JW Insider

35 minutes ago, Melinda Mills said:

You must have put a great deal of time into this research. Very much appreciated.

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.

39 minutes ago, Melinda Mills said:

Though you make your points very well in this dissertation, I still believe, that the previous understanding can go alongside this without doing much harm because as you well pointed out:

“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.”

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.

On 11/15/2016 at 5:17 PM, The Librarian said:

It is better to leave the information up so as to squash the false rumor for the next 1000 people.

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.

6 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

prepping us in the meetings for the BIG ANNOUNCEMENT next year or so which everyone can see coming

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.)

9 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

The idea that a chronology dependant on the corroboration of secular academia would be essential to our faith seems to me to violate the principle at 2Tim 3:16-17. So either side of a debate for or against the significance of the year 1914 on that basis seems (also to me) to be only of mild interest.

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.

10 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

However, the application of Matt.24, Mk.13, Lu.21, Rev.6 (Horsemen), 2Tim.3:1-5 etc., to events and conditions since the early part of the 20th Century and the tying of these to the arrival Satan and his "angels" to eke out their desperate "short period of time" after their humiliating, heavenly defeat as described in Rev.12:12 is entirely plausible to me, and of far more interest than anything I have heard yet, au contraire.

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.

2 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Did not Micaiah predict defeat? Did this not happen once the King fell?

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

8 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

Which prophets of God prophesied something that did not come true? 

I need more clarification as to how you tie this to false teachings and false doctrine. Are you saying that false teachings were accepted because there are those written about in the Bible who ridiculed prophesies and then they did come true? If this is the case, please provide examples where the false teachings because true at some point (which wouldn't make them false teachings).  

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. . . .

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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. 

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?

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I think of the expression 'it is the victors that write history.' It is a political statement regarding world powers, but it applies to everything.

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.

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If this is a reference to 607 (it is not JWI's fault if I do not do my homework), I think of the expression 'it is the victors that write history.' It is a political statement regarding world powers, but it applies to everything.

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. [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.
    

On 6/19/2017 at 7:55 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

And we can also be very interested in those "times and seasons that the Father has not placed in, or has released from, "his own jurisdiction". (There is ample evidence of this in the Hebrew Scriptures).

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.

On 6/19/2017 at 7:55 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

Also by Peter at 1Pet.1:10-11: "Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the undeserved kindness meant for you made a diligent inquiry and a careful search.  They kept on investigating what particular time or what season the spirit within them was indicating concerning Christ as it testified beforehand about the sufferings meant for Christ and about 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.

On 6/19/2017 at 7:55 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

Now (with respect) don't you overstep either. This refers to " the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction".

There's absolutely nothing wrong in being interested in these times and seasons, as long as we try to avoid (with difficulty on occasion) the snare of second guessing Jehovahs timetable.

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."

2 hours ago, Ronald Day Senior said:

I will first state that I am not with the Jehovah's Witnesses, but am a Bible Student as was Russell. Russell was never a member of the JW organization, and that organization did not exist while he was alive; indeed, he preached against such authoritarianism.

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.

2 hours ago, Ronald Day Senior said:

I do believe, however, that God did make use of Brother Russell to restore many truths from the Bible that had been distorted by man's dogma, and thus Satan has influenced many to produce a lot of false accusations against Brother Russell that would discourage others from reading what he wrote, except perhaps to find something that may be distorted to bring forth some kind of accusation against him.

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.) 

2 hours ago, Ronald Day Senior said:

Russell's study of God's Witness in Egypt in connection with the Bible had nothing to do with such occultism.

True. Although Rutherford finally tied this teaching about the Great Pyramid to "Satan."

2 hours ago, Ronald Day Senior said:

Also contrary to the false accusations, Russell did not teach that "the pyramids in Egypt are divine omens." Russell's interest was in one pyramid, the Great Pyramid. His only interest in the other pyramids was to show their inferiority and differences between them and the Great Pyramid. Nowhere does Russell make reference to the Great Pyramid as some kind of divine omen, although he did believe that the Great Pyramid contains corroborations of the Bible, even as the fact that Egypt's and Israel's existence in this day are also corroborations of the Bible. I also believe that the Great Pyramid is God's witness in Egypt, for I cannot ignore the abundance of evidence that supports this conclusion.

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.

13 hours ago, PeterR said:

You probably are aware that many students of the Bible have reached identical (or very similar) conclusions based on an unhindered reading of God's Word.

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.

11 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

we have already defined one generation as really being two generations that overlap... two, yet one ...uh ... so ... as the time runs out  having ALREADY established this principle ... we can make a THIRD generation overlap, and it STILL be one

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!

2 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

What I do not grasp is how anyone can align themselves to a group or group of men who's foundation is based upon incorrect teachings of doctrine. Its like saying that the Baha’i faith, if they are good people then the foundation of their beliefs will come around. Is Mormons are just good people, then after a while their doctrines will just fall into place? Catholics too? See my point.

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.

7 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

I'm sorry but I just cannot accept this part of your post in all honesty. In an essence you're saying "just go along and be a good person, nevermind if the foundation of your beliefs are all outta whack, it'll work itself out." 

The doctrines of a belief is the foundations of that said belief. You even eluded to this in a different post. 

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!

7 hours ago, Anna said:

If we assume the meaning of the generation is the same as in 70 CE, then should we be expecting some other significant sign (other than what has happened since 1914) to which the "this generation will by no means pass away until THOSE THINGS happen" would apply? What things could they be?

This is a follow-up because I remember I never tried to address a very good question you had about the fig tree under another topic:

(Matthew 24:32-34) . . .“Now learn this illustration from the fig tree: Just as soon as its young branch grows tender and sprouts its leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 Likewise also you, when you see all these things, know that he is near at the doors. 34 Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.

This was right after Jesus had reached the main point of his answer. Again, Jesus had been asked for a sign of his visitation (parousia) which to them meant, essentially, "the end of the world" and the ushering in of the Kingdom. The first words out of Jesus were "Don't be fooled" because there are a lot of things you might think of as signs (wars, rumors of wars, etc.) but this is not a sign of the end. ("but the end is not yet"). The most direct answer, then, to the disciples' question is the verse where Jesus tells them what the true sign really is: "THE SIGN of the Son of man in heaven" that is immediately preceded by "signs" in the sun, moon and stars:

(Matthew 24:29-31) 29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity.

The order of each of these statements is probably not as important as we have made them out to be in the past. We used to split up Matthew 24 into three parts and claim that certain parts meant the generation of 70, certain parts meant the generation of 1914, and certain parts meant both. This is proven to be untrue and untenable by the accounts in Mark and Luke, which is probably part of the reason for the change in the Insight book already shown above.

But after Jesus makes statements about what the sign is NOT, and then makes the above statements about what the sign IS, Jesus also provides a summary conclusion, a kind of moral of what they should now learn from the answer he gave, and what this means in a practical way. It seems that Jesus' conclusion also makes a good answer to the initial question of the disciples. Note:

QUESTION:

(Matthew 24:3) 3 While he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately, saying: “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?”

SUMMARY ANSWER:

(Matthew 24:36-44) 36 “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. 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. 42 Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. 43 “But know one thing: If the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it.

And then Jesus gave some more illustrations and examples about how the disciples should prove themselves faithful and discreet under those circumstances.

Working backward from that "summary" answer Jesus gave, his audience would come to the same conclusion about why wars, famine, earthquakes, etc, were NOT part of the sign they asked for.

At any rate, I think this is the best context in which to understand why Jesus would say what he said about the "fig tree." It seems that Jesus is saying this as another way to answer to their question about how to determine the "sign" that all these things will happen. But it's now in the context of how they would ask the question in the context of the full answer that Jesus has given them. So "all these things" could very well include the wars, earthquakes, food shortages, pestilence, and of course, finally, the fearful signs in the heavens. All these things will be looked at over this "season" that they are in, and they would want to know which of them is a real sign, and which isn't. So Jesus has given them a way to understand the "season" they are in -- the generation living between right then and the final destruction of Jerusalem as the center of Jewish worship. These things would take place, but it didn't mean "the end" that they were asking about (his parousia/visitation) would occur immediately.

That is the idea that Luke gives when you read Jesus' answer in Luke 21. Look especially at 21:10.

There are other possibilities, of course, but this way of looking at it does not conflict so much with the current understanding in the Watchtower, where the main difference is that for the "1914 generation" the "parousia" is started at that time. But Jesus answered the question to the disciples about when the parousia would be visited upon the stones of the Temple grounds in Jerusalem. It seems reasonable that Jesus answered that question for them. In fact, the disciples, called that prediction about the Temple stones coming down as "these things." To them, THAT was the "parousia." The judgment visitation, the visible manifestation from the heavens that would be the same as the sun and moon no longer giving their light, and the stars falling. But Jesus said there was no sign that could help them prepare for that, because it would come as a thief. However, he did let them know they were in the season, and that when all things up to and including the fearful signs in the heavens occurred, that they should know that Jesus was near.

7 hours ago, Anna said:

10 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Therefore we would expect that the definition of the word was the same for both historical contexts.

My thoughts too. But then how do the "signs of the times" fit in? If we assume the meaning of the generation is the same as in 70 CE, then should we be expecting some other significant sign (other than what has happened since 1914) to which the "this generation will by no means pass away until THOSE THINGS happen" would apply? What things could they be?

The "signs of the times" are EXACTLY the same in both contexts.

But as you already know, I still read that portion of Matthew 24 in the same way that Charles Taze Russell and dozens of other Bible commentators have read it: That Jesus was asked for a sign of the end times, and he told them not to be fooled by things like wars, earthquakes, food shortages, because all these things would happen just as they always have. He said not to be fooled because these types of "signs" were not going to help them understand the time of his visitation (parousia). It would come as unexpectedly as a thief in the night, and a thief doesn't give a sign of his coming.

The part that Russell ignored was that Jesus also said that no one should say that Jesus had already returned, but that you just can't see him, because when he returns, his parousia will be as visible and as suddenly unexpected as lightning that shines from one horizon all the way to the other.

This is why Jesus built up to the point where he said, the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heaven will be shaken. "THEN THE SIGN of the Son of Man will appear in heaven."

8 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I'm only going to quote the Insight article on the subject which says of Jesus:

"However, he was also using the word “generation” with reference to humans whose lives would in some way be associated with the foretold events during his presence."

I thought it might be useful to note the differences in the printed version of the Insight article, and the recently updated online version of the Insight article. Words from the original Insight article that are no longer included in the updated version are highlighted in bold/red. Words added only to the updated version are highlighted in bold/blue :

The primary correction being made here is very vague about the definition of "generation" because the Insight book was already being written at a time when the doctrine was in flux.

The actual reason for the correction is that this portion of Matthew 24 was temporarily seen as ONLY applying to a future generation, not the generation that Jesus was speaking to, which was a generation that would see the fulfillment in 37 years. Note that both articles are the same in the beginning portion, quoted below, that was left out at the point where the ellipses were placed in the quotes above:

When Bible prophecy speaks of “this generation,” it is necessary to consider the context to determine what generation is meant. Jesus Christ, when denouncing the Jewish religious leaders, concluded by saying: “Truly I say to you, All these things will come upon this generation.” History recounts that about 37 years later (in 70 C.E.) that contemporary generation personally experienced the destruction of Jerusalem, as foretold.—Mt 23:36.

What the original was saying was that although the context of Matthew 24 speaks of "this generation" twice, once in Matthew 23:36 and once in Matthew 24:34, they mean something different in both cases, so you have to look at the context. The printed version of the Insight book is saying that only Matthew 23:36 refers to the 37-year generation of Jesus' day ending in 70 C.E., but when Jesus says almost the same thing again in Matthew 24:34, then this time he is referring only to the future "1914" generation. Note where the words "however" and "also" are added and omitted in the two versions.

In the updated online version, Insight is now saying that Jesus was simultaneously referring to both historical contexts at the same time: 70 C.E. which saw the end of the Jewish system of things,  and ALSO the generation that sees the end of the entire system of things at the end of his parousia. 

The value of this updated point is that we now have the backing of the Watch Tower publications to show that Jesus used the same word for both contexts. Therefore we would expect that the definition of the word was the same for both historical contexts.

For example, it seemed that Jesus had told that generation that they (or at least many of them) would experience the tribulation upon Jerusalem in their own lifetime because the end would come upon that generation. Now if it had taken 140 years instead of 37, then we might rightly look for an interpretation of "generation" that could be stretched somehow to two lifetimes. But if the end of the Jewish system really had come in 173 C.E. (instead of 70) and we knew that Jesus was referring to a two-lifetime generation, then what right would we have to claim that Jesus could ONLY be referring to a 40 to 70 year generation in the case of the "1914 generation"? If another religion was teaching such an inconsistency, we would obviously deride them for their lack of ability in "handling the word of truth aright." (2 Tim 2:15)