JW Insider

No it is not! You just want it to be so as to fit your alternate interpretation (which, admittedly, is very interesting). παρουσία (parousi'a) is the noun of the verb πάρειμι (pa'rimi) which is a composite word from παρά (preposition with various meanings, in this case the meaning is "beside") and εἰμί (verb, I am) and so we have a literal meaning of "being beside, being with" or as it is commonly translated "being present". Therefore the noun would be "presence". Although it is true that the word has been used by ancient authors to describe a royal or official visitation there is no reason at all to presume that this was the intended meaning in the Bible. From the previous link to Liddell-Scott you can also follow the citations and you will see that there is no mention or even hint in the ancient texts of a "parade-like spectacle". The citations of Euripides and Sophocles are translated in English so you can read them and see that they are refering to a simple visit. Please bare also in mind that in Greek there is no other word for "presence". So, in my view, to use your definition of "royal visitation" to support the "visibility" or incontestability of Christ's presence is simply not accurate. I don't want it to be the more likely definition. It causes embarrassing problems for us that are difficult to explain or avoid. But it certainly is the more likely definition when the term in the noun form, "parousia," is used of a king or royal personage. Of course, the more common use of the term, when speaking of non-dignitaries, would simply be "presence." You said: "Please bare also in mind that in Greek there is no other word for 'presence'." This implies that it would be difficult to say things like, "they were in the presence of Jesus" without using the term "parousia" and therefore the term could just as easily (or more easily) refer to the common definition of "presence." So how would we be able to know if the form, "the parousia of Jesus," or "the parousia of [dignitary]" was referring to a common presence or a "royal visitation" event? Wouldn't it always be ambiguous? But there is actually plenty of evidence that the form "THE PAROUSIA OF . . . " would more likely define a royal visitation event, when used of a royal personage. And for us, the most important of that evidence is in the Bible itself. First of all there are many other ways to indicate "presence" without using the word "parousia" in Greek. In fact, the verb form is an obvious way to avoid ambiguity. Of course, context provides the best clues. We can always look and see if the term "parousia" is ever used in the Bible of a royal personage, person of high or powerful rank, dignitary, etc and check whether the context provides any clues about a "spectacular" event or not. You probably already know what the answer would be from context, and I don't think these are just coincidences, because they almost always lead to the conclusion that a "spectacular event" is implied in the context. A similar term in the Greco-Roman world that had both a common and a royal definition was "triumph" which evidently started out in this case as a term for a special kind of parade, but which also was used in a more mundane way to refer to any kind of success or acheivement. There are inscriptions and depictions of various "triumph" parades from contemporary stone images and writings: The word triumph comes to us from Latin, but its usual meaning in that language is not the one we commonly give to it in English. To the ancient Romans, a triumphus was a parade celebrating a great military victory. The victorious general would ride a chariot through the streets of Rome to the steps of the Senate, a slave standing beside him holding a crown of laurels over his head. The general’s army would follow, leading the defeated enemy commander, captured slaves, and great wagons of spoils from the victory. The day was a holiday and the entire city would turn out to cheer, to feast, and to drink. Roman poets also used the word triumphus to refer to the victory itself, as did later prose writers in Imperial Rome. But this second sense was relatively rare in Latin, and the word usually referred only to the processional and accompanying celebrations. (from wordorigins.org) Clearly, if there were any ambiguity about whether a royal triumph or a common triumph were meant, the context would take care of it, or another term for success could distinguish the mundane meaning. Another answer to the claim that there is no other word for "presence" is that the idea of "presence" is already implied in the context of many verbs and phrases so that the term is not usually necessary at all in the Greek. Look at some pairs of verses below to see what I mean: (Matthew 3:13) Then Jesus came from Galʹi·lee to the Jordan to John, in order to be baptized by him. (Matthew 3:13) Then Jesus came from Galʹi·lee to the Jordan [until his presence before] John, in order to be [present to be] baptized by him. (Matthew 8:18, 19) . . .When Jesus saw a crowd around him, he gave the command to depart for the other side. 19 And a scribe came up and said to him: . . . (Matthew 8:18, 19) . . .When Jesus [found himself in the presence of a] crowd around him, he gave the command to depart [so that they would then be present on] other side. 19 And a scribe came up [so that he was in the presence of Jesus] and said to him: . . . (Matthew 26:69) . . .“You too were with Jesus the Gal·i·leʹan!” (Matthew 26:69) . . .“You too were [known to be in the presence of] Jesus the Gal·i·leʹan!” (Matthew 18:20) 20 For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst.” (Matthew 18:20) 20 For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am [present] in their midst.” So it shouldn't be surprising that the term parousia is rarely used of anyone in the Bible. But this makes it all the more curious that only one gospel writer ever uses it, and the one that does, of course, is Matthew who uses it only 4 times. Every one of the times Mathew uses the term, it is about the Parousia of Jesus, never anyone else. One of the four times, it's the disciples asking Jesus about the Parousia after Jesus has just described a spectacular judgment event. The other three times, it was in Jesus' answer where Jesus speaks of it as "The Parousia of the Son of Man." Jesus always describes it in the context of a spectacular judgment event. You also said: "Although it is true that the word has been used by ancient authors to describe a royal or official visitation there is no reason at all to presume that this was the intended meaning in the Bible." There are very good reasons to presume this was the intended meaning. Matthew, the only gospel writer who uses the term "parousia," actually describes Jesus' entry into Jerusalem in the same terms that would remind Greek readers of a parade-like "parousia." (Matthew 21:4-9) 4 This actually took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet, who said: 5 “Tell the daughter of Zion: ‘Look! Your king is coming to you, mild-tempered and mounted on a donkey, yes, on a colt, the offspring of a beast of burden.’” 6 So the disciples went and did just as Jesus had instructed them. 7 They brought the donkey and its colt, and they put their outer garments on them, and he sat on them. 8 Most of the crowd spread their outer garments on the road, while others were cutting down branches from the trees and spreading them on the road. 9 Moreover, the crowds going ahead of him and those following him kept shouting: “Save, we pray, the Son of David! Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name! Save him, we pray, in the heights above!” The royal parousia event in the Greco-Roman Hellenistic world was known to be a bit more flamboyant. Discussions of such events have spoken of crowds coming out to see and cheer, the fixing of the roads so that the "king" (emperor, dignitary, etc) had a smooth path, and it could be accompanied by trumpets and fanfare from an entourage of persons dressed in white robes, and could even include a public event where the dignitary could sit in judgment to showcase his power. The "entourage" associated with the term Parousia may even be the reason for including the mention of the trumpet sound and the angels when describing the spectacular judgment event. (Matthew 24:30, 31) . . .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. (Matthew 25:31, 32) 31 “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, . . . You also said: "From the previous link to Liddell-Scott you can also follow the citations and you will see that there is no mention or even hint in the ancient texts of a "parade-like spectacle". The citations of Euripides and Sophocles are translated in English so you can read them and see that they are refering to a simple visit." Several of the Liddell-Scott definitions are related to something more than a simple visit, including the "royal visitation": 2. arrival, ἡμῶν κοινόπουν π. S.El.1104, cf. E.Alc.209, Th.1.128 ; “εἰς Ἰταλίαν” D.H.1.45 ; esp. visit of a royal or official personage, βασιλέως, etc., PTeb.48.14 (ii B. C.), IPE12.32A85 (Olbia, iii B.C.), etc.; of a god, IG42(1).122.34(Epid.). 3. occasion, v.l. in S. El.1251. 4. π. τισὶ ποιεῖσθαι entertain them on their official visits, OGI139.9 (Philae, ii B.C.). 5. in NT, the Advent, Ev.Matt.24.27, al. The citations from Euripides and Sophocles use language from upwards of 500 years earlier. The special use of the term Parousia may not even have generally developed at that point. Even if it already had, remember that the term only carries the special meaning when the context is about the official parousia of a royal or official personage, or of a god. The term should be translated as merely presence or arrival in these other cases. Notice from the Liddell-Scott entries that the special use begins to show up more from later authors, per their references. Better sources for the meaning would be contemporary sources to the Greek Scriptures. Therefore, a better set of resources to start with might be the ones referenced in this book which has a preview on Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=fj1R9Z4uIzAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false I might type out some of it, or at least I'll snap a screenshot of parts of page 150 and 151, another quote comes from page 158: A further source of background material that has bearing on our study is found when one explores the meaning and use of the term parousia before and during the New Testament period. The word means "presence" or "arrival." From the Ptolemaic period to the second century A.D. there is clear evidence that the term was used for the arrival of a ruler, king or emperor. The Latin equivalent was adventus. For instance, a third-century B.C. papyrus refers to a crown of gold to be presented to a king at his parousia.6 Or again a parousia of King Ptolemy the Second (circa 113 B.C.), who called himself soter, is expected and it is said "the provision of 80 artabae ... was imposed for the tou Basileos parousian...."7Such examples from both the Hellenistic and Roman periods could be multiplied. For example, in memory of the visit of Nero to Corinth, special adventus/parousia coins were cast that read Adventus aug[usti] Cor[inthi].8 These coins were cast during the general period when Paul was writing to Corinth (1 Cor 15:23). Equally interesting is the evidence G. D. Kilpatrick has collected showing that "parousia" often was the Hellenistic term for a theophany.9 For instance, in the Greek form of the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, at Testament of Judah 22:3(2) and Testament of Levi 8:15(11), we find it used to refer to the final coming of God. Josephus uses the term parousia for the divine appearances in the Old Testament theophanies (Ant. 3.80, 202-3; 9.55; compare 18.284). Of perhaps equal importance is another sort of "sacral" use of the term, found in an inscription from the Asclepion at Epidaurus, which reads tan tep[a]rousian tan auto [p]arenephanize ho Asklapio-"and Asclepius manifested his parousia"10 (compare 2 Thess 2:8). It is important to realize that one should not make too sharp a distinction between the sacred and the profane use of parousia, not least because by Paul's time the emperor was already being given divine status of a sort. E. Best puts it this way: These two usages are not so far apart as might seem for court and sacral language are closely linked. It is difficult to believe that those who used the term in the Hellenistic world were unaware of this significance.... The word then was chosen to express the concept in Greek because it carried the nuance of movement and probably, ... because it carried from Hellenistic culture the idea of a ceremonial visit of a ruler to his people which would be for them a joyful occasion. (p. 158) It is probable that Paul is drawing on the secular parousia imagery, for when a king went to visit a city his herald would go before him to the city walls to announce with trumpet blast and audible words the coming of the king. It might even include the "cry of command" to open up the city gates so as to let the visiting monarch in (compare the use of this tradition in the entrance liturgy in Ps 24:7-10). This suggestion becomes more than a conjecture when we point out that in I Thessalonians 4:17 Paul refers to the apantesin. Cicero, in the course of his description of Julius Caesar's tour through Italy in 49 B.C., says, "Just imagine what apanteseis he is receiving from the towns, what honors are paid to him" (Ad. Att. 8.16.2; compare 16.11.6 of Octavian). This word refers to the action of the greeting committee that goes out to meet the king or dignitary at his parousia who is paying an official visit to the town, and escort him back into the town on the final part of his journey. "These analogies (especially in association with the term parousia) suggest the possibility that the Lord is pictured here as escorted the remainder of his journey to earth by his people both those newly raised from the dead and those who have remained alive." Thessalonica, a Hellenistic town founded by the Macedonian king Cassander, was a free city within the Roman Empire from 42 B.C. The recipients of l Thessalonians would surely have been familiar with what Paul was implying by the use of the secular Hellenistic language of a parousia. ---- end of quote ---- I highlighted (bolded) the portion about giving a crown to the king at a parousia event because of what Paul says: (1 Thessalonians 2:19, 20) For what is our hope or joy or crown of exultation before our Lord Jesus at his presence? Is it not in fact you? You certainly are our glory and joy. One of those references was from the "Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs" -- Testament of Judah 22:1-3. And the Lord shall bring upon them divisions one against another. And there shall be continually wars in Israel; And among men of another race shall my kingdom be brought to an end, Until the salvation of Israel shall come, Until the PAROUSIA of the God of righteousness, That Jacob and all the Gentiles may rest in peace. And He shall guard the might of my kingdom for ever; For the Lord sware to me with an oath that He would not destroy the kingdom from my seed for ever.

If this sounds like letting off steam, I apologize. It's sometimes difficult to state a case against something that might be "strongly entrenched" without trying to cover a lot of details. If it is men we are trying to please then the most prudent thing we can do is keep our mouth shut and wait. This is an interesting problem. I had started responding to a post @Eoin Joyce where I think he disagreed that it could be a sign of love to speak up against an official doctrine, because people could be stumbled or misuse our words. Of course, I don't think that questioning doctrines is related to stumbling, because "questioning" is exactly what we are trained to do. Most of our publications teach us to answer questions about doctrines, and our primary training is for the purpose of responding to questions about doctrine. And I would agree that a format like this is conducive to any kind of doctrinal questioning, because my questions are not so different from questions I have heard asked by respectable persons at Bethel, and apostates alike. We don't interact directly with apostates, but that is no reason to avoid the same questions they have asked. Jesus answered the challenges of the greatest apostate of all. On the question of whether it is a sign of love, we could ask if it can ever be a sign of love to be vocal about disagreements we have with the doctrines of Christendom, such as Trinity and Hell-fire? Perhaps it's not love in every context. We wouldn't want to stand out in front of churches to condemn their false doctrines, because this is probably a form of hate speech. But I think it would be proper in a context where people seek out a specific topic online where questions are brought up about those issue for discussion. I sometimes wonder what a Christian Bible Student in Rutherford's day should have done if they began to realize that the Pyramid studies were false, and even to some extent "dishonest." Russell never stopped believing in the Pyramids for his entire life, and Rutherford spent most of his Watchtower career believing and defending these teachings, too, until he finally began to identify them as 'teachings of demons.' Would it have been right to speak up? Obviously not in every context, but there were Bible Students discussing this issue long before Rutherford made up his mind. My great grandmother and great grandfather had an argument over this very issue when they were "Chicago Bible Students" before becoming Jehovah's Witnesses. Of course, the question assumes that the question comes from the correct side of the equation. What if we are questioning something that turns out to be true, and we are trying to defend something that turns out to be false? Yet, this is exactly what the Beroeans were doing that made them more noble-minded than the Thessalonians. They were questioning what was already true. Paul later told those Thessalonians to "Make sure of all things." If we are questioning a doctrine and we receive evidence that we are questioning something that is true, then evidence will speak for itself (unless we are stubborn and haughty). But if we receive no evidence, or untrue claims instead of evidence, we will likely continue questioning. If a person receives evidence that the questions are "out of place" and persists in such questions, I think this is what causes divisions. The questioner is probably out of line and may even need discipline but this does not automatically result in "stumbling" of others, either. After all, a good question will usually result in a good answer, whether about a belief, a practice, a tradition, etc.: (1 Corinthians 11:17-19) . . .. 18 For first of all, I hear that when you come together in a congregation, divisions exist among you; and to an extent I believe it. 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident. By the way, I never heard that the Swedish brother became an atheist. His website is still very pro-Christianity, and pro-Bible. (Although I disagree with several ideas on his site.) Also, he never published anything until after he was disfellowshipped. I might have any recent changes in his story wrong, but I had the impression he waited patiently while he assumed his manuscript was going to be responded to. When I was at Bethel no one wanted to touch it and it mostly stayed on a shelf for a couple of years. (Allen was right, by the way, the first edition of his book was not that much different from the last manuscript that Bethel had while he was still a JW.) No one wanted the assignment to respond to it. Most of the time the only concern was what to do about him in case he decided to start spreading his research around. The brother I did research for at Bethel (B.S.) wanted him disfellowshipped right away just in case. The year I traveled to Europe with this brother, B.S., (1978) he went to see about doing that very thing. I do agree that it is very sad, but I had the impression he would still be a Witness if he hadn't questioned, he wasn't dismissed for publishing a book, because he hadn't done that yet. Many ex-JWs do become atheists, though, from what I have heard. That's sadder. I think it makes it much harder to come back. I was told about an ex-ex-JW who attended a small church for a while and realized it was not what he figured it would be and he came back.

That's probably because we agree that Jesus' Parousia culminates in an execution of judgment. But there is still a legitimate question about whether we can claim that any kind of bright, shining, surprising, unannounced Parousia event actually shined like a great, worldwide, highly visible lightning flash in 1914. That's the core issue of the Parousia, Jesus did not say the end of the Parousia would be like lightning. He did not say that the Parousia would include a time that would be like lightning. Instead, Jesus said his PAROUSIA would be just like lightning! (Matthew 24:27) For just as the lightning comes out of the east and shines over to the west, so the PAROUSIA of the Son of man will be. (Luke 21:22) Then he said to the disciples: “Days will come when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, but you will not see it. 23 And people will say to you, ‘See there!’ or, ‘See here!’ Do not go out or chase after them. 24 For just as lightning flashes from one part of heaven to another part of heaven, so the Son of man will be in his day. I'm aware that we have changed our explanation of what the "lightning" means several times over our history, but the most important point to me is that Jesus placed this phrase immediately after explaining that you should not believe anyone who claims that Jesus is actually here or there, it's just that you can't see him right now. There is not enough information in these two passages to prove one way or another that there is any significance in comparing the plural "days of the Son of man" with the singular "day of the Son of man." But there is perfect consistency in this idea that we could see in Luke 21 both here in vs 22, then in the discussion of Noah in vss 26-28, and again when discussing Lot in vss 29-30. In our traditional view, both the plural days are and the singular day refer to the Parousia, although Luke never mentions the Parousia, per se. Matthew appears to be not as consistent because he says, that the Parousia is like the days of Noah and later that it is like the day the Flood came: Matthew 24:37 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. So this could be argued to mean that the PAROUSIA is like both the days (of Noah's "generation"), and the day (of judgment). Luke implies that it refers to the judgment, but since Luke (nor Mark) use the word Parousia, we can't really make an argument from these particular verses of Matthew. The fact that it is tied to both "days" and "day" means to me that the Parousia will come as a surprise just like it did on one swift and surprising "day" during the "days" of Noah. Jesus could have said "they took no note" but he didn't. He could have made a point that Noah was a preacher of righteousness, but he didn't. He could have spoken of the ark as a "sign" that lasted for years, but he didn't. Instead, Jesus only said that it took the generation completely by surprise; they were unaware. So he was focusing on that aspect of surprise instead of the point about Noah and his family surviving. We saw that from the parallel of Lot and Sodom, too. I still agree that it was another important aspect of the experience of Noah and Lot that they were "on the watch" as it were, but it wasn't what Jesus was trying to highlight in Matthew and Luke. At any rate, we can't make the argument directly from Matthew 24:3-39 that the Parousia refers more specifically to the "revelation" and "appearance" and "judgment" at the end of the generation. But we can make that argument from the other passages about the Parousia and the judgment elsewhere in Mathew and the rest of the Greek Scriptures, if we let scripture explain scripture. I'll let the "lightning" passage suffice for now, however. It is the more likely definition of the term parousia (parade-like spectacle of a royal visitation) that is the primary reason for it. But the reading of Matthew 24 in its entirety also makes perfect sense with that more likely definition. Certain passages about visibility and lightning are especially key to this assumption. But the primary theme is concern for a sign with reference to the coming of Christ in his Kingdom. I read what Jesus said about the sign as something consistent with the many times Jesus repeated that no specific sign would be seen. A large theme in Matthew 24 is a near parallel to a prior shorter passage in Matthew 16 in this regard: (Matthew 16:3-28) . . .. 4 A wicked and adulterous generation keeps seeking a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Joʹnah.” . . . 27 For the Son of man is to come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will repay each one according to his behavior. 28 Truly I say to you that there are some of those standing here who will not taste death at all until first they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom.” This doesn't mean that they shouldn't already be able to observe the signs of the "generation" they are in (summer, fig tree) but there are not supposed to be signs of his Parousia. That would contradict the very point of it coming as a surprise. They were aware that they were privileged to witness the appearance of the "Son of man" himself, and that this heightened their desire to stay on the watch for a foreshadowing, something like a vision, of the coming of Jesus into his Kingdom. This time element was enough. They knew that the watch would begin when Jesus "went away" but would be required especially until his "return" for the first part of the predicted judgment on Jerusalem: (Matthew 23:36-39) 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. 39 For I say to you, you will by no means see me from now until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name!’” (Luke 21:22) “Days will come when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, but you will not see it. (Matthew 13:16, 17) 16 “However, happy are your eyes because they see and your ears because they hear. 17 For truly I say to you, many prophets and righteous men desired to see the things you are observing but did not see them, and to hear the things you are hearing but did not hear them. (also Luke 10:23, 24) (Mark 8:12, 13) 12 So he sighed deeply in his spirit and said: “Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly I say, no sign will be given to this generation.” 13 With that he left them, got aboard again, and went to the opposite shore. (Mark 8:38) 38 For whoever becomes ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of man will also be ashamed of him when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”

This report is false, and no alleged "hidden camera and surveillance footage" documenting voter fraud is actually viewable on the site. The screenshot that accompanies the article was actually taken from BBC news footage about alleged vote fraud in Russia, not the United States: -- http://www.snopes.com/leaked-videos-clinton-voter-fraud/ Hillary Clinton might be one of the two most corrupt politicians in the (United States) news right now, but this particular report appears to be completely fake. That sometimes means that more people will believe it, because it appeals to something people want to believe. If people don't want to believe something, no amount of evidence ever seems to help.

What was the point of the foul language in the title? A small warning about foul language in the video itself should have been sufficient, I'd think. That said, I was surprised the brother walked back into the fray to pick up something. Methinks he might have grown up on these same streets himself.

But has it already been "brought to nothing"? (Another teaching that was assigned to the beginning of the 1914 generation, but see Revelation 18.)

This is why the doctrine itself should not be a critical problem for anyone. We could start a parousia in 1914 if that makes sense, and we could also have started one in 33 C.E. because, 1000 to 2000 years is also just a day or two, from one perspective of 2 Peter's words. After all, didn't Jesus say, "I am [present] with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things"? (Of course, if that conclusion started in 1914, then maybe Jesus was only present until 1914.) Jesus also said, wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am [present] in their midst. That didn't start in 1914 either. There is nothing unacceptable about a long judgment day either. It could last an hour, or a thousand years, and this would be Jehovah's timetable. I am not concerned about these time periods at all for myself. I am concerned about the lengths that we will sometimes go to in order to defend them. This is fine, too, except if we notice that the doctrinal tradition has become so important that we are finding ourselves using dishonest or untrue methods to defend it. That's actually the ONLY thing that bothers me about it. Otherwise, chronology one way or another means nothing to me.

As a reminder, I'm suggesting that it can make just as much or more sense to understand all the events of the parousia at the end of the generation, and none at the beginning. Naturally, this is a different understanding of the word parousia than the one we are accustomed to. Parousia would refer to the great, visible, royal visitation and judgment event, rather than just an invisible presence of Jesus in a new official capacity. Anna quoted a Watchtower from 2013 that indicated that several "1914 generation" teachings that were once applied to the beginning and/or duration of the "1914 generation" are now assigned only to the "end." Other articles in the same issue of that magazine clarified that the fulfillment of additional parable events would occur at the "end" rather than the beginning of the generation, or ongoing. In addition, there was already the Watchtower's admission in 2008 that even the "first resurrection," once taught to have begun in 1918, may also now be assigned to the end of the generation (as a possibility). There is an even more recent acceptance of the basic idea behind the "rapture" (a point in time when remaining anointed ones on earth will be changed in an instant from earth to heaven). This was previously assigned to the beginning of the 1914 generation, but is now assigned to the "end." *** w15 7/15 pp. 18-19 pars. 14-15 “Your Deliverance Is Getting Near”! *** Then these words of Jesus will be fulfilled: “At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father.”—Matt. 13:43. Does this mean that there will be a “rapture” of the anointed ones? . . . So those who will be taken to heaven will first need to be “changed, in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet.” (Read 1 Corinthians 15:50-53.) Therefore, while we do not use the term “rapture” here because of its wrong connotation, the remaining faithful anointed will be gathered together in an instant of time. [That one has direct implications on the context of Matthew 24:37-39] Later, I'll try to present evidence that this makes more sense linguistically in the context of all the Bible references to the parousia events. (Just as important are the parallel discussions in Mark and Luke that use other phrases without the word "parousia".) But before I try to provide more of that evidence, let's just see what it would mean in the basic context of Matthew 24 leading up to the mention of the Flood in Matthew 24:37-39. Paraphrasing, the disciples asked Jesus for an advance warning sign about the timing of the destruction of the Temple. Jesus said that they are going to hear about a lot of things that could mislead them if they were looking for a sign: *** w70 1/15 p. 42 par. 7 The Coming “Great Tribulation” Foreshadowed *** 7 Evidently those apostles did not know what was embraced in those three things about which they were asking. . . . It is plain, however, that, first of all, they wanted to know when Jerusalem and her temple were to be destroyed. Would it come in their day, in their generation? [This reflects a change of belief in the Watchtower magazine, where we had previously argued that the disciples might have guessed they would need evidence of an "invisible" presence, knowing that Jesus could not be bodily present. Therefore even the time reference of the "parousia" in the question itself was one of the items in our teaching that moved, effectively, from the beginning of the generation to the end of the generation. ] I'll include more of the 1970 Watchtower, just quoted above, because it's better than a paraphrase of the meaning that Jesus' prophecy would have for the disciples. *** w70 1/15 pp. 44-45 pars. 13-18 The Coming “Great Tribulation” Foreshadowed *** 13 Plainly, then, here in the first application of the prophecy, Jesus is referring to international wars due to occur before the impending destruction of Jerusalem. By going on to say that nation would rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, Jesus is explaining why it is that they would hear of wars and reports of wars. But they should not get disturbed at such wars, because these are not the visible proof that the end is right upon them. And according to secular history, there were wars that occurred between the time that Jesus ascended to heaven and the destruction of the holy city. There were the Parthian wars in southwest Asia and the uprisings that took place in the Roman provinces of Gaul and Spain. There was the war waged by Asinaeus and Alinaeus against the Parthians to the east of the Roman Empire. There was the Parthian declaration of war against King Izates of the land of Adiabene. . . . 15 There were also earthquakes back there, which are on record. There was that earthquake on the island of Crete during the reign of Claudius Caesar, another in Smyrna, others in Hierapolis, Colossae, Chios, Miletus and Samos; another overthrew the city of Laodicea during the reign of Emperor Nero. There was even one in Rome, as reported by the Latin historian, Tacitus. In his Wars of the Jews, Book 4, chapter 4, paragraph 5, Josephus tells of a dreadful earthquake as occurring in Judea itself. 16 Famines also took place, one of which is reported on in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter eleven, verses 27 to 30, the one foretold by the Christian prophet Agabus and occurring during the reign of Emperor Claudius. Reportedly, many Jews in Jerusalem died because of this famine. Of course, because of food shortage and thus the lack of proper nourishment, the people succumb to sicknesses, and pestilences break out. It was as Jesus foretold. 17 However, these things were not to be the instantaneous forerunners of the destruction of the “city of the great King,” Jerusalem. After foretelling those things, Jesus added: “All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress.” (Matt. 24:8) As far as they had a connection with Jerusalem, they were a beginning of distress pangs for her and the province of Judea. But they did not mean the immediate end of the holy city and the desolation of Judea. But the fact that those things were at least the beginning of distress pangs for Jerusalem should have been enough to stir the Christians to greater activity, instead of relaxing and taking it easy because “the end is not yet.” (Matt. 24:6; 5:35) There was an extensive work to do, and this required great effort and persistence in spite of religious persecution. So, in verses 9-13 Jesus went on to warn his apostles of the coming persecution by Jews and Gentiles and of the increase of lawlessness and of the need of Christian endurance, and then he added: “And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.”—Matt. 24:14. 18 Several weeks later, after his resurrection from the dead and before his ascension to heaven, Jesus commanded his disciples: “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you.” (Matt. 28:19, 20) Some days later, after the next festival of Pentecost, the faithful disciples proceeded to do this. What was the result? By about the year 60 or 61 C.E., when the apostle Paul was a prisoner in Rome, he could write to the Christian congregation in Colossae, Asia Minor, and say of their hope: “The hope of that good news which you heard, and which was preached in all creation that is under heaven.” (Col. 1:23) At that time Paul was wanting to carry the good news of God’s kingdom into Spain, as a pioneer evangelizer. (Rom. 15:23, 24) Such a preaching of God’s kingdom in the inhabited earth had already been given by ten years before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. The “end” could not come before this was accomplished.—Matt. 24:14. The point is that it was possible to understand Matthew 24 right up to the words of verse 29 "immediately after the tribulation of those days" as still occurring in the first century. *** w74 12/15 p. 750 Who Will See “the Sign of the Son of Man”? *** Actually, Jesus spanned a space of centuries of time by the expression “immediately after,” for the things he thereafter described were not seen in the first century. Obviously there are some differences in our current understanding, but this at least explains how the disciples most likely understood the words of Jesus throughout the first century and into the following centuries. Therefore, we can discuss Matthew 24:37-39 in the context of the time period we are currently in, ever since "immediately after" the Jewish system was judged in 70 C.E. The judgment in 66-70 C.E. foreshadowed the judgment at the end our own time period. Sorry for the length of the explanation above, but there are a lot of different interpretations of Mathew 24, and I wanted to make sure we could refer to a similar basis. So, with that out of the way, here's the context of the verses in question: (Matthew 24:36-25:13) 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 [parousia] 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 [parousia] 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. . . . 50 the master of that slave will come on a day that he does not expect and in an hour that he does not know, . . . 25:13 “Keep on the watch, therefore, because you know neither the day nor the hour. I would take it to mean this: Jesus said, you (disciples) just asked whether you could get a sign as some kind of advance warning so that you would know when this judgment on Jerusalem will take place. You (disciples) assume it is the "end of all things." You obviously assume it is the same as the great PAROUSIA event that Jewish literature has already spoken about. You want to know "WHEN?" Well, I'm not going to tell you when, and I'm not going to give you and specific signs that would help you figure it out. You already know that you are in the general season when this judgment is imminent. I've already told you it would be in this generation, and that means that many of you should live to see it. But . . . . [vs 36] . . . concerning the time of the PAROUSIA event only the Father knows, I don't even know myself. [v. 37] Therefore, the PAROUSIA is going to come as a surprise, just the same as the judgment came in the days of Noah. [v. 38] Remember that in those days before the Flood, people were going about their daily lives eating, drinking, getting married [doing what they had been doing since the days of their forefathers, saying, in effect that there was peace and security] right up until the very day that Noah entered into the ark. [v 39] They were completely unaware* and they knew nothing until the Flood came by surprise and swept them all away. That's exactly how the PAROUSIA judgment will take people by surprise, too. [v.40, 41] That's why you are going to see men and women going about their business in this generation, too, and you will see one person taken by surprise and the person who was right next to them just as surprised to see the other person gone. [v. 42] So keep on the watch, because you do not know on what day the PAROUSIA comes. [v.43] It will be as unpredictable as a thief in the night who breaks into your house. You think the thief is going to announce his arrival? [v. 44] So prove yourself ready at all times, because the PAROUSIA will arrive at a time when you just won't know. *unaware: "did not know" rather than "took no note." NWT used an interpretation here rather than a translation. See any other translation. So the obvious difference in that understanding is that it's the Parousia event itself that can't be predicted. There are several good linguistic reasons for this, including the most likely meanings of "synteleia" and "parousia" in the Greek. Here are some of the scriptural reasons. Note: (Luke 21:5-9) Later, when some were speaking about the temple, how it was adorned with fine stones and dedicated things, 6 he said: “As for these things that you now see, the days will come when not a stone will be left upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 7 Then they questioned him, saying: “Teacher, when will these things actually be, and what will be the sign when these things are to occur?” 8 He said: “Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The due time is near.’ Do not go after them. 9 Furthermore, when you hear of wars and disturbances, do not be terrified. For these things must take place first, but the end will not occur immediately.” Note that the words "parousia" and "conclusion" (synteleia) are not even necessary to the question for Jesus to give the same general answer. Therefore the "parousia" and "conclusion" refer to "these things" (the toppling of the stones of the Temple). That is their reference to the judgment at the end, itself, not a drawn out "generation." This means that every reference to the "due time" and the "end" and "conclusion" in Jesus' answer is also at the end of the generation. Wars and disturbances that occur during the generation cannot be used to determine the closeness of that "end." Here it is, as discussed in 2 Peter 3: (2 Peter 3:2-13) 2 that you should remember the sayings previously spoken by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles. 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 [parousia] of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep in death, all things are continuing exactly as they were from creation’s beginning.” 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 water. 7 But by the same word the heavens and the earth that now exist are reserved for fire and are being kept until the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly people. 8 However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 9 Jehovah is not slow concerning his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance. 10 But Jehovah’s day will come as a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar, but the elements being intensely hot will be dissolved, and earth and the works in it will be exposed. 11 Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 as you await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah, through which the heavens will be destroyed in flames and the elements will melt in the intense heat! 13 But there are new heavens and a new earth that we are awaiting according to his promise, and in these righteousness is to dwell. Note that the PAROUSIA is the "day of judgment" they are waiting for. Ridiculers are pointing out that the PAROUSIA judgment is delayed. The "day of judgment" (PAROUSIA) is still on its way, and will still come as a surprise, just like it did in Noah's time. Jehovah's day (PAROUSIA) will still come as a thief (v10) and the "PAROUSIA of the Lord" (v.12) is still to be expected and awaited according to his promise. Here is how Luke presented the same idea in another context when Jesus made the same point. Note that the term PAROUSIA is replaced here with the term meaning "the day of the Son of man" (v.24) and in the "days of Noah" this is equated with the "days of the Son of man" until a specific time when the flood (judgment) swept them away by surprise, just like in the "days of Lot" until that "one day" when Lot left Sodom and the judgment occurred. It's that judgment that is equated with the "day that the Son of man is revealed." This final day of judgment is the portion of the time period that was equated with the PAROUSIA in Matthew. (Luke 17:20-35) 20 On being asked by the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God was coming, he answered them: “The Kingdom of God is not coming with striking observableness [observable signs]; 21 nor will people say, ‘See here!’ or, ‘There!’ For look! the Kingdom of God is in your midst.” 22 Then he said to the disciples: “Days will come when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, but you will not see it. 23 And people will say to you, ‘See there!’ or, ‘See here!’ Do not go out or chase after them. 24 For just as lightning flashes from one part of heaven to another part of heaven, so the Son of man will be in his day. 25 First, however, he must undergo many sufferings and be rejected by this generation. 26 Moreover, just as it occurred in the days of Noah, so it will be in the days of the Son of man: 27 they were eating, they were drinking, men were marrying, women were being given in marriage until that day when Noah entered into the ark, and the Flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise, just as it occurred in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building. 29 But on the day that Lot went out of Sodʹom, it rained fire and sulfur from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 It will be the same on that day when the Son of man is revealed. 31 “On that day let the person who is on the housetop but whose belongings are in the house not come down to pick these up, and likewise, the person out in the field must not return to the things behind. 32 Remember the wife of Lot. 33 Whoever seeks to keep his life safe will lose it, but whoever loses it will preserve it alive. 34 I tell you, in that night two people will be in one bed; the one will be taken along, but the other will be abandoned. 35 There will be two women grinding at the same mill; the one will be taken along, but the other will be abandoned.” And of course, it bears repeating that lightning shines brightly, suddenly and unexpectedly. And the lightning is applied in Matthew 24:27 to the PAROUSIA: For just as the lightning comes out of the east and shines over to the west, so the presence [parousia] of the Son of man will be. So, the parousia is going to be bright, sudden and unexpected, and seen from one end of the earth to the other. In the Watchtower, the parousia is instead described as a gradual, slow process that will take somewhere between 100 and 200 years. In the current view of the Watchtower, very few people [if any] were able to discern the parousia when it began.

My "next post" was going to be tomorrow with specific reference to Jesus' statement that the parousia would be like the days of Noah. But this is the same basic question. Again, I don't expect that these opinions, on their own, should convince anyone one way or another. I'm trying to present a case for why it is easier to understand Matthew 24 and everything about the parousia in a way that appears more consistent with all the Bible references in context, and why our current doctrine produces some difficulties and contradictions. So here goes: There are NO Bible references to the "parousia" that are not directly related to Jesus' coming to execute judgment. In other words, ALL Bible references to the "parousia" refer to the judgment events that we associate with the "great tribulation" and Armageddon. In fact the 2013 Watchtower you quoted in a separate post moved several teachings from the beginning of the "1914 generation" to the end that we once assigned to the beginning of the generation. I'll highlight a few portions: *** w13 7/15 pp. 7-8 pars. 14-19 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” *** Does a further consideration of Jesus’ prophecy reveal that our understanding of the timing of other significant events needs to be adjusted? . . . Jesus focuses primarily on what will happen during these last days and during the coming great tribulation. There, Jesus makes eight references to his “coming,” or arrival. . . . (Matt. 24:30, 42, 44; 25:31) Each of these four references applies to Christ’s future coming as Judge. Where in Jesus’ prophecy do we find the remaining four references? 16 Regarding the faithful and discreet slave. . . (Matt. 24:46; 25:10, 19, 27) To what time do these four instances of Jesus’ coming refer? 17 In the past, we have stated in our publications that these last four references apply to Jesus’ arriving, or coming, in 1918. As an example, take Jesus’ statement about “the faithful and discreet slave.” (Read Matthew 24:45-47.) . . . 18In the verses that lead up to Matthew 24:46, the word “coming” refers consistently to the time when Jesus comes to pronounce and execute judgment during the great tribulation. (Matt. 24:30, 42, 44) Also, as we considered in paragraph 12, Jesus’ ‘arriving’ mentioned at Matthew 25:31 refers to that same future time of judgment. So it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus’ arrival to appoint the faithful slave over all his belongings, mentioned at Matthew 24:46, 47, also applies to his future coming, during the great tribulation. Indeed, a consideration of Jesus’ prophecy in its entirety makes it clear that each of these eight references to his coming applies to the future time of judgment during the great tribulation. 19 . . . So, then, all three “whens” apply to the same future time period—the great tribulation. How does this adjusted view further affect our understanding of the illustration of the faithful slave? Also, how does it affect our understanding of other parables, or illustrations, of Jesus that are being fulfilled during this time of the end? These important questions will be considered in the following articles. This had to be done, because several contradictions were being produced by our former explanations of various prophecies and parables (and also "prophetic dramas" that we were still deriving from Bible narratives at the time of this article). But this didn't get rid of all of the contradictions. In fact, the "1914 doctrine" no longer serves any purpose except to point to a time when we assume that Satan was cast out of heaven in October, which vaguely explains the war that broke out earlier in July and which the Watchtower had said was easily predicted from the political tensions and build-up for several years prior to 1914. Casting him out is also supposed to explain Satan's anger at his short period of time, explaining his wrath in the WWI period, and which we should assume is now even a shorter period of time than it was in 1914. But the "1914 doctrine" does nothing to explain why the Gentile nations got much stronger, more numerous, and more effective after 1914 now that their "times had ended" and their kings had already "had their day." Somehow, this explained how Jesus had come into Kingly power in 1914. In fact, related to that last point, note that the article points out that 1914 was no longer even the time when Jesus "sat down" on his glorious throne as we had always explained Matthew 25:31. There was a recent discussion on this forum about the "sit then stand then sit again" sequence, which has also changed a few times over the years. 11 In the mid-1990’s, The Watchtower reexamined Matthew 25:31, which states: “When the Son of man arrives in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne.” It was noted that Jesus became King of God’s Kingdom in 1914, but he did not “sit down on his glorious throne” as Judge of “all the nations.” But it turns out that all these issues go away, and we no longer have to create special or "less likely" translations of various Greek words, if we just take notice of the fact that ALL the references to the parousia are about the final time of tribulation and judgment. The reference to 2 Peter 3:12 is just one of many verses that highlights this same point. Note that this is about the "parousia of the Lord." (The NWT uses the term Jehovah here, and it might not be as clear therefore that the Greek refers to the same Parousia of Jesus.) I'll temporarily change it back to the Greek manuscript "Lord", and change "presence" to "parousia" and I think it will be clearer. (2 Peter 3:3-12) 3 First of all know this, that in the last days ridiculers will come . . . saying: “Where is this promised PAROUSIA of his? . . . 5 For they deliberately ignore this fact, that long ago. . . the world of that time suffered destruction when it was flooded with water. 7 But by the same word the heavens and the earth that now exist are reserved for fire and are being kept until the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly people. . . . 10 But the Lord's day will come as a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar, . . . 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 PAROUSIA of the day of the Lord, through which the heavens will be destroyed in flames and the elements will melt in the intense heat! In fact, our publications do not usually associate this particular "parousia" with Christ's parousia starting in 1914, but to the "end" (except that we contradict this by always using verses 3 and 4 to point to the duration from 1914 through the end). Notice this particular explanation: *** it-1 p. 595 Day of Jehovah *** That “day of Jehovah” came in 70 C.E., when, in fulfillment of his Word, Jehovah caused the armies of Rome to execute divine judgment upon the nation that had rejected the Son of God and defiantly shouted: “We have no king but Caesar.”—Joh 19:15; Da 9:24-27. However, the Scriptures point forward to yet another “day of Jehovah.” After the restoration of the Jews to Jerusalem following the Babylonian exile, Jehovah caused his prophet Zechariah (14:1-3) to foretell “a day . . . belonging to Jehovah” when he would gather not merely one nation but “all the nations against Jerusalem,” at the climax of which day “Jehovah will certainly go forth and war against those nations,” bringing them to their end. The apostle Paul, under inspiration, associated the coming “day of Jehovah” with the presence of Christ. (2Th 2:1, 2) And Peter spoke of it in connection with the establishment of ‘new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness is to dwell.’—2Pe 3:10-13. This gives context, again, to the verses referenced from 2 Thessalonians 2:1,2 where the Parousia is not a drawn-out time period of 100 to 150 or even 200 years, but a specific time of judgment. (2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2) 2 However, brothers, concerning the presence [PAROUSIA] of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah [day of the Lord] is here. The "day of the Lord" is equated with the "parousia of the Lord." And Paul goes on to explain why: because the apostasy would come first and the Parousia would be the time of judgment against that apostasy: (2 Thessalonians 2:8) 8 Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence [Gk: GLORIOUS EPIPHANY of his PAROUSIA]. We could look at every reference to Christ's parousia, and notice that it makes much more sense to translate it as an EVENT related to the judgment. When referring to Jesus' "parousia" it is always a reference to a bright, visible, unexpected event using a term that would also remind the first Greek-speaking audience of the famous parade-like event, the "royal visitation" of an emperor: *** Rbi8 p. 1577 5B Christ’s Presence (Parousia) *** pa·rou·siʹa “became the official term for a visit of a person of high rank, esp[ecially] of kings and emperors visiting a province.” It is never necessary, Biblically, to think of it as a drawn-out "presence."

The suggestion is that, for Jesus, the parousia appears to come at the END of the generation, not the BEGINNING. I think that Matthew 24:37-39 not only 'sits well' with this suggestion, it offers additional evidence for it. But I also think it depends on whether we are willing to interpret Jesus' words in a consistent manner, or a contradictory manner. If we are willing to accept contradictions, then we could make Matthew 24 say anything we want. I prefer to see if there is a way to read Matthew 24 without so many serious contradictions. For example, go back to some verses just leading up to these verses: (Matthew 24:23-27) . . .“Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look! Here is the Christ,’ or, ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will perform great signs and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones. 25 Look! I have forewarned you. 26 Therefore, if people say to you, ‘Look! He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; ‘Look! He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For just as the lightning comes out of the east and shines over to the west, so the presence [parousia] of the Son of man will be. Why is it that Jesus said not to believe anyone who claims that "The Christ is here!"? Yet, many religions, including our own, have based their core message since 1878 on this specific claim that "The Christ is here!" The reason Jesus said that this could not be claimed is that it would imply that they thought they had seen a sign or evidence prior to the actual event. This would, of course, be impossible because the actual parousia would be as unmistakable as lightning that flashes from one end of the horizon all the way to the other end. So is it possible that this great event, "the parousia of the Son of man," could be invisible? Is it possible that Christ is here, but we just can't see him from where we are? Jesus covered this claim as well when he predicted that some might even claim that he was in the wilderness, or in the inner rooms. Jesus said: "Do not believe it!" Jesus perfectly covered the idea that people might claim falsely that "Christ is present, but he's invisible." How, would we know they were wrong? Because Matthew 24:27 explains that the parousia of the Son of man will be as visible as lightning. In other words, his parousia should be compared to the most obviously visible event we can think of. More proof that it is an appearance, a manifestation is found by looking at the context of ALL the other mentions of Jesus' presence. A couple of them are included below: (2 Thessalonians 2:8) 8 Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence [parousia]. (2 Timothy 4:1) 4 I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his manifestation and his Kingdom: (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10) 7 . . . relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels 8 in a flaming fire, . . . from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength, 10 at the time he comes to be glorified in connection with his holy ones and to be regarded in that day with wonder . . . (1 John 2:28) 28 So now, little children, remain in union with him, so that when he is made manifest we may have freeness of speech and not shrink away from him in shame at his presence [parousia]. Note especially that the word "parousia" is sometimes replaced, paralled, and modified with a word that means "glorious epiphany" in the Bible. In Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the definition includes the following: ἐπιφάνεια, ἐπιφανείας, ἡ (ἐπιφανής), an appearing, appearance : often used by the Greeks of a glorious manifestation of the gods, . . . not only that which has already taken place and by which his presence and power appear in the saving light he has shed upon mankind, 2 Timothy 1:10 (note the word φωτίσαντος in this passage); but also that illustrious return from heaven to earth hereafter to occur: 1 Timothy 6:14; 2 Timothy 4:1, 8; Titus 2:13 . . . ἡ ἐπιφάνεια (i. e. the breaking forth) τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ, 2 Thessalonians 2:8. (2 Thessalonians 2:8) 8 Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence [parousia]. (NWT) the brightness of his coming: (KJV) the splendor of his coming. (NLV) (Titus 2:13) while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of our Savior, Jesus Christ, (NWT) Taking a cue from the new "Kingdom" book, we could therefore speak of the beginning of the parousia as "the greatest event" (p.13). The parousia is indeed the "epiphany of his presence," the "glorious manifestation," the "brightness," the "lightning," the "revelation," the time of "flaming fire." That is of course the background for answering the question about Matthew 24:37-39. (Next post)

Yes, I think there are 3 back there.

10 birds or only 9?

Yes, when Paul said 'You don't need anything to be written to you about chronology' he told the Thessalonians his reason, and he knew they had already heard the words of Jesus on this topic (whether or not any of the Gospel accounts had been written yet). Jesus had said: (Matthew 24:42-44) 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 likewise Paul gave this as the reason they needed nothing written to them: (1 Thessalonians 5:2) 2 For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night. Peter, too: (2 Peter 3:10) 10 But Jehovah’s day will come as a thief,. . . It also looks like both Peter and Paul kept the same context in mind that Jesus had given. It's something that I think we often overlook, and was pointed out in the August 15, 205 Watchtower, already quoted above: The point that 2 Peter 3:3,4 makes is already incorporated into the Watchtower's point. I think that we are sometimes so desirous of finding "a sign" that we actually turn the next verse in 1 Thessalonians 5:3 into another sign, too. But it could just as easily mean there is no sign, and this would match Jesus' words without the implied contradiction. (1 Thessalonians 5:3) Whenever it is that they are saying, “Peace and security!” then sudden destruction is to be instantly on them, . . . This is very likely the same thing as saying that they still believe they are dwelling in peace and security because things are continuing on as they always have: (2 Peter 3:4) . . .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.” (Matthew 24:36-42) . . .. 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. The other verse quoted there in that 2015 Watchtower, seems to imply that there will be some level of a sign, but only if we focus on the word "striking." It's as if it says, there will be some signs of observableness, but "on the other hand" they won't be striking. (Luke 17:20) . . .“The Kingdom of God is not coming with striking observableness; If the verse actually said that, it would be similar to the point that was made in that same Watchtower: Of course, it's probably not surprising that the word "striking" is not really in the original Greek. It seems to have been added in the NWT specifically to fit our doctrine about a composite sign. Without the added word, the original Greek lends itself better to the following translations: (Luke 17:20, NLT) One day the Pharisees asked Jesus, “When will the Kingdom of God come?” Jesus replied, “The Kingdom of God can’t be detected by visible signs. . . " (Luke 17:20, ESV) Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, . . ." Apparently this is the same way he answered the disciples when they asked for a sign, and Jesus said, in effect, do not be misled, and start thinking that a great war is a sign. Of course, as JWs, we already have another way to understand this, and the verse doesn't actually prove anything one way or another. We could use it to advance the theory of a 100 to 150 year-long (or longer) parousia. But I think it makes for a better fit for Matthew 24, if we were to accept the more probable meaning of "parousia" as a surprise, world-shattering event that is as strikingly observable as lightning, but with no advance warning. So, since you asked, that's how I think Jesus' words in Matthew 24:44 are applied. I'd be happy to know if anyone sees good evidence that this is wrong. I can make a very weak case for our view of a composite sign, but a very strong case for a surprise, with absolutely no advance warning signs. One view seems to create contradictions, and the other doesn't. And, by the way, I don't think there is NO time element in Jesus' warning about the generation. Being on the watch includes a time element which I have argued ( @ThePraeceptor ) is secondary, not primary, to the "internal" watchfulness about what sort of people we ought to be. But both ideas are true. Of course, in Jesus' warning the parousia appears to come at the END of the generation, not the beginning of that generation.

Good to know! Not taking anything away from the illustration. I just meant that it (or something very similar) has been used in talks and articles in the past: *** w13 1/1 p. 8 The End of the World—Fear, Fascination, and Frustration *** Consider this example: A lookout in a fire tower might see what he thinks is a wisp of smoke on the horizon and sound what proves to be a false alarm. Later, though, his alertness could save lives. Likewise, we have had some wrong expectations about the end. But we are more concerned with obeying Jesus and saving lives than with avoiding criticism. Jesus’ command to “give a thorough witness” compels us to warn others about the end.—Acts 10:42.

You might be right, but if we pressed the point, then Jesus was saying to watch out for external factors (events etc) only so that we can remind ourselves and others not to be fooled into thinking they are part of a composite sign. If we read Matthew 24 and 25 a few times, it's easier to get the impression that there is no composite sign. That might have been the most important theme of Matthew 24: that you would see these things, and might easily be fooled into thinking they were some kind of composite sign. So falling into that trap was one of the very things to watch out for. The disciples could only have been been asking for a chance to know in advance about the time of this great judgment (with the assumption that this judgment was the final parousia event). So Jesus had to remind them that if they heard about a great war, not to be misled into thinking it was a sign, because wars would happen, but the end is not yet. They could expect to see a lot of things happen in this generation, but not one of those things was a sign of the time. So perhaps Jesus gave the illustration of the foolish and wise virgins and the illustration of the wicked and wise slave as a way to show that the primary thing to watch for was what sort of persons they ought to be. They should watch out that they are always prepared and neither impatient nor taking advantage of the delay. This is surely what Paul means when he says: (1 Thessalonians 5:4-24) 4 But you, brothers, you are not in darkness, so that the day should overtake you as it would thieves, 5 for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We belong neither to night nor to darkness. 6 So, then, let us not sleep on as the rest do, but let us stay awake and keep our senses. 7 For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk are drunk at night. 8 But as for us who belong to the day, let us keep our senses and put on the breastplate of faith and love and the hope of salvation as a helmet 9 because God assigned us, not to wrath, but to the acquiring of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. 10 He died for us, so that whether we stay awake or are asleep, we should live together with him. 11 Therefore, keep encouraging one another and building one another up, just as you are in fact doing. 12 Now we request you, brothers, to show respect for those who are working hard among you and presiding over you in the Lord and admonishing you; 13 and to give them extraordinary consideration in love because of their work. Be peaceable with one another. 14 On the other hand, we urge you, brothers, to warn the disorderly, speak consolingly to those who are depressed, support the weak, be patient toward all. 15 See that no one repays injury for injury to anyone, but always pursue what is good toward one another and to all others. 16 Always be rejoicing. 17 Pray constantly. 18 Give thanks for everything. This is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus. 19 Do not put out the fire of the spirit. 20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine. 22 Abstain from every form of wickedness. 23 May the God of peace himself sanctify you completely. And may the spirit and soul and body of you brothers, sound in every respect, be preserved blameless at the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 The one who is calling you is faithful, and he will surely do so. Being on the "watch" can have nothing to do with the "time" or "season" or "generation" or "chronology" because this very chapter starts out with the words: (1 Thessalonians 5:1, 2) . . .Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night.

Of course. And I think that many of us have used this very reasoning by way of explanation for past (and even current) Watchtower predictions. But Jesus specifically said to "keep on the watch" because we cannot know the chronology in advance. The "contradiction" is summed up in the words from a recent Watchtower indicated by the words: "On the other hand" at the beginning of paragraph 8 below: *** w15 8/15 pp. 15-16 pars. 7-8 Keep in Expectation! *** However, Jesus said that most people would take “no note” of his presence, carrying on with life’s normal activities until it is too late. (Read Matthew 24:37-39.) Thus, the Scriptures indicate that world conditions during the last days would not become so extreme that people would be forced to believe that the end is near.—Luke 17:20; 2 Pet. 3:3, 4. 8On the other hand, for the composite sign to serve its purpose, the fulfillment of it would have to be obvious enough to command the attention of those who have been obeying Jesus’ counsel to “keep on the watch.” (Matt. 24:27, 42) And that has been the case since 1914. Jesus' illustrations at the end of Matthew chapter 24 and into chapter 25 match what 2 Peter says about how we should "keep on the watch." It's about watching the sort of person we ought to be. That's how we prepare and keep it close in mind. On the other hand Jesus' apostles had asked Jesus what they should watch out for in order to be able to predict the time: When will these things happen to Jerusalem's Temple and buildings? The very first thing Jesus said was "Do not be misled!" He didn't say it's inevitable that you will be misled out of feverish expectation. He gave them very specific instructions NOT to watch for signs of the time. Yes, the Temple would fall in their own generation, but whether early or late in that generation, he wouldn't say, and said he didn't know himself, anyway! He warned them specifically about watching out for signs that are related to great wars, or great earthquakes or great famines, pestilences, etc. Yet, every single generation since Jesus said these words tries to find signs of the times in wars, earthquakes, pestilences, famines, etc.

2 Peter is especially comparing two different groups: 1. those who are keeping that day close in mind by preparing for the parousia by growing into the type of person they ought to be when that day arrives and appreciating that it will occur as a surprise at any time whether today or 1,000 years from now. 2. those who continue to live as they desire because it appears to them that parousia is never going to happen due to the delay of their expectations. I was referring to persons who actually attempt a chronological prediction instead of humbly accepting that Jehovah may have his own timetable that does not belong to us. In fact, even from 2 Peter, it is still difficult to come to any other conclusion outside of arrogance and presumptuousness as the reasons that anyone would ignore the idea that, chronologically speaking, it will come as a surprise.

Maybe. But I have to wonder why a person would "stick their neck out" sometimes with an actual "month" and "year" or even attempt to pinpoint a specific day such as October 1, 1914 or "the fourth day of the seventh [Jewish] month of 1874" or "Passover 1878" or even as John Aquila Brown was quoted earlier: "We have seen also, in deciding on the other chronological periods, that many proofs point out the year 1844 as a remarkable crisis. . . . I submit therefore as a memorable circumstance, that the 49th jubilee year, reckoning from the rise of the Babylonic monarchy, or the period of Nebuchadnezzar's ascending that throne . . . would take place January 1, 1845. . . . the commencement of an everlasting jubilee. . . I conclude, therefore . . . from the rise of the four monarchies . . . to their final dissolution, there will be . . . 2520 years . . . and will terminate January 1, 1917." (p. 152) This seems a bit arrogant when Jesus & Paul said: (Acts 1:7) . . .“It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction. (1 Thessalonians 5:1, 2) . . .Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night. It is difficult to understand how someone can make a prediction without taking into account Jesus' words, and yet it becomes possible to rationalize, in spite of Jesus' words: *** w68 8/15 pp. 500-501 pars. 35-36 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? *** This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end. Make no mistake, it is sufficient that the Father himself knows both the “day and hour”! 36 Even if one cannot see beyond 1975, is this any reason to be less active? The apostles could not see even this far; they knew nothing about 1975.

English: "scarecrows" (Genesis 40:17) . . .and there were birds eating them out of the basket on top of my head. . . (Jeremiah 7:33) . . .will become food for the birds of the heavens . . . with no one to frighten them away.

Good point. A brother once showed me a commentary in the Bethel Library published in the late 1700's or early 1800's that indicated it was a type of arrogance for every generation everyone to always believe that the last generation was going to be their own generation, and yet there have always been many who argued just that. I haven't been able to find that commentary yet, but it certainly fits the evidence. The information below is from a book by a certain infamous "COJ," so read it at your own risk. During the time period when the Gentile Times were almost invariably associated with 1,260 years, note how most of the applications of those 1260 years were applied to a time that would end just a few years into the future (or a few years in the past such that a parallel period of 1290, or 1335 years would still extend the "end" into their own generation). There are only a couple of exceptions. For each set of three lines below, the numbers refer to the: Name of author/expositor Approximate year of publication Years to which the 1,260 (or 1,290) days applied Joachim of Floris 1195 1-1260 Arnold of Villanova 1300 c. 74-1364 (Gentile Times=1290 years) Walter Brute 1393 134-1394 Martin Luther 1530 38-1328 (Gentile times =1290 years) A. Osiander 1545 412-1672 J. Funck 1558 261-1521 G. Nigrinus 1570 441-1701 Aretius 1573 312-1572 John Napier 1593 316-1576 D. Pareus 1618 606-1866 J. Tillinghast 1655 396-1656 J. Artopaeus 1665 260-1520 Cocceius 1669 292-1552 T. Beverley 1684 437-1697 P. Jurieu 1687 454-1714 R. Fleming, Jr. 1701 552-1794 (1260 years of 360 days = 1242 Julian years) R. Fleming, Jr. (adjusted) 1701 606-1848 William Whiston 1706 606-1866 Daubuz 1720 476-1736 J. Ph. Petri 1768 587-1847 Lowman 1770 756-2016 John Gill 1776 606-1866 Hans Wood 1787 620-1880 J. Bicheno 1793 529-1789 A. Fraser 1795 756-1998 (1242 Julian years) George Bell 1796 537-1797 George Bell (adjusted) 1796 553-1813 Edward King 1798 538-1798 Galloway 1802 606-1849 (1242 Julian years) W. Hales 1803 620-1880 G. S. Faber 1806 606-1866 W. Cuninghame 1813 533-1792 J. H. Frere 1815 533-1792 Lewis Way 1818 531-1791 W. C. Davis 1818 588-1848 J. Bayford 1820 529-1789 John Fry 1822 537-1797 John Aquila Brown 1823 622-1844

The above is what you said primarily in defense of the Proclaimers book quote here: OK. I disagree, but I think I understand your position a little better. It sounds like you are saying that even though Brown tied only the "1,260 years" to the phrase "Gentile Times" of Luke 21:24, you are saying that he didn't really tie 1,260 to them, because he didn't correctly understand what the "Gentile Times" were. And even though he said he was tying to "seven times" of Daniel 4 to a period that he said was different from the Gentile Times, in his opinion, it really was tied to the Gentile Times. (Because it was tied to fairly closely to the WTS version of the Gentile Times, in the opinion of the author of that section of Proclaimers. Therefore, just "the fact that Brown's book does reference 2520 years, no matter what circumstance he might have proposed" is close enough. I get your position now. Here's the reason I don't accept it. For me, the criteria of accepting something as a true defense would mean that the same argument would make sense in both directions (It does not mean that I would have to accept the verdict of the same type of defense if the tables were turned, only that the argument was legitimate in both directions.) For me, this is the way to invoke the Bible's principle: (Proverbs 20:23) 23 Two sorts of weights are something detestable to Jehovah, and a cheating pair of scales is not good. So, I would have to test the legitimacy of the defense and ask how it would look in a hypothetically situation. Here's a hypothetical. Let's say that I believed the following three positions. Let's also call it the "WTS" position: The 1,260 days referred to a time from around December 1914 to about the spring of 1918. The "seven times" referred to a time from 607 BCE to 1914 CE. The Gentile Times of Luke 21:24 refer to the "seven times" from 607 BCE to 1914. Now, let's say that you, AllenSmith, are a believer in a resurgence of "Brownism," a religion based on John Aquila Brown's prophetic interpretations. Therefore you believe the following three positions: The 1,260 days referred to a time of "Mohammedan Trampling" from 622 A.D. to 1844 A.D. The "seven times" referred to a time from 604 B.C. to 1917 A.D. The Gentile Times of Luke 21:24 refer to the 1,260 days of "Mohammedan Trampling" from 622 A.D. to 1844 A.D. So, if it is OK for the WTS to claim that Brownists connected the "seven times" with the "Gentile Times" then it must also be OK for you Brownists to claim that the WTS has connected the 1,260 days with the "Gentile Times" of "Mohammedan Trampling." That doesn't make a lot of sense, but you could at least argue that the WTS "references the 1,260 days, no matter what circumstance it might have proposed." Just because the WTS didn't understand the exact beginning and ending of the time period of Mohammedan Trampling, the WTS has still mentioned the Gentile Times and they have still spoken of the time period in terms of a trampling of God's chosen people. The Brownists can still reject the ultimate conclusion of the WTS as a non-starter but at least they can legitimately claim that the 1,260 was connected to the Mohammedan Trampling, and therefore also the "Gentile Times" of Luke 21:24. To me, that argument would quickly be considered "apples and oranges" and should be rejected.

Believe it or not, that is my opinion, too. It doesn't matter who came up with 2,520 and the chronology stuff doesn't matter in the least. And we shouldn't be concerned about the length of the generation, either. Of course, I am taking it a step further and claiming that we shouldn't care at all about the chronology stuff. At least, that's how I read the warnings against chronology in the Greek Scriptures. Being of service to our fellow brothers and sisters in the congregation motivated by love for Jehovah and love for one another should be our priority. This is absolutely true. The love, peace, harmony and unity among the brothers is heartwarming and beautiful. I also have absolutely no problem with the vast majority of our doctrines, too. Thanks for explaining. I very much expect persons like Allen to defend, and while the abrasive manner is what it is, I can see that it's usually sincere. And of course, we all know that questioning our own doctrines is immediately deemed a form of "treason" by some persons. This is to be expected, of course, but we also have to weigh our obligations to the congregation when we see a brother take a false step that may be stumbling others, or when making a conscientious decision about "how far it depends upon us" to either remain quiet or speak up when we see a danger. In this case, I understand why most would not believe there is any danger here, but in my case I am responding to the danger of upholding a tradition as more important than Biblical truth. Am I obligated to speak up in a certain way, time or place? I don't really know. I do know that I could never speak up in the local congregation this way, but I have been thoroughly surprised when taking up such matters with persons at Bethel for many years. Obviously, I have come to a different conclusion about whether it is right to speak up on a forum such as this one. I have also decided to give permission to anyone who asks to allow them to copy and re-use anything I write here on their own sites or forums. (1 Peter 3:15) And three have asked so far, although I don't know what might have been used. Naturally, I don't think it's wrong for you to think this way. All of us need to be guided by our own conscience. My motives, since you question them, are merely a love of truth and a love for God's word and a love for the worldwide brotherhood and a desire to do the right thing and keep a clean conscience. I don't expect these motives to be understood except by people who know that I'm telling the truth about what I have seen and heard. This is why the reaction by some is completely expected, and of course I am also very happy with responses like yours and many others here who react in a thoughtful manner. A good part of my motive can be explained by the very verses you referenced: (Philippians 4:8, 9) . . .Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are of serious concern, whatever things are righteous, whatever things are chaste, whatever things are lovable, whatever things are well-spoken-of, whatever things are virtuous, and whatever things are praiseworthy, continue considering these things. 9 The things that you learned as well as accepted and heard and saw in connection with me, practice these, and the God of peace will be with you. "Whatever things are true" are the most important, especially when truth appears to be overshadowed by a set of clear but "strongly entrenched" falsehoods. I believe that Jesus' words in Matthew 24 and elsewhere should be of "serious concern" especially when we have developed traditions that contradict his words. Eoin, in another thread, made a point about false prophecy and how it does not have to refer to a specific prediction but can be of a type that lulls persons into disbelief. That is the potential danger I see in the use of chronology doctrines during the time period when "a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." I believe Jesus was speaking about these last days that we live in when he gave us everything we needed to know about them, along with a warning against chronology. The Watchtower has correctly warned against serving Jehovah based on the time period we believe we are in, because this can easily influence whether we are truly appreciating Jehovah's patience and righteousness, or our own desire for an early salvation. We should be serving out of love and our opportunity to help others whether in favorable season or troublesome season. The sort of persons we ought to be is all about our motivation for doing what we do, not our knowledge, nor our personal virtuousness. The things we learned, heard and saw in connection with Paul's teaching should not be confused with the chronology traditions we have learned from men, that are so hard to break from. (Recall that Paul said that "as to the times and seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you.") Although, I know that I will suffer the accusation of being haughty for 'kicking against the goads' it has become obvious that it takes a lot more humility to admit that we may have been wrong, and even more humility to accept the ridicule when our conscience moves us to do the right thing for others even if we are repeating truths as we learned and accept them from the words of Jesus and Paul, for example. I'd love to explain more, but I have a feeling I'm sounding too "preachy."

I'm glad you quoted the context from the truebiblecode site. I don't know the site, but that portion sounds well-researched. Reading Even-Tide is very entertaining due to the combination of wild speculation and "mock humility" so common to this genre. One of his major themes is that when decoding the mysteries of prophecy, we should consider not only the Papal system, but also the often-neglected "Mohammedism" whose 1,260 years run from 622 AD to 1844 AD. (The 1335 days end in 1917 AD.) The Mohammedan Empire was identified as the Gentiles that trampled Jerusalem and the Jewish people for the 1,260-year times of the Gentiles. Another theme (also common to Miller, Barbour and Russell, etc.) is that there are several different prophetic time periods that can be synchronized so that each of them strengthens the evidence for the others. This is especially clear from the preface, page xxi through the heading "Synchronical Prophecies" on page xxxviii. So it's not surprising that he purposefully distinguishes the 1,260 period of the "Gentile Times" from the 2,520 year period of the "four tyrannical beasts" starting with Babylon when Nebuchadnezzar took the throne, dated from 604 B.C. (He dates the destruction and captivity of Judea from the first captivity, not the destruction of Jerusalem, about 20 years later.) He combines the images and beasts elsewhere in Daniel (and Hosea, etc) so that the tree in Daniel 4 also represents the "4 beasts." So based on the synchronizing of totally different time periods, he strengthens the evidence for 1917: Not only do the 1335 days end in 1917, so do the 2520 days of the 4 tyrannical empires. It's important to him that these are separate and independent lines of evidence. And this is also why he is careful not to identify the 2520 with the 1260 days of the Gentile Times. As Brown says on page 135: "Commencing therefore the calculation of the "seven times" from the first year of Nebuchadnezzar . . . . 604 . . . the termination of these 2520 years will fall out in the year 1917. It has been seen that the expiration of the 1335 Mohammedan years, and the completion of the forty-five years of Daniel, beyond the elongated period of the 1290 years . . . take place in the same year 1917, and both these positions seem to mutually confirm and support each other." By "both" he is referring to the 1335 and the 2520. He does not include the Gentile Times because they would end in 1844. (William Miller, and therefore even Nelson Barbour, for a while, taught that the Gentile Times ended in 1843/4, not 1914. Barbour evidently changed the ending of the time period in 1875, just prior to meeting Russell and shortly after his 1873 and 1874 expectations had just failed.) Also then, J A Brown does not think of Nebuchadnezzar as a "type" of Jesus Christ as the Watchtower said in 1934, but as Brown puts it: "Nebuchadnezzar was a type . . . of the kings of the tyrannical earth." (p.134) Similar to an idea in the Watchtower however, Brown says that the 2,520 years would be marked by war, but the end of the period would be a time of the peaceful reign of the Messiah when there shall be no more war. This idea was adjusted in the Watchtower in 1904 so that several months of chaos and violence were expected to follow the end of the 2,520 years. Brown expected the first crisis of several to begin shortly after the book was published, also typical of the genre: "We have seen also, in deciding on the other chronological periods, that many proofs point out the year 1844 as a remarkable crisis. . . . I submit therefore as a memorable circumstance, that the 49th jubilee year, reckoning from the rise of the Babylonic monarchy, or the period of Nebuchadnezzar's ascending that throne . . . would take place January 1, 1845. . . . the commencement of an everlasting jubilee. . . I conclude, therefore . . . from the rise of the four monarchies . . . to their final dissolution, there will be . . . 2520 years . . . and will terminate January 1, 1917." (p. 152) The major periods Brown considered were: The "rise of the four monarchies" or the "four tyrannical empires" was a "week of years" or "seven times" or a 2,520 solar-year period, starting in 604 B.C. and ending in 1917 A.D. The "Gentiles Times" was "three and a half-times" or "a time, times and half a time," or a 1,260 lunar-year period, starting in 622 A.D. and ending in 1844 A.D. (It was only 1,222 solar-years.) The "2300" days also ended in 1844 A.D. The "1335" days ended in 1917 A.D. From the 1100's through the beginning of hte 1800's there were about 30 or more Biblical commentators (who also doubled as prophetic prognosticators) who focused on the 1,260 year period and typically tied it to the Gentile Times. During that period, up to and including J A Brown, no one thought to use a 2,520 period for the "Gentile Times" as far as any evidence has been discovered so far. Shortly after Brown's work, however, several commentators began associating the 2,520 year period with the Gentile Times. This was clearly because people like J A Brown had realized that you can't reach far enough into the present time period with 1,260 year, or 1,290 year, or even a 1,335 year period, because there is nothing particularly Biblical to tie the beginning date to. If we wanted to tie 2017 for example to the Biblical period assigned to the Gentile Times in Revelation 11:3, we'd have to find some special event that happened in 757 C.E. So I'd agree with you that Brown laid the basis for it.

I did show the Daniel portion. Perhaps you missed it. It said that the 1,260 days, which represented the Gentile Times, were predicted by Daniel as the "time, times and half a time" or 1,260 days (or years). The latest quote that you just included makes the same point about Daniel that matches the quote I provided. I had intended to include the same quote you just presented, because it also provides evidence that John Aquila Brown saw Revelation 11:2 as the correct verse to cross-reference Luke 21:24. Thanks again, for showing how the book references "Daniel and Revelation in its proper context." But saying that it "then surmises it with the 2520 view" does not appear honest now that you have seen two places where it shows that he thought the Gentile Times should be "surmised with the 1260 view." You found one of them yourself. As I've said before, this doesn't really surprise me any more, because I just pointed out a few posts ago that you have often said that I was lying or spinning and you then provided your evidence. But your evidence often just shows that the original claim was accurate and that you were wrong to try to spin it another way. You are doing that again here. It's one thing to do this once or twice, but I've seen it a dozen times with you. I think this might be why Witnesses on these forums have suspected that you were some kind of apostate trying to make Witnesses look bad. The only reason I'm convinced you are a real Witness, is that I've seen other Witnesses do the exact same thing. Telling the truth is not "disingenuous." Correctly representing something is not "misrepresenting." The reason for quoting the Proclaimers book is to show that this idea about connecting the Gentile Times with 1260 rather than 2520 is not a new idea. Anyone who had decided to look up the original sources from the Proclaimers book would have already noticed that J A Brown would have considered a 2520-year Gentile Times to be a mistake.

Not sure what you mean by "canonical." However, I agree with everything in the paragraph you quoted. But you will notice that there is only one point that is relevant to the discussion: The only thing I said about Brown is that he never equated the 2,520 years with the "Gentile Times" but that he equated 1,260 years with the "Gentile Times." Allen believes this isn't true, but your quote is 100% in agreement with his book "Even-Tide."