Anna

I think you'd get on really well. At the mid week meeting last week I asked him what was so outstanding about Bathsheba. He said she was out, standing under the shower.

I must admit I found that paragraph strange. I raised the issue at the table (we had hospitality for our friend who gave the talk, his wife and in laws were also with us, the other in law being an elder too) and everyone didn't get why this particular song was included either. I mean what about the song "listen obey and be blessed"? And other songs which also tell people what to do. It was just very odd, and I wondered why this issue was even raised. (some of your ideas may be valid, but why make a point of it this way in the paragraph, it almost makes me want to write to Bethel and ask for the "real" reason behind it. But it's not important) My husband had a good point as well. He said he's never known in his life any sister to be bothered about telling people what to do. Everyone cracked up and agreed.

"What does Jehovah doing things in certain unusual ways have to do with child abuse?"
This was the thinking also of a certain other poster on a similar thread, and I hate saying this, but perhaps this kind of mentality has been the reason for non reporting and other inefficiencies regarding the handling of child sexual abuse. Yes, it is true that Jehovah should figure in our trying to solve problems, since being a JW is a way of life, but when it comes to handling of child sexual abuse, "waiting on Jehovah" and other perceived theocratic sensibilities just don't seem appropriate in this situation.

He wasn't talking about religion. He was talking about being a spokesperson for God.
Here is the exact quote:
Question:   And do you see yourselves as Jehovah God's spokespeople on earth?

G. Jackson:   That I think would seem to be quite presumptuous to

  say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using.

  The scriptures clearly show that someone can act in harmony

  with God's spirit in giving comfort and help in the

  congregations, but if I could just clarify a little, going

  back to Matthew 24, clearly, Jesus said that in the last

  days - and Jehovah's Witnesses believe these are the last

  days - there would be a slave, a group of persons who would

  have responsibility to care for the spiritual food.  So in

  that respect, we view ourselves as trying to fulfil that role.

 

@Gone Away HA! we posted at the same time!

Great minds...................................................

Better marketing maybe, but you must understand that you are addressing a VERY limited audience. Although 8 million could be considered a fair number, many of those are skeptical and won't read anything published by a brother unless it comes with Bethel's blessing. Maybe that's who you need to talk to! Just kidding. But you must admit, I do have a point. (I still want to order a book for my mother in law, which one would you recommend?) 

I watched the video, and to be honest, if you were one of those people attending the convention where the second speaker was giving the address, you would be hard pressed not to get excited, and NOT look to the date 1975..
Of course, the friends who attended that convention were just some, out of the rest of the brotherhood and not all who attended the convention would have been convinced, just like not all are convinced about some ideas today (the overlapping generation ).
I am wondering if after this series of talks, the Slave realised they had taken it a bit too far. There must have been discussions by brothers who pointed out the scrioture which makes it clear the Bible gives no date (like the brother in the video of the last convention) so then when the idea reached the UK it was perhaps already more watered down..
My step dad sold his skis because he thought he wouldn't use them again, he was living in central Europe, but my mother living in the uk at the time doesn't even recall anything special going on, and neither do I. But I was only very young...

I just got this in the mail today! Now to find time to actually read it.....
 
 

I just got this in the mail today! Now to find time to actually read it.....
 
 

Why another topic about 1914 and 607?
Because we could use a topic where we can all agree a little more easily. Seriously. In this topic, we don't need to worry about whether 607 is correct, or 1914 is correct. No one needs to say why it does or doesn't make sense to them. Let's just see if we can review the possible and probable sources that were influential, and ultimately resulted in 607 and 1914 being accepted as a Bible-based fulfillment of prophecy.
No one needs to jump from another thread about 607 and Biblical evidence over to this one. In fact, I just read a couple of books last night for the first time, and I had some questions that I couldn't find an answer to, and hoped that someone from that other thread, or anyone really, might have run across the resources that might have answered the questions. I'm reading one more book first, and don't think I'll finish it tonight, so consider this topic to be kind of a placeholder for a couple days.
So this is the purpose of the three current threads:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/5510-607-bce-is-it-biblically-supported/ a place to discuss mostly the Scriptural evidence for or against the 607 portion of the 1914 doctrine. https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/51655-607-bce-is-there-any-secular-support-for-the-watch-towers-view/ a place to discuss mostly the Secular evidence for or against the 607 portion of the 1914 doctrine. And this current one: a place to discuss the sources that were influential in the WTS accepting the 607 date as part of the 1914 doctrine. One place to start is with a couple sentences in the "Proclaimers" book (next post). I personally intend to avoid a certain book by COJ for this topic, to avoid unnecessary controversy, although anyone should feel free to use any resources from anywhere they wish, as long as it appears to be a statement of fact. Again, this is not about questioning the correctness of the doctrine.

Good points and good questions, too. I am just working through some of this material myself. Last fall, I clicked a few pages onto my iPhone of several books to check out in full at a later time. These included Wright's (2009) "Inventing God's Law - How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi." The book is partially previewed on Google Books. Some of the other pages of material are only on my iPhone, though. I'm not planning to buy the book. It's at several libraries.
I should say that the book appears to break new ground on tying the Mosaic Law (he abbreviates CC, for Covenant Code) to the Laws of Hammurabi (he abbreviates LH). But a book that breaks new ground is also, in part, only one voice against several. So it would be good to acknowledge a few of the other major views about the relationship between CC and LH. Note, too, that LH becomes a kind of shorthand not just for the Laws of Hammurabi exclusively, but also the Laws of Eshnunna and other similar sets of laws with a relationship to LH.
One point is that we don't really know the exact dates of either the LH or exactly when the last adjustment was made to the CC either. Another point is that we should expect similarities in both oral traditions, legal needs, and legal practice with respect to the lifestyle of Semitic and Mesopotamian nations. All had similar issues with respect to slavery, marriage, divorce, murder, rape, theft, land, livestock, accidents, etc.. As Wright himself mentions:
For example, the Covenant Code, the Laws of Hammurabi, the Laws of Eshnunna, and the Roman Twelve Tables, all have burglary laws that speak about killing a burglar (see chapter 9). These cannot all be related by literary influence. Several of the other points made in comparison to the view of other scholars are not applicable to a faith-based view of the scriptures (textual redaction theories, etc.).
Wright makes a distinction between the "do this/do that" (apodictic) laws, and the "if this...then that"(casuistic) laws, and this distinction is useful for his thesis. But you are apparently right, @Gone Fishing, that the 10 commandments themselves stand outside these sets of laws as unique. 

Didn't mean to set this up like a "tease" to drum up interest. Especially if the actual point will turn out to be such a letdown. But I'll continue . . .
Many of us probably barely noticed that the first "kernel" of the "Cities of Refuge" laws started out in Exodus 21:12-15, especially in the highlighted portion.
(Exodus 21:12-15) 12 “Anyone who strikes a man so that he dies must be put to death. 13 But if he does it unintentionally and the true God lets it happen, I will designate for you a place where he can flee. 14 If a man becomes very angry with his fellow man and he deliberately kills him, the man must die even if you have to take him from my altar. 15 One who strikes his father or his mother must be put to death. But we have two versions to compare for much of Exodus 21. For example, let's start out by comparing two versions, starting in Exodus 21:28-32  in the way that Wright does:


I think a lot of people already know where this is headed, but this is a good place to start. I'll follow up in the next post.

Very interesting, but not alarming. I am sure Moses Egyptian education would have exposed him to Hammurabi's code as well as whatever system existed in Egypt (although apparently it is not so clearly preseved for us as the Mesopotamian). There would be no need to "reinvent the wheel" in setting out a form and structure for a law code to govern the affairs of a nation at that time, would there?
I believe the only part of the Mosaic Law actually written by a non-human agency is the decalogue? Is there a similar listing of this nature in the Hammurabi code? 
Also, is there a similar comparison chart on sanctions? And how about matters of hygiene? 
I have just found a copy of the Code of Hammurabi in a 2nd hand book shop ( I love those places). Time to dust it off methinks!
 

The prediction was that you would see the obvious ridiculousness of your claim (that versions with errors carry more weight than versions with corrections). So I predicted that when you were questioned about this, you would do what you always do, which is to try to make it look like you were right all along through an evasion. So I said:
Just a few days ago, back in this same thread, I summarized your method like this:
You managed to perfectly fulfill every word of that prediction by not acknowledging your error and using words that completely evaded the questions, and you used words that made it seem like others were wrong an you were right all along, when you said:
I would recommend that you begin to address evidence with evidence that is actually related to the questions at hand, instead of evasions. I don't think you are incapable, but each time you do what you just did, it makes it more difficult for anyone interested to take your future posts seriously. Most people will just think you are dishonest.

I can't really see why you think originals carry more weight than revised editions. If you, Allen, were to write a book and then you discovered you had made some mistakes that needed to be revised, which of your books would you think carried more weight? Do you really think that scholars believe their mistakes carry more weight then the corrections? Does Furuli think everyone should give more weight to the first version of Volume II of his work on chronology, before he made the revisions to Volume II? Do you think that anyone in the Writing Dept at Bethel thinks that the commentary on Revelation or Ezekiel that was written in 1917 ("The Finished Mystery") carries more weight than our current writings on these books?
I know you very likely won't even answer these questions, without the typical evasion you've always utilized in the past, which tells me you know the real answer.
Also, you have seen me praise the Watchtower for the greater number of things that I appreciate and about which they must surely be correct. I will never criticize our publications for revisions, only for errors that contradict the Bible,  contradict facts, or make false or misleading claims. If we love the Bible, we should all be doing this. It's part of our obligation as Jehovah's Witnesses and as Christians to be humble and admit our faults. To make sure of all things, and hold fast to what is fine. To be noble-minded and "carefully examine" like the Beroeans. To try to be shining examples of honesty and truth. The test the inspired expressions. To make a defense of our hope to anyone who asks. To make our reasonableness known to all men.
As you already know, I don't criticize for revisions. Revisions are a good thing.

....
 

Nice to see you commenting again @Gone Fishing 

True of course. But I didn't want to focus so much on whether Jewish sources were always reliable, but in this case it would make sense because the point of the cities of refuge was not punishment, but rather a merciful provision for those who otherwise would have to be executed, because that was the law, regardless whether it was accidental or not. It would make no sense for example  if the accidental manslayer was a wife, and  her husband and dependent children would have to abandon her. I don't think the point of this law was to break up families.There are so many other  scenarios one could think of, that obviously could not all be covered by the law in detail, so the law must have been applied in principle. This wasn't even my observation but a friend of TTH suggested that the father of a fugitive son who had accidentally killed his brother would be allowed to go with him. It made sense to me....

I agree with the comment by JWI on the speculative nature of scenarios in connection with the cities of refuge. I haven't investigated cities of refuge in a historical context simply because reliable information seems rather scant.
Apart from the setting out the provision in Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua,, there doesn't appear to be any reference to the use of the provision in the Hebrew Scriptures, like for example, the cameo appearance of Ruth with reference to the provision of "levirate" marriage.
There is a lot of what I term as higher-critical gobbledegook on the matter, but really only of some academic interest (to me). Perhaps, rather like the Sabbath Year and Jubilee provisions, there was little adherence to the legislated procedure over the years. (Compare Jer.2:34 "Even your skirts are stained with the blood of the innocent poor ones, though I did not find them in the act of breaking in")
Anyway, with regard to TTH's comment, this manslayer, self assessesed as "guiltless", has rather missed the point. Where human blood has been shed there is no "guiltlessness" as the basis for the Mosaic provision makes clear at Genesis 9:5-6. Anyone of that opinion was not thinking in harmony with Jehovah God's view of the matter of shedding human blood in any circumstance, and would be putting themselves greatly at risk of an execution of judgement without mercy.

You can look around and see.  Eyes can detect ratio.  Sort of predicted too.  Forgot this?
(Psalm 68:11) Jehovah gives the command; The women proclaiming the good news are a large army.
 
 
 
 

Something similar happens when you put out a contract to have someone killed, when you are too old or disinclined to do it yourself.
Your "hit man" does your bidding, but it can be traced back to you.
So you get a second "hit man" to bump off the first one.
Then you get a third one to off the second one, etc., etc.
..... but ultimately, it's free !
By the way, with the Hatfields and McCoys, the reason that stopped their feuding is the Hatfields, most of them I am told, became Jehovah's Witnesses. It may or may not be true, as I have forgotten where I got that info ... so just consider it an old man's fairy tale.
However, I had the distinct pleasure of dancing with Libby Hatfield, of Chattaroy, West Virginia, at a "gathering" in Roanoke, Virginia., circa 1976.
THAT ... I remember.
 

My father was in one of the assembly dramas back in 1967. Brother Glass had worked out this "play" with the Gilead students and produced the one-hour skit that was recorded by him and the Gilead students and a couple of other Bethelites with good voices (especially from the other primary instructors: Maxwell Friend, Harold Jackson, Karl Adams, Bert Schroeder). I remember that we attended two assemblies that year because of the drama. I was baptized at the first one.
Those dramas had just started in '66 (Aachan and the theft of contra-"ban" at Ai) and that year they had learned that subtle gestures don't show up well in large stadium audiences, so they taught everyone to over-gesture (and gesticulate) so hard that everyone was karate-chopping the air with every syllable so you knew who was speaking.
But the only thing I remember from the content was that it was used to show that everyone should stay in the protection of Jehovah's arrangement for security (the organization) or they would die. That we are all blood-guilty even if just "accidentally" so, through the sin of Adam, and that we must remain until the "high priest dies" but that he already died in 33 CE, so we are no longer bloodguilty, but we need to stay put anyway.
Of course, that wasn't the whole story, but it definitely was NOT mined for treasures or gems the way that more recent discussions have done (including yesterday's WT study).
I was also thinking that it highlighted safety issues, and it also did something else that isn't mentioned anywhere as far as I know. It's not just to provide a cooling-off period for the avenger who would be tempted to avenge potentially innocent manslaughter ("innocent" in the sense of unintentional). It's also a loving provision for the families who would have to continue to live and work next to the person responsible for such trauma and pain. Defending honor has developed into some terrible practices around the world, including Hatfield and McCoy style feuds that can go on for a century or more. I saw the play Hamilton last year which means I know even less about U.S. History now than I did before, but it showed a facet of dueling that I wasn't aware of, wherein, persons could use it for personal revenge, or purposely arrange to "miss" so as to forgive.
Last year, I spent several days over the course of a week at the British Museum and asked if I could find information on other nations that were known to have sanctuary cities or cities of refuge. The answer was surprising, and got to read one of the recent books they had from David P. Wright and a couple articles in the JBL, including Jeffrey Stackert. 
Why Does Deuteronomy Legislate Cities of Refuge? Asylum in the Covenant Collection (Exodus 21:12-14) and Deuteronomy (19:1-13) Author(s): Jeffrey Stackert Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 125, No. 1 (Spring, 2006), pp. 23-49 The book by Wright would be very controversial for most of us.

Hey, does anyone remember that Twilight Zone episode where the driver strikes and kills the kid? -obviously and accident. His wife remarks over dinner how horrible it is that the unknown driver did not turn himself in, and is puzzled by her husband's agitation. His car begins to haunt him. It wakes him up out of a sound sleep with blaring horn. (as a child, it was spooky as all get-out!) He tells his wife the next morning that he will walk to work, since the car has been acting funny. She is amazed to see the garage door open, and the car follows him - he panics and falls. The car stops inches from crushing his head. The passenger door opens. He gets in and it drives him presumably to the police station to confess. The car is the avenger of blood!!

Maybe we finally have this City of Refuge thing down pat after yesterday's study article. The way the Law had it, the accidental manslayer had to flee to one of the six cities of refuge, where his case would be heard. If the 'avenger of blood' (closest relative of the deceased) killed him before he got there, he was guiltless. He might simply have lost it. Or he might figure there wouldn't have been an accident if the fellow had been more careful or not neglected safety. (aspects of safety on the job were also considered, as in 'What can we learn from this?')   BUT some have said that he could not do otherwise. He MUST put the killer to death. It is not his prerogative to overlook or forgive, because principles greater than just a matter between two humans come into play. Still, it is hard to believe that a man, bereaved himself, would HAVE TO put to death someone, maybe a close friend or even a relative, who had accidentally taken a life.   How does the following work as a compromise? The killer MUST flee to one of the cities of refuge - that much is clear. Why couldn't the avenger of blood take his sweet time in his 'pursuit' - or even walk there with him, if he was really a close chum? Our minds are skewed by the picture in the Watchtower decades ago of the manslayer running for all he is worth with the avenger hot on his heals. Who is to say it was always (or even usually) like that?   The death was an accident. The city of refuge was a place where one might live a normal, productive and rewarding life. It was not a prison. But suppose the manslayer refused to go there, insisting he didn't have to, insisting he was 'guiltless' because he didn't mean to do what he did?   THEN he would be put to death, not just for the accidental killing itself, or even primarily, but for the greater crime of thumbing his nose at God, for it is his arrangement. Put to death BY WHO becomes secondary. Maybe the avenger of blood. But if the avenger simply couldn't find it within himself to do it, it is hard to believe there would not be a posse or something to help him out or even take it off his hands.   Of course, if the real sin is thumbing one's nose at God, the avenger would probably be incensed over THAT and would possibly 'rise to the occasion' on that count, whereas the death itself he would be willing to forgive.   Does it work?