God's Kingdom Rules

[Guest]

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

That's a fair assessment.

I thought the same. It's also somewhat the middle ground between what, in my understanding, you and JW Insider where saying. Anyway as I have already stated numerous times I really don't care much about chronology but I sure appreciate your fervor in defending our views.

[Anna]

6 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Hello, Anna.

I guess a wolf in sheep clothing makes no sense to you, but it does to me. The best way to deceive people is to make them think, that these opposing views merit consideration if other active witnesses are thinking along the same line apostates have been for decades with this issue. Personally, I think it’s a clever scheme. Unfortunately, it’s easy to spot.

No respectful active witness would argue against their own core value as much as JWinsider has. I also know my opponents and which other apostate sites they visit and write in.

But, I also have experienced Df’d witnesses pretending to be active and speak against the WTS. Perhaps reasoning becomes cloudy when one hasn’t experienced it.

 

 

I do not think JWInsider is arguing against his own core values at all.

I do not agree with everything JWInsider posts, and he himself is rarely (if ever) dogmatic. None of us should really insist that we are right, because regarding some subjects we REALLY DO NOT KNOW,  not a 100% and we won’t know until Jehovah finally reveals it all to us, (probably after Armageddon). What we are doing is reasoning on the information available to us. Some of that information may be wrong as well.

I cannot really comment properly on the 607/ 587 Chronology because I have not researched it enough myself like you and JWInsider have. I would have to read Carl Jonsson’s treatise, and a host of other things. I do not think I will any time soon, the main reason being that it is not THAT important to me (echoing the Praeceptors sentiments). I am more of a practical person, although I do find that kind of thing very interesting, to me there is nothing like real palpable evidence, not on paper, but real life. To me real life and experience proves that what we call Jehovah’ organization really does seem to have his blessing. It is by no means perfect, and I am good with that because that would not be realistic, but it is the best that’s out there, (echoing JWInsiders sentiments) so I’m going to stick with the best unless they prove otherwise…

I have personally not experienced Witnesses pretending to be Witnesses and actually be apostates or Df’d. That is not to say I am not aware or familiar with apostate reasoning and propaganda (Malawi/Mexico, NGO, Cigarettes, pedophilia, flags, Hitler, blood fractions, organ transplants, theocratic warfare, pyramids, Beth Sarim, etc. etc…….too many to name, and not including a host of “conspiracies”) . Also, I have read Raymond’s book, which was very interesting and informative, but also filled with little twists and half truths. So you see I am not ignorant when it comes to apostate reasoning.

By the way you write, it appears that you are pretty young. Age, experience and Christian qualities teach that we can put our point across with tact, and without resorting to insults and ad hominem remarks. Jesus and Jehovah never do that, and we should try to imitate them as best as we can, although it can be a struggle at times (talking about myself).

[Anna]

On 10/6/2016 at 5:23 AM, JW Insider said:

I think that if 587 were ever accepted we would not use it to end 2,520 years in 1934 so that we could reach 2034. If the WTS had wanted to reach 2034 it was still possible by pointing to the fact that there is always the possibility of 120-year-olds still alive in 2034. And of course, 120 could be argued to have a similar meaning in Noah's generation.

(Genesis 6:3) . . . Accordingly, his days will amount to 120 years.”

Because of the thousands of references to 1914 in the history of the Watchtower magazine (over 4,000 of them just since 1950), it's hard to see why 1914 would be tossed out just on account of a potential for a 20 year adjustment. Even if we accepted 587, we could still use 607 as the beginning of the time when Jehovah replaced the Assyrian empire with his "servant" the Babylonian empire in order to punish the nations around them (including the desolation on Judea and Jerusalem). It would not be any different from what has already been said about Babylon:

*** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***
He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble.

*** it-2 p. 1136 Tyre ***
Since the nations mentioned in the prophecy of Jeremiah were to “serve the king of Babylon seventy years” (Jer 25:8-11), this suggests that both the prophecy of Isaiah and that of Jeremiah related to Nebuchadnezzar’s campaign against Tyre.

In other words, the Watch Tower writers are already very aware that the "70 years" need not run from the destruction of Jerusalem, but can (and should) run from the beginning of Babylon's hegemony. The original tradition that Barbour utilized to reach 1914 came from chronology by Christopher Bowen, and likely included Even-Tide by John A Brown, but another book that Barbour claims to have studied (Horae Apocalypticae) mentioned 1914 directly by adding 2,520 years to the beginning of the Babylonian conquest -- the 70 years. A Bible Student site shows this at http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/history/05 Horae Third Edition Chronology.htm

Of course if calculated from Nebuchadnezzar's own accession and invasion of Judah, B.C. 606, the end is much later, being A.D. 1914; just one half century, or jubilean period, from our probable date of the opening of the Millennium.

This could also have started at the time of Nebuchadnezzar's time as an army general, or when his father first started their campaigns after the fall of Assyria in 609 BCE. The chronology appear to match within one to two years, depending on how soon after Assyria fell that Babylon would have begun their campaign for empire.

What would be ideal for the GB is to find a good reason to keep 1914 or at least 1919 without any need for chronology to reach the date. I'm sure they are already aware that the Bible only ties a time period of 1,260 days to the Gentile Times, not 2,520 -- so any major change to the chronology would have to address that problem, too. It might seem weak as a stand-alone doctrine, but the WTS has always seen a lot of significance in the reaction of a council of churches to the League of Nations in 1918 and 1919, during the same time period when the WTS underwent persecution nearly to the point of destroying the WTS. This is seen as prophetically significant even though there is no independent Bible chronology that points to 1919. Yet, there are several publications that mention 1919 more than 1914:

• In Isaiah's Prophecy I, the score is 27 to 10 (1919 mentioned 27 times, and 1914 only 10 times)
• In Isaiah's Prophecy II, the score is 67 to 20
• In Know Jehovah, the score is 82 to 31
• In Paradise Restored, the score is 105 to 67

And several other books are nearly tied or both dates are mentioned dozens of times. In God's Kingdom Rules book the score is 34 to 65. The Revelation Climax book scores 102 to 77, Worldwide Security scores 32 to 31.

1919 is critical because it is the means by which the GB gains authority. A "foundation" document or "foundation" event has always been necessary to the authority of any particular religion, and it is extremely difficult to have such a date (or document) appear in the recent past; too many people remember the chaos of disbelief and doubt. It is always more credible at a distance.

(Matthew 13:57) . . . A prophet is not without honor except in his home territory. . .

 

Sorry I forgot to comment, well I can't properly yet because I hate numbers (although they are very useful ) so it takes me a while to digest everything, but in essence I can see where you are coming from.

Have you noticed a common thread though, whenever anyone talks about the "end" it always comes in THEIR life time, (regardless of any Generation calculations) Russell 1874, Rutherford 1925, Franz (was it?) 1975 and now, although there is no date as such it is still supposed to happen in the current GB's life time. Isaac Newton was the only one that I know of that "predicted" the end well past his.

[JW Insider]

11 hours ago, ThePraeceptor said:

To be completely honest I personaly don't care at all who came up with the idea of the 2520 years etc. I don't care much about the chronology stuff. I simply try to follow the path that Jesus laid for all of us and to be of service to my fellow brothers and sisters in the congregation. As I have already stated in a previous post, the matter of the duration of the "generation", chronologies etc are not important to me because they are of no consequence to my life as a Christian Jehovah's Witness.

Believe it or not, that is my opinion, too. It doesn't matter who came up with 2,520 and the chronology stuff doesn't matter in the least. And we shouldn't be concerned about the length of the generation, either. Of course, I am taking it a step further and claiming that we shouldn't care at all about the chronology stuff. At least, that's how I read the warnings against chronology in the Greek Scriptures. Being of service to our fellow brothers and sisters in the congregation motivated by love for Jehovah and love for one another should be our priority.

11 hours ago, ThePraeceptor said:

I am also seeing the love and peace that there are worldwide among JWs and all the good deeds our brothers and sisters are doing. And you know very well that to do the right thing and to please Jehovah is not always that easy in this world we are living.

This is absolutely true. The love, peace, harmony and unity among the brothers is heartwarming and beautiful. I also have absolutely no problem with the vast majority of our doctrines, too. 

11 hours ago, ThePraeceptor said:

Why am I writing all these things to you? Just to explain why I jumped into the conversation you have with Allen. I don't know him just as I don't know you and to be honest I don't agree with his abrassive manners even though I agree with his trying to defend our beliefs. I also don't agree with your trying to prove that WTS is wrong.

Thanks for explaining. I very much expect persons like Allen to defend, and while the abrasive manner is what it is, I can see that it's usually sincere. And of course, we all know that questioning our own doctrines is immediately deemed a form of "treason" by some persons. This is to be expected, of course, but we also have to weigh our obligations to the congregation when we see a brother take a false step that may be stumbling others, or when making a conscientious decision about "how far it depends upon us" to either remain quiet or speak up when we see a danger. In this case, I understand why most would not believe there is any danger here, but in my case I am responding to the danger of upholding a tradition as more important than Biblical truth. Am I obligated to speak up in a certain way, time or place? I don't really know. I do know that I could never speak up in the local congregation this way, but I have been thoroughly surprised when taking up such matters with persons at Bethel for many years. Obviously, I have come to a different conclusion about whether it is right to speak up on a forum such as this one. I have also decided to give permission to anyone who asks to allow them to copy and re-use anything I write here on their own sites or forums. (1 Peter 3:15) And three have asked so far, although I don't know what might have been used.

11 hours ago, ThePraeceptor said:

Sometimes though I personaly can't help but to question your motives because in my view are falling short of Filippians 4:8,9. Of course I don't judge you. I am just laying out my thoughts. If you think that I am wrong thinking this way please explain to me why.

Naturally, I don't think it's wrong for you to think this way. All of us need to be guided by our own conscience. My motives, since you question them, are merely a love of truth and a love for God's word and a love for the worldwide brotherhood and a desire to do the right thing and keep a clean conscience. I don't expect these motives to be understood except by people who know that I'm telling the truth about what I have seen and heard. This is why the reaction by some is completely expected, and of course I am also very happy with responses like yours and many others here who react in a thoughtful manner. A good part of my motive can be explained by the very verses you referenced:

(Philippians 4:8, 9) . . .Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are of serious concern, whatever things are righteous, whatever things are chaste, whatever things are lovable, whatever things are well-spoken-of, whatever things are virtuous, and whatever things are praiseworthy, continue considering these things. 9 The things that you learned as well as accepted and heard and saw in connection with me, practice these, and the God of peace will be with you.

"Whatever things are true" are the most important, especially when truth appears to be overshadowed by a set of clear but "strongly entrenched" falsehoods. I believe that Jesus' words in Matthew 24 and elsewhere should be of "serious concern" especially when we have developed traditions that contradict his words. Eoin, in another thread, made a point about false prophecy and how it does not have to refer to a specific prediction but can be of a type that lulls persons into disbelief. That is the potential danger I see in the use of chronology doctrines during the time period when "a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." I believe Jesus was speaking about these last days that we live in when he gave us everything we needed to know about them, along with a warning against chronology. The Watchtower has correctly warned against serving Jehovah based on the time period we believe we are in, because this can easily influence whether we are truly appreciating Jehovah's patience and righteousness, or our own desire for an early salvation. We should be serving out of love and our opportunity to help others whether in favorable season or troublesome season. The sort of persons we ought to be is all about our motivation for doing what we do, not our knowledge, nor our personal virtuousness. 

The things we learned, heard and saw in connection with Paul's teaching should not be confused with the chronology traditions we have learned from men, that are so hard to break from. (Recall that Paul said that "as to the times and seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you.") Although, I know that I will suffer the accusation of being haughty for 'kicking against the goads' it has become obvious that it takes a lot more humility to admit that we may have been wrong, and even more humility to accept the ridicule when our conscience moves us to do the right thing for others even if we are repeating truths as we learned and accept them from the words of Jesus and Paul, for example.

I'd love to explain more, but I have a feeling I'm sounding too "preachy."

 

[Guest]

@JW Insider Thank you for your thorough answer. I understand now your point of view and I respect it although I don't agree completely with you. But that's just normal I guess as I don't think that there are two human beings on this planet with the exact same thoughts.

I don't want to address the points of your answer that I disagree with because I don't see a point doing so. I would just like to repeat what I wrote in one of my very first posts in here.

Given that there are apostates and any kind of opposers lurking in here I don't consider it as a sign of love (for our brotherhood and those taking the lead) to be vocal about disagreements we might have with the "official" understandings. Not because they shouldn't be adressed but because they can be taken out of context and used to make others stumble.

In the end all of us will have to face Jehovah's judgement and what we did or not (even in good faith) will come under scrutiny by the only real Judge.

Thank you again for your honest answer.

 

PS: You didn't sound "preachy" to me.

[JW Insider]

9 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

So my argument is not on Brown's intent, but rather in the dishonesty of having to disregard the “fact” that Brown’s book does reference 2520 years, no matter what circumstance he might have proposed. It could equally be perceivable that the mention of 1260 was NOT about the “gentile times” either since his focus was in the reconstitution of the nation of Israel.

The above is what you said primarily in defense of the Proclaimers book quote here:

16 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

He did, however, connect these “seven times” with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24.

OK. I disagree, but I think I understand your position a little better. It sounds like you are saying that even though Brown tied only the "1,260 years" to the phrase "Gentile Times" of Luke 21:24, you are saying that he didn't really tie 1,260 to them, because he didn't correctly understand what the "Gentile Times" were. And even though he said he was tying to "seven times" of Daniel 4 to a period that he said was different from the Gentile Times, in his opinion, it really was tied to the Gentile Times. (Because it was tied to fairly closely to the WTS version of the Gentile Times, in the opinion of the author of that section of Proclaimers. Therefore, just "the fact that Brown's book does reference 2520 years, no matter what circumstance he might have proposed" is close enough.

I get your position now. Here's the reason I don't accept it. For me, the criteria of accepting something as a true defense would mean that the same argument would make sense in both directions (It does not mean that I would have to accept the verdict of the same type of defense if the tables were turned, only that the argument was legitimate in both directions.)  For me, this is the way to invoke the Bible's principle:

(Proverbs 20:23) ²³ Two sorts of weights are something detestable to Jehovah, and a cheating pair of scales is not good.

So, I would have to test the legitimacy of the defense and ask how it would look in a hypothetically situation. Here's a hypothetical. Let's say that I believed the following three positions. Let's also call it the "WTS" position:

1. The 1,260 days referred to a time from around December 1914 to about the spring of 1918.
2. The "seven times" referred to a time from 607 BCE to 1914 CE.
3. The Gentile Times of Luke 21:24 refer to the "seven times" from 607 BCE to 1914.

Now, let's say that you, AllenSmith, are a believer in a resurgence of "Brownism," a religion based on John Aquila Brown's prophetic interpretations. Therefore you believe the following three positions:

1. The 1,260 days referred to a time of "Mohammedan Trampling" from 622 A.D. to 1844 A.D.
2. The "seven times" referred to a time from 604 B.C. to 1917 A.D.
3. The Gentile Times of Luke 21:24 refer to the 1,260 days of "Mohammedan Trampling" from 622 A.D. to 1844 A.D.

So, if it is OK for the WTS to claim that Brownists connected the "seven times" with the "Gentile Times" then it must also be OK for you Brownists to claim that the WTS has connected the 1,260 days with the "Gentile Times" of "Mohammedan Trampling."

That doesn't make a lot of sense, but you could at least argue that the WTS "references the 1,260 days, no matter what circumstance it might have proposed." Just because the WTS didn't understand the exact beginning and ending of the time period of Mohammedan Trampling, the WTS has still mentioned the Gentile Times and they have still spoken of the time period in terms of a trampling of God's chosen people. The Brownists can still reject the ultimate conclusion of the WTS as a non-starter but at least they can legitimately claim that the 1,260 was connected to the Mohammedan Trampling, and therefore also the "Gentile Times" of Luke 21:24.

To me, that argument would quickly be considered "apples and oranges" and should be rejected.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

It’s sad...etc

Before a few days ago I didn't know M.J.Penton, C.O.Jonsson and others even existed. You can safely say I was a happy man according to Psalm 1:1. ;-)

Now that I know some more things about them I just feel sad about these people that, when out of the congregation, couldn't go on with their lives and "pursuit happiness" but had to "research" and write books etc just to prove that THEY were right...

[Anna]

19 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Well, that would mean you don’t know the person your defending very well then.

Being “dogmatic” in arguing against the WTS 607BC and 1914AD is his forte. And he personally has stated as much.

Why would an honest Witness find a need to read apostate books to satisfy their need to know if they are false, and is a misrepresentation of the WTS. If one is interested in 586/7BC? All that is needed is to research history.

But people like JWinsider that agrees with Carl Olof Jonson assessment by calling the Works of Rolf Furuli dishonest, is the very definition of apostasy.

Now your statement makes no sense. JWinsider is the last person you should be using as a fine example of being a witness. But, that's your god given right. And I don't need to prove anything that shouldn't already be in one’s heart if you’re and honest and true witness.

I guess this is where that revered experience (“real life and experience”) comes into play. Raymond Franz was a good friend of mine. But that never stopped me from expressing how foolish and ignorant he had become by listening to his Df’d very good friend and apostate. But I have dealt with hundreds of others, if not thousands.

Yes, this point has been exhausted already by many here. Unfortunately, you defend people without having all the “facts” on how I’ve been treated here. In this respect, I’m not here to be defended like JWinsider? I’m here to show the dishonesty, deception and misrepresentation of the WTS. I don’t need a rapport with anyone.

But it’s interesting how you all of a sudden chose to defend JWinsider, when you haven’t with others. Kind of reminds me of Anna from the old forum.

 

 

 

I really do not feel like there is any point in arguing with you extensively, merely a few points to make sure other readers do not misunderstand.

1. I never said I wanted to read C. Jonsson's apostate book. I was referring to his treaties he sent to the society in the 70's, he was still a Witness in good standing then.

2. I said I was going to stick with the WTS because they are the best out there. And I said JWInsider said something similar. Where doesn't that make sense?

3. Please get out of the habit of assuming. The best thing to do is ask questions. Such as: "when you said this and that did you mean this?" It is very frustrating when you attribute thoughts to people, when the person didn't even think them. When I said I like real life and experience, why did you think that included reading apostate books? I did not mean that at all. Also I don't believe R. Franz was a good friend of yours. I think you made that up.

4. I have quite a few facts on how "you've been treated here", from the other forum as well. And yes, I am Anna from the other forum, I kept my name just like you and the others did.

5. I don't think you meant to say "I’m here to show the dishonesty, deception and misrepresentation of the WTS"

No need to reply to this. I don't really want to talk to you anymore. It seems like you are suffering from some kind of persecution complex and that hampers normal discussion. Thank you.

[Anna]

4 hours ago, ThePraeceptor said:

Before a few days ago I didn't know M.J.Penton, C.O.Jonsson and others even existed. You can safely say I was a happy man according to Psalm 1:1. ;-)

Now that I know some more things about them I just feel sad about these people that, when out of the congregation, couldn't go on with their lives and "pursuit happiness" but had to "research" and write books etc just to prove that THEY were right...

I hear you!

I look at it his way though, information IS power. But you are so right when you say they.." had to "research" and write books etc just to prove that THEY were right..."

THAT was their downfall, and pride. It always is. So if we keep information from making us haughty (merely informed/empowered) then we can still be happy 

P.S I like to read both the good and bad reviews when buying something or booking a vacation. I just like to be informed about the positive and the negative, it makes me feel...um...yes, empowered

[JW Insider]

11 hours ago, Anna said:

Have you noticed a common thread though, whenever anyone talks about the "end" it always comes in THEIR life time, (regardless of any Generation calculations) Russell 1874, Rutherford 1925, Franz (was it?) 1975 and now, although there is no date as such it is still supposed to happen in the current GB's life time. Isaac Newton was the only one that I know of that "predicted" the end well past his.

Good point. A brother once showed me a commentary in the Bethel Library published in the late 1700's or early 1800's that indicated it was a type of arrogance for every generation everyone to always believe that the last generation was going to be their own generation, and yet there have always been many who argued just that. I haven't been able to find that commentary yet, but it certainly fits the evidence.

The information below is from a book by a certain infamous "COJ," so read it at your own risk. During the time period when the Gentile Times were almost invariably associated with 1,260 years, note how most of the applications of those 1260 years were applied to a time that would end just a few years into the future (or a few years in the past such that a parallel period of 1290, or 1335 years would still extend the "end" into their own generation). There are only a couple of exceptions. For each set of three lines below, the numbers refer to the:

• Name of author/expositor
• Approximate year of publication
• Years to which the 1,260 (or 1,290) days applied
•  
• Joachim of Floris
• 1195
• 1-1260
•  
• Arnold of Villanova
• 1300
• c. 74-1364 (Gentile Times=1290 years)
•  
• Walter Brute
• 1393
• 134-1394
•  
• Martin Luther
• 1530
• 38-1328 (Gentile times =1290 years)
•  
• A. Osiander
• 1545
• 412-1672
•  
• J. Funck
• 1558
• 261-1521
•  
• G. Nigrinus
• 1570
• 441-1701
•  
• Aretius
• 1573
• 312-1572
•  
• John Napier
• 1593
• 316-1576
•  
• D. Pareus
• 1618
• 606-1866
•  
• J. Tillinghast
• 1655
• 396-1656
•  
• J. Artopaeus
• 1665
• 260-1520
•  
• Cocceius
• 1669
• 292-1552
•  
• T. Beverley
• 1684
• 437-1697
•  
• P. Jurieu
• 1687
• 454-1714
•  
• R. Fleming, Jr.
• 1701
• 552-1794 (1260 years of 360 days = 1242 Julian years)
•  
• R. Fleming, Jr. (adjusted)
• 1701
• 606-1848
•  
• William Whiston
• 1706
• 606-1866
•  
• Daubuz
• 1720
• 476-1736
•  
• J. Ph. Petri
• 1768
• 587-1847
•  
• Lowman
• 1770
• 756-2016
•  
• John Gill
• 1776
• 606-1866
•  
• Hans Wood
• 1787
• 620-1880
•  
• J. Bicheno
• 1793
• 529-1789
•  
• A. Fraser
• 1795
• 756-1998 (1242 Julian years)
•  
• George Bell
• 1796
• 537-1797
•  
• George Bell (adjusted)
• 1796
• 553-1813
•  
• Edward King
• 1798
• 538-1798
•  
• Galloway
• 1802
• 606-1849 (1242 Julian years)
•  
• W. Hales
• 1803
• 620-1880
•  
• G. S. Faber
• 1806
• 606-1866
•  
• W. Cuninghame
• 1813
• 533-1792
•  
• J. H. Frere
• 1815
• 533-1792
•  
• Lewis Way
• 1818
• 531-1791
•  
• W. C. Davis
• 1818
• 588-1848
•  
• J. Bayford
• 1820
• 529-1789
•  
• John Fry
• 1822
• 537-1797
•  
• John Aquila Brown
• 1823
• 622-1844

 

 

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

indicated it was a type of arrogance for every generation everyone to always believe that the last generation was going to be their own generation

I more inclined to think it as a form of "I don't want to die" thing and not so as a sign of arrogance per se.

[Evacuated]

22 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

a type of arrogance for every generation everyone to always believe that the last generation was going to be their own generation

Is this actually a true statement in the light of Peter's words at 2Pet 3:12, or would it be more appropriately applied to those he describes at 2Pet.3:3-4?