Anna

But be careful you don't get worn down, because Allen Smith and several of his alter egos will find scriptures that condemn this very thing, and beat you over the head with them

And yet there have been mistakes. This cannot be because GOD gave wrong insight can it? So it must be that GOD gives holy spirit, but it is up to the individual whether he actually follows it or not to get the correct insight!

I'm afraid JWI will find it difficult to find a good enough "sparring partner" who has enough knowledge on the subject to be able to stick to the issue at hand without resorting to attacks on the person's intentions instead of sticking to the subject. Facts and truth are facts and truth no matter who presents it. If we are not able to defend our view in a scholarly and scientific way, presenting counter evidence using available archeological material, then why even get involved in a discussion such as this? I know I can't. I just don't have enough time to devote to research that is necessary to be able to argue with anything that JWI has touched on regarding the secular aspect relating to Bible chronology. In fact I don't even have much time to research the scriptures pertaining to this subject, never mind Babylonian astronomical diaries and such. But I have been able to see some valid scriptural arguments being presented by JWI and I think it's OK to say "well, your reasoning might just be right". Is it going to change anything about how I view Jehovah, Jesus or our brotherhood? NO. I am very well aware that casting doubts on 1914 automatically disqualifies 1919 and the appointment of the faithful slave. I am very well aware that a different interpretation regarding parousia, the sign, Generation etc. will automatically call into question whether we are really living in the last days. So what? I'm not going to get my knickers in a twist over it. Does that change our commission to preach? It shouldn't because aren't we all hoping that Jehovah is going to step in and bring relief to mankind, whenever that may be? To preach about God's Kingdom which will do just that, it is our commission, and we don't stop until the Kingdom is ruling over the earth. Should any of this change our attitude and view of those who are in "charge" and call themselves the faithful slave? I don't see why it should. Someone has to be in charge, we can't all be chiefs. So far, this arrangement has worked pretty well. There are many more arguments I could go into, but I don't think that's necessary. All I know is that those who have left Jehovah's organization, (or if you just want to call it Jehovah's Witnesses) and still believe in God, they have reverted back/or adopted most of Christendoms ideas. That tells me a lot and enough to convince me that we are the true religion, with all our flaws and imperfections.

In order to be able to answer that I would have to know what you mean by "They get there “direction” from God himself". Do you mean that Jehovah directly communicates with them through some supernatural way, or that they get their direction from His own word, the Bible? If it's the latter, then all true Christians get their direction from that source.

I agree with most of your sentiments, especially about the obsessivenes. There are opposers who have blogs and websites and it seems they dedicate their whole life to "watching" the organization and reporting negatively on every single move with venom. It makes me wonder how such indivuduals can even live a normal life. You have experience with friends and relatives who have become apostate, so you know the general pattern, and I understand your concern. But I do not agree with your statement above in this case. @TrueTomHarley mentioned something with regard to expertise in certain fields and how writers and those who study a subject in depth often get misunderstood, whereas others who work with "tangable" things are appreciated. I love it when my friend comes and fixes my computer and shares his expertise with me. But when it comes to analytical thought, which is expressed on "paper", and is shared with others, that just seems to be taboo. What better place to share this kind of thought but on a forum, where one can even receive feedback, whether it be recognition, or dissmisal. Where would one find a better place without upsetting the congregation and without "spreading contentious ideas" ? The title of this thread clearly shows the matter under discussion, so if someone would rather not read this kind of thing, they do not have to read it. So I do not see that talking about such things on a public forum means one is obsessively pushing one's ideas.

I guess this depends on the severity or importance of the matter in dispute with your conscience. If the matter it is so serious, that your Bible based conscience is seriously affected, then you must obey your conscience obviously. This does not mean you have to go and advertise YOUR opinion on a matter to others and in this way maybe cause them upset and disunity. It is between you and Jehovah in the end. If we see something that is grossly and seriously wrong, then we should communicate our concerns to those in charge of the congregation, there is nothing wrong with doing that. We can take it as far as we want but there is only so much we as individuals can do and we should be wise and accept that. For example, I know we are talking about doctrinal matters here, but I cannot think of anything that is SO doctrinally wrong that it would warrant drastic action, so I will use the example of something bad going on in the congregation that you have been privy to. Lets assume it's to with an elder behaving inappropriately with a child and you have reasonable suspicions that the child is being sexually abused. Your conscience is telling you to report this to the other elders. You do so, but you notice that because the elder under suspicion is very popular, there does not seem any action that is being taken. You notice that nothing is changing, that the person in question is still able to access the child and from the child's behavior you become more and more convinced that the child is being sexually abused. You have several options, depending on how your conscience is directing you. You either leave it be, or you implore the elders again, or you go to the police. After that, you have exhausted all your options and there is nothing much else you can do but wait if the elders, or the police, can do something about it. Similarly with doctrinal matters, there is only so much you can do, when you have exhausted all your options, all you have left is to wait or leave. I can understand your reasoning. But I really cannot think of anything so serious doctrinally where we would have to insist on a change because it affected our conscience so severely. If we thought it so bad, then the obvious option would be to leave and find a religion that agrees with our interpretation. I do not think that just having your differing views exposed would get you disfellowshipped. It is your trying to convince others and pushing your views onto others that might get you removed as a Witness. It might seem like they are getting a free pass when things go wrong, but have no fear, Jehovah sees everything, and in the end we will all stand and in front of him and "each of us will render an account for himself to God". "For the true God will judge every deed, including every hidden thing, as to whether it is good or bad". P.S. You say: " For instance, let's say hypothetically after much Bible research I came to a differing view on a Watchtower doctrine. If my differing views were exposed, I would probably get disfellowshipped. However, what if that doctrine was later revised by the Governing Body and now agreed with my personal views"? Perhaps you can give an actual example. But please use a new topic if you can, because I do not want to hijack JWI's thread any more than I have already.

My hubby and I saw it last week. Very well done, like a lot of British movies are. I recommended it to a couple at the KH who asked about it.

Thank you Tom. I like your thoughts on this, and you raise many valid points (it's one of your few posts where you are actually being dead pan serious, not that I don't enjoy your tongue in cheek humour). The reason I posted that question was because I am very aware that if one doesn't happen to be on the same wavelength, its easy to misunderstand what the other person is actually saying. I understood it to mean that "how dare we even try interpreting the Bible, if that is the exclusive privilege of the FDS". Judging by @Noble Berean's answer, it looks like he understood it similarly. Your interpretation sounds perfectly reasonable though. I like this point "I think it is an appeal that congregational unity is more important than individual opinion about doctrine" it kind of puts it in a nutshell. Also this observation is very valid "Whenever the Governing Body issues direction on any doctrinal point, it may be that you, as a diligent student, noticed that point some time ago. If this was the world of churches, you would have gone out and started your own religion over it. How do you think there came to be so many sects and divisions among Christianity"? I know I'm not the only one who has noticed points ahead of when the GB has adjusted their view. (I mentioned this on here a little while ago referring to Babylonian captivity, in the spiritual sense). Some things may not be important enough to warrant starting a new religion over, but your point is perfectly apt! I don't think JWI is trying to gain disciples for himself either, and as you mention in your following post it kind of sucks that in the minds of many people a carpenter who has expertise is never judged the same way as a writer or scholar who has expertise. This brings to mind an instance a few years ago, which actually involved you (yes, really, lol) when I was reading your stories in "Sheep and goats" and someone criticized it asking why on earth would anyone want to write about stuff like that and I replied that you were sharing your "creation" just like a composer won't forever just play his music for himself, but will want to share it with others. Jehovah created us to be this way. P.S. Apologies to @JW Insiderfor causing a break in the thread. Maybe this should be posted as a new subject....

I agree with you wholeheartedly and that is why I find reasoning such as this one from the Nov. 2016 study WT a little disconcerting p.16, par. 9: "Some may feel that they can interpret the Bible on their own. However, Jesus has appointed the ‘faithful slave’ to be the only channel for dispensing spiritual food. Since 1919, the glorified Jesus Christ has been using that slave to help his followers understand God’s own Book and heed its directives. By obeying the instructions found in the Bible, we promote cleanness, peace, and unity in the congregation. Each one of us does well to ask himself, ‘Am I loyal to the channel that Jesus is using today?’ " I am misunderstanding what it's saying there? Anyone care to analyze this as they understand it? And sorry, I know it's a little off topic.

@AraunaJust look at the amount of works Rolf Furuli wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolf_Furuli

True that! Also, unfortunately the way us humans are, we tend to "sensationalize" and ADD to things that are not there.

I find this remark to be quite curious, especially about being right. If we are not right about one thing we might be wrong about another one too, and that's fine. Surely what is important though is that we be be RIGHT in areas where it matters. I noticed JWI reply to this, saying he hopes someone didn't misunderstand this....it looks like I am misunderstanding it?

There are some very valid arguments you raise here JWI. I am not qualified to make any worthwhile and detailed comments on Bible chronology, especially that which pertains to 1914 because I have never studied any of it in depth, and as @Araunaremarked: " NONE of you have taken the time to really study the entire sections on Chronology as set out in the Insight book" . Well I am one of those people, I have neither studied the Insight book's Chronology, nor COJ's Chronology nor other secular study of Bible chronology and to be honest, who of the 8 or so million regular Witnesses have?? (not counting Rolf Furuli and those in the writing department who were assigned to do this) I have only know one brother to date. He was not brought up as one of JWs but came into the truth later. He had already been used to studying as he had a university degree. He was the scholarly type. I remember he had a library full of secular books on Bible history and chronology. I remember once when we stayed at his house (my mum is good friends with his wife) he mentioned this one particular secular book on something or other to do with Bible history or chronology and how extremely interesting it was. I don't remember any details about what he said, I just remember my negative feelings at the time. It was funny, but it was almost an aversion to even the thought of someone reading something BESIDES our literature. Feelings of distrust and suspicion, that anything else is tantamount to the Devil's work. Funnily enough, these feelings could not have emanated from my mother, since she herself is an educated and well read woman, and has read many secular books and strongly believes in education. These feelings came from the "general" air of suspicion derived from our meetings and our own literature, including the general opinion of brothers and sisters sharing the suspicion among each other. It is actually understandable, since our attitude (and quite rightly so) regarding the world is that it is lying in the power of the wicked one, and thus logically, he, Satan, will want to promote anything to weaken man’s trust in the Bible as being from God. But statements by the WT such as “Secular experts have repeatedly questioned the Bible’s accuracy” is a broad brush which automatically taints anyone (besides us) who tries to interpret Bible chronology, as being probably, if not obviously, WRONG. Unless of course they agree with us. Truly, on the whole, secular scholars are responsible for giving themselves this reputation in our eyes because of their adherence to the theory of evolution and other theories discrediting God. It is understandable that many of the things these scholars write will be tainted with their supposition that God does not exist. HOWEVER, and this is a most important part, in my opinion, what does the date of Jerusalem’s destruction have anything to do with whether a scholar is a believer in God and the Bible’s veracity or not? What possible reason would a secular scholar have for not agreeing with Watchtower’s 607? Most scholars (as opposed to JW haters and opposers) have no hidden agenda and have nothing against Jehovah’s Witnesses. I believe COJ had no hidden agenda either. He merely reported on the evidence that’s out there. On the other hand, we, Jehovah’s Witnesses, base a large part of our belief on 1914. We would have a lot more to “lose” were we to agree with the secular date. I can’t even imagine the commotion if we retracted 1914. BUT we have to remember; “we do not serve God because of a date” as was bought out in the video at the convention regarding 1975. How much does our personal relationship with Jehovah depend on a date? Do we serve God just because “the end is just around the corner” And to take it even further, how much of our personal relationship depends on the Governing Body? IF the Governing Body were all to become apostate tomorrow, where would we stand? Out of interest, when I was studying “what does the Bible really teach” with my student, a biologist (the ex atheist I already mentioned on here before) when we came to the appendix about 1914 I also gave her the two articles in the WT “When was Ancient Jerusalem destroyed” part 1 and 2. She found the articles interesting but unconvincing. We never went into any detail of those two articles, as both of us agreed that it was more important to go back to the Bible and see what it had to say on what God expects from us, and how to live our life to please him.

You're nuts Tom! Lol

Are you sure about that, that they refuse?

In order to figure out Biblical dates don't we have to rely on secular dates? As far as I am aware the Bible does not give any dates, it merely gives reignal years of kings, i.e 19th year etc. and in order to find out the actual year in history one has to consult ancient secular chronicles and calendars etc....

This is a very funny statement because a fly starts as an egg, that hatches into a maggot which grows bigger and then becomes a pupa. The fly hatches out of the pupa and stays the same size until it dies. Perhaps it's a typo and he meant fry as in fish

That's just it. I personally do not think that 1914 really is that important with regard to being spiritually ready or not. Not only that, but who of us uses 1914 as part of the preaching message to be honest? Who of us has recently "explained" it to someone at the door, or even to a study? In view of that, I do not think that putting forward "alternate" views regarding 1914 on this forum necessarily garbles our message, because our message is not about 1914, but about being ready because we do not know when the end will come. Refinements to our scriptural understanding are being made usually after we discern that our past application has become obsolete due to the passage of time. But notice our core beliefs have never had to be adjusted since about 1935. We still believe the same about the soul, what happens when we die, who go to heaven, what is hell, the identity of God, the identity of Jesus, God's kingdom, the good news, moral standards etc.etc. So all the other stuff is interesting, but irrelevant to our salvation in the grand scheme of things. I doubt Jehovah is going to judge someone as not worthy of life just because they have reservations about 1914 or some other chronological aspect.

I tried logging in with the same email and pass word I use on here, but it doesn't work....

Thanks JTR. But I don't want to log in with my FB.That has my whole name, and I don't want to use that here

Well I won't be making any comments down there since I have no idea how to log in. I seems I have to create another account? I am not doing that, I have enough accounts. @The Librarian I use firefox as my browser....

Yes, you are correct. Here are the results abuse policy 2016.docx and Letter to elders 2016_us.pdf

By the way @The Librarian I found the threaded reply, but it is asking me to sign up if I want to comment. I am already signed up on here.....

If I'm not mistaken, both Rutherford and Knorr were considered the FDS, after all, this was after 1918, when the supposed appointment was made, as you yourself mention. But I think this appointment was seen in retrospect. (years later). JWInsider will probably know more about this. I believe all of the anointed were thought to be the FDS and then the WT of July 2013 clarified that it only applied to the anointed in the GB, the article was: "feeding many at the hands of a few" https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20130715/jesus-feeds-many/ P.S I think Br. Russell is viewed as one who "prepared the way" and as the "rattling of the bones" as per Ezekiel 37:1-14

Brother Russell died in 1916