Anna

I hope you are not mocking those who have a tendency to do this along similar lines...!

To me that means our following Christ and serving Jehovah will not stop with 1975, because it's not dependent on a date. It's just basically stating the obvious, but stating it anyway....just in case some got the idea they can slack off after 75 in the new system.

You better hurry up, you only have a few weeks left to come up with something

I am really late on the scene here as JWI started this topic in 2016, with the intent of keeping it devoid from any personal attacks but keeping strictly to the subject, which is great. I hope also it will be free from personal bias. I am no scholar and I am just starting to look into the 607/587 chronologies, so please bear with me because I may have some stupid questions! I wouldn't mind keeping to some order and developing this systematically (otherwise I'll get lost with all you guys who know so much about it) One thing I wouldn't mind having explained first is the for/at Babylon thing. If this was for Babylon, then some sources suggest this meant the the period of the Babylonian empire, but according to Wikipedia: The Neo-Babylonian Empire began in 626 BC and ended in 539 BC” So that there is 87 years is it not? So I am thinking, why would the 70 years apply to Babylon, rather than to the Jews under Babylonian captivity?

The bit I highlighted - Very good point.

Yes. We are supposedly all domestics, including the Slave/GB And as a side point, if someone brings up the overlapping generation I'm going to waive my hand dismissively like Br. Herd and go "pfft..."

But come on.......you have to give us at least some basic calculations for your deduction. Otherwise if you don't, it doesn't count, and I'm going to ignore it. So there!

Ok....so that is looking at the dominion of Babylon in general, but wasn't the point of the 70 years referring only to how it affected the Jews politically, i.e. when Jerusalem, as the capital, and the Temple representing everything the Jews stood for, was razed? Wasn't that the coup d'etat? Not all the bits and pieces that occurred all the years leading up to it? (paralyzing fear of Babylon, followed by desecrations by Babylon, deportations to Babylon, death and destruction by Babylon etc) I feel this must be an important point. I have heard about Babylon and Tyre but am not familiar with it. I will have to do some homework on that..

the "current" understanding is all it can ever be until it has passed, and then we "will know accurately", just as we "are accurately known". I agree with you implicitly. So do you think when Br. Herd made this statement: "And now we know all about that generation, right?" (about six minutes into Dec. broadcasting) he was actually being ironic?

So is it wrong to say that the dominance given to Babylon started with the destruction of Jerusalem? I know you gave reasons why we cannot be sure when the 70 years started, but as it stands, it looks like it's down to interpretation....? Excuse my being a little thick, but just pretend I am a 10 year old

Sorry, I have just now had the chance to return to this. So basically, from what I can see, the difference between the two dates is this: The 607 calculation is based on 70 years of desolation to the START of rebuilding the temple in 537/8 The 587 calculation is based on 70 years of desolation to the END (completion) of the temple in 516 So I see it is simply a matter of when the 70 years were considered ended, at the beginning or at the end of rebuilding the temple.

I have my doubts that this was the lesson. But you never know. I was actually being sarcastic, because with Br. Herd's assurance that we NOW know the correct understanding of the generation, my theory about treating the overlapping generation with caution was wrong....regrettably...

Just candor and honesty will do...thanks This makes no sense to me. If he was dismissed for his renegade writing, why was he retained as a writer? That's what I wondered......

You might be on to something, after all, they were chastised for wearing tight pants.....and what about all those beards...those wayward Brits..

Or is it an editorial WE? Wikipedia: The editorial "we" is a similar phenomenon, in which an editorial columnist in a newspaper or a similar commentator in another medium refers to himself as we when giving his opinion. Here, the writer casts himself in the role of a spokesperson: either for the media institution that employs him, or more generally on behalf of the party or body of citizens who agree with the commentary.

w86 3.15 "Yes, JehovahÂ’s people have had to revise expectations from time to time. Because of our eagerness, we have hoped for the new system earlier than JehovahÂ’s timetable has called for it. But we display our faith in GodÂ’s Word and its sure promises by declaring its message to others. Moreover, the need to revise our understanding somewhat does not make us false prophets or change the fact that we are living in “the last days,” soon to experience the “great tribulation” that will pave the way for the earthly Paradise. How foolish to take the view that expectations needing some adjustment should call into question the whole body of truth! The evidence is clear that Jehovah has used and is continuing to use his one organization, with “the faithful and discreet slave” taking the lead. Hence, we feel like Peter, who said: “Lord, whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life". The problem as I see it is in the FDS/GB's reluctance to make a definite distinction between when they mean themselves and when they mean everyone else. So it's us/we/some/our/Jehovah's people etc.... all in the one basket. And yet, as we know, when it comes to making decisions on what to believe, everyone else has absolutely nothing to do with it, so any obscuring in that regard is just silly really. It does confuse the issue temporarily, but not for long and it just causes annoyance and becomes counter productive. It's very short sighted and I wish they would stop it. It's what in England we call the royal WE, it isn't we, it's just ME! Â

Do you have any concrete evidence for that?

I was being sarcastic

I was hoping that the reason why 1975 was brought up again (at convention) was because it was a reminder that the Slave err, and that some of the new things i.e. the OVERLAPPING GENERATION theory was perhaps to be treated with caution. But how wrong I was!....... listening to Br.Herd.... we have finally got THAT part figured out!

About Charles Sinutko, the District overseer who was one of those who publically, in front of a very wide audience made several very pointed remarks about 1975 including those already stated on this thread such as ““they know what’s coming, and don’t wait till 75, the door is going to be shut before then!”. No doubt he was one of the contributor to the 1975 “frenzy”. However, Reading his life story in the 2004/8/22 Awake it is evident that he is one of the ones “who made the needed adjustments” and who “didn’t run away and didn’t give up” (as per the video) Did he suffer selective amnesia? Surely not... We don’t know what he thought, because he doesn’t say, but I can picture there must have been some interesting discussions between him and others after 75. The question has been raised on here, what was the purpose of bringing up 1975 again at the last (2017) convention, and then some theories as to why. The video was part of the talk “How you can by no means ever fail" based on 2 Peter 1:5-10; Isaiah 40:31; 2 Corinthians 4:7-9, 16 I don’t have time to figure out how to isolate the video from the rest of the talk to post it on here, but here is a “transcript” beginning with Rachel’s father talking to his grandson with whom he had just attended pioneer school: “Hard to believe this system would last so long, and I certainly would never believe I would be a grandfather”. Then he goes on to relate how his wife died and how “with Jehovah’s help and the support of the brothers we got through it”. We learned to rely on Jehovah in ways we never had before – and that helped us when years later, another test came our way. You see, back then, some were looking to a certain date (1975) as signifying the end of this system of things and a few even went as far as selling their homes and quitting their job. I admit, I was ready to see this old system go away too. But something just didn’t seem right. Both at meetings and personal study – I was reminded of what Jesus said “nobody knows the day or hour” . I was dedicated to Jehovah, not a date. After that year came and went most of those who had wrong expectations made the needed adjustments…..and they stayed. We didn’t run away and we didn’t give up. We trusted in Jehovah. And when I see older ones now, I don’t just see grey hair, I see living breathing examples of endurance”. So what IS the lesson?

   Â

Just steering a little back to 1975, I think maybe the confusion and conflict in this thread regarding what "really" happened apparently come from the fact that some of us are talking about stage 2 and 3, and others about stage 4 and 5. So two different aspects of what was said about 1975, and both aspects are true. The 5 stages as posted by JWI, as a refresher: 1.The initial idea is floated, often with a bit of caution. 2.Then someone is sure enough to begin championing the prediction and begins to stake their reputation on it. 3.Then as confidence builds, those statements become more and more direct and less careful. 4.Then as the time approaches and the kinds of surrounding expectations that might have validated the prediction aren't there yet, real caution kicks in, and if necessary, some backtracking begins. 5. After the failure is obvious, we can expect blame and finger-pointing.

did you make your cartoons during the 1975 "frenzy" ?

No.......but I can discuss this in the appropriate topic