JW Insider

Aruana, These comments help explain why the doctrine makes sense to most Witnesses. You also gave a longer version of this same type of answer to Holly in another post that I'll quote from later because it includes some additional points, and some of the strongest ones, at that. It's the one from August 31 that starts out: " Question to you - to think about: Why did God give so many prophecies about the timing and arriving of the first coming and dedication of the messiah- and it was fulfilled right on time (70 week prophesy in Daniel). Would he not also give to Daniel a second prophecy which shows when he would start ruling invisibly in heaven as indicated in Daniel 7: 13 + 14?" I wanted to respond to all the different points of defense that you made with respect to the 1914 doctrine, but I also wanted to acknowledge something so that no one gets the idea that I am thinking that it somehow makes one better for accepting a certain set of beliefs around 1914, or that someone is not intelligent, or is not a rational thinker for believing exactly what the Watchtower teaches. As we all know, it's fact that the doctrine seems to be a reasonable and rational explanation of an entire set of apparently interrelated Scriptures (Daniel, Ezekiel, Matthew, Luke, Hebrews, etc) , and a theme that we can trace from Genesis 3:15 to the end of Revelation. And, it's more than that, it's something that is given a lot of specific importance and attention by the Governing Body, the "faithful and discreet slave," men that we highly respect when it comes to teaching the Bible doctrines. If they consider it important to emphasize and give no sign of changing it, then obviously we follow their lead. Therefore I am well aware that any one specific point from the Bible that might appear to invalidate a portion of the 1914 doctrine would be expected to have no effect on our overall view of the doctrine. At least for me this was true. And ever since I started discussing this on-line a few months ago, I see that it's the same for other Witnesses as it was for me. (This is why, for me, it's important to admit that I probably never would have given these ideas a full consideration if it weren't for learning that other members of the Governing Body, Writing Dept, Service Dept, and other respected Bethel Elders had also doubted the validity of the doctrine. This included the very member of the Governing Body I worked for, who was the one who first made me aware that these others were saying things against 1914.) I think that many of us will also admit that it's mostly the fact that this is a teaching from our Governing Body that has the most effect on our acceptance of it. Obviously, it's not just the meaning of the scriptures themselves, but their explanation of them that carries the most weight, because they could tell us one year that those scriptures mean one thing and next year that they mean something else, and we would probably, in general, have no problem with that. In fact, that has actually happened at least half-a-dozen times on the subject of the "generation," and it has happened again recently on subjects like 'the wheat and the weeds," the "first resurrection," the "rapture," "types and antitypes," even the definition of the "faithful and discreet slave" itself (which is an exception to the type-antitype update). But this does not mean it is irrational to accept their explanation. It is out of appreciation for the many other teachings that we accept as truth. These are teachings that define us, and according to the Watchtower, they are teachings that make us "special." The idea of being "special" is sometimes even worked into these very discussions about 1914 in the Watchtower, and the lead of the anointed: *** w14 11/15 p. 30 Questions From Readers *** It extended from 1914 to the early part of 1919. This period of time includes both the 1,260 days (42 months) and the symbolic three and a half days referred to in Revelation chapter 11. How happy we are that Jehovah arranged for this spiritual refining work to cleanse a special people for fine works! (Titus 2:14) Additionally, we appreciate the example set by the faithful anointed ones who took the lead during that time of testing and thereby served as the symbolic two witnesses. From the very start, even Russell used the idea that he understood the chronology to be something that made the Watch Tower "special." He accepted the title "faithful and discreet slave" and applied it to no one else, because he was providing food "at the proper time" ["meat in due season"] based on the chronology he promoted. [I know that you are tired of "Russell" quotes, so I will only include them if requested.] Russell, even used the acceptance of his chronology as the means to distinguish the "wise virgins" at the wedding feast from the "foolish virgins" who remain locked out of the wedding feast. And, of course, feeling that we are right, and that the rest of the world is wrong, can rightly provide some of the proper motivation for preaching and teaching and warning others. This is not all bad, but it's easy to see how we can end up with an unbalanced pride and tend to attract listeners for the wrong reasons if we lean too much on our own understanding about such ideas, and tend to forget that Jehovah said that this area was not ours to know. Remember all the little ones who were stumbled at the false predictions about 1881 and 1914 and 1925 and predictions about what the "mid-1970's" would bring. But the secondary attraction of the 1914 doctrine is the fascinating way that an entire set of scriptures can mean something different to us than they mean to those who have studied those same scriptures for nearly 2,000 years. This gets back to the idea that a "threefold cord cannot quickly be broken." In our case, we have taken, not just three, but about 10 different ideas and woven them into a very strong concept. We use many of the exact same scriptures to prove 1914 that other people would use to prove that 1914 is a false doctrine. There are about three scriptures which are exceptions. These are scriptures that anyone discussing the 1914 doctrine will sometimes show us to prove that the 1914 doctrine is false. These are ones that the Watchtower will never mention in context with a discussion of 1914. As far as I have seen the Watchtower will just avoid them, even though their connection to the 1914 doctrine is so obvious. This is apparently because there was no way to re-translate them or to easily re-explain them in a different way from the way they are usually understood. Two of them have been mentioned a couple of times already, and although I haven't read all the posts here, I doubt that anyone has attempted to explain them. Here are some questions related to one of them: 1. Why did the Bible reference Jesus word's about the Gentile Times from Luke 21:24 and then attach an actual length of time to them? (I'd like to see any one of us try to answer that question on its own, before answering the next question about it, which is this:) 2. Why is the length of time that the Bible attaches to Luke 21:24 only "42 months" -- 1,260 days -- i.e. three and one-half times, according to Revelation 11:2,3? 3. Why do the Watch Tower publications not cross-reference Luke 21:24 with Revelation 11:2,3 -- even though the verse in Revelation is the only verse that specifically puts a time on the "appointed times" of the Gentiles for trampling Jerusalem underfoot? Another question ties back to the verse that you referenced above in Psalm 110:1. This was probably the most re-quoted verse from the Hebrew Scriptures, referenced in many of the books of the Greek Scriptures, and alluded to in most of them. (Mt, Mk, Lk, Ac, 1 Cor, Eph, Col, Heb, 1 Pet, etc., sometimes multiple times in the same book). A couple questions on this verse, too. 1. If Jesus was sitting at God's right hand, does this give the impression that he is sitting on a throne the way a king sits on a throne? 2. Whether we think the answer is "yes," or "no," would it ever be proper then, to say that Jesus sitting at God's right hand means the same thing as "ruling as king"? 3. If a king of Israel was waiting for God's appointed time for a certain action to be taken against does that mean that he wasn't actually king until that time came? 4. Does a king need to "stand up" to be king, or can he be king while still sitting and waiting for something? As you know, question #3 is alluding to the fact that we often use Hebrews 10:12, 13 to imply that Jesus was merely waiting almost passively at the right hand of the throne of Majesty, but was not yet given the title "king". (Hebrews 10:12, 13) 12 But this man . . . sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from then on waiting until his enemies should be placed as a stool for his feet. But this fact seems to escape our notice that the same word for 'waiting' can refer to 'keen expectation' just as it is used in the next chapter: (Hebrews 11:8-10) By faith Abraham . . . was awaiting the city having real foundations, whose designer and builder is God. And 1 Peter uses it to refer to Jehovah himself waiting patiently to destroy his enemies in Noah's day. And of course with reference to question #4 we often argued that the act of sitting on a throne doesn't mean you are king until you "stand up." The reason I spent so much time on the issue of "standing up" is that we have dropped this teaching. When someone would say that Stephen saw Jesus standing, we always had to convince the householder that Jesus hadn't really stood up and that this vision Stephen saw was in the future: (Acts 7:55, 56) 55 But he, being full of holy spirit, gazed into heaven and caught sight of God’s glory and of Jesus standing at God’s right hand, 56 and he said: “Look! I see the heavens opened up and the Son of man standing at God’s right hand.” We use the same argument about John being transferred into the future when he refers to Jesus as the "King of Kings" in Revelation: (Revelation 1:5) . . . and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “the firstborn from the dead,” and “the Ruler of the kings of the earth.” What we don't comment on is the fact that we only want the third title to be future, not the first two, and that this was the way John introduces the book to readers before he even began speaking of being "in the Lord's day." And of course, question #2 refers to the fact that Paul refers to Psalm 110:1,2 as if the meaning of "sit at my right hand" means exactly the same as "rule as king." (1 Corinthians 15:25) For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. (Psalm 110:1) .Sit at my right hand Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet. Therefore, Jesus was already ruling as king in the midst of his enemies from the time he sat at God's right hand, which was, of course, the time when all powers were subject to him, and all authority had been given to him. We would never say that all powers were not subject to Jehovah while he was waiting patiently for the time to produce the Flood, would we? Why would we say any less of Jesus, about whom Hebrews 1:3 (and Philippians 3:21) says: (Hebrews 1:3) 3 He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power. And after he had made a purification for our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. (Philippians 3:19-21) . . .. 20 But our citizenship exists in the heavens, and we are eagerly waiting for a savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our humble body to be like his glorious body by his great power that enables him to subject all things to himself. If we attempt to limit that power to just a limited kingdom over his congregation then are we not belittling him? After all, in addition to just the congregation, Ephesians says: (Ephesians 1:19-21) . . .It is according to the operation of the mightiness of his strength, 20 which he exercised toward Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name that is named, not only in this system of things but also in that to come. Notice that Ephesians even includes the timeline: "when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand." Do we really have the right to change Jehovah's timeline? For the last 75 years we have said that didn't happen until 1914. We still hold to the idea spelled out in 1950 as you can see on your 2015 WT Lib CD: *** w50 12/15 p. 513 pars. 16-17 Praise to the New World’s Founder *** That meant that Jesus at God’s right hand had to wait till 1914 . . . In 1914 was the time for God to give the kingdom to his faithful Son, “whose right it is,” and for the Son to come into the kingdom in fulfillment of the covenant with his forefather David. At that date was the time for him to act on his heavenly Father’s invitation: “Ask of me, and I will give thee the nations for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” (Ps. 2:7-9, AS) Since he received the nations of earth in order to break and dash them to pieces like pottery smashed with an iron rod, it would indicate that the “appointed times of the nations” had ended. 17 In 1914, at the end of those “appointed times”, Jehovah began to rule as king. How do we know that? Well, at the beginning of those times in 607 B.C. he ceased to reign, by overturning King Zedekiah’s rule at Jerusalem. He ousted him from the “throne of Jehovah” and let the Babylonian Gentiles smash Jerusalem to pieces and let it be trampled on by the nations. Hence the end of those times in 1914 meant just the reverse. There God Almighty took again to himself his great power. He began ruling as king, not at earthly Jerusalem or over the former promised land of Palestine, but over all the earth and all its nations inside and outside of Christendom. He did this in remembrance of his kingdom covenant with David and by installing the worthy Son of David, Jesus Christ, as King of the new world. Not as King on a material throne in an earthly Jerusalem, but on the “throne of Jehovah” which is in heaven and where Jesus had been sitting waiting for all his enemies to be made his footstool. “The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool,” says Jehovah. (Acts 7:49, NW; Isa. 66:1, AS) So since 1914 is the time for the Gentile nations to be no longer on top but underfoot, to be trampled on by the heavenly Rulers till they are ground to powder and are blown away at the battle of Armageddon. If Jehovah was already king before Jehovah 'became king in 1914,' then why couldn't we say the same of Jesus? And doesn't this idea make the words lose their meaning, when we remember that not one of his subjects on earth knew anything about what Jehovah had just done in 1914? A great display of power and authority might be said to be a way in which an existing king can "become king." But if no one here noticed -- not even those whom Jesus had especially chosen to be "that faithful and wise servant" -- then why should this time be a better reason to override what the Bible already said about Jesus becoming king in the first century. Also, we know from the way that the Davidic kingdom is referenced by Peter in Acts 2 that Jesus received the Davidic Kingdom when he sat at God's right hand. But if the logic of the above referenced Watchtower was correct, then 1914 is 'known' because it was the time for Jesus to begin smashing the nations with an iron rod. But we know that he did not smash the nations with an iron rod in 1914. So Jesus is still ruling in the midst of enemies just as Paul said he was already "ruling as king" in the midst of his enemies back in the first century at 1 Cor 15:25 and elsewhere.

The Insight book gives a lot more space to the Neo-Babylonian period than any other. This is because our publications put very little specific importance on any chronological dates except 607 BCE and 1914 CE. (455 BCE is also considered specifically important.) We use other dates like 4026 BCE, 2370 BCE, 1513 BCE, 740 BCE, 2 BC, 29 CE, 33 CE and 70 CE, only as reference points for important events, not because those specific dates make a difference. If we consistently used 4006 BCE as the date of creation, 2350 BCE for the flood, 1493 BCE for the law covenant, etc., etc., then we would merely get used to those dates and nothing would change for us doctrinally. Evidence of this is the number of times that the numbers matching these dates are used in our publications. Here are the number of times the Watchtower has used the following "dates" since as early as 1950, including all Watchtower and book references, as indicated by the 2015 WT LIB CD 4026 -- 35 times 2370 -- 66 times 1513 -- 288 times 740 -- 184 times 607 -- 1,241 times [541 -- 54 times] 539 -- 384 times 537 -- 609 times 455 -- 187 times [1912 -- 217 times] 1914 -- 5,442 times To see how many of these 1914 (and other) references might just be random page numbers or coincidental uses of the date, we can check similar dates like 1913 (219 times) and 1912 (217 times). At any rate, we can see that 607 and 1914 are the most important dates of all in the Watchtower publications, and this is the same reason that 539 and 537 get higher than usual numbers, too. Note that the unrelated and uneventful 541 is only used 54 times. One might get the impression that the most important reason to include a chronology section in the Insight book is in support of 607. Since there is not time, space, and I assume, very little interest in seeing me rehash the dozens of problems with the 607 date, I will only summarize. Besides this subject has been handled by others who know a lot more than I do about the subject I have looked at all the related secular sources that were quoted by the Insight book, however, and these were fascinating and revealing. But again, I'll hold back from getting into details. I'll just mention some of the quotes I found most interesting: *** it-1 p. 448 Chronology *** Bible Chronology and Secular History. Concern is often expressed over the need to try to “harmonize” or “reconcile” the Biblical account with the chronology found in ancient secular records This is a true statement in general. And sometimes secular history and chronology is worthless, even purposely inaccurate. Although in the study of 587 vs 607, both of these dates are SECULAR DATES, just like 539. Yet one of them is a better match to harmonize with both the secular and the Biblical records, and that is 587 BCE, not 607 (for the destruction of Jerusalem). I've given some of the Biblical reasons elsewhere, so I won't repeat them. In fact there is so much evidence for this date, and it harmonizes so well with the Biblical history, that it's one of those cases where we would normally use it to show how accurate the Bible account is, just as we would do for archaeological finds supporting the fall of Jericho, or Jeremiah's scribe, Baruch, etc. This is probably the only case where the Bible and secular archaeology and chronology harmonize with so much evidence where we spend our time denigrating the secular evidence instead of using it to promote faith in the Bible's accuracy. And sadly, we can't make good use of it, because we have an inherited tradition that requires us to dismiss literally THOUSANDS of pieces of evidence. I know it sounds harsh, but our methods of dismissal are often so ridiculous that we get caught by readers who have no interest one way or another in the "controversy" but who immediately notice what must appear to be the same as "dishonesty." They probably don't realize that our willingness to grasp at straws and specious reasoning is because it has been set up as a battle between the Bible's accuracy and secular history. Most Witnesses have never looked at the details because when we do, we can no longer honestly see it in that same light. It becomes a simple matter of trying to maintain a tradition that won't fit the Bible evidence, and secondarily, won't fit the secular evidence either, because both sources agree in this case. *** it-1 pp. 448-449 Chronology *** What is known from secular sources of these ancient nations has been laboriously pieced together from bits of information obtained from monuments and tablets or from the later writings of the so-called classical historiographers of the Greek and Roman period. While archaeologists have recovered tens of thousands of clay tablets bearing Assyro-Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions, as well as large numbers of papyrus scrolls from Egypt, the vast majority of these are religious texts or business documents consisting of contracts, bills of sale, deeds, and similar matter. The considerably smaller number of historical writings of the pagan nations, preserved either in the form of tablets, cylinders, steles, or monumental inscriptions, consist chiefly of material glorifying their emperors and recounting their military campaigns in grandiose terms. The highlighted sentence leaves out the fact that these tens of thousands of clay tablets from the era of the Neo-Babylonian period in question are DATED documents. They give us a complete picture of the period of Neo-Babylonian kings from before Nebuchadnezzar until after Cyrus. On average, there are over 100 documents for each and every year. The Watchtower publications claim that there must be 20 years not represented, in order for 607 to be right and 587 to be wrong. But we have no idea what years would be missing. The claim of 20 "missing years" is worthless, however, because we also have documents for the beginning and ending years of each of the kings, along with documents that cut across the time from one king to the next. You can even figure out, not just the year, but exactly which month most of the kings died and the next king took over. And the "banking" documents also provide a line of "bank presidents" that perfectly interlocks and is matched against the same kings of Babylon as an independent method of double-checking them. In addition, there are other cylinders, tablets, astronomical diaries and contemporary inscriptions that independently confirm the accuracy of the secular banking and contract records. And then there is the fact that "king lists" were kept for many years throughout this era so that one could accurately point to specific dates across periods of hundreds of years. This would be the only way that the astronomers and astrologers could have learned to predict eclipses, and planetary movements, and certain solar/lunar cycles. These lists had to be kept accurately or else those attempts would have failed. Yet, they were very successful -- especially through this Neo-Babylonian period. And the most well-known of those "king lists" -- even the ones repeated and copied and known from hundreds of years later -- are now found to exactly match the more recently discovered tablets that confirm them. Most of the Chronology article in Insight is geared toward dismissing the accuracy of the secular documents, especially those related to the Neo-Babylonian period. This is of course a necessary point to try to dismiss the fact that all of the evidence points to 587 and none of it points to 607. Yet, it is not even necessary to discuss these various issues because it doesn't matter. The Watchtower accepts these same sources, because otherwise we could not get to the 539 accepted secular date which is then used as a key to create the 607 date from a specious interpretation (which is therefore both non-secular, and non-Biblical). Everything said, which is intended to dismiss and denigrate the record for 587, is exactly the same evidence that would force the Watchtower publications to dismiss the 539 date. But the 539 date is still accepted by the Watchtower publications, and therefore all the talk against the secular dating issues and problems are meaningless to the argument. Here's an example: *** it-1 pp. 449-450 Chronology *** Anyone approaching the study of ancient history for the first time must be impressed by the positive way modern historians date events which took place thousands of years ago. In the course of further study this wonder will, if anything, increase. For as we examine the sources of ancient history we see how scanty, inaccurate, or downright false, the records were even at the time they were first written. And poor as they originally were, they are poorer still as they have come down to us: half destroyed by the tooth of time or by the carelessness and rough usage of men.” He further describes the framework of chronological history as “a purely hypothetical structure, and one which threatens to come apart at every joint.”—The Secret of the Hittites, 1956, pp. 133, 134. What is left out of the Insight book here is the fact that even the writers who make such statements about portions of ancient historical records, are well aware -- and admit -- that the Neo-Babylonian period is in a completely different category. It's not clear, therefore, that the writers of the Insight book really wanted you to look up the original sources they used for some of these quotes. Their own sources would have undermined the point that was being made by using very selective quotes that avoided the admission that we have excellent documentation and evidence for period of time that we are supposed to question. More than that, however, the primary point of the above quote from 1956, is to dismiss the "positive way" that dates are presented as if unquestioned and unquestionable. But most historical books actually admit where such dates are questionable. The Watchtower publications are quite different, however, in that they are one of the worst offenders in the use of dates (like 607 BCE) that never include a caveat that this date is questioned, questionable, and that there is no secular or Biblical evidence for the date. Most Witnesses are not aware that we also arbitrarily add 20 years to the dates of the Judean and Israelite kings without explaining that we do this in order for 1914 to work. It's easy to understand why some of the comments in response to the problems of 607 and 1914 will focus on the idea of "independent thinking" and "ego" or "pride." It's sad, but there isn't a lot I can do about that and still give what I believe is a clear defense of the Bible. I think we have a responsibility to give a defense of our faith and hope, and for me, this is part of it. I honestly believe that we inherited the whole idea of our chronology from the independent thinking of Nelson Barbour and some of the prior chronologists who came out of the Millerite Second Advent movement (primarily). This doesn't mean that Russell was a Second Adventist, by the way, but this particular influence did come from them, and Russell readily admitted that it ultimately came from "Father Miller" (which is how Russell sometimes published William Miller's name in the Watch Tower.) Some of the issues related to false claims and honesty also give me the impression that pride is bound up in the continual repetition of some of the claims that have been "called out" and reported back to the Watchtower as false as early as the 1950's and 1960's. "COJ" was not the first person to point out the flaws and false claims in our chronology doctrines.

I'm not sure exactly which portions of the "Insight" book you meant, but there is very little about 1914 in the book, so I will comment on those passages first. Here is primary passage about 1914: *** it-1 p. 135 Appointed Times of the Nations *** It is a historical fact worth noting that, on the basis of the points and evidence above presented, the March 1880 edition of the Watch Tower magazine identified the year 1914 as the time for the close of “the appointed times of the nations” (and the end of the lease of power granted the Gentile rulers). This was some 34 years before the arrival of that year and the momentous events it initiated. In the August 30, 1914, edition of The World, a leading New York newspaper at that time, a feature article in the paper’s Sunday magazine section commented on this as follows: “The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. For a quarter of a century past, through preachers and through press, the ‘International Bible Students’ . . . have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914.” The first sentence is false. I'm not saying it's dishonest. It's just wrong. The information about the March 1880 Watch Tower is wrong, and the quote from the newspaper, "The World," is wrong. Chronology is easily seen to breed dishonesty if one looks closely at the works of Harold Camping, Ellen G White, etc. But I will give the benefit of the doubt to the person responsible for adding some 1914 information to this part of Insight book. The reason it's wrong is that 1914 was not determined "on the basis of the points and evidence above presented." That issue of the Watch Tower does indeed reference the points and evidence it used to determine 1914, and it did not include anything about the "seven times" of Nebuchadnezzar, nor even mention Daniel 4. It used a method wherein references to Israel were "doubled" so that, for example, the same Watchtower says: "... we have shown the double character of Zion -- Jewish and Christian -- and that same period, from now to 1914 is devoted in God's plan to the restoration of the Old and glorification of the New. . . . The parallels of the two Dispensations seem to indicate that Christ was due as King, or in the kingly office, in the spring of 1878. . . . The Anglo-Turkish treaty is . . . visible evidence that 'he whose right it is' had come. Ezek 21:27. When the crown was removed the nation fell, why then should not the restoration of the nation be taken as the official presence of the King? . . . "The Times of the Gentiles" extend to 1914 and the heavenly kingdom will not have full sway till then. . . " In fact, we no longer use those "points and evidence" found in the 1880 Watch Tower. We now reject them as false. Yet, the Insight book refers only to Nebuchadnezzar's dream and experience. The 1880 Watch Tower does not. If it did, it could not have reached the year 1878 as the time when "he whose right it is' had come. Naturally, this same verse had been quoted in the Insight book in support of pointing to 1914, not 1878. References to the 1880 Watch Tower do not include the page number. The same is true when this same point is made in the book Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy: *** dp chap. 15 p. 261 par. 9 The Rival Kings Enter the 20th Century *** As far back as March 1880, the Watch Tower magazine linked the rule of God’s Kingdom with the ending of “the appointed times of the nations,” or “the times of the Gentiles.” (King James Version) So if we look it up, we might even get a hint about why there is no direct quote this time: [March 1880 Watch Tower, p.2,3] ". . . [W]e believe the seventh trumpet will continue to sound until the year 1914, which includes, between now and then, the day of wrath and angry nations, which is the period, not only of restoration of the earthly Jerusalem, but of reward to the church, or the up building and glorification of the heavenly Jerusalem" This is just the opposite of what we believe now. The day of wrath and angry nations would END in 1914, not begin. The restoration of earthly Jerusalem would be complete before the end of the year 1914. We no longer believe any of the prophecies were concerned about earthly Israeli or Palestinian Jerusalem. We no longer believe the church would be resurrected before 1914. In 1880, the primary concern of the Watch Tower was predicting that the "rapture" would occur in 1881. Russell did not even believe that "the church" would be on the earth in 1914. Notice the words, again, as they are quoted from "The World" (a newspaper that the Society had been paying money): “The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. For a quarter of a century past, through preachers and through press, the ‘International Bible Students’ . . . have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914.” "The World," was a newspaper known for sensationalism to sell papers. It was paid to carry Russell's sermons, and this had become controversial, so at least some of the editors would have known something about Russell. But the quote is absolutely false. Note what the Watch Tower had actually said about the "day of wrath." We have no doubt that Zion as used in scripture is double, aside from its being the name of a literal mountain. . . . We believe such prophecies apply primarily to the building up of the old Jerusalem, by restoration, and in a higher sense, to the building up of the New Jerusalem by glorification, and that both will be accomplished in one and the same day, i.e. "the day of wrath," or the 37 years on which we have entered reaching to A.D. 1914. . . . To build up Zion implies a process, and so far as relates to the earthly Jerusalem, includes the restoration of the Jewish nation of Israel according to the flesh, in all its parts; and we believe in its application to the Gospel church, the same must be true. That from 1878 to 1914 is the last half of the last trump, has often been shown, and also that this is the period during which Jerusalem is to be restored. "The last, or seventh trumpet covers the day of wrath... " [italics in original, bolding and underlining highlights added.] The "Day of Wrath" would not "dawn" in 1914. It would "dawn" 37 years earlier and end in 1914. This is, of course, why the Watch Tower had said the following in the July 15, 1894 issue: We see no reason for changing the figures- nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble. Imagine the uproar if someone on a forum like this made a claim by misrepresenting the original words of the Watchtower, or if, in the event they could not find a direct quote to make their point, they resorted to the use of another source that made a false statement about our beliefs. Yet, this quote from "The World" gets repeated many times in our publications. It's ironic that we need "the world" to try to build up our reputation so that we can make claims that aren't even true. But that has always been the nature of predictions based on "chronology." Time is it's worst enemy.

I don't know if you were aware, but you just referenced an excellent example of doctrine that highlights the issues when a Bible teaching conflicts with tradition. There was a time, for about 7 years, when this very innocuous-sounding statement of yours could have resulted in your being questioned about your loyalty and even about apostasy. Scripturally, what you said above is a perfectly correct statement. But a brother in the Writing Dept worded it almost the exact same way back in 1979 and there was a discussion about whether this very wording could be considered correct or if it was related to the brewing "apostasy." It was "voted" to be incorrect for reasons I will try to explain below. Basically, we had been teaching that Jesus already stood up in 1914 and it was argued that it would be confusing to say that he will stand up again. Of course this has since changed, but we had the same types of contradictions with several other points of doctrine that have also changed, some very recently. The "stand up" doctrine was thought to be tied up with these others. Some of our teachings referring to different events associated with the "presence" and/or events associated with the "coming/appearance/manifestation" have also changed in just the last 3 to 5 years. The re-interpretation is usually associated with some of the events associated with Jesus' "coming" that we still taught had occurred beginning (and sometimes ending) in the period from 1914 to 1919. Now we teach that some of these events should only be associated with the timing surrounding the great tribulation and Armageddon. (One of the recently updated teachings now reaches back to the first century.) One of the major teachings that changed more recently, and affects this discussion, was about the "rapture" of 1 Thess 4:16,17. This "rapture" is now explained to be more in line with Christendom's view although without the use of the specific word "rapture" due to its additional false connotations about a return of Jesus "in the flesh." Prior to this, that passage was explained not strictly as the resurrection of the deceased anointed in 1918, although that was always included. It was explained in very different way: *** w64 7/1 p. 415 Questions From Readers *** He issued from his throne a “commanding call, with an archangel’s voice,” to his followers on earth. Christ Jesus is Michael the archangel, in charge of the holy angels at his presence . . . . So Christ, the archangel, uttered the loud command for his people to wake up out of the dust from the spiritually dead, sleeping condition they were in in 1918, in fear and captivity to Babylon the Great, and to become alive with activity, and this they did starting in 1919. This was accompanied by the sound of God’s “trumpet,” and so it takes place during the time of the trumpetlike proclamation that the great King has taken his throne. They were “caught away” by being “snatched away” or delivered from bondage to Babylon the Great and her political paramours and brought into a free theocratic organization under the invisible Lord. . . . To “meet the Lord in the air” would not mean for the surviving remnant on earth to go to heaven . . . . So ‘meeting the Lord in the air’ would mean their coming to know that the spirit Lord, Jesus Christ, is in authority in the air since ousting Satan from heaven. This was the same explanation of 1 Thess in the 1958 Daniel Book (yw), which also taught that the 3.5 times ran from "the first half of November, 1914 and to end on May 7, 1918." Currently, we have even dropped the teaching that this first resurrection of the anointed had to have occurred in the spring of 1918, and have even allowed -- in writing -- for the possibility that it hasn't happened yet, and could happen as late as the time of the great tribulation. So back to the point about what you said above, and why it was voted to be wrong. A set of articles including the 1958 green Daniel book had already explained that he only stood up in 1914 and this standing up for his people referred to the early portion of the tribulation that ran from about 1914 to 1919. It seemed proper to say that this "early tribulation" was interrupted (for the sake of the chosen ones) and therefore it might seem proper to say that Jesus would surely "stand up" again in the future, against his enemies, or at least in "some sense." In 1967, we would still have worded what you said above like what follows, with no reference to a future time for "standing up": *** w69 5/15 p. 307 par. 21 Crushing All Nations in Our Day by God’s Kingdom *** That means that Michael becomes king in heaven. Michael stands up to reign during the conflict between “the king of the north” and “the king of the south.” Hence, he stands up in the midst of his own enemies. In 1969, we came close to allowing for a future standing up, but stuck with 1914 to 1918 as the primary time: *** w69 5/15 pp. 307-308 pars. 21-24 Crushing All Nations in Our Day by God’s Kingdom *** So after a period of waiting Michael or the Lord Jesus Christ stands up, Daniel explaining that this expression “stand up” means to take up power and begin reigning as king. In 1914, Jesus Christ was glorified in heaven at God’s right hand . . . Michael’s standing up to reign in the midst of his enemies and to go subduing in their midst calls for a war, the like of which there has never been before, a time of trouble more distressing than anything previous. This must be so, not just because the war that flamed up in 1914 was earth wide, but because this trouble on earth will surpass even the Noachian flood.—Matt. 24:21-39. This has also been a time of affliction for Jehovah’s holy people, especially in 1918, when they were worn out by persecution and their preaching work was practically silenced by the war-maddened nations. . . . History shows that since May and June of 1918, when there was a dashing of the power of Jehovah’s people to pieces, God’s people have not been crushed again. . . . still Jehovah’s people are not crushed, neither will they be crushed by the impending attack of Gog of Magog, because back there in 1918 the crushing of Jehovah’s people reached its climax, never to be repeated with success. The part that refers to the future great tribulation appears to be directly connected with Michael standing up, but the actual doctrine was still that the events of 1918 were so important that it was the standing up at that time that 'once for all time' already covered for the future great tribulation. That's the meaning of the last sentence in the 1969 quote above. So in 1974, the Watchtower answers a related question that asks the Watchtower to pin down explicitly whether this time of standing up is at the time of the "great tribulation." The answer was YES! *** w74 3/15 p. 192 Questions From Readers *** "The time of “distress” spoken of in the prophecy of Daniel is therefore evidently the same as the “great tribulation” that will bring the entire wicked system of things to its end." 1974 was a time that the Writing Department was given a lot of freedom. New ideas had come out of the Aid Book research, and permission was given to just go ahead and allow some doctrinal items to change based on what seemed to be obvious scriptural reasoning (porneia, elder arrangement, etc.). But the idea of a future "standing up" of Jesus was encroaching on a well-crafted, intricate set of teachings that might seem to unravel if a time setting was changed. In 1976, the new, 1974 position was re-stated fairly clearly in support of the change: *** w76 2/1 pp. 94-95 An Age-Old Conflict About to End *** When World War II ended, the Communist bloc of nations, the “king of the north,” dominated 18 percent of earth’s land area, which had 7 percent of the world’s population. But what is the situation today? Thirty-five percent of the world’s population, occupying over a quarter of earth’s land area, has come under the control of the Communist “king of the north.” How will this conflict finally end? Will the “king of the north” gain more and more control, finally taking over the domain of the “king of the south”? No. . . . Daniel 12:1 tells us: “During that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people. And there will certainly occur a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time. . . . The “time of distress” here referred to will be a “great tribulation” that will bring an end to all human rule, including that of the “king of the north” and the “king of the south.” So, at this point, your statement above was on solid ground. But by late 1978 and 1979, the Writing Dept was beginning to deal with questions about 1914 that were coming in, not just from Sweden, but from all over the world. The question came up fairly openly whether the whole idea should be researched again, but this was squashed. Fred Franz even suggested that admitting that you thought 1914 was wrong should result in disfellowshipping, even if the brother or sister never mentioned it to anyone except their elders or admitted as much in a question to the Service Department. Even though the two different brothers who wrote the 1974 and 1976 articles were both strong 1914 supporters, they were questioned about their loyalty. A correction had to be made, and it was made in the February 15, 1979 Watchtower based on a question that came, not from the outside, but was worded by the person who wrote both the question and the answer himself. *** w79 2/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers *** Daniel 12:1 places Michael’s ‘standing up’ as coming before an unprecedented time of distress. Has Michael already ‘stood up,’ or will that occur just before the “great tribulation”? The indications are that Michael has already ‘stood up.’ Jehovah’s Witnesses have often shown from the Bible and its fulfillment in history that Jesus’ period of ‘sitting’ ended during the raging of World War I in the autumn of 1914 C.E. Then it was time for him to “stand up” or accept Kiengdom rulrship in heaven . . . See “Your Will Be Done on Earth” (1958), pp. 220-307. Behind the scenes, the real problem was that some members of the Writing Dept and even several members of the Governing Body (including Lyman Swingle who was in charge of the Writing Dept at the time) were beginning to understand that going after little items like this was like "going after a fly with a sledgehammer" to use the words of LS. The QFR sounded OK and reasonable, and I think most of the brothers hadn't even noticed that we had gone back to the 1958 book. But that recommended section of the "yw" book (on Daniel) leads right into ideas of wild speculation that the younger members of Writing were hoping to change: like, Jehovah sending cosmic rays to manipulate the minds of the kings of the north and king of the south to lead them to mutual slaughter, and speculation that Jehovah was going to use anti-matter, and discussing sunspots and how the idea of detonating a nuclear bomb on the moon was part of the "fearful signs" in the heavens. In fact, those very pages from "yw" were included in the next discussion of Daniel 12:1: *** w85 7/1 p. 28 par. 20 Triumphing in “the Final Part of the Days” *** The determining factor is stated at Daniel 12:1: “And during that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people.” This Michael is Jesus Christ, who ‘stood up’ in his Kingdom in 1914, promptly to eject Satan from the heavens. . . . For details, see the book “Your Will Be Done on Earth,” published in 1958 by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., pages 220-323. [edited to add that I am attaching an image of page 322, to show what I meant about teh speculation regarding manipulating the minds of kings with cosmic rays, bombing the moon, flying saucers, etc. Note the questions at the bottom of the page, too.] A return back to the 1974-1979 and also what is now the current teaching was introduced carefully again in 1986, but it was not discussed in the general body of the article. Initially, it was just buried in a parenthetical phrase and a request that the reader use discernment: *** w86 11/1 p. 4 Are We Living in “the Time of the End”? *** (Compare Matthew 24:3, 15, 21 with Daniel 11:31; 12:1, 4.) By doing this, Jesus showed that he did not consider Daniel’s “Old Testament” words to be out of date or insignificant. Neither should we. Notice the similarity in the words of Daniel and those of Jesus as set out above. Then ask yourself, ‘Were they not speaking about the same thing?’ At this point, it would raise no eyebrows, not even from a proofreader/researcher who could catch a subtle doctrinal shift. That's because we would still use Daniel 12:1 generically to refer to a time of tribulation after Jesus stood up, and therefore associated loosely with the entire time period from 1914 to the GT. But the brother asked for a graphical typesetting "call-out" to highlight the parallels between Daniel and Jesus and asked that it be put at the top of the page so that the words "as set out above" would draw a reader to it. What he asked for would have been considered "apostasy" by some just a year earlier, was when he asked for a graphical call-out, a very subtle italicization of several words, and he wanted to include the words "will stand up" as part of the italicized phrase even though nothing on the Matthew side of the call-out provided a parallel to those words. You can see it in the italicization in the WT-Lib CD, but should look it up in the printed bound volume to see exactly what I mean. At any rate, the new teaching with the explicit clarification text came in less than a year: *** w87 7/1 pp. 18-20 pars. 10-17 Michael the Great Prince Stands Up *** But now the angel says that Michael is going to act in a particular way. Using the word ‘stand’ twice, he says: “And during that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people.” (Daniel 12:1) What does it mean that Jesus ‘stands up’? And how can he “stand up” if he is already “standing in behalf of [Daniel’s] people”? . . . . Thus, Jesus has been “standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel’s] people” all throughout these last days.—Daniel 12:1. Michael ‘Stands Up’ . . . So how is it that Jesus, who is already “standing,” ‘stands up’ at that time? (Daniel 12:1) In that his rulership enters a new phase, as it were. It is time for him to act in an outstanding way to save ‘Daniel’s people’ from annihilation at the hands of human governments. (Ezekiel 38:18, 19) The “time” referred to here is evidently “the time of the end” of the king of the north and the king of the south, when the king of the north threatens the spiritual estate of God’s people. (Daniel 11:40-45) Before this time, Jesus’ rulership has been taken seriously only by his faithful earthly subjects. (Psalm 2:2, 3) Now, though, it is time for “the revelation of the Lord Jesus,” when everyone will be forced to recognize his kingship. (2 Thessalonians 1:7, 8) This will involve the destruction of all opposing forces, followed by the Thousand Year Reign of Jesus and his corulers, when the Kingdom will be the only government over mankind.—Revelation 19:19-21; 20:4. . . . In agreement with this, the angel says that when Michael stands up, “there will certainly occur a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time.” (Daniel 12:1; compare Matthew 24:21.) It will be a time for the destruction of the wicked and salvation for the faithful. . . . It will be a time of distress indeed. Jesus will end the long history of human warfare when he ‘stands up’ to remove the human powers that are responsible.—Psalm 46:9; 1 Corinthians 15:25. This has been repeated several times since 1987, with a shift away from the idea that Jesus "stood up" in 1914. The teaching now no longer has Daniel 12:1 mean that Jesus "stood up" in 1914 but that he was already "standing in behalf of his people" since 1914. We have now exactly swapped the meaning of the timing of when he is "standing" and when he "stands up" during this time period of already standing: *** w15 5/15 p. 30 par. 3 Questions From Readers *** What occurs next as a result of this final attack? Daniel tells us: “During that time Michael [Jesus Christ] will stand up [at Armageddon], the great prince who is standing [since 1914] in behalf of your people. In summary, what you said above would have been WRONG from 1958 through about 1974. Then it would have been OK from 1974 to about 1978. Then, in front of certain people, it could have gotten you into trouble as potential APOSTASY from 1979 to about 1985. Then from at least 1986 until now it's the CORRECT teaching again.

OK, here's the second half of comments about the subject of "Gentile Times" and "1914" from the Appendix of the book "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" Excerpts quoted from the book are put in bold: In the Bible, trees are sometimes used to represent rulership. (Ezekiel 17:22-24; 31:2-5) So the chopping down of the symbolic tree represents how God’s rulership, as expressed through the kings at Jerusalem, would be interrupted. However, the vision served notice that this ‘trampling of Jerusalem’ would be temporary—a period of “seven times.” How long a period is that? True, trees sometimes represent rulership, although in this case, Daniel 4 says it represented the King himself, and therefore also his rulership. It does not say that there is some kind of a second fulfillment of any kind, but points several times to the fact that it was fulfilled in the person of Nebuchadnezzar himself. So, while we can't completely discount the possibility of a second fulfillment, the chopping down of the tree does not directly represent God's rulership for the following reasons. The fulfillment includes a generic truth, which would apply to Jehovah's sovereignty over even the wicked rulers of the earth. Nothing in that general truth points specifically to "God's kingdom" or the "Messianic Kingdom" even if they can be included. Also, Nebuchadnezzar was a Gentile, so it's odd that his interrupted Gentile rulership would represent the interruption of the Messianic rulership. It's odd that his restoration to power would somehow represent the time when Jesus Christ was restored to the Messianic kingdom. Also, of course, he was a vicious, beastly ruler, and an enemy of God's kingdom, and he was punished with insanity -- brought low -- for his haughtiness. Jesus was neither vicious, beastly, or an enemy of God's kingdom, and Jesus was never punished with insanity for his haughtiness. Creating a correspondence between Jesus and Nebuchadnezzar is therefore much the same as if we took a narrative about Judas Iscariot and said that it had application to Jesus Christ because both hanged from a tree, and both had the number "30" surrounding an important event of their lives: 30 pieces of silver, the price of a slave (Exodus 21:32), and Jesus was 30 years of age at baptism when he gave humbled himself as a "slave" of his Father. The numbers are coincidental, but even if the numbers could be construed into some schematic doctrine, we should still reject any prophetic correspondence between Jesus and Judas Iscariot. Revelation 12:6, 14 indicates that three and a half times equal “1,260 days.” “Seven times” would therefore last twice as long, or 2,520 days. But the Gentile nations did not stop ‘trampling’ on God’s rulership a mere 2,520 days after Jerusalem’s fall. Evidently, then, this prophecy covers a much longer period of time. On the basis of Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6, which speak of “a day for a year,” the “seven times” would cover 2,520 years. Note that the same point made in Revelation 12:6,14 can be made from Revelation 11:2,3. We can be pretty sure, however, that the Watchtower will never allow the juxtaposition of Luke 21:24 and Revelation 11:2,3 in the same article. (For reasons pointed out in the first half of the comments on the "Bible Teach" Appendix.) But it should still be noted that the Watchtower is not consistent when the article says that the time period of the 7 times would be twice as long as the time period for 3 and 1/2 times. Those 3.5 times are actually considered to be a literal 1,260 days, while the 7 times are considered to be about 920,430 days. (7 x 360 x 365.25) So Daniel's time period is not just twice as long as Revelation's; it's 730.5 times longer. Also note that there is no reason to use a day-for-a-year here. The Watchtower doesn't do it with the 1,260 days in any of the places that this period is mentioned in Revelation -- even though one of the those places is identified in Revelation itself as the length of the Gentile Times. The Watchtower does not even use the 1,260 days from Daniel 12 to mean years, nor the 1,290 days of Daniel 12:11, etc. The day-for-a-year formula is not really a Bible rule anyway. It's used in a couple places when the Bible says it is being used. There is no reason to use it if the Bible doesn't say to use it. If it were really some kind of a rule, then why wouldn't the Watchtower use it for the 1,260 days? In fact, there are other similar formulaic rules that are also used. Daniel was elsewhere asked to use a multiple of 7 years for every year when he turned Jeremiah's 70 years into 70 weeks of years. In other types of measurements (justice, forgiveness, forbearance) multiples of 7 and 11 and 2 are also used. (e.g. not 7 times, but 77 times; i.e., 7x11=77) The 2,520 years began in October 607 B.C.E., when Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians and the Davidic king was taken off his throne. The period ended in October 1914. At that time, “the appointed times of the nations” ended, and Jesus Christ was installed as God’s heavenly King.—Psalm 2:1-6; Daniel 7:13, 14. Not only did Jerusalem not fall in 607 BCE, it was not even in October. And this is admitted in the book Insight on the Scriptures: *** it-1 p. 812 Fast *** “The fast of the fourth month” apparently commemorated the breaching of Jerusalem’s walls by the Babylonians on Tammuz 9, 607 B.C.E. (2Ki 25:2-4; Jer 52:5-7) (2) It was in the fifth Jewish month Ab that the temple was destroyed, and evidently “the fast of the fifth month” was held as a reminder of this event. (2Ki 25:8, 9; Jer 52:12, 13) The fifth month is typically mid-July to mid-August. So it's not just off by 20 years, it's also off by an extra two months for good measure. And more than that, Jesus said the Gentile Times would start after 33 CE. If they started with the events of 66 CE, as Jesus indicated when he spoke of Jerusalem being surrounded by encamped armies and the people being trampled then these events would run up to about 70 CE when Jesus said: "They will dash you and your children within you to the ground, and they will not leave a stone upon a stone in you." This fits better with the statement in Revelation 11:2,3 that these Gentile Times would run for 1,260 days or 42 months. (3 and 1/2 times). Just as Jesus predicted, his “presence” as heavenly King has been marked by dramatic world developments—war, famine, earthquakes, pestilences. (Matthew 24:3-8; Luke 21:11) Such developments bear powerful testimony to the fact that 1914 indeed marked the birth of God’s heavenly Kingdom and the beginning of “the last days” of this present wicked system of things.—2 Timothy 3:1-5. Jesus actually said almost the opposite. He predicted that if people used wars and rumors of wars and famines and earthquakes as "the sign" that they would be misled, because these were not signs of the end. They were just things that must continue to take place, but cannot be thought of as signs. It's the idea of the whole chapter that they could not figure out the parousia (presence) with a sign, because it would come as a surprise at any time. Wars and earthquakes would happen, but these events would mislead people if they didn't listen to Jesus' words. Note: (Matthew 24:3-8) . . .what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?” 4 In answer Jesus said to them: “Look out that nobody misleads you, 5 for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many. 6 You are going to hear of wars and reports of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for these things must take place, but the end is not yet. 7 “For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another. 8 All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress. If these were NOT the sign, then what was? Simple The sign of his presence comes after the tribulation of those days. There is no warning sign before the tribulation. That's why they needed to stay alert, that's why the presence would be a surprise, just as when the flood surprised people in the days of Noah who were living their day-to-day lives as if there was "peace and security." This fits all the other scriptures in the Bible about that presence. (Matthew 24:29,30) “Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, 2 Timothy 3:1-5 shows that Paul understood that the last days had already begun in the first century CE. The same idea is made in Acts, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, and Jude. This is another way in which the Bible contradicts the claims about 1914. There is plenty more on the subject, but that's the end of the commentary critiquing the Appendix article in the Bible Teach book.

Interesting. I appreciate the advice, and the real-world experience. As you can imagine, I have more than once been told that I get too bogged down in details. The executives I have worked for in the real world (retired now after 33 years) learned to ask me for a high-level summary, and even my high level summaries always turned out to be one-pagers. So they learned to ask for two sentences and the "elevator pitch." Most of them probably never got to the last page of anything I wrote.

I'm still stepping through some of what Arauna has said in defense of the 1914 doctrine. The appendix in the Bible Teach book is fairly short, so I think I'll comment on that first. To make it easy to distinguish comments from the original, I'll "bold" the Bible Teach book content: APPENDIX 1914—A Significant Year in Bible Prophecy This has now been moved to the Appendix at the back of the book, after several years in the main content section. DECADES in advance, Bible students proclaimed that there would be significant developments in 1914. What were these, and what evidence points to 1914 as such an important year? Technically, it's true they proclaimed significant developments, but all of them failed. Although the book never claims that any of the proclaimed developments came true, it implies it asking about them with the term "these" and then implying that "these" were evidences that 1914 was an important year. In past years, we blatantly claimed that the "parousia" (presence), or "Christ's enthronement," or at least "the time of trouble" was predicted in advance. Although we have stopped doing that, the above is about the closest we can get to implying that we did, without being dishonest. As recorded at Luke 21:24, Jesus said: “Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations [“the times of the Gentiles,” King James Version] are fulfilled.” Jerusalem had been the capital city of the Jewish nation—the seat of rulership of the line of kings from the house of King David. (Psalm 48:1, 2) However, these kings were unique among national leaders. They sat on “Jehovah’s throne” as representatives of God himself. (1 Chronicles 29:23) Jerusalem was thus a symbol of Jehovah’s rulership. 100% true. How and when, though, did God’s rulership begin to be “trampled on by the nations”? This happened in 607 B.C.E. when Jerusalem was conquered by the Babylonians. “Jehovah’s throne” became vacant, and the line of kings who descended from David was interrupted. (2 Kings 25:1-26) False, in about 3 different ways. #1. Jerusalem is not a symbol; it's the physical city being punished Although Jerusalem had been a symbol of God's rulership, this doesn't mean that it always was a symbol in every context. In fact, what Jesus said was clearly NOT about Jerusalem as a symbol but was about the physical city of Jerusalem. That is clear from the context of the same verse in Luke. If we take the entire paragraph from which Luke 21:24 is taken we see it clearly: (Luke 21:20-24) 20 “However, when you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. 21 Then let those in Ju·deʹa begin fleeing to the mountains, let those in the midst of her leave, and let those in the countryside not enter into her, 22 because these are days for meting out justice in order that all the things written may be fulfilled. 23 Woe to the pregnant women and those nursing a baby in those days! For there will be great distress on the land and wrath against this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. If Jerusalem were a symbol of "God's rulership" in this context, then why would "God's rulership" be surrounded by encamped armies and people be asked to flee from God's rulership. It was the physical city of Jerusalem being punished here, not "God's rulership" being punished. Matthew introduces the "Olivet Sermon" in Matthew 24 in a similar manner. These are the final verses of Matthew 23 introducing the context for Matthew 24: (Matthew 23:37-39) 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!’” If Jerusalem were a symbol of God's rulership in this context it would mean that God's kingdom is being punished and abandoned for being a killer of the prophets. #2 - The trampling of Jerusalem started in the future, not in the past The trampling of Jerusalem spoken of in Luke 21:24 could not have begun in 607 BCE because it was to take place in the future. Jesus said that this time "draws near," that they "WILL fall by the edge of the sword," and that Jerusalem "WILL be trampled." He didn't say that this has been ongoing, but that it is an event that will begin in the near future. The NWT even links it to a parallel verse in Luke 19: (Luke 19:41-44) 41 And when he got nearby, he viewed the city and wept over it, 42 saying: “If you, even you, had discerned on this day the things having to do with peace—but now they have been hidden from your eyes. 43 Because the days will come upon you when your enemies will build around you a fortification of pointed stakes and will encircle you and besiege you from every side. 44 They will dash you and your children within you to the ground, and they will not leave a stone upon a stone in you, So they will be trampled in the near future. Nothing is said of this being something that started 600 years earlier. This of course happened closer to 66 CE according to the video found on jw.org. That date is correct: https://www.jw.org/en/publications/videos/#mediaitems/VODMoviesBibleTimes/pub-ivwf_E_x_VIDEO #3 Jerusalem was not destroyed in 607 BCE. Nebuchadnezzar had not even begun his first year of ruling yet, and Jerusalem was destroyed in his 19th year counting from his first regnal year. The publications assume that 539 BCE is a correct year to begin counting from, but if that date is true (and all evidence says it is) then Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE, not 607 BCE by the same evidence. There is no 539 without 587 and vice versa. Today, 607 (aka 606) as the date for the destruction of Jerusalem is easily traced as an error that made it to Russell from Barbour. Would this ‘trampling’ go on forever? No, for the prophecy of Ezekiel said regarding Jerusalem’s last king, Zedekiah: “Remove the turban, and take off the crown. . . . It will not belong to anyone until the one who has the legal right comes, and I will give it to him.” (Ezekiel 21:26, 27) “The one who has the legal right” to the Davidic crown is Christ Jesus. (Luke 1:32, 33) So the ‘trampling’ would end when Jesus became King. The verse in Ezekiel is used as the key to Luke 21:24 about trampling, but Ezekiel is speaking of the past event (587 BCE) which contradicts Jesus own words that this is about a future event. Ezekiel is definitely talking about the coming Messiah, Christ Jesus as the one who has the legal right. But the verse in Luke is not related to the trampling that started in 587 BCE. Such trampling, since it started in 66 CE and Jesus became King in 33 CE, would not therefore end when Jesus became King. Jesus sat on the throne, reigning as king, as soon as he was raised to the right hand of God. (1 Cor 15:25) The Bible already calls Jesus "King of Kings", and says he had all authority in heaven and on earth at this time. Any claim that he waited another 1,881 years to get more authority contradicts at least 10 clear scriptures to the contrary. When would that grand event occur? Jesus showed that the Gentiles would rule for a fixed period of time. The account in Daniel chapter 4 holds the key to knowing how long that period would last. It relates a prophetic dream experienced by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. He saw a tree of enormous height that was chopped down. Its stump could not grow because it was banded with iron and copper. An angel declared: “Let seven times pass over it.”—Daniel 4:10-16. Jesus did not show that the Gentiles would rule for a fixed period of time in Luke 21, or Matthew 24, etc. However, Jesus did give the apostle John a Revelation where Jesus referenced this very verse in Luke 21:24 and there he did give it a fixed period of time: 42 months, or 1,260 days. Since Jesus said in Luke that he was referring to the future trampling of Jerusalem which we know lasted from about 66 CE to 70 CE, which could be the very reason he referred to it as a 3.5 year, 1,260 day, or 42 month period. The Watchtower claims that this period of Gentile Times mentioned in Revelation when gentiles nations trampled Jerusalem underfoot was a literal 1,260 days (although not exactly 1,260 days). They say it was not a day-for-a-year, but that it lasted from 1914 to 1919. Note: *** w14 11/15 p. 30 Questions From Readers *** . . . So in the fulfillment of Revelation chapter 11, the anointed brothers who took the lead at the time of the establishment of God’s Kingdom in heaven in 1914 preached “in sackcloth” for three and a half years. At the end of their preaching in sackcloth, these anointed ones were symbolically killed when they were thrown into prison for a comparatively shorter period of time, a symbolic three and a half days. . . . . Not only were these anointed ones released from prison but those who remained faithful received a special appointment from God through their Lord, Jesus Christ. In 1919 they were among those who were appointed to serve as a “faithful and discreet slave” . . . Interestingly, Revelation 11:1, 2 links these events to a time when the spiritual temple would be measured, or evaluated. . . . How long did this inspection and cleansing work take? It extended from 1914 to the early part of 1919. *** re chap. 25 p. 162 par. 7 Reviving the Two Witnesses *** "Christians. As we shall see, the reference here is to the literal 42 months extending from December 1914 to June 1918, when all professing Christians were put to a severe test." What is strange is that the Watchtower doesn't attempt to link Luke 21:24 to Revelation 11:2,3. (Revelation 11:2,3) . . .the nations, and they will trample the holy city underfoot for 42 months. . . 1,260 days . . . . (Luke 21:24) . . .the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. There must be a good reason why there is no cross-reference between Luke 21:24 and the only other verse in the Bible that references it this directly. They both mention the Gentile Times, and one of them actually puts a time period on it: 3.5 times, or 1,260 days, or 42 months. After the Bible goes to the trouble to put a time period on the "Gentile Times" the Watchtower makes a different claim, saying it is the account in Daniel 4 that puts a time period on it. Yet Daniel 4 says nothing about 3.5 times, or 1,260 days, or 42 months. Daniel 4 doesn't even mention the Gentile Times. It does mention that Nebuchadnezzar would be punished for his haughtiness for 7 "times" which we assume means 7 "years", but there is nothing in this particular passage that says that this is what it means here. But in Daniel 4 it is Nebuchadnezzar himself who is removed from the throne and then put back on his throne after he has learned his lesson in humility. It creates difficulties and even contradictions to claim that Nebuchadnezzar's return to the throne means the return of the Messianic kingdom here. That's about half way. I'll stop for now and do the second half later.

You asked a few questions, and in case they were meant to be responded to, I'll give them a try. I don't think any Bible believer denies that Jehovah gave us the experience of Nebuchadnezzar for a purpose. In fact, he tells us the purpose: (Daniel 4:17) . . .so that people living may know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that he gives it to whomever he wants, and he sets up over it even the lowliest of men.” (Daniel 4:25) . . . know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that he grants it to whomever he wants. (Daniel 4:32) . . .until you know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that he grants it to whomever he wants.’” (Daniel 4:34, 35) . . .because his rulership is an everlasting rulership and his kingdom is for generation after generation. 35 All the inhabitants of the earth are regarded as nothing, and he does according to his own will among the army of the heavens and the inhabitants of the earth. And there is no one who can hinder him or say to him, ‘What have you done?’ (Daniel 4:37) . . . glorifying the King of the heavens, because all his works are truth and his ways are just, and because he is able to humiliate those who are walking in pride.” If that is not directly related to Jehovah's purpose and the fact that we must ultimately rely on Jehovah for the true answers for the governments of the world, then I don't know what is. Where we start to move on to less solid ground, (just an opinion, of course) is where we start using a specific Bible passage to overcome the principles in another Bible passage. The Bible does not contradict itself, and if we are trying to interpret it in such a way that it creates a contradiction, then we should re-think the truth and the reason for that interpretation. We might even come to a point where we should think about the motives we have if we notice the contradiction, but insist on ignoring it or defending it. I don't mean specifically you and I don't mean specifically about 1914, but in general. People have been predicting that their generation was the one to see Christ return for a thousand years or more. I still find it contradicts Jesus words pointed out in the OP. And if we are right about "parousia" meaning "invisible presence" rather than his royal visitation or manifestation/appearance/revelation, then I find that to be, not a solution, but even MORE of a Bible contradiction based on Jesus' specific words. On the flip side of this, I appreciate why you always come back to the higher-level reason for our interpretation of Daniel 4. You find it to be not contradictory, but complementary with all the other related Bible prophecies. If we have a time-based prediction of Jesus' first presence, and a timeline of world powers, then why not a time-based prediction of his second presence? That's a good question. Of course, the answer that makes sense is that Jesus didn't want chronology to be a crutch for our faith, did not want it to be a source of pride and ego for humans to "think they know" when such things are only in the Father's jurisdiction. He wanted us to focus on what sort of persons we ought to be, rather than making claims that we are privy to knowledge that the Bible clearly says we need no more information about, because we should be prepared at all times, even though that day comes as a surprise. I agree that there are other ways to interpret the presence and the coming and argue that it doesn't come as a surprise to true Christians, that he would somehow reveal it to his servants the prophets, or that the "day of the Lord" is different from the "presence of the Lord." But these claims create even more contradictions. It's the creation of Bible contradictions, dozens of them, that gave me the reason to speak of it as a "mess." And by the way, I am not using the term "I" as if I was the one who discovered these contradictions. I might have never noticed them on my own, although once you have seen them it becomes difficult to dismiss them. The first person I even heard call the 1914 doctrine "a mess" was a member of the Governing Body (Daniel Sydlik). He said to it several Bethelites, not just me, that we ought to just scrap the whole thing and start over from scratch. You can't hear that without wondering why a person like him would say such a thing. He was known for saying this to friends of his up until about 1974. When I heard about it, it was in 1977-8 from a couple of his friends, and again in 1979 from a different member of the GB whom I worked for. When I got up the nerve to ask Brother Sydlik himself about it, he already knew I was concerned that this same idea was potentially going to affect a couple friends in the Writing Dept. He said he wouldn't put it in those words any more, and that we all needed to be more careful about what we say, but still claimed the same idea. He said Bethel, at the time, was "so great a woodland" referring to James 3:5. Based on Brother Sydlik's words, and out of respect for him, I stayed quiet about the subject for over a quarter of a century. At the same time I knew a few other members of the GB and Writing who had varying ideas about 1914, and since you came into the truth in the in 70's you probably already know some of them. I know exactly how unbelievable this probably sounds to you or at least many other Witnesses, and I also know how completely believable it is to those who experienced the same, including many who left or were dismissed. But I don't think this is a reason to give up or lose enthusiasm. It seemed like an impossible situation for years, but I assumed it would be resolved, sooner or later. I don't think we should "throw the baby out with the bathwater." But I also don't have any problem with anyone sincerely believing in the 1914 doctrine. I don't think there are as many young ones who do believe it any more, based on hunches, but I can't really ask them. I can get a feel for who responds to the questions on Internet forums, and it's usually those of us who have many more years in the organization. Also, while I can't currently believe it myself in good conscience any more, I do know that I was sincere when I did promote it, I can't claim that there is any insincerity in others who promote it. For me it has not even become an area of doubt, but one of honesty. It's an area where I'd be happy to believe differently, but only if there are good scriptural reasons. I do nothing to stop others in the congregation setting from believing and promoting it.

Actually, all of us do think it's a complete mess when people do this for ideas like Trinity, Immortal Soul, Hellfire, Eternal Torment, Destruction of the Earth, Physical Return of Jesus, Once Saved Always Saved, etc, etc, etc. The conclusions that people draw from such a practice can be quite "solid" but still incorrect.

BTW, when threads get this long (over one page) I wish the default was not "Sort by Votes." I don't know if everyone else gets this as their default, but I wish it was "Sort by Date" so that I could find what was most recently said. Naturally, I agree with these re-quoted comments about Matthew 24, etc. But there is another question that seems to loom quite large in the minds of almost all Witnesses, and it results in some prejudices about motives. I think this needs to be addressed. Your last two posts covered the issue well, and summarized the important points about the history of the doctrine, and made what is probably the most important point about how we have seen many interlocking points from related scriptures as the key to accepting the 1914 doctrine. Therefore, we have a situation where some Witnesses have seen the doctrine as a "complete mess" of needing to jump all over the place to take verses here and there out of context, and to redefine Biblical terms to their "least likely" meaning instead of their "most likely" meaning. Some of these issues include: parousia: coming vs presence vs royal visitation synteleia/telos: conclusion vs end vs end of all things visibility: revelation/manifestation/appearance/lightning Jesus spoke of "the sign" vs "composite" sign Jesus said wars not "a sign" to watch for vs Watchtower saying this was the first and primary sign in 1914 kingdom vs "all authority" vs "king-designate" standing/sitting/waiting vs "ruling as king" at God's right hand 70 years "for" Babylon vs 70 years "at" Babylon [i.e. "first deportation" or "next-to-last deportation"] 607 vs. 587 BCE day-for-a-year vs years ("times") first fulfillment on Gentile vs second fulfillment on non-Gentiles End of Gentile Times vs End of Lease of Gentile Times "this generation" vs "these several generations fitting within the lifespans of two overlapping groups" 1914 predicted: "not the beginning, but the end of the system" vs "beginning of the end of the system." Luke 21:24: Jesus said the Gentile Times had not yet started "will start" vs Watchtower's claim that they had already started 600 years earlier Revelation 11:3 Gentile Times = 42 months or 1,260 days vs Watchtower definition of 2,520 years. "last days" coincide with 1914 parousia vs meaning of "last days" in scripture [not a complete list] But other Witnesses will look at these same issues and see that all these these related scriptures and interlocking definitions create a system that is effectively proved right because of the complexity. In the sense that if a three-fold cord cannot quickly be broken, then what about a ten-fold cord, a twenty-fold cord? And even more to the point, it is part of a larger hundred-fold cord that includes all of the teachings accepted from the Governing Body at the current time. [And, for some, anyone who expresses criticism of this one doctrine is somehow criticizing the authority of the Governing Body, and therefore Jehovah's arrangement, and therefore, is taking a stand against Jehovah himself.] At the very least it is implied that Witnesses who are critical or express doubts about 1914 are trying to give direction to the appointed "faithful slave" perhaps out of a desire for prominence, ego, willful desire, independent thinking, apostasy, trolling, etc. It is rare that Witnesses will look at such criticism and see it as a fervent desire to make sure of all things, or a reflection of someone who keeps testing whether they are in the faith. Rarely is it treated as if it reflects the noble-minded desire of the Beroeans to see whether these things were so. Sometimes it is understood for what it is, but the interjection of the idea that this goes against the appointed faithful and discreet slave is a sure way to clamp down and make sure that others are prejudiced against seeing it in this light. Can a criticism of a current teaching ever be an act of love and concern? Can it ever be compared to the idea of warning others who may have taken a false step? Can it ever be seen as something required of Christians who might want to make sure that a tradition does not make the word of God invalid? I think it usually cannot because the first thought is often "Who are you to think you have the right and authority to give counsel to the appointed slave?" Even if right, we should always wait on the organization before saying anything, and not move ahead of the chariot. There is often the thought that any person who would dare to question in such a manner must be irritated that they aren't seen as having some "authority" too, or irritated that their words are not accepted as truth. Naturally, I think there is a very different and healthier way to look at such situations. But I've gone on too long for a single post (again).

I found the comments in your last two posts to be powerful and subtle at the same time. I also appreciated what you said in another recent thread about what you think would really change for us in a thread called "What if the Gentile Times did not end in 1914?" I am not sure I caught the whole nautical analogy over on that thread, but I was thinking that you meant you trust that any change in course will always be made if it's really necessary, and it will be timely enough so that no one's faith need be shipwrecked. But the part I appreciated more was your initial point that such a change would simply mean that true Christians would have an experience similar to that of the faithful men of old as summarized in Hebrews 11:13 (and a specific example you gave from Genesis 25:8). You also said: " These scriptures hold good regardless of when the Gentile Times end and would do so even if we had never heard the expression in our lives." I thought that answer was spot on. I also noticed that you took the entire question in that thread to imply that, as you said, "the present system will end later rather than sooner." I don't know Holly (who asked the initial question) but would guess that this is irrelevant. Defining the Gentile Times in a certain way has had no effect on delaying or speeding up the end of the system. Isn't that the whole point: that this system could end at ANY TIME without warning? That was just a rhetorical question. But I do have some questions and comments on your points in this thread.

I certainly appreciate that. As you might have noticed, most of the historical issues I mentioned are ones that we are still dealing with, in the present. It's true that we simplified the explanations and don't go into as much detail anymore, but those underlying explanations are still in the background. Absolutely. That's understandable. We need not worry so much about whether or not we were right or wrong on such subjects in the past. Jehovah is merciful and forgiving. Much more than we are. Also, I believe that our core doctrines outside the area of chronology count for so much more, that I am not worried even if we had never gotten anything right on the subject of chronology. But I bring up these points of history, not so that they can be defended or critiqued, but for what insight they can give us on our current doctrines. Like you, I love history and I love research. Bethel allowed me to indulge this passion of mine even before there was a real Internet, and I was many times even allowed to spend actual "worktime" at a couple of local NYC libraries. Imagine my current joy now that so much more information is right at our fingertips. The "Your Will Be Done On Earth" book on Daniel (1958) was the very first book I remember taking to the 'Book Study' on Tuesday nights. Actually I was too young at the time to get much out of it until later. It's the same book that was "serialized" into several 1958 Watchtowers including the one I quoted in a previous post here. But I do remember the Babylon book (1963) very well. My brother and I were attending a two room school at the time we were studying this book around 1965 and 1966. I was in the room where a teacher taught grades 1-4 and my brother was in the other room where a teacher taught grades 5-8. A local preacher came in once a week on Tuesday to teach Sunday School over lunch. Everyone was supposed to attend, but we got out of it by being allowed to take our "Babylon" books to school that day and study on our own in the "cloak room." I was young and struggled with it, but really enjoyed the history. It may not sound like it, but this was the driving force behind my critique of the 1914 doctrine. I have learned a lot about you and your career(s) online. And I also know some of the friends in Jax. We may cross paths. Glad to know you are a sister. This is very good. When you mentioned how good the more recent simplified styles and simplified message is for teaching new ones, I was about to mention the "double-edged" nature of this based on some of the complaints from older ones that were heard last year on the jw-archive forum. But I couldn't think of a way to say it without sounding like I didn't appreciate the change in style. Then I just noticed that you said it perfectly in the portion I just re-quoted from you, above. I have mentioned this often myself. Even the doctrinal changes aimed at simplifying the way we look at parables and narratives are aimed at this goal. For me, this is also the answer to the improper focus some have given chronology, speculation, and "serving for a date." As Peter says: (2 Peter 3:11, 12) 11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought YOU to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 awaiting and keeping close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah,. . . Thanks for the interaction. I appreciate your style and maturity, and even your lack of patience with nonsense. I will still likely pick up on some of the points you have made along the way to respond to this doctrinal issue. The idea is not to push you personally into an argument. (Although I would welcome a dialogue in the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15.) It's because you have given a sincere and correct response based on the current teaching. If there is another explanation that is simpler, more direct, and perhaps more Biblical -- then it should come out of a reasonable response to the defense that you have already made. If there is not a more Biblical response to the doctrine, then, of course, we will give the full benefit of the doubt to years of experience of the Governing Body. I echo a lot of what you have said, because I appreciate the changes made, especially in more recent years. I believe they are taking us in an important direction. I don't know if outsiders recognize just how much has changed, and the benefits we are deriving from them.

I agree almost 100% with everything you said in this post, except for about 2 lines. If the differences seem important, I'll point them out, but mainly I want to understand specifically why the current explanation of Daniel 4 makes sense to you in the way it does. I agree that it's easy to go too far with this type of questioning. I may have done this, even though I was trying to stick with only questions that gave me the most difficulty. And, of course, I agree with the main point of Daniel 4 that Jehovah is in charge, and the rulership(s) of the kingdom(s) of mankind are by his permission which he could revoke or renew at any time he chooses. In order to prove this point to a very haughty pagan king, Jehovah created a situation that would prove the point undeniably, even to such a haughty person who never worshiped the true God. It worked. Obviously, from this illustration, we would accept that the same holds true not just of Nebuchadnezzar, but of all kings and rulers, including Belshazzar, Cyrus, Artaxerxes, Tiberius Caesar, Adolph Hitler, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel, King Hussein, Nelson Mandela, etc. And it very well also applies to Jesus Christ, the heavenly ruler who has taken his great power and begun ruling as king. I agree that it applies to Jesus in a somewhat different sense. It's only by the way we extend any parable that it also applies also to Jesus. The methods of trying to somehow "equate" Jesus and Nebuchadnezzar in a special manner do not make sense. (I'll explain that "special manner" below.) And, yes, I realize that we aren't equating them in all respects. I was only giving a couple of examples of why it can appear absurd to equate them at all. So I do see a correlation to Jehovah's overall sovereignty over the nations but I don't see a single correlation between the experience of Nebuchadnezzar and how this relates to the experience of the Messianic line, specifically. The Messianic line is included in any extended meaning we get from the experience, and of course, it was also brought low and raised on high to an even greater place of importance than it had before under David, or Zedekiah. But there is nothing in the passage that allows us to say that it specifically means Jesus. Especially is there nothing that says it means Jesus in an even more important way than what it meant for Nebuchadnezzar. It taught a universal truth, about God's rulership, especially over the wicked rulers of the world. It does NOT seem to ESPECIALLY teach a parable about God's rulership over his own kingdom through Christ Jesus. Of course, the supposed "key" is the fact that it says "so that people living may know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that he gives it to whomever he wants, and he sets up over it even the lowliest of men.” But we can see from the context that this is not specifically about Jesus. Since this is a universal truth, it applies everywhere. So, it's no surprise that we can say it also applies to Jesus as part of the Judean Messianic kingly line. We also know it applied when he raised up his servant Cyrus. It also applied during another part of Nebuchadnezzar's own life when he raised the kings of Babylon up to punish the kingdoms surrounding Judea, (such as the king of Tyre) and to also punish Judea itself during the 70 years of domination that Jehovah gave to Babylon. Sennacherib got the same lesson earlier when he was brought low while warring against Israel. This must be where you think I'm "short-sighted" because I don't see a direct correlation that applies to only ONE other kingdom. Naturally, I think that it might be even more short-sighted to limit the scope to only one other kingdom. Some of the problems and ironies make me wonder whether the ONE other kingdom we teach to be the ONLY solution is even appropriate for this particular illustration. Since it's not even in the same category of the types of pagan, wicked and haughty kingdom's like Nebuchadnezzar's perhaps it's especially not in the most appropriate category for us to draw such a SPECIFIC meaning out of Daniel 4. In our doctrine, the experience of this one wicked and vicious king is ONLY meant to point to only ONE other specific kingdom besides him, and that one is surely not in the category of wicked, vicious, pagan kings -- because it's Jesus Christ. As I said, I agree with almost everything in your post. But another thing you said that I believe I can respond to is this: For me, the answer seems straightforward. It is very logical that Jehovah knew and wanted his people to be concerned about time in order to be alert to identifying the Messiah, and to strengthen faith in the fact that Jehovah has the world and its administration under control. There is only one reason why there could come a time when he would NOT want them to continue relying on cues from chronology -- and that would be when he was looking for a kind of faith that made us ready at all times without respect to the times and seasons, without respect to looking for signs of the times. If Jesus was looking for that kind of faith, even if the world went on for another thousand years or more (2 Peter 3:8) then I would expect that Jesus would say something like: (Acts 1:7) . . .“It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction. And I would expect that the apostles such as Paul would agree with Jesus here and say things such as: (1 Thessalonians 5:1, 2) 5 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. And I would expect that Jesus would explain, just as he did for his disciples when they asked, that we shouldn't be looking for signs of the parousia because we could be misled by thinking that wars, earthquakes, pestilence and such things were signs of the end when the end was not yet. (Matthew 24:3-6) . . .“Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?” 4 In answer Jesus said to them: “Look out that nobody misleads you, . . . 6 You are going to hear of wars and reports of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for these things must take place, but the end is not yet. (Luke 17:20) 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 (NWT) (Luke 17:20 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." (NLT)

Yes. I agree that this is the way we explain it. I was not thinking that you personally confused gentile rule with messianic rule. I am referring to several problems with this explanation that we (WTS) has had to deal with through the years. One of these problems is the fact that the "debased" and "humiliating" experience of Nebuchadnezzar, a pagan Gentile, is explained in our doctrine as corresponding with the "debased" and "humiliating" experience of Jesus Christ, a non-pagan, non-Gentile. (Daniel 4:16,17) 16 Let its heart be changed from that of a human, and let it be given the heart of a beast, and let seven times pass over it. . . .so that people living may know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that he gives it to whomever he wants, and he sets up over it even the lowliest of men.” Remember, that this is Nebuchadnezzar speaking in those verses just quoted, and he is remembering the dream just as Jehovah wanted him to remember it. So the question is therefore WHO is this "lowliest of men" whom the Most High sets up over the the kingdom of mankind? Note, too, that the idea of the words translated "lowliest of men" might be just as well translated "lowest or basest of persons." It's easy to see that this basest of persons is Nebuchadnezzar. He became low, debased and humiliated for his pride. I'm sure we all know the passage, I only include it below as a reminder that Nebuchadnezzar knew very clearly that he himself was this person who was made low and debased, and also as a reminder that it was his own kingdom that was restored to him, which causes a bit of a logical distortion when we claim, as you said, that while stumped and banded it pictures the beastly rule of the Gentiles, yet when the band is removed [and Nebuchadnezzar gets his kingdom back] it depicts the Messianic kingdom given to Christ Jesus. (Daniel 4:22-35) 22 it is you, O king,. . .25 You will be driven away from among men, and your dwelling will be with the beasts of the field, and you will be given vegetation to eat just like bulls; and you will become wet with the dew of the heavens, and seven times will pass over you, . . . 31 While the word was yet in the king’s mouth, a voice came down from the heavens: “To you it is being said, O King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, ‘The kingdom has gone away from you, . . . until you know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that he grants it to whomever he wants.’” 33 At that moment the word was fulfilled on Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar. He was driven away from mankind, and he began to eat vegetation just like bulls, and his body became wet with the dew of the heavens, until his hair grew long just like eagles’ feathers and his nails were like birds’ claws. 34 “At the end of that time I, Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, looked up to the heavens, and my understanding returned to me; and I praised the Most High, and to the One living forever I gave praise and glory, because his rulership is an everlasting rulership and his kingdom is for generation after generation. 35 All the inhabitants of the earth are regarded as nothing, and he does according to his own will among the army of the heavens and the inhabitants of the earth. And there is no one who can hinder him or say to him, ‘What have you done?’ 36 “At that time my understanding returned to me, and the glory of my kingdom, my majesty, and my splendor returned to me. My high officials and nobles eagerly sought me out, and I was restored to my kingdom, and even more greatness was added to me. One way to see that we have confused the messianic and gentile kingdoms is very clear. We are forced to simultaneously believe that Nebuchadnezzar was this "lowest, basest person" due to his punishment for haughtiness, and also say that it means Jesus Christ who was wrongly considered to be the "basest" of men by non-believers who didn't know or wouldn't believe the truth about Jesus. Here's an example of what we have said to prove that Jesus was the "lowest" or "basest" of mankind: *** w59 4/15 pp. 248-249 pars. 42-44 Part 12—“Your Will Be Done on Earth” *** 42 What did all this mean regarding world domination at the end of the “seven times” in the fall of the year 1914 (A.D.)? . . . He must set over it the lowliest of men.—Dan. 4:17, RS. 43 That means He must give it to the anointed Son of David, Jesus Christ, who was considered the basest of men, so base, in fact, that he was wrongly called sacrilegious, a blasphemer, a seditionist, a winebibber and a glutton, and was impaled upon a torture stake like a criminal slave. He lowered himself from heaven to earth by emptying himself of heavenly power and glory and taking a slave’s form and coming to be in the likeness of men. . . . 44 Because of such lowliness God must highly exalt Jesus, higher than King David, who reigned on earthly Mount Zion. . . . This kingdom of David’s Son must bless the Most High God, just as restored Nebuchadnezzar did. And, of course, no one would doubt that Jesus is the one who has the right to the throne, a Messianic throne that ultimately rules all the nations, and is ultimately even considered "Jehovah's throne" as part of the restoration of all things, after which Jesus hands the kingdom back to the Father. *** w57 12/15 p. 760 par. 13 Examples of Keepers of Integrity *** 13 The “throne of Jehovah” upon which Jesus wanted to sit as Anointed Ruler was not that throne on which King David had sat and which King Nebuchadnezzar overturned in 607 B.C.E., but it was Jehovah’s real throne in the highest heavens, where the place was kept for Jesus at Jehovah’s right hand.—Ps. 110:1, 2; Heb. 10:12, 13. (1 Corinthians 15:24-28) 24 Next, the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing. 27 For God “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone. (Acts 3:19-21) 19 “Repent, therefore, and turn around so as to get your sins blotted out, so that seasons of refreshing may come from Jehovah himself 20 and he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus. 21 Heaven must hold this one within itself until the times of restoration of all things of which God spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets of old. [I'm still amazed that anyone can read that last 1 Cor 15 passage and remain Trinitarian.] I'm not saying that our doctrine claims that Nebuchadnezzar directly represents Jesus. That has been said in the past, even based on the 1970 public talk outline on Daniel 4, but officially, it's usually with reference to his capacity as executioner of Jehovah's judgment. The Watchtower has said: *** w50 11/15 p. 444 par. 17 "In this capacity Nebuchadnezzar was a type of Jesus Christ." [We no longer say this as of 1979; see below.] *** w94 3/1 p. 18 par. 3 ". . . but also the start of “the appointed times of the nations,” referred to at Luke 21:24. This 2,520-year period ended in our century, in the year 1914. By then the time had come for Jehovah, by his enthroned Son, Jesus Christ, who is greater than Nebuchadnezzar, to pronounce and execute judgment on the corrupt world." [This is updated wording to prior wording where Jesus was sometimes called the "Greater Cyrus" and, in years prior, the "Greater Nebuchadnezzar."] *** w80 5/15 p. 17 par. 4 "Nebuchadnezzar’s work in harmony with Jehovah’s will pictured the work of Jesus Christ during this “time of the end,” where we are now." *** w79 9/15 p. 23 par. 8 "This does not mean, however, that Nebuchadnezzar was a type of Jesus Christ," There are some other difficulties that have shown up historically and the Watchtower has reflected some of these changes over the years to the manner in which we explain the tree dream prophecy. I don't have to get into them now, but if anyone is interested, there is a lot to think about. I'm well aware that whenever a brother or sister finds a potential issue when reasoning on the scriptures that they will be sullied as "haughty" and "independent thinkers" or even worse. But when we study the Bible's words humbly and prayerfully and without immediately trying to use them to prove a long-held tradition, I think we can benefit from this type of Bible study. This also doesn't mean that I believe that a specific alternative is the only way to understand these verses, I am only pointing out what seems clear to me. I would welcome any other Biblical evidence that could explain the difficulties.

This is not the only way to read Revelation 12. Through the centuries, Bible commentators have been able to see another way that isn't obvious until we begin to tie in all the other scriptures that touch upon the same subjects as Revelation 12. Again, I'm not saying that the following idea is right, or that it is the only other option besides the one we currently teach, but I'll provide the possible alternative only because Revelation 12 is so often tied into our teachings about 1914. First, a revelation does not necessarily refer only to the future. Revelation itself says: (Revelation 1:19) 19 So write down the things you saw, and the things that are, and the things that will take place after these. . . Recall that the Revelation of Micaiah (1 Kings; 2 Chron) revealed a recent prior, past event. The revelation of what had gone on behind the scenes (in heaven) in the book of Job was a recent and current situation in heaven that explained the events on earth. Even "revelations" in Daniel often refer to the current time of the kings of Babylon. So there should be no reason that the book of Revelation could not also be revealing things that were, are, and are yet to come. With that in mind, note that this is the most common way outside of our teachings to understand Revelation 12. The symbols are the same ones that refer Biblically to how Jesus was born of a God's woman, Israel, yet Satan gathered up forces to try to defeat him, at his physical birth and at the birth of the kingdom, just prior to his death, to keep him from sitting at God's right hand. (Also called, "the right hand of the throne of Majesty." Remember that Paul shows that this "sitting at God's right hand" can be paraphrased as "ruling as king" in 1 Cor 15:25: (1 Corinthians 15:25) For he must rule as king [sit at God's right hand] until God has put all enemies under his feet. Jesus has indeed therefore been ruling invisibly from the time he sat at God's right hand. One of the first things he said after his resurrection is "all authority has been given me in heaven and on earth." Paul and John both refer to him as "King of Kings." So there was not necessarily any waiting while Jesus SAT on a kingly throne at the right hand of the majesty. A king does not have to stand up to rule. A king is still a king while he sits on the throne. As far as the other idea that Satan was angry because he was just thrown out of heaven, well, this is correct. But Jesus said it happened in his day. (Luke 10:18) 18 At that he said to them: “I see Satan already fallen like lightning from heaven. (1 Peter 5:8) . . .Your adversary, the Devil, walks about like a roaring lion, seeking to devour someone. (Luke 22:31) 31 “Simon, Simon, look! Satan has demanded to have all of you to sift you as wheat. (John 12:30-33) . . .. 31 Now there is a judging of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32 And yet I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all sorts of men to myself.” 33 This he was really saying to indicate what sort of death he was about to die. (John 16:10, 11) . . .because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; 11 then concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged. (Hebrews 2:14) . . .so that through his death he might bring to nothing the one having the means to cause death, that is, the Devil, It's true that there are more enemies that have not yet been brought to nothing, but Jesus rules during this entire period, he waits for the proper time to accomplish these phases of his kingship, but it doesn't mean that he wasn't already above all the kingships and rulerships and principalities back at the time the Bible said that this happened -- from the time he sat at God's right hand. We already have a king-priest after the order of Melchizedek, both king and priest since 33 C.E.

Another thought here. Russell understood the great crowd to be a large group of professed Christians who were anointed and who would go to heaven after suffering through the months or even years of chaos brought about by the Great Tribulation. One of the problems with the timeline was that Russell expected the great crowd to go through many more months of tribulation prior to 1914, because they needed to undergo more suffering and discipline as they had not quite reached the "high calling." Those of the "high calling," (the 144,000; Russell included) had proved themselves through a combination of their character development and the fact that they had understood the timeline. This is how important the "timeline" was to Russell and his readers. You could not be of the high calling unless you adhered to the timeline because only the "wise" virgins understood the timeline to keep their lamps burning. According to Russell, those who didn't realize that the "midnight call" to the Lamb's wedding feast had already gone out in 1859 (halfway between 1844 and 1874) could not be of the high calling. Those who didn't accept the timeline, the foolish virgins, were the Christians who had completely given up on chronology and therefore let their lamps die out. Russell became less concerned about the 1844 and 1859 dates but he believed these foolish virgins would include the "great company"/ "great crowd"/ "great multitude". This ultimately became all the rest of the anointed Christians who would go to heaven AFTER suffering through the great tribulation. (For quite a time it was thought that the tribulations should have started in 1910 to allow for such events to occur in time for 1914.) Interesting that A H MacMillan (GB/FDS) gave talks starting in 1915 that blamed the great crowd for the fact that those of the "high calling" didn't go to heaven in 1914. The "great crowd" were still given a bad reputation as materialistic and unconsecrated which explains insults made about them (in the Watchtower) even after they were identified as an earthly group in the early-to-mid 1930's. It was only the rest of currently non-Christian mankind who would make up the earthly class prior to about 1932.

You are absolutely right on this point, and I like the way this point gives added meaning to the "bands of copper and iron" that were needed to protect the life of this "tree." In a very correct and historical sense you remind us that there is no way his rulership would have been preserved through "seven times" without a higher power looking out for him. An interesting point about the "end of days" might as well come up now. As I'm sure you know Peter spoke of the "last days" as starting in his day, quoting Joel. Paul spoke of being in the last days where they were experiencing critical times and warned Timothy how this would effect him. Hebrews starts out speaking of how they were now in the last days now that Jesus had arrived on the scene and gone to heaven. Peter and Jude speak of what people were now saying and doing and that it was a sign of the last days. Those points are surely not very controversial. But also notice that Daniel said that his words would not be open and understood until the last days. Then, in Revelation, John says that this time was now at hand and now the scroll was now being opened and understood. He quoted Daniel often and showed how the meaning was now being revealed. If Jesus was right, we need no further chronology schemes to bring us down to our day. All time-based prophecy already pointed to Christ in the first century. (Hebrews 1:1 and 1 Peter 1:10-12) (Hebrews 1:1, 2) 1 Long ago God spoke to our forefathers by means of the prophets on many occasions and in many ways. 2 Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of a Son, . . . (1 Peter 1:10-12) 10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the undeserved kindness meant for you made a diligent inquiry and a careful search. 11 They kept on investigating what particular time or what season the spirit within them was indicating concerning Christ as it testified beforehand about the sufferings meant for Christ and about the glory that would follow. 12 It was revealed to them that they were ministering, not to themselves, but to you, regarding what has now been announced to you by those who declared the good news to you with holy spirit sent from heaven. . . . Therefore, when the book of Revelation indicates that the Gentile Times were 1,260 days or 42 months, couldn't this be related to the same prophecy where he said that Jerusalem would be surrounded by encamped armies and soon destroyed? I wouldn't take this idea too far, but I find it curious that this time period according to Josephus and Roman history corresponds to about 42 months, during which time it was revealed beyond question that there were witnesses representing two olive trees, not just one. I wouldn't go so far as to apply the time period directly, but it might explain as a symbol why Revelation ties the Gentile Times to the olive trees, and why Paul also tied the times given to the Gentiles, to the olive trees. Paul identified the olive trees in Romans as the witness to Jews and the Gentiles. The witness to the Jewish nation was now complete and, as Jesus had predicted in Matthew, Mark and Luke, the whole world got the witness at that time that the gospel was from this time onward, a message to all nations. (Mathew 24:14) For any who would like a review of the olive trees as Paul explained them, I'll graft it onto the end of this post: (Romans 11:11-24) 11 So I ask, They did not stumble and fall completely, did they? Certainly not! But by their false step, there is salvation to people of the nations, to incite them to jealousy. 12 Now if their false step means riches to the world and their decrease means riches to people of the nations, how much more will their full number mean! 13 Now I speak to you who are people of the nations. Seeing that I am an apostle to the nations, I glorify my ministry 14 to see if I may in some way incite my own people to jealousy and save some from among them. 15 For if their being cast away means reconciliation for the world, what will the acceptance of them mean but life from the dead? 16 Further, if the part of the dough taken as firstfruits is holy, the entire batch is also holy; and if the root is holy, the branches are also. 17 However, if some of the branches were broken off and you, although being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became a sharer of the richness of the olive’s root, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If, though, you are arrogant toward them, remember that it is not you who bears the root, but the root bears you. 19 You will say, then: “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 That is true! For their lack of faith, they were broken off, but you are standing by faith. Do not be haughty, but be in fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Consider, therefore, God’s kindness and severity. There is severity toward those who fell, but toward you there is God’s kindness, provided you remain in his kindness; otherwise, you too will be lopped off. 23 And they also, if they do not remain in their lack of faith, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them back in. 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree that is wild by nature and were grafted contrary to nature into the garden olive tree, how much more will these who are natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree!

Jesus has a right to a Messianic, non-Gentile throne, and Nebuchadnezzar was given permission to take a pagan, Gentile throne. These are two different things. It is true, as you say, that Jehovah can use anything or anyone to do his bidding, and serve him. He used Nebuchadnezzar as the obvious punishment to the Jews. Jeremiah speaks of him as a servant in this manner. And similarly, as you said, Cyrus, became his servant in the similar words of Isaiah. But these kingdoms are still - and always - two different things. You are confusing them. The Gentiles are not being presented as beastly in this verse, it's the Messianic Kingdom ultimately given to Christ Jesus which is supposed to be acting beastly. Nebuchadnezzar's Kingdom is given to others who rule "sanely" in his stead, while HE becomes beastly. Remember it's the seven times when the Messianic rule is out of commission that is pictured here. It is therefore the 7 times (ostensibly 2,520 years) when the Messianic rulership is debased and therefore "beastly" and humiliated in our teaching. Nebuchadnezzar is not allowed to rule during this beastly time, which is why his kingdom was given to non-beastly persons. It was given back to him when he was no longer beastly. In our explanation, Jesus' kingdom was therefore given to him when that Messianic rulership was no longer debased and humiliated. This is one of the problems with switching the Gentile Times with the non-Gentile Times.

I believe the same thing. But I also believe that when Jehovah says what the purpose was that we would be presumptuous if we turned around and said that this wasn't the only purpose, and that there was a more important purpose. It's as if we are saying that it wasn't good enough that Jehovah's word said 'It is you, Nebuchadnezzar' and that 'ALL of this was fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar.' In fact, if you recall, Daniel (Belteshazzar) said he wished it could apply to someone besides Nebuchadnezzar: (Daniel 4:19-37) 19 “At that time Daniel, whose name is Bel·te·shazʹzar, was alarmed for a moment, and his thoughts began to frighten him. “The king said, ‘O Bel·te·shazʹzar, do not let the dream and the interpretation frighten you.’ “Bel·te·shazʹzar answered, ‘O my lord, may the dream apply to those hating you, and its interpretation to your enemies. . . . [however] . . . 22 it is you, O king, because you have grown great and become strong, and your grandeur has grown and reached to the heavens, and your rulership to the ends of the earth. . . . 24 This is the interpretation, O king; it is the decree of the Most High that must befall my lord the king. 25 You will be driven away from among men, and your dwelling will be with the beasts of the field, and you will be given vegetation to eat just like bulls; and you will become wet with the dew of the heavens, and seven times will pass over you, until you know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that he grants it to whomever he wants. 26 “‘But because they said to leave the stump of the tree with its roots, your kingdom will be yours again after you come to know that the heavens are ruling. . . . 28 All of this befell King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar. . . .“To you it is being said, O King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, ‘The kingdom has gone away from you, 32 and from mankind you are being driven away. With the beasts of the field your dwelling will be, . . . . . . I was restored to my kingdom, and even more greatness was added to me. 37 “Now I, Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, am praising and exalting and glorifying the King of the heavens, because all his works are truth and his ways are just, and because he is able to humiliate those who are walking in pride.” At any rate, those things you said about other Bible passages are stated in the Bible itself to have the added meanings you mentioned. The March 15, 2015 Watchtower indicates that we would be presumptuous to take it upon ourselves to decide that every narrative or parable has these kinds of specific additional meanings that we can add to the Bible ourselves. For me, it is enough that Daniel 4 fits the entire theme of the Bible about the kingdoms of men: that they really only rule by Jehovah's permission and that the ultimate control of the fate of these kingdoms is still in Jehovah's hands. The actual story was about how even a king who was so powerful that his rulership extended to the ends of the known world, was haughty and didn't realize that he only ruled due to the permission of a God that he barely recognized as even existing. He didn't even grant his great power to his own God's, but to his self alone. He needed to be humbled. He was too haughty and presumptuous. This was related, as all Bible events are, but it was not the same lesson that Christ's Messianic kingdom learned in 587 BCE. Jesus didn't have to apologize for a lesson learned in order to take back the Messianic kingship. Jesus already knew that Jehovah was the Most High. If we try to take some pieces of various narratives and parables and experiences of Bible characters and make them mean specific things that teach a good lesson then that's probably not a dangerous thing. But what if we make that decision just because we want to say that we are the only group of people who have insight into the times and seasons that we are not supposed to concern ourselves with. What would be the purpose in doing that? Why do the one thing we have recently counseled ourselves against doing, just so that we can also go against what Jesus said about the times and seasons being in the Father's jurisdiction. Remember, not in our own jurisdiction, not the Son's, and not even the angels. This is surely like treading where angels fear to tread. And if you have watched closely the way some Witnesses discuss this, it's as if this great insight is the "proof" that we can also reach up into the heavens and claim to be the greatest and most privileged of God's people, because "Jehovah never does anything without first revealing it to his own prophets."

I'm sure others have picked up on the fact that Russell, never, in his entire life ever believed that Jesus would start ruling in heaven in 1914. He understood that Jesus had become King in 33 C.E., but also that he had turned his attention toward earth's affairs during his presence, and shortly after coming into his invisible presence and took his great power and authority to become King in 1878. This gets to the problem I mentioned before about honesty. You are not dishonest in believing what you believed about Russell. But you probably never picked up on the very careful wording the Watchtower has employed to "imply" that Russell believed this about 1914 without actually saying it. This updated, careful wording shows that the Watchtower writers are very well aware that Russell did not understand even this one point that we currently teach about 1914. Before the Internet became a place where such things were "caught" and discussed, the practice of the Watchtower was generally to just claim that what you said above was true. I have found about 10 examples prior to 1998 that make the same false claim, very similar to this one: *** w98 9/15 p. 15 par. 1 Waiting in “Eager Expectation” *** Similarly, a prophecy providentially caused sincere 19th-century Bible students to be in expectation. By linking the “seven times” of Daniel 4:25 with “the times of the Gentiles,” they anticipated that Christ would receive Kingdom power in 1914. O course, it's a false claim, and has been corrected more recently by re-wording it, as the Bible Teach book does: *** bh p. 215 par. 3 1914—A Significant Year in Bible Prophecy ***DECADES in advance, Bible students proclaimed that there would be significant developments in 1914. *** bh chap. 8 p. 84 par. 23 What Is God’s Kingdom? *** During the 19th and 20th centuries, sincere Bible students progressively discerned that the waiting period would end in 1914. And the Watchtower, too: *** w14 1/15 p. 12 par. 3 100 Years of Kingdom Rule—How Does It Affect You? *** Toward the end of the 19th century, light began to shine on a 2,500-year-old prophecy recorded by Daniel: “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed.” (Dan. 2:44) The Bible Students spent decades pointing out that the year 1914 would be significant. The implication is still there, of course, and unfortunately, it fools many Witnesses into thinking that the earlier claims were true, when it was stated in a way that was demonstrably false: *** w54 6/15 p. 370 par. 4 The Revelation of Jesus Christ *** 4 Why, then, do the nations not realize and accept the approach of this climax of judgment? It is because they have not heeded the world-wide advertising of Christ’s return and his second presence. Since long before World War I Jehovah’s witnesses pointed to 1914 as the time for this great event to occur. Technically, ideas about changing Christ's presence from 1874 to 1914 were being floated as early as the 1920's, and most of relevant changes happened between 1929 and 1931, but it wasn't until 1943 that we officially dropped 1874 as the time when this great event (Christ's presence) occurred. This is at odds with the idea that Jesus' presence was like "lightning that lit up the entire sky from one horizon to the other horizon" and therefore we assume that at least one person must have had their spiritual "eyes of understanding" open to see that his presence had begun in 1914. Part of this problem is also in that same claim that Russell and Rutherford and the other Bible Students understood that the "Gentile Times" ended in 1914. But as I mentioned above, the entire concept of what the Gentile Times meant was quite different from what we mean by that phrase today. Today it is OK for the Gentile kings to continue ruling uninterrupted, only saying that 1914 was a year when their lease ran out, although they can continue on for at least a century (so far) and this shouldn't concern us. A problem with it from a Biblical perspective, however, is that it appears very insulting to Jesus himself, making him look like a "lame duck" ruler whose rule in say, 1961, was no more effective in keeping the nations from trampling God's chosen ones, than if we had claimed that this same rule had started in 1878. The claim makes Jesus look very ineffective with respect to the times of the Gentiles. There are now more nations ruling without any respect for Christ Jesus than there ever were in the past!

If you are referring to Daniel 4, the "great tree dream" prophecy, that is a good subject in its own right. In effect, we must make the rule of this vicious and presumptuous, haughty Gentile represent the rule of the Messianic kingdom through Jesus Christ, a non-Gentile, by the way. Fortunately, the passage itself does not even imply this sacrilege, because it says only that the prophecy was fulfilled in the person of Nebuchadnezzar and says nothing of a second fulfillment or a greater fulfillment. Of course, there was a time when we would have looked for a greater fulfillment of the "three Hebrew children" thrown into the fiery furnace. In fact, we used to publish the idea explicitly that "Nebuchadnezzar pictured Jesus Christ." (We changed this, but continue to say about the same thing when we say the seven "Gentile Times" of Nebuchadnezzar pictures the seven non-Gentile times of Christ's kingdom.) The other problems with using the passage include the problem of assuming that these particular "times" are years, assuming that these years must be turned into 360-day years, assuming that we should multiply 7 x 360 to get 2,520 years, and assuming that these 2,520 years should be years containing 365.25 days each. The biggest problem however is the fact that the Bible itself references the same Gentile Times of Luke 21:24 and does apply a number of Biblical times to them. This is in Revelation: (Revelation 11:2-3) . . . the nations, and they will trample the holy city underfoot for 42 months. . . . 1,260 days . . . Is there any doubt, then, that these are the same Gentile Times that Jesus spoke of when he said? (Luke 21:24) . . . the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.

Aruana, I agree that we have no need to go back to Russell and we can and should evaluate our current beliefs about chronology based on their own merit. I'd love to do that here and perhaps a new thread on Matthew 24 or Daniel 4 would be a place to start as long as the relevant supporting prophecies from elsewhere are also shown, too. However, as it happens I am just reading through this thread more carefully and saw a few things I wanted to respond to. I'm not planning on focusing only on things you have said, and I'm not trying to get you or anyone to respond or argue for or against Russell in the process. It's just that his ideas were made part of the topic. (As I got to your second post, I realized just now that you had already said a lot of the things I also wanted to say about Russell and the pyramids. Sorry for the overlap.) Your comment, requoted above, about the reliance on the secular date for when the Jews were allowed to go back to Jerusalem is correct within a year or so. But one of the problems with Barbour's and then Russell's use of that date was that he admits that it was a cut-off point before which he assumed that we need not pay attention carefully to the other secular dates within this same period. What he hadn't noticed, therefore, was that the only reason this secular date was "well-established" was because the entire Neo-Babylonian period was well-established, and this included the secular date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th year which therefore established the date for the destruction of Jerusalem. Both dates, 587 for the destruction of Jerusalem and 539 for the conquest of Babylon, are not only well-established, both dates area established through the exact same methods. But what should be even more interesting to our own reliance on them, is that in addition to the same methods for establishing both dates, there are some additional evidences for the dates within the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, which makes 587-586 even BETTER attested than 539 for the Babylonian conquest by Cyrus and BETTER attested than 537 for the return of the Jews to Jerusalem. This, in itself, doesn't mean that the other dates might be wrong, only that 587 is even better attested. Also, of course, whenever the Bible makes mention of the destruction of Jerusalem's temple, it marks it as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th-19th year (which is 587-6 if 539 is correct). The Bible also gives us another indication in Zechariah's time (agreed to be about 519 BCE in the Watchtower) that about 70 years have passed since the destruction of Jerusalem about 68+ years earlier. We also know that Daniel started considering the 70 years prophecy of Jeremiah at the time that he personally was in Babylon for 70 years. We also have the comments in Ezra that quite a large and vocal portion of the 60,000 or so in attendance for the second Temple had seen the first Temple. This was not so likely if those people were over 95 years old (current WT reckoning). But it seems a little more likely if those persons were 75 years old.

This is not true. It is true that all of the events that Russell expected (and predicted) for 1914 did not come true. But none of these were derived from the Great Pyramid. It was the other way around. All of the events were derived from beliefs he inherited from Nelson Barbour who inherited the methods from Millerite Second Adventists and the specific dates of 1874 that was already mentioned by Miller and promoted by other Second Adventists after Miller's dates failed. A lot of things were expected to happen between 1874 and the end (Armageddon) in 1914/1915. Others were already promoting the mysterious and supposedly uncanny wisdom emanating from the Great Pyramid, before Russell published anything about it. Russell, realizing that God would need something besides the Bible to appeal to the new "scientific" orientation of the world wanted to believe that all this potential "craze" about the Pyramid was that opportunity for God to show that such knowledge was there all along but not ready to be seen until wisdom went "to and fro" in the last days. He agreed with the prophecies that proved that the last days started in 1798-1799. So "now was the time"! (Daniel 12:4 and Isaiah 19:19,20) It was Russell's desire to see "truth" in these pyramids that pushed him to see Nelson Barbour's dates and events in the various air vents and drainage vents that zigzagged their way through the structure. It was more like reading tea leaves, coffee grounds, or the entrails of birds. (Since these various lengths added up to a timeline, it was probably a little more like palmistry.) You can pretty much see what you want to see in them. For a while (from a published paper diagram) he saw an overall timeline that reached from OT times with the exact number of inches in one place to reach 1874. Then later in the exact same space, as 1914 became more important than looking backwards to 1874, he saw the exact number of inches to reach 1914 after that same space was measured again more closely. But he also used various broken rocks and directional changes and "puddles" along the way to also point out the timing of various other events expected mostly between 1874 and 1914. But these events were always believed first and then imposed upon what he thought he could see in the pyramid. He saw so many things in it that he called it "the Bible in stone" and called it "Jehovah's witness." Yet, as far as I could see, he didn't see any hints in the pyramids first and then look for Biblical events that might fit the timeline. He promoted the Great Pyramid idea in most of the six volumes of Studies in the Scriptures. But he went into more detail in only two of them. (Volume 1 and 3) He also answered some Watchtower questions that came from readers about whether or not a certain event had a parallel in the Pyramid. You and I would look at these disconnected drainage ditches and air vents and not see any connection to dates even if we measured them perfectly. But Russell was of a different mindset. From things he said, we know that he actually thought it gave evidence that the Watch Tower was the true "faithful slave" providing truths at the proper time if he, ironically, could declare that he found the "presence of Christ" in the inner chambers of this structure.

After giving this subject a lot of prayerful thought, and with a lot of guidance from several of the persons I worked with at Bethel, I personally cannot put faith in this doctrine. I don't mean to say that you should not or that anyone else should change their mind about it. Of course, I would LOVE to believe it because that would make things so much easier with the majority of my friends, relatives, and spiritual brothers and sisters. In my own name, I must always be careful about what I say on the subject so that I personally do not offend or needlessly stumble anyone. But on forums such as this, and the Internet in general, where the subject has already come up 100's of times, I do believe it's a place where I can (and therefore should) honestly defend my faith. My posts are generally "tldr" which is probably a good thing for those who don't wish to deal with the subject. But for this post all I wanted to say was that the scriptures that Holly quoted are, for me, a big part of my faith and the hope that is in me. For me, it could not see myself as a true Christian Witness of Jehovah if I denied what Jesus said here and tried to make those verses mean something other than what seems obvious to me. I also think they get to the very core of our Christianity which is why I also feel under an obligation to find ways to defend my faith, including my faith in Jesus' words from Matthew, Mark and Acts, quoted above: (1 Peter 3:15) . . .always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, . . . I am also concerned that, when it comes to anything related to chronology, we are at risk of making false statements to others. This does not reflect well on our organization and brings shame even to Jehovah. While I am not asking for anyone to agree with me, I do think that in defending 1914, we should avoid statements that are false. Making false statements is not the same as making dishonest statements, and that's why I would like to respond to some of your statements. I believe they come out of a completely honest heart and mind, and I like the way you think about things from a deeper and wider perspective. Before I get into much detail, I would like to make a few statements about where I agree: We are living in the last days, and the critical times and world conditions provide the evidence and context for what we are to expect during these last days. Jesus is present and has turned his attention toward the rulers of this world Satan is angry and active like a roaring lion knowing his time is short The final manifestation, or coming of Jesus can happen at any time now, and is much closer now than ever We should be using this time period to preach the good news and help everyone we can to know the truth Jesus is king, not just over his congregation, but he is enthroned as King of Kings over all the powers of heaven and earth -- he has taken his power and begun ruling as king during this same period when Satan steps up his attacks We have been blessed as an organization and as a worldwide brotherhood with the ability and willingness to spread the good news, and we should appreciate the value and responsibility and realize the good we can continue to do with such an organization as a foundation to efficiently accomplish this ministry For me, 1914 is not a necessary component to any of the points just made above. But, for me, it is also a very important point that neither 1914, nor any chronology of any kind, should be made a part of the expectations surrounding either the presence or the coming of Jesus Christ in kingly power. For me, that is clearly what Jesus meant when he said what he said about not trying to use chronology. (I'll stop saying "for me" but it should be understood that I am merely defending the thoughts based on my own prayerful and conscientious concerns about the doctrine, which is also based on the leadership of elders whose guidance I have respected, including some who continue to hold positions of responsibility in the organization. They, like me, are also concerned about their inability to speak out clearly on the subject without fear of repercussions.) So now, just three specific points: 1. I am concerned about issues of falsehood, and honesty based on the manner in which so many Witnesses defend the 1914 doctrine through apparent evasion, misdirection and false statements instead of being concerned with actual truth 2. I am concerned with adding to and taking away from the truth of the Bible, which is also an issue of 'faithfulness and discretion.' One of the first things I was shown that disturbed me a bit was when a Bethel elder (in Writing) showed me an old Bible commentary that made the statement that it is the height of presumptuousness for Christians to continue to believe that it is only specifically their own generation that Jesus is referencing. Since then I have been concerned with the level of presumptuousness apparent in the writings of so many religions who have found "Biblical" ways to determine almost every every generation since 1260 C.E. to be the "final generation" or "the end of the Gentile Times." In fact, I think that Jesus was giving us a warning to be humble and realize that we are trying to put ourselves in the place of God if we believe that we can work out a chronology to determine the times and seasons. I remember how haughty it sounded when one of our own "Governing Body" members (F.W.Franz) would defend his speculation and promotion of the year 1975 against those who would point out that Jesus said no one knew the day and hour. If you remember or know of people who honestly remember that time period, you will know that many Witnesses used to say: "Well Jesus said we wouldn't know the day or the hour, but he didn't say we wouldn't know the year!" Brother Franz himself would imply that 1975-naysayers were only amateurs who didn't know how to use Jesus' words, and were just playing with them as with a toy. *** w68 8/15 pp. 500-501 par. 35 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? *** 35 One thing is absolutely certain, Bible chronology reinforced with fulfilled Bible prophecy shows that six thousand years of man’s existence will soon be up, yes, within this generation! (Matt. 24:34) This is, therefore, no time to be indifferent and complacent. 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. 3. You make a common claim above that Brother Russell had "some" things right about 1914. This is very misleading. In fact, Russell had NOTHING right about 1914, not a single thing. The closest we can come to making this claim is that he said it would mark the "end of the Gentile Times" but even here he meant something completely different about the meaning of the "end of the Gentile Times." He thought it meant that the Gentile Times, their kingships and rulerships and political organizations would disintegrate in a time of trouble that would END in 1914 and they would therefore witness the collapse of all world organizations into a chaos that would prove total within a year. He used the expression to mean that there would be no more Gentiles ruling within a few months of 1914. That Gentiles could no longer trample on the chosen ones. Saying that he was right all along about the "end of the Gentile Times" is disingenuous. We can't change the whole meaning of the expression "Gentile Times" just so we can say that Russell got ONE thing right about 1914. Yet, outside of that ONE thing, the use of a term "Gentile Times" he got NOTHING else right, and yet we still say that he got "SOME THINGS" right. That only shows that we have a "desire" to believe in things that were not true.

He really pulled one over on her. But it was still probably illegal, because he was also using the opportunity to look into the car and as he indicated: to make sure no laws are being broken.