JW Insider

As far as I'm concerned it has nothing to do with no hellfire, no Trinity, political neutrality, and not going to war for example. I consider the last one (no warfare) a major way in which we show we love our neighbor and even love our enemy. Those Christian concepts are rather difficult to justify by participating directly in warfare.

True. But what we were avoiding was the explicit statement that "Noah had never seen rain before" which was once considered an article of his faith.

Most Witnesses still think it is consistent with the Bible. Those who find that it isn't consistent, probably no longer see it as a central doctrine and therefore are able to dismiss it without causing a serious concern. I think it's because there is still so much more to the core teachings, and they might even seem enhanced in value when one critiques the overall set of remaining doctrines.

Absolutely. And I appreciated the comments you added from 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Ezekiel, and Psalms. "Offering ourselves willingly" gets right to the heart, our motivation. I believe you have been a Witness long enough to remember when we often made the point that it had never rained prior to the Flood. It used to be in one of the talk outlines, which was updated to remove it. It's not a point that any publications have repeated for 60 years. (Since the February 15, 1956 QFR.) I mention this because I do not know what the current view is on the physics of the water canopy as described. When I was doing some research on another topic, a member of the Governing Body told me that we had "dropped" the idea that each of the creative days were 7,000 years long, so that the 6 creative days had taken 42,000 years and we were already 6,000+ more years into the 7th rest day: in effect in year 48,004 Anno Mundi* at the time this came up. It was important in the 2/1/1973 Watchtower as a support for 1975 (p.83). But then, even though I was told for sure that this had been dropped and would never be mentioned again, it was mentioned again anyway. (In a January 1, 1987 QFR.) So my comment wasn't trying to reference the canopy teaching nor to dismiss it. I notice now that it looks like I was paraphrasing verse 5 alone, but I was paraphrasing both 5 and 6 together.

Glad you appreciated it, but it was more like a 'stream of consciousness' dissertation, where I just kept adding comments as I went along, hoping they'd stay fairly close to a central theme. I can't really say I spent any time at all preparing it. If you are referring to the previous set of cross-references, I had no problem with it, but it was easy to misunderstand, for me at least, without more context. I like some of the additional cross-references added in the rNWT. To me they often show a greater depth of thought. If you are referring specifically to the 1914 doctrine, I can't quite figure out what you mean by "previous" since it is still very much "official" doctrine. Perhaps you meant from my perspective, in which case, I agree that even if the 1914 doctrine, is wrong, or unnecessary, it need not cause "much harm," assuming that we continue to highlight several of the counterbalancing ideas. I wouldn't even bring it up, however, if I didn't think it had the potential for doing some harm. That's because I believe that Jesus was completely serious when he repeated all those ideas about not knowing the time of his parousia. I believe we feel we have found a loophole by claiming that Jesus really meant to say the time of judgement at the END of the parousia, so that it is somehow OK for us to know the time of the parousia. The problem is that knowing the time would have such an effect on our motivations that any specific types of conduct could be hypocritical. We might easily find ourselves motivated by the closeness of judgment, not purely out of willingness and love. Imagine, therefore, if we had translated the original word genealogies in the following passage with "chronology" which is, in fact, one of the primary uses of genealogies in the Bible. (1 Timothy 1:3-5) . . .command certain ones not to teach different doctrine, 4 nor to pay attention to false stories and to chronology [literally, genealogies]. Such things end up in nothing useful but merely give rise to speculations rather than providing anything from God in connection with faith. 5 Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. Verse 5 summarizes pure Christianity, and Jesus made clear that the "moral" of verse 5 was the same "moral" of not knowing the times or seasons of the parousia.

I think that most people see a collection of eight photos/articles at the bottom of the screen. (I mean the "Powered by Google" grid of articles and/or ads to click on.) We probably don't all see the same selection of 8 items, but in my case it is always heavily slanted to the fake news about JWs, or JW celebrity news, or both (Trump warns Russia over JWs, Jackie Chan is one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and this current one, etc.) It is the one topic I am least interested in, rarely click on, and it always embarrasses me that these types of articles are readily believed by Witnesses, and sometimes even SOURCED by Witnesses. I understand that there is a certain use to keep such rumors "up" to drive traffic, but is it only gullible traffic that is desired? I have found some of these fake topics to be easily proven untrue in a matter of seconds, but sometimes these things stay up, even after I have shown the poster the proof. (The last one was to @Bible Speaks and there was not even a response.) I've seen this happen with other people also, just as it happened in this thread. I prefer to not have such articles demeaning the site, but I know that it's at least possible to change the title of this topic, even slightly, to indicate that we all know better. I'm surprised it wasn't changed months ago, or within a couple hours of the initial post.

I hate to be left out when "everyone" else can see it coming. What "big announcement"?

@Nicole You can be counted as a Witness if you are a publisher, even an unbaptized publisher. Others might say they are Witnesses even if they only agree with Witnesses, and plan [someday] to become one. Some might have some reservations about baptism for their own reasons, perhaps good reasons, perhaps not good. There was a time when a person was not asked to get rebaptized as one of Jehovah's Witnesses if they felt that their previous baptism by members of another religion was still a valid dedication to do Jehovah's will. A person would have to be very old to have come into the organization under those particular circumstances. I can also think of one person who told me they believed that if a Witness was spirit-anointed, they no longer needed water baptism, because the spirit supersedes the water. (I don't see their evidence for this.)

As usual, I thought that was worded very well and it expresses several excellent points. But it might be useful to highlight that any claim that the year "1914" is found in prophecy is already totally dependent on corroboration of secular academia. That's because there is no such thing as stating any Biblical year in such terms without secular corroboration. That includes 29 CE, 33 CE, 70 CE, 2370 BCE, 4026 BCE, 640 BCE, 539 BCE, and of course 587 or 586 BCE. Every one of these dates, whether we think it's exact, or if we think it's within 20 years, or even within 500 years, will always require secular corroboration. I'm glad I could count on you to remind us all that putting up a list of bullet points doesn't mean that 1914 has already been shot down. But it's an easier and easier target to hit, and the two life-span generation puts an even bigger bulls-eye on its back. Whether or not the book of Daniel, Ezekiel, Matthew or Revelation ever intended to point us in advance to a specific event or activity in the 20th century, no one can rule out that Jehovah might still have had in mind a specific type of work to be done. Jehovah manages who he allows to be king and who he wishes to be deposed. He would not do this without some purpose, as with Nebuchadnezzar. Jehovah is in charge of history, and his thinking is beyond our own. If he can raise kings and despots to his purpose, surely everything he has either inspired or permitted in every age has a purpose. The kingdom we pray for is about God's will both in heaven and on earth. We must be alert to opportunity in every season of our own lives and perhaps we may even obtain guidance about opportunities based on the particular season the world is in. We should always point out what is unreasonable (Philippians 4:5), but we can't always just rule out every idea that appears unreasonable to human minds. Our thoughts are not God's thoughts. A humble spirit will allow us to be used as Jehovah sees fit.

I was not referring to Micaiah, I was referring to 400 other prophets.

We have several examples where prophets of God prophesied something that did not come true: (1 Kings 22:5-8) 5 But Je·hoshʹa·phat said to the king of Israel: “First inquire, please, for the word of Jehovah.” 6 So the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about 400 men, and said to them: “Should I go to war against Raʹmoth-gilʹe·ad, or should I refrain?” They said: “Go up, and Jehovah will give it into the king’s hand.” 7 Je·hoshʹa·phat then said: “Is there not here a prophet of Jehovah? Let us also inquire through him.” 8 At that the king of Israel said to Je·hoshʹa·phat: “There is still one more man through whom we can inquire of Jehovah; but I hate him, for he never prophesies good things concerning me, only bad. He is Mi·caiʹah the son of Imʹlah.” However, Je·hoshʹa·phat said: “The king should not say such a thing.” We also have Jonah, for example. But I was referring especially to prophets who spoke in the name of Jehovah but may not have been true prophets. Perhaps they thought they were, and they were disappointing to themselves, too.

Saw something interesting on this scripture related to the Bible reading (Ezekiel 12) for next week: (2 Peter 3:3,4) 3 First of all know this, that in the last days ridiculers will come with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires 4 and saying: “Where is this promised presence of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep in death, all things are continuing exactly as they were from creation’s beginning.” The first thing was the cross reference from the NWT. The pre-2013 NWT cross-referenced 2 Pet 3:4 to Ezekiel 12:27 and I think I might have misunderstood the value of the cross-reference: (Ezekiel 12:27) “Son of man, look! those of the house of Israel are saying, ‘The vision that he is visioning is many days off, and respecting times far off he is prophesying.’ Without the context, this verse alone looks like a discussion about patience in waiting for the fulfillment of the promised prophecy. After all, Peter will go on to say that in Jehovah's timetable something could go on for a 1,000 years in our time, but could still be like a day in Jehovah's eyes. Of course, the verse in 2 Peter (and also the verse in Ezekiel 12) is not about fact that something might be fulfilled in a far off time, but about the ridicule. In the rNWT this is made easier to see by adding another verse from the context of this one in Ezekiel 12. Now, the 2013 Revised NWT includes the following verse in the cross-references: (Ezekiel 12:22) 22 “Son of man, what is this proverb that you have in Israel that says, ‘The days go by, and every vision comes to nothing’? Now it makes sense, that Israel had seen so many prophets and visionaries declare things that didn't come true so often that it had become like the fable of "the boy who cried wolf." (Also, btw, I found this verse to be much more readily understandable in the new rNWT.) @ComfortMyPeople reminded me of this verse when he spoke about how we have plenty of precedent for handling error. We need not be discouraged overmuch, as if this is something that should never be expected to happen. Imagine being in a congregation where some of them were saying there was no resurrection! Another verse that has been added to the cross-references to the passage in 2 Peter 3:3 is the first verse in the passage below: (Jeremiah 17:15, 16) 15 Look! There are those saying to me: “Where is the word of Jehovah? Let it come, please!” 16 But as for me, I did not run away from following you as a shepherd, Nor did I long for the day of disaster. You well know everything my lips have spoken; It all took place before your face! It's interesting that 2 Peter is about "ridiculers" but this verse is about a person who does not want to be a ridiculer, but is anxiously looking for the promised prophecy to come true. I added the next verse because it provides another interesting point that the person is not going to leave Jehovah just because of a perceived delay, but also he is not longing for the day of disaster. Perhaps it refers to the right attitude toward God's judgments. One last point is that those who read both 2 Peter 3 and the parallels in the book of Jude might be surprised to see that both of these books together make a very consistent point that they were already in the "last days." It is both now and all the way back through to the first centuries that Christians would expect to hear persons ridicule them by saying "Where is this promised parousia?" and they would make the point that things are going on pretty much as they always were. In Jude it's also easy to see that he was speaking about the "last days" or "last time" having already started in Jude's day: (Jude 16-20) 16 These men are murmurers, complainers about their lot in life, following their own desires, and their mouths make grandiose boasts, while they are flattering others for their own benefit. 17 As for you, beloved ones, call to mind the sayings that have been previously spoken by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, 18 how they used to say to you: “In the last time there will be ridiculers, following their own desires for ungodly things.” 19 These are the ones who cause divisions, animalistic men, not having spirituality. 20 But you, beloved ones, build yourselves up on your most holy faith, and pray with holy spirit, Of course, if it were about our own day, and if the parousia was going to be a long period of time, such as 103-plus years, for example, then the real response would be: "Don't you know that things are NOT going on as they always were? Didn't you notice the big wars and earthquakes that started the parousia? Are you blind to the sign?" The "parousia" of course is a "visitation" and it came on Jerusalem 37 years after Jesus prophesied such a visitation. We can see that the visitation (parousia) wasn't the entire period of the generation with its great wars and great earthquakes in one place after another and pestilences and food shortages. It was the final visitation event when judgment was visited upon Jerusalem: (Matthew 23:35-38) . . .there may come upon you all the righteous blood spilled on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zech·a·riʹah son of Bar·a·chiʹah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. 37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent to her—how often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings! But you did not want it. 38 Look! Your house is abandoned to you. It must have been especially important when speaking of the final visitation of judgment (parousia) to remind the ridiculers that there was a good reason that things were going on just as they had been since the days of their forefathers. It's because, if there was not going to be a sign in advance, that it (the visitation - parousia) would come quickly and suddenly and without warning as a thief. Just as in Noah's day, when the world was apart from the water, then suddenly in the midst of water: (2 Peter 3:5, 6) 5 For they deliberately ignore this fact, that long ago there were heavens and an earth standing firmly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; 6 and that by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was flooded with waters. Jesus was the one who had said that things WOULD go on just as they had been going on in the days of their forefathers. (Matthew 24:37-41) 37 For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the Flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, 39 and they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 40 Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken along and the other abandoned. 41 Two women will be grinding at the hand mill; one will be taken along and the other abandoned. This is just like when Paul said that it would also be a time when they were calling out peace and security! (Wars would occur but they would not be a defining sign of his parousia.) The ridicule is not about claiming that the parousia wasn't really there, it was ridiculing the delay of the parousia, just as they were ridiculing the delay of the judgment visitation in Ezekiel 12. The only advance warning we have is the reminder that it will come as a thief and we should therefore watch what sort of persons we should be at all times: (2 Peter 3:11-18) 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 [visitation] 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. 15 Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation,. . . 17 You, therefore, beloved ones, having this advance knowledge, be on your guard so that you may not be led astray with them by the error of the lawless people and fall from your own steadfastness. 18 No, but go on growing in the undeserved kindness and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. . . .

If you move the day back 20 years, does that fit with any verses? Should it be expected to? If one were to work from the date of Jerusalem's fall in 587 (or 586 BCE) then you could add 2,520 years to it and reach the year 1934. If you are looking hard enough for something, you can always find it and make it significant through some bit of world history or organizational history. (rise of Hitler, Roosevelt, Federal Reserve Act, Jewish immigration to Palestine begins, etc.) Also, although the all the independent Babylonian sources are clear about when Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th year began, the Bible uses both dates for the destruction of Jerusalem. (2 Kings 25:8, 9) 8 In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. 9 He burned down the house of Jehovah,. . . (Jeremiah 32:1, 2) 32 The word that came to Jeremiah from Jehovah in the 10th year of King Zed·e·kiʹah of Judah, that is, the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar. 2 At that time the armies of the king of Babylon were besieging Jerusalem, . . . There is no absolutely sure way to tell if this difference referred to two different ways of counting Nebuchadnezzar's year of reign, of if one refers perhaps only to a siege that started a year earlier. There is even a problem in deciding for sure whether the year began in the spring or the fall. Both methods are used in the Bible, and it's sometimes difficult to figure out which is which. (2 Chronicles 36:10) 10 At the start of the year,* King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar sent to have him brought to Babylon,. . . [* NWT footnote: "Possibly, in the spring"] In other words, one could stretch the 2,520 years to even reach only to 1933, or possibly as far as 1935 which was once a more significant date in our own history. It was, for nearly half a century, thought of as the end of the call to the heavenly hope, but now it is only seen as the year when the announcement clarified the earthly hope of the Jonadab class, and since which date the vast majority of new Witnesses have been "called" to an earthly hope. Hanging on to the "1914 prediction" was considered a vestige proving that Jehovah's spirit was truly with the early Bible Students in a more special way than just their separation from Babylon the Great. Remember that it didn't really matter when Jerusalem was destroyed, as long as 1914 had still been predicted. (The actual initial method used was not even concerned with the destruction of Jerusalem.) When the idea of 2,520 years was added to the mix, the year for the destruction was determined, basically, by counting backwards from 1914. When Franz determined that Russell had made a one year error (due to his incorrect belief that there had been a "zero year") the destruction of Jerusalem was merely changed to 607 so that 1914 would still work. 1914 has always been the goal, not the actual date for Jerusalem's destruction. Therefore, I doubt very much that a 20 year change is in the works. It would only buy the generation 20 more years, anyway, and would still require a two-lifespan generation to cover the FOUR+ biological generations that have seen "1934." (My 103-year-old grandmother-in-law [from Long Island, NY] would have been 20 in 1934 and was just here visiting her great-granddaughter over a week ago.) There are additional problems with revisiting the Daniel 4 and Luke 21:24 to make a change. It will receive renewed scrutiny, and having failed us in the past, will probably not seem so convincing this time. People will notice that there is no second fulfillment mentioned in Daniel 4, and a recent Watchtower (3/15/2015) has already come out to say that we no longer add second fulfillments unless the Bible explicitly tells us that one exists. As far as Daniel 4 is concerned, the entire dream was fulfilled on Nebuchadnezzar. Also, people will surely question how a brutal haughty King that destroyed Jerusalem can somehow represent Jerusalem. (We once taught that Nebuchadnezzar pictured Jesus, making Jesus a kind of Greater Nebuchadnezzar.) If allowed to scrutinize the topic, all the other questions will surely surface this time, including the supposed "rule" that a day is always a year. If this were true, then why did Daniel multiply Jeremiah's 70 years by 7 to make 490 years? ("70 weeks of years"). Why do our publications never use a day for a year when the Bible speaks of 1,260 days, 1,290 days, or 1,335 days. Why are the 3.5 times of Revelation kept as a literal 1,260 days? Why does Revelation 11 say that the "Gentile Times" were only three and one-half times, or 42 months long?

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001061137?q=waiting+attitude&p=par I think the content of the verse in Micah about having a "waiting attitude" is good, but the context might seem a bit harsh in that the verse applies to waiting on Jehovah when it's an enemy we are up against. I don't think of the Governing Body as an enemy here, and I don't think you do either. In fact, the only issue I see is that a long-standing tradition made sense for many years, but has turned out to cause more problems than it solved at this point. Still, I don't think it is even that big of a problem when it comes to the day-to-day life of an average Witness. After all, whether 1914 is a necessary doctrine or not: We still know that we are living in the time of the end, or the "last days" even if that phrase had the same meaning to Christians in the first century. We still know that Satan has been cast down and walks about like a roaring lion, seeking to devour someone, because his time is short. This is also true even if it had the same meaning in the first century. We also wait for his final abyss and subsequent final demise. We still have a preaching work that is just as important as ever. Jesus is still "King of Kings" and ruler of those who rule the earth. The kingdom is still our focus, and continues to be the theme of our hopes and prayers. We still know that we must overcome critical times, hard to deal with, just as Paul warned Timothy that he would meet up with. We still know that Jesus is present, wherever even two or three are gathered in his name. We know that Jesus will be with us right up until the conclusion of the system of things. We don't live for a date, or serve for a date anyway, so whether or not the end comes in our lifetime or we find out about it after a moment of "sleep" in death, the important thing is still our love for God and neighbor, and "what sort of persons we ought to be." So probably the only thing that we might consider to be different is the idea that the Gentile kings had their day and the times of these nations and their kings ended 103 years ago. This, ironically, is the only prediction that we ever said we got right about 1914 in the first place. So it might end up requiring a bit of humility, but there's nothing wrong with a bit of humility, either.

The general view by the Governing Body is likely that this is exactly what they have been doing for as long as possible, but I'm sure that all or most of them believe they have been doing it for the right reasons. I have no reason to believe that any of the current Governing Body doubt the general idea about 1914, whether or not all of them specifically believe in the Daniel 4 foundation or not. (For many years, Daniel 4 on its own, had nothing to do with the "foundation" for 1914, although it was considered to be a weaker, but still valid, bit of corollary evidence by Russell.) If it were only true. What this "scholarly type," R.Furuli, had done was take the 10 pieces of independent archaeological and historical evidence and not even address 8 of them except with flippant false claims that shows he doesn't even care to research them. He pins all the importance on only ONE of those pieces of evidence, which is odd because 607 as the year when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem is falsified just as easily by the other pieces of evidence without even needing to rely at all on this one piece of evidence. But then, even at that, he comes up with the most convoluted reasons for rejecting this one item: VAT 4956. VAT 4956 is one of several astronomical diaries that would ultimately identify Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year as the year 568/567 BCE, based on the astronomy that fits no other possible year. Of course, if the tablet is correct, then it's the same as saying Nebuchadnezzar's 36th year would be 569/8 BCE, his 35th would be 570/569 BCE on back to his 19th (or 18th) year, which would be 587/6 BCE, which is a year that Jeremiah and 2 Chronicles associate with the destruction of Jerusalem. In other words, it's just another of several items of evidence that consistently fits the "secular" chronology -- which also happens to fit the Biblical chronology, even though these particular bits of Biblical evidence are not accepted by the Watch Tower Society. But even though Furuli grasps at all kinds of straws to invalidate the tablet, most JWs don't even realize that Furuli ADMITS that most of it actually does refer to the date 567 and no other possible date. That is an admission that MOST of this tablet still invalidates the Watch Tower Society's preferred date of 607 BCE for the Temple destruction. He even says that the museum curators might have taken a grinding tool and forged the "37" onto it to look exactly like all the other cuneiform letters that were made when the clay was still wet. Since it's a two-sided piece of clay, he even thinks that one of the two sides might have been faked and didn't originally go together. This is in spite of the fact that he admits that the number 37 on the tablet (in more than one place) is the correct year for most of the readings. He thought he could find some trouble with the lunar readings, based especially on the fact that there is a known copyist's error on the tablet. He admits that he was an amateur when it came to trying to figure out the astronomical readings, but it does not take a genius to try to duplicate his readings and see that his mistakes were worse than amateurish. They have been discussed elsewhere on the site, and so far, everyone who has tried to duplicate them has seen the errors. But as you said: "That's all you need." Unfortunately, this is true for many persons. I think that most of us believe that if someone makes a claim that fits a preconceived notion, it must be true. It's a lot like watching CNN and MSNBC fall over themselves to find new ways to use the phrase "Russia hacked our 2016 election." Very few point out that one of the candidates failed to even visit states where she had a preconceived notion of a sure win.

I haven't invoked the part of this story that involves the "political" powers that have played no small part in keeping the 1914 doctrine written into our own history. But as you already admit that it applies to everything, I will oblige. Not that this has anything to do with real evidence for anything, but for me, it at least counters the common idea that if something is believed by non-Witnesses or ex-Witnesses it must be wrong. In this case, the same evidence I have already presented was also believed by several members of our own Governing Body, and even more members of our own Writing Department, plus at least one Gilead Instructor and at least two respected members of the Service Department. One is a current Governing Body Helper, and another still works in Writing and both still give convention talks, etc. As a New Yorker you are not living too far away from some of those who were close friends of many of the people I mention, and you might have an opportunity to validate any part of what I'll mention below: Daniel Sydlik of the Governing Body once said to me "off the record" that he thought we should just scrap the entire chronology and "start from scratch." I had heard that he had said this to several brothers prior to 1974, and I wanted to know (in 1978) if he still felt that way now that he was on the Governing Body. At the time I was only willing to question the 1918 and 1919 doctrines, and I went to him because I had been told by several people that he dismissed them as fantasy. Ewart Chitty, Ray Franz and Lyman Swingle had also made similar comments even about 1914, not just 1919. I had only heard Lyman Swingle say it personally, but I knew people who said that Chitty and R.Franz had also no longer believed that 1914 was a doctrine we should promote in the way we were doing it. The people who told me this were two of my best friends in Writing and one more very good friend in the Service Department. When Brother Schroeder complained to me about people willing to dismiss 1914, he inadvertently gave me 3 more names in the Writing Department when he said that it included everyone currently in Writing who worked on the Aid Book. The brother who gave my wedding talk, Brother Rusk, was a hard-line loyalist to anything that Fred Franz believed, and he also warned me against my friendship with 3 brothers in Writing, two of whom worked on the Aid Book. I would never have had the nerve to ask why no member of the Governing Body had not stood up to Fred Franz and questioned the chronology doctrines outright. But several members of the Writing Department explained what they thought was happening. And their ideas were consistent: When serious doctrinal issues were being questioned (like chronology) there was very little that could be done prior to 1977 because it didn't matter what the Governing Body thought anyway, because Nathan Knorr and Fred Franz would override it in favor of "conservative" policies and doctrines. Also, neither Grant Suiter nor Milton Henschel ever cared much for scriptural discussions, which was obvious by the way they handled morning worship only as if it were "business reporting." So any scriptural matters were decided by the Oracle (Fred Franz). The Governing Body from 1971 to 1977 was not really a Governing Body yet anyway in the sense that they could actually bring up major doctrinal issues for questioning. Swingle could grumble about 1914, and R.Franz had already done the research for the Aid Book chronology article, but when R.Franz was added to the Governing Body in 1971, it was with Gangas, Greenlees, and Jackson -- and those three just mentioned were 100% supporters of Fred Franz. In 1974, when Sydlik and Schroeder were added and were known wild-cards, it was still at a time when the Governing Body had no authority to decide anything of any consequence. Also, of course, they were added at the same time as Ted Jaracz, Charles Fekel, Karl Klein, and Ewart Chitty were added. Those four were considered to be 100% Fred Franz supporters, even sycophants was the word used of most of them. Chitty admitted to a very close and respected friend of mine that he had grave reservations about 1914, but I have my doubts he would have pushed against the strength of Fred Franz on a doctrinal issue. (Of the last four, Jaracz, Fekel, Klein, and Chitty, I will not break down all the different rumors about each one, but I will say that it might have seemed obvious, based on their histories, that they would always vote with Fred Franz.) Barber, Barr and Poetzinger were added in 1977 and it was assumed by at least one friend in Writing that they filled out an even wider safety net to keep all votes for change from ever reaching 66.67%. I have to say that I knew almost nothing about any of these last three, and they never said anything during morning worship that gave a hint that they might have had preferred views or teachings that they felt were priorities. By the time any dangerous questions could have been asked, Schroeder spearheaded a crack-down on such questions, starting in early 1980, and I even watched him try to position himself as the new "Oracle" in the event that "King Saul" died. (The expression, "That won't change until King Saul dies" was heard as a kind of joke many times in the Writing and Service Department, and it actually referred to someone else before Fred Franz.) Some people were very serious about it, however. At any rate, "King Saul" kept his power by minimizing the work Schroeder was doing throughout the 1980's and sometimes pushing for explanations that were exactly the opposite of what Schroeder proposed. (To be fair Schroeder proposed some fairly odd changes, which I won't get into here and now.) But one of the specific items that Schroeder had proposed was the idea that the "generation" should be seen as the generation of the "anointed." He even went to give talks in Europe promoting this new view. In response, Franz pushed for making it the generation of the "wicked" which actually made more sense in light of some scriptures. Schroeder also pushed one last time on trying to prove that the heart was not just a figurative, but a literal seat of emotion, love, hate, envy, etc. Franz responded with a long Gilead Graduation talk in excruciating detail about the meaning of the liver and fat, and why the fat was forbidden just as blood was forbidden. It seemed very serious, but Schroeder told me what he thought of it.

Yes. Partly 607, and partly the inconsistent views and inconsistencies in translation and explanations surrounding the 70 years desolation and captivities, the 70 years of Babylonian hegemony. Each of these bullet points could probably be expanded into 10 more bullet points, and a lot more scriptures than the ones listed. I'll give just a few examples which would all be included in the first bullet point: The NWT has a fairly obvious mistranslation in Jeremiah 29:10. It has been discussed ad nauseum, but the general view from Hebrew scholars is that we have chosen the word "at" instead of "for" because the more obvious translation would lead people to notice that the verse is directly about Babylon and only indirectly about Judah. Our current doctrine requires the opposite. There was a time when the entire NWT was only translated into a dozen additional languages, and in order to say that these were actual "Bible translations" and not just translations from the English into another language, brothers in a couple countries with Biblical language skills translated directly from Hebrew. Two of these translations came out with the dreaded "for" instead of "at" and had to be changed back to match the NWT English. After many consistent denials of the validity of "for" here, the Isaiah's Prophecy book made use of the exact same point about Babylonian hegemony in the discussion of Tyre. The Insight Book admits that Zechariah 1:12 and 7:4 must have been written almost 90 years after 607 BCE, which would be 90 years after the destruction of Jerusalem, if it had happened in 607. Ten different independent "witnesses" and literally thousands of dated contract documents all combine to provide evidence that it was only 70 years earlier that Jerusalem was destroyed, not 90. Yet, Zechariah 7:4 also indicates that it was only 70 years earlier, showing that Bible history is confirmed by archaeology. This is something that we would normally get excited about, whenever archaeology confirms the Bible record. But in this case we don't say anything because we have a doctrine that has forced us to add 20 years to every date prior to 539, all the way back to the creation of Adam. [edited to add:] Also I had included the reference to Ezra 3 in that initial bullet point because it says that the sound of those who must have been 70-plus-year-olds (per Zechariah) wept with such a loud voice that some people couldn't distinguish the shouts of joy from the weeping. This is far from definitive, but in the Watchtower's theory of events, this would have referred to the sound of the 90-plus-year-olds. If we accept the history from Zechariah 1 & 7, they would have been within the range of the expected life-span, 70-plus. (Psalm 90:10) . . .The span of our life is 70 years, Or 80 if one is especially strong.. . . (Ezra 3:12,13) 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.

Even before C.T.Russell was born, commentaries on Bible prophecy included dozens of potential dates. Nearly 200 years ago, a couple of them even included 1914 as potentially significant time period. The "1914 presence" doctrine, however, is only about 75 years old. All the ideas behind the Watch Tower's version of the 1914 doctrine have already been discussed for decades now, and all of them, so far, have been shown to be problematic from a Scriptural point of view. Since the time that the doctrine generally took its current shape in 1943, the meanings and applications of various portions of Matthew 24 and 25 have already been changed, and the timing of various prophesied events and illustrations have changed. Most recently, the meaning and identification of the "faithful and discreet slave" has changed. And the definition of "generation" has changed about half-a-dozen times. This doesn't mean that the current understandings are impossible, of course, only that it has become less likely from the point of view of reason and reasonableness. Besides, for most of the years of teaching this doctrine, we have had the flexibility of extending the "1914 generation" from a possible 40 years, up to 70, then 75, then 80 years. And this has been applied to teenagers who saw 1914, 10-year-olds who saw 1914, then even newborns who saw 1914. With every one of these options already tried and stretched to their limits, we finally were forced to convert the meaning of generation from its most common meanings and give it a new "strained" meaning that has no other Biblical parallel. (See Exodus 1:6; Matthew 1:17; 16:4; 23:36; Luke 11:50) But that flexibility is still seen as the last reason for hope that the Watch Tower Society might have still been correct in hanging on to 1914. Since the Bible says that a lifespan is 70 or 80 years and 1914 + 80 = 1994, the "generation" doctrine in its original form (1943) could remain stable until about 1994. Of course, a lifespan could technically reach to 120 years or more, and Gen 6:3 even gives vague support to the idea that the "1914 generation" could last 120 years, until 2034. The current alternative solution is to make the generation out of the length of two lifespans, which technically could be double 120 years, or nearly 240 years from 1914. That would have had the potential to reach to the year 2154 (1914+240) except for the caveat that it can, by its new definition, only refer to anointed persons who discerned the sign in 1914 and whose lives overlapped (technically, by as little as one second) with the lifespan of another anointed person representing the second group. If persons from each group don't really discern their own "anointing" until age 20, for example, this would effectively remove 40 years from the overall maximum. 1914+120-20+120-20 = 2114. We could also assume a possible lifespan of more than 120 years, but otherwise, the new two-lifespan generation could potentially make the generation last 200 years. This "technical maximum" is not promoted currently, because for now we look at examples like Fred Franz who was part of that original generation already anointed and who saw the sign, and the typical example of an anointed brother who was apparently "anointed" prior to Franz' death in 1992 would be someone like Governing Body member, Brother Sanderson, who was born in 1965, baptized in 1975, and was already a "special pioneer" in 1991. His is currently 52. However, the generation problem is just one more problem now which we can add onto the list of all the other points that make up the 1914 doctrine. Here are several points related to 1914 that appear problematic from a Scriptural point of view: All evidence shows the 1914 date is wrong when trying to base it on the destruction of Jerusalem. (Daniel 1:1; 2 Chron 36:1-22; Jer 25:8-12; Zech 1:12, 7:4; Ezra 3:10-13) Paul said that Jesus sat at God's right hand in the first century and that he already began ruling as king at that time. (1 Cor 15:25) Jesus said not to be fooled by the idea that wars and rumors of wars would be the start of a "sign" (Matt 24:4,5) Jesus said that the "parousia" would be as visible as lightning (Matt 24:27). He spoke against people who might say he had returned but was currently not visible. (Matt 24:23-26) Jesus said that his "parousia" would come as a surprise to the faithful, not that they would discern the time of the parousia decades in advance. (Matt 24:36-42) Jesus said that the kingdom would not be indicated by "signs" (Luke 17:20, almost any translation except NWT in this case) The "synteleia" (end of all things together) refers to a concluding event, not an extended period of time (Matt 28:20) Jesus was already called ruler, King and even "King of Kings" in the first century. (1 Tim 6:15, Heb 7:2,17; Rev 1:5; 17:14) Wicked, beastly King Nebuchadnezzar's insanity and humiliation does not represent Jesus as the "lowliest one of mankind." (Heb 1:5,6; 2:10,11; Daniel 4:23-25; cf. Heb 2:7; 1 Pet 3:17,18) The demise of a Gentile kingdom cannot rightly represent the time of the rise of the Gentile kingdoms (Daniel 4:26,27) The Gentile kings did not meet their demise in 1914. (Rev 2:25,26) The time assigned to the Gentile Times that Jesus spoke about in Luke 21:24 is already given as 3.5 times, not 7 times (Revelation 11:2,3) The Devil was already brought down from "heaven" in the first century. (1 John 2:14,15; 1 Pet 5:8; Luke 10:18; Heb 2:14) The Bible says that the "last days" began in the first century. (Acts 2:14-20; 2 Tim 3:1-17; 1 Peter 3:3-5; Heb 1:2, almost any translation except NWT in this case.)

We know the reason why some portion of the "times and seasons" in the Hebrew Scriptures were "released" from "his own jurisdiction." You mentioned it when you quoted 1 Peter 1:10-11. It pointed to the time when Jesus would appear, suffer, be glorified, and therefore the time of salvation. would be available through the suffering of Christ, and the glory that would follow. Therefore, Christians KNEW that they were currently in the day of salvation: (Romans 13:11-13) 11 And do this because you know the season, that it is already the hour for you to awake from sleep, for now our salvation is nearer than at the time when we became believers. 12 The night is well along; the day has drawn near. Let us therefore throw off the works belonging to darkness and let us put on the weapons of the light. 13 Let us walk decently as in the daytime,. . . (2 Corinthians 6:1, 2) 6 Working together with him, we also urge you not to accept the undeserved kindness of God and miss its purpose. 2 For he says: “In an acceptable time I heard you, and in a day of salvation I helped you.” Look! Now is the especially acceptable time. Look! Now is the day of salvation. (Revelation 12:10, 11) . . .“Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the Kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God! 11 And they conquered him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their witnessing, and they did not love their souls even in the face of death. From this point on (after Jesus had been given ALL authority in heaven and on earth - Matt 28:18), they trusted that Jehovah had the future times and seasons in his own jurisdiction, and only needed to know that they should keep always on the watch precisely because they could not know the times and seasons. That's why keeping on the watch was always about conduct and faith and never about trying to look into chronology. As you are probably aware, the problem isn't just with the need to create a two-lifespan generation, but everything about the 1914 theory is problematic from a Scriptural point of view: All evidence shows the 1914 date is wrong when trying to base it on the destruction of Jerusalem. (Daniel 1:1; 2 Chron 36:1-22; Jer 25:8-12; Zech 1:12, 7:4; Ezra 3:10-13) Paul said that Jesus sat at God's right hand and already began ruling as king at that time. (1 Cor 15:25) Jesus said not to be fooled by the idea that wars and rumors of wars would be the start of a "sign" (Matt 24:4,5) Jesus said that the parousia would be as visible as lightning (Matt 24:27). He spoke against people who might say he had returned but was not visible. (Matt 24:23-26) Jesus said that his "parousia" would come as a surprise to the faithful, not that they would discern the time of the parousia decades in advance. (Matt 24:36-42) Jesus said that the kingdom would not be indicated by "signs" (Luke 17:20, any translation except NWT in this case) The synteleia (end of all things together) refers to a concluding event, not an extended period of time (Matt 28:20) Jesus was already called King and even "King of Kings" in the first century. (1 Tim 6:15, Heb 7:2,17; Rev 1:5; 17:14) Wicked, beastly King Nebuchadnezzar's insanity and humiliation does not represent Jesus as the "lowliest one of mankind." (Heb 1:5,6; 2:10,11; Daniel 4:23-25; cf. Heb 2:7; 1 Pet 3:17,18) The demise of a Gentile kingdom cannot rightly represent the time of the rise of the Gentile kingdoms (Daniel 4:26,27) The Gentile kings did not meet their demise in 1914. (Rev 2:25,26) The time assigned to the Gentile Times that Jesus spoke about in Luke 21:24 is already given as 3.5 times, not 7 times (Revelation 11:2,3) The Devil was already brought down from "heaven" in the first century. (1 John 2:14,15; 1 Pet 5:8; Luke 10:18; Heb 2:14) The Bible says that the "last days" began in the first century. (Acts 2:14-20; 2 Tim 3:1-17; 1 Peter 3:3-5; Heb 1:2, almost any translation except NWT in this case.) I'll move this point to a new thread, because it appears that it could easily create off-topic discussions.

What else could it be? I think it's almost 100% about trying to second-guess Jehovah's timetable. Closely related to this is the element of pride and hubris in wanting to claim we KNOW something about what Jehovah says is only in his authority to know. Historically, if one looks carefully at the wording used by the most famous (and/or infamous) end-times Bible chronology promoters of the 19th century (including Miller, Barbour, Russell), then it's easy to see that, to them, this was mostly about who really qualified to be the "faithful and wise servant" (or "faithful and discreet slave"). Even the practice of Miller, but especially Barbour and Russell, to plagiarize the work of others before them without giving credit is a part of this goal to gain a following of persons who would recognize them personally as the ones who were faithful and wise, not "foolish virgins." The typical style of mock humility among such "scholarly gentlemen" of the 19th century couldn't allow for them to just claim outright that they were "that faithful and wise servant" so they had to let others claim it for them, while they accepted the title. In the meantime, they would call their opinions about chronology as "food at the proper time" and claim that those who stopped accepting their chronology were the "foolish virgins." Finally, of course, after dropping enough hints, people would address them as "the faithful and wise servant" or often just "that servant."

Hope you will feel welcome to make comments here. There is a lot of misinformation about Russell and sometimes it feels like a losing battle to try to correct the more obvious errors. As you know, that's pretty much what JWs believe, although there are now only a few of Russell's core teachings that are still accepted. Most Bible Students that I know of appear to hold onto the majority of his teachings. Witnesses give Russell the benefit of the doubt when accusations are raised against him, and most of these claims against him turn out to be without any merit. (I must add, however, that some accusations appear to have been dismissed on the say-so of Joseph Rutherford, and we may have given him too much credit.) True. Although Rutherford finally tied this teaching about the Great Pyramid to "Satan." I agree with your first point, and even made the same point earlier. But I have not seen any abundance of evidence that shows that the Great Pyramid is God's witness in Egypt. If you have some time, I'd be happy to join a conversation on that topic.

Yes. Just about everything I've presented here about Matthew 24 (Mark 13 and Luke 21) actually came from various brothers in the Writing Department at Brooklyn Bethel between 1976 and 1982. On my own, I would not have thought about accepting the word of a Bible commentary. At least 4, probably 5, members of the Governing Body held similar views, doubting or rejecting 1914, and at least one more, including a member of the Governing Body that I worked with, held a different view of the "generation." One of his ideas was rejected outright ("the 1957 generation"), and one was finally accepted several years after he began promoting it (the generation of the anointed). I know that a lot of people think of these variations in belief as a wicked form of apostasy, but that's primarily because of a current hierarchical system that isn't transparent about their own discussions and beliefs.

Hmmmm. The first generation could be the generation of fathers who saw 1914, then the generation of their sons who lived long enough to see the spirit-anointed organization work through a governing body in the 1970's. And as long as the spirit-anointed governing body are alive on earth, we are still in the one generation. So we have the Generation of the Father, the Son and the Spirit-Anointed, and the three are ONE Generation. It has a certain "ring" to it!

I don't align myself to a group of men. I seek a valid Christian brotherhood. I can't speak for why others choose the faiths they choose. But I can share my faith. If it is attractive to them, they will seek to learn more. Many people, especially Catholics from your examples, are Catholics because that's how they were raised. But Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses remind them through the process of going out publicly from door to door that there are other options out there, should they seek a change. Some find that attraction through better doctrine, and some through finding a loving Christian brotherhood that excels their current experience. I personally think that JWs are doing the better job in setting the example of managing a worldwide public ministry. But, as you probably know, I would also welcome an adjustment to three or four non-major doctrines. I don't consider them major, although since one of them is our set of chronology doctrines, some JWs might. Even though I don't think they are critical, Jehovah knows that people will always be curious to see if there is some bit of calculating, in-depth research that might reveal the secrets of the ages. But I also know that Witnesses are not "stuck" on these doctrines. We've made terrible, stupid mistakes, and even promoted some false prophecies over these doctrines in the past, but as soon as they are proved false, they are dismissed. In general our belief in a "revealed" end-times chronology is intended to bolster activity and urgency and watchfulness. Perhaps it works for some people. I think it's the wrong motivation, but I don't know that any other motivation would work better for most of us. Also, I'm not one of those Witnesses who judges the members of others religions as deserving of death at Armageddon. I fully expect that it's more likely that all "religion" as organizations will break down during the Great Tribulation. But the ways in which an organization would remain united under such conditions will favor those individuals who came out of organizations that prepared and anticipated the troubles in some way.

I think you have the essence pretty much correct. What sort of persons we ought to be is a much higher priority than our exact doctrinal beliefs. Witnesses believe this even if most of us don't say it out loud because we know that even the Watch Tower Society under Russell and Rutherford and Knorr and Franz had hundreds of doctrines wrong, but we don't judge them as having been judged harshly by Jehovah. We also believe that billions who have lived and died in the past in every religion on earth will be resurrected to an opportunity to live forever. But we know that Jehovah considers only two teachings to be of the highest priority: love of God and love of neighbor. He is not concerned with specific works, or works at all. Jehovah is concerned with our motivation, and if our motivation is love of God and love of neighbor, then proper "works" will follow naturally. Here's how good doctrine ("healthful teaching") will follow. Our love of God makes us want to know more about him. We would expect him to have made himself known without excess difficulty. As Paul says in Romans: (Romans 10:6-8) 6 But the righteousness resulting from faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ that is, to bring Christ down, 7 or, ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ that is, to bring Christ up from the dead.” 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your own mouth and in your own heart”; that is, “the word” of faith, which we are preaching. So the "word" is near to us. If we listen closely with a desire to know God better, we will hear it being preached, we will find Bibles and books that comment on the Bible. Our desire to know God better will ultimately lead to an attraction to the teachings that make the most sense overall, those that let us know what God's will is, those that let us know the "mind of Christ." Sufficient accuracy of doctrine will follow from our love of God. In trying to imitate our God, we will be motivated to do good for others. Thus spreads Christianity!