JW Insider

Then why did the Watchtower ever change anything if everything was directly from scripture? Obviously you are saying that this might not have been true last year, because some things have already changed since then, but it must be true this year. But if it's true this year, then you are claiming that any changes made for next year are no longer directly from Scripture, unless of course you are arguing that the Scriptures contradict themselves. You are using cult-speak even though the Watchtower is not a cult. Obviously we need to question ourselves first, but to answer your first question, it's our Christian obligation to question the anointed ones. You've seen a dozen scriptures to this effect, and you evidently do not believe in them. By whose power and authority do you decide it's OK to go against the Bible, and not to question the anointed ones? (1 John 4:1) . . .Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, . . . (Philippians 1:8-10) . . .. 9 And this is what I continue praying, that your love may abound still more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment; 10 that you may make sure of the more important things,. . . (1 Thessalonians 5:21) 21 Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine. (2 Corinthians 13:5) 5 Keep testing whether you are in the faith; keep proving what you yourselves are.. . . (1 Corinthians 11:19) 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident. (Romans 12:2) . . .be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God. (2 Corinthians 10:4, 5) 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. 5 For we are overturning reasonings . . . (Philippians 4:5) 5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men.. . . (James 1:6) 6 But let him keep asking in faith, not doubting at all, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven by the wind and blown about.

Thanks for the correction. I have fixed the quote. I had left out the one I intended to put from 1924 first, also added below, and then fixed the one from 1922, which as you can see, is where the conflation was based upon: "The year 1925 is a date definitely and clearly marked in the Scriptures, even more clearly than that of 1914; . . ." — The Watchtower, July 15, 1924, p. 211. "The physical facts show beyond question of a doubt that 1914 ended the Gentile Times. . . . The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures [than 1914] because it is fixed by the Law God gave to Israel." — The Watchtower, September 1, 1922, p. 262. In the second quote I had also left out the brackets in the bracketed words "[than 1914]." This time, I added the prior sentence that made this point clear.

When evidence piles up against something very overwhelmingly, we really have no choice but to either accept the evidence or dismiss it. The easiest thing to do is to dismiss new evidence and go along as we always have. If we can dismiss evidence then we don't have to think about it. In this world, of course, especially modern news media and in social media, the most common method of dismissing evidence is to go after the person instead of the evidence. This is why you often see people making assumptions about motives. If you think I'm saying this is what you are doing, I'm not. You have gone beyond the idea of merely dismissing evidence. You are rightly concerned about the motive behind it, and you are rightly concerned about what it would really mean to us if the evidence were accepted. This is not a simple dismissal of evidence in your case. I can see that you are not simply bringing this up for a diversion to avoid thinking about it. So I'm glad you asked the questions: "Why spend hours trying to get someone to agree with you? What is the purpose of it?" Getting someone to agree is not the point. Many people already agree. But we learn not to worry when people don't agree with us in the field ministry. Yet our responsibility to present truth to the best of our ability does not change. (John 4:23) 23 Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him. Spending hours on a subject is not the preference for everyone, but there are persons for whom the opportunity for this kind of research is a joy and a privilege. For one thing, it helps me see first-hand the accuracy of the Bible, and how even secular sources of archaeology and history support the Bible account. Questions that produced contradictions in the past, now show the Bible to be harmonious, even on this very topic of chronology during the Neo-Babylonian period. And you get a better sense of the historical Babylonian world in which the Jews were exiled. There are about 4 of these questions that produced contradictions in the past. I've brought up 2 of them on the forum before, such as: (Haggai 2:3) 3 ‘Who is left among you who saw this house in its former glory? . . . (Ezra 3:12, 13) 12 Many of the priests, the Levites, and the heads of the paternal houses—the old men who had seen the former house—wept with a loud voice when they saw the foundation of this house being laid, while many others shouted joyfully at the top of their voice. 13 So the people could not distinguish the sound of the joyful shouts from the sound of the weeping, for the people were shouting so loudly that the sound was heard from a great distance. The question on these scriptures was about how many of these 95 to 105 year old people could have outcried the sounds of joy according to the Watchtower chronology? But the "accepted chronology" that fits both the Bible and secular evidence shows that this was the 75 to 105 year olds, not just those over 95 years old. Another question was the meaning of the phrase "these 70 years" at a time that was 90 years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and 92 years, at least, after the deadly siege against it: (Zechariah 1:12) 12 So the angel of Jehovah said: “O Jehovah of armies, how long will you withhold your mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with whom you have been indignant these 70 years?” (Zechariah 7:4, 5) 4 The word of Jehovah of armies again came to me, saying: 5 “Say to all the people of the land and to the priests, ‘When you fasted and wailed in the fifth month and in the seventh month for 70 years, did you really fast for me? Why does the scripture say they were fasting for 70 years if the Watchtower says that this was 90 years later? The "accepted chronology" answers that exact question. There are two more similar questions that I will get to later. Of course, some will probably end up believing in the evidence and in the Bible's support for that evidence based on what I have presented. But it won't be just because I said it. On the Internet people say whatever they want and pretend to be whoever they want, so no one is going to accept it because I presented it. They will only do so after evaluating the evidence for themselves, and I'm guessing that 99% won't look at the evidence anyway. Still, we don't impugn each other for spending hours trying to get someone to agree with us, if we are convincing them to believe in 1914. If we are doing this because we are passionate for truth, then we have an obligation to support what we know to be true, if asked. (Philippians 4:8) . . .Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are of serious concern, whatever things are righteous, whatever things are chaste, whatever things are lovable, whatever things are well-spoken-of, whatever things are virtuous, and whatever things are praiseworthy, continue considering these things. If hypothetically I agree with you - then what will the next step be for us? We go and make our own happy little group separate from other Witnesses - and pat ourselves on the back that we are smarter than the slave? or what? The next step is to continue to focus on all the things that Philippians 4:8 just mentioned. Nothing significant should change. One of the points of this is that we don't have to make our happy little group separate from other Witnesses. But, in time, as more persons are aware of the evidence, we won't have to be ashamed and cower at the idea of speaking out boldly and fearlessly about the things we have learned. Currently, most Witnesses, including myself, have to hold back from certain conversations even when they come up with other Witnesses we trust, for fear we will say something that will be interpreted as presumptuous, haughty, or stumbling. So in the meantime, there are 1,000 other true things we can focus on. 1,000 other serious concerns, righteous, chaste, lovable, virtuous, praiseworthy things that we can focus on. Against such things, there is no restriction. Also, this doesn't make us "smarter" than the slave. This is merely evidence, which is merely "knowledge." Knowledge pales into non-importance when compared, with love, justice, mercy, kindness, faith, hope, etc. In my own case, I learned about these things from members of the slave and members of the anointed who were just as concerned about truth, but had no way of presenting this information without getting into trouble from those who believed that nothing should be said that did not fully support the doctrines that Frederick Franz believed. (But it's also easy to understand why Brother Franz believed in the importance of this doctrine.) Several of these other brothers that I knew were concerned about losing their positions in Writing, and other positions of responsibility. Some have since died and some have evidently still not said much about it except to close friends. I don't think there is anything new here that the "slave" is not aware of. I don't know for sure, but I honestly guess that to many people in positions of responsibility in the organization, there just isn't a good way or opportunity to make adjustments yet. There is probably a fear that this will be very disruptive and may result in a great loss of publishers. I think the evidence shows that most of us would welcome the evidence if it were shown how it coincides with the message of Matthew 24, the stated meaning of Daniel 4, etc. And I would also guess that there are a few questions that remain that would be too difficult to answer immediately. This doesn't mean they can't be truthfully answered with "we don't know yet." The main thing is that I'm sure all of us would be more comfortable with humility and discretion in these matters as opposed to signs of presumptuousness and a tendency to claim full knowledge. That is absolutely correct. I hope no one misunderstands. WWI was definitely a major change in world affairs. And 537 is a reasonably good year for the building work to restart in Jerusalem. And 607 as the date of Jerusalem's fall (not Babylon's, of course) is not so far off either in the overall scheme of things, either (+- 20 years). Of course, there is no need to review why these ideas are never connected in the Bible. Even if Jerusalem fell in 607, the Bible does not connect a period to 607 as the start of the Gentile Times. Also, the Bible does not connect any period of 2,520 years to be counted from Jerusalem's fall. Then we still have to discuss the meaning of the sign. The Jews were looking for the Parousia to be a time when war, earthquake, fire and famine would bring destruction. You can see this in the books that the Jews were using at the time to prepare for the end of the age. But Jesus appears to tell his disciples that even though they have heard that it was said that these signs would help them recognize the end-time, Jesus said to them not to be misled by wars, earthquakes, and famine. So the one thing we would NOT want to look for as a sign of the end would be a major war of any kind, or major earthquakes, or food shortages. I won't go too far into that subject here, but we should at least be able to see that this is a possible way to read Jesus' words in Matthew 24. No argument was made that Jehovah will not use a wicked king and his 7 periods of madness as a symbol of the inhumane nations ruling the earth until Jesus kingdom starts to rule. In fact, I believe the dream can help to give us faith in exactly that prospect. After all, even though it was fulfilled in Nebuchadnezzar the point was that Jehovah is the universal sovereign and can repeat this any time, or as many times as he wants. No empire can overpower Jehovah's will. And we pray for that Kingdom to come and for God's will to be done as in heaven also upon the earth. I agree that it teaches exactly the lesson Daniel 4 says it teaches. But we do know that it creates a lot of contradictions to try to make a type/antitype illustration out of Nebuchadnezzar's experience. And the biggest contradiction is the one we rarely even think of, that if interpreted the way we do, that it provides a framework for the time-table of the parousia, something that only the presumptuous would try to figure out after Jesus said that the times and seasons were in the Father's jurisdiction, and after Paul said that about the Parousia and about the times and seasons we need nothing to be written to us, BECAUSE it is coming as a thief. Understood. I wasn't necessarily expecting a reply unless someone could think of a Biblical reason to dismiss any of the evidence anyway. If anyone thinks the subject is of serious concern and knows of a Biblical reason to dismiss any of the evidence, then I'll probably hear about it sooner or later. And besides, you did respond with some Biblical ideas about Daniel 4 that I am not dismissing at all. I appreciate this and all of the obvious truths that I didn't requote from you because I believe them just as you do. Naturally I disagree somewhat on our responsibility to present truth when we are asked. I don't think it gets us in trouble if we handle our responsibilities seriously. There is no need for any of this to cause disunity. It's just not that important. As you say the important stuff is all there and is understood. I sometimes wonder though, what a Bible Student should have done starting in 1919 and all up well into 1925 when Rutherford was embarrassing himself and the organization. (His own words about embarrassing himself.) What appears to be extreme haughtiness and presumptousness was amazing if you go back and read the words written back then. If you knew that 1925 was based on flimsy evidence would you have said something? Would you have written Rutherford or kept it to yourself? If you were an elder minding the congregation's business and keeping your concerns to yourself, yet you knew there was something wrong, how would you counsel someone else who came up to you for advice? What if that person was a lowly person who also knew exactly what was wrong with the reasoning behind 1925? Would you be humble enough as an elder to learn from that person and realize that these were serious concerns? As a matter of fact there were many Bible Students who went through exactly that back in 1925. And of course, the same goes for any who happened to see the weaknesses and problems with all the other dates predicted from 1881 through 1918, including 100% of the predictions made for the year 1914. Is it our responsibility to make sure and question or is it our responsibility to follow without questioning? I know your statement above is a way of answering that question, and up to a point I agree. I can even stay quiet in my congregation. But for me it's still a matter of understanding our true responsibility and our conscience. BTW, from what I know of you and your experience, (and yes I can read things about you in several places on the Internet), your book would be very interesting to many. I understand the hesitation, don't now if I would do it, even if I had your experiences. Would also be concerned about making money off the good news. But I know that you have some especially good ideas for the Muslim audience, for example, that you have some expertise at. And I do know that there are probably many ways to share good upbuilding thoughts and experiences in good conscience. Perhaps @TrueTomHarley has some ideas here.

OK.. done. I have read it again. As always, I deeply appreciate the good research that has gone into the Insight book. When this book first came out under the name "Aid to Bible Understanding" I was just as amazed, especially at the "Chronology" section. It took me nearly four years of scratching out an hour or so each day to completely read the Aid book while still at Bethel. I have never completed the Insight book yet, although I recognize that most of the old entries have remained intact, verbatim, from the older Aid book. That said, I would love to comment on many items of interest that I found in the "Chronology" article in Insight including everything I agree with and appreciated. First, I will try to limit my comments to those that are relevant to this discussion and the statements you have made above. So here goes . . . First, you said: "And -"NO"- the Sumerian, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronologies are NOT firmly established! ... There is too little reliable evidence for that." I can say that you have understood very well the basic premise of the the first half of the Chronology article. It is clearly intended to make us us think that the Babylonian Chronology is not firmly established, when it really is, as I said above, one of the MOST firmly established of all ancient timelines. By mixing the Neo-Babylonian in with the Sumerian and Assyrian chronologies, especially by mentioning the much earlier mythical portions of those chronologies, we can easily get confused into thinking the Neo-Babylonian is just like the others. It's always easy to think that if something is wrong with part of something then something must also be wrong with the whole. But we should keep in mind that the Watch Tower publications are so sure of the accuracy of the Neo-Babylonian chronology, hat they take ONE of the dates from it (539) and for many years called it an ABSOLUTE date, and used that date as an anchor for the 1914 doctrine that has been repeated over 6,000 times, according to the current updated WT-Library CD. In fact scholars refer to the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology as ABSOLUTE dates, therefore the Watch Tower publications now only refer to 539 as a "pivotal" or "assured" date, rather than an absolute date.. *** it-1 p. 448 Chronology *** The histories of the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, and others are, in the main, fragmentary; their earlier periods are either obscure or, as presented by them, obviously mythical. A true statement "in the main" especially about their "earlier periods" but we are interested ONLY in the Neo-Babylonian period. *** it-1 p. 448 Chronology *** What is known from secular sources of these ancient nations has been laboriously pieced together from bits of information obtained from monuments and tablets or from the later writings of the so-called classical historiographers of the Greek and Roman period. Notice that all these nations have still been mixed together, rather than marvel at the amazing completeness of the Neo-Babylonian period, based on literally THOUSANDS of interrelated, interlocking, dated tablets and monuments. It's true that it has been laboriously pieced together from bits of information. This is as we should expect, and it turns out that all these THOUSANDS of bits of information support the "accepted chronology." And we should note that the Watch Tower publications do refer to the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology as the "accepted chronology" -- not because one man named Carl Olof Jonsson accepts it, but because ALL the known Neo-Babylonian scholars accept the overwhelming evidence. Obviously, these experts don't accept it just because it supports the Bible's timeline, yet it is easy to show that it really does. And these same scholars are the ones that the Insight book relies upon for the 539 date. These THOUSANDS of pieces of evidence actually support the Bible's timeline much better than the Watch Tower's timeline. *** kc p. 187 Appendix to Chapter 14 *** Business tablets: Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets have been found that record simple business transactions, stating the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets of this sort have been found for all the years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in the accepted chronology of the period. This doesn't mean that the Watch Tower accepts the "accepted chronology," of course, but the reasons that the Watch Tower gives are not real reasons. It is very easy to show that they are just pretend reasons. The Insight book inadvertently admits that these are just pretend reasons, if you look at it closely enough. *** it-1 pp. 448-449 Chronology *** While archaeologists have recovered tens of thousands of clay tablets bearing Assyro-Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions, as well as large numbers of papyrus scrolls from Egypt, the vast majority of these are religious texts or business documents consisting of contracts, bills of sale, deeds, and similar matter. The considerably smaller number of historical writings of the pagan nations, preserved either in the form of tablets, cylinders, steles, or monumental inscriptions, consist chiefly of material glorifying their emperors and recounting their military campaigns in grandiose terms. Notice the contradictory reasoning here. TENS OF THOUSANDS of clay tablets bearing inscriptions are supposedly minimized for being religious texts or mundane business documents. Notice what is left out, however: they are EACH ONE DATED to the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Also, by throwing some Egyptian papyrus scrolls into the mix, it's possible to imply that many of the TENS OF THOUSANDS of business documents might be religious documents -- and this very likely makes us think they are reduced in value in determining a chronology. We are also supposed to get the idea that the historical writings are reduced in value because they glorify their emperors and military campaigns. We are supposed to think if "myth" and "exaggeration" here. These are the bad apples that are supposed to spoil the whole bushel. *** it-1 p. 449 Chronology *** Engraved in stone or inscribed in clay, some ancient pagan documents may seem very impressive, but this does not ensure their correctness and their freedom from falsehood. Not the material written on, but the writer, his purpose, his respect for truth, his devotion to righteous principles—these are the important factors that give sound basis for confidence, in chronological as well as other matters. The great age of the secular documents is certainly outweighed by the vastly inferior quality of their contents . . . Yes, these contemporary documents will never be the Bible. But let's at least admit to what they are. In fact, these TENS OF THOUSANDS of business documents about mundane matters do not contain any of "myth" or "religion" or "exaggeration" and they are all dated. Not only that, but these dates are interconnected not just through the year of each king, but they include a second name, the name of the current "company president" always including who his father was, and sometimes even who his son was who would become the next president when his father died or retired. In addition to a complete timeline of the kings, you can also double-check it with a complete timeline of the firm's presidents and their sons, grandsons, great grandsons, etc. Thousands of the tablets come from the largest "financial firm" of that time, which handled real estate, banking, loans, and commerce contracts. It's as if you had a great-grandmother you never met who claimed to live to be 120 years old, and then you went into an attic and found that she had left 10,000 checkbook receipts, loan receipts, deeds, etc., which are not only dated with the day and month, but she also added the year of each U.S. President to each check, so that they would say for example: Lincoln's 3rd year, Johnson's 1st year, Grant's 2nd year. But they also had the name of the bank president, and the bank president's son. So now you could see how long each U.S president served and even synchronize it with how long each bank president served. But the main thing is that she had several checks for each and every year of each president. And you would have no trouble putting them in order because she also had a memo on each check where you could double-check the father and son currently running the bank in every year, too. This way if there were two presidents named Johnson (Andrew and Lyndon) in her check receipts, you could know which was which. But there is one more thing about the TENS OF THOUSANDS of business documents -- not mentioned. There are enough of them to show exactly what month of the year a given king died, because whenever a king was living the month and day and year of that king's reign was inscribed, but when he died the new king was shown sometimes in tablets of the same month just days after the new king was inaugurated, and the new king would be inscribed as being in his "0" year, or "accession" year. There is one more point that is just as important. Some of these tablets match up with customer's names on preceding tablets, or some tablets refer to transactions that cut across the time period of two kings. This could be a loan made in the time of one king, but paid off three years later in the time of another king. Or it could be a payment for an item during the last months of one king, and another for the delivery of those items in the early months of another king. In every case, we not only have tablets for every year of the timeline, but there is no way to claim the kings are in the wrong order, or that one might refer ambiguously to a different king of the same name. (This actually comes close to happening when some usurpers named Nebuchadnezzar show up, but their attempts lasted only a few months at a time, and happened long after the dates we are concerned about between Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus.) Without mentioning any of these facts, the Insight book goes on with a quote from Ceran "The Secret of the Hittites." If you have the book you will know the true context of the quote. *** it-1 pp. 449-450 Chronology *** Well illustrating why secular histories do not qualify as the standard of accuracy by which to judge Bible chronology is this statement by archaeological writer C. W. Ceram, commenting on the modern science of historical dating: ". . .For as we examine the sources of ancient history we see how scanty, inaccurate, or downright false, the records were even at the time they were first written. And poor as they originally were, they are poorer still as they have come down to us: half destroyed by the tooth of time or by the carelessness and rough usage of men.” —The Secret of the Hittites, 1956, pp. 133, 134. There are so many things wrong with this type of quotation when you realize that it is almost all geared toward accepting 539 (capture of Babylon) and not accepting 587 (destruction of Jerusalem). Yet both dates are from the same experts. Also there is no conflict between the Neo-Babylonian dating and the Bible, the only conflict is the Watchtower's interpretation -- which was only found necessary as a way to reach the 1914 date. But this book is talking about the Hittites. In fact, in just the next couple of paragraphs he uses an example of King Menes in Egypt from 2900 BCE! The purpose appears to be in order to mix up the problems of the early Egyptian timeline with the Neo-Babylonian. But it also leaves out the very next paragraph after King Menes. In fact, back in a Watchtower article that tried to bolster more faith in the predictions made about the 1975 time period, it actually used this same book to say that 539 was "assured." *** w68 5/1 pp. 270-271 pars. 2-3 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time *** " . . . the book The Secret of the Hittites, by C. W. Ceram, in the chapter entitled “The Science of Historical Dating,” states: . . . “But as we go even deeper into the subject, our respect for the achievements of historical detective work returns. We learn that the scholars have been careful to distinguish between ‘assured’ and ‘assumed’ dates. And we discover that the chronological framework of ancient history rests upon at least a few firm points. Certain key dates, around which other dates are mustered, can be determined almost without error. They are ‘assured.’” 3 Hence, outside the Bible’s timetable, most dates set by historians are unreliable. Only a few “assured,” or absolute, dates, such as 539 B.C.E., . . . Ceram didn't mention 539 here, the Watchtower added that. As far as the Egyptian chronology goes, note that the Watch Tower is only pushing for about a 100 year difference through much of it, and only a 20 year difference by the time of Josiah. *** it-1 p. 450 Chronology *** The difference between the above dates and those generally assigned by modern historians amounts to as much as a century or more for the Exodus and then narrows down to about 20 years by Pharaoh Necho’s time. The following information shows why we prefer to hold to the chronology based on the Biblical reckoning. That 20-year difference was necessary in order to make Jerusalem's fall change from 587 (accepted date) to 607 (the date required for 1914 to work). It's not that there is any evidence for it. There is none. But what is extremely ironic is that the entire discussion of why the Egyptian dates are not accepted is almost a precise description of the same exact reasoning about why 587 is not accepted. But here's the real irony: every one of these factors that supposedly weakens the unaccepted dates are exactly the factors that were used in order to get the 539 date. In other words the Watch Tower Society doesn't really think these are weakening factors at all; we accept them all perfectly for 539, and even call 539 an ASSURED date because of the same factors. This is how we know that the reasons given are only "pretend" reasons. Under Assyrian Chronology no attempt is made to synchronize: *** it-1 p. 452 Chronology *** The information above points to the conclusion that Assyrian historiography either is not correctly understood by modern historians or is of very low caliber. In either case, we do not feel compelled to attempt to coordinate the Biblical chronology with history as presented in the Assyrian records. For now, we can leave it at that because nothing there is critical to the points of discussion under Babylonian chronology. Twice as much space is devoted to the Neo-Babylonian and Persian chronologies and the issues surrounding their accuracy. This is the most interesting to this discussion, so I will continue some comments for discussion in the next post.

I appreciate the opportunity to dialogue with you without all the unnecessary rhetoric. I understand your situation somewhat, if you actually believe I am espousing the equivalent of apostate ideas, and you wish to counter them, but also wish to keep reminding an "audience" somewhere that you know "from whence such ideas come from," and need to clarify your distance while still engaging in dialogue. And yes, I could tell that there is a bit of censorship going on here, (e.g. the "POSTER") although I figured it was self-censorship due to previous warnings about not directly calling a specific poster an "apostate" or reminding them of their "Satanic" roots, or effectively threatening people who merely "upvote" the posts of people you strongly disagree with. (I copied a few of those long topics to my hard drive, and several of them have your original posts in them, that have since been deleted from the current site. Those deletions all reflected problems like the ones I just mentioned.) Personally, I really don't care about being mislabeled as much as the site owners apparently do. I think that as long as we can share information, it's the Internet after all, and we can expect whatever gets thrown at us. But it does get to be a time waster for anyone who wants to wade through the debris. And I always assumed that's part of the reason why you and others have done this: it puts a protective wall of debris (anti-posts), so that people don't really get into the real [perceived] pile of garbage, the topic itself. That's actually the reason I've so often just ignored what you've said in the past. I think a lot of people confuse the meaning of ad hominem a little bit, too. If you think someone is terrible and you say why you think that they are terrible based on why their argument is bad that is NOT ad hominem. It's when you say why you think they are terrible INSTEAD of saying why their argument is bad; that is an ad hominem. It's only when calling names is merely a diversion so that you don't have to defend against the argument itself. That's why Jesus was not using ad hominem when he spoke against the Pharisees, scribes, etc. He said they are 'wicked' BECAUSE of specific things they did or practiced. I also agree that you (in all guises and names) have been generally peaceful, reasonable, and helpful in the majority of your posts, even where I disagree with the point. I also agree that when it comes to being purposely "obnoxious" (if that's the word) there have been others here who have taken the prize in that area. Of course, the lesson appears to be that if someone is trying to be both provocative and funny at the same time, then almost anything goes. But I can see why that looks hypocritical. Sometimes, the danger of not responding to you allows ideas like this to fester, and then be used again as if they were true all along. My approach might appear more reasonable to you because I am beginning to understand your argument a bit better, but there is nothing inconsistent with previous arguments, which is why you cannot find any arguments that are inconsistent. I think you might be referring to the fact that I am not quibbling over a year or two difference, but if you go back to any of the old discussions you will find that this has always been the case. (I was the one, who agreed that the 3 weeks for Neb to get back from Hatti-land to Babylon always seemed just a bit too fast, even if Josephus is right about the short-cut.) Although I prefer 587, I can see a good reason for 586. Although the 70 years should end in 539, I can see a reason to go for 538. (The Jews could have come back in 537, but that wouldn't change when the 70 years ended a year or two prior to that.) You should be able to find all of these arguments in past discussions because they are all still around. These are not new arguments for a new audience. You might have conflated what I said with others like Ann, or ScholarJW, or others. You have done that before. I have said that I could care less what Carl Olof Jonnson wrote. All he did is repeat the evidence that is agreed upon by nearly 100% of the experts and scholars on the subject. It has nothing to do with him. My own independent study, which I did because of a dialogue I was having with Rolf Furuli, convinced me that HUNDREDS of scholars were right and Rolf Furuli had used a lot of logical fallacies and outright intellectual and scholastic dishonesty in a book that he sent me personally (for free, at that!). So far, neither you nor ScholarJW or anyone else have been able to show otherwise. It matters not that COJ might have come to the same conclusion. I have never spoken with COJ, I have spoken with Rolf Furuli. I have never read all of COJ's book. I have read every word of the last two books by Furuli. I have not "stated" that COJ has more credibility than the Watchtower, which is why you will not find such a statement. Your claim that I stated that "COJ has more credibility than the Watchtower" reminds me of J.F.Rutherford. Rutherford was not impugning the credibility of the Watchtower itself just because he found more evidence for a new teaching. Was Rutherford saying that his doctrine of 1925 has more credibility than Watch Tower's doctrine of 1914 just because he said: [2nd quotation corrected in late edit. Thanks Allen Smith.] "The year 1925 is a date definitely and clearly marked in the Scriptures, even more clearly than that of 1914; . . ." — The Watchtower, July 15, 1924, p. 211. "The physical facts show beyond question of a doubt that 1914 ended the Gentile Times. . . . The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures [than 1914] because it is fixed by the Law God gave to Israel." — The Watchtower, September 1, 1922, p. 262. ". . . the dates impart a much greater strength than can be found in other chronologies. Some of them are of so remarkable a character as clearly to indicate that this chronology is not of man, but of God. Being of divine origin and divinely corroborated, present-truth chronology stands in a class by itself, absolutely and unqualifiedly correct. INCONTESTABLY ESTABLISHED. When a date is indicated by several lines of evidence it is strongly established. . . . when a thing is indicated in only one way it may be by chance . . . and the addition of more proofs removes it entirely from the world of chance into that of proven certainty. PROOF OF DIVINE ORIGIN. . . . this is proof of divine origin and that the system is not a human invention . . . — "The Strong Cable of Chronology" The Watchtower, July 15, 1922, p.217, 218. QUESTION AND ANSWER: Have we more reason, or as much, to believe the Kingdom will be established in 1925 than Noah had to believe that there would be a flood? [Answer] Our thought is, that 1925 is definitely settled by the Scriptures. . . we expect such a climax in the affairs of the world . . . He is already present. . . . He is dashing to pieces the nations. . . .As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon which to base his faith than Noah had . . . upon which to base his faith in a coming deluge." — The Watchtower, April 1, 1923, p.106 "When you take up a more advanced study of the Bible, you will find that the year 1925 A. D. is particularly marked in prophecy." The Way to Paradise, p.220 No, he was not disparaging the Watchtower for having taught 1914. He was not putting one person as more credible than the Watchtower, because he obviously still accepted the Watchtower, and even though all the expectations for 1914 had failed, he still thought that there was evidence that something about 1914 was still true. Was Rutherford really saying that 1925 was more credible than 1914, or just saying that there was more evidence for 1925 than for 1914? Similarly, I'm saying that there is more evidence against the 1914 doctrine than there is for it. Just like Rutherford, I think that multiple lines of evidence begin to make a proposition less an indication of chance, and more an indication of certainty. I am not using this to disparage the Watchtower in general which is right on many more things than it has been wrong about. Also, note that I am not even saying that the nearly 100% of experts (perhaps there are thousands) in the field of chronology need to be right. After all, Rutherford was not right about 1925 nor even about most of the other dates he referred to as "unqualifiedly correct." Nothing about my faith changes if secular experts show how the chronology corroborates the Bible (which it does) or if it supposedly "proved" the Bible incorrect (which it doesn't). Even if all the potential thousands of experts could prove it was 607 when Jerusalem was destroyed, it still would have no effect on my faith, for Biblical reasons. I have faith that Jesus was correct when he said that no one would be able to put a date on the parousia. I have never said it was a "PET" project. If I have a "PET" project, it has been to show that the Kingdom is one of the primary themes of the Bible, and that even the Hebrew Scriptures pointed to a Messiah who turned out to be identifiable in his day as Jesus Christ, and how this truth was revealed in such a way, even if it was a "sacred secret" that it was unavoidable and undeniable for the persons of his generation. But that is not a project that I have discussed much about yet on this forum. What I am doing here is sharing things I learned from other Witnesses years ago, didn't particularly want to believe, but which became undeniable to me after thorough study and prayerful consideration. It's not necessary that anyone follow it or believe it, but my conscience tells me that I should at least share in the things learned. New information is being found on this subject all the time, and I think some have had difficulty fitting this new cloth or new wine onto the old framework of the 1914 doctrine. I think the information shared might help these brothers and sisters. Others will have no use for it, which is OK, too: (Matthew 9:16, 17) . . .Nobody sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old outer garment, for the new piece pulls away from the garment and the tear becomes worse. 17 Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins. If they do, then the wineskins burst and the wine spills out and the wineskins are ruined. But people put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.” (Matthew 13:52) . . .every public instructor who is taught about the Kingdom of the heavens is like a man, the master of the house, who brings out of his treasure store things both new and old.” A research on this forum from other threads will definitely and consistently show this to be the case.

Your style of response is not clear. I'm not sure if that was on purpose, but I will do my best to comment by including comments interspersed within the quotation of your post below. Your comments are in blue, so mine will be formatted in black, primarily. I don't know who is doing the asserting of all the dates you quote, and I assume there may at times be more than one possible reading or supposition about certain dates. If I recognize the specific secular date as one in which research provides evidence that it is correct and that it also finds support in the Bible, I will label it "Bible-supported secular date(s)." 539 for the capture of Babylon is a Bible-supported secular date which you and others have agreed with, too. 607 for the destruction of Jerusalem is a non-Bible supported, non-secular date for that event. 607 for the rebellion of Jehoiakim might come within a year or so of the Bible-supported secular date synchronized with that event. (I have never worried about arguing over +-1 or even +-2 years in some cases.)

Yes, I believe the Bible to be correct, too, of course, and I agree that in the Insight book we have a wealth of excellent research. I am re-reading the Chronology article there and am looking at ALL the different reasons and calculations they use for getting to 539 BCE. I will go ahead and read the entire Chronology section again before I hit "Submit Reply." I will give it a completely open mind, and will only make notes that are positive and supportive of the article along the way. ... ... ... Not done yet! I have read it twice before, and very carefully at that! But I'm giving it another go and will not be done before tomorrow, perhaps noon. I did see your last post as a reminder.

As far as I know, this first sentence is not true. Whenever anyone wishes to confront a question you have all the leeway you need, exactly as everyone else does. It's always been up to you if you wish to respond to a question or not. When I re-read your post, I have the same question because you didn't answer it. It's not a problem if you don't wish to or even if you have some other agenda, like the one you point out below. I understand your concern. But if you are saying that the information I stated was a "past understanding" then I never saw or remember the place where this "past" understanding was ever corrected. I think I know of a couple of Watchtower articles that imply that there could have been a few different ideas in the minds of the disciples, but there has not been any clear statement that the disciples asked the question with the idea that these words about a parousia or a synteleia would refer to an invisible presence. Yet, we do have this clear statement that they had no idea about an invisible presence. If you are saying that your only concern or agenda here was some kind of obfuscation to highlight the idea that this kind of discussion reminds you of apostate content, then I can assure you that it is based solely on Biblical study, prayer, research, and reason, and a very strong attempt to give all possible "benefit of the doubt" to the Watch Tower publications first.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/

@AllenSmith, I appreciate the scriptures you quoted as they completely coincide with these same points already made. But I can't quite figure out why you also said the following at the top of your post before you mentioned the scriptural points: I already agree 100% with the portion I left out, [ . . . ] but I'm wondering what the remaining part means. Are you saying you just don't like the word "admitting," or are you saying that when the Watchtower said the following, below, that they were actually wrong or they were inconsistent with their own teachings? *** w64 9/15 p. 575 Questions From Readers *** At Matthew 24:3, when Jesus’ disciples asked him about the “sign” of his presence, what did they have in mind, since later events show that they did not at that time understand that it would be an invisible presence? . . . [Answer]. . . But not yet having received holy spirit, they did not appreciate that he would not sit on an earthly throne; they had no idea that he would rule as a glorious spirit from the heavens and therefore did not know that his second presence would be invisible If so, in what way were they wrong? In what way were they inconsistent? Is there a place where the Watchtower changed its view and said that the disciples actually were concerned about a possible invisible presence?

The part I highlighted is, unfortunately, a completely false statement. It's true, as you said before, that Egyptian and Assyrian chronology is not as well corroborated with astronomical data and other synchronizing evidence. But it's the entire period of the Neo-Babylonian empire which includes Kings from Nabopolassar to Cyrus which is probably the most well-corroborated of all the ancient chronologies. The first astronomical diaries which can produce "absolute dates" and can be corroborated with independent lines of evidence start becoming available in the 7th and 6th centuries B.C.E. But they become much more numerous after that. These continue well into the Persian and Greek kingdoms, even to the first century C.E. But it's the sheer number of dated tablets, astronomical diaries, and royal chronologies along with additional records by later historians that all work together to confirm the ENTIRE timeline. You could even lose some of the independent lines of evidence and still have enough evidence to completely piece together the entire Neo-Babylonian period. For example, you don't need "Ptolemy's Canon" at all anymore to know when Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year began, or when Cyrus' 1st year began, even though it was once considered essential. If anyone tells you that 539 is more accurate than any other date within the time period, then you should watch out for any of the following three possibilities: They are misinformed They are dishonest They are exaggerating a point because they are referring to the fact that there are very few major events recorded during this time period that are of much historical interest outside of the records themselves, and therefore the fact that Cyrus captured Babylon is one of those events of at last moderate outside historical interest. So, being able to attach an accurate date to this particular event is of some interest to scholars and historians, and therefore makes it one of most talked about dates of that period. But this does not mean it is any more accurate than the 8th year of Cyrus, or the 4th year of Nebuchadnezzar, or the 15th year of Nabopolassar, or the 2nd year of Nabonidus, etc. Based on point number 3, just mentioned, I would say that the secular date of 597 for the siege of Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, as mentioned in Jeremiah 52:28 and 2 Kings 24:11,12 and 2 Chronicles 36:10 is actually attested to (both directly and indirectly) by even more independent Neo-Babylonian and near contemporary sources than 539 is, but this still makes it JUST AS accurate, not MORE accurate than 539. It's all part of an interconnected chronology. (And, of course, using the Bible, it becomes easy to see that if 597 is accurate, then Jerusalem must have been destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E.) Actually, I'd have to say that even the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, 586, which you called "weak" is slightly better attested to, from more independent sources, than the 539 date. But again, this does not make it more accurate than 539. But it does not make it less accurate either. The Bible itself adds additional weight for each of these dates, 597, 587/6, and 539, and thus the accuracy of the Bible is here supported by archaeology and secular chronology. Once again we have evidence that the Bible harmonizes as a book of history. We often point this out when an archaeological discovery is made about a person or place named in the Bible. So, it's actually a shame that with all the overwhelming data available for the Neo-Babylonian period, we are just about the only Judeo-Christian religion that can't admit that the Bible's record is shown to be corroborated by secular, historical and archaeological records in this case.

@Arauna Thanks for responding. Daniel 9:2 fits the Biblical theory perfectly. (I haven't forgotten some of the previous points you have made that I haven't responded to yet, but I'll work backwards from this latest post of yours.) Daniel 9:2 references the book of Jeremiah directly. Since Jeremiah is the book that Daniel bases his statement on, we should look there first. Jeremiah was already quoted above where it says that Babylon would be given 70 years of rulership over the nations around them. We also know from the context that Jerusalem and other nations were going to be punished through this 70 years given to Babylon. As the Isaiah book said: not all nations would go through their punishments for the same numbers of year. (The "seventy years" for Tyre to be forgotten evidently turned out to be about 17 years.) Jerusalem was ultimately to be desolated per Jeremiah too. But Jeremiah does NOT put a specific number of years on Jerusalem's desolation. But it is still obvious that it is through those 70 years of Babylonian domination that Jerusalem would be desolated. Jerusalem's desolation comes through, or because of, the 70 years given for Babylonian domination. That might sound convoluted, but it's based on what Jeremiah says. Also, it might well explain why the statement in Daniel 9:2 is admittedly difficult to translate. But it's pretty clear that it means what it says, just what the NWT says. The meaning is probably more like: Daniel discerned by reading the sacred books that Jeremiah had mentioned "the 70 years" and that the end of these 70 years would fulfill the desolation of Jerusalem . . .[therefore now that Babylon has had her 70 years, it must now be time for Jehovah to fulfill his promise to look with favor again upon Jerusalem.] . . .therefore [quoting from the NWT] "Do open your eyes and see our desolate condition and the city that has been called by your name; for we are not entreating you because of our righteous acts but because of your great mercy. O Jehovah, do hear. O Jehovah, do forgive. O Jehovah, do pay attention and act! Do not delay, for your own sake, O my God, for your own name has been called upon your city and upon your people.” One way we know that this is the general meaning is that Daniel had just told Belshazzar: (Daniel 5:26-30) . . .God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end. . . . your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and the Persians.”. . . 30 That very night Bel·shazʹzar the Chal·deʹan king was killed. Recall that Daniel 7 goes back in time to Belshazzar's first year, chapter 8 starts out in Belshazzar's third year, and in Daniel 9 Darius has just started his reign. This is the first verse mentioned with reference to Darius: " (Daniel 9:1, 2) In the first year of Da·riʹus the son of A·has·u·eʹrus—a descendant of the Medes who had been made king over the kingdom of the Chal·deʹans— 2 in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of years mentioned in the word of Jehovah to Jeremiah . . . So this is the obvious time to realize that the 70 years should be up. 2 Chronicles, mentioned above, also said that the 70 years would continue right up until the time that "the kingdom of Persian began to reign." 70 years of Babylonian rulership was now fulfilled and it was now time for such a prayer as Daniel made to pray that the hearts of the Jews had turned back and Jehovah would fulfill his "good promise." (Jeremiah 29:10, 13 NIV) This is what the LORD says: “When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my good promise to bring you back to this place. . . . Then you will call on me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. That is quite possible. What I said was that the Bible never says to count back from 537. This is for THREE reasons. The Bible never says that the number of years given to Babylon (70) would continue for any length of time after a king of Persia began to reign. This very well could have been 539 the very year that Cyrus captured Babylon and killed Belshazzar. Even if the Jews had remained another 5, 25 or 75 more years in Babylon (many did), those 70 years would still have been completed back in 539. It's quite possible that the Jews weren't prepared to go back immediately, or there was a delay in the exact timing of the decree by Cyrus to release them. But even if this was true, it doesn't change the time when the Bible said the 70 years were completed. The other reason I mentioned that the Bible never says to count back 70 years from 537 is that the Bible never mentions 539, 538, or 537. Those are secular dates, not Biblical dates. The closest we can get to in the Bible is know that it was after a certain number of years during a certain king's reign and before a certain number of years of that king's or another king's reign. The only way you or I can state with any certainty that a number like 538 or 587 or 607 should be attached to one of those dates is through a synchronization with evidence provided through secular evidence OUTSIDE the Bible. Your point was that this was the method to reach the "true date" for the destruction of Jerusalem. The Bible never says that the 70 years start counting from the destruction of Jerusalem. So even if the 70 years turns out to start in 607, that doesn't mean that Jerusalem was destroyed in that date. (Besides, the same point made in the previous post still stands: if you believe you can put a number like 539 on the first year or "ascension year" of Cyrus, then this is the same as claiming that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 586. Otherwise you have no right to claim that 539 was that "ascension year" of Cyrus.) However, I would say that we have enough evidence to say that the 70 years most likely did end in 539 or possibly 538 at the latest. (Ezra 1:1) In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in order that Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah would be fulfilled, . . . (Ezra 3:1) When the seventh month arrived and the Israelites were in their cities, they gathered together with one accord in Jerusalem. The Jews could have returned in 539 or 538. (It's much less likely but you are right in that they COULD have even returned in 537.) It's not based on the time the Jews returned, but if the term "70 years" was meant to be an exact number, it's true that the 70 years of Babylonian supremacy could have started in 609 or 608. I could even accept that it started in 607 as long as we can accept that the 70 years could contain "parts of 70 years" just as Jesus was in the grave for "parts of 3 days" even though that can be accomplished, technically, in just over 24 hours . . . and we assume it was over 30 hours. So yes, based on evidence, 607 is a possible date for the beginning of the 70 years. Based on that same evidence, it is IMPOSSIBLE for 607 to be the date when Jerusalem was destroyed. But that is not important, because the Bible never said that Babylonian supremacy would start at that point anyway. Babylon began desolating the nations all around, which would include Judea, as early as 609, the year that the previous "world empire" (Assyrian) fell and began being absorbed into the Babylonian power structure. To keep each of these posts a bit shorter, I'll stop this one for now and pick up on your next points later. Thanks again.

Yes, but remember that the Bible never says to count back 70 years from 537. It says that the Babylonians would be given 70 years of rule over the nations around them. (Jeremiah 25:11, 12) 11 And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’ 12 “‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error,Â’ declares Jehovah, ‘and I will make the land of the Chal·de?ans a desolate wasteland for all time. And Babylon was to be called to account at the end of those 70 years when Babylon was captured by Cyrus in 539. At that point there was no Babylon Empire anymore, it was merely a part of the Medo-Persian empire ruled by Cyrus. This is why the 70 years were never said to end when the Jews came back to Jerusalem, but when Cyrus captured Babylon. (2 Chronicles 36:20-23) 20 He carried off captive to Babylon those who escaped the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia began to reign, 21 to fulfill JehovahÂ’s word spoken by Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill 70 years. 22 In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in order that JehovahÂ’s word spoken by Jeremiah would be fulfilled, Jehovah stirred the spirit of King Cyrus of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his kingdom, which he also put in writing, saying: 23 “This is what King Cyrus of Persia says, ‘Jehovah the God of the heavens has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has commissioned me to build him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever there is among you of all his people, may Jehovah his God be with him, and let him go up.’” So, this claim about 537 is actually just a necessary adjustment that is neither Biblical nor secular. It's just a way to work around the Bible's clear statement that the 70 years were over when Persia began to rule. We both agree that this was 539, but 539 would give us a starting date of 609. (Russell didn't have this problem because he thought Cyrus started in 536 and so Russell just counted back to 606 and left it at that. Of course, he also made the mistake of thinking that 606 was 2,520 years prior to 1914.) When I used the date 538 for the decree, I was using the last possible meaning of the term "first year of King Cyrus" (2 Chron 36:22). If the prior year 539 is meant, then it would be very likely that the Jews actually returned to Jerusalem in 539, not 538. (Unless we think that most of the Jews might just want to hang around an extra few months or up to two years after they were free to go.) Nothing in the Bible says they waited until 537 if the decree was made in 539. And if the decree was made in the first official FULL year of Cyrus (538) then there is still no reason to think that they waited until 537. 537, as I said, is just a necessary adjustment the Watch Tower publications are required to make in order for 1914 to appear valid. We don't know how much of that time period during Babylon's "70 years" that the land of Israel and Judah needed to lay completley desolate. Perhaps it was 7 times 7 years (49 years) or perhaps it was 70 x 7 years (490 years) or perhaps it was only that it needed to start paying off its sabbaths when desolations and deportations started at the very beginning of Babylonian rule nearly a full 70 years prior to 539, when Nebuchadnezzar was still "tramping about" in "Hatti-land" as a general under his father's rulership. No matter when it started, and for how many years it continued, we know it finally got to a point of such desolation that it therefore finally paid off its sabbaths. But we do know that any fulfillment of the sabbath on the land was only possible because Babylon was given 70 years of "Empire" to desolate the nations all around it. That "70 years of Babylonian Empire" is what fulfilled the word of Jeremiah, and what got Judah to a point where it paid off its sabbaths during the fulfillment of Babylon's 70 years. This point was made clear in the discussion of Tyre in the Isaiah's Prophecy book: *** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre *** 21 Isaiah goes on to prophesy: “It must occur in that day that Tyre must be forgotten seventy years, the same as the days of one king.” (Isaiah 23:15a) Following the destruction of the mainland city by the Babylonians, the island-city of Tyre will “be forgotten.” True to the prophecy, for the duration of “one king”—the Babylonian Empire—the island-city of Tyre will not be an important financial power. Jehovah, through Jeremiah, includes Tyre among the nations that will be singled out to drink the wine of His rage. He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of BabyloniaÂ’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble. By the way, you can't say that 607 is the true date of the fall of Jerusalem by counting back from 539 either. You have to remember where you got this secular date of 539 from. You can't claim that Cyrus destroyed Babylon in 539 unless you are accepting the timeline that puts Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year in 586. Do you believe the Bible made a mistake when it identifies Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year as the time when Jerusalem was destroyed? By saying it was 607, you are claiming that it was in Nabopolassar's last two years, two years prior to Nebuchadnezzar's first full regnal year. You can't just say you want to select a portion of the timeline, because the timeline is completely interconnected, and every new piece of evidence, so far, has confirmed the correctness of the interconnected timeline. (And there have literally been THOUSANDS of pieces of interconnected evidence.) It's exactly the same as if you said that your great-great-grandmother told you that the "Civil War" in the United States lasted about 25 years. She says it was from 1840-1865. You could repeat 1,500 times that this means the civil war started in 1840/1841, but it wouldn't prove anything. (The Watchtower Library CD repeats the date 607 about 1,500 times.) You could always point to the "true and clear" secular, historical evidence that it ended in 1865 and show how you are counting backwards correctly. The problem is that you would be ignoring that the SAME sources of "true and clear" secular, historical evidence show that it started in 1861. So, if you really want your 25 years, what keeps you from claiming that 1861 is correct for a start date and that it must therefore have ENDED around 1885/1886? You are making the exact same mistake either way. This is why you can't use the date 539 as a correct date if you are going to say that 586 for Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year is incorrect. Once you change Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year you are no longer saying that 539 is correct. Besides, even after all this, 1914 would still be a murky date because there is no Biblical evidence that says that 7 times would pass after Jerusalem's destruction until the Messiah would reign again. Even if it did, you would not know if 7 times meant 7 360-day years. Even if it did, you would not know if 7 years meant 2,520 365.25-day years. These are all just guesses. If 1914 were so clear, why did the Watchtower begin saying that the Gentile Times ended in 1915 for a while? The following is the Watch Tower, January 1, 1916, p.4. Â

Several persons have weighed in already, and I'll be more than happy to discuss all these concerns and issues from a Biblical perspective. For now, it seems like a good idea to go ahead and get to the topic of parousia. PAROUSIA This is, of course, the word used in Matthew's account when the disciples were asking Jesus the question about WHEN the time would come for those predictions about the destruction of the Temple buildings. The earliest translations of the Bible, made back when koine Greek was still a living language, understood the "parousia" of Matthew 24 to be an event rather than a presence. The Watch Tower publications have said that the word parousia refers to both arrival and presence and that the more common use of the term referred more to the presence than the arrival. This is why the word is translated "presence." (Matthew 24:2, 3) "Truly I say to you, by no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 3 While he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately, saying: “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence [PAROUSIA] and of the conclusion of the system of things?” Clearly, the disciples wanted some advance warning about the time of this very visible, destructive event. They are basically saying: "WHEN? WHAT SIGN will you give us?" The Watchtower has already admitted that the disciples knew nothing about an invisible presence, so it makes sense that they would want to know when it was just about to happen, not when an approaching time period was already happening invisibly. Common sense also tells us that they were not thinking that the falling of these temple stones was going to be an invisible occurrence. It's also very easy to understand this if we understand that the terms terms PAROUSIA and SYNTELEIA refer to a final judgment event. However, if we think of BOTH these terms as referring to long periods of time of 100 to 150 years or more, then it might inadvertently give us the impression that the disciples were asking about how to identify a time period when Jesus might be present for some long period of time even well in advance of the temple stones falling. Of course, that wouldn't tell the disciples what they needed to know, or what they were immediately concerned about. So it's a good idea here to see what Mark and Luke report as the essence of the disciples same question, because neither of them use the term PAROUSIA. Did they want to know about the period of time before the destruction, or did they want to know the timing of the destruction? (Luke 21:6, 7) . . .“As for these things that you now see, the days will come when not a stone will be left upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 7 Then they questioned him, saying: “Teacher, when will these things actually be, and what will be the sign when these things are to occur?” It's already clear what they had in mind, and we should not expect the essence of what they were asking to be changed by the addition of the words parousia and synteleia in Matthew. Of course, a true understanding of those two words does not change the meaning of what Luke states and, in fact, makes it even more clear that Luke and Matthew are in complete harmony. The disciples were not asking: "In what generation will these things actually be and what will be the signs so we know we are in the generation when these things are going to occur?" Let's look at Mark: (Mark 13:2-4) . . .By no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 3 As he was sitting on the Mount of Olives with the temple in view, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked him privately: 4 “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are to come to a conclusion?” In the discussion of SYNTELEIA we already presented the evidence that the word "synteleia" rarely means conclusion, especially not in Biblical or religious contexts. In fact, the word "conclusion" used here is not even from the noun, but is taken from the verb SYNTELEO, which always has the meaning of to reach a final end, to finish, to destroy, to complete, to fulfill, to accomplish, etc. A more accurate way to translate the verse would be the same way the NWT correctly handles the same word in Luke 4:13: (Luke 4:13) 13 So the Devil, having finished [SYNTELEO] all the temptation, departed from him until another convenient time. Thus, the Revised Standard Version translates Mark like this: (Mark 13:4, RSV) "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign when these things are all to be accomplished?" The Watchtower has said that the two terms parousia and synteleia are "parallel." If this is really true, the disciples must have had in mind that parousia could refer to the same destructive judgment event that synteleia could have referred to. It is true however that "parousia" can refer to a simple "presence." Isn't there still a chance that this is what it refers to here? Well, we have already noted that this particular meaning would not have made as much sense in this context. And we have the evidence of that when we see that the parallel ideas in Mark and Luke show that it must have referred to the time when these events would come or arrive or happen or occur. We also must recognize that there was a special meaning of parousia when it was applied to a dignitary, king or emperor. When you spoke of the parousia of someone like Paul, Timothy or Titus, then you might be referring to their arrival and their subsequent presence. But when the word was used for a powerful person, the focus was on the "grand entrance" or the "parade-like" event that accompanied those events. This understanding explains why the earliest translations of the Greek Bible into Latin and Coptic and Syriac recognized that words like ADVENT and COMING and ARRIVAL were better than presence, even if presence was still the proper way to discuss the parousia of someone like the apostle Paul. Similarly, we commonly use the word "triumph" to refer to a big "success," or a "win." But the Romans used the word in a special sense of a "Victory Parade" and have made statues and carvings and coins that commemorate these events called "Triumphs" or "Triumph" processions. The Oxford English Dictionary offers it as the very first definition from the Latin "triumphus": 1.1 Rom. Hist. The entrance of a victorious commander with his army and spoils in solemn procession into Rome, permission for which was granted by the senate in honour of an important achievement in war. It's reflected in the name of the famous Arc de Triomphe in Paris. A "Triumph" is depicted in the famous "Arch of Titus" which looks like the one in Paris from the outside. Inside it shows Jerusalem's temple treasures being carried back to Rome: Similarly "PAROUSIA" had a special definition in the Roman world. It's alluded to in the Watch Tower Publications: *** it-2 p. 677 Presence *** Liddell and ScottÂ’s Greek-English Lexicon (revised by H. Jones, Oxford, 1968, p. 1343) shows that pa·rou·si?a is used at times in secular Greek literature to refer to the “visit of a royal or official personage.” *** Rbi8 p. 1577 5B ChristÂ’s Presence (Parousia) *** Also, Bauer, p. 630, states that pa·rou·si?a “became the official term for a visit of a person of high rank, esp[ecially] of kings and emperors visiting a province.” In Mt 24:3, as well as in other texts such as 1Th 3:13 and 2Th 2:1, the word pa·rou·si?a refers to the royal presence of Jesus Christ . . . The primary reason for the differences between more recent Bible dictionaries, and dictionaries and studies completed prior to about 1910 was because the work of Adolph Deissmann was not published in English until the early 20th century. At the end of this post, I'll copy-and-paste some quotes that were already presented in another topic, especially page 8 of this conversation: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/16699-gods-kingdom-rules/?page=8 [ I was going to make a part 2 of this PAROUSIA post, but most of the technical references were already given especially near the end of this linked topic below. Later, I'll just make another PAROUSIA post discussing only the Biblical uses of the word.] Deissmann had studied "New Testament" era papyri and coins that showed that a Parousia of a king or emperor was an event that could be like a parade or procession with fanfare, music, dancing, lots of people wearing white robes, and even a time for a visiting ruler to take on a seat of local judgment. Expenses for making the roads straight and smooth and cleaning up debris so that the king would be more impressed might even call for a special taxation in preparation for the parousia. Deissmann and others believed this is the reason for special "parousia" coins (Greek) or "advent" coins (Latin). https://www.cointalk.com/threads/advent.271544/ (a lot more examples) Also, in the 19th century, a few people realized that the simpler meaning of the word "parousia" gave support for their view of a two-stage parousia of Christ, including a potentially invisible stage. This was true of some Christadelphians, Plymouth Brethren and Second Adventists, too. It included persons like Benjamin Wilson who published the "Diaglott" and it was also true of W. E. Vine, the person who produced "Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old Testament and New Testament Words." (Both items are listed in the advertisement from @bruceq above.) Note, Insight: *** it-2 p. 676 Presence *** VineÂ’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1981, Vol. 1, pp. 208, 209) states: “PAROUSIA . . . denotes both an arrival and a consequent presence with. You might be fooled by the date 1981 used in the Insight book. W.E.Vine was actually born in 1873, died in 1949 and barely adjusted his early work on the word parousia after his work with C. F. Hogg between 1905 and 1914. He finished his commentary on Thessalonians with Hogg in 1914, where parousia was a key element. But even here, the two-stages of the Parousia referred primarily to the beginning of the Parousia which was a Rapture and therefore a short time when the saints would be with Christ in heaven during a time of persecution, followed by Armageddon which ultimately becomes the "Day of the Lord" which is the end event of the Parousia. Here is some of that reference information from the other topic mentioned above: --------------------------------------- [page 8] Several of the Liddell-Scott definitions are related to something more than a simple visit, including the "royal visitation": 2. arrival, ???? ????????? ?. S.El.1104, cf. E.Alc.209, Th.1.128 ; “??? ???????” D.H.1.45 ; esp. visit of a royal or official personage, ????????, etc., PTeb.48.14 (ii B. C.), IPE12.32A85 (Olbia, iii B.C.), etc.; of a god, IG42(1).122.34(Epid.). 3. occasion, v.l. in S. El.1251. 4. ?. ???? ????????? entertain them on their official visits, OGI139.9(Philae, ii B.C.). 5. in NT, the Advent, Ev.Matt.24.27, al.  [page 8] Better sources for the meaning would be contemporary sources to the Greek Scriptures. Therefore, a better set of resources to start with might be the ones referenced in this book which has a preview on Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=fj1R9Z4uIzAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false I might type out some of it, or at least I'll snap a screenshot of parts of page 150 and 151, another quote comes from page 158: A further source of background material that has bearing on our study is found when one explores the meaning and use of the term parousia before and during the New Testament period. The word means "presence" or "arrival." From the Ptolemaic period to the second century A.D. there is clear evidence that the term was used for the arrival of a ruler, king or emperor. The Latin equivalent was adventus. For instance, a third-century B.C. papyrus refers to a crown of gold to be presented to a king at his parousia.6 Or again a parousia of King Ptolemy the Second (circa 113 B.C.), who called himself soter, is expected and it is said "the provision of 80 artabae ... was imposed for the tou Basileos parousian...."7Such examples from both the Hellenistic and Roman periods could be multiplied. For example, in memory of the visit of Nero to Corinth, special adventus/parousia coins were cast that read Adventus aug[usti] Cor[inthi].8 These coins were cast during the general period when Paul was writing to Corinth (1 Cor 15:23). Equally interesting is the evidence G. D. Kilpatrick has collected showing that "parousia" often was the Hellenistic term for a theophany.9 For instance, in the Greek form of the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, at Testament of Judah 22:3(2) and Testament of Levi 8:15(11), we find it used to refer to the final coming of God. Josephus uses the term parousia for the divine appearances in the Old Testament theophanies (Ant. 3.80, 202-3; 9.55; compare 18.284).

You are apparently asking for a secular date: a date that requires the input of scholars who have studied the archaeology, astronomy, language and therefore, the chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period of history. The only way that we could attach a secular date to this event is if we accept the expert scholars' opinions about the chronology. Those experts tell us that it's part of a timeline that includes and is interwoven with all the lengths of the reigns of the kings of the period. The lengths of these reigns include kings well before Nebuchadnezzar back into the late Assyrian period through the kings well after Cyrus and on into the period of Greek kings. The lengths of all these kings tend to double-check each other and the synchronization with prior and later timelines is useful as a way to make sure the entire period is understood correctly. Otherwise, who is to say there were not several kings named Nebuchadnezzar, and several named Cyrus and Darius and Artaxerxes, etc. All the data must be placed into a schema and then that schema can be double-checked through several different independent lines of evidence to see if it is being understood correctly. So, to make a long story short, the Watchtower has admitted that it is estimating the year for the Judeans to return to Jerusalem as 537 BCE. This is based on the idea that we can confidently say that Cyrus first partial year over Babylon was 539 and therefore his first full regnal year was 538, which was therefore, the most likely time when the Jews returned. Biblically, it appears that the call went out in the first regnal year of the king called Cyrus. Putting the secular date of 539 or 538 on this year is only possible because the neo-Babylonian chronology schema allows us to know when Nabopolassar ruled, when Nebuchadnezzar II ruled, when Nabonidus ruled, when Cyrus ruled, and which astronomical sightings and other events help us to confirm each of these king's reigns and how they fit between and among the reigns of the other kings in the period. In other words, we can know that it was Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th years when he destroyed the temple. But if we are to put a secular date on them it's only because we can put a date on any other king's reign during this period. If we say that Cyrus' first full year was 538, it's because we can say that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th year was 587 and 586. All the dates are part of a whole. If we say that the Temple must have been destroyed in 607, for example, that's the same as saying that Cyrus' first full year started in 558. That would mean that the Watchtower would have to say that the Jews must have returned to Jerusalem in 558 or 557, instead of 537. Fortunately, we now have several independent lines of evidence that all show us that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year was 586, and therefore we can be sure that Cyrus 1st regnal year was 538. If we trust the astronomical diaries, we now have literally dozens of additional pieces of evidence to pinpoint secular dates at many points in the entire chronology. We also have the dated contract documents, thousands of them, that all confirm that these secular-astronomical dates are correct. These thousands of contracts show us that there are 48 years accounted for from Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year to Cyrus 1st. This is a perfect match to the other independent lines of evidence. Of course, all this is irrelevant, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, Thessalonians, 2 Peter and Revelation. There is no relationship between the time that the Jews returned to Jerusalem and the beginning of the Parousia.

Can we see the first 30% of her for free? It'd be like 'proof of life.'

The answer is straightforward, and this is the reason I included Matthew 25:34-40 in my response. But I think some background might be useful, and this might take more than one post, sorry: I am not sure if you are aware that the Watch Tower publications have done away with the practice of claiming that all Bible narratives, parables and illustrations were to be treated as prophecies, or prophetic dramas where we (the WTS) would make specific modern-day applications out of them, such that one entity in the illustration means only the anointed and another entity means only the non-anointed, etc. It was usually a pretty simple formula to work out, but there were often Biblical contradictions if you read the entire context for yourself: If someone in Israel or Judah was doing the right thing it was a "prophecy" about the anointed sometime after 1918. If someone in Israel or Judah was doing the wrong thing, it was a "prophecy" about Christendom, usually around 1918 to 1919. If there was a mention of captivity or discipline of Israel or Judah, it always meant a prophecy about the captivity of the leading brothers in the organization in 1918. (And a release or cleansing always referred to 1919.) If any good person or group from another nation was mentioned, it always referred to the "other sheep" class If it was a bad person or group from another nation was mentioned, it referred to Babylon the Great There were just a few exceptions and variations, but the formula was usually easy enough to predict. One of the major exceptions was the explanation of the long Bible narratives about the activities of Elijah and Elisha. Elijah transferred his mantle to Elisha, after which Elijah is "taken up in a whilrwind" and Elisha performed twice as many miracles, and appeared to have a "double measure" of holy spirit. It seemed natural that this should apply to the time of Russell as the time of Elijah, and then Rutherford applied the time of Elisha to himself after 1918. But when Rutherford died and thereby transferred the presidency to Knorr, Russell was dropped from the formula and Elijah now referred to Rutherford's time as president, and Elisha now was a prophecy about Knorr's time in the Watch Tower presidency. Most of the entire contents of the book "Let Your Name Be Sanctified" covered this previous point. And this was the book being studied every Tuesday at the "Congregation Book Study" just 5 years before I was baptized. Another of the study books listed 42 of these type of prophecies that referred specifically to the "other sheep." And a Watchtower in 1981 listed another 80 of these type of prophecies that referred specifically to the "anointed remnant." *** w81 3/1 p. 27 Do You Appreciate the “Faithful and Discreet Slave”? *** OVERWHELMING CREDENTIALS The “faithful and discreet slave” has abundant credentials. Following is a partial list of Scriptural and prophetic designations applying to or being represented in the remnant of Jesus Christ’s anointed followers since the notable year 1919: (1) Noah’s wife, Gen. 7:7; (2) angels sent to Lot, Gen. 19:15; (3) Rebekah, Gen. 24:64; (4) Joseph and Benjamin, Gen. 45:14; (5) gleanings left behind, Lev. 19:9; (6) two spies to Rahab, Josh. 2:4; (7) Barak, Judg. 4:14; (8) Jephthah, Judg. 11:34; (9) Naomi and Ruth, Ruth 2:2; (10) David’s Israelite warriors, 2 Sam. 18:1; (11) Jehu, 2 Ki. 10:11, 15; (12) Mordecai and Esther, Esther 4:13; (13) Job, Job 42:10, 13; (14) King’s daughter, Ps. 45:13; (15) men of loving-kindness, Ps. 50:5; (16) intimate group, Ps. 89:7; (17) Shear-jashub, Isa. 7:3; (18) light of the nations, Isa. 60:3; (19) big trees of righteousness, Isa. 61:3; (20) ministers of our God, Isa. 61:6; (21) cluster preserved, Isa. 65:8; (22) servants called by another name, Isa. 65:15; (23) men trembling at God’s word, Isa. 66:5; (24) new nation born, Isa. 66:8; (25) Jeremiah, Jer. 1:10; (26) Jehovah’s people in the new covenant, Jer. 31:33; (27) enduring watchman, Ezek. 3:16-27; (28) man in linen, Ezek. 9:2; (29) cleansed people, Ezek. 36:29-32; (30) dwellers in center of earth, Ezek. 38:12; (31) the host of heaven, Dan. 8:10; (32) sanctuary restored (cleansed), Dan. 8:14; (33) they that are wise, Dan. 11:33; (34) the happy one who is keeping in expectation, Dan. 12:12; (35) all flesh receiving the spirit, Joel 2:28; (36) Jonah, Jon. 3:1-3; (37) apple of Jehovah’s eye, Zech. 2:8; (38) liberated remnant, Zech. 2:7; (39) a Jew, Zech. 8:23; (40) sons of Levi, Mal. 3:3; (41) wheat, Matt. 13:25; (42) sons of the kingdom, Matt. 13:38; (43) workers for the vineyard, Matt. 20:1; (44) those invited to marriage feast, Matt. 22:3-14; (45) chosen ones, Matt. 24:22; (46) eagles, Matt. 24:28; (47) faithful and discreet slave, Matt. 24:45; (48) discreet virgins, Matt. 25:2; (49) brothers of the king, Matt. 25:40; (50) little flock of sheep, Luke 12:32; (51) beggar Lazarus, Luke 16:20; (52) sheep in “this fold,” John 10:1-16; (53) branches of the vine, John 15:4; (54) royal palace of David, Acts 15:16; (55) heirs with Christ, Rom. 8:17; (56) the remnant, Rom. 11:5; (57) branches in the olive tree, Rom. 11:24; (58) holy ones or saints, 1 Cor. 6:2; Rev. 16:6; (59) temple, 1 Cor. 6:19; (60) new creation, 2 Cor. 5:17; (61) ambassadors for Christ, 2 Cor. 5:20; (62) congregation of God, Gal. 1:13; (63) part of Abraham’s seed, Gal. 3:29; (64) Israel of God, Gal. 6:16; (65) body of Christ, Eph. 1:22, 23; (66) soldiers of Christ Jesus, 2 Tim. 2:3; (67) house under Christ, Heb. 3:6; (68) holy priesthood, 1 Pet. 2:5; (69) holy nation, 1 Pet. 2:9; (70) association of brothers, 1 Pet. 2:17; (71) seven congregations, Rev. 1:20; (72) twenty-four persons of advanced age, Rev. 4:4; (73) spiritual Israel, Rev. 7:4; (74) locusts, Rev. 9:3; (75) two witnesses, Rev. 11:3; (76) two olive trees, Rev. 11:4; (77) seed of the woman, Rev. 12:17; (78) New Jerusalem, Rev. 21:2; (79) the bride of Christ, Rev. 22:17; 19:7; (80) Jehovah’s witnesses, Isa. 43:10. Between just those two sources, that's a partial list of 122 prophecies in total that were mostly dismissed recently as no longer prophecies. These "doctrines" are no longer considered true, with just a few exceptions. In 2015, this type of doctrine was designated no longer "approved." It's informative to see how this was explained: *** w15 3/15 p. 9-11 par. 7-14 “This Is the Way You Approved” *** 7 If you have been serving Jehovah for decades, you may have noticed a gradual shift in the way our literature explains many of the narratives recorded in the Bible. How so? In times past, it was more common for our literature to take what might be called a type-antitype approach to Scriptural accounts. The Bible narrative was considered the type, and any prophetic fulfillment of the story was the antitype. . . . Can we conclude, though, that every character, event, and object described in the Bible foreshadows someone or something? 9 In the past, such an approach was often taken. Consider, for example, the account about Naboth, whose unjust trial and execution were arranged by wicked Queen Jezebel so that her husband, Ahab, could seize Naboth’s vineyard. (1 Ki. 21:1-16) Back in 1932, that account was explained as a prophetic drama. Ahab and Jezebel were said to picture Satan and his organization; Naboth pictured Jesus; Naboth’s death, then, was prophetic of Jesus’ execution. Decades later, though, in the book “Let Your Name Be Sanctified,” published in 1961, Naboth was said to picture the anointed, and Jezebel was Christendom. Hence, Naboth’s persecution at Jezebel’s hands pictured the persecution of the anointed during the last days. For many years, God’s people found this approach to Bible accounts faith strengthening. Why, then, have things changed? 10 As we might expect, over the years Jehovah has helped “the faithful and discreet slave” to become steadily more discreet. Discretion has led to greater caution when it comes to calling a Bible account a prophetic drama unless there is a clear Scriptural basis for doing so. Additionally, it has been found that some of the older explanations about types and antitypes are unduly difficult for many to grasp. The details of such teachings—who pictures whom and why—can be hard to keep straight, to remember, and to apply. Of even greater concern, though, is that the moral and practical lessons of the Bible accounts under examination may be obscured or lost in all the scrutiny of possible antitypical fulfillments. Thus, we find that our literature today focuses more on the simple, practical lessons about faith, endurance, godly devotion, and other vital qualities that we learn about from Bible accounts. 11 How, then, do we now understand the account about Naboth? In much clearer, simpler terms. That righteous man died, not because he was a prophetic type of Jesus or of the anointed, but because he was an integrity keeper. He held to Jehovah’s Law in the face of horrific abuse of power. (Num. 36:7; 1 Ki. 21:3) His example thus speaks to us because any one of us may face persecution for similar reasons. (Read 2 Timothy 3:12.) People of all backgrounds can readily understand, remember, and apply such a faith-strengthening lesson. . . . For example, we can rightly say that Naboth’s integrity in the face of persecution and death reminds us of the integrity of Christ and his anointed. However, we can also be reminded of the faithful stand of many of the Lord’s “other sheep.” Such a clear and simple comparison has the hallmark of divine teaching. A SIMPLER APPROACH TO JESUS’ ILLUSTRATIONS . . . 14 What, though, about the more detailed stories, or parables, that Jesus related? Some, of course, are symbolic and prophetic; others emphasize practical lessons. But which is which? Through the years, the answer has gradually become clearer. For instance, consider the way we have explained Jesus’ parable of the neighborly Samaritan. (Luke 10:30-37) In 1924, The Watch Tower said that the Samaritan pictured Jesus; the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, which ran downhill, pictured mankind’s downward course since the rebellion in Eden; the thieves on the road pictured giant corporations and profiteers; and the priest and the Levite typified ecclesiastical systems. Today, our literature uses that illustration to remind all Christians that we must be impartial in rendering aid to those in need, especially in a spiritual sense. Does it not make us happy to see that Jehovah makes his teachings clear to us? Additional comments were made in this Watchtower and in the 2014 Annual Meeting that clarified that we no longer try to turn a Biblical narrative or parable into a prophecy unless there is a specific scripture that tells us that it is to be applied as a prophecy. (e.g., Jonah in the belly of the fish for three days.) Even in places where we had applied an entity only to the anointed, such as with Naboth, notice now how this narrative actually applies just as well to the "other sheep." The "prodigal son" is another example where the two brothers once referred to the anointed (older brother) and the other sheep (prodigal brother). The clear and simple lesson about forgiveness and human understanding was lost because we thought of it as a prophecy about how the other sheep had lost out on the heavenly hope (wasted that potential inheritance) because they were not as spiritual as the anointed. Obviously this didn't make as much sense after the prejudices against the less worthy other sheep wore off over the years, and the meanings were therefore adjusted. But the Watchtower still continued viewing the parable as a prophecy about the anointed and other sheep for more than 50 years. You might already know that there are still three major parables of Jesus that must still be considered "prophecies" even though it would be just as easy to treat them as moral reminders to watch our conduct and motivations. These include the illustration of "the faithful and the evil slave," "the wise and foolish virgins," and "the sheep and the goats." This may not be the reason, but the "Governing Body" claims its Biblical authority from the parable of "the faithful and the evil slave" and the "sheep and the goats" parable is used to remind the "other sheep" how they must treat the anointed -- Christ's brothers. But if you look closely at the parable of the sheep and the goats, you can see more reasons to consider what the Watchtower said about Naboth, for example. The MORAL lesson of the sheep and the goats parable works the same for both the "anointed" and the "other sheep." Consider who Christ's brothers are in the illustration of the sheep and the goats where Jesus says in verse 40: ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ *** w15 3/15 p. 26 pars. 4-5 Loyally Supporting Christ’s Brothers *** In 1881, Zion’s Watch Tower identified “the Son of man,” also called “the King,” as Jesus. The early Bible Students understood the expression rendered in the King James Version “my brethren” to refer to those who would rule with Christ as well as to all of mankind after they are restored to earthly perfection. . . . And they believed that people would be classed as sheep because they lived by God’s law of love. 5 In the early 1920’s, Jehovah helped his people refine their understanding of this illustration. The Watch Tower of October 15, 1923, affirmed that “the Son of man” is Jesus. However, it presented sound Scriptural arguments that limited the identity of Christ’s brothers to those who would rule with him in heaven, and it described the sheep as those who hope to live on earth under the rule of Christ’s Kingdom. 7 Today, we have a clear understanding of the illustration of the sheep and the goats. Regarding the identity of those mentioned, Jesus is “the Son of man,” the King. Those referred to as “my brothers” are spirit-anointed men and women, who will rule with Christ from heaven. (Rom. 8:16, 17) “The sheep” and “the goats” represent individuals from all nations. These ones are not anointed by holy spirit. What about the timing of the judgment? This judgment will occur toward the end of the great tribulation just ahead. And what of the reason why people will be judged as either sheep or goats? The outcome hinges on how they have treated the remaining ones of Christ’s spirit-anointed brothers on earth. With the end of this system so close at hand, how grateful we are that Jehovah has progressively shed light on this illustration and on the related illustrations recorded in Matthew chapters 24 and 25! Think about the illustration closely. I'll repeat it here: (Matthew 25:31-40) 31 “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will put the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right: ‘Come, you who have been blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world. 35 For I became hungry and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you received me hospitably; 36 naked and you clothed me. I fell sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you visited me.’ 37 Then the righteous ones will answer him with the words: ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and receive you hospitably, or naked and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 In reply the King will say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ The Watchtower said that the "brothers" are anointed, and the "sheep" are not anointed. If that isn't clear, just look at the red highlighted words in paragraph 7 of the 3/15/2015 Watchtower quoted above. But notice what Jesus says about the sheep in Matthew 25:34. He says to the sheep on the right "Come, you who have been blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world." Does it really sound like the sheep are distinguished from those who inherit the Kingdom? Does it really sound like it matters, from a moral and instructional perspective? I'm trying to point out the contradictions that can happen when we try to break up Jesus' illustrations into prophecies about who is anointed and who is not anointed. As another example, notice Matthew 5:5: (Matthew 5:5) 5 “Happy are the mild-tempered, since they will inherit the earth. Who do you think inherits the earth? The anointed or the non-anointed? *** w09 3/15 p. 23 par. 14 Jehovah Deserves Our United Praise *** One result was that the way was opened for 144,000 humans to become spirit-anointed followers of Christ. In 1919, Jehovah used his power to deliver a small remnant of these anointed ones from captivity to false religion. Their accomplishments during this time of the end can only be attributed to God’s power. Upon proving faithful to death, they will share with Jesus Christ in ruling from heaven over the earth for the benefit of repentant humans. (Rev. 2:26, 27; 5:9, 10) They will inherit the earth in a far grander way than did ancient Israel.—Matt. 5:5. *** w09 3/15 p. 11 par. 4 Keep Your Eyes on the Prize *** Jesus confirmed that this was a valid hope. He said: “Happy are the mild-tempered ones, since they will inherit the earth.” (Matt. 5:5) Jesus himself is the principal one to inherit our earth, as Psalm 2:8 indicates, and he will have 144,000 corulers in heaven. Notice how the point must be blended to include the other sheep as OTHER mild-tempered ones, not the specific mild-tempered ones mentioned in Matthew 5:5. *** w08 5/15 p. 3 par. 4 How Should We Treat Others? *** 4 The mild-tempered ones are happy because “they will inherit the earth.” Jesus, who was “mild-tempered and lowly in heart,” is the “appointed heir of all things” and is therefore the principal Inheritor of the earth. (Matt. 11:29; Heb. 1:2; Ps. 2:8) It was foretold that the Messianic “son of man” would have associate rulers in the heavenly Kingdom. (Dan. 7:13, 14, 21, 22, 27) As “joint heirs with Christ,” 144,000 mild-tempered anointed ones were to share in Jesus’ inheritance of the earth. (Rom. 8:16, 17; Rev. 14:1) Other mild-tempered ones will be blessed with everlasting life in the earthly realm of the Kingdom.—Ps. 37:11. *** w03 4/1 p. 25 par. 20 Exhibit “All Mildness Toward All Men” *** . “Happy are the mild-tempered ones,” Jesus declared, “since they will inherit the earth.” (Matthew 5:5) For Christ’s spirit-anointed brothers, maintaining mildness ensures their happiness and the privilege of ruling over the earthly domain of the Kingdom. As for the “great crowd” of “other sheep,” they continue to manifest mildness and look forward to life in Paradise here on earth *** w91 10/15 p. 10 par. 2 How Happy the Mild-Tempered! *** 2 Jesus pronounced the mild-tempered happy because they will inherit the earth. As the perfectly mild-tempered Son of God, Jesus is the Chief Inheritor of the earth. (Psalm 2:8; Matthew 11:29; Hebrews 1:1, 2; 2:5-9) But as the Messianic “son of man,” he was to have associate rulers in his heavenly Kingdom. (Daniel 7:13, 14, 22, 27) As Christ’s “joint heirs,” these anointed mild-tempered ones will share in his inheritance of the earth. (Romans 8:17) Other mild-tempered, sheeplike people will enjoy eternal life in Paradise in the Kingdom’s earthly realm. *** w74 6/15 pp. 377-378 par. 14 Serve with Eternity in View *** Did Christ say that its fulfillment was all in the past? No, for he projected it into the future, saying that the ‘mild-tempered will inherit the earth.’ Yes, those mild-tempered ones who are to be with Christ in his heavenly kingdom will rule over this earth. It might seem odd that almost every time the scripture Matthew 5:5 comes up in the Watchtower, there is always this first mention of Jesus and the 144,000, when the obvious point is really about how Jesus promoted that Christians should be mild-tempered. And the reason for this somewhat awkward schema is that we believe that technically, only the ANOINTED inherit the earth, even though there is clearly a wider principle here: *** w66 8/1 p. 451 “Happy Are the Mild-tempered Ones” *** Who are the mild-tempered that will inherit the earth? Certainly they would include Jesus Christ himself, for, above all men that ever lived on this earth, he was mild-tempered. As he himself said: “Come to me, . . . for I am mild-tempered.” Concerning him and his triumphal ride into Jerusalem, it was written: “Look! Your King is coming to you, mild-tempered.”—Matt. 11:28, 29; 21:5. That Jesus Christ, as the preeminent mild-tempered one, will inherit the earth other scriptures make clear. Jehovah God has appointed him to be “heir of all things,” including this earth. In fact, ‘the nations are to be his inheritance, and the ends of the earth his possession.’—Heb. 1:2; Ps. 2:7, 8. This inheritance Jesus Christ shares, even as he does his Kingdom rule, with his anointed footstep followers, for they are to be “heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ.” These are the ones the apostle John saw in vision standing upon heavenly Mount Zion and who number 144,000.—Rom. 8:17; Rev. 14:1. While the statement “happy are the mild-tempered ones” is thus seen to have specific and primary application to Jesus Christ and his Kingdom associates, it, nevertheless, states a principle that has wider application. So, according to the Watchtower, who, in Matthew 5:5, are the ones who INHERIT THE EARTH? The ANOINTED. So, according to the Watchtower, who, in Matt 25:34 are the ones who INHERIT THE KINGDOM? The NON-ANOINTED. Yet, the "other sheep" are the ones identified as "Kingdom associates" in the sense that they "inherit the Kingdom" in Matthew 25. I'm pointing out what looks like a contradiction, and it is really all based on an emphasis that loses sight of the parable's moral and principle about proper conduct. It's what happens if you were to look at Matthew 5:5 and think (as you stated above): "Jesus Christ was talking directly to the anointed, and like many JWs today I am not from that group." Does that really mean you don't share in the inheritance of the earth? It's the same thing that would happen if we try to separate Matthew 24:45-51 from the comments Paul and Peter made on the same subject about who should be a faithful steward and what kind of conduct and attitude would identify us as an evil steward.

I love the fact that the jw.org site is the most translated, too. But I don't really understand the logic of this. Are you saying that during all the time when we were NOT the most translated, that we were NOT the true religion?

I see no problem with such a claim, although I would also add that Jesus appointed Peter, Paul, Apollos, and you, too, as slaves over his temple. (Matthew 25:34-40) 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right: ‘Come, you who have been blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world. 35 For I became hungry and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you received me hospitably; 36 naked and you clothed me. I fell sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you visited me.’ 37 Then the righteous ones will answer him with the words: ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and receive you hospitably, or naked and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 In reply the King will say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ (John 21:15-17) . . .Jesus said to Simon Peter: “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” He replied to him: “Yes, Lord, you know I have affection for you.” He said to him: “Feed my lambs.” 16 Again he said to him a second time: “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He replied: “Yes, Lord, you know I have affection for you.” He said to him: “Shepherd my little sheep.” 17 He said to him a third time: “Simon son of John, do you have affection for me?” Peter became grieved that he asked him the third time: “Do you have affection for me?” So he said to him: “Lord, you are aware of all things; you know that I have affection for you.” Jesus said to him: “Feed my little sheep. As I'm sure you know, the Watchtower has now demoted Brother Russell from the category currently defined as "faithful and discreet slave." He was once considered one of the most important members of that class. He is now considered NEVER to have ever been a part of it, according to the most recent Watch Tower publications on the subject.

I did not intend for this topic to cover that particular doctrine, but you and @Anna have both brought it up already, I don't mind. I've stated views on that before. Before getting into that sub-topic, I'd like to clarify a few points: First, I think it might need to be repeated that I am not making a statement that we are wrong about this 1914 doctrine. I personally believe we are wrong, and I have no doubt about that, and I have known many brothers in positions of responsibility who believed we were wrong about it. However, I know less persons in that situation now than I ever have in the past, especially since about 1978 to 1982 when I worked directly with and for fellow Bethelites. Also, even if I can see places where we are and have been wrong, it doesn't mean that I have a solution. What looks like a solution to me, might be completely wrong, too. Also, even if I have no doubt about the teaching, that doesn't make me right, and it doesn't mean people should accept my word for it. My point here is to clarify what I believe about this particular position in light of 1 Peter 3:15. By clarifying it, I have a chance to hear from others who have valid critiques about what I have presented. And I also believe that if I share in the things I have learned that it provides a chance for others to understand the situation better if they are confused. Also it is never right, in my opinion, to hold to a belief that we aren't willing to share if asked. And where I have missed something, of course, I have a much better chance at learning about a correction. No one should hold to their belief system in darkness. (Matthew 10:26, 27) 26 So do not fear them, for there is nothing covered over that will not become uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known. 27 What I tell you in the darkness, say in the light, and what you hear whispered, preach from the housetops. (Mark 4:22) 22 For there is nothing hidden except for the purpose of being exposed; nothing has become carefully concealed but for the purpose of coming into the open. (Luke 11:35, 36) 35 Be alert, therefore. Perhaps the light that is in you is darkness. 36 Therefore, if your whole body is bright with no part at all dark, it will all be as bright as when a lamp gives you light by its rays.” (Luke 12:2-3) 2 But there is nothing carefully concealed that will not be revealed, and nothing secret that will not become known. 3 Therefore, whatever you say in the darkness will be heard in the light, and what you whisper in private rooms will be preached from the housetops. (John 3:20, 21) 20 For whoever practices vile things hates the light and does not come to the light, so that his works may not be reproved. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light,. . . Also, another point I have repeatedly tried to point out is that I see no need to leave the organization, or in any way leave our Christian brotherhood over some variation in some non-core doctrinal beliefs. Of course, for those who conscientiously believe that 1914 is a core doctrinal belief, then that's is a different story for them, and those persons should merely treat what I say as irrelevant and not worth considering. And that's what persons will do by default. So I understand the clamor about apostasy and danger, and even the subtle counsel about the same, and therefore don't push back when this type of information is merely dismissed. If a person cannot conscientiously consider an alternative to the current official teaching, then that is our Christian prerogative -- for all of us. (Of course, if a person asks serious questions, no matter what their motive is, or if persons use unscriptural reasoning to try to overturn scriptural reasoning, then I would consider it a duty to defend what I think is the Bible's position, as best I can. This will often give the appearance to others of debates about words, lack of humility, etc., but that's a charge we sometimes have to live with if we are trying to defend our beliefs, and stand up for what we think is right.) Another thing I've said before is that, for me, and I hope also for others, if they see the same points in the scriptures that were presented above, that this shouldn't really change much. Whether the parousia, synteleia, kingdom, last days, etc, actually started specifically in 1914 or not, it shouldn't matter to the way we live our lives and our service to Jehovah. According to the Bible, we still see ourselves in the last days, we still appreciate the presence of Jesus, we still believe in the imminence of the manifestation or "coming" of Jesus Christ in his day of judgment. We still remain watchful so that our conduct befits our faith in the parousia. We still have faith that Jesus is reigning as king, and is currently ruling in the midst of his enemies. We still see the preaching of the good news of the kingdom as an activity of primary importance for our day. We do not live for a date, and do still do not claim to know the day or the hour. Nothing that is core about our lives and activities and conduct as a Witness needs to be contradicted by anything said in the Bible about the times we are living in. ------------------------ Sorry for the length of that preamble, but it ties directly to the teaching about Matthew 24:45-46. I don't see how a difference in understanding about the timing of Matthew 24, or a different view of the general message of Matthew 24 contradicts the need for a governing body. And I think that a governing body, in the sense that we generally accept them, is 100% applicable to the parable of Matthew 24:45-51. The reason I say this is that the Bible directly speaks of the need for a body of elders in the congregation. This can have just as much application to the overall worldwide congregation as it may have for any local congregation. In fact, the Bible speaks of various activities that were coordinated among several congregations. (Galatians 2:9, 10) . . .James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, gave Barʹna·bas and me the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the nations but they to those who are circumcised. 10 They asked only that we keep the poor in mind, and this I have also earnestly endeavored to do. (1 Corinthians 16:1-4) 16 Now concerning the collection for the holy ones, you may follow the directions I gave to the congregations of Ga·laʹti·a. 2 On the first day of every week, each of you should set something aside according to his own means, so that collections will not take place when I arrive. 3 But when I get there, I will send the men you approve of in your letters to take your kind gift to Jerusalem. 4 However, if it seems advisable for me to go there also, they will go there with me. (Colossians 4:15, 16) . . .Give my greetings to the brothers in La·o·di·ceʹa and to Nymʹpha and to the congregation at her house. 16 And when this letter has been read among you, arrange for it also to be read in the congregation of the La·o·di·ceʹans and for you also to read the one from La·o·di·ceʹa. Clearly, there was a need for brothers who were exceptional in teaching, in coordinating, in managing, in directing. These would be ideal "gifts in men" for those who would coordinate activities in the overall worldwide congregations: (Ephesians 4:8-16) 8 For it says: “When he ascended on high he carried away captives; he gave gifts in men.” . . .11 And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers, 12 with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones, for ministerial work, to build up the body of the Christ, 13 until we all attain to the oneness of the faith and of the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to being a full-grown man, attaining the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ. 14 So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes. 15 But speaking the truth, let us by love grow up in all things into him who is the head, Christ. 16 From him all the body is harmoniously joined together and made to cooperate through every joint that gives what is needed. When each respective member functions properly, this contributes to the growth of the body as it builds itself up in love. There is nothing wrong therefore with accepting a governing body who sees itself as "guardians of doctrine." There is nothing wrong with a body of elders who see themselves as a governing body tasked with this responsibility. (1 Corinthians 12:27, 28) 27 Now you are Christ’s body, and each of you individually is a member. 28 And God has assigned the respective ones in the congregation: first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then powerful works; then gifts of healings; helpful services; abilities to direct; different tongues. Elders in any capacity have shown themselves desirous of a fine work. (1 Tim 3:1) We should respect all elders in all capacities, and follow their lead, contemplate their conduct, and imitate their faith. (Hebrews 13:7) This goes for our governing body just as it goes for every other elder in any congregation. That said, it's also pretty clear that there is no parable of the faithful and discreet slave. It's a parable of a faithful/discreet and an unfaithful/evil/indiscreet slave. It's really a parable about two different types of conduct found among fellow slaves. Christians are supposed to get the point about which one of those types was the faithful type and which was obviously the unfaithful type. When Jesus said "Who really is the faithful and discreet [type of] slave?" in his illustration, it's the same as when Jesus spoke of two different types of conduct found in the situation of the "good Samaritan." Christians are supposed to get the point about which of those two attitudes was the right way to act. Thus Jesus started the illustration of the good Samaritan after the question "Who really is my neighbor?" No one (any more) looks at the "Good Samaritan" and thinks it was some kind of prophecy, do they? In the same way Paul showed that the illustration applied to him, but it also applied to everyone else: (1 Corinthians 4:2-5) 2 In this regard, what is expected of stewards is that they be found faithful. 3 Now to me it is of very little importance to be examined by you or by a human tribunal. In fact, I do not even examine myself. 4 For I am not conscious of anything against myself. But by this I am not proved righteous; the one who examines me is Jehovah. 5 Therefore, do not judge anything before the due time, until the Lord comes. He will bring the secret things of darkness to light and make known the intentions of the hearts, and then each one will receive his praise from God. That's the same point Jesus made. All Christians have been made stewards (servants) and all of us are therefore supposed to be faithful over what we have been appointed to do. But we should not lord it over our fellow slaves. As Paul puts it in some of the following verses: (1 Corinthians 4:8) . . .Are you already satisfied? Are you already rich? Have you begun ruling as kings without us?. . . No, all Christians wait until the due time, until the Lord comes. Then each on will receive his praise from God. 1 Peter 4 also says that it is the responsibility of all of us to be faithful stewards: (1 Peter 4:7-10,13) 7 But the end of all things has drawn close. Therefore, be sound in mind [discreet], and be vigilant with a view to prayers. [faithful] 8 Above all things, have intense love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins. 9 Be hospitable to one another without grumbling. 10 To the extent that each one has received a gift, use it in ministering to one another as fine stewards of God’s undeserved kindness that is expressed in various ways. . . . 13 . . . so that you may rejoice and be overjoyed also during the revelation of his glory. (2 Peter 3:10-14) 10 But Jehovah’s day will come as a thief, . . . and earth and the works in it will be exposed. 11 Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 as you await and keep close in mind the presence [PAROUSIA] of the day of Jehovah, . . . 14 Therefore, beloved ones, since you are awaiting these things, do your utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished and in peace. Clearly, the lessons of 1 Peter and 2 Peter are commentary on the same point Jesus made about his parousia in Matthew 24. We have been given a responsibility to minister to one another as fine stewards. We must remain faithful and discreet in this appointment, so that we might be overjoyed at the revelation of his glory, when all is "exposed." When Jehovah's day comes, we want to prove that we have been on the "watch" with respect to our conduct, and "what sort of people [we] ought to be." And to bring this full circle back to the discussion about parousia, etc., it's the same thing that Paul also says of the parousia: (1 Thessalonians 3:12, 13) 12 Moreover, may the Lord cause you to increase, yes, to abound in love for one another and for all, just as we do for you, 13 so that he may make your hearts firm, blameless in holiness before our God and Father at the presence [PAROUSIA] of our Lord Jesus with all his holy ones. Notice that Christians are to stay on the watch with respect to their conduct because Jehovah's day will come as a thief and we want to do our utmost to be found FINALLY spotless at the PAROUSIA of the day of Jehovah. This is exactly what Paul says in Thessalonians about finally being found blameless at the PAROUSIA of Jesus Christ. From 1 Peter 4:13 it should be clear that this FINAL point in time, called the PAROUSIA, is also called the "revelation of his glory." The exact points are made about the SYNTELEIA: (Matthew 13:39-43) . . .The harvest is a conclusion [SYNTELEIA] of a system of things, and the reapers are angels. 40 Therefore, just as the weeds are collected and burned with fire, so it will be in the conclusion [SYNTELEIA] of the system of things. 41 The Son of man will send his angels, and they will collect out from his Kingdom all things that cause stumbling and people who practice lawlessness, 42 and they will pitch them into the fiery furnace. There is where their weeping and the gnashing of their teeth will be. 43 At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father.. . . (Matthew 24:48-51) 48 “But if ever that evil slave says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying,’ 49 and he starts to beat his fellow slaves and to eat and drink with the confirmed drunkards, 50 the master of that slave will come on a day that he does not expect and in an hour that he does not know, 51 and he will punish him with the greatest severity and will assign him his place with the hypocrites. There is where his weeping and the gnashing of his teeth will be.

CONCLUSION (pt. 2 of 2) In part one of this post, it should have already been made clear that the Greek word "SYNTELEIA" might mean more than just a "conclusion" in the common sense of the word. But we haven't really tried to prove it yet. The rendering of "conclusion" was based on the accepted meaning: “joint end; combination end; ending together.” In that first post, it was claimed that the Greek word parousia and the Greek word synteleia were BOTH used as terms that actually referred to a final judgment event. The Watchtower has commonly claimed that the words do not refer to events so much as the extended period of time of the PAROUSIA which is inferred when they are translated, respectively, as "presence" and "conclusion," as opposed to: parousia: advent/arrival/coming/royal visitation synteleia: consummation/end/ending altogether/final end So in this part 2 of the post, we'll look at the evidence for claiming that SYNTELEIA refers to more than just a conclusion. First we should admit that there was a range of use of the word, but we should also point out that the word is RARE in the Greek Scriptures. Except for a single use in Hebrews, all of the other 5 uses are in Matthew, and all of them are in reference to the PAROUSIA, the final judgment event, or the final "return" of Jesus at the end of the system of things. In the Bible, it is NOT a common word that's found in the usual places for just any type of "conclusion." It's used outside the Bible too, and except for a meaning that deals with "taxation" or "taxable dependency" the meanings come much closer to the the idea of a final end than a long drawn-out conclusion. But even in non-religious usage the word had a similar meaning Note: Here's a quote from Thebes and Boeotia in the Fourth Century B.C., Authors: S.C.Bakhuizen, Source: Phoenix, Vol 48 No 4 (Winter 1994), pp. 307-330. "The words syntelein and synteleia had a fairly wide range of meanings: as a verb "to finish," "to complete," as a noun "accomplishment," "completion." In a narrow sense they could be accountancy terms. . . " In my opinion, it fits closer to the idea presented here: But, while sitting on the Mount of Olives the disciples came to him in a private spot, asking: “Tell us, when will this occur?1 {MK13:4 and the sign when all this will be fulfilled?2} And, what will be the sign3 of your Arrival4 [Daniel 7:22; 12:2] and the complete end5 of the Age?”6 [Daniel 9:26, 27] {LK21:7 “When will this all occur?”7} 5 Complete end: Here the Greek is a heightened form of TELOS (= end), SYNTELEIAS (= with + end). The disciples likely assumed that the destruction of the Temple meant the Return (Presence) or Arrival of Christ and therefore “the end of the world” as they knew it. . . . This is a word that only occurred once before in the Nazarene’s parable of wheat and tares at Matthew 13:40. However, note this word occurs in the Jewish Greek Bible (LXX) at Daniel 9:27 in the context of Jerusalem’s foretold ‘desolation.’ Compare also Hebrews 9:26 where SYNTELEIA is used with regard to the First Coming of Christ in the “last days” of the Jewish Age (Hebrews 1:1; Acts 2:17; Jude 18; 1 Corinthians 10:11). Judging from Jesus’ admission that he does not ‘know the day and hour’ (Matthew 24:36) there is no way the Nazarene could tell his disciples about the date of “the complete end” or SYNTELEIAS. http://www.nazarene-friends.org/chapter/40/024.php To see if this idea is true, we should know the range of possible meanings in the Biblical contexts, and we should look at how it was used in as many related sources as we can. Obviously the Bible book of Matthew itself is important, along with Biblical contexts such as the translation of the OT in the LXX, and how it was used in Jewish religious literature known at the time, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and various apocalyptic writings. The Bible's use of the word in Matthew is as follows: (Matthew is the only gospel account to use the word synteleia, and also the only gospel to use the word parousia.) (Matthew 13:39-43,49) 39 . . . The harvest is a conclusion [synteleia] of a system of things, and the reapers are angels. 40 Therefore, just as the weeds are collected and burned with fire, so it will be in the conclusion [synteleia] of the system of things. 41 The Son of man will send his angels, and they will collect out from his Kingdom all things that cause stumbling and people who practice lawlessness, 42 and they will pitch them into the fiery furnace. There is where their weeping and the gnashing of their teeth will be. 43 At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father.. . .49 That is how it will be in the conclusion [synteleia] of the system of things. The angels will go out and separate the wicked from among the righteous 50 and will cast them into the fiery furnace. In the Watch Tower publications, the "harvest" is often referred to as an extended period of time, a process that has been occurring over the last 100-plus years and may go on for another 50 to 100 years based on the current definitions presented in the Watchtower. The harvest, per our publications, has continued even while seed-planting and growing continue to occur over these same 100-plus years. But those who have ever actually harvested a field of wheat know that this is more of an event. No one continues to plant and water during the harvest. Yet, this is how the WTS must describe it: *** kr chap. 9 p. 88 par. 6 Results of Preaching—“The Fields . . . Are White for Harvesting” *** “The harvest is a conclusion of a system of things.” Thus, the harvest season and the conclusion of this system of things began at the same time—in 1914. Paying close attention to the wording in Matthew 13, we actually find terms applied to the synteleia and parousia that the Watchtower typically applies to the "manifestation" or "revelation" of Jesus Christ, but we'll get to that under the topic of parousia. Another place where a similar point is made is in James, and we'll include it here because we have just seen how Jesus says that the "harvest" is a SYNTELEIA: (James 5:7, 8) 7 Be patient then, brothers, until the presence [PAROUSIA] of the Lord. Look! The farmer keeps waiting for the precious fruit of the earth, exercising patience over it until the early rain and the late rain arrive. 8 You too exercise patience; make your hearts firm, because the presence [PAROUSIA] of the Lord has drawn close. Notice, that in James, the PAROUSIA hadn't started yet. Christians, however, live with the imminence of the PAROUSIA always in mind. But it had drawn close, not because of any SIGNS James had seen, but because this is how Christians in all ages should live. The point here is that in the analogy of the harvest, patience is needed during the growing season, and there was no need for patience after the parousia, but only UNTIL the parousia. We need patience because the "presence" has drawn close, but do not need patience when the parousia is here. In fact, Matthew's only other use of "SYNTELEIA" produces the same kind of problem for the Watch Tower publications that James produces: (Matthew 28:20) . . .And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion [SYNTELEIA] of the system of things.” These are the last words of the entire book of Matthew. (And outside of Matthew, the term SYNTELEIA is only used in one other place, which we'll get to later.) The resurrected Jesus, here says that he will be present from that point in 33 CE until the SYNTELEIA. If the synteleia began in 1914, then Jesus would only be present with his disciples from 33 CE and until 1914. COMMENTARY SOURCES Keener's Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew points out three commentaries that attempt a distinction between synteleia and telos, in which the synteleia can include the great tribulation for example, and telos refers to the final end. But he gives reasons to conclude the following on page 563: Grammatically the coming and close of the age are linked by the single sign and represent a single question. . . . But despite the intentional connection between 24:6 and 14, synteleia and telos are interchangeable in this discourse. NON-CANONICAL books of Jewish Literature Jewish apocalyptic literature, in Greek, was common and well-known among Jewish people, and became especially salient as Rome continued pushing its own agenda through mean-spirited governors, collaborating kings (Herod), compromising Jewish sects (Sadducees), and the Jewish revolutionaries endangering all of them by standing up to Rome. For example, 2 Baruch speaks of the 12 good and bad [rivers of] waters that flowed through Zion and he finally reaches the discussion of the 11th water which was their current time period after Babylon had destroyed, and awaiting the 12th which is the age to come (Example: the "bright" 8th water was the good King Hezekiah standing up to Sennacherib, the "black" 9th water was the time of wicked King Manasseh, the "bright" 10th water was good King Josiah.) Under the heading of the 11th waters 2 Baruch says: 67: . . .That Zion was so delivered up, And that lo! the Gentiles boast in their hearts, And assemble before their idols and say, "She is trodden down. . ." . . . Yet after these things shall the dispersed among the Gentiles be taken hold of by tribulation, . . . [Note that If Jesus had alluded to this, then his listeners might have been reminded that the time of the Gentiles trodding down Zion actually could have started back in 587 BCE +-20yrs. Luke offers no support for this idea however. ] About the 12th waters, 2 Baruch says, in chapters 68-74, that the SYNTELEIA comes after all the expected SIGNS: 68: 2 For after these things time will come when your people shall fall into distress, so that they shall all run the risk of perishing together. 3 Nevertheless, they will be saved, . . . 4 And they will have in (due) time much joy. . . . 7 But it will come to pass after these things that there will be the fall of many nations. . . . 70 . . .2 Behold! the days come, and it shall be when the time of the age has ripened, And the harvest of its evil and good seeds has come, That the Mighty One will bring upon the earth and its inhabitants and upon its rulers perturbation of spirit and stupor of heart. And they shall hate one another, And provoke one another to fight, . . .6 And when those things which were predicted have come to pass, Then shall confusion fall upon all men, And some of them shall fall in battle, And some of them shall perish in anguish, 7 And some of them shall be destroyed by their own. Then the Most High peoples whom He has prepared before, And they shall come and make war with the leaders that shall then be left. 8 And it shall come to pass that whoever gets safe out of the war shall die in the earthquake, And whoever gets safe out of the earthquake shall be burned by the fire, And whoever gets safe out of the fire shall be destroyed by famine. 9 [And it shall come to pass that whoever of the victors and the vanquished gets safe out of and escapes all these things aforesaid will be delivered into the hands of My servant Messiah.] . . . 71 1 And the holy land shall have mercy on its own, And it shall protect its inhabitants at that time. . . 72 'Hear now also regarding the bright lightning which is to come at the consummation [SYNTELEIA] after these . . . 2 After the signs have come, of which you were told before, when the nations become turbulent, and the time of My Messiah is come, he shall both summon all the nations, and some of them he shall spare, and some of them he shall slay. . . . 4 Every nation, which knows not Israel and has not trodden down the seed of Jacob, shall indeed be spared. . . . 73 1 And it shall come to pass, when He has brought low everything that is in the world, And has sat down in peace for the age on the throne of His kingdom, That joy shall then be revealed, And rest shall appear. 2 . . . And anxiety and anguish and lamentation pass from amongst men, And gladness proceed through the whole earth. . . . And asps and dragons shall come forth from their holes to submit themselves to a little child. 7 And women shall no longer then have pain when they bear, Nor shall they suffer torment when they yield the fruit of the womb. 74 1 And it shall come to pass in those days that the reapers shall not grow weary, Nor those that build be toil-worn; For the works shall of themselves speedily advance Together with those who do them in much tranquility. 2 For that time is the consummation [SYNTELEIA] of that which is corruptible, And the beginning of that which is not corruptible. There are others, but I already quoted this one with too much length for context. Also, we have the LXX which gives us several examples of the types of phrases and contexts where the translators thought it appropriate to translate certain Hebrew words with the Greek word SYNTELEIA. An overview of the uses of SYNTELEIA that we are interested in is found in the following work, also partially available on Google Books at the link given. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Abridged in One Volume edited by Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, page 1163: https://books.google.com/books?id=ltZBUW_F9ogC&pg=PA1163 synteleia. Outside the Bible this word means “common accomplishment” (also “taxes”), “cooperation,” “execution,” “completion,” “conclusion”. In the LXX it has such varied senses as “execution,” “totality,” “satiety,” “fulfillment,” “conclusion,” “cessation” and “destruction.” In Daniel LXX it is a technical term for the eschatological “end” (cf. 11:35, 12:4), though it may also mean “end” in a more general sense (9:26). It is a technical apocalyptic term in the Testaments of the Twelve, sometimes with the thought of “completion”. Qumram [Dead Sea Scrolls] has a reference to the “end” of time. The NT uses the term only in eschatological sayings….In Matthew the phrase “end of the age” . . . refers to events that have yet to take place, including the judgment. Of the apostolic fathers, only Hermas uses synteleia (the “end”). The apologist Tatian uses it in the context of resurrection and judgment. Another evidence for SYNTELEIA meaning a "final end" is the verb form of the word SYNTELEO, which is always used in the Greek Scriptures in the sense of "final completion," including the LXX. Strong's Dictionary indicates the following definitions: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G4931&t=KJV to end together or at the same time to end completely bring to an end, finish, complete to accomplish, bring to fulfilment to come to pass to effect, make, (conclude) to finish to make an end of to bring to an end destroy

More than what? More where? The United States? More than when? Here's how the tax rate was structured under Eisenhower, a period of excellent growth and employment numbers: I say it should not be more than it was under Eisenhower During the eight years of the Eisenhower presidency, from 1953 to 1961, the top marginal rate was 91 percent. (It was 92 percent the year he came into office.) - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/15/bernie-s/income-tax-rates-were-90-percent-under-eisenhower-/ That was, of course, for people making over $1.7 million in today's dollars. Greed, combined with an unhealthy disdain for the working class, has so far proven to be unavoidable in all capitalist societies. In the United States it has resulted in the top 1% to 5% spending BILLIONS to get laws and loopholes that help themselves and tend to hurt everyone else. It has resulted in continual political and ideological propaganda to brand the poor as a worthless drain on the economy, brand the upper classes as too important to the economy to pay taxes, to promote voter suppression to keep it that way, promote the idolization of the upper classes and corporations -- and therefore the bulk of the tax burden shifts to the middle class. There has been a huge transfer of wealth, especially since Reagan's time in office, shifted almost directly from the lower and middle classes. So, there's no reason to tax the first million that anyone makes in any 12 month period, but the second million should be taxed at about 40%. Remember that untaxed income to the middle and lower classes is not saved but goes right back into the economy (food, gas, rent, car payments, insurance, etc.) but the untaxed income from upper classes goes into investments and inert financial vehicles that are not geared to help the economy (stock market, excess family real estate, savings accounts, trust funds). A reasonable rate would be 0% on first million, 39% on second million, 43% on third million, with 1% added for every additional million up to a 70% cap. That's 21% lower than under Eisenhower. Without loopholes, this seems to be able to bring in much more revenue than the current system. Of course, a thousand variations can be proposed and a thousand other factors have to be considered to make a total tax system fair.

Mass and distance. <-- Einstein without the hair

I'm certainly hoping now that it is, considering the current mood on this thread.

Yeah! I just noticed that I could, and I added a comment to that effect on the post. I know that others had that ability like Bible Speaks and Arch-rival (sp?), but figured that might have been through some special moderator permissions. Still, it's kind of sad to find out that I might have been talking to myself all this time.