Anna

Ok. So how is what you said previously even relevant then? And does it make sense that something that is a complex subject, frequented only by a minority, should play such a decisive role by which all are judged either favorably or unfavorably as @Arauna seems to point out. And by the way what's wrong with the French brother Gerard Gertoux, is he not competent in chronology?

No, that is not at all what it means. The Church of Christ's Holly Slippers can claim legal ownership of their Bible discussion and Bible interpretation, as can the WT claim legal ownership of their Bible discussions and interpretation. But to mix the two together, or exchange them whereby it is unclear who says what, could constitute a legal breech of the other party.

I agree completely, but this is just it, and here is the problem: How many friends that you know actually do this?? As opposed to how many just accept the information they are presented with by the organization? How many friends that you know can actually explain 607 and 1914? Be honest?

Not only that, but you can also invite others to your family worship. Before you know it, you can have yourself a little dissident group, that you can preside over @James Thomas Rook Jr.! But somehow you don't strike me as someone who would be interested in that. It seems like letting off steam on here is sufficient for you My 2 cents? I have understood this whole wt article this way: I don't see any control factor in there whatsoever, as long as you quote the WT and then cite the source (i.e. post a link to the article and/or page paragraph) all is ok. I can understand there is a concern over " Some brothers have been drawn into online debates and thus have brought added reproach on Jehovah’s name" as I have seen people's comments to worldly people or opposers in the comments sections of a public news article and I have sometimes cringed and thought they shouldn't be allowed to do this. Stop them, shut their mouths for heavens sake before they cause us more embarrassment. I am sure some of you have seen the same thing. When I find an example I will post it here. The Org. is concerned that we don't bring reproach to Jehovah. What does that mean? It means that worldly people will read that crap that some friends post, and then think Omg these Witnesses are either wacko/unchristian/mean/etc. and it either puts them off, or confirms what they've thought all along. In other words, we don't give a good witness at all! However, discussion forums such as this one, as opposed to news articles, are rarely visited by worldly people or by people of other faiths I imagine. I feel they have better things to do than to try and make head or tail of our discussions. How many Witnesses have visited a Catholic forum for example? Probably not many, we are just not interested. Also, the mention of a list of official jw.org websites as the only source of spiritual food, (note; for witnesses or interested ones, not the whole population of other faiths and atheists and any Tom Dick a Harry) is to remind us that anything else that is not official, well....ummm....is not official, and therefor cannot be guaranteed to represent OUR beliefs. As it says: "It has also been observed that fraudulent social media accounts and websites have been created in the name of the organization". Concern over this is understandable. It does not mean we cannot discuss things in an unofficial capacity. Notice the picture above the caption " No one may post our copyrighted publications on other Internet sites" shows someone's blog page, or internet page entitled..."something...something...the best life ever" and has a picture of Caleb and Sophia, and the other picture has what looks like a mobile phone app. probably some WT library set up by a brother or sister. So what it's saying is that brothers and sisters who wish to set up their own blog or website may not use WT copyrighted publications. That's all. There are many websites set up by the friends. Some missionaries have these to post experiences and photos from the field. Some like @TrueTomHarleyhave one to post their literary works and stories. It's extremely easy to set up a website. I have one for my business. So all in all the concern is that we don't mislead those who don't know any better into thinking some Web site is the official website, or that we don't get involved in discussions that make people who don't know any better think that what we say is the official view. Of course I think this article will be misunderstood by many, as has been already on here, to mean we should stop all online discussions, and only read material from JW.org.

Please, when you address someone specifically, it would be helpful if you mentioned who, otherwise it gets confusing. Thanks!

No, but putting all your time and energy (and long debates) into dates which were synchronized with Egyptian dates (and trusting these dates) is an empty exercise like running after fluff ... Trying to prove that these dates are more accurate than those which have given us 1914 - and the purpose of all of this? To prove that the slave in NOT the slave! ... I think you might be coming to rash conclusions when you say those trying to disprove 1914 are doing so only to discredit the Slave. I am not saying no one does that, but I feel that those who honestly try to understand WT dates, and then find these dates faulty, do it the other way around. They begin to distrust the Slave on the evidence of their findings. Please don't attack me for saying this as I myself have not found proof for 607 or 587 either way. I am in a completely privileged neutral zone. I am neither for nor against. One thing I have noticed though, and excuse me if I am wrong, (I may have missed your other posts), but it seems you have not presented any solid counter argument against 587, only your feelings in that it's like "running after fluff", and criticism and motives of those who present arguments against 607. What you say would not stand up in a trial at all. It's like the opposition is talking about apples and you are talking about oranges. The opposition is talking about dates and numbers, and you are talking about feelings and motives and evidence on the ground.... I don't think anyone is arguing with you on this at all. What I find fascinating, and puzzling at the same time though, is how some friends will immediately class others as defectors if they do not believe in 607 or 1914. To give an example, on another forum, one poster made the comment that we should be wary of this one particular JW scholar because he does not support 607. Why it is so imperative to you and others, that in order to belong to this NATION, one has to believe in some specific date? In practical terms, what on earth is the saving attribute of a date? Yes, I know it was supposed to be the establishment of God's kingdom, which is the instrument by which all things will be reconciled to God, but come on, are we to be SO fixated on a date where believing in it or not is the difference between being saved or damned? God's kingdom will accomplish all those things regardless of the date it is established, won't it? As was pointed out quite clearly in the 2017 convention video, we are dedicated to Jehovah God, not a date! Surely a date has no baring on your sentiments above about the NATION ? I think that if beginning today, the Slave never mentioned the dates 607 or 1914 again, but merely the destruction of Jerusalem, and God's Kingdom, no one would be upset and think we have gone apostate. Probably no one but a few who are keyed in, and those at Bethel, would even notice. In fact, the new generation of Witnesses as I have observed does not even believe Armageddon will come any time soon. (I have heard some young ones speculate around 50 years). And the generation who believed their children would not grow up in this system, but who have grand children now, have reconciled themselves with the possibility that they will die before Armageddon comes. I think this is good. Because remember, we serve Jehovah, not a date. Abraham never saw the complete fulfillment of the promise made to him either, what makes us think we have to? Don't get me wrong, it would be nice of course, but I refuse to get anxious for a date, or even an approximate time period. You have probably seen me quote a father talking to his daughter saying "plan ahead as if Armageddon won't come in your lifetime but lead your life as if it will come tomorrow". The father is long dead, and the daughter possibly too, as she was born in 1923. You can read her life story in w04 12.1 Trusting in Jehovah’s Loving Care. In any case, all this talk about the gentile times calculations are not something Russell came up with. The originator of these calculations was William Miller of the second Adventists. (of course there were others even before him, but Russell associated with Miller). So if we go and dig down to the grass roots, to find the beginning of this idea, really, we have William Miller to thank for it. But I'm not quite comfortable with that thought. I'm not comfortable with the thought that 1914 evolved from one of the branches of Christendom! http://www.readex.com/blog/calculating-second-coming-19th-century-america-selected-items-american-pamphlets-1820-1922 I am sure you will agree that because the Bible gives us some numbers and a chronology, it has forever been the quest of believing mankind since the death of Christ, to crack the code of His promised second coming. Especially with the beginning of Adventist movements folks have been trying to figure out the key to WHEN. Russell and his associates were also interested in when. As you probably know, Russell even used the Pyramids to try to calculate Christ's second coming. So the whole period of the Second Awakening revival was focused on figuring all this out. And from that fertile ground came OUR "magical" dates. In fact if you look, there have been and are "magical" dates floating around all the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_and_claims_for_the_Second_Coming_of_Christ

I know, but to be fair you did quote me in the same reply . So I was just telling you my bit

NOOOO, you have misunderstood this whole thing. Me posting a link to JW.org is fine! See my reply to Ann O'Maly

Well duh!

No it's not lost, but I'm afraid you have misunderstood. The article is mainly concerned about websites and apps posing as genuine official JW websites or apps. Posting links to JW.org on a website such as this is fine. There is absolutely no reason to shut this or any other website such as this down. It's obvious it's not posing as an official JW website, lol. But obviously what you have done (or someone else) with overwriting worldnewsmedia.org over a copyrighted WT picture is misleading therefor a misuse of copyright.

No, it's not there of course. We would not do that. Here is the article: https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-april-2018/publications-personal-websites/ I may get sued for this! Actually I shouldn't because by posting this link I am directing people to our website. So all is good " Therefore, as the Terms of Use indicates, you may e-mail someone an electronic copy of a publication or share a link to material found on jw.org."

So are you saying trying to figure out dates for Bible chronology is a myopic quest? If you are, I tend to agree with you wholeheartedly. Focusing on the bigger picture makes all else pale into insignificance. If you have read any of my posts you will know I do not like to get overly concerned with numbers and dates, I just find it curious when the Slave does so. My motto is: I am dedicated to Jehovah, not a date. However, when someone quotes specific numbers and dates at me, and does this consistently year after year....for years, calling them fact, then I like to know where those numbers and dates come from. That's all. I don't quite know what you mean by that. Who do you mean by "only ones" and what do you mean by "know"?

This looks like a list to me Sorry. Was a misunderstanding, I thought you were talking about a list of doctrines.

I would also guess that 1914 is here to stay because 1. WW1, which is "on the ground" evidence as Arauna calls it, (even though originally it was supposed to be Armageddon). 2. Jesu's enthronement was invisible, so can't be disproved. 3. Most Witnesses don't have a clue about how we arrived at 1914 and of those who do, have no clue how we arrive at 607, and the few of those who do, have no clue as to why historians arrive at 587....and those even fewer who do, well...they are too few to make a difference...

I am talking about the interpretation of prophesy, especially about assigning specific dates to specific events.. I don't remember listing anything though... I think that must have been someone else

I don't think that's neither a fair nor true assumption at all.

But today becomes tomorrow and one day we may be calling this the the manna of old. So really, what you are saying is that what we have now is good enough for the present time, but it could be replaced by something else in the future. In that case, it would be more truthful to call this spiritual food speculations, ideas and conjecture rather than facts and truths.

LOL. Love dogs!

Is that yours Tom?

Yes, I realize there was an evolution of the scheme, but as you say, it got pretty much fixed with Rutherford. However, I do think that they genuinely believed that secular history was not to be trusted because it was from Satan. Quote from the May 1 WT you cited: "When did this period of the gentile times begin and when is the end thereof? These facts cannot be proven by profane history, because such history is made by men who acted as agents of Satan’s empire and hence were unreliable; for Satan is the father of lies" But now, surely that is no longer the belief?

That's ok, I was always quite fond of geometry as opposed to the other mathematical subjects

Bored today JWI ?

Like we need to worry about that. I am sure she ran off after JTR's meme, never to return. The poor woman.

Nothing against men, but women tend to be more humble, one of the prerequisites of being a follower of Christ. There are a host of other qualities that women posses in greater measure than men which make them better candidates, and there are some qualities that are typically more dominant in men that make them less likely candidates. I don't think I have ever seen more men than women get baptised at any given convention or assembly that I have attended in 30 years. Which obviously confirms my theory Â

Exactly! This is why I will take my cue from the 2017 convention video and say "I am dedicated to Jehovah, not a date".