Anna

First time I saw this I decided to just let it slide. But if it is going to become fixed in the firmament of my stellar past, I might as well correct it.  The brother I was asked to room with (upon my arrival there) was a brother who was just leaving Bethel. It was in the room right next door to Brother and Sister Merton Campbell's, a very dear old couple who put a lot of effort into making "Family Night" entertaining, and who had a long career and many great upbuilding stories from the past. I have a picture of him from about 1957 in an old shoebox somewhere (the picture is in the shoebox, not Merton). He's out on the roof of 124 Columbia Heights.
But I digress. The brother I roomed with for a few days didn't steal the money in the typical manner. He asked to borrow about $200 to get home by bus, with the promise that he would send me the money the instant he got back which would have been two days from the time I loaned the money, and I would expect to receive it within a week or so, assuming cooperation from the postal gods. Well 4 weeks went by, and no money. I didn't even know where he had gone, and I wanted to check to make sure the post office didn't lose it, or it wasn't stuck somewhere in the cracks of Bethel's bureaucracy.
I asked brother Campbell if there was any way to check up on the mail. He got the story, and told me that this brother was bad news, and that I was not the first to complain of the same issue. He was in the Service Department, and said he could get the money back for me if I would first write the brother then a month later, his congregation's presiding overseer. My money appeared, via Campbell, and I started thinking of the Service Department as a kind of "secret service."

Everyone is grappling with this in diverse areas and many do not handle it especially well. In the world of current events, it results in charges of fake news for what are sometimes just different points of view. In science and medicine, the internet results in 'anecdotal reports,' which science hates because they are not something their system is able to assess or repeat.

Me and my mates - we terrified the place. When the holyrollers saw our black leather jackets with BAA on the back (bad ass attitude) they ran. We was like Robin Hood, only halfway. We stole from the rich and we stole from the poor.
The one I hated worst was goody-goody JWI. He wasn't worse than the others at first but then he had a dream that he talked about at every meal. Aye. He was going to be exalted over all the rest of us to the Art Department. And what of his former mates? We would be swabbing the decks, like always. 'God gave gifts in men for some to be swabbers and toilet cleaners and waiters - but for me to do artwork' he use to tell us. Always smiling, he was. Always exhorting us to swab harder. I hate him. 
But I got even with him though. He left $200 lying right out there in the open! God will watch it, he said. I saw his money and his garments.- good looking ones from the land of Shinar - because he loved to shine, that one - and I took them. I wrote my ticket home and am a big shot right now back home.

[Part One - Just a little more background]
The Bible contains no dates, at least not anything like the dates we use today. There is no such thing as a date like 539 BC, or 607 BCE, or 29 CE, or AD 33, or 70 CE, or 1914. The only types of dates that the Bible uses are expressions like:
(Genesis 5:21-27) 21 Eʹnoch lived for 65 years and then became father to Me·thuʹse·lah. 22 After becoming father to Me·thuʹse·lah, Eʹnoch continued to walk with the true God for 300 years. And he became father to sons and daughters. 23 So all the days of Eʹnoch amounted to 365 years. 24 Eʹnoch kept walking with the true God. Then he was no more, for God took him. 25 Me·thuʹse·lah lived for 187 years and then became father to Laʹmech. 26 After becoming father to Laʹmech, Me·thuʹse·lah lived for 782 years. And he became father to sons and daughters. 27 So all the days of Me·thuʹse·lah amounted to 969 years, and then he died.
(1 Kings 15:25-34) 25 Naʹdab the son of Jer·o·boʹam became king over Israel in the second year of King Aʹsa of Judah, and he reigned over Israel for two years. 26 He kept doing what was bad in the eyes of Jehovah . . .  . . . 33  In the third year of King Aʹsa of Judah, Baʹa·sha the son of A·hiʹjah became king in Tirʹzah over all Israel and reigned for 24 years. 34  But he kept doing what was bad in the eyes of Jehovah, and he walked in the way of Jer·o·boʹam and in his sin that he caused Israel to commit.
A portion of the Bible therefore includes a chronology system, that appears to track the number of years from Adam to Noah (and the Flood). Another portion appears to track the number of years from Noah (through Shem) to Abraham. Other sections track the time from Abraham to the Exodus. Then it gets a bit murky. Even so we know we are not too many years off between the Exodus and the Judges and then to King Saul and David. There is a also a lot of information to help track the time from David through the last Judean King Zedekiah. But even these "synchronisms" between the lines of kings leaves several open questions, which can be interpreted in various ways. Of course, not long after Zedekiah and the return of the Jews from Babylon to Judea & Israel, it gets murky again. And we have no chronology to track the time from, say, Zedekiah until Jesus is born.
In other words, you could know that Methuselah was born a certain number of years after Adam was created, or even that Shem or Abraham was born a certain number of years after Adam was created. but you would still have no idea when Adam was created, or what year the Flood arrived. We also have those murky or incomplete portions. That means that we know, for example, that Jereboam's son Nadab became king over Israel in the second year of King Asa of Judah, but we don't know how long that was after Adam or Noah or Abraham.
Still, the main point is that even if we did have a perfectly linked chronology from Adam through Zedekiah, such as the one seen in Genesis 5 or 1 Kings 15, above, we would still have no way to tell how long ago that time period started or ended. We would not be able to identify specific years, only relative years.
The only way we can start attaching specific years, like 4 BCE, or 70 CE, or 539 BCE to any of these "relative dates" is if we decide that we will accept non-Biblical dates, otherwise known as secular dates.
4 BCE is not a Biblical date, it's a secular date. 33 CE is not a Biblical date, it's a secular date. 607 BCE is not a Biblical date, it's a secular date. 587 BCE is not a Biblical date, it's a secular date 539 BCE is not a Biblical date, it's a secular date. The reason that is important is because the question about whether Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE or 587/6 BCE is often framed as if one of those dates is Biblical and the other is secular. They are both secular! Everyone in the world, incluing historians, scientists, archaeologists, Bible scholars, the Watch Tower Society and the Governing Body must rely completely on secular dates to figure out how many years ago a Biblical event might have happened. 
So what do we do?
We need to pick a secular date that we think we can trust and begin trying to link Biblical events to it.  Then we see if we can't create a chain of linked events backwards and forward from there. In fact, we need to pick several secular dates because the Bible's relative chronology does not really link the time around Adam, Noah and Abraham all the way through the time of the Judges and Kings. And after the Temple is rebuilt after the time of Ezra, the timeline stops again, so we'd need to find another secular date to see if we can match the time of Jesus birth, baptism, death, and any other events in the Christian Greek Scriptures.
We need to find some secular dates that we can trust! This is exactly where 539 BCE becomes so interesting. That's the time when Cyrus conquers Babylon, right? Yes, and it seems to be a perfectly good secular date for that event. If we accept it, we also get a pretty good idea when Jerusalem was destroyed. In fact, by accepting 539 BCE we ARE accepting the same secular chronology that pinpoints the destruction of Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year.
(2 Kings 25:8, 9) 8 In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. 9 He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; he also burned down the house of every prominent man.
This is the whole problem! We like 539 BCE, as the final year of a Babylonian king, but don't want Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year to be 587 BCE. We want his 19th year to be 607 BCE, instead. But we have a lot of trouble taking one without the other. In fact, if we say that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year must be 607 BCE, then that's the same thing as saying that Cyrus conquered Babylon in 559 BCE instead of 539 BCE.
It makes no sense to say one is Biblical and one is secular. They are both secular and if you say you trust that 539 BCE is correct, then that's also the same as saying you accept that 587/6 BCE, NOT 607 BCE, is the destruction of Jerusalem. Therefore the WTS has always been looking for a way to try to accept one part of the secular chronology without accepting another part of the same chronology.  Those attempts have never worked out, but this is what we'll need to discuss next.
 
 

Assumption alert!!! And you probably are aware of the acrostic version of ASSUME?
Far better minds than I have seen here (so far) have discussed these issues at length elsewhere. I am keenly awaiting additional insight relating to their deliberations as and when it arises. If there is something relevant that appears here, I think this comment indicates my interest:
 

Wow! You have a pretty low standard of what constitutes high luxury!
I'll have a serious discussion with anyone who is able and willing. But I haven't seen anything resembling such so far under this thread. Only the same old hoary chestnuts thrashed out ad nauseum elsewhere.
 I am sure something will surface eventually though, even if this question is addressed:
 

That might be so, but I believe it would help if sisters knew how to use their feminine qualities (not necessarily physical) to attract brothers. Spirituality should of course play a big role, but if a sister warns a prospective brother she is interested in, that when she has her monthly days she has to lock herself in her room, eat chocolate and breaks out in pimples is not an attractive visual. This honestly happened to a friend of mine. Needless to say he struck her off his list, despite the fact they were both pioneers and she was physically attractive AND had a job.  If she had kept this to herself, I am sure he would have never noticed had they got married. Some sisters just don’t seem to know that too much information is just too much information.

I am assuming your husband would let you know ("consult") if he was going to send money to his relatives and not just do it without telling you, and not do anything that you are not aware of, it's called communication.  Marriage is a partnership, where both are equal but only one makes the final decision.
Unfortunately many husbands are quite happy to abdicate their responsibility as heads, as a lot of men can be quite lazy, and so it's easier for them Then there are others who think that the only way to exercise headship is to be a tyrant.  As for women, I would say they are much cleverer than men in matters of the emotions. Men (in general) want to please a woman (and I’m not talking about sex) and feel fulfilled as men when they succeed.  Women can take advantage of that and wreak havoc with men’s minds (Eve, Delilah, Cleopatra, etc. etc.)This is where women wield a lot of power over men and this can be misused much to the detriment of both sexes. A woman can make or break a household, that’s how much power they have, regardless of whether the man acts as the head or not. When the scriptures talk about a woman having respect for her husband, it goes both ways of course. When they respect each other’s God given positions, and respect each other as human beings, only good can come out of that.
Well, that's Anna's wisdom for today. Exhausted myself

Only Jehovahs Witnesses because only Jehovahs Witnesses not destroyed??

Nope, you are not going to derail US into an off topic discussion!! Not falling for that!

I figure that, even if I didn't want to, I should do my part to bring this topic back to the 1290 and 1335 days. I requote the verses from 2 Thessalonians that Nana Fofana already quoted because so many of these recent speculations appear to me to fit the same idea that Paul warns us about. It's as if these speculations are intended to quickly shake us from our reason or "alarm" us into thinking that the "day of Jehovah" might be so imminent as to be immediately upon us. And there is often a sense that we must listen because this is just as important as hearing it from the apostles themselves: if we don't pay attention then we aren't paying attention to the Bible! This makes it fit the idea of "a letter as if from us [the apostles and inspired Bible writers]."
I say this, of course, while also admitting that prophetic speculation is interesting. Obviously, I do more than my share of such speculation myself. And I also believe that the day of Jehovah can come at any time now -- and will come as a surprise, as a thief in the night. I do not believe that we are still waiting for an additional specific fulfillment of the man of lawlessness, before the day of Jehovah can arrive. (2 Thess 2).
As I've said before, however, my take on this is rather boring. I expect exciting times ahead, but not because we can now see any specific events that would make us know anything about the times or seasons. It's one of the reasons I see a good portion of our current chronology as "broken." In Brother Splane's latest video about the generation, he points out the advancing age of some representatives of persons in "Group 2" to show how this system cannot last much longer. Pointing out that the system appears not to be able to go on much longer seems intuitive enough for a lot of reasons. But a claim that we "know" it due to Bible chronology, is a claim of knowledge that Jehovah says clearly he has not given to us, and we therefore need nothing to be written to us about it, because it's not for us to know; it comes as a thief! Instead, our current version times it to a time prior to the deaths of those in Group 2. In other words, we are now in exactly the same state we were when we were looking for a time prior to the deaths of those in Group 1, before a Group 2 was ever hypothesized.
(Acts 1:7) . . .“It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction. (1 Thessalonians 5:1, 2) . . .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. (Daniel 2:19-21) . . .So Daniel praised the God of heaven. 20 Daniel declared: “Let the name of God be praised for all eternity, For wisdom and mightiness are his alone. 21 He changes times and seasons,. . (Matthew 24:36) . . .“Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. I'm not saying that anyone here is trying to foretell the day and the hour, only that I see a parallel in what Paul said above, and in the common implication about identifying specific events that will reveal an end-times timeline.
I do have a couple ideas for the meaning of the 1290 and 1335 days that provides a specific lesson for Christians at all times, but which already had a prior application that was specific to those time periods. It's not necessarily correct, and of course something could still come up in the future that would reveal how silly all this speculation (on my part, at least) has been.
 
 
 
 

Dear AllenSmith,
you will surely have noticed that I use the translator (with many errors) because my english is poor.
So if I misunderstand a question or the purpose of a question, you will understand the reason.
Regarding the meaning of the article, I speak of personal experience (and not presumption). I know very well that with many of my brothers, who have many good qualities, you can not talk about doctrines, you can not challenge an "official truth" because otherwise you are automatically a murmur or apostate.
It's not a novelty that we can not recapture a doctrine so we're not talking about science fiction.
Continue to apply the scriptures to whomever you want. It is not my problem. You will not be judging

Dear AllenSmith,
If you want to push me to say "The Governing Body" then say "Then you are an apostate!" I assure you that this is not the point.
If I follow any person who has authority (true or supposed) above the Bible, then I am an idolater - Matthew 23: 8
If, on the other hand, there is someone who is able to enter the subject without taking a political position, let's see what the article is about to be published.
The article has highlighted the correct (right, right) method of doing a biblical search.
Who has the authority to determine whether a doctrine is correct or wrong?
Only the Bible - Matthew 4: 4, 7; John 17:17
The Son of God, every time he taught or responded to his adversaries, never forgot his own wisdom, but always mentioned the Scriptures - Matthew 15: 3-9
How can we make the Bible, and only the Bible, speak when we need to understand a doctrine or teaching?
We have to search the subject in all the scriptures that speak (and also read the context, obviously).
To do this, Concordance is very useful (as seen in the picture).
By doing this you will find that some doctrines are correct and some are wrong.
Those who really love the Bible will respect the Bible.
Those who love their religion, more than the Bible, will pretend nothing and find all "justifications" to continue in error.
Is the article intended to be a rebellion to religion or to create another religion?
Absolutely not because this is the people of God.
However, although this is the people of God this does not mean that there are both doctrinal and organizational errors.
If we read the warnings to the congregations reported in Revelation, we see that false teachings and bad people can enter into the people of God - Revelation 2: 1, 8, 12, 18; 3: 1, 7, 14 (see also 2 Timothy 2: 20-22)
He who examines the congregations will put things into place (even with severe discipline) so we look forward to him, without creating divisions.
But this does not mean that we do not have to study the Bible personally.
It does not mean that we do not have to understand what the Bible really teaches (though we find that some things taught are wrong) and does not mean that we do not have to act according to knowledge acquired according to conscience.
Studying the Bible is a duty of every Christian.
So, for some who understood the article, the encouragement is to study the Bible with the only truly neutral and accurate help: the Bible itself.
When the discipline comes (and it will come) no one thinks to say "I could not know. I was so taught in this way" because judgment will be individual on each of us.
Each of us has a Bible and has the ability to understand it, asking for help from God.
The reaction that someone has been commenting on this article should make us realize that some of us have become idolatrous.
Someone has put their own religion above the Word of God.
When it is not possible to discuss a doctrine (or anything else) even in the face of biblical evidence, it is evident that some people have been placed above the Word of God - Matthew 15: 6
This is one of the reasons (not the only one) for which God will punish his own people.
Individually, though, each of us can be protected from calamity.
I hope that each of you can evaluate this article carefully and personally ascertain what the will of God is for us.
 

Especially,... and also Tom, Dick and Harry Duds

Nope, you are not going to derail US into an off topic discussion!! Not falling for that!

Yes I'm sure Jesus had drug dealing dens in mind when he made that quote

Nope, you are not going to derail US into an off topic discussion!! Not falling for that!

Bethel has a long history of child labor:
(Genesis 35:16) 16 Then they pulled away from Bethʹel. . . .  Rachel began to give birth, and her labor was very difficult. And wickedness too:
(Amos 4:4) Come to Bethʹel and commit transgression,. . .

Exactly!

IT'S OUTRAGEOUS!!! THE WICKED PLACE EVEN MAKES BABIES WORK!!!!

He's the one on the right side of the picture.

So you think that the headline "Blood Transfusions Kill Millions" was a hyped-up lie to try to sell a patented solution to a problem that didn't work?
Wasn't this also found to be incorrect information (disinfo)? [The site quoted above also shows studies and experiments that include finding certain freezing/thawing methods to keep blood effective after storing for 37 years.]
At any rate, my point was that even if blood were 100% effective and safe, we should still avoid it if we truly believe this is Jehovah's will. If we begin selectively picking out negative studies, and ignoring more positive studies, we end up looking like we are embarrassed to hold to a Biblical position on the subject, and are hoping that we can find a secular reason to bolster our position.
It reminds me of what a Jewish person under the Mosaic law should do if he were starving to death and the only meat available to him that could save his life was the meat from a pig. Would he begin telling people that pig meat can be prone to trichinosis, and people have died from it? Or will he say that it's against God's law? (Of course, if he were truly dying, the position of Jesus appears to be that he should do what is unlawful in order to save a life.)
(Matthew 12:1-7) . . .disciples got hungry and started to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 At seeing this, the Pharisees said to him: “Look! Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3 He said to them: “Have you not read what David did when he and the men with him were hungry? 4 How he entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, something that it was not lawful for him or those with him to eat, but for the priests only? 5 Or have you not read in the Law that on the Sabbaths the priests in the temple violate the Sabbath and continue guiltless? 6 But I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 However, if you had understood what this means, ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice,’. . . There is more than one way to understand that passage, but it is clear that the conscience of some would allow them to get one thing out of it, and the conscience of another would allow them to get something else out of it.
By the way, I agree completely that there should technologies by now that would help with both increased volume and increased oxygenation. The position of JWs along with the financial costs of collecting and storing blood have already combined to help produce advances in these areas. Hopefully, more will be done sooner than later.

Exactly!

This is true. Blood is dangerous. Heart surgery is dangerous too and has killed many patients. But it has also saved many patients. It's the same with blood, which is why so many thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses take blood. They take it in fractional components. Most blood is stored in fractional components anyway. And most blood is supposed to be used within 42 days. This was true long before the Duke study, because it was already known that blood stored for 4 months was only about half as efficient for carrying oxygen.
The Duke study (this is only one of many Duke studies) was one of the most repeated in the media because it was the "scariest." But attempts to repeat the study with more randomized data did not fully confirm it. And the failure to show any difference by trying to bump up the nitrous oxide might be evidence that they were on the wrong track anyway.
None of this is evidence one way or another that Jehovah's Witnesses should reverse their conscience on blood. Blood saves lives in the same way that heart surgery saves lives. Just because something might save our life doesn't mean it's right. But we shouldn't have to find ourselves always trying to defend our position based on specific secular studies of risk vs benefit. Are human scholars that important to us? If we are right, why would it matter even if blood only saved lives 80% of the time or 50% or 20%? Is it men we are trying to please, or God?
The apostle Paul obviously didn't mind getting some blood in his meat, and said it was a matter of conscience. So let each one decide for himself, he said. As adults, we have the right to our own conscience in this matter. None of us should question the conscientious choice of another. I have a concern over whether we should force our conscience on unbaptized members of our household including small children, or should we follow the "higher authorities" of Romans 13:1.
Obviously, this discussion should go under another topic.
Edited to add: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851210/

I don't want to leave the organization. There's many things I admire about it. I just don't understand why every JW has to be in 100% agreement with all GB directions. I don't think the organization would descend into chaos if more matters were treated as conscience decisions. There are already areas of conscience like entertainment and the religion hasn't fallen apart over that.