JW Insider

On 9/21/2016 at 4:57 PM, HollyW said:

In fact, it wasn't an official "discernment" until 1943.

This has been stated in the Watch Tower publications, but it might also be slightly misleading:

*** ka chap. 11 pp. 209-210 par. 55 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” ***
In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published the book “The Truth Shall Make You Free.” In its chapter 11, entitled “The Count of Time,” it did away with the insertion of 100 years into the period of the Judges and went according to the oldest and most authentic reading of Acts 13:20, and accepted the spelled-out numbers of the Hebrew Scriptures. This moved forward the end of six thousand years of man’s existence into the decade of the 1970’s. Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning of his invisible presence or parousia.

This change to the end of 6,000 years of man's existence had been 1872-1873 and was moved to 1976 (then later changed 1975). 

[The person who did most of the outlining of the ka book was the same person who completely wrote the 1943 book, and the 1944 book, "Let God Be True."]

Those particular meanings that had been attached to 1874 were already assigned to 1914 before 1943, although not all of the significance attached to 1874 had been completely removed. The Watchtower apparently avoided any publicity about these changes so this happens to be the only specific mention of when this doctrine was changed. However, some of the changes were mentioned in 1925, and perhaps even a hint in 1922, but seemed not to "stick" until 1930/1.

Another change between 1943 and 1944 was the definitive change to the zero year problem that had resulted in keeping 606 on the books until it was changed to 607 after 1944.

*** re chap. 18 p. 105 Earthquakes in the Lord’s Day ***
Providentially, those Bible Students had not realized that there is no zero year between “B.C.” and “A.D.” Later, when research made it necessary to adjust B.C. 606 to 607 B.C.E., the zero year was also eliminated, so that the prediction held good at “A.D. 1914.”—See “The Truth Shall Make You Free,” published by Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1943, page 239

Also, the mechanism behind the "1874 chronology" is what I have sometimes referred to by that term. The mechanism is the use of corresponding time parallels between the Jewish-era "advent" and the Christian-era "advent" and this remained in use even in the 1950's. Some of this remained with a slight adjustment to 1874 using 1878. And it was for the same reason that 1918 remained important. (The "temple inspection" had been 1878 and was moved to 1918, and 1918 had become the date for the first resurrection for related reasons.) 1878 was dropped as the beginning of a 40-year harvest as late as 1961 (evidently). And, lastly, the year 1918 which had also used the "1874 chronology" in this sense, was not dropped in about 2007 (evidently). The idea of the first resurrection in 1918 was once definitive, and has now become only "an interesting possibility."

*** w07 1/1 p. 28 par. 12 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***
Could it, then, be reasoned that since Jesus was enthroned in the fall of 1914, the resurrection of his faithful anointed followers began three and a half years later, in the spring of 1918? That is an interesting possibility. Although this cannot be directly confirmed in the Bible

========added in a late edit rather than creating a new post====

These are footnotes in the Proclaimers book that help explain how some of the "parallels" worked:

• *** jv chap. 28 Testing and Sifting From Within ***
• That 1878 was a year of significance seemed to be fortified by reference to Jeremiah 16:18 (‘Jacob’s double,’ KJ) along with calculations indicating that 1,845 years had apparently elapsed from Jacob’s death down till 33 C.E., when natural Israel was cast off, and that the double, or duplicate, of this would extend from 33 C.E. down to 1878.
• Extending the parallels further, it was stated that the desolation of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. (37 years after Jesus was hailed as king by his disciples when he rode into Jerusalem) might point to 1915 (37 years after 1878) for a culmination of anarchistic upheaval that they thought God would permit as a means for bringing existing institutions of the world to their end. This date appeared in reprints of Studies in the Scriptures. (See Volume II, pages 99-101, 171, 221, 232, 246-7; compare reprint of 1914 with earlier printings, such as the 1902 printing of Millennial Dawn.) It seemed to them that this fitted well with what had been published regarding the year 1914 as marking the end of the Gentile Times.
• See “The Truth Shall Make You Free,” [1943] chapter XI; “The Kingdom Is at Hand,” pages 171-5; also The Golden Age, March 27, 1935, pages 391, 412. In the light of these corrected tables of Bible chronology, it could be seen that previous use of the dates 1873 and 1878, as well as related dates derived from these on the basis of parallels with first-century events, were based on misunderstandings.

12 hours ago, Anna said:

Russell got his ideas about the date from Barbour and soon after that parted ways with him and also scrapped the date. The important thing was that Russell discerned, as opposed to what Christendom taught, that Christ's presence would be invisible. There is no mention of the year 1874 in the booklet. Russell states "It is not my object in this pamphlet to call attention more fully to the TIME.......those interested in knowing the evidences as to the time I would refer to Dr. N H Barbour... (page 62. The object and manner of our Lords return).

1874 was Barbour's date.

Hello Anna,  Welcome. Hope you don't mind if I add a few points.

Russell never scrapped the 1874 date, ever.

The 1873/4 date was actually originally suggested as a possibility by "Father Miller" himself back around 1843/4, but many of the Second Adventists after Miller preferred looking to closer dates in the 1850's and 1860's. (Many others did what Miller himself did, and said they shouldn't be setting dates any more. The Seventh Day Adventists generally followed Miller's advice.)

Barbour had the advantage of having been promoting the 1873/4 date from all the way back when other date-setters were still focusing on those 1860's dates. This is what made Barbour's name most closely associated with 1874 among the remaining Adventist date-setters. (He was the only one left standing after the previous failures.) Therefore, after the the 1860's failure, this meant that Barbour had a newly "captive" audience of Second Adventists that would quickly number to around 15,000 subscribers in time for the initial 1873 date expectations. He had to start building up the numbers again after the two main failures in 1873 and 1874, but Barbour (via one of his "Herald" contributors, B W Keith, and prior to Russell "discerning" it) declared 1874 to be correct as the beginning of an "invisible" presence, and then set 1878 as the new date for Christ's return.

This is why it was so urgent for Russell to put money into publicizing 1878, and why he funded a much larger distribution of Barbour's "Three Worlds" in 1877 that spelled out the "times and seasons" aspect of the Lord's Return, while Russell himself wrote a smaller booklet that focused on the "object and manner" aspect of the Lord's Return. Russell did get his name put on "Three Worlds" as co-author, but I've read that he probably didn't add much of anything himself. But all of this was focused on preparing for 1878. 1874 was used as a foundation to prove that 1878 was urgent!

Russell says that when 1878 failed, Barbour started spouting some bad doctrine in order to create a "distraction" from the failure of that date. Russell said that 1874 was still right, and 1878 was still right, but that they had expected the wrong thing. Russell then funded the Watch Tower magazine due to the urgency of the 1881 date when he was sure that the Bride of Christ would be joined with Christ in heaven, while remaining Christians would participate in a 40-year harvest that lasted from 1874 to 1914. 

It's true, as Ann said, that the 1874 was dropped around 1930, but there were some ways in which the "1874 chronology" (based on a chronological year-by-year correspondence between Jewish and Christian events) remained for several years, even after 1874 itself was dropped. Note the last vestige of this chronology:

*** kr chap. 5 p. 50 par. 5 The King Shines Light on the Kingdom ***
The harvest would extend from 1874 to 1914 and would culminate in the gathering of the anointed to heaven.

This 40-year harvest remained "on the books" up until 1961, but it had been slightly adjusted:

*** w54 3/1 p. 150 par. 5 Restoration of True Religion Today ***
Not until the Lord of the harvest gave the command could that be done. Corresponding to the events of the first advent, there is first an “Elijah” work performed, like the work of John the Baptist, to warn the people, trying to bring them to repentance. Such a work was prosecuted in a particular way from 1878 to 1918

*** w51 7/1 p. 410 par. 6 ‘Time, Times and Half a Time’ ***
6 Now note further corroborative proof of this period of time: “I will cause my two witnesses to prophesy a thousand two hundred and sixty days dressed in sackcloth.” (Rev. 11:3, NW) The “two witnesses” are the antitypical Elijah-John-the-Baptist work, and their being introduced at this time is important, for it helps us to understand Daniel’s prophecy. . . .  foreshadowed great works to be accomplished at this end of the system of things, and which were also to be done before 1918. . . . So it was antitypically with the work done from 1878 to 1918.

*** w52 2/1 p. 78 par. 7 Jehovah’s Theocratic Organization Today ***
But again we ask, “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics to give them their food at the proper time?” In 1878, forty years before the Lord’s coming to the temple for judgment, there was a class of sincere consecrated Christians . . .

*** w60 10/1 pp. 606-607 The Great Wheat Harvest ***
What was foretold in the illustration of the great harvest has been taking place in our day,. . . Christ’s anointed followers have been separated from Christendom, and imitation Christians appearing among them are removed as weeds are removed from harvested wheat. . . . The history of Jehovah’s witnesses, particularly since 1918, verifies the accuracy of what Jesus prophesied. . . .  As the harvest period in the illustration . . . . The more than forty years [1918 to 1960] that have passed since its beginning is short when compared with the centuries that have passed since the congregation was planted.

21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Google probably guesses "pink" either because the value of the gray is much closer to the light stripe on the prison uniform and purple was much closer to the dark stripe,

Thanks Ann, for confirmation of this. I was trying to give Allen the benefit of the doubt, because who knows how consistent these colors were? (I suspect they were very consistent, from what I have read about supposed German precision during WWII, but who can really say?) 

5 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

They could be anybody - with an added observation that, as JW Insider mentioned, one of them was wearing a double triangle of different colors, one of them shaded considerably darker than the triangles the others are wearing.

I was referring to another picture taken at just slightly to the right of the same spot [photographer's POV]  but with a different set of prisoners in that front row. The man in the foreground of that picture appears to have both yellow and pink. Looking at photos of the different colors can help to identify more of the colors and rule out certain colors. 

At any rate, I don't think any of us need a physical artifact or photograph to know that there were many faithful Jehovah's Witnesses in the concentration camps. Their faith was amazing considering what they went through.

11 hours ago, Arauna said:

So these things are also a part of the sign.   Jesus' followers have discernment and discretion.... they can see the signs.  The 10 virgins with the lamps - some were unprepared and the other 5 were.... because they watched out of the signs of the arrival of the bridegroom to go in to the marriage ceremony. They did not fall asleep.

The bible never mentions either a sign or signs except for the signs that are seen in heaven which is always tied to the idea of it being too late to make preparations.

Look again, you will see that the disciples asked for a sign but the first words out of Jesus' mouth were "Do not be misled!" Jesus never spoke of a composite sign that they could use to help them determine the time or season because they were already aware that they were in the season where they could expect some great event in their lifetime. They knew enough about the times they were living in that something was imminent, and this drove them to follow Jesus in the first place.  But they would get no hint from Jesus about the times and seasons, beyond what they already knew. Jesus didn't even know it himself.

But the event upon Jerusalem was still a perfect analogy for the event coming upon the entire world: there would be no sign until such time as it could be too late for many of them to escape Jerusalem if they didn't heed this warning. Therefore, stay prepared at all times, because immediately after the tribulation of those days [the "preview" of his parousia], this also immediately becomes true of the wider judgment that would come upon the entire world. 

So with that in mind, it wouldn't make sense that the wise virgins prepare through discerning "signs." We should be very surprised if Jesus mentioned that kind of wisdom and discernment in the context of any of his parables in Matthew 24 and 25. Christians should remain always ready and prepared precisely because they won't get a sign.

For me, this explains why Jesus never mentions a sign, because a sign would give you time to prepare. That was the whole point of the disciple's question: "Tell us, when...?" The parable of the 10 virgins answers this perfectly: 'Be always prepared, because when the arrival of bridegroom is upon you, it's too late to prepare.'

7 hours ago, Arauna said:

This morning I read Revelation 6 again where it talks about Jesus Riding his white horse AFTER he has been 'crowned' in heaven.

This is a good point. This fits both the Witness doctrine and the ... for lack of a better phrase ... the Biblical teachings, too. So I wouldn't attempt to claim that it doesn't fit our generation, because it easily fits our generation, too. Naturally, we have developed our interpretations of Revelation and other prophetic passages around our 1914 tradition. I use the term "tradition" advisedly. It was handed down to us from a time when we were wrong, as the Watchtower inadvertently admits, about every single chronology belief we ever held, including all the beliefs we held about 1914. We can claim just the one exception: that we had used the correct phrase about 1914, calling it "the end of the Gentile Times."

But the Bible itself explains Revelation 6 in a perfectly satisfactory way. (In general, related and parallel passages elsewhere in the Bible actually make the entire book of Revelation a much easier book to understand.) The chronological traditions we have carried down through Father Miller and Nelson Barbour and Pastor Russell and Judge Rutherford have actually imposed the kinds of contradictions that make the book more difficult than it needs to be.

But before stepping on anyone's favorite and long-held interpretations, there is something that needs to be said about "Revelation" in general. In the Bible, various "revelations" often refer to a "revealing" of what is going on in the invisible heavens as a way of explaining a difficult situation on earth. The revelation of Micaiah to Ahab explaining why all the other prophets were wrong is a good example. The book of Job is a good example, revealing what had happened in heaven that explained the troubles that Job was going through. The revelation given to Stephen where he saw Jesus standing at God's right hand is another. It was probably about the same idea when Jesus revealed that he could see Satan cast down like lightning from heaven. (Luke 10:18, with NWT footnote: Rev 12:7-9). Therefore, revelation could refer to the recent past (Micaiah, Job, etc) or the ongoing present (Stephen, etc) or the future, or possibly be allegorical in some way to represent epochs and eras of historical progression.

We know from the very statements in Revelation that it will deal with what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen from “the One who is and who was and who is coming." 

(Revelation 1:17-19) . . .the First and the Last, 18 and the living one, and I became dead, but look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of the Grave. 19 So write down the things you saw, and the things that are, and the things that will take place after these.

This might be an important point if we tend to come to Revelation with the prejudice that it is always about the future, and only the future.

The wider context of Revelation 6 is also helpful to show that not just future, but also past and present events are involved in the imagery. We can start with the letters to the 7 congregations in Asia Minor that were contemporary with John's lifetime. Without getting into all of them, we can make the point from the very last sentence written to the last congregation mentioned:

(Revelation 3:21-22) 21 To the one who conquers I will grant to sit down with me on my throne, just as I conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne. 22 Let the one who has an ear hear what the spirit says to the congregations.’”

In other words, Jesus, in the first century C.E., had already conquered and presently sat down with his Father on his throne, and could therefore, grant a future offer to anyone else who conquers to sit down with Jesus on his present throne.

That entire verse (Rev 3:21), as you can probably see, is devastating to the 1914 tradition, but it perfectly fits the Bible's view that Jesus is already "ruling as king" (NWT) in the first century, not waiting to rule as king. (1 Cor 10:25)  As king, he still waits until the time is right to conquer all his enemies, but he continues to rule in the midst of those enemies. So, I'm sure you can already see where Revelation 6 fits in.

But there are a lot more ways in which the Bible itself helps us understand the rest of the Bible. And, there is also the big picture to consider again. What is the purpose of Scripture?

(2 Timothy 3:16, 17) 16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

This should also include the book of Revelation, not just in our century, but in the first century, too. Obviously, this would be true for the future, which we already appreciate, but perhaps there were more ways in which this Bible book was also already applicable for teaching, reproving, and equipping Christians when it was written, and perhaps we can appreciate more ways that it already had great value to readers in the first, ninth, and fifteenth centuries, too, for example. Evidence for this is in the context of Revelation 6.  For example:

Christians had died violently in the first century. Paul had faced persecutions, even wild beasts in the arena; Stephen had been stoned to death; the book of Acts shows that persecution was a regular occurrence. Early church writings show that martyrdom and persecution continued under many of the Roman emperors from John's day and for centuries after. Christendom has had a violent history and often treated very harshly the very Christians within it who tried to break from strongly entrenched traditions. (Wycliffe, Tyndale, Waldo, etc.)

Revelation chapter 6 gives us the interesting perspective of what these persecuted martyrs (from all ages) would say if there were wisdom and knowledge and planning in the grave. As you obviously know, this has to be seen in the context of (Ecclesiastes 9:10) ". . . for there is no work nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in the Grave, where you are going." 

(Revelation 6:9-11) 9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those slaughtered because of the word of God and because of the witness they had given. 10 They shouted with a loud voice, saying: “Until when, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, are you refraining from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11 And a white robe was given to each of them, and they were told to rest a little while longer, until the number was filled of their fellow slaves and their brothers who were about to be killed as they had been.

That number was being filled all through the centuries, and the sentiment would easily be understood by persecuted Christians through all centuries. It fits a sub-theme of Revelation, about the question of time:  Jesus has already conquered, so what are we waiting for? And the answer is: don't worry, it's just a little longer, there are more persons who will be included in that number. In effect, because of Eccl 9:10, no one needs to wait any longer than their own lifetime. Jesus is already coming quickly. He is already actively riding in the midst of his enemies, as represented by the three other horses/horsemen he rides with. Although and it is not yet time for the last enemy to be destroyed, that time will also be due shortly (Revelation 20:13,14)

1 Cor 15:25 gives the most direct answer to Revelation 6. Jesus already has the crown (Revelation 6:2) "and a crown was given him, and he went out conquering and to complete his conquest." Therefore he is already "ruling as king" in the midst of his enemies from the very moment he sat down at the right hand of the throne of Majesty. He continues riding, just as Matthew 24 shows, in the midst of death and war and famine and persecution right up until the sign appears, at a time when it is too late, because by the time the sign appears, the great day of wrath is upon them. Clearly, Revelation 6 takes Matthew 24 and brings it past the year 70 C.E. so that it explains what has been happening in the centuries since 70 C.E.

(1 Corinthians 15:25, 26) 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.

It is difficult to understand why we (Witnesses) can still deny the accuracy of this verse, where Paul shows that the words "sit at my right hand" could be replaced with "rule as king." (The Watchtower's interpretation is "sit at my right hand and wait until 1914 when it finally becomes time to rule as king.") Yet even without this particular verse, there are many more that agree with it, and none that disagree with it. So even if we deny the meaning of this verse, the Bible repeats the idea elsewhere. 

1 hour ago, HollyW said:

It would be interesting to see when they stopped preaching 1878 and changed it to 1918.  I wonder if they ever confessed their own apostasy in that regard.

That was in 1927. But an organization can change its beliefs without being "apostate." You might be surprised, but I just wrote several paragraphs defending Rutherfod in most of those changes from 1927 to 1931, even if he did get some of them wrong. Maybe I'll save what I wrote for a more appropriate topic.
 

25 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

"The concentration camp prisoner category ‘Bible Student’ at times apparently included a few members from small Bible Student splinter groups,

Thanks Allen. That looks like a reasonable place to start. Thanks for finding a color picture. I still can't tell for sure if it's pink or purple, but the shades are closer here than how they had shown up on the page I linked to, where both colors are also shown. Seems quite possible that "pink-triangle" site owners might have even used pictures of the purple triangle and got them mixed up with the ones they tried to show as pink.

Thanks for the info on the Bible Student splinter groups. I heard it was true, but extra depth on the Nazi-era info is never something I researched for myself.

I think it is very, very wrong to denigrate the great sacrifices that Jehovah's Witnesses made for their faith during the regimes in Germany, etc, during WWII. But we should still be careful about making use of whatever pictures we find, and trying to associate them with the Witnesses. It seems like it might even be Witnesses in some cases who have misused pictures of miniature Bibles they find online, and then claim that they were smuggled by JWs into the concentration camps. Anything is possible, but sometimes this borders on the same idea behind peddling artifacts of the martyrs during the "dark" and/or medieval ages.

I don't know anything about this picture, but I've seen it before and I am pretty sure it wasn't the purple triangle that was given to those who identified as Bible Students, Earnest Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses. (I have heard from other Witnesses that these weren't always the same groups in the 1940's. Many of the ones who suffered persecution and even death rejected Brother Rutherford and the Watch Tower Society. I haven't checked out this claim yet, but put it here in case anyone has.)

The reason I say that this unlikely to be a purple triangle is that you can tell something about a color from its "value" meaning its place on a gray scale. Google is also good at this and a search on the photo returns " Best guess for this image: pink triangle concentration camp " Additional searches also link it with Sachsenhausen, not Auschwitz, as Ann has already pointed out.

Google probably guesses "pink" either because the value of the gray is much closer to the light stripe on the prison uniform and purple was much closer to the dark stripe, and it probably has been associated with "pink triangle" websites for a while. This would mean that these men were more likely homosexuals, although that color [pink] was also given to pedophiles and sex offenders of all stripes. There is another picture of a man standing just to the right of where the currently rightmost man is in this picture, who has an extra superimposed triangle that likely indicates that he is a Jewish homosexual. This also gives us evidence of the the gray value for yellow which shows up as lighter than the pink, which is as expected if the two colors were pink and yellow, and this provides even more evidence that the picture above is the pink triangle.

Note some of the related pictures here:

http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Nazi_concentration_camp_badge

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Paul's words from 1Thess. 5:4 are the most significant in this thread for me.

Same here! Glad to find something we can agree on again!

To answer the question about whether it is better to hide or reveal our own sins, it is better to confess before Jehovah and before the congregation. Everything done in the darkness will come to light. It's true that some sins can remain hidden for an entire lifetime, but is our own ego so important that we believe the congregation must continue to see the benefit of services we provide as an elder or ministerial servant? There is no reason for a person who has been guilty of a serious sin to think that the overall congregation is somehow benefiting so much from one's appointment to a "named" position, and that they would somehow need his talks or his shepherding. Confessing sins serves the purpose of a clean conscience with Jehovah, and indicates humility, and it indicates our faith that Jehovah sees the heart, whether or not the congregation would have ever known or not.

The congregation needs various positions of responsibility, but not everyone needs to minister in the same way. Not everyone needs a "title." In fact, all Christians have the title of "minister" in the sense of being a "servant." All Christians can do some things and even many things that help our fellow brothers and sisters. The congregation is built up in this way when we do fine works for each other:

(Hebrews 10:24, 25) 24 And let us consider one another so as to incite to love and fine works, 25 not forsaking our meeting together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, and all the more so as you see the day drawing near.

(Ephesians 4:11-16) 11 And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers, 12 with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones, for ministerial work, to build up the body of the Christ, 13 until we all attain to the oneness of the faith and of the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to being a full-grown man, attaining the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ. 14 So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes. 15 But speaking the truth, let us by love grow up in all things into him who is the head, Christ. 16 From him all the body is harmoniously joined together and made to cooperate through every joint that gives what is needed. When each respective member functions properly, this contributes to the growth of the body as it builds itself up in love.

Just a last thought, noting that much of what was true about elders is also true of ministerial servants.

(1 Timothy 3:8-10) 8 Ministerial servants should likewise be serious, not double-tongued, not indulging in a lot of wine, not greedy of dishonest gain, 9 holding the sacred secret of the faith with a clean conscience. 10 Also, let these be tested as to fitness first; then let them serve as ministers, as they are free from accusation.

This part is my own opinion, but I think we have to be judicious when it comes to confessing articles of faith, when that faith might be considered sin. For example what if you believed, five years ago, that "types and antitiypes" should not be taught as doctrines unless the Bible specifically and explicitly tells us to do this? Five years ago, this was apostasy, because it literally involved the rejection of hundreds of doctrines unique to Jehovah's Witnesses. Note:

*** w86 4/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
Approved association with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses.

If one believed this in 1914, they would have had to wait for 100 years until this teaching was finally dropped, and it no longer constituted apostasy to reject it. (It was finally dropped in 2014.) But the article goes on to include several specific doctrines considered to be of prime importance:

What do such beliefs include?
. . . That 1914 marked the end of the Gentile Times and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the heavens, as well as the time for Christ’s foretold presence. . . .

If we do not confess this particular belief as an article of faith, should this be confessed to the elders? YES! Absolutely. But we can take it to the elders in the overall world-wide congregation, not the specific elders from our local congregation, and even potentially to the Governing Body, by sending it as correspondence through the appropriate Watch Tower Society channels. Why? Because individual congregation elders will respond differently. Some will disfellowship, some will say to keep quiet about it and wait on the organization. Some might begin questioning themselves. This might begin to cause divisions in the congregation. The most consistent answers will be sent from the Society headquarters, where the ins and outs of this topic are fairly well-known by many of those who handle correspondence.

On 9/19/2016 at 3:14 AM, Arauna said:

It is similar in prophecy:  people will argue about the minute details when the reality of the BIG picture is totally evading them - they cannot see it.

The big picture in Jesus words, the over-arching message, was that the end, the parousia, comes unannounced the way a "thief in the night" arrives. The thief doesn't give you signs and warnings, and even if he did, we couldn't see them very well, because it's in the night. But when it finally did arrive, we would know it, and we shouldn't be that surprised because Jesus warned us to always be ready.

Jesus also said that we shouldn't believe anyone who tells us that the Christ has already arrived but we just can't see him, he's just not visible right now, because he is over here or over there or in some inner chambers. Why? Because when the parousia arrives it will be like "lightning." Lightning is not invisible. It is unmistakable.

Here's another example of what happens when people start nit-picking the words of Jesus looking for "signs" of the parousia, without getting the overall big picture. They see that Jesus answered the question about the sign by starting out, in effect, 'Don't get misled about wars and reports of wars and earthquakes. Yes these things will happen [in this generation between 33 and 70] but they are not signs of the end. You will not get signs of the end because it has to happen like a thief. The parousia will be like the days of Noah when people were just carrying on as if things were normal, peaceful and secure, getting married, etc., right up until the day the Flood came and swept them all away."

Now if we don't get the big picture, we would look at what Jesus said about the Flood and imply that Jesus forgot to add the part about Noah warning them, and Noah's implicit message to them through the building of a big ark that must have gotten everyone's attention. Because we want the message of Jesus to be about a full generation filled with signs and warnings, while Jesus, on the other hand, only focused on the way most people were caught by surprise on the day the Flood swept them all away. Two people could be sitting and working on the same mundane, peaceful activity, when one is taken away and one remains.

• (Matthew 24:41, 42) 41 Two women will be grinding at the hand mill; one will be taken along and the other abandoned. 42 Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.

The same thing happens when Paul says that as to the times and seasons we need nothing to be written to us, because [just like in the days of Noah] when people thought they had 'peace and security' [to continue eating and drinking and marrying] the day would catch them by surprise like a thief in the night.

If we get the big picture, we will see that Paul meant the same thing Jesus meant when he said:

 (1 Thessalonians 4:15, 16; 5:1-4) 15 For this is what we tell you by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord will in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death; 16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet,. .. . .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. 3 Whenever it is that they are saying, “Peace and security!” then sudden destruction is to be instantly on them, just like birth pains on a pregnant woman, and they will by no means escape. 4 But you, brothers, you are not in darkness, so that the day should overtake you as it would thieves, 5 for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We belong neither to night nor to darkness.

(Matthew 24:36-44) 36 “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the Flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, 39 and they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 40 Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken along and the other abandoned. 41 Two women will be grinding at the hand mill; one will be taken along and the other abandoned. 42 Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. 43 “But know one thing: If the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it.

Have you noticed that some people will do exactly the opposite of what Paul said and try to turn even the cry of "Peace and Security" into another "sign"? He was clearly referring to the lack of a sign. He said we need "nothing" to be written to us about the chronology of the parousia, because that parousia -- the day of the Lord -- comes without warning.

Notice that Jesus, too, calls the parousia, the day of the Lord, when he says that "they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so the parousia of the Son of man will be . . . Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming." Paul indicates the same thing (quoted above in 1 Thess 4:15,16) when he says that the "parousia" of the Lord is the time when the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet.

(1 Thessalonians 2:19) 19 For what is our hope or joy or crown of exultation before our Lord Jesus at his presence?. . .

(1 Thessalonians 3:13) 13 so that he may make your hearts firm, blameless in holiness before our God and Father at the presence of our Lord Jesus with all his holy ones.

(1 Thessalonians 5:23) . . .be preserved blameless at the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ. . .

(1 Corinthians 1:6-8) . . ., 7 so that you do not lack in any gift at all, while you are eagerly waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ. 8 He will also make you firm to the end so that you may be open to no accusation in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

There is a consistency in the big picture that is lost when we try to impose a different meaning on a few scriptures and then not realize that we have produced contradictions in other scriptures. Note:

(2 Thessalonians 2:1-8) 2 However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here. . . . 8 Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence.

The problem with trying to turn the parousia into an extended presence has even made some people in our day claim that the parousia, or the day of Jehovah is already here, even before the lawless one has been brought to nothing by the manifestation of his parousia.

Notice that the parousia is a "revelation" and a "manifestation," a time of "glory" and "shining brightly" like "lightning" and that the Bible no where speaks of its invisibility:

(2 Thessalonians 1:9, 10) . . .from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength, 10 at the time he comes to be glorified in connection with his holy ones and to be regarded in that day with wonder . . .

Some will even then turn 1 Thess 4 and 5 on its head by claiming that the resurrection has already occurred. Some will say this is not important any more, but it's an issue that we should be very careful with, according to Paul.

(2 Timothy 2:18) 18 These men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred, and they are subverting the faith of some.

Paul went to a lot of trouble in 1 Thessalonians 4 to show how we would know that the resurrection had not already occurred, because Christians would "at the same time" meet the Lord in the air. We discussed earlier how this verse was once given a meaning that we no longer give it. The current meaning makes it impossible, however, to solve the contradiction of "at the same time."

(1 Thessalonians 4:15-17) 15 . . . we the living who survive to the [parousia] of the Lord shall in no way precede those who have fallen asleep [in death]; 16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. 17 Afterward we the living who are surviving will, [at the same time] with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we shall always be with [the] Lord. [NWT Reference Bible]

You will notice that we had to change "at the same time" to "together" to avoid the contradiction. Altogether, however, the "big picture" tells us that this is the parousia, the time when the resurrection actually does occur -- and this is why there would be no advance sign of that day, because the only sign will be on that very day when the event is unmistakable. You will also note that clouds are not associated with invisibility, but with "seeing."

(Matthew 24:30, 31) 30 Then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together. . .

You may also note that we have adjusted parts of this same imagery that once applied to the time since 1914 only to the "end" in spite of the translation of "synteleia" as "conclusion."

(Matthew 13:39-43) . . .The harvest is a conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are angels. 40 Therefore, just as the weeds are collected and burned with fire, so it will be in the conclusion of the system of things. 41 The Son of man will send his angels,. . .  43 At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father.. . .

This is because the term we translate "conclusion" can also be translated "end" or more specifically the "end of all things" together. 1 Peter uses a similar expression with the word "telos" [ending] rather than syn-telos [ending together]:

(1 Peter 4:7) 7 But the end of all things has drawn close. . . .

• (1 Peter 1:13) 13 So brace up your minds for activity; keep your senses completely; set your hope on the undeserved kindness that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

So, to me, the "big picture" is when we consider the whole entire gamut. It's true that it's made up of hundreds of little pictures, but these must all fit consistently into the big picture.

On 9/19/2016 at 3:14 AM, Arauna said:

My dear -  I can see your field of expertize is to argue - and only to argue. 

Chuckling out loud. I can see why someone might say that if they were only to focus on points made in this little thread. But our lives are fabrics of thousands of interwoven threads. And although I enjoy many types of learning and experiences, I don't think I am expert in any of them. As I type this, I'm primarily a grandparent playing with my granddaughter right now (my 10-hours-a-day job, three days a week, with my wife next to me, and the baby between us. Among all this activity with toys, playing games, and reading to her, I'm also trying to keep her from seeing the phone that I'm hiding off to my right, so that she doesn't get hooked on pixels.

On 9/19/2016 at 3:14 AM, Arauna said:

You are also inclined to only focus on the small picture and do not see the overall picture of what is going on in the world.

Yes, I tend to focus on several hundred of these 'small pictures.' It's true that this is always my first inclination, to focus on all the small pictures, and then I even think about whether there are more small pictures that I might have forgotten about, but it's never the overall goal. When you learn a language, for example, no one complains that you are only focusing on the "small picture" if you focus for a while on vocabulary and grammar, but it's a legitimate complaint if you were to spend so much time on vocabulary and grammar that you forget the overall goal, which (in that case) is probably to communicate with others and let others communicate with you.

On 9/19/2016 at 3:14 AM, Arauna said:

It was not called the first world war for nothing... it was the first time in history that so many nations were involved against each other for the first time.

With all the points made in these threads, I'm sure that it gives a skewed impression when we only pick up on those things that we disagree about, and hardly ever mention where we agree. I happen to agree with the entire paragraph where the quote above came from, and the next one after that, and for that matter, probably 95% of everything you said in that entire post.

On 9/19/2016 at 3:14 AM, Arauna said:

Also,  do not negate the technology that was available for the first time in the world's entire history during WW1.

You probably noticed that I didn't negate this. In fact, I would happily stipulate that WWI was a year that the world went mad. I brought up WWII only because you said it was worse and this goes to the point of not focusing so closely on a single year as the one and only demarcation point in history. And I think you were right that it was even worse during WWII, and of course the nuclear era during that time was a new historical demarcation, too.  With respect to military technology, others have even pointed to the wider use of battleships, and submarines, and some have even claimed that use of the Gatling gun in the 1800's was the great historical turning point of warfare technology. You probably know that Brother Russell was able to show how world conditions prior to 1910 had also provided "proof" that the parousia had begun in 1874.

But I don't mention these things to discount the idea that 1914 was a very important year in history. And I agree that this was a time when so many of these technologies came together at once. I also agree about both the short-term and long-term social and political effects of WWI on subsequent wars and the social conditions in the era we have lived in since then.

I don't say any of this to discount the seriousness of the time we live in, nor to discount the closeness of the end. I agree with almost everything you said about this time period. My point is that (in my own conscience) I believe we should also fear adding our own traditions, and imposing our own ideas onto the Bible. I also know that there are others who might be concerned that we have done this, too. Therefore, I'm responding to the question by offering my view that the usual methods we have used over the years to defend the doctrine actually result in Bible contradictions -- the major one having been pointed out in the question of the OP at the top of this thread.

Therefore, for those who are concerned, either because they studied all the details, or even if they never plan to, I would like to present the reasons that we can still have faith in the promises even if 1914 proves to be incorrect. We don't need to add the specific date of 1914 to the Bible for Jesus to be right. For me, this fact doesn't delay the presence or the coming of Jesus in the least. It shouldn't even be such a great concern, because with or without 1914, nothing at all changes with respect to the object and manner and even the time of Jesus' return.

When 1914 failed the first time, in 1914, many people left or became less active the organization. (The Watchtower claimed this was so in the 1915 report on the work in 1914.) When 1925 was made a part of the 1914 chronological scenario, many people left the organization when that failed, too. When 1975 (and what the mid-70's would bring) was tied to the length of the generation of people who had seen 1914, many people left the organization when that failed, too. The need to re-define the generation several more times since then has also resulted in new problems. People have admitted to me personally (and others, I'm told) that they are troubled especially by the most recent change to that definition, because it appears to create a Bible contradiction. Some Witnesses have rationalized that it's a good thing that some have stumbled over things like this, because it was a test to see whether their faith was focused correctly. I think our love for the flock should motivate us to go beyond that rationale.

On 9/19/2016 at 3:14 AM, Arauna said:

"You said:  Since our new definition of "this generation" can technically carry this system well past the year 2100"...

You are obviously not keeping tread with current events.... or are blind to many aspects of it - so you do not see the overall impact several aspects of it is having on the world.     This week in the news: climate change has become one of the greatest threats to the American Armed Forces.  

I personally do not think that climate change is the ' largest' threat although it is one of the issues to mention regarding survival  - and I am talking survival of the human race here!

We're in absolute agreement about current events, climate change, and the survival of the human race. Yet, it's still true that we have also said that this system could not go past 1914, then 1915, then 1925, then not many months past the mid-1940's, then not many months past the mid-70's, and then we said, multiple times, that this system would see its end before the year 2000/2001. Currently we are saying that the second part of "this generation" is getting old, but Brother Splane has also produced a chart that explains it, which technically allows for someone like FWFranz to be part of the first group. Brother Franz lived to be 99 and died in 1991. He was said to be an example of someone in that first group and not definitvely the last person in that group. What about another anointed brother in that group who may have been born in say 1904 and lived to be 106. (My son-in-law's grandmother just turned 102.) That brother might, by definition, "overlap" as a contemporary with someone in the second group as late as the year 2010. If the brother in the second group lives to be 106, then "this generation" could potentially reach the year 2116, one hundred years from today.

That's just an example, of course. I believe that this is not currently the intention to stretch it out this far, nor do I think that the system can last that long without cooperation to solve some huge life-threatening issues. Yet, some of these big issues may even be closer and bigger than we realize. Something could happen later this year that might make historians claim the world began a new era of historical demarcation. This, again, is not said to discount the historical importance of 1914, but to show that this idea alone has always been tenuous, and has, so far, always embarrassed us.

Based on what most Witnesses are saying about the overlapping generation concept, it is apparently meant to point to the idea that the system is not expected to go on for several more decades. The great tribulation could begin tonight, or in the next couple of decades, but very few Witnesses expect this system to go on for 40 more years, much less 100 years.

But this could potentially create a problem again. We don't want to admit it, but we know it's true. We know it's happened many times before. The longer the system goes on, the more focus on the length of that generation, and the more at odds we are with Jesus' words about not being able to know the times or the seasons.
 

1 hour ago, HollyW said:

From the excerpt you've posted out of the elders manual, putting more than a few years between the wrongdoing and a confession to the elders could avoid a judicial hearing and discipline.

Notice that the primary phrase in the topic includes "If it comes to light or an appointed brother confesses . . . ."

Technically, therefore, the current elder or ministerial servant need not confess the sin to avoid a judicial hearing and discipline. But, if confronted and accused of a past sin that has "come to light" he should at least "confess" that he is now repentant and that he realizes he should have come forward sooner. There is also some "local" flexibility built into this rule in the interpretation of "many years" and "past few years." Even a past accusation of child abuse, is not a necessary impediment to serving, but is only "likely" disqualifying. (It's not in writing here, but the recommendation now is to always disqualify a person accused of child abuse, and not even consider re-appointing for several years.)

One other point about the judicial committee is that it is also not mandatory even if the sin happened in a relatively recent time period. The primary point is the brother's ability to serve in the congregation without reproach. Some of this appears built into the scriptural context.

(1 Timothy 5:18-20) . . .” 19 Do not accept an accusation against an older man except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 Reprove before all onlookers those who practice sin, as a warning to the rest.

2 hours ago, Jay Witness said:

The churches are in rapid decline. Even in the United States, were religion still enjoys perhaps the greatest popularity, nearly three out of four persons polled said that it is losing influence. Why is there this decline in religion?

One of the reasons is that people are disturbed by what is happening in their churches. Yes, millions of persons have been shocked to learn that things they were taught as being vital for salvation are now considered by their church to be wrong. Have you, too, felt discouragement, or even despair, because of what is happening in your church?

A businessman in Medelling, Colombia, expressed the effect the changes have had on many.

"Tell me", he asked "how can I have confidence in anything? How can i believe in the Bible, in God, or have faith? Just ten years ago we Catholics had the absolute truth, we put all our faith in this. now the pope and our priests are telling us this is not the way to believe any more, but we are to believe "new things". How do i know the "new things" will be the truth in five years?

If this is in the controversial section because it looks like they misspelled the word "where" as "were," and forgot to use single quotes for quoted words inside the double quotes, and forgot the comma after the phrase "he asked," and used a lower-case "i" instead of upper-case "I," etc., then there really is no controversy. These mistakes are not in the original bound volume, nor are they in the original single issue.

Also, you can check the WT Library CD, where you can find this in the April 22, 1970 Awake! on page 8. Hopefully this will help build confidence to know that such mistakes are not in the original. Also, it might be good to know that where any errors such as these have been published in the original magazine, they have, with only few exceptions, been faithfully kept in the bound volume and the WT Library CD. There are very few such errors, but now and then you will find some, especially in the older Watchtowers and Awake!s on the CD. But they are so rare now that it you can also have confidence that the quality of these publications is not in decline.

Jesus is "a god" in the sense of being divine. A divine representation of the Almighty Father. As humans, we cannot fathom the depth and breadth of the Almighty, but His Son represents Him in such a way that we can understand Him and therefore bring the Lord into our hearts. In other words, even if it had been translated "...sanctify the Christ as Jehovah in your hearts. . ." we should still see it in the sense that Christ has helped us to bring Jehovah into our hearts. It's in the way John 1 explains:

(John 1:14-18) 14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth. . . 16 For we all received from his fullness, even undeserved kindness upon undeserved kindness. 17 Because the Law was given through Moses, the undeserved kindness and the truth came to be through Jesus Christ. 18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him.

Jesus, in heaven, still considers the Father to be his God. (Rev 1:1, etc.)

Someone who was never "just" an angel, but who has always been the Son of God, and who evidently served in the capacity of an archangel, someone who had many angels at his command. (His Father, Jehovah, also has myriads and myriads of angels at his command.)

No difference. Sometimes the use of different term is helpful because when so many people use the same term, that original term can lose its meaning over time. Also, there are other common meanings of the word "grace" that can refer to a certain elegance of style (or similar ideas) and this could tend to produce the wrong connotation. The term "undeserved kindness" makes us think about the true meaning. 

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

I see you guys are still at it:

I think that not even half of the Biblical evidence against the 1914 doctrine has been touched upon yet. Not that anyone wants to see this thread get twice as long, though.

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

Explain to me why the first world war (1914) saw the first use of extensive air battles - airplanes, the first world war saw the first widespread use of machine guns, flame throwers, submarines (only small ones used before in the civil war) chemical warfare, tanks... and the list goes on.  Then the second world war saw more advanced use of these kinds of weapons : air craft carriers, massive guns, tanks, battle of Britain in the air,  plus 2 exploded atom bombs........and gas as killing machines.    Well known historians agree that 1914 was the year the world went mad. It was the beginning of a new war era. There were wars before but not on this scale.

It's just my opinion, of course, but I think this line of reasoning completely misses the point of Jesus' words about it. 1914 could very well have been the year the world went mad, and Jesus would still be correct about it not being at all significant with respect to his "presence."

And of course, it also might not be "the year the world went mad." Yes, it was surely a war in which so many of those terrible methods and technologies were combined. And the years 1939 to 1945 might have even been worse, as you seem to admit. There have been many people who say that each of those WWII years were real years that the world went mad. Since our new definition of "this generation" can technically carry this system well past the year 2100, there may, unfortunately, be several new years which historians will claim was the year the world went made.

But even if 1914 really is the one and only year that will truly fit that definition, and even if things continued to get worse since then, and even if the great tribulation and Armageddon occur within this generation that started in 1914, all of this would still not override what the Bible says about Jesus' "presence" and his "kingdom" and "this generation" and "the sign" and the "appointed times of the nations."

The point is not about denying the historical importance of 1914, it's about being true to the Bible. It's not about scoffing at the time we are living in, or hinting that the great tribulation and Armageddon would somehow be delayed.  Again, for many Witnesses, it's about being honest.

I can't speak for those who oppose the Witnesses on this, but I doubt that any Witnesses who play "Bible's advocate" on this issue really think they are going to convince another Witness, because we know that most fellow Witnesses are of the same mindset that we ourselves have usually found ourselves to be in. It's almost always the case, in my opinion, that we will continue to believe the doctrine just as we are told, until we can take the time to look into all of the various arguments for the doctrine simultaneously. Correspondingly, it's a matter of trying to get a perspective on all the scriptures on this subject at the same time, without making mental or emotional excuses for the problems and contradictions that the doctrine creates.

I know from personal experience that by being defensive about each of the points, one at a time, that I was always able to continue satisfied about the overall doctrine, because the multiple remaining points outnumbered the single point I was defending. It was only after looking at all the scriptures on the subject together, in context, that it was easier to test whether the most likely meanings of each of those scriptures, made at least as much sense as the current doctrine.

I'll give a quick example:

Our current doctrine sometimes requires us to choose the least likely meaning or translation of several words are phrases that are made a part of the doctrine. This, of course, includes major words like the meaning of "parousia" but sometimes even smaller and seemingly unimportant words like "at" or "during." Think of the difference that we create when we translate a verse to say that something will happen "during his presence" if the more likely translation were "at his presence." Take it a step further and think about what would happen, now, if "parousia" should more likely have been translated "royal visitation"? Note that the NWT Reference Bible comes very close to admitting that this is the case in the Appedix 5B:

*** Rbi8 p. 1577 5B Christ’s Presence (Parousia) ***
Also, Bauer, p. 630, states that pa·rou·siʹa “became the official term for a visit of a person of high rank, esp[ecially] of kings and emperors visiting a province.” In Mt 24:3, as well as in other texts such as 1Th 3:13 and 2Th 2:1, the word pa·rou·siʹa refers to the royal presence of Jesus Christ since his enthronement as King in the last days of this system of things

So, what if the combination of those last two changes created a more likely translation of "at his royal visitation" instead of "during his presence." It isn't definitive, but it creates a translation that now fits more sensibly into the references about the "parousia" in EVERY case where the "parousia" of Jesus is mentioned. This doesn't change the meaning of parousia as "arrival and subsequent presence" when the word is used of a non-royal personage such as when Paul used the term in a general sense about himself, for example.

Now take that idea and notice that it clears up all the problems we have when trying to separate a time period between a presence and coming, manifestation, revelation. It clears up the problem we have when we try to make the presence invisible when Jesus argued that it would be as visible as lightning that shines from one end of the sky all the way to the other.

And of course, it also solves the problem of trying to allow for a chronological timing of the parousia when Jesus said that the parousia would come as a thief. Currently we still have to deny that idea from Jesus and make it the "coming" that comes as thief.

And just as importantly, it's a matter of honesty. After a full study of the subject is undertaken, looking up all the secular sources quoted, for example, we will likely find that we are truly appalled by the academic dishonesty and "spin" that have become an embarrassing part of our history in defending this doctrine. I must admit that, as a researcher, this was the first thing that truly hit me the hardest. It was easy to understand that we don't always get the meaning of scriptures right; we basically admit that each time we change our doctrines. That's a simple matter of humility and patience. But it took a lot of prayer and searching to deal with the idea that the defense of this doctrine has resulted in "dishonesty" in several places along the way. I'm not saying that any specific person has knowingly "lied" but I'm referring to blatant "academic dishonesty" in the sense of methods of avoiding evidence, or hiding evidence, or misquoting sources in such a way that evidence is distorted in the mind of the reader. If you have ever been a parent of a child, or a teacher at a high school or college level, you will likely understand.

1 hour ago, HollyW said:

If you're saying the greatest event to occur in the history of the world is the birth of Jesus, I agree with you.

Even if we are speaking only of the history of the world, and therefore focusing on interaction with humans, I would include not just Jesus birth, but his life. I had a feeling that this is what Melinda meant when she included both his birth and death as God's gift. If I had to choose between his birth and his death as separate events, I would choose Jesus' death as the greatest, even if his birth was the happiest. But I notice that the book of Hebrews includes not just those events, but includes his birth, his preaching, his miracles, his death, his resurrection and his being seated at God's right hand as the greatest "event." In some ways his entire life was 'God speaking to us by means of a Son.' Jehovah had a way to communicate "directly" with us in spite of the huge chasm between God's holiness and our unworthiness. 

Sorry about the length:

(Hebrews 1:1-2:4) 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, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things. 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. 4 So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs. 5 For example, to which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father”? And again: “I will become his father, and he will become my son”? 6 But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all of God’s angels do obeisance to him.” 7 Also, he says about the angels: “He makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.” 8 But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. 9 You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions.” 10 And: “At the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands. 11 They will perish, but you will remain; and just like a garment, they will all wear out, 12 and you will wrap them up just as a cloak, as a garment, and they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will never come to an end.” 13 But about which of the angels has he ever said: “Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet”? 14 Are they not all spirits for holy service, sent out to minister for those who are going to inherit salvation? 2 That is why it is necessary for us to pay more than the usual attention to the things we have heard, so that we never drift away. 2 For if the word spoken through angels proved to be sure, and every transgression and disobedient act received a punishment in harmony with justice, 3 how will we escape if we have neglected so great a salvation? For it began to be spoken through our Lord and was verified for us by those who heard him, 4 while God joined in bearing witness with signs and wonders and various powerful works and with the holy spirit distributed according to his will.

And, by the way, congratulations on one of the best questions the forum has had so far!

3 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Millions now Living Will Never Die booklet has the first reference I have seen, 1920?

That's probably the first. I was thinking about a discussion in a 1949 Watchtower I had just read, but when I check the Publications Index I see there were also several from the 1930's, including Vindication and the booklet the same year, "The Final War" (1932).

Your analogy to buildings appears to work from the perspective of the doctrine. People saw the building (system) collapse in some way in 1914. Some were closer to understanding the underlying reasons and some would (or could) find out later if they would so choose.

4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

It would be interesting to consider the proposition that his kingship was as good as granted earlier,  at the earliest in the words spoken at Genesis 3:15, but that's for another time and thread.

It would be interesting. That is as good a time as any to apply the term king-designate, as the Kingdom becomes the theme of the Bible at this point:

• (John 18:37) . . .“Well, then, are you a king?” Jesus answered: “You yourself are saying that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth .. . .
• (Matthew 2:2) . . .“Where is the one born king of the Jews?. . .

4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

You seem to have misunderstood me here. My list of events attributable to Jesus excercising his kingly authority were not "included as events of the 1914 doctrine".

No, I understood that you were offering a list of several things that could be attributed across a much longer timeline. What I had intended to do was copy portions of 3 of those items that we have include as "expressions" of kingship that were supposed to have occurred in 1914. I remembered to erase "and to complete his conquest" from the first phrase, but I was sloppy on Daniel 12:1 because I was thinking of the entire verse in general, and you had only specifically referred to the time when Jesus "stands up" at some time in the GT, not the "standing" since 1914. And we had already discussed how the "standing up" has become a future event, again (since 1986/87). I made a mistake here and should have only included 2 items from your list for the same point.

4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Quoting a load of chronological rambling from old Watchtower publications does nothing to dissuade me from the fact that 1914 remains a significant year in the collective conciousness of vast numbers of people for all sorts of reasons.

I didn't think it would, or should. The only point was that, while the year was considered significant, it was for all the wrong reasons for the Watch Tower Society. Perhaps a few other secular and religious people came close to seeing some of what we now see in it, but at the time, no one saw it as an expression of Jesus kingship -- except in the misuse of a phrase which prompted them to continue to make false predictions based upon the way they had defined the phrase. 

If I understand you correctly however, you are making a point that goes beyond just the fact that were making use of a specific phrase about the "Gentile Times." (Which is a good thing, I think, since we have redefined the meaning of that phrase anyway). You are saying that many people saw the expression of Jesus kingship in that year, even though they may not have understood it's significance, nor even been able to acknowledge that Jesus or Jehovah had anything to do with it. Even those who were focusing on the significance of 1917 and beyond were seeing an "expression" of Jesus kingship in that same time period which was obviously related to 1914. That sounds like a fair answer.

I suppose you are saying that the War itself was closely related to Jesus kingdom, that it somehow was an indicator of the end of Gentile kings, at least the end of their lease. And perhaps they were witnessing the increased activities of a recently debased Satan who was now walking about like a roaring lion seeking to cause chaos that might devour potential earthly representatives of the Kingdom. Or maybe just the extra anger of Satan for having been thrown down was enough to say they had seen an expression of the Kingdom of God and His Christ. If any were looking closely at the Watch Tower organization they would have seen a very steep drop in activity, a drop in enthusiasm, a large loss of membership, cancelled subscriptions to the Watch Tower, and many Bible Students admitting that they had lost their faith. Of course, they would have also seen that a minority kept going fairly strongly, which is now seen as a true expression of the Kingdom.

The Watchtower has been referring to the 1917 London Manifesto since the 1940's, but I don't really know exactly why. What the 1917 group, for example, was actually witnessing was WWI, progress with Zionism in Palestine, proposal of a League of Nations or similar institution (which they were prepared to reject). And while they do not admit it anywhere I could see, perhaps they even witnessed or were influenced by Bible Students, or some Adventist groups, many of which had read Ellen G. White's work called "Advent Testimony" but who did not wish to associate themselves directly with the existing Adventist religions, even though they all had similar pre-millennial views, and copied much material from them. In just a few more years, the events surrounding Hitler's talk of a Third Reich also became associated with similar spiritual Adventist Millennarian movements. Hitler thought of the Third Reich as a Millennial movement, too, of course. If the 1917 Advent Testimony movement was a response to Jesus "becoming King" then I suppose the Third Reich might also be deemed such, although it had a different take on Zionism. I'm sure we could at least argue that they were also responding to the chaos and Satanic anger of the time.

If this is your argument, then you are able to cover quite a few different responses as people seeing that Jesus had become King, even though they didn't understand that this is what they were seeing.

Of course, perhaps you are saying that it wasn't necessary that any were responding directly to expressions of Jesus newly installed kingdom. Perhaps it was enough that they merely said to themselves something like, "the times, they are a-changin'". They didn't have to understand anything beyond that. It would be interesting to see what the current view of the Governing Body is on this subject. I don't know for sure, but think it's actually closer to this last idea that the world only needed to notice that there was some type of historical demarcation such that between 1914 and say 1918, they had seen a great war and a great pestilence. For those associated with the Watch Tower Society, it was enough that they had used the expression "End of the Gentile Times" with reference to the year.

4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Also for me, the subsequent pattern of worldwide events, which includes the worldwide preaching activity of today's Jehovah's Witnesses and the reaction to it, unmistakably marks this time period, starting in 1914, as being headed up by the event described at Rev. 12:7-10:

For me, this is very significant. Even without a specific need to attach it to a chronological timeline, or a specific definition of a "generation." Managing such a tremendous undertaking on a world-wide scale is amazing, and is an indication of just how blessed we are. I sometimes imagine we could be even more blessed if we relied on the words of Jehovah, and especially Jesus in this particular case, without making any exceptions.

On 9/13/2016 at 4:20 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

With regard to Jesus, as he said, "all authority on heaven and earth has been given to me" (Matt 28:18) even before his return to the heavens.

I believe you might be indicating, then, that Jesus may have been given this authority prior even to his death. Perhaps at his birth or his baptism, or perhaps designated from thousands or millions of years prior. I was thinking that the Bible verses generally fall on the side of "his resurrection" when he received this authority. I thought you were putting the emphasis on the fact that you added: 'even before his return to the heavens (ascension).' At any rate, there are dozens of other Bible passages that tell us enough about the time period to at least know that there was a big emphasis on the year 33 CE. as a time when his kingship was expressed. Yet, in our doctrine, we still prefer to call this time period, a time when he was only King-designate, even after he is called "Ruler of the Kings of the Earth." We create a scriptural contradiction that must be resolved with the idea that he is not really "King of those who rule as kings" but merely "King-designate."

I wouldn't say this is a completely impossible solution, but it creates Bible contradictions that are unnecessary. And naturally, I think we should be careful about adding to the Bible in such ways. We already know that Jehovah can "become king" in a special sense, without ever having relinquished his sovereignty. Similarly we know that Jesus could wait for the proper time to take on certain actions and aspects of his kingship, and this doesn't mean that he was "sitting and waiting" for his kingship to start at a later time. In the same way, Jehovah was not any less King or Sovereign while he waited patiently for the proper time to bring judgment in Noah's day.

On 9/13/2016 at 9:28 PM, JW Insider said:

Who noticed it? No one at the Watch Tower Society noticed it. If they did, they said nothing about it until many years later. You really think it's enough that they simply continued to make a statement using a phrase that no one knew the meaning of? This is not very believable to me.

On 9/14/2016 at 4:18 AM, Eoin Joyce said:

By this I think you are referring to the year 1914.

No. Not exactly. Everyone who was alive "noticed" the year 1914. And this was a very significant year in history. Instead, I meant: "Who noticed that Jesus Christ had done something or acted in a way that brought attention to his Kingship?" In other words, in what way did anyone notice that Jesus or Jehovah had "become king" in that particular year.

I was speaking specifically about those things that you had already put into the context. You included actions and expressions of some ways that Jesus and Jehovah could potentially have "become king." You included, "goes forth conquering . . ." (Rev.6:2); as Michael, battles with and hurls down Satan and his angels (Rev 12:7-9); as Michael again, 'stands up' at a time of unprecedented distress,' all of which are included as events of the 1914 doctrine.

"Who noticed any of those things? No one associated with the Watch Tower Society thought that Michael had gone forth conquering in that year, or that Michael battled with and hurled down Satan in that year, or that Michael was now "standing up' at a time of unprecedented distress. I don't think we need to get into the specifics of what was taught on all these subjects up until (and well after) 1914, but I'll use Daniel 12:1 as an example from Vol 3 of Studies in the Scriptures p. 123,124:

Since the beginning (1799) of the Time of the End, God has been preparing his consecrated "holy people," his "Sanctuary," for the great blessings he intended to pour upon them during these forty years of harvest: which blessings are also intended as special preparation for their entering with Christ into full joy and joint-heirship with him, as his bride. At the exact "time appointed," 1799, the end of the 1260 days, the power of the Man of Sin, the great oppressor of the Church, was broken, and his dominion taken away. . . . Again, we have found the second advent of our Lord indicated by the prophet Daniel (12:1), yet in such a manner as to be under cover until the events foretold to precede it had transpired and passed into history, when we were led to see that the one veiled under the name Michael is indeed that which the name indicates--God's representative--"The Great Prince." Yes, we recognize him: "The Prince of the Covenant," the "Mighty God [ruler]," the "Everlasting Father [life-giver]" (Dan. 11:22; Isa. 9:6), who is to "stand up" with power and authority, to accomplish the great restitution of all things, and to offer everlasting life to the dead and dying millions of mankind, redeemed by his own precious blood. And, having traced the 1335 days of Dan. xii, down to their ending at this same date, we can now understand why the angel who thus pointed out the date referred to it in such exultant terms--"Oh, the blessedness of him that waiteth [who is in a waiting or watching attitude] and cometh to the thousand, three hundred, five and thirty days!"--A.D. 1874.* And in our reckoning of the symbolic times here given, let it not be overlooked that we used the key furnished us by the manner in which the first advent was indicated--a symbolic day representing a literal year. Thus we found the time of our Lord's second advent clearly proven to be 1874--in October of that year, as shown in Vol. II, chap. vi.

Since these things had already been "proven" to have started in 1799, 1874, 1878, etc, and that they would END in 1914 and be fully accomplished in 1914, then it seems wrong to say that they noticed it, and got some "enhanced appreciation" when they were actually completely oblivious to everything that might have happened in 1914, and remained in that "oblivious" state for many years thereafter. 

On 9/13/2016 at 4:20 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

also on every expression of that rule, whether in the destruction of opposition, or the enhanced appreciation in the minds of those who accept these actions as expressions of His rulership through Christ.

None of the events you mentioned about the "expression of that rule" were accepted as events that occurred in 1914.

On 9/14/2016 at 4:18 AM, Eoin Joyce said:

that year has been a focus of attention ever since by those who see it as a punctuation mark in history.

That's true. And it truly was a punctuation mark in history.

On 9/14/2016 at 4:18 AM, Eoin Joyce said:

The internet is awash with quotes from every perceivable source on these matters so I will limit my reproducing here to only one:

The Advent Testimony Manifesto published on November 8, 1917 seemed to indicate considerable spiritual interest in that time period  judging from the status of those signatories listed below the seven point manifesto:

It's a very interesting document isn't it? But in some ways it is very exceptional and not part of a flood of similar quotes about 1914. I remember when brothers like Gene Smalley in the Writing Department would scour newspapers, Time, Newsweek, Reader's Digest, etc., for countless hours and even weeks at a time, and then get super-excited when he would find even the smallest 1914 reference that supported the idea that it was a significant historical date.

The Advent Testimony Manifesto comes from another cross-and-crown "Adventist" group of people who obsessed about the Advent and the timing of the rapture due to the events surrounding WWI and Jew/Gentile relationships -- just as the Bible Students would do. (see pwmi.org) Many of them changed their name to "Witnesses" before the Bible Students did, based on Isaiah 43:10 and the fact that the word "Testimony" can also be translated "Witness." Through the years they have been associated with those who have embarrassed them with their date speculations and "numerology" continuing to predict dates for Jesus' return in the 1930's and 1940's. This kind of thing is very typical when great events of world history drive them to start making predictions. As you know, it happened with the Bible Students, too, when the Watchtower began teaching that 1925 was even better attested to than 1914.

This actually just goes right back to what Jesus said: "Do not be misled. You are going to hear of wars and rumors of wars." Jesus must have known that people would would tend to obsess about prophetic numerology when wars and great earthquakes and famines would break out. It's no wonder that Jesus started his answer in that way, when the disciples asked him how they would know when it was time for time for the great event of his parousia to occur.
 

On 9/14/2016 at 4:18 AM, Eoin Joyce said:

Even those who are obsessessed with debunking the year as significant seem to make it so by their efforts.

I suppose that would have to include me. I do take it very seriously, but I'm happy to appear that way as long as it's in the context of an attempt to stick closer to the words of Jesus in the OP and avoid setting ourselves up as those who have encroached on the knowledge of God by ignoring Acts 1:7, etc. None of us need be ashamed of speaking out about our beliefs to defend God and Christ no matter how "strongly intrenched" a tradition has become.

(2 Corinthians 10:4, 5) . . .for overturning strongly entrenched things. 5 For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are bringing every thought into captivity to make it obedient to the Christ;

Based on the clear statements in the Scriptures, it seems quite possible that we have raised up our own knowledge against what Acts 1:7 actually calls 'the knowledge of God.' And if our traditional reasonings are out of harmony with Jesus' warnings mentioned in Matthew, Mark, Luke, 1&2 Thess, 1&2 Peter, etc, then we should speak out to make those reasonings 'obedient to the Christ.'

On 9/14/2016 at 4:18 AM, Eoin Joyce said:

I hope the coming congegational bible study using the publication "God's Kingdom Rules" will enable at least a salvage operation to be successful. 

That would be nice!

32 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Who said we cannot?

Jehovah has never relinquished His Sovereignty ever in the face of Satan's attacks. So when in, for example, Ps 47:7 it says that Jehovah "is King" and then in Ps 47:8 that Jehovah has "become King" do we mean that Jehovah stopped being King for a while? That is nonsense! He cannot stop being King any more that the proverbial leopard can change it's spots!

Exactly! If the Bible says Jesus was king in 33 CE then we could see it in the same light as we understand Jehovah's kingship. Jesus was clearly said to be king, and even had the title "King of Kings" and "Ruler of the Kings of the Earth."

• (1 Timothy 6:15) . . . He is the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords
• (Revelation 1:4, 5)  John to the seven congregations that are in the province of Asia: May you have undeserved kindness and peace from . . . from Jesus Christ, . . . “the Ruler of the kings of the earth.”
• (Acts 17:7) . . .All these men act in opposition to the decrees of Caesar, saying there is another king, Jesus.. . .

Can we rightly say that Jesus stopped being this King for a while? It would still be true that at some future point after 33 CE, Jesus could "become king" in a special sense when he would express that Kingship in a new way of take some special action. It is in the same way that when Jehovah puts his sovereignty on display or takes some special action, we could say that he "became king" in a special sense. I would agree 100% that if Jesus was a "king of those who rule as kings" in 33 CE, then he could not stop being King any more than the proverbial leopard can change its spots!

3 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

So Jehovah only stops being King in the minds of those who rebel against Him. And that erroneous concept is soon debunked when He expresses His rulership and actually does something.

I agree. There was therefore no reason to say Jesus stopped being King, either. When he expresses his rulership in some special way and takes some special action with respect to that Kingdom.

3 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

With regard to Jesus, as he said, "all authority on heaven and earth has been given to me" (Matt 28:18) even before his return to the heavens.

You seem to imply that Jesus would have to wait 40 days after his resurrection to ascend to the throne. But the focus is not on his ascension, but his resurrection. Jesus' kingship has nothing to do whether he, a spirit creature, is physically sitting or standing or "appears" on a physical throne, a physical cloud, or standing on the physical earth. The scriptures give us the timeline. It was at his resurrection to the highest position of power in the universe next to his Father himself. It's true that Hebrews focuses on his "death" as a sacrifice before he  "sat down at the right hand of the throne of Majesty." Also the scripture from 1 Peter, below, implies that it was at his ascension, but the idea is that this was the period during which "all things were made subject" to him. A king has subjects. None of them say he would wait nearly 2,000 years before actually becoming King.

(Acts 2:29-35) . . . David, . . . knew that God had sworn to him with an oath that he would seat one of his offspring on his throne, 31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he forsaken in the Grave nor did his flesh see corruption. 32 God resurrected this Jesus, and of this we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore, because he was exalted to the right hand of God and received the promised holy spirit from the Father, he has poured out what you see and hear. 34 For David did not ascend to the heavens, but he himself says, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand 35 until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”’

(Romans 8:34) 34 Who will condemn them? Christ Jesus is the one who died, yes, more than that the one who was raised up, who is at the right hand of God and who also pleads for us.

(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.

(Hebrews 12:2) . . .he endured a torture stake, despising shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. (also, Hebrews10:12) But this man offered one sacrifice for sins for all time and sat down at the right hand of God, (also, Hebrews 8:1) . . .and he has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens. . .

(1 Peter 3:21, 22) . . .through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 22 He is at God’s right hand, for he went to heaven, and angels and authorities and powers were made subject to him.

(Romans 1:3, 4) 3 concerning his Son, who came to be from the offspring of David according to the flesh, 4 but who with power was declared God’s Son according to the spirit of holiness by means of resurrection from the dead—yes, Jesus Christ our Lord.

The publications have several times discussed the amazing power of God that was behind the resurrection of Jesus to make him the second-most powerful person in the universe in that instant.

(1 Corinthians 15:43-45) . . . it is raised up in power. 44 It is sown a physical body; it is raised up a spiritual body. If. . . 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Of course, if it waited 40 days to the ascension, as 1 Peter implies, then this was still in the year 33 CE, not 1914 CE.

4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

what of it? Is he any less a king?

Not at all. And when Jesus takes on early subjects of his kingdom through the congregation beginning in 33 CE he is no less a king. When he commands them to go forth 'marching like soldiers' into the world as evangelists, he is no less a king.

4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

All these are actions whereby Jesus becomes king in the same way that Jehovah becomes king, whilst never relinquishing His Sovereignty. So then, as Jehovah's delegate and appointed king, by any action taken by Jesus in his ruling of God's kingdom in Jehovah's name, Jehovah becomes king also on every expression of that rule, whether in the destruction of opposition, or the enhanced appreciation in the minds of those who accept these actions as expressions of His rulership through Christ.

Absolutely! This is my point. If there had been some major expression or action taken by God's Kingdom in 1914 then this is absolutely right! Jesus and Jehovah could both be said to have "become king" sometime during the year 1914.

4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

So don't tell me that no one noticed 1914!!!!! Whether they appreciated the true significance of the events at that time in their true nature might be arguable, but the simple statement that the "(Gentile) kings have had their day" remains true, no matter which way you look at it.    Rev. 22:20

Who noticed it? No one at the Watch Tower Society noticed it. If they did, they said nothing about it until many years later. You really think it's enough that they simply continued to make a statement using a phrase that no one knew the meaning of? This is not very believable to me. Here's why:

Let's say that I told you 100 times in advance of 1914 that the "End of the Gentile Times" means the end of a great day of wrath and time of trouble and chaos. I also say that we know such a "day of wrath" would be finished by1914 because it's the "End of the Gentile Times" and the "nations" would no longer rule after that date. Then 1914 comes along and becomes the start of a time of trouble. You are saying it's OK, as long as I still used the phrase "End of the Gentile Times"

What if I tried to sell you a car that I called a luxury, black Mercedes Benz that I said was brand new with no miles on it, but I delivered to you a smashed and burned orange Mercedes Benz? This would be OK as long as I used the term "Mercedes Benz"?  Remember, that with 1914, the Watchtower got no details about 1914 right. Not even one.

And according to the book of Revelation they even got the length of the Gentile Times wrong. So in my analogy, it's more like it was a smashed and burned, orange "Volkswagen" when you were expecting a Mercedes Benz.

On 8/30/2016 at 1:31 PM, Arauna said:

Revelation 12: 6-12 Clearly shows: . . . When Jesus takes authority in the heavens he would throw Satan and his demons out of heaven. (Jesus sat at the right hand of his father until 1914 when he received the Kingdom power from his father and threw Satan out.) The scriptures goes on to show that Satan would then create havoc on earth because he has a "short period of time left"   This scripture clearly shows that there would be a period on earth when Jesus would be ruling invisible from heaven amidst his enemies Ps 110:1+2.

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.

On 8/30/2016 at 1:31 PM, Arauna said:

For the calculations of the prophecies read the appendix of "What does the bible really teach" and for more on where the witnesses get the dates 607BCE and 1914CE read the insight on the scriptures. The insight on the scriptures also quotes from secular sources and you can go and check out the 'secular sources' by going to any good library or a reliable internet archive/ library.

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.