handled the matter in a similar manner. At least by 1870, a publication edited by Joseph Seiss and associates and printed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was setting out calculations that pointed to 1914 as a significant date, even though the reasoning it contained was based on chronology that C. T. Russell later rejected.
Then, in the August, September, and October 1875 issues of Herald of the Morning, N. H. Barbour helped to harmonize details that had been pointed out by others. Using chronology compiled by Christopher Bowen, a clergyman in England, and published by E. B. Elliott, Barbour identified the start of the Gentile Times with King Zedekiah’s removal from kingship as foretold at Ezekiel 21:25, 26, and he pointed to 1914 as marking the end of the Gentile Times.
Early in 1876, C. T. Russell received a copy of Herald of the Morning. He promptly wrote to Barbour and then spent time with him in Philadelphia during the summer, discussing, among other things, prophetic time periods.

2 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Deflecting, from a simple question by giving “ad hominem” answers.

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.

2 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

For one, I wasn’t referring to you defending COJ, but rather his findings, that by enlarge have been a focus by other scholarly intellects that you don't focus on since other scholars can come and have come to a different conclusion.

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?

2 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

If no one knows of COJ’s work, then why do you persist in “applying” his ideology to your own.

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.

2 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

The QUESTION still stands. How can you justify this historical discrepancy of Nebuchadnezzar 1 with his son Belbini 440 years later, since you keep insisting the chronology mentioned in COJ’s book is FACT? I’m noting suggesting he mentioned Nebuchadnezzar 1. That’s the point, he only used evidence that would agree with his outcome, NOT ALL THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

6 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

What preaching campaign did he or the other man go on to found?

Look, I understand that the above question could be seen as blowing off research and reveling in ignorance. But as @Arauna has helped us to see, 'scientific research' in this system of things is no more than the children's game 'King of the Mountain' to prove "who's da man?" - not unlike those big, stupid, (blush) male animals ramming each other with their horns. The victors shove everyone else off the field. It happens everywhere in science. The fault does not lie in science, but in those who put slavish faith in it. Today's science is trumped by human politics - call it 'male ego' if you must - every time, so that it must be taken with a grain of salt.

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.

2 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

I believe this is what COJ did. Are you suggesting that an” uneducated” person has more insight than scholars?

What you quoted above your question has nothing to do with COJ. I don't even know what you mean by "this is what COJ" did. Did what?

2 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

You seem to dismiss that Nebuchadnezzar 3 and 4 were “perceived” to reign in 522BC or their whereabouts. Your argument is baseless to think everything is centered on 587/6BC.

I don't dismiss it at all. All I am saying is that I have looked at the evidence. And of course I don't think ANYTHING is centered on 587/6. It just happens to coincide with Nebuchadnezzar's 18th/19th year based on the same evidence you use for saying that Cyrus captured Babylon in 539. The evidence makes me think both these dates are correct, but nothing is "centered" on either of them.

2 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Only staunch supporters of COJ’s work would give such a general response.

There has been a kind of obsession with COJ here. I would guess that most of the persons who have studied the evidence never heard of COJ. I certainly don't need to rely on anything he said to understand the evidence for the Neo-Babylonian timeline.

2 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

So, until you can provide a “good” response to my question or anyone else about this

What you list here are not questions. They are not even attached to any ideas. Going back to questions that people in the 1800's and early 1900's had is like saying we should ignore all the new and updated doctrines of the Watch Tower Society and just focus on things that Russell didn't understand. You remind me here of those JW opposers who just throw things out there like:

• Pyramidology.
• Miracle Wheat?
• The Solon Society.
• 1844?
• Rose Ball.
• Russell's father married Russell's wife's mother? 

There is no burden on any of us to get into those topics unless they are being used to make an actual point related to the topic.

2 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Now according to some 19^th century and early 20^th century historians

1.      Belibni (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar l)

2.      Nabopolassar (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar ll) Book of Judith

3.      Nabopolassar ll ?

4.      Nebuchadnezzar ll (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar lll) House of Igibi

So if you would like to ask a real question, or show what the evidence was and how the question from the 1800's was already resolved and why you think that the resolution isn't good enough, then we have something to discuss. But you seem unwilling to do anything more than tack up some cryptic pseudo-questions. I'm more concerned with why anyone would need to fall back on such weak tactics. I'm guessing that you already know the answer to that.

2 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

I won’t engage! Since this is relevant to a Neo-Babylonian timeline that affects those questions raised by COJ that you now defend.

We will certainly miss you. I don't care about defending COJ or concerning myself with anyone's obsession about him. Pretending that these questions center around COJ seems disingenuous unless you truly don't know any better. 

2 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

It seems to me the one trying to punch holes with academic dishonesty is yourself. I relate the “fact” that from Nebuchadnezzar 1 to his son “Belibni” by “HISTORICAL FACT” has a 440-year difference, and you say I’m “blowing smoke” when the answer was given is full of “hot air”. I’m referring to the timeline between “historical facts”. Meaning, not always reliable. Therefore, the impossible contradictions were lead out by COJ trying to “poke holes” against a well-researched chronology by the Watchtower.

I believe that you are aware than most all of the questions that early writers had on the subject have already been resolved. You probably know about books such as  Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Albert Kirk Grayson, so I am sure you already know the answer. Still, if you really have a question, form it as one. Ask it! Say what you believe it would do to the timeline of the Neo-Babylonians. Show the evidence for it. No one can discuss a question that has no evidence for it. Or perhaps you are aware that the evidence is not valid.

That's why I gave that ridiculous analogy to what kind of proposal one can make with tablet data - assuming no one will check it against other evidence. I literally could propose that absurd theory that the Neo-Babylonian timeline is 40,000 years long. I can show some evidence for it, too. I could start with a tablet dated to Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, and I can show another tablet dated to Nebuchadnezzar's 17th year. Then I merely assume that these were two different Nebuchadnezzar's and we therefore "know" that these two different kings must have reigned at least 37+17 years = 54 years. Then I find another tablet for Nebuchadnezzar's 17th year and assume that this is another Nebuchadnezzar and know that these three different Nebuchadnezzars ruled for at least a total of 37+17+17 = 71 years, and so on, ad infinitum, or at least until I've done this with 2,000 different tablets until I reach 40,000 years. Of course, we know that the Egibi data on many of these very same tablets will contradict all my supposed evidence.

This is why you have to show your question and/or your proposal and/or your evidence, or else people will know that you don't have anything serious.

2 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

So, your “ad hominem” attack bears no reliance since I’m seeking an answer to a simple question

Then ask it; no one is stopping you.

8 hours ago, Arauna said:

While it is good to look at Josephus and other historians when one looks at Jewish tradition

In the last book, Josephus wrote on the subject, he said that the time from the destruction of Jerusalem up to the release of the Jews from Babylon was 50 years not 70. But no one is relying on Josephus for the final say on this. He was not a contemporary even if he had access to some of the contemporary records. There is far too much evidence on the ground. We don't need Josephus even though he also ended up agreeing with the Biblical and secular evidence about this period.

8 hours ago, Arauna said:

Just type into Google "Talmud and Jesus" and you will get the shock of your life.  The Kabbalah and Zohar in my mind is pure spiritism.

You should expect a lot of polemical material as Judaism saw itself  competing with Christianity during the periods in which the Talmud was written. I agree about the Kabbalah and Zohar. In fact, most religious Jews would agree, too. Parts of it remind me of the Pyramidology which was gaining widespread popularity in Russell's day. Rutherford finally associated Pyramidology with Satanism (saying that Satan was behind the building of the Great Pyramid in order to fool Jehovah's people).

8 hours ago, Arauna said:

Today the Talmud is called the 'holy book' and the kabbalah the most holy book. Most Rabbis study the kabbalah.

I believe that all three of these ideas are mistaken. There are different forms of Judaism, but I have never known even one to call the Talmud the 'holy book.' The kabbalah is most definitely not thought of as the "most holy book" by religious Jews. I took 7 semesters of Hebrew in college and most of them were taught by reformed rabbis. All of them dismissed the kabbalah as foolishness. I hired an orthodox rabbi for six months as a programmer and we often spoke about these topics. He says that no one in his branch of Judaism pays any attention to the kabbalah.

If you look up 'holy books' 'Judaism' on Google the Talmud does not show up in the lists on all the major Judaism sites. If you look up 'most holy book' 'kabbalah' you will find a few books antagonistic to Judaism that make this fake claim. The closest you might get is the idea that the Zohar is considered the most holy book of some who believe in Kabbalah as a kind of religion. But it's a study of mysticism that most Jews reject, or at least don't take seriously.

It's a lot like saying that most Christians believe that their daily horoscope is the most holy book of the Christian religion.

8 hours ago, Arauna said:

Ever tried to talk to a Jew about the Truth? You will see how quickly you are rebuffed.

Yes, and usually it's a quick rebuff, but not always. My brother went to a Brooklyn congregation while at Bethel, and they do not even try to work their Jewish territories the way you seem to work seriously with persons of Muslim faith. It is usually just a matter of looking for non-Jews. But some are very receptive. I personally have never been able to do more than just talk, but I have even seen experiences of more than one who have become Witnesses.

8 hours ago, Arauna said:

Be careful of the mindset of these books!  That is all I have to say.... 

The Soncino commentaries are in the Bethel Library and were the favorite of people in the Writing Department who had tried to study some Hebrew. Different authors were responsible for different translations and commentaries, a bit like the Anchor Bible commentaries. Of course, the writers are only interested in their take on the Torah and Haftorahs, not any of the other books that Soncino commentaries can cover.

4 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

A reason the Jewish chronology is not worshiped?:

"How Accurate Is the Jewish Calendar?

What's with the red herring?

Your entire post was completely unrelated to what you were saying and asking before. It's as if I responded to what you said here by quoting a long treatise about how Rolex watches are made.

Yes, the Jewish calendar is based on the idea that the "world" including Adam, was created in 3761 BCE. We say it was 4026 BCE, which is only different by 265 years. It's surprisingly close. And yes, some Jewish Bible traditions are based on interpretations that are different form ours.

But it doesn't matter, because none of the dates mentioned in the Soncino commentaries are related in any way to the A.M. system of Jewish dating. You must have recognized that when you saw that the 13th year of Josiah was given in BCE dating, not A.M., and it was only 21 years different from the Watchtower's.

4 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

Once again, I've left out the attribution of this article and will go retrieve that and post it. 

I'm sure you had your reasons. But if you intended to correct this deficiency, I'm interested.

On 8/20/2017 at 11:33 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

How does this fit with 1 Corinthians 1:26-29?

"For you see his calling of you, brothers, that there are not many wise in a fleshly way, not many powerful, not many of noble birth, but God chose the foolish things of the world to put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world to put the strong things to shame; and God chose the insignificant things of the world and the things looked down on, the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, so that no one might boast in the sight of God."

Good question.

It reminds me of when a letter was written to Russell about the fact that there was no zero year. Russell answered the question and decided that we don't really know, but he would rather believe that there must have been one because if you count from 606 and other BC dates, this is how you reach 1874 and 1914, for example. It's kind of an embarrassing answer to have put in the Watch Tower for 100 years of posterity to look at. Of course, since then we discovered that the "questioner" was correct all along, and Russell was wrong, so we ultimately had to change the destruction date from 606 to 607. It took us until about 1943 to finally admit it, decades after it was pointed out and rejected.

The problem is that Russell pretended he was wise in a fleshly way rather than humbly looking into the evidence. It's fine to be foolish in the sense of being humble and accepting that we don't NEED such worldly knowledge, and we therefore never get puffed up with our supposed knowledge. But when you base half your doctrines on secular dates, as Russell did, you are stuck in a trap of trying to show that you are wise in a fleshly way. Russell tried this and ended up "boasting" in knowledge that turned out not even to be true.

On 8/20/2017 at 11:33 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

I should do research to see if this COJ was a doer like Paul, or did he mainly fancy himself an in-house thinker? But probably someone will clarify this for me.

If you would like to read the way Jonsson frames it, you can see below that I just grabbed this from a pdf version of his book. He claims he was a pioneer who was challenged by one of his Bible studies. The actual typewritten manuscript was collecting dust on a shelf in an office just outside the Bethel Library for a couple years.  In 1978, I heard it referred to as "that treatise from the elder in Sweden." This next long quote is from his book:

It was in 1968 that the present study began. At the time, I was a “pioneer” or full-time evangelist for Jehovah’s Witnesses. In the course of my ministry, a man with whom I was conducting a Bible study challenged me to prove the date the Watch Tower Society had chosen for the desolation of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, that is 607 B.C.E. He pointed out that all historians marked that event as having occurred about twenty years later, in either 587 or 586 B.C.E. I was well aware of this, but the man wanted to know the reasons why historians preferred the latter date. I indicated that their dating surely was nothing but a guess, based on defective ancient sources and records. Like other Witnesses, I assumed that the Society’s dating of the desolation of Jerusalem to 607 B.C.E. was based on the Bible and therefore could not be upset by those secular sources. However, I promised the man I would look into the matter. As a result, I undertook a research that turned out to be far more extensive and thoroughgoing than I had expected. It continued periodically for several years, from 1968 until the end of 1975. By then the growing burden of evidence against the 607 B.C.E. date forced me reluctantly to conclude that the Watch Tower Society was wrong. Thereafter, for some time after 1975, the evidence was discussed with a few close, research-minded friends. Since none of them could refute the evidence demonstrated by the data I had collected, I decided to develop a systematically composed treatise on the whole question which I determined to send to the headquarters of the Watch Tower Society at Brooklyn, New York. That treatise was prepared and sent to the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1977. The present work, which is based on that document, was revised and expanded during 1981 and then published in a first edition in 1983. During the years that have passed since 1983, many new finds and observations relevant to the subject have been made, and the most important of these have been incorporated in the last two editions. The seven lines of evidence against the 607 B.C.E. date presented in the first edition, for example, have now been more than doubled.

5 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

I would also ask, if the historical assigned dates can’t be compromised by historian writings, or mistaken, since, there is no number designation on the Babylonian cuneiform tablets related to Nebuchadnezzar to make a 100 percent concrete proof of his Kingship due to that fact that no numbers appear assigned to Nebuchadnezzar name.

Another small problem that COJ didn’t research was the “genealogy” of Nebuchadnezzar’s family. According to “recorded history”,

1.      Nebuchadnezzar 1 reigned, 1125BC

2.      Belibni (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar ll), son of Nebuchadnezzar l / born on 685BC, = 440-year difference. The question is, was Nebuchadnezzar (l) a prophet pre-flood, to have lived so long? to have children 440 years later?

3.      Nabopolassar (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar lll) son of Belibni, born on 658BC / Nabopolassar ll ?

4.      Nebuchadnezzar ll (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar lV) son of Nabopolassar, born on 634BC

Now according to some 19^th century and early 20^th century historians

1.      Belibni (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar l)

2.      Nabopolassar (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar ll) Book of Judith

3.      Nabopolassar ll ?

4.      Nebuchadnezzar ll (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar lll) House of Igibi

Well, this is something new and refreshing. Someone appears to be willing to discuss the actual issues at hand. Unfortunately nearly all these issues had been brought up before by a certain @AllenSmith , and the answers are still the same as were given before.

I would say that of course, yes, the historical assigned dates CAN be compromised by historian's writings, or mistaken. This is one of the reasons you look for several different independent lines of evidence. In this case all the different independent lines of contemporary evidence all point to the same thing: 587/586 BCE for Jerusalem's destruction. The evidence is just as powerful, and in some ways more powerful, than the evidence for 539, which the Watchtower has called "absolute" and "assured." That's the problem with trying to punch holes in half-a-dozen independent lines of evidence. It's the same as saying that the evidence for 539 is potentially compromised or mistaken, except that we need that date in order to have a starting point to manipulate the earlier date. So we're kind of trapped: all the evidence that we are accepting is the same as the evidence that destroys our theory. The best we could ever hope for is that no one would have ever noticed the evidence. And for the most part, that has worked just fine, because very few Witnesses will look into this kind of research, even when -- or especially when -- it becomes evident that it creates conflicts with our strongly entrenched traditions.

5 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

since, there is no number designation on the Babylonian cuneiform tablets related to Nebuchadnezzar to make a 100 percent concrete proof of his Kingship due to that fact that no numbers appear assigned to Nebuchadnezzar name.

You are talking about Nebuchadnezzar I, II, III, and IV. These are well understood. Also, any kings that ruled less than a year have no effect on the timeline. That's the beauty of having half-a-dozen independent lines of evidence that also interact smoothly and support each other. It turns out that ALL the evidence still creates only one timeline that fits. There aren't even like two or three top choices. One of the Nebuchadnezzars you speak of was not even part of the Neo-Bablonian timeline. He reigned hundreds of years outside of the timeline we are concerned about. And the other two are outside the part of the timeline we care about (and reigned only a few months each). Besides, the Watchtower already accepts the Neo-Babylonian timeline if they ever mention that the date 539 is accurate. If it's accurate, then it's because we are admitting that the Neo-Babylonian timelline is accurate. If we say that 587/6 is NOT accurate, then we are saying that 539 is not accurate. The argument you are making could be made about anything. Why question if there were only four Nebuchadnezzars? Why not propose that 2,000 different tablets that mention Nebuchadnezzars refer to 2,000 different kings named Nebuchanezzar? If all of them referred to a different Nebuchadnezzar, you would have to ADD all the regnal years from every tablet in such a case. This would also mean that (since year 20 is the average regnal year on these tablets) the Neo-Babylonian timeline was about 20 x 2000 or 40,000 years long. From your vantage point, as an opposer of the evidence, you could surmise anything you wanted about the evidence.

The other points you enumerated are not valid because you have no right to use any BCE dates for comparison if you don't accept the dates of the Neo-Babylonian period. You should never even use the date 539 or 538, if you don't really accept the chronology evidence that got you there. Just throwing out some questions, and claiming things are "perceived" when they really aren't perceived the way you say is a good way to try to poke holes. But it's meaningless unless you have an alternative theory that fits ALL the evidence, or at least tries to fit all the evidence. Then, to really test if that theory works with ALL the evidence, you put it out there and see if someone can find any contradictions in your proposal. I'm sure you have heard the expression "blowing smoke." It refers to the tactic of just throwing anything out there and hoping that it will stick. [It's not really a mixed metaphor, it just looks like one.] It's done without a concern about what it does to the rest of the evidence, or if it creates impossible contradictions. That's why you haven't really poked holes until you can hypothesize what it would mean as an alternative.

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

How about downtown Charlotte, NC the weekend nights of September 9-10 at the NE corner of Trade and Tryon Streets

That's actually called UPTOWN Charlotte.

[Edited to add the following response in response to a contorted-face emojicon that JTR added as a reaction to this post.]

Uptown [7] is the central business district of Charlotte. It is home to most of the city's major institutions, as well as being the historic core. It is also the geographic center of Charlotte, with the center point of the city at the intersection of Trade and Tryon Streets.   -- quoted from http://wikitravel.org/en/Charlotte/Uptown

12 minutes ago, Nana Fofana said:

O that towering feeling.

Oh, the towering feeling!

(Even if Vic Damone sang On The Street Where You Live and had a separate album called "That Towering Feeling." )

13 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Camping, my friend Bucky and I used to sing the entire song. And a few others from the musical. His wife Cora would get so mad.

We listened to the record so much that it was all like one big song. If I start singing from the beginning I don't stop until Ascot Gavotte (which I never learned well enough). So that's the only thing that kept me from singing both sides straight through.

When I was about 8 we had a family move in from London with a strong British accent. I remember asking her* if she had any recordings from assemblies, or comedians, or anyone else who spoke with a Cockney accent. (*her: Only the mother and children attended meetings and the husband was many miles stand-offish.)  She gave me some reel-to-reel tapes her husband didn't want any more.

This was a Missouri congregation (1965), and although the sister's English was impeccable, a surprising number in the congregation thought she was literally speaking a foreign language.

17 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

"One man in a million may shout a bit. Now and then there's one with slight defects. 

One perhaps whose truthfulness you doubt a bit. But, by and large, we are a marvelous sex."

That's pretty amazing. Just yesterday I tested myself to see if I still could sing that song, and just last week I played it through Amazon Alexa to my 17-month-old granddaughter. To my wife's chagrin, I still know every word to that song, and likely the entire Harrison/Hepburn repertoire for that neo-Pygmalion masterpiece. (When I grew up there were only a few movies we were allowed to watch and only about 4 records with lyrics that my father played for us. Therefore they got overplayed.)

1 hour ago, Nana Fofana said:

Can anyone tell me if something is wrong with this chronology?

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."

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It is the uneasy passenger who tried to redirect the plane - for he has studied flying himself -  and the pilot's response was 'inadequate.'

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.

2 hours ago, The Librarian said:

I haven't seen a specific date in April 1918 ever mentioned anywhere yet

"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.

33 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

**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.

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,”

On 7/6/2016 at 4:13 AM, John Houston said:

Then you did not understand my answer. Jehovah did not chose the first come first serve on Christians, when it comes with those who are ones sealed as corulers with Christ. It seems to be everyone's thinking that all Christians who DIED from the death of Jesus were in line for this "gift" , whereas scripture clearly tells us that Jehovah makes the choice of the 144000, who would be with his Son in the heavenly kingdom. His choice, not their deaths, or martyrdom.

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.

On 8/7/2017 at 6:52 PM, Brother Rando said:

The Last Days must reach their full time allotted, which is 120 years.  1914 + 120 = 2034.

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.

1. The Last Days that began in 1914 are approaching their end
2. The 144,000 are almost completed. Gathered in the Last Days of the Age. 1919 + 120 yrs. 2039
3. The gathering of the Great Crowd. 1935 + 120 yrs. 2055
4. The separating of the sheep and goats to commence at the half an hour of silence in heaven's time. 2034 + 21 yrs. 2055
5. Treat those coming for you with hospitality and kindness and don't be afraid. "I am with you" says Jehovah.
6. We will lose our Kingdom Halls and our Meeting Places. Remember the account of Daniel in Babylon. Stay Faithful!
7. Maintain and keep your personal relationship with Jehovah in good standing. He is protecting you, keep walking!
8. Will you listen and keep on living? To learn more about the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ, visit JW.org today!
9. Our message to change soon and then the end abrublty [sic], those on the outside will be dying the second death. It's Spiritual.
10. 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:

On 8/7/2017 at 6:52 PM, Brother Rando said:

The Last Days must reach their full time allotted, which is 120 years.  1914 + 120 = 2034.

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.

On 8/7/2017 at 6:52 PM, Brother Rando said:

The Last Days must reach their full time allotted, which is 120 years.  1914 + 120 = 2034.   Since the Great Tribulation is Spiritual, many will  fall away from the faith.

What Jesus said bears repeating:

10 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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.

(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.

On 8/17/2017 at 10:15 PM, Brother Rando said:

the simple answer is that 607 BCE was when the time of the Gentiles began as to the interruption of the pure worship of Jehovah until the one who has the legal right resumes pure worship 2520 years later.

[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.

20 hours ago, bruceq said:

Is the interpretation of Matthew 24 based on less likely, special definitions of Jehovah's Witnesses {minority view} Invisible parousia, Jesus King in 1914, God is not a Trinity, No immortal soul, Jehovah in NT...

OR on more likely common definitions of Christendom {Majority view} Visible parousia, Jesus King in 33 C.E or at birth, God is a Trinity, Soul is immortal, Jehovah not in NT...

What do you think?

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:

On 8/17/2017 at 7:54 AM, bruceq said:

But I would rather share in the mistakes of Jehovah's people than "share in the sins of Babylon the Great.

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. 

On 8/17/2017 at 9:03 AM, Nana Fofana said:

“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.” (Matthew 24:7-8)

 

You'd think JWINSIDER had never read that verse!

Why does everyone act like ,"Yeah, G.B. is wrong, and 1914 will have to be ditched, but..."?

-When 1914 is absolutely fine, hale, hearty, & couldn't be better , in fact? 

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.