JW Insider

Sounds like a shibboleth. Closet apostates would likely let their yes mean no. But the answer is an obvious YES. Elders of all stripes should be qualified to teach. But the elders whom we trust the most to teach are the ones included in the "presiding" teaching positions in each of our local congregations. Therefore, by extension, we should also consider it right and organizationally correct, to include our most qualified elders in the the "presiding" teaching positions of the overall worldwide congregation. The Bible does not speak of a separate body within the congregational body, and we cannot speak of this body of elders as our Head or our Leader. Nevertheless, the group of elders whom we refer to as the Governing Body fills a key presiding position in the congregation. Therefore all the following scriptures should apply without hesitation: (1 Thessalonians 5:12, 13) 12 Now we request you, brothers, to show respect for those who are working hard among you and presiding over you in the Lord and admonishing you; 13 and to give them extraordinary consideration in love because of their work.. . . (1 Timothy 5:17) 17 Let the elders who preside in a fine way be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching. . . (Hebrews 13:17) 17 Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, . . . (Hebrews 13:7) 7 Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith. (Romans 12:4-8) 4 For just as we have in one body many members, but the members do not all have the same function, 5 so we, although many, are one body in union with Christ, but individually we are members belonging to one another. 6 Since, then, we have gifts that differ according to the undeserved kindness given to us, if it is of prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; 7 or if it is a ministry, let us be at this ministry; or the one who teaches, let him be at his teaching; 8 or the one who encourages, let him give encouragement; the one who distributes, let him do it liberally; the one who presides, let him do it diligently; the one who shows mercy, let him do it cheerfully. (1 Corinthians 12:27-29) 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. 29 Not all are apostles, are they? Not all are prophets, are they? Not all are teachers, are they?

Every time I went back to begin a more complete response to this, I saw you had changed it. This was posted on Saturday, July 1, but your last edit was "5 hours ago." It's been more than 4 days now, so I hope you are finished editing: You said: "Jw insider: Chronology is ambiguous for a reason, Jehovah did not yell from the heavens that His Witnesses is the true faith. Otherwise everyone would be a Witness but for the wrong reasons, Jehovah wants people to worship him from the heart not because of the interpretation of some blogger who gets his info from apostate websites." Working from the last idea you presented in that paragraph, I got absolutely none of this information from apostate websites. I first learned all the basic ideas here from various brothers at Bethel, all of whom worked in positions of high responsibility in Service/Correspondence, Writing, and even two members of the Governing Body who continued to serve faithfully in their positions until death. The brothers in Writing were not apostates either. Two of them (Aid Book researchers) were dismissed from Bethel but at least one of them remained as an elder and a special pioneer when he went back to his own congregation. As I found time to search the scriptures and see whether these things were so, I realized that I was able to get all of it from the Bible itself, while still at Bethel, long before there were any books on the subject, and before the Internet was even a public thing. Also, just for the record, R.Franz was a very quiet person who kept to himself and I never got to know him at Bethel, except through his talks and morning worship. I was aware toward the middle of 1980 however, that he was said to hold some of the same views as some of these others, but I never got any of it from him. By early 1980, a least a hundred Bethelites were whispering about these things including issues with the 1914 doctrine. I also notice that you remind us that Jehovah wants people to worship him from the heart, not because of the interpretation of some blogger. I agree with this of course, and it's exactly why I believe it is important enough to bring up in public. No one should worship because of the interpretation of some blogger. I only respond to this particular point because it's the specific reason that ambiguous chronology has no place in our worship. ---- Previously I gave a response to your statement that "Chronology is ambiguous" but it was not a direct answer to your concern. I think your admission that the chronology is ambiguous is actually quite a statement to ponder. Unfortunately, by saying this you are admitting another kind of "deceit" that I hadn't really brought up yet. When one of your Bible students asks you about how you get the date 1914 from the Bible, do you admit that it's ambiguous? Do you tell the reason you just gave here, why you think it's ambiguous. I agree that it is ambiguous, but if you follow the direction of the Watchtower in such discussions, you are probably not admitting to your Bible students that chronology is ambiguous. In fact, it is well known that the date the Watchtower gives for the destruction of Jerusalem is questioned by 100% of all persons that the Watchtower quotes as experts on the subject. We accept the date 607 with absolutely no evidence for it. None! In fact we get this date by counting backwards from 539, yet all the persons who the Watchtower quotes as experts so that we "know" about the date 539 are the same experts who ALL question 607 as the destruction of Jerusalem. In other words, we all have used the ideas that you can count backwards from 539, but 539 is part of the evidence that shows 607 is not possible. If 539 is a real, then 607 is wrong. That doesn't mean that we need to rely on secular chronology. We could always just say that we have our own chronology that we believe is Bible-based. But if that were true, then how could we ever speak about 539? 539 is a secular date, based on the very same evidence that shows 607 is not the date for Jerusalem's destruction. That's a kind of deceit. But putting that aside a minute, notice too that we can find over ONE THOUSAND references that don't ever admit that 607 is ambiguous. *** it-1 p. 133 Appointed Times of the Nations *** The ‘trampling’ on that kingdom of the dynasty of Davidic rulers did not begin with the Roman devastation of the city of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. It began centuries earlier with the Babylonian overthrow of that dynasty in 607 B.C.E. when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and took captive the dethroned king Zedekiah and the land was left desolate. (2Ki 25:1-26; see CHRONOLOGY.) *** it-1 p. 133 Appointed Times of the Nations *** This also confirms the start of “the appointed times of the nations” in the year of Jerusalem’s destruction, 607 B.C.E. *** si p. 69 par. 1 Bible Book Number 12—2 Kings *** Nebuchadnezzar at last executed Jehovah’s judgment by devastating Jerusalem, its temple, and the land of Judah in 607 B.C.E. This could go on for at least 1,500 references just from the latest Watchtower Library CD/DVD. There is no hesitation, and no qualification, and never an admission that this date is used with NO evidence for it. And not just with NO evidence, but AGAINST the evidence of all those the Watchtower considers experts about that time period. The vast majority of books and magazine bound volumes ever produced all mention the date, and never mention that it is problematic and ambiguous. And then there is the history of how we have presented other dates. Naturally as predictions first get proposed they might seem a bit tenuous, and then as we get closer and closer to the expected fulfillment, and we start losing confidence we can find statements that say that we never claimed these dates to be absolute. But look at the in-between time, when confidence was high: The Time is At Hand, p.239: Our Lord's presence as Bridegroom and Reaper was recognized during the first three and one-half years, from A.D. 1874 to A.D. 1878. Since that time it has been emphatically manifest that the time had come in A.D. 1878 when kingly judgment should begin at the house of God. . . . The year A.D. 1878, being the parallel of his assuming power and authority in the type, clearly marks the time for the actual assuming of power as King of Kings. . . . p.77: In this chapter we present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the Gentiles, i.e., the full end of their lease of dominion, will be reached in A.D. 1914; and that date will be the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men. . . . will obtain full universal control, and that it will then be "set up" or firmly established, in the earth, on the ruins of present institutions. Watch Tower, July 15, 1894, p.226: We see no reason for changing the figures - nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God's dates not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble" Watch Tower, July 15, 1924, p.211: "The year 1925 is a date definitely and clearly marked in the Scriptures even more clearly than that of 1914; but it would be presumptuous on the part of any faithful follower of the Lord to assume just what the Lord is going to do during that year . . . " I'm sure you are aware that this type of information could also continue ad nauseum. But note that there were times for almost every one of the dates proposed, when there was no question about these dates. Never is the general argument made that chronology is ambiguous. That's enough for the first part of my response to this particular post.

This is a response to your post from Saturday, July 1, as marked above. You were especially focused on the word "deceiving." You ask how it can be proven that the Watchtower is deceiving people. That's pretty easy. Instances have already been pointed out a few times in threads that your I.P. address doppelgangers have participated in. No need to reinvent the wheel here, because we already know how you will spin it. Also, to keep it simple, I'll stick with items that have already been mentioned. But before repeating that example, I wanted to point out that your words about it being "so negative" and "corrupt" and "distorting the majority of their belief" is not how I see it. These mistakes, if that's what they turn out to be, are exactly the kinds of mistakes we should expect. In fact, they were exactly what Jesus told us to expect. A mistake that is repeated often still does not mean that there an intent to deceive. But nevertheless, it produces a deception. I pointed out a letter from a man who wrote Russell and said that he would have married, and continued with farming business, but that since the explanation of the 40 year harvest, etc., from 1874 convinced him to sell and not get married and put everything he could into the Harvest work. I'm sure you don't think this was so bad, even if it changed his life completely. Yet he was deceived into thinking that these teachings promoted by Russell were correct. And he changed his life over these teachings. When Jesus said, look out that you are not deceived in Matthew 24, he was referring specifically to how easy it would be to start thinking of wars and earthquakes as signs of the end, when Jesus said not to think of them that way. He said just to think of these things as things that must take place, but the end is not yet, these are just the beginning. And if we think about the rest of the instructions in Luke 21, then it becomes obvious that it would have been very easy to be deceived very early in this generation, when the Bible speaks of a couple of earthquakes early in the generation from 33 to 70. Also, remember that the Roman nation even under the recent Pax Romana was still in a constant state of "rumblings" or "rumors of war" at the borders. Every province saw soldiers traveling through to reach the outer edges of France, Spain, Britain, Germany, and other nations. There were skirmishes even in Jerusalem, Palestine, Galilee and Egypt as reported in Acts. If they had reacted too soon to these rumors and begun fleeing to the mountains, they would have brought unnecessary hardship upon themselves, their children, their pregnant relatives. They had to learn not to consider these things to be a sign. Not until Jerusalem was surrounded by armies was it time to move out. This is the primary kind of deceit that Jesus spoke about, although he also mentioned false prophets, and false Christs. You mention that: "Bolster and contradictions don't amount to reasoning by scripture, and it makes for bolstering and false claims of their own. Intelliculal dishonesty, therefore, would be the prevailing opinion. And True witnesses should be reminded of the wolf in sheep's clothing with such hypotheticals and personal opinions. Since the same can be said when it comes to deception with personal views within the Christian Congregation." This is absolutely true, and it's why all of us have to be careful even about what we propose hypothetically. I have begun stating it less hypothetically than I did a couple years ago, because I am now convinced in my own mind. (Compare, Romans 14:5) If we are convinced, it is not wrong to speak out in a sure manner: (1 Peter 4:11) 11 If anyone speaks, [let him speak] as it were [the] sacred pronouncements of God; if anyone ministers, [let him minister] as dependent on the strength that God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. . . . But I don't claim that it reaches that level of sureness. Obviously, if anyone has information or evidence that calls this evidence into question, then both alternatives, or other viable alternatives should be compared and considered in the light of Scripture. All I am doing here is explaining why I am convinced that ALL the various aspects of the 1914 doctrine can now be shown to be problematic from a scriptural viewpoint: That includes, of course: The pseudo-archaeology behind the date 1914 (607) A clear non-contradictory explanation of the 70 years The range of meaning of the word "Parousia" Visitation,Presence,Royal Parade The range of meaning of the word "Synteleia" Conclusion/End The range of meaning of the word "Telos" Conclusion/End The range of meaning of the terms for "Last Days" The problem with claiming insivibility of the parousia The problem with claiming that signs would give us advance warnings The problem of exhausting all common meanings of Generation The references to the Kingdom in the first century The references to Satan falling from heaven in the first century The reference to "sit at my right hand" changed in the Bible to "rule as king" The "stand"/"sit"/"stand"/"sit" sequence in explanations The references to Christ as King in the first century The references to inconsistent and unnecessary types and antitypes in a second fulfillment of the tree dream The contradiction about Nebuchadnezzar's restoration as Christ's Kingdom, the Gentile representing the Jews, and vice versa The problem with Jesus referencing Luke 21:24 (Gentile Times) and giving them a length of 3.5 times, not 7 The problem of forcing 7 times to equal 2,520 years, when all references to the 3.5 times (half the length) is said to equal a number closer to 1,260 days The dual offices of Melchizedek The list can go on and on... But you are absolutely right that deception is possible in any doctrinal proposal. This is why we must prove to ourselves and make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine. We won't always be right, of course, but if there are questions, then we admit the questions. We admit where we are using conjecture, and where we have no doubts.

I usually avoid trying to explain myself in any detail, but with this specific confluence of comments, I'll take that risk. I've said several of these things before, but this time I'll do it without scriptures, so that no one need take it too seriously. First, I believe that we all have a Christian duty to test, prove, make sure, and question. Some don't believe that, and that's just fine, too -- for them. Second, as you might imagine, I am not really anonymous to everyone, after giving away enough of my history, experiences, background, family history, age, year of marriage, year of baptism, past locations, current location. So I would agree that much of this is a lot like writing a long drawn-out letter to the Society. I have already talked openly (on this subject) to a few current members of the Writing Dept, which includes two of the current GB Helpers. These are brothers I have known long enough to feel "safe." I have also put some of my questions in writing, but I do admit that these have also been effectively anonymous. I am a coward! I no longer have any direct contact with any GB members. I have talked to Brother Lett longer than any of the others, but that was in his most recent assignment before being asked to join the GB. If this is considered bragging, I don't consider it so, but it's only right that I present enough of my background, my biases, and my reasons. Third, I chose this forum because the number of participants is low, especially the number who will engage in doctrinal discussions. I do not choose to have such open discussions with anyone in our congregation, or any other congregation. My wife, parents, a former Bethel roommate, a current Bethelite, and an uncle who is a circuit overseer, are the only regular exceptions. This is because if someone reacted in an immature way to something I said, or I was misquoted or misunderstood, then unnecessary problems could arise. On a forum, I can try to choose my words more carefully, edit when I go too far, etc. But more than that, a forum gives everyone deniability in the sense that no one has to accept that I'm telling the truth. Some who have studied and questioned the same issues will recognize that I am trying to tell the truth, but if someone else here does not wish to deal with the same questions then they can (and will) simply dismiss me as a crack-pot or apostate or haughty braggart. That's actually the beauty of a forum. I don't have to feel that I am presenting anything to anyone who doesn't want to hear it. A forum provides this "utility" by default, because there will always be someone with the views of bruceq, or AllenSmith, coming to the rescue to provide what they feel is a proper warning to others. Just in case that's not enough, I always try to utilize a fairly direct presentation style and a much-too-long-and-wordy style that will also provide a turn-off to those who don't want to deal with it, and will act as a kind of filter to make sure that those who wish to follow really do wish to follow. Fourth, on the issue of apostate (ex-JW) websites or books. I don't go to or refer anyone to apostate websites. I don't quote from ex-JW websites. I own 5 of the books people consider to be highly apostate, but all of these books are also books that the Society also owns. Also, the 5th of these books, was recommended by Brother Harry Peloyam while on the phone to the Society to get an answer to a question I had on the Hitler/Rutherford letter. He literally recommended M. James Penton's book on Jehovah's Witnesses and the Third Reich. I have two books by Raymond Franz, one by Carl Olof Jonsson (which I purchased in the midst of a discussion with Rolf Furuli), and two books by M. James Penton. I also bought two books by B. W. Schulz, although I have never checked to see if any of the writers/researchers are ex-JWs or apostates, yet. The Society's Writing Department, while I was there, kept at least one copy of most of the apostate books in a separate cabinet from the main libraries. After I left Bethel, I'm told by someone who has used them, that they purchased at least two copies of all these same books I just mentioned for the "apostate cabinet." In any particular topic, I have waited for someone else (e.g., Allen Smith) to begin quoting books by Raymond Franz (or, if necessary, Carl O. Jonsson) before quoting from them myself. From what I remember, there has been no quoting from apostate books or sites by anyone on this particular topic. Fifth, I have already admitted that I handled research assignments for both the Art Dept while working there for 4 years, and simultaneously handled research assignments for Brother Schroeder for just about three full years at Bethel and 2 more years after leaving. This involved a lot of reading of both the older and the newer publications and even proofreading some materials that came from the Teaching Committee. It's not like I was in the Writing Department, but I was in the Bethel and Gilead libraries almost daily and sometimes even in Brooklyn and Manhattan libraries at times. This did put me in contact with many members of the Writing Dept and several became life-long friends. And, yes, I grew to dislike a couple of them, too. Sixth, I'm a firm believer in transparency. I think that so many things would be much easier to understand and we would be seen as much more honest if we just stated what we know, without trying to hide anything. I think that in these days of search tools and databases that nothing remains hidden anyway. So we might as well get out in front of some of the issues that we wish would just go away. I think there is nothing wrong with showing the human side of people we have worked with, and admitting our own foibles, too. Knowing that Jehovah has worked with imperfect people and still accomplished so much is not anything to be ashamed of, just as it wasn't something that the Bible tries to hide from us when discussing various Bible characters. Seventh, Anna actually noticed the very point that triggered this particular conversation. I have had similar conversations here before, but never put all the potential related items out there to deal with at the same time. In fact, I've argued against doing this in the recent past. I think that it's easier to get through items of dirty laundry, or embarrassing episodes, or problematic doctrinal proof-texts, if we deal with them one at a time. But in this case, I put out several issues related to 1914 all at once. That's because the video about 1975 that has been brought up really does refer to putting the scriptures ahead of current teachings when something doesn't seem right. In this case, what doesn't seem right (to me) is the fact that every single feature of the 1914 doctrine is "problematic" in some way from a scriptural point of view. It actually seems surmountable when we deal with just one at a time, so that wouldn't have made the point as well about what "seems" wrong. Well, enough for now . . .

Here is the ACTUAL original article that was faked in the image @Bible Speaks attached. It was actually published about January 1914, not October 1876 as depicted in the fake version, a time period when Russell had spoken about losing faith in 1914 because it was becoming more difficult to believe that all the things they expected to occur could still occur in the next few months. In the Watch Tower publications Russell even spoke about how a person living 100 years from now (that would be 2014) might look back on what he had written and have a laugh about it.

The answer is actually No. None of their expectations were fulfilled.

Unfortunately, the image that was attached to this article is a good example of how Biblical chronology predictions are almost always accompanied by deception of some kind. The way it works is that whenever predictions are wrong they are minimized and whenever predictions come close to being true they are exaggerated. There was a time when we could get away with this in our publications, and there were many claims in the Watchtower over the years about how, many decades in advance 1914 was predicted to be a time for the start of great trouble. The problem with that claim is that many decades in advance 1914 was predicted to be the END of a time of great trouble. Only as 1914 approached with about ONE decade left, was this idea partially adjusted so that it was now expected that there would be no time of trouble interfering with the 40 year harvest, and that the "trouble" would START after October 1914 or some time 1915. It would result in the complete collapse of most human institutions and even the end of the Gentile nations by about the end of 1915. We can no longer get away with this kind of re-writing of our history, because this is the Internet. People can check things. We have to be more careful! THE ABOVE "BIBLE STUDENTS MONTHLY" is a FAKE! It appears to have been faked for the purpose of minimizing the false predictions for 1914 and maximizing the true predictions.

Maybe 12% of women, the article says. BTW, If anyone wants to see the original article in English without the Google translation it's also on their website. From the July 2012 issue: http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jul-aug/06-humans-with-super-human-vision

So, now, on to the next part of your post from 6/30/17: You say that "for Ezekiel's prophecy when only using 1260 in Revelation as a guide, you would end up in 653 AD" (Muslim rise). For some reason you also mention 66CE (Vatican?), and 100CE (Church fathers?). I believe you mention those early dates because you are pointing out that 66 to 100 (and therefore 70) is not a good time to think of Jesus as "king." Of course, the Bible contradicts this idea in a verse you have so far scrupulously avoided. (1 Tim 6:15) In Ezekiel's prophecy, I'll assume you are talking about the following: (Ezekiel 21:25-27) 25 “But your day has come, O fatally wounded, wicked chieftain of Israel, the time of your final punishment. 26 This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says: ‘Remove the turban, and take off the crown. This will not remain the same. Raise up the low one, and bring low the high one. 27 A ruin, a ruin, a ruin I will make it. And it will not belong to anyone until the one who has the legal right comes, and I will give it to him.’ I could apply a couple of others of Ezekiel's prophecies, such as Ezekiel 37:1-14 which has some parallels to Revelation 11, and perhaps even show other places like Ezekiel 4:6, where the prophecy uses a day for a year. So you can correct me if I am missing something here, but I think you are taking 1,260 years from 607 BCE which would bring you close enough to 653 CE. So, assuming that the pseudo-archaeological date of 607 BCE was correct, you probably believe that 1,260 years from this starting point would be the only possible definition of the Gentile Times. And since this ends up near 653 CE, you probably believe that Jesus could not, therefore, have been serious about the Gentile Times being 3.5 years, or 42 months in length. As you are already no doubt aware, the Watchtower does not really use the idea of a day for a year as a "rule" because the "three and one-half times" that Jesus assigned to the Gentile Times are not changed to years anyway. They are treated as 1,260 literal days. (And it can never be admitted in the Watchtower that Jesus assigned this length to the Gentile Times because that would mean that Jesus contradicted the Watchtower.) *** w14 11/15 p. 30 Questions From Readers *** It extended from 1914 to the early part of 1919. This period of time includes both the 1,260 days (42 months) and the symbolic three and a half days referred to in Revelation chapter 11. To get it a little closer, we see that the dates were given in the most recent Revelation commentary as: *** re chap. 25 p. 164 par. 12 Reviving the Two Witnesses *** The John class had to preach this message for a definitely stated time: 1,260 days, or 42 months, the same length of time that the holy city was to be trampled underfoot. This period seems to be literal, since it is expressed in two different ways, first in months and then in days. Additionally, at the beginning of the Lord’s day, there was a marked period of three and a half years when the hard experiences of God’s people matched the events prophesied here—starting in December 1914 and continuing to June 1918. The start of December 1914 through the end of June 1918 is about 1,307 days. The end of December 1914 through the start of June 1918 is about 1,248 days. The middle of December 1914 through the middle of June 1918 is about 1,278 days. So that wouldn't be very far off from 1,260 days. Can we get a little more exact to see why these months are being mentioned? *** dp chap. 17 p. 296 par. 18 Identifying True Worshipers in the Time of the End *** The prophecy is quite explicit as to when the 1,260 days would end—when there is “a finishing of the dashing of the power of the holy people to pieces.” In the middle of 1918, leading members of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, including its president, J. F. Rutherford, were convicted on false charges, sentenced to long terms of confinement, and imprisoned. God’s holy ones did indeed see their work ‘dashed to pieces,’ their power broken. When was holy "saint" Rutherford convicted, sentenced and imprisoned? Did one of these events happen on a day in June 1918? *** w99 2/1 p. 17 par. 14 Our Treasure in Earthen Vessels *** On June 21, 1918, Brother Rutherford and seven other leading Bible Students were jailed. . . . On appeal, they were released on March 26, 1919. So the probable 1,260 day run ends close to June 21, 1918 meaning that it started close to January 8, 1915. (see http://www.convertunits.com/dates/from/Jan+8,+1915/to/Jun+21,+1918 for a quick check of the calculation.) That means that you can't really reach back all the way to the year 1914 from the time they were imprisoned. In order to reach back into the year 1914 you'd have to go back at least 9 days before the imprisonment. Of course, nothing all that special happened in December 1914 anyway, so it's obvious that they just wanted to try to reach back into that year for the "optics" even if the 1,260 only reached back to the beginning of 1915. In the book "Our Incoming World Government - God's Kingdom" Fred Franz dealt with this problem using the Jewish names for the months, but this didn't really hide the problem for anyone that went to the effort to look at the actual Jewish dates he used. They were often even farther out of range than the current "miscalculation." Then the publications just apparently give up on trying to assign the next mention of days in the same vision of Revelation 11: (Revelation 11:11) . . .After the three and a half days, spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood on their feet, and great fear fell upon those who saw them. These 3.5 extra days, are assigned to a period that goes from about June 21, 1918 when they were imprisoned to around March 26, 1919 when they were released. *** re chap. 25 p. 169 par. 24 Reviving the Two Witnesses *** The corpses of the two witnesses were suddenly alive and active again. It was a bitter pill for those clergymen to swallow, the more so since the Christian ministers whom they had schemed to put in prison were free again [March 1919], later to be fully exonerated. The 3.5 days are merely compared with the 1,260 days and said to therefore refer to a "shorter period of time." Imagine that! Trying to get within a 9 days of 1,260 days, and then saying that the next 3 and one-half days refer to a period of about 278 days! The first calculation is within 1% correct. The second calculation is off by about 8,000% Imagine, if the 2,520 years could be that far off. It's like saying that Jesus could have received his kingship in 1914, or if we were to use the same level of accuracy we use in Revelation 11:11, then perhaps it could be as late as the year 200,000 CE -- nearly 200 millenniums from now! ---------- So then you go on to say that the prophecy should have been fulfilled in 653 AD, and yet we are still here living under a corrupt government. That entire idea should be rejected wholeheartedly if we take Jesus seriously. First of all, Jesus said the Gentile Times had not started yet when he gave the prophecy in Luke 21. Remember that he said that: (Luke 21:24) . . .and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations [Gentiles] until the appointed times of the nations [Gentiles] are fulfilled. (Rev 11:2,3) . . . and the holy city will be trampled on by the nations [Gentiles] until 42 months (1,260 days) are fulfilled. [paraphrased] The verb "will be trampled" is in the future tense. Both Jesus and Luke knew how to use verbs and could have easily chosen the correct verb tense if he wanted to express ongoing action that started in the past but was continuing. (Also, it should be noted that you are still living under a corrupt government today, even though you are 103 years past 1914.) The solution is not to start the 1,260 days in 607 or anywhere near 607. Another solution is not to change the 1,260 days into years. Despite the fact that the Watchtower calls this a "rule" they break it for every single reference to any modern prophetic fulfillment except the 7 times. They don't even use it for 3.5 times, or even for the 3.5 days, or the 1,290 days, or the 1,335 days. Not much of a "rule" is it? You also asked: "And who were the 2 witnesses, and why has God allowed an additional 1900 years to pass." I'll discuss a possible alternate view of Revelation 11 under another topic heading. As to why God allowed an additional 1900 years to pass, I think we all know. (2 Peter 3:8, 9) 8 However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 9 Jehovah is not slow concerning his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance. It's the same as asking why the Babylonian Captivity (in our current explanation) lasted about 1,900 years. You also asked: "when did the great commission end in order to fulfill God’s promise of a better Kingdom. Mark 16:15" My Bible no longer includes Mark 16:15, but if you are referring to the same commission in Matthew 28:18-20 where Jesus announced that "ALL authority had been given him in heaven and on earth" and he therefore commissioned a disciple-making work, then it has not ended for any of us who take on preaching and teaching as our primary ministry in the congregation. It goes on for the same reason stated in 2 Peter 3. Your questions are basically pointing out good reasons to realize that you should not start the Gentile Times prior to Jesus announcement that they would begin some time in the future, not in the past. You said: Therefore, scripture would be a book of inconsistent stories, and prophecy's, since all that Jesus promised for his father’s sake, would have been complete, and humanity continues in the same path So, those opinions ARE NOT SCRIPTURALLY SOUND!!!!! I think we can just as easily see that it's the 1914 doctrine creating a book of inconsistent applications of prophecies, and changing explanations. And since humanity continues in the same path after 1914 as they had before, and since all that Jesus promised for his Father's sake is still not complete, you are arguing for reasons why Jesus could not have started his kingdom in 1914, either. Then you say: Knowledge is afforded to those that seek the kingdom of God. Therefore, those that believe their own opinion, is part of this world, and have NO heavenly kingdom interest. Therefore, there is no difficulty expressing God’s word to the nations, by scripture, and those that proclaim in the name of their own opinion, overshadow true knowledge. So, Christians would do better to accept the word of God, and through those that God commissions, rather than allow masked opinions peak their curiosity. If we are truly seeking the kingdom, we will not fall for just any opinions, but will base what we know on the Bible, and admit what we don't know. If it turns out that we have been preaching 1914 just because it was the tradition and opinion of men, then it won't seem right. Pieces of the puzzle will begin to unravel through study of the Scriptures, respect for the Scriptures, prayer, meditation, discussion with others, and serious inquiry. Christians should accept the word of God through those whom God commissions, the Bible writers themselves. It's a dangerous thing when we start accepting what men say without question. The Bible tells us to test everything, make sure of all things, and to be noble-minded by questioning. Why would anyone decide to shirk such a wonderful and enjoyable responsibility? (1 John 4:1) 4 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, so that you may be flawless and not stumbling others up to the day of Christ; (1 Thessalonians 5:19-21) . . .. 20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine. (Acts 17:11) . . .Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thes·sa·lo·niʹca, for they accepted the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. (2 Corinthians 13:5) 5 Keep testing whether you are in the faith; keep proving what you yourselves are.. . . (Philippians 4:5) . . .Let your reasonableness become known to all men. The Lord is near.

These are excellent points. But let's look at this more closely. Let's say, just as an example, there was an angel who vanquished all opposition to Jehovah's rulership by killing 185,000 Assyrians in one night. This might even be one of those occasions when one could say, "Jehovah has become King." But would you ever express this fact by calling that angel a king? Also, if you are able to say, as you did, that Jehovah's Son could express rulership in executive action, then why be so concerned to claim that he is NOT really a king holding the office of king? Perhaps that's exactly what makes him a king in the Bible's terminology. How can you even use an expression like the "kingdom of His Son" without thinking that the person for whom that Kingdom is named is not truly a king? Would you ever say "David's kingdom" and claim that David was not really a king? Also, notice that Jehovah is already a king when some event or action causes Jehovah to become king. So, why do we need to make sure then that Jesus is NOT a king when the Bible speaks of him as becoming king? Trying to make use of this idea that Jehovah can be said to become King even though he already is King is irrelevant, then. It doesn't prove Jehovah was not a King, so it can't be used to prove that Jesus was not a King. So when you say "why cannot Jesus do the same?" what you really mean is something like the opposite. You mean something more akin to "why can't we say Jesus is NOT a king when he becomes king." And why do you think everyone who holds this idea that Jesus can be called king but not really be a king has avoided the fact that his title in 1 Tim 6 is "king of kings" in the first century? Doesn't this make him more than just a king over the kingdom of his congregation? Why is he called "ruler of the kings of the earth" in the first century? The Watchtower publications freely admit that Jesus was at least king of the kingdom over his congregation. And we believe Colossians was written around 61 CE. (Colossians 1:13) 13 He [God] rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, Of course, the Bible says nothing about Jesus having two kingdoms. And since God's "beloved Son" is Jesus, this verse actually says "He . . . transferred us into the Kingdom of [Jesus]." It is pure conjecture and speculation to claim that Jesus has a second Kingdom, not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible. What is really happening here is pretty obvious, which is that Jesus has been bringing Kingdom subjects into his Kingdom since the first century. To me, it's more like when there's a fire on the back of someone's head, but that person is more interested in semantics and ignores the obvious.

I realized that there were several more name changes as soon as I looked up a couple of the other languages for that last post to Queen Esther. Our Kingdom Hall has a French and Spanish congregation and they both use Caleb and Sophia (Sofia). My sister is in Copenhagen and she told me it was Caleb and Sophia there too, and I just looked it up and realized it wasn't true, it's just that they listen in English. Perhaps that's why Queen Esther also didn't mention Philipp.

In English, if you go to jw.org you find the following statement: The video series Become Jehovah’s Friend, featuring songs and the animated characters Caleb and Sophia, has proved to be hugely popular. Parents and children alike have written to express appreciation for various videos in the series. If you change the language to German, you get the following statement: Philipp und Sophia sind die Hauptfiguren der Trickfilmreihe Werde Jehovas Freund. Die Kinderfilme und Lieder sind bei Eltern und Kindern äußerst beliebt. Das haben viele mit Dankesbriefen zum Ausdruck gebracht. In Croatian, it's Dino and Lea. In Danish, it's Lucas and Sofie. In Italian it's Lele and Sofia. in Spanish it's Caleb and Sofia. So I didn't mean it was a negative thing, but there are a couple of Germans named Caleb, so I wondered why they changed it to Philipp. I thought maybe there might have been a man named Caleb in Germany who had a bad reputation.

You'd think so, right? Sometimes I think that even if the Bible had already called Jesus "the king of kings" and "ruler of the kings of the earth" that it still wouldn't be enough.

@Gnosis Pithos, Starting with the above post from Friday June 30, I'd like to respond to all of your posts in an orderly manner. If I don't understand why you said something, I can at least make a guess based on context, and you can correct me, please, if I got it wrong. Some was covered in previous answers, but I want to make sure I got all your points. Your first point, I'm pretty sure, was that Jesus' prophecy in Matthew 24 was not about 70 CE. At first I thought you used the word "incumbent" in its definition of "necessary, required as a duty" and then you implied later that perhaps you meant it with another meaning, and that other meaning is "one already holding office." In either case, the answer is that Jesus was speaking about a visitation of judgment on Jerusalem in 70 CE, and he worded it in such a way that Christians have been able to make application to any period of time prior to his visitation of judgment upon the world. Whether or not Jesus held the office of king is also a part of the point that you make here and elsewhere. Jesus was called "King" during several periods of his earthly life and ministry: around the time of his birth (Herod, astrologers, Simeon [Christ of Jehovah]), during his ministry (visitation to Jerusalem on colt of donkey), just before his death (Jews/Pilate), during his death (the sign above him), after his resurrection and ascension and prior to 70 CE (book of Acts, most of Paul's letters, e.g., "King of Kings") in the introduction to Revelation (Revelation chapter 1 where called "ruler of the kings of the earth") within the Revelation (Revelation 11, 12 where he is also said to "rule as king forever") The exact time periods referred to in Revelation 11, 12 are not strictly known and therefore could possibly even refer to gaining the "office" of kingship in a year like 1914 if that is Biblically possible. In addition to the points made above about the specific word "king" we have many additional points that refer to "kingdom," "kingship," "rulership," "authority," "might," "power," "commandments" "Davidic promise" and association with "thrones," "scepters," "majesty," "worship/obeisance," etc. All these points provide even more evidence for the same points made about when, he was king. However, we begin to notice another pattern that is also evidenced, and that is the fact that it's always OTHERS calling him King before his birth and during his ministry, and before his death. Jesus even finds a way to answer the question from Pilate about whether he is King, by highlighting that is comes from the mouth of "OTHERS" (Jews and Pilate). It's only AFTER his resurrection that inspired Bible writers call him a "king" or "ruler" directly or even "king of kings" (1 Tim 6) or say he has "now" been given a "name" above every other government and rulership. It reminds us of Jesus own words just after his resurrection that "ALL AUTHORITY" has now been given to him, so that he now "commands" them as subjects. (Mt 28) Whether that Biblical pattern is important or not, we can't say, but we can say that the Bible has no problem calling him "King of Kings" after his resurrection and before the destruction of Jerusalem (70 CE). You then point out that were no mass earthquakes or related events in 70 CE. so this MUST apply to after 1914, when earthquakes or at least "those signs" now come with greater frequency than before 1914. There is no logic to that statement. The Bible does speak of great earthquakes before 70 CE, and the Watchtower agrees and pointed out the same. But even if there were not, this type of sign is not measurable without a lot of evidence that just isn't there. Great earthquakes may very well be LESS frequent now than in the past. With several billions of people on earth at the same time instead of several millions in times past, every earthquake, even small ones have more opportunity to be more destructive of human life, and that's a good point. Perhaps that's what Jesus meant by "great earthquakes." But we still don't know if this meant that we should be on the watch for a time when earthquakes start becoming more destructive. In fact, many if not the majority of Bible commentators through the years have seen Jesus' statement about earthquakes as an example of what NOT to look for as a sign. Even Charles Taze Russell understood that this was what Jesus meant. Jesus said we are going to hear about wars and great earthquakes but NOT to be misled, not to think that this means the end is upon us because of them. So clearly earthquakes and wars were NOT the sign. Besides, there were no major earthquakes in 1914. One set of evidence lists large population centers around the world that were hit in a way that killed many thousands at a time in 1780, 1783, 1786, 1797, 1837, 1847, 1854, 1855, 1857, 1868, 1881, 1891, 1893, 1896, 1902, 1905, 1906, 1908, 1915, 1920, 1923, 1927, 1931, 1934, 1939, 1944, 1949, 1960, 1968, 1970, 1974, 1975, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_20th-century_earthquakes#1901.E2.80.931910 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_earthquakes As more population centers become denser, and as recording devices become more accurate, we will surely hear about more earthquakes, but there is no specific evidence that 1914 and the three or four generations living in the time periods after 1914 have seen an increase. Starting with the records in 1837 it looks like the decade of the 1870's saw no major earthquakes that killed many thousands at once. But we also see such a gap in the decade of the 1950's, and it's just as likely that gaps before 1837 have more to do with lack of historical records and worldwide communication capability (telegraph, telephone). We also have a factor of better construction in some dense population centers which could have reduced the "greatness" of more recent earthquakes since 1914. So the point is that there is just not enough evidence, and even if there was, Jesus' point was that earthquakes were not even an important sign. But we do know for a fact, at least, that there were at least two or three great earthquakes prior to 70, mentioned in the scriptures. We also can be pretty sure that Christians would been looking for evidences of the timing of Jesus' parousia, but he had warned them that these earthquakes had nothing to do with the timing of his parousia. Then you say: "Now if the prevailing opinion is Jesus was king in 33CE instead of taking over Aarons high priesthood of the Christian congregation and the end of days Jesus proclaimed in his time due to his established kingship? Then that would have made Jesus King at birth.: I think you are saying that you are willing to accept that Jesus fulfilled the office of "high priest" in 33 CE but that the only way in which we could say he was "king" in 33 CE would be in the same way that he was "king" at the time of his birth. (Perhaps you are referring to either the expression: "the one born king of the Jews" or perhaps also this: (John 18:37) . . .So Pilate said to him: “Well, then, are you a king?” Jesus answered: “You yourself are saying that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world. . . Then of course, you said: "The operative words are “hold the offices” over emphasizing by saying HE IS KING!!!!!!" But you don't accept the Bible's answer: (1 Timothy 6:15) ". . .He is the King. . ." You then quote the "Insight" book which is, in my opinion, devastating to the theory that Jesus did not become king until 1914. Here's why. Insight says: To describe the greatness of Christ’s priesthood and its superiority over the Aaronic priesthood, the writer shows that Melchizedek was both a king and a priest by designation of the highest God, and not by inheritance. . . . In addition to the promise recorded at Psalm 110:4: “Jehovah has sworn (and he will feel no regret): ‘You are a priest to time indefinite according to the manner of Melchizedek!’” which appointment makes him a heavenly King-Priest, Christ also possesses Kingdom authority by reason of his descent from David. In the latter case, he becomes the heir of the kingship promised in the Davidic covenant. (2Sa 7:11-16) He therefore holds in combination the offices of kingship and priesthood, as did Melchizedek. So, was that office of King-Priest something that Jesus would be appointed to in the future, or did it already happen? Did we already have such a priest who was also a King-Priest as Melchizedek was? Hebrews answers: (Hebrews 6:20-7:4) . . .Jesus, who has become a high priest in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek forever. 7 For this Mel·chizʹe·dek, king of Saʹlem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name is translated “King of Righteousness,” and then also king of Saʹlem, that is, “King of Peace.” 3 In being fatherless, motherless, without genealogy, having neither a beginning of days nor an end of life, but being made like the Son of God, he remains a priest for all time. Hebrews 1 and 2 had already dealt with his Kingship and royal power: "God is your throne." "He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs." "The scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness." "But we do see Jesus, who was made a little lower than angels, now crowned. . ."

What do you call Caleb in the Caleb and Sophia cartoons? Is there any negative stigma associated with someone in Germany who was named Caleb? Or was the word used with a negative meaning? I hear it's only in Germany that he got a name change.

Google and other search tools know a lot. I just take credit until someone embarrasses me with a word of faint praise. The Watchtower publications never pointed to 1994, although there were about 4 references to the end of the system coming 'before the end of the twentieth century.' (One got corrected in time to change the wording in the bound volume, and therefore also changed for the Watchtower Library CD, but the original Watchtower, and the cassette voice recording contains the prediction.) The big 1994 prediction was from Harold Camping who pretty much ran Family Radio. Even JWs listened to Family Radio, after Armstrong's World Wide Church of God dwindled to nothing. He started pushing 1994 in 1992, for odd reasons. When he pushed again for May 21, 2011, I got to talk to one of the members on the train who was willing to give me all kinds of literature and CDs on the subject, since it was his last night on earth. (He said.) I haven't looked at them yet.

One of the Looney Tunes, Warner Brothers cartoon characters called the Tasmanian Devil, or just "TAZ" for short, as in Charles "Taz" Russell. Since Tasmania is an Australian state, and Taz is not only a volatile, fiery personality, but he is often seen in "tornado" form, I just knew it had to be him.

I know who started it . . . and he's also from Australia or thereabouts:

In another thread, I proposed the possibility that Revelation 11 and Revelation 12 might both be starting out with references to events in the first century CE. There are some immediate problems with this proposal, and a couple of them were pointed out by @ComfortMyPeople. One problem for example is that Christ Jesus obtains the kingship, and this is tied to the time for the dead to be judged, a clear reference to the resurrection: (Revelation 11:15-18) 15 The seventh angel blew his trumpet. And there were loud voices in heaven, saying: “The kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will rule as king forever and ever.” 16 And the 24 elders who were seated before God on their thrones fell upon their faces and worshipped God, 17 saying: “We thank you, Jehovah God, the Almighty, the one who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and begun ruling as king. 18 But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time came for the dead to be judged and to reward your slaves the prophets and the holy ones and those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.” As CMP pointed out, that would apparently contradict the scripture that says it was a deviation from the truth to claim it had occurred in the first century: (2 Timothy 2:18) 18 These men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred, and they are subverting the faith of some. Of course, that wasn't the intention of putting the first portions of the chapter in the first century, but it shows that it's possible to test proposals about doctrines and find that some ideas just obviously cannot work. I'm hoping that we can test such speculative proposals even further to see if they actually fit the scriptures, or should be rejected. So when I get an opportunity, hopefully in the next few days, I might be able explain how the ENTIRE 11th chapter MIGHT be understood under a first-century proposal.

This is a follow-up discussion from a conversation under a topic about 1914. It is pure speculation, and I suspect that most persons will find it either a waste of time, or perhaps even a subversion of currently taught doctrines. It is not intended to be. It is a speculative guess about various doctrinal repercussions in the event that the doctrinal about 1914 was dropped. It is especially concerned with whether almost all items related to the parousia would be set into the future, or is it possible that some of them could reasonably be set in the past. Naturally, the goal is to see if the Scriptures could support either of these scenarios, or would either or both need to be rejected on scriptural grounds. In one way, this is a kind of thought experiment that can be used to test the validity of a doctrine like 1914. If abandoning such a doctrine would result only in additional contradictions and confusion, then this becomes evidence that 1914, or something like it, could remain viable for years to come. It is not the goal of this discussion to reject 1914, or get anyone else to reject it. This is also not a comparison to see whether a certain "solution" seems or sounds better than the current solutions we present concerning 1914. It is just a way to see what alternatives we might be left with if the 1914 doctrine were actually changed. So I should say that this discussion is not for everyone, although all interested persons should feel welcome to comment. I hope this doesn't go on for 15 pages however, so if posts are too far off topic, perhaps it would be better to start new threads for them. INTRODUCTION For the most part, it's obvious that Revelation is about future events, especially the events associated with the Return of Christ in Judgment of the Nations, of Babylon, the Great Tribulation, Armageddon, the Millennium, the New Heavens and the New Earth. But there are parts that reference past events, present events along with, of course, future events. In fact Jehovah is presented as being in control of history, and this might even be implied in expressions such as this, referencing past, present and future: (Revelation 1:8) 8 “I am the Alʹpha and the O·meʹga,” says Jehovah God, “the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.” When John was told to write letters to the seven congregations, these were about matters going on in the first century, too: (Revelation 1:17-19) . . .“Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last, 18 and the living one, and I became dead, but look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of the Grave. 19 So write down the things you saw, and the things that are, and the things that will take place after these. Note that in vv 17-19, Jesus also has titles that reference the past, present and future. And we already know that John's messages to the congregations would reference those congregations' recent past, the present and the future. So, is there a way to look at OTHER chapters in Revelation, such as chapters 11 and 12, and make any sense of them without reference to the 1914 doctrine? And if so, the next question is whether anything in those two chapters, especially, can apply to the first century congregations. If hat question must generally be answered in the negative, then the next question would be if anything (or everything in those two chapters could apply mostly to the future without a need to reference 1914 or a date or time prior to the Great Tribulation, for example.

I give up!

Found a better image... sorry it's so big.

@Bible Speaks , I hate to say it but you've fallen for another one. The sign is so obviously fake. The original actually says: Tires / LES SCHWAB -- Doing the right thing since 1952

Quite a memorable exchange. In the US/English, this was the 1977 yb p.81-83. Also mentioned in the 1979 yb, p.35. Nice post! Thanks for taking a break from your break.

Going to college and hoping to survive it is like putting a gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger to commit suicide and inadvertently surviving and blowing away the part of your brain that was making you think you should commit suicide in the first place. Or is he saying? Choosing to go to college is like choosing to commit suicide by shooting yourself in the head and then excusing your suicidal actions by pointing out that at least one person you know survived a bullet to the brain and even lived a better life after the suicide attempt. The first option sounds like college has the uncanny ability to solve even the most serious problems with surgical precision. Of course, he actually means the second option. If you are already in college, we won't tell you to drop out, but we commend you if you do.