Jump to content

JW Insider

ALL aspects of 1914 doctrine are now problematic from a Scriptural point of view

Recommended Posts

Guest J.R. Ewing

I suspected as much. Deflecting, from a simple question by giving “ad hominem” answers. I guess these are the “differences” between witnesses. Laughable! For one, I wasn’t referring to you defending COJ, but rather his findings, that by enlarge have been a focus by other scholarly intellects that you don't focus on since other scholars can come and have come to a different conclusion. If no one knows of COJ’s work, then why do you persist in “applying” his ideology to your own.

How about owning what you write for once!

So, don’t evade the question with nonsensical parlay.

The QUESTION still stands. How can you justify this historical discrepancy of Nebuchadnezzar 1 with his son Belbini 440 years later, since you keep insisting the chronology mentioned in COJ’s book is FACT? I’m noting suggesting he mentioned Nebuchadnezzar 1. That’s the point, he only used evidence that would agree with his outcome, NOT ALL THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

What preaching campaign did he or the other man go on to found?

Look, I understand that the above question could be seen as blowing off research and reveling in ignorance. But as @Arauna has helped us to see, 'scientific research' in this system of things is no more than the children's game 'King of the Mountain' to prove "who's da man?" - not unlike those big, stupid, (blush) male animals ramming each other with their horns. The victors shove everyone else off the field. It happens everywhere in science. The fault does not lie in science, but in those who put slavish faith in it. Today's science is trumped by human politics - call it 'male ego' if you must - every time, so that it must be taken with a grain of salt.

Your last paragraph there is preaching to the choir. I agreed 100% with @Arauna on those sentiments. But I disagree that we, (in representing and promoting the Watchtower's doctrines), should so slavishly put faith in the secular date 539/8 as if it is some holy grail that stands by itself. In truth, the evidence for 539/8 is excellent, but it really is NOT as good as the evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's "18th/19th" corresponds to 587/6. (Sorry about the slashes.) I like something that @Gone Fishing said, about how we rely on secular chronology for a doctrine that seems so important to a lot of us here. What you said about 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 is actually what opened my eyes to finally look at the evidence myself. And that's why I blame-shifted and projected the same useful counsel right back onto Russell himself. Why would any doctrine for Christians need to be based on a secular date like 539/8? Our 1914 doctrine REQUIRES that we put slavish faith in this secular date, in spite of everything we are willing to denigrate about secular dates, scientists, archaeologists.

I have no problem at all pointing to the times we have been living in since 1914 as evidence that we need God's Kingdom to be manifested for all mankind. It's the only solution, and it is all the more proved to be the only solution, as man gets himself further and further into trouble. The more advantages and knowledge we have for solving problems, the worse things get, based on greed and the human condition. Sorry . . . .now who's preaching to the choir?

You also asked that question about "What preaching campaign did he . . . found?"

I don't think he would have had patience to work on this from 1968 to 1975 if he was really looking to start something himself. Of course, I can see how ego might have come into play, but I don't know him, and I've heard that he was one of those who likes a low profile. It's easier for me to picture someone who likes to do research as a person who wants to keep a low profile, because that's also the way I am in front of people in the congregation. Probably true of most nerdy types. He must have respected the brothers in Brooklyn enough to want to ask the full question correctly, dotting all the i's and crossing all t's (assuming they have those letters in cuneiform). I'm sure he thought the brothers would be interested because it was obvious that what he was learning was very relevant to the 1914 doctrine. I talked to two brothers on the Aid Book project who said they already knew what was coming even before they had seen what  COJ had sent. They said they could guess what was in it, and had known themselves since the 1960's. But both of these brothers thought it better to just discuss it only with trusted friends.

By 1980 every researcher associated with the 1969 "Chronology" article in the Aid Book was under suspicion, and most were dismissed from Bethel before the end of 1980. But they remained elders and special pioneers because this is what they really wanted. It wasn't until someone came around to disfellowship one of them that he was forced out, not because he wanted to be disfellowshipped. From what I have read, it's the same with R.Franz. He wanted to stay in the brotherhood, and in his congregation, and had nothing against any and nothing against the Society, and no reason to "badmouth" it. It seems that in both cases, the books they wrote were published only after they believed there was false information being spread. In a related case, when I was at Bethel, I knew a few of the proofreaders especially because they often needed reference books to look up exact quotes, even for translating to other languages. When I heard that 4 of them were under questioning, 2 married couples, I saw one brother's wife trying to hide tears at lunchtime. When I told the brother that I heard the rumor, he said it was tough but, fortunately, Brother Sydlik had said he thought it would be OK for them because as he supposedly said "I can tell that you and your wife really love Jehovah, and that's why you don't really have anything to worry about." By the next morning, I had learned that it was later on that same afternoon the previous day that they had learned they were all being disfellowshipped. But within hours, the rumor had surfaced that they must not have been just apostates but must have also been "swingers" who changed marriage partners, and that the men must have also been homosexuals. I was appalled by how fast those two rumors spread. Later we discovered that one of the wives was not disfellowshipped, but somehow that didn't stop the ugly rumors from being stated as solid facts by then. My point is that none of the brothers I knew who had been either involved or semi-involved in this apostasy had really wanted to leave and start anything on their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@J.R. Ewing

Quote

Now according to some 19th century and early 20th century historians

Who? 

Quote

Belibni (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar l)

'Perceived' by whom? When? Reference please.   

Quote

Nabopolassar (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar ll) Book of Judith

The author misidentified the king in the apocryphal story.  

Quote

Nabopolassar ll ?

?

Quote

Nebuchadnezzar ll (Perceived Nebuchadnezzar lll) House of Igibi

Too little information to go on. Is there a tablet number? Do you have a specific publication in mind where this tablet is discussed.

Give us something more concrete about your alleged discrepancies and maybe we can help you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Deflecting, from a simple question by giving “ad hominem” answers.

Seriously, I would be happy to try to address your question. Just ask it! I might not know the answer but I am happy to learn, especially if it means I get the excuse to do some more research.

2 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

For one, I wasn’t referring to you defending COJ, but rather his findings, that by enlarge have been a focus by other scholarly intellects that you don't focus on since other scholars can come and have come to a different conclusion.

Still not sure why you appear to obsess about COJ's findings. If he found something, I'd rather go to the source of the evidence he found, not go second-hand through him. If you have a question about what other scholars have found, and their different conclusions, that might be interesting. Do you plan on being specific about any of this?

2 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

If no one knows of COJ’s work, then why do you persist in “applying” his ideology to your own.

I'm getting the impression that you must want people to think you are obsessed with COJ. Why be so concerned about him? This is exactly like having 1,000 persons tell you that World War II started in 1914, but you want to believe it started in 1894, so you'd obsess about the fact that just one of those 1,000 persons had rabies. Ignore COJ. I think the only reason a person would try to associate the Neo-Babylonian chronology with COJ is because it probably plays to an audience who don't realize that COJ had nothing to do with confirming or disconfirming the Neo-Babylonian timeline.

2 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

The QUESTION still stands. How can you justify this historical discrepancy of Nebuchadnezzar 1 with his son Belbini 440 years later, since you keep insisting the chronology mentioned in COJ’s book is FACT? I’m noting suggesting he mentioned Nebuchadnezzar 1. That’s the point, he only used evidence that would agree with his outcome, NOT ALL THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK! That's a start. I take back everything I said above. That's a real question. When I break it down, however, I see that you have disqualified it from being a sincere question by adding the phrase: "since you keep insisting the chronology mentioned in COJ's book is FACT." I have never insisted that the chronology mentioned in COJ's book is FACT. I don't know that it is FACT. You are the one who is always concerned about COJ. I don't need COJ to learn about what he discovered. This should be about evidence not a man called "COJ."

But I can try to remove the distractions from your question and see if I can understand what you really intended to ask. You can tell me if you think I am guessing correctly. I'll try to do this later though. Right now my full attention is being totally eclipsed by a separate distraction.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, bruceq said:

I would rather "PROMOTE"  the "foolish" Governing Body to feed us than you and Christendom's "wise" scholars. Why do you continue to promote the teachings of Babylon the Great? 1 Cor. 1:24-31.

You were suppose to "get OUT of her my people" not go BACK to her my people. Rev. 18:4.

You do realize that we got this doctrine from Christendom, right?

Quote

*** jv chap. 10 p. 134 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth ***
The matter of Bible chronology had long been of great interest to Bible students. Commentators had set out a variety of views on Jesus’ prophecy about “the times of the Gentiles” and the prophet Daniel’s record of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream regarding the tree stump that was banded for “seven times.”—Luke 21:24, KJ; Dan. 4:10-17.
As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in London, England, calculated the “seven times” of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length. But he did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did, however, connect these “seven times” with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. In 1844, E. B. Elliott, a British clergyman, drew attention to 1914 as a possible date for the end of the “seven times” of Daniel, but he also set out an alternate view that pointed to the time of the French Revolution. Robert Seeley, of London, in 1849, handled the matter in a similar manner. At least by 1870, a publication edited by Joseph Seiss and associates and printed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was setting out calculations that pointed to 1914 as a significant date, even though the reasoning it contained was based on chronology that C. T. Russell later rejected.
Then, in the August, September, and October 1875 issues of Herald of the Morning, N. H. Barbour helped to harmonize details that had been pointed out by others. Using chronology compiled by Christopher Bowen, a clergyman in England, and published by E. B. Elliott, Barbour identified the start of the Gentile Times with King Zedekiah’s removal from kingship as foretold at Ezekiel 21:25, 26, and he pointed to 1914 as marking the end of the Gentile Times.
Early in 1876, C. T. Russell received a copy of Herald of the Morning. He promptly wrote to Barbour and then spent time with him in Philadelphia during the summer, discussing, among other things, prophetic time periods.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

You do realize that we got this doctrine from Christendom, right?

We? You promote Christendom's chronology. {And your constant complaining and disdain and bad attitude to those taking the lead in Jehovah's Organization}  I was just appointed a Ministerial Servant so I am not as experienced and as smart as you who is as you say an ex Bethelite but I know what Loyalty is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said earlier - the ONLY secular date that is without question is when Cyrus sent the Jews back to Jerusalem.  Read the Persian dynasty regarding the kings, their dates; as well as the number of years they reigned. 

The organization's chronology makes sense as the kings and their number of years on the throne have to fit in with the beginning of the 70 weeks prophecy. ..... and we all know that Jesus came exactly oon time..... .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Arauna said:

As I said earlier - the ONLY secular date that is without question is when Cyrus sent the Jews back to Jerusalem. 

Apologies if this sounds too blunt, but that is simply a false statement. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

By the next morning, I had learned that it was later on that same afternoon the previous day that they had learned they were all being disfellowshipped. 

I wouldn't like to have 'crossed' King David when he was ruling. These are things that are 'too high' for me.

Uriah will surely have a reality check when he discovers that David, not only had him killed, but had him carry his own order of execution to Joab. Moreover, Jehovah overlooked it, went on to bless David greatly, and blessed his son by his ex-wife even more. "What am I - chopped liver?" he will say.

And that is only because David had the hots for his wife. Imagine if he thought Uriah was messing with the kingdom!

There are some things you do not mess with and people of the last days are too stupid to know that. Reporters peer into the pants of leaders to tell of their soiled underwear and are dumbfounded that said leaders get mad.

As to the brothers back then, I won't attribute ill conduct to any of them. I will follow the counsel given somewhere that if a friend has consistently proven himself honorable, you do not turn upon him at the first questionable report. You think: "well, probably there are things I do not know about." Having said that, one can always revert to the remarks already made about David behaving unseemly.

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But within hours, the rumor had surfaced that they must not have been just apostates but must have also been "swingers" who changed marriage partners, and that the men must have also been homosexuals. I was appalled by how fast those two rumors spread

That is the nature of rumors. You don't want to get caught in one. Most likely there was a grain of truth somewhere that someone built on and others blew it viral. Imagine what can be done, for example, with reports that men are sitting naked together in the sauna. It's why one must always be cautious about what they relate. I keep thinking of the scripture that tells how Jehovah feels about spreading contention among brothers.

I don't see any reason, per se, to vilify men like COJ. But neither do I want to sanctify him. There's a time to back off. Even if he felt maneuvered into a tight spot, he could have always clawed his way back, making whatever amends he had to.  Michael Jackson made the Thriller album and, to deal with the fallout, expressed regret over doing that type of music, which was woven into a magazine article on (then) questionable music, he being quoted anonymously. True, he later came to grumble about that 'discipline,' but it may have been better had he taken it to heart. His later years didn't really go that well for him, did they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2017 at 4:35 PM, Nana Fofana said:

***There is no evidence whatsoever in support of the claim that Themistocles died in 471/70 BC. None of the sources referred to by the (WT) Society says so,.....***

........??The (WT) Society quotes Diodorus Siculus in support of the 471/70 date for the beginning of the defamation of Themistocles,?????

but avoids to mention Diodorus' statement that, on Themistocles' arrival in Asia Minor, Xerxes was still on the throne in Persia!  (Diodorus Siculus, XI:54-59)

This, of course, conflicts with Thucydides' statement that Themistocles' letter from Asia Minor was sent to Artaxerxes."

I can tell what happened here. Even though I wasn't familiar with this supposed controversy and had never read about it in COJ's book, it seemed obvious that you missed the actual point of the statement you quoted above, and which I highlighted in red. COJ did not word this statement very well, but you can catch his meaning perfectly from the context you provided. I'll add a little more context from that section of the book so you can see if this makes sense:

Quote

The Watch Tower Society argues that Themistocles died about 471/70 BC. . . . These arguments have a superficial strength, only because the Watch Tower Society leaves out some very important information. In proof of their claim that Themistocles met Artaxerxes after his arrival in Persia, they quote Plutarch’s information that "Thucydides and Charon of Lampsacus relate that Xerxes was dead, and that it was his son Artaxerxes with whom Themistocles had his interview". But they left out the second part of Plutarch's statement, which says: " . . . but Ephorus and Dinon and Clitarchus and Heracleides and yet more besides have it that it was Xerxes to whom he came. With the chronological data Thucydides seems to me more in accord, although these are by no means securely established." The Watch Tower Society, then, conceals that Plutarch goes on to say that a number of ancient historians had written about this event, and that most of them stated that Xerxes, not Artaxerxes, was on the throne when Themistocles came to Persia. . . .

But even if Themistocles really may have met Artaxerxes, there is nothing to show that this occurred in the 470’s. There is no evidence whatsoever in support of the claim that Themistocles died in 471/70 BC. None of the sources referred to by the Society says so, and some of them, including Plutarch, clearly show that he died much later, in about 459 BC. (Plutarch's Lives, XXXI:2–5) A considerable time passed after the attempt to defame Themistocles in Athens in the archonship of Praxiergus (471/70 BC) until his interview with Artaxerxes (or Xerxes). It took several attempts before the enemies of Themistocles succeeded and forced him to flee, first from Athens and finally from Greece. Cambridge Ancient History (Vol. 5, pp. 62ff.) dates this flight to 569 BC. He first fled to some friends in Asia Minor, where he stayed for some time. The Society quotes Diodorus Siculus in support of the 471/70 date for the beginning of the defamation of Themistocles, but avoids to mention Diodorus’ statement that, on Themistocles’ arrival in Asia Minor, Xerxes was still on the throne in Persia! (Diodorus Siculus, XI:54–59) This, of course, conflicts with Thucydides’ statement that Themistocles’ letter from Asia Minor was sent to Artaxerxes.

So COJ has already explicitly stated that the Society does indeed argue that Thermistocles died about 471/70. (He also points out that it's an argument the Society gets, at least indirectly, through Christendom, originating with a Jesuit theologian and an archbishop in the 17th century.) COJ's point here is that the Watch Tower Society leaves out information which would show what the real point of the source material is. As you saw from a previous question you asked, the Society did exactly the same thing in another place in the "Insight" book when they claimed they were giving the "Jewish understanding" from Soncino, but left out just enough words to hide the fact that they were only pretending to give the Jewish understanding. In this case COJ is saying that although the WTS was quoting Diodorus Siculus in support of Thermistocles death in 471, they were actually quoting source material that never claimed anything about a death in 471, but another event in his life that must have happened well before he died anyway. So it should have been worded:

Quote

"The Society claims to quote Diodorus Siculus in support of Thermistocles death in 471, but they are really only quoting a source in support of 471 for the beginning of the defamation of Thermistocles."

I've learned that it doesn't take much to catch the Society in these bits of "scholastic dishonesty." It's hard to say whether it's incompetence or deliberate or they just read with a kind of "wishful thinking" that some secular sources might somehow be found to offer support. I didn't know this particular one at all, but I am very disappointed that it keeps happening. I'm not sure if COJ ever noticed the previous one we talked about (the "Jewish understanding") but I can see that COJ has seen several more of these examples, and I know I have seen several too that COJ probably never deals with in his book. 

On 8/21/2017 at 4:35 PM, Nana Fofana said:

[seems like deliberate confusion -sowing, or worse, by C. O. Jonsson]

It turns out, however, that COJ was right in this case, and the Watch Tower Society was wrong.

On 8/21/2017 at 5:20 PM, Nana Fofana said:

Should "series"  always be in quotes , when referring to these clay tabs of Babs?

This was from your post about Grayson's book. (Which is excellent, btw) The reason this book review uses the term "Series" like this is to avoid the repetition of the longer phrase, "Babylonian Chronicle Series." The book itself has some very good information about why 539 is no better a date to call "absolute" than any other date in the Neo-Babylonian chronology, and why the supposed break at 539 is arbitrary. The reviewer alludes to it, saying:

On 8/21/2017 at 5:20 PM, Nana Fofana said:

Although the Persian period clearly constitutes a break in the sequence,

In Grayson's book, what was meant by this is that there is a 50 year gap in the Series after 539, but excellent coverage in the 50+ years prior.  (The book review you mentioned takes exception to Grayson calling ALL of the chronicles the "Babylonian Chronicle Series" especially because she sees no real continuity between ALL the chronicles in this "Series" especially due to the long break in the eras covered.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Even if he felt maneuvered into a tight spot, he could have always clawed his way back, making whatever amends he had to.

I think this is usually true. If I were asked about my activity here, and it's bound to happen, I can say that I did what I thought was right at the time (which I do) but that I can do whatever it takes to make amends. I have seen this stuff go on for 40 years, and I am a very patient man . . .

I'm a very gentle man
Even-tempered and good-natured who you never hear complain 
Who has the milk of human kindness by the quart in every vein
A patient man am I, down to my fingertips
The sort who never would, never could
Let an insulting remark escape his lips 
A very gentle man

Of course, sometimes the brothers who have to do the questioning might have a completely different idea of motivations or reasonableness. Galileo could avoid disfellowshipping by just admitting that he was wrong, but it's hard to put all that stuff back in the telescope once it's been seen. It takes a lot of humility to recant when you think someone is asking you to: "Admit that 2+2=5, because Jehovah says so!!" You just have to be able to empathize, put yourself in their shoes, and remember that the roles could so easily have been reversed if they had had the same experiences you had, and you had the same experiences they had.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

I would say his deception was deliberate to get Raymond Franz to drive home the point, that 587/6BC had to be the starting point to align the Kings according to a Jewish timeline that would legitimize the Jewish wars of 1947 and 1967.

That’s why a simple question that was posted cannot be answered with the scrutiny it needs.

I had no idea that COJ was into legitimizing the Jewish wars of 1947 and 1967. Sounds pretty strange to me. And of course I had no idea that he was trying to deceive R.Franz into using the accepted timeline to get him to legitimize. I had no idea what you meant previously by saying that I had the same ideology as COJ. And of course, I didn't know that this was the reason that I hadn't answered your simple question yet.

Seriously, though, although I know that it's a common belief about Israel among Bible scholars and pretend Bible scholars, I did not know that COJ got into this, too. Where did you find this? In spite of @Nana Fofana's experience, I can't find anything about COJ when I look for his full name plus 1967 war, 1947 Palestine, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Watchtower was somehow associated with the “William Miller” Movement.

The Watchtower associated themselves with the "William Miller" movement by accepting the 1844 date as a date given in Bible prophecy. This does not mean that Russell was a Second Adventist, or even wanted to be associated with William Miller. He was embarrassed at their date failure, and was hesitant to admit that his fascination with the Second Adventists was primarily about their chronology. As he studied he found that he did not agree with the Adventists on a lot of things, but he always remained absorbed with their chronology. When Russell published Watch Towers that called William Miller "Father Miller" he was offering unnecessary respect to the man. But he claimed that the Millerites showed themselves to be foolish virgins whose lamps had run out of oil because they stopped setting dates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

True, but what I see off of COJ’s book aside from time errors, his insistence of wanting people to believe the Watchtower was somehow associated with the “William Miller” Movement.

I can't tell if you are just making up things as diversions. Should I assume this when you make statements that are not backed up with evidence? For example, I have COJ's book as a PDF and just searched through it for anything about Israel/Palestine/1946/1967 and it looks like there is no evidence for what you claimed previously. Do you have any evidence?

I mentioned this already, and rather than respond, you changed the subject to how COJ insists that people believe the Watchtower was associated with WIlliam Miller. So I look up every instance of William Miller in his book, and, as I've come to expect by now, there was nothing there that ties William Miller to the Watchtower. He merely mentions Miller in the list of persons and groups that are part of the history of various Gentile Times doctrines. So how can COJ be insisting on something that he doesn't even mention is connected with the Watchtower? Again, do you have any evidence? Or am I supposed to assume that you made this up?

I have found closer connections in our own publications, than in COJ's book about a relationship with the movement of William Miller:

  • *** jv chap. 4 p. 40 The Great Apostasy Develops ***
  • In the United States, William Miller predicted the return of Christ in visible form in 1843 or 1844. The German theologian J. A. Bengel set the date for 1836; . . . Such efforts to keep on the watch served to awaken many to the prospect of our Lord’s return.

Russell wrote some interesting things about Miller as I said. As I also said, he did not want to be associated directly with William Miller or tied in any way to the failure and disappointment of Miller. But he did speak of the work of Miller as being foreordained through prophecy, and therefore the references to various dates with respect to Miller as fulfilling Bible prophecy, such as 1829, 1844, and later 1859, too, although this date was dropped early because it had referred solely to the work of Barbour as the vehicle of the Midnight Cry in the parable of the 10 virgins. Here is some of what Russell wrote and published, among other things, about Miller, in Volume 3, Studies in the Scriptures, p.86,87:

Quote

A religious movement culminated in 1844, the participants in which were then, and since, generally known as "Second Adventists" and "Millerites," because they expected the second advent of the Lord to occur at that date, and because a Mr. William Miller was the leader and prime mover. The movement, which began about 1829, had before 1844 (when they expected the Lord's return) attracted the attention of all classes of Christian people, especially in the Eastern and Middle States where it amounted to an excitement. . . .   But, notwithstanding the disappointment, the movement had its designed effects--of awakening an interest in the subject of the Lord's coming, and of casting reproach upon the subject by reason of mistaken expectations. We say designed effects because without a doubt the hand of the Lord was in it. It not only did a work corresponding to that of the first advent movement, when our Lord was born, when the wise men came from the East and when "all men were in expectation of him", but it corresponded with it in time also, being just thirty years before the anointing of our Lord, at thirty years of age, at the beginning of his work as Messiah. That "Miller movement," as it is slightingly called, brought also an individual blessing to the "holy people" who participated in it: . . .  we recognize that movement as being in God's order, and as doing a very important work in the separating, purifying, refining, and thus making ready, of a waiting people prepared for the Lord. And not only did it do a purifying and testing work in its own day, but, by casting reproach upon the study of prophecy and upon the doctrine of the Lord's second advent, it has ever since served to test and prove the consecrated, regardless of any association with Mr. Miller's views and expectations. The very mention of the subject of prophecy, the Lord's coming and the Millennial Kingdom, now excites the contempt of the worldly-wise, especially in the nominal church. But the "Miller movement" was more than this; it ws the beginning of the right understanding of Daniel's visions, and at the right time to fit the prophecy. Mr. Miller's application of the three and a half times (1260 years) was practically the same as that we have just given, but he made the [C87] mistake of not starting the 1290 and 1335 periods at the same point. Had he done so he would have been right. On the contrary, he started them thirty years sooner--about 509 [A.D.] instead of 539 [A.D.], which ended the 1335 days in 1844, instead of 1874.* It was, nevertheless, the beginning of the right understanding of the prophecy; for, after all, the 1260 period, which he saw correctly, was the key; and the preaching of this truth (even though in combination with errors, and misapplications, and false inferences) had the effect of separating and purifying "many," and at the very time the Lord had foretold. . . . Thus it will be seen that the separating work of the "Miller movement" had its beginning at the time foretold-- at the end of the 1290 days, 1829.

The May 1883 Watchtower contained the portion you quoted, and some other points:

Quote

 

Father Miller, upon whom so much reproach has fallen (but who was a devoted Christian man of irreproachable Christian character), saw that there was an important, prophetic point in about 1843, . . .

That awakening set many Christians to examining the Word with extreme care, the result of which is that many interesting parallels between the Jewish and Gospel ages have been discovered, and it is now convincingly known that the first step toward the second advent did take place at or about that time, but not in the manner that Father Miller had expected. . . .

In 1833 "Father Miller" began to lecture upon the second coming of Christ, and premised that it would take place in the fall of 1843. In 1832 the electro-magnetic telegraph was conceived by Morse while on a transatlantic voyage, and it was born in 1835 . . . we would not be too slow to mark the striking coincidence of events which seem to indicate the fulfillment of prophecy.

 

The above article was written by J.C.Sunderlin, and only approved and published by Russell. But the most important connection to Millerism was what Russell himself  had described a couple years earlier. The article below is from October 1881, and was the very important announcement that the "door was shut." No more persons would be chosen for the 144,000 as of October 3rd, 1881.

 

Quote

 

"AND THE DOOR WAS SHUT."

For the sake of the many new readers of the WATCH TOWER, it may not be amiss to give a general review of the steps of faith by which the Lord has been leading us as a people, during the last seven years, and in a general sense during the preceding thirty-five years.

The parable of "The Ten Virgins" . . . "Then shall the kingdom of heaven (church) be likened unto ten virgins which took their lamps (Bibles) and went forth to meet the Bridegroom" (i.e.,)they went forth or separated themselves because of their belief that the Bridegroom, Jesus, was about to come.

While we are neither "Millerites" nor "Adventists," yet we believe that this much of this parable met its fulfillment in 1843 and 1844, when William Miller and others, Bible in hand, walked out by faith on its statements, expecting Jesus at that time. . . .  As a general arousing of the church to the investigation of God's Word had attended the preaching of Mr. Miller, and the Word was more studied than ever before, especially the Prophecies, so when his calculations seemed to end in such bitter disappointment, a spirit of drowsiness followed; some slumbered, some slept, and many vagaries—dreamings incidental to sleep soon sprung up.

The next important step of the parable (verse 6) is the midnight cry. The night of the parable was the time during which the disappointment lasted and the sleeping occurred, and was to end with joy in the morning, when, the tarrying being ended, the Bridegroom would be present.

As the former movement in the parable had been represented by Miller and others, so to this second movement we give a similar application. A brother, B__________ of Rochester, was, we believe, the chosen vessel of God through whom the "Midnight Cry" issued to the sleeping virgins of Christ, announcing a discrepancy of thirty years in some of Miller's calculations, and giving a rearrangement of the same argument (and some additional), proving that the night of the parable was thirty years long, and that the morning was in 1873, and the Bridegroom due in that morning in 1874.

. . . Bible chronology, first dug from Scripture by Bowen, of England, which shows clearly and positively that the 6,000 years from Adam ended in 1873, and consequently that there the morning of the Millennial day (the seventh thousand) began, in which a variety of things are due. The establishment of the kingdom of Christ, the binding of Satan, the restitution of all things, and the blessing of all the families of the earth, are all due. . . .

Bro. B__________ first began to preach the message, and soon started a paper, which he appropriately called "The Midnight Cry," the circulation of which soon ran up to 15,000 copies a month, and served to arouse many of the drowsy to a fresh examination and trimming of their lamps. . . . .

Some rejoiced in the midnight message that the Bridegroom was due in 1874, and were able to find the evidences in the light of their lamps; others admitted that though Scripture contained a great deal of "time," yet they were so fearful and prudent that their lamps would give no light. Thus they said: "Our lamps are gone out." Thus one separation took place. . . .

When this was seen it was apparent at once that the "time" element of the Scriptures was intended only for those who would walk very close to the Lord and feed on his Word, and not to scare the world into repentance. . . .

This increase of knowledge, led to still greater faith in the "time," for it was evident that the Lord was leading, and every item of light added increased brightness to others. It was the same light and the same oil shining more and more.

It was evident, then, that though the manner in which they had expected Jesus was in error, yet the time, as indicated by the "Midnight Cry," was correct, and that the Bridegroom came in the Autumn of 1874, and he appeared to the eyes of faith—seen by the light of the lamp—the Word. Afterward it was seen that the thirty years of tarrying between 1844 and 1874 was the exact parallel to the thirty years of tarrying at the first advent, from the time the wise men visited the babe until Jesus stood on Jordan and was anointed with the Holy Ghost for his work, at thirty years of age. (

    Hello guest!
.)

. . . As there were seven years of "favor" to the Jews from the time Jesus' ministry began (the 70th week of 

    Hello guest!
), followed by thirty-three years of trouble called fire, so here we see the parallel of seven years of favor to October 3d, 1881, to the Gospel church, to be followed by trouble called "fire," which will consume the dross of Babylon and purify those of God's children in and contaminated by her.

To return to the parable. If these movements were of God, and if Bros. Miller and B__________ were his instruments, then that "Midnight Cry," based on the prophetic and other statements and evidences, was correct, and the "Bridegroom came" in 1874. We believe that Midnight Cry was of God, and was fulfilled by the Bridegroom's coming, not because Bros. Miller and B__________ claimed it, but because the Word of God supports it. . . .

The seven years which ended October 3d, 1881, were years of favor during the presence, that of the living generation all of readiness of heart might become members of the little flock and enter into the joys of our Lord's presence. If our application of Scripture be correct, the favor has now ended, and in the language of the parable, "the door was shut"; and to those who have never fully consecrated and sacrificed self to God, we cannot any longer hold out the great prize of our high calling, viz.: to be members of the Bride of Christ, joint heirs of Glory, Honor and Immortality. . . .

 

So, evidently, the initial tie-in to Millerism was that Miller's movement was even more integral to the leading of God's people, and that these movements were of God. Miller and Barbour were both instruments for leading God's people. The midnight cry was made through Barbour, a Millerite from the beginning of that movement. The parable of the 10 virgins was not about an invitation to all persons, or even all Christians, but had a specific fulfillment from those "virgins" who were associated with the Millerite and Advent movements. And the difference was all in their response to Miller's and Barbour's chronology, nothing else. Foolish virgins were of the Millerite "class" who almost had it right but then gave up on the time element (chronology) out of fear of being disappointed again. And the prudent virgins were from that same class of Millerites, but who listened to Barbour about his chronology. (Initially, Russell accepted Barbour's chronology that claimed the "midnight cry" started going out in 1859 when Barbour first understood that this "midnight" was the halfway point between 1844 and 1874. Russell himself had not picked up on this midnight cry until he became associated with Barbour around 1877.)

Baptist preachers, like Miller, do not ever call themselves "Father" as a religious title. Neither do Second Adventists. Bible Students today agree that it was due to his being the "Father" of the Second Advent movement, so it was out of respect for his continued leadership of 50,000 or so Second Adventists even after the failure of 1843 and 1844.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason why you cannot accept 539 BCE as the only secular date which is truly verified is because you use mainly Babylonian sources to try to verify the date and their dates are all over the place - not reliable (reigns which are too long and impossible to correlate etc.)

The Persian and Greek sources gets us to the truth.  Please look up when the battle of OPIS took place and between who....?  This took place before Cyrus went right into Babylon.

This will give you a good idea why 537 BCE is correct for the return of the Jews to Jerusalem - which in turn proves that 607 BCE and 1914 is accurate.

The reason for the 'myopia' is an inability to accept that the slave (very imperfect and uneducated though they may be) may just have made a big mistake and accidentally got it RIGHT - because Jehovah was guiding them. The problems came when someone's ego got the better of them and they abused their power and were removed.... 

All the knowledge in the world cannot fight against the knowledge of Jehovah... and he can use his spirit to assist who he wants?  When a "mistake" (some people used their influence to say it is a mistake) turns out to be spot on later - as more historical facts were opened up - is it not quite revealing?  Don't you agree? 

Even if you feel you have "special insight" this does not mean that you have.   The ability to show the 'fruits' is cooperation, to subject your free will to Jehovah and help with the preaching work - become a slave of Jehovah and help the rest of his "slave".  (A slave has no personal power but has to do as he is told - the preaching).  Personally I would refuse to go out with someone who does not accept that Jehovah is guiding his people or "recognize" the 'slave' because we have to "help" our brothers with the commission they were given.

ANOTHER important question: How would you run such a large organization as ours when you have no special business training and you are responsible for the management and written content which goes out into the entire world; massive operations on a large scale and all on donations.....You have to try to manage other problems in congregations too - on top of millions of laws in every different country etc etc.  Did they fail in some aspects or re-act instead of being pro-active?  Of course they did.  CEOs do not even get it right...

CEOs which earn literally millions of dollars per year do not get it right and move around from company to company (we know what is going on in the banking industry and many Fortune 500 companies - don't we?)  and.......they do not have to cope with Satan's focus on them, trying to undermine the smooth daily operations set in place.  Some upstart - which you trusted and put in a trusted position - comes and wants to disrupt everything and starts a little group because he now has superior insight and becomes rebellious.  (Satan did the same thing to Jehovah because Jehovah is mild tempered and kind).  I think those put in place of responsibility would be hurt and shocked but in the end would guard the heritage of Jehovah -  put this first.  Would you not? And there will be some who will be taken in by this rebellion - will they not? 

Our history was not clean from the start - we recognize that completely.  And while they Russel and friends fumbled in the dark they accepted teachings from other religions which were in line with scripture.  In their ignorance they were determined to be guided to bring the truth to others. The immortality of the soul was one of the first teachings they rejected and we all know the reason why Russel stopped publishing with his associates and went out on his own to create the watchtower.

It was only after some cleansing of their teachings (Jehovah inspected them - where does that fit in with your dates?) that Jehovah appointed them as the slave.  They will guard the heritage they have received and try to keep the organization clean from anyone who tries to destroy it.

Has everything gone perfect in its management - NO.  Was there injustices - maybe?  But the main focus should be the preaching and the vindication of the true name of god and his promises.

I suspect we will see many more actions by Satan to discredit Jehovah and his organization (run by uneducated, imperfect men) before the final end - and he will use brothers with the spirit of Judas to do this.   If anyone in this circle does not think that we are going to have a terrible time of it - think again.

The forces of Satan is stacking up against us and the world has become a very violent place - and it is escalating. When they finally lash out at us they will be happy to find some soft target to vent all their anger against. 

LAST THOUGHT:  Is there any other Christian organization on earth which is unitedly preaching the good news of the kingdom as indicated in prophecy about the time of the end in Matt 24:14.    The proof is there!  To me it is a miracle!  

There are so many secret organizations with most of the worlds money in their pockets, who want the world to be united in ONE government.  There are many religions who want to rule the world and are prepared to use the sword to obtain it.  There are forces moving in the EU and the UN which is trying to bring in laws to control all people.  When this happens - we will be told to stop preaching.... and our neutrality will also become an issue........ it will be an attack.... but we will see great apostasy before this.  

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arauna said:

The reason why you cannot accept 539 BCE as the only secular date which is truly verified is because you use mainly Babylonian sources to try to verify the date and their dates are all over the place - not reliable (reigns which are too long and impossible to correlate etc.)

The Persian and Greek sources gets us to the truth.  Please look up when the battle of OPIS took place and between who....?  This took place before Cyrus went right into Babylon.

OK, Arauna, walk me through this. How do you verify that it was indeed 539 BCE when Babylon fell to Persian armies?

Do you agree with the Babylonian source that the battle of Opis occurred in Nabonidus' 17th year (although the year is actually broken off)?

Assuming that the missing year is indeed '17' (and there is good reason to believe so from the tablet's format), how do we go about tying Nabonidus' 17th year to a modern calendar year? Do you have any suggestions on how we can do that?

If you do not believe the Babylonian source about the Opis battle and the fall of Babylon, what alternatives do you propose for establishing 539 BCE as the correct year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok M'dear,

Thanks Nana for quoting: The Babylonian Chronicles: Classification and Provenance

There are many sources which gives the end of Cyrus' rule as 530 BCE. To quote " Insight on the Scriptures:

"The date of 539 B.C.E. for the fall of Babylon can be arrived at not only by Ptolemy’s canon but by other sources as well. The historian Diodorus, as well as Africanus and Eusebius, shows that Cyrus’ first year as king of Persia corresponded to Olympiad 55, year 1 (560/559 B.C.E.), while Cyrus’ last year is placed at Olympiad 62, year 2 (531/530 B.C.E.).

Cuneiform tablets give Cyrus a rule of nine years over Babylon, which would therefore substantiate the year 539 as the date of his conquest of Babylon.Handbook of Biblical Chronology, by Jack Finegan, 1964, pp. 112, 168-170; Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.A.D. 75, p. 14; 

Cyrus died 530 + 9 year rule over Babylon before he died - he conquered Babylon in 539 BCE. Which is also the year for the battle of OPIS according to Babylonian Chronicles. This date is accurate!

 

Regarding a comment the other threads:

I do not buy this idea that a totally innocent person was dis-fellowshipped.   Although brothers are asked not to 'talk' about things - there must have been witnesses to some unbecoming or compromising situations or behavior - and these witnesses could have spoken out of place - given reasons secretly to friends.... and it spread like wild fire.    

I was not there but I firmly believe that when people start deviating from the straight and narrow path and repeat this behavior (it is a practice of a behavior not a mistake which gets a person dis-fellowshipped)  then Jehovah (and the angels) usually gives them time to confess - AFTER which he withdraws his spirit.  When people lose Jehovah's spirit they become arrogant,  defiant or put themselves in opposition to the organization.  So there could have been other behavior which triggered a Judas-like attitude - apart form the disagreements about time-lines. 

Judas was practicing a wrong attitude for a long time because he was stealing money over a time period. He could have confessed but he kept it secret - which lead to him to become so angry when satan entered him- and he betrayed Jesus.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Arauna said:

Regarding a comment the other threads:

I do not buy this idea that a totally innocent person was dis-fellowshipped.   Although brothers are asked not to 'talk' about things - there must have been witnesses to some unbecoming or compromising situations or behavior - and these witnesses could have spoken out of place - given reasons secretly to friends.... and it spread like wild fire.    

I was not there but I firmly believe that when people start deviating from the straight and narrow path and repeat this behavior (it is a practice of a behavior not a mistake which gets a person dis-fellowshipped)  then Jehovah (and the angels) usually gives them time to confess - AFTER which he withdraws his spirit.  When people lose Jehovah's spirit they become arrogant,  defiant or put themselves in opposition to the organization.  So there could have been other behavior which triggered a Judas-like attitude - apart form the disagreements about time-lines. 

Judas was practicing a wrong attitude for a long time because he was stealing money over a time period. He could have confessed but he kept it secret - which lead to him to become so angry when satan entered him- and he betrayed Jesus.

I'm happy to see Ann O'maly engage in the conversation about 539. From what I have seen, she is much more well-read on the subject than I am. I may have some questions for her, too.

But I think this other portion of your post was directed at something that I wrote:

I would agree that there is always a reason that a person is disfellowshipped and it's usually something like what you describe. The process usually works, and the more often than not, the person disfellowshipped understands that they were in the wrong and the congregation was right to take action. This is how I have always seen it work in a congregation setting. I have agreed with every congregational case I have seen, even though I have heard about some that I would have disagreed with, as would most of us.

But I think the information you are are probably missing is that, from 1979 to 1982, there was a completely different style of justice inside of Brooklyn Bethel. 50 were dismissed in one day about 2 years before I got there. When I first arrived, Brother Knorr was using a style very much like Rutherford before him. The method was to talk to the entire Bethel family and rant and berate brothers who crossed him. Or, at breakfast, to announce dismissals right there on the spot for stealing, adultery, fornication, etc. Not a week would go by without something like this. If you saw an older brother doing hard sweaty work in an unlikely place for an old man (like a bindery or a hot laundry job, or something that seemed demeaning), there was always a story behind it, and it was usually about something he had said that crossed up against a more powerful brother's ego.

When Knorr died, several wonderful older brothers (like CQ, the editor of the Awake! magazine, for example) started getting invited back to Bethel after having been dismissed in the previous 5 to 10 years or more. Sometimes, even their adult children or relatives were also now allowed to work at Bethel. Persons were suddenly recalled from their factory and toilet-cleaning jobs and put back to work in the responsible positions they had held during Knorr's administration. Even A.H.MacMillan, one of the persons imprisoned with Rutherford in 1918, the person who wrote Faith on the March, was berated and humiliated for daring to have the audacity to write a book. (Even though --or perhaps because-- it was a book that everyone wanted and loved.)

So there was a mindset at Bethel about justice that was quite different from a congregation setting. It had developed from 1917 to 1977. A lot of the talk at Bethel from overseers reflected the language of the army, and those in the "rank and file" often saw discipline that seemed to follow army patterns. So it was not a surprise to see a kind of bunker mentality and "military tribunal" style judgments -- especially when "apostasy" was suspected. These were usually quick, on the spot, judgments. I have to admit that I paid close attention to what was going on because I knew that I had associated with persons like Brother Schroeder, Brother Sydlik and Brother Swingle who I was afraid might also find themselves on the chopping block, too. (Brother Sydlik was also serving time as an overseer relegated to the factory, the only Governing Body member assigned there, and there was a Knorr-Sydlik story behind it.) Sydlik and I had talked about chronology issues, and 1914-talk was one of the things that F.Franz was cracking down on based on comments at 'morning worship.' Sydlik, in fact, warned me that "we" (meaning he and I, both) had to watch what we say from now on because the "tongue can start a wildfire." Schroeder had "apostate" views about 1914 and the "generation" and had even spread them at his talks he gave on his trips to other countries. I was reporting directly to him on research projects at this time. He knew he could be in trouble himself, but protected himself by taking over as the prosecutor, and setting up actual "tribunal" committees to handle interrogations that only resulted in dismissals and disfellowshippings at his say-so. People joked that he was using "Star Chamber" techniques, and literally offering "plea deals" for information about higher-ups. Neither my roommate or I ever got one of these interrogations, but 4 of my friends did, and about 10 of my roommate's friends did. No one was joking when they called them "Inquisitions."

Altogether, I don't know how many recanted, or finally got disfellowshipped, or just dismissed or just demoted, but everyone seemed to get a different deal. Schroeder was in a flurry of activity and I had to leave several times when tribunals reported back to him. But in any group, there are always going to be some ego-driven persons who pride themselves on their so-called knowledge, and spread beliefs, or reveal things about others, not out of concern or love, but out of maliciousness, or to cause contentions and division.

I think that it's probably very difficult for most of us to distinguish whether there is any difference between the kinds of doctrinal differences we might discuss with others.

For example, let's say that one person here, I won't say who :) , appears to be going off the deep end about all the issues surrounding 1914. He claims that it is because he sees the possibility that we are taking a false step in terms of following the Christian teachings of not serving for a date along with the rest of the counsel in Matthew 24 & 25, or not producing works motivated by fear of an imminent judgment,  or not being presumptuous in proposing to others that Jehovah has blessed us with specific revealed knowledge about the times and seasons, etc., etc., etc.

But let's say that another person, who might have also proposed some beliefs that are different from the doctrines of his fellow Witnesses, claims that he knows for sure that the last days are over in 2034, the 144,000 will all be picked within a few years of that point, and that by 2054, the judgment day begins.

Those two examples might both appear just as equally "apostate." At the very least they both could appear to be equally motivated by persons who believe they are better or smarter than the Governing Body.  In fact, the 2034 proposal might seem to be a little less apostate, because it is slightly more in line with the general teachings of JWs, and it surely won't be that far off anyway. And the one who wants to drop the 1914+generation formula altogether is hoping for something much more drastic and disturbing because it, to some, attacks the core of our ministry.

So, I understand and expect the response to this that I have been receiving -- or even worse. I just hope that people will look into it and share their own reasons in defense of their faith and hope. Although you appear not to believe it, I will accept the Biblical evidence over the secular evidence any day. So far, I still see that we (Watch Tower publications) are stuck on pieces of the secular evidence, and have been using this secular evidence to try to override the Biblical evidence and Biblical counsel. I think it's always important to look more deeply into any issue like that, even to look into how it started and why we have held onto a tradition that positions itself in such a way. But I understand completely that most of us won't see it the same way. I certainly don't expect any accolades or respect for bringing up the subject. But I do think that for reasons of conscience, concern and love for the brotherhood, and faith in Jehovah, that it's important to discuss it in a serious manner.

  • (Philippians 4:8) 8 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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Arauna said:

Ok M'dear,

Thanks Nana for quoting: The Babylonian Chronicles: Classification and Provenance

There are many sources which gives the end of Cyrus' rule as 530 BCE. To quote " Insight on the Scriptures:

"The date of 539 B.C.E. for the fall of Babylon can be arrived at not only by Ptolemy’s canon but by other sources as well. The historian Diodorus, as well as Africanus and Eusebius, shows that Cyrus’ first year as king of Persia corresponded to Olympiad 55, year 1 (560/559 B.C.E.), while Cyrus’ last year is placed at Olympiad 62, year 2 (531/530 B.C.E.).

Cuneiform tablets give Cyrus a rule of nine years over Babylon, which would therefore substantiate the year 539 as the date of his conquest of Babylon.Handbook of Biblical Chronology, by Jack Finegan, 1964, pp. 112, 168-170; Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.A.D. 75, p. 14; 

Cyrus died 530 + 9 year rule over Babylon before he died - he conquered Babylon in 539 BCE. Which is also the year for the battle of OPIS according to Babylonian Chronicles. This date is accurate!

Well, you've just repeated others' conclusions on what the BCE years were. How did these scholars reach those conclusions? What were their sources?

The Insight book includes a comment that 539 BCE for Babylon's fall can be derived from Ptolemy's canon. But Ptolemy's canon only has a list of kings' regnal years - not BCE dates. The same is true for the Olympiads - they are not BCE dates. How can we tie BCE dates to the regnal years and Olympiads? Do you have any proposals?

IOW, there is a missing link in the chain of evidence:

  • We have Cyrus' rule over Babylon totaling 9 years;
  • We  have Cyrus' 1st year corresponding to Olympiad 55, Year 1, and his last year corresponding to Olympiad 62, Year 2;
  • We have the battle of Opis and Babylon's fall in Nabonidus' 17th regnal year.

So how do we convert this data into a BCE calendar time-line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

 

 

. But in any group, there are always going to be some ego-driven persons who pride themselves on their so-called knowledge, and spread beliefs, or reveal things about others, not out of concern or love, but out of maliciousness, or to cause contentions and division.

  • (Philippians 4:8) 8 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.

Sounds familiar. And I agree wholeheartedly with the Phil. 4:8 test. That should be our moto for this entire thread.

BTW I think perhaps the "day and hour" that is unknown is the "Beginning" of the Great Tribulation rather than the end of it at Armageddon. If you look at our publications about 85% of the times it mentions this Scripture it has reference to the "beginning of the Great Tribulation".  Of course we will not know for sure until the end but it is interesting that whenever Eve was created after 4026 BCE that the angels , Jesus and even Satan knew the exact "day and hour" she was created and would know the beginning of the Millennium right after Armageddon {6,000 years]  but NOT the beginning of the GT. It is like knowing that a movie is 2 hours long but NOT knowing when the "last scene" of the movie "begins". Just a thought to ponder.

Also I believe that since 1914 was when "peace was taken away from the EARTH" that the Red horse in REV. 6 is talking about 1914 when it mentions the exact same thing. A GLOBAL war.  But maybe that is just me. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. 

1914

“Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.  He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.” 2 Thess 2:1-4

“Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time?”  Matt 24:45

Matt 25:19-30

"It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. 47 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 48 But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, ‘My master is staying away a long time,’ (1914, and those previous ) 49 and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. 50 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does NOT expect him and at an hour he is NOT aware of. 51 He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."  Matt 24:46-51

The wicked servant “beats” his fellow servants with help from the man of lawlessness, who has set himself in and over God’s holy Temple, the anointed servants.  Isa 43:10; 1 Pet 2:5,9; 1 Cor 3:16,17; Eph 2:20-22; Rev 11:2  The man of lawlessness comprises those who “represent” God’s anointed priesthood, the elder body.

Wt. 02/8/1 “Representing the royal priesthood are appointed elders, who serve in positions of responsibility in congregations of Jehovah’s people around the earth.”

“It opened its mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place  (God's Temple) and those who live in heaven. It was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them. And it was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.”   Rev 13:6,7

“He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the set times and the laws. The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time.  Dan 7:25

“When we loyally obey the elders and other brothers appointed by “the faithful and discreet slave,” we show that we want to help Christ’s brothers.”  Wt 15/3/15

Should God’s anointed priesthood obey a false priesthood?  Should ANYONE obey someone God has not appointed to carry out His decrees?  Lev 10:1; Deut 24:8; Mal 2:7; Ezek 44:7,9 ;Lam 1:10; Jer 51:51; Matt 24:15,16; Luke 21:24; Acts 21:28; Rev 11:2  

    Hello guest!

 “And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.”  2 Thess 2:8

 “‘But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. 27 Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.’ Dan 7:25-27

“He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.”  Acts 1:7

Obviously, God’s Word in the matter carries little or no weight in relationship to man’s fabrications taught as law in the organization. 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Witness said:

Biblegateway

You quoted from a religious website that is number 1,061 in ranking. I am sure you can do better.

Test:

 

(Philippians 4:8) 8 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. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Arauna said:

All the knowledge in the world cannot fight against the knowledge of Jehovah...

Very true

10 hours ago, Arauna said:

and he can use his spirit to assist who he wants?

Yes, no doubt about that

10 hours ago, Arauna said:

When a "mistake" (some people used their influence to say it is a mistake) turns out to be spot on later - as more historical facts were opened up - is it not quite revealing?  Don't you agree? 

It is revealing, I agree. And then there are other things that have been put forward as undeniable truth, which later turned out as being a mistake.

It's like you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't, except the opposite. We always seem to be right whether it's a mistake or not. That is the general impression I get, but I'm not sure if this attitude has scriptural support...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bruceq said:

BTW I think perhaps the "day and hour" that is unknown is the "Beginning" of the Great Tribulation rather than the end of it at Armageddon. If you look at our publications about 85% of the times it mentions this Scripture it has reference to the "beginning of the Great Tribulation".  Of course we will not know for sure until the end but it is interesting that whenever Eve was created after 4026 BCE that the angels , Jesus and even Satan knew the exact "day and hour" she was created and would know the beginning of the Millennium right after Armageddon {6,000 years]  but NOT the beginning of the GT. It is like knowing that a movie is 2 hours long but NOT knowing when the "last scene" of the movie "begins". Just a thought to ponder.

It's a curious idea. There was a lot of speculation about this 6,000 year cut-off for many years as you are aware. The idea that the angels would have known the exact time of the 6,000 years seems so obvious. For the speculators, it's odd that this fact escaped their notice. But this idea is also interesting because for many years the Watchtower taught just the opposite, that we could know the beginning and not the end. In fact the beginning of the tribulation was timed to 1914, with a break in the tribulation that would last either a few months or a few years, and now, of course, until nearly just before Armageddon.

Another thought to ponder is that this whole idea that there was some significance to 6,000 years or 7,000 years came to us from Christendom. Perhaps no two creative days were the same length, perhaps some a few years, some a few million years. The Bible doesn't say they how long they were. And the idea that the 7th day would be 7,000 years is never in the Bible either. It was a thought that came to us from "speculators" in Christendom. We have absolutely no Biblical reason to think it might be some exact number of years divisible by 1,000. We don't even have scriptural reasons to say that the millennium must happen within the 7th day. What if the 7th creative day, the day of rest, is 7,326 years long. But no matter how long it is, it doesn't seem likely that its length would determine any portion of the time of judgment day, whether it be an early judgment beginning with a "temple inspection" or the final day of judgment. Remember that the warning about coming as a surprise also referred to the day of judgment that swept upon the people of Noah's day who weren't paying attention, and it was the day of judgment that swept upon the people of Lot's day who weren't paying attention, and it would also refer to the day of judgment that swept upon Jerusalem, when very few were paying attention.

  • (Mark 13:35) . . .Keep on the watch, therefore, for you do not know when the master of the house is coming, . . .

This was not about the tribulation specifically or some invisible presence, it was about the time when the master comes in judgment, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

COJ did the same thing the Watchtower is being accused of. Aligning the dates to fit his agenda.

What was COJ's agenda?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the 6,000 year idea {7,000 yr creative days] was long before Christendom. Even Josephus mentions it as it was an ancient Jewish idea. And since Jews wrote the Bible well...who knows. Find out when it happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, bruceq said:

You quoted from a religious website that is number 1,061 in ranking. I am sure you can do better.

Test:

 

(Philippians 4:8) 8 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. :D

You are looking at the rating of a site with at least 50 translations of the bible?  That is stopping you from reading scripture?    Use your own Bible, the one that Russia has banned.  If your eyes are open to the trampling of God's people, you will see it in whatever Bible you choose to read.  

The elder body "trample" God's anointed ones - they "walk all over" God's Temple priesthood, by expecting obedience, and setting up a false priesthood.  When you discern this, you are to flee.  Matt 24:14,15

NWT -  "And I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to the one speaking: “How long will the vision of the constant feature* and of the transgression causing desolation continue,+ to make both the holy place and the army things to trample on?” 14  So he said to me: “Until 2,300 evenings and mornings; and the holy place will certainly be restored to its right condition.”  Dan 8:13,14

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Witness said:

:(

 

Only 50 Translations. lol try +200 Translations - 

    Hello guest!

(Philippians 4:8) 8 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. :D:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bruceq said:

Only 50 Translations. lol try +200 Translations - 

    Hello guest!

(Philippians 4:8) 8 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. :D:D

Wonderful ? I see numbers make a big impression on you.  Apparently truth may not.  

How many translations does it take to understand what has happened to God’s Temple?  One.

KJV Ezek 44:8,9 --

8 “In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations.

9 “And ye have not kept the charge – “guard, charge, function, obligation, service, watch”

of mine holy things - apartness, holiness, sacredness, separateness, sanctuary, of God, a sacred place or thing

 but ye have set keepers - to keep, guard, observe, give heed

of my charge - charge, keep, or to be kept, office, ordinace, guard, charge, function, obligation, service, watch

in my sanctuary  - sacred place, sanctuary, holy place, of the temple

for yourselves

 Exactly what is happening in the Watchtower through the elder body.

Those who are to teach and provide spiritual sacrifices are the anointed ones.  I’ve given you the scriptures.  They are the “circumcision” as well as part of God’s Temple.  Rom 2:29; Col 2:11; 1 Cor 3:16,17  To allow others to act as priests in their place transgresses God's sanctuary.  There's two sides of this abomination.  As God's sanctuary, foreigners are trampling it.  As God's priests, others have taken their place.  

Now, read the NWT. It pales in comparison, it lacks power and understanding of the abomination existing in God’s Temple. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Witness said:

:(:(

 

 

(Philippians 4:8) 8 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. :D:D:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bruceq said:

Actually the 6,000 year idea {7,000 yr creative days] was long before Christendom. Even Josephus mentions it as it was an ancient Jewish idea. And since Jews wrote the Bible well...who knows. Find out when it happens.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that Josephus did not mention it, because it was not an ancient Jewish idea. If you have anything on that I'd appreciate knowing where it comes from. And if Josephus had said it, we would not have gotten it from him, anyway. The first known mention of the possibility of man being on the earth exactly 7,000 years appears in Pseudo-Philo which would have been written about the same time as the Greek Scriptures, and this would make it contemporaneous with Josephus and Philo, but neither one wrote the work. They think it might have started out in Aramaic/Hebrew but is only known in Latin, although a Hebrew translation was made of the Latin. Of course, this has nothing to do with the length of the creative days.

It says the following in chapter 28, in a kind of "creation" account ( 

    Hello guest!
):

  • Hearken now, ye that dwell on the earth, even as they that sojourned therein prophesied before me, when they saw this hour, even before the earth was corrupted, that ye may know the prophecies appointed aforetime, all ye that dwell therein. 7. Behold now I see flames that burn not, and I hear springs of water awaked out of sleep, and they have no foundation, neither do I behold the tops of the mountains, nor the canopy of the firmament, but all things unappearing and invisible, which have no place whatsoever, and although mine eye knoweth not what it seeth, mine heart shall discover that which it may learn (or say). . . . And when the foundation was laid, I beheld, and from that spring there was stirred up as it were a boiling froth, and behold, it changed itself as it were into another foundation; and between the two foundations, even the upper and the lower, there drew near out of the light of the invisible place as it were forms of men, and they walked to and fro: and behold, a voice saying: These shall be for a foundation unto men and they shall dwell therein 7000 years. 9. And the lower foundation was a pavement and the upper was of froth, and they that came forth out of the light of the invisible place, they are those that shall dwell therein, 
      Hello guest!
     and the name of that man is <Adam>. And it shall be, when he hath (or they have) sinned against me and the time is fulfilled, that the spark shall be quenched and the spring shall cease, and so they shall be changed.

The Talmud from sometime around the 2nd to 5th centuries also mentions 6,000 years with chaos during the last thousand, but this was based on the length of the entire creative week, not that each day was 7,000 years long, but usually that all things were literally created at the beginning in literal days, but that this time count started from creation, and since then "a day is 1,000 years" so that every thousand years since then has been part of the creative week starting with Sunday, so that the 7th millennium is a rest day, a sabbath.  (Babylonian Talmud Rosh Hashana 31a and Sanhedrin 97a). I think there are about 222 years left before "Year 6000" in the common A.M. Jewish calendar. An entry in Wikipedia called "Year 6000" gives some of the sources.

In the book "Life of Adam and Eve" the book Testament of Adam is quoted where the end and  was prophesied by Adam in chapter 3, verse 5. A book on the subject words it like this:

  • Next Adam predicts the Flood because of the daughters of Cain 'who killed your brother Abel because of passion for your sister Lebuda, since sins have been created through your mother, Eve.' The end of the world will be 6,000 years after the Flood.

That was actually a so-called Christian book, at least it was redacted in all the known versions to be a Christian book, and the end of the world referred to Christ coming. In the Ethiopic version the 6,000 year prediction for Christ is missing.

  • Furthermore, thou must know, O my son, Seth, behold a Flood shall come and shall wash the whole earth because of the children of Kâyal (Cain), the murderer, who slew his brother through jealousy, because of his sister Lûd. And after the Flood and many weeks the latter days shall come, and everything shall be completed, and his time shall come and fire shall consume everything which is found before God, and the earth shall be sanctified, and the Lord of Lords shall walk about on it." A

Although the 6,000 year prophecy is gone, there is a mention in the verses leading up to it where God tells Adam that even though he sinned and would have to die that God would come down to earth in flesh and die on the Cross in five and one-half days to save him.

  • And besides [these things] God spake unto me, saying, "Be not sorrowful, O Adam, for thou didst wish to become a god and didst transgress my command. Behold, I will stablish thee, not at this present, but after a few days." And again He spake unto me, saying, "I am God Who made thee to go forth from the Garden of Joy into the earth, which shall shoot forth thorns and brambles, and thou shalt dwell therein. Bend thy back, and make thy knees p. 247 to totter in old age, and I will make thy flesh food for the worms. And after five days and half a day
      Hello guest!
    I will have compassion upon thee, and shew thee mercy in the abundance of my compassion and my mercy. And I will come down into thy house, and I will dwell in thy flesh, and for thy sake I will be pleased to be born like an [ordinary] child. And for thy sake I will be pleased to walk in the market place. And for thy sake I will be pleased to fast forty days. And for thy sake I will be pleased to accept baptism. And for thy sake I will be pleased to endure suffering. And for thy sake I will be pleased to hang on the wood of the Cross. All these things [will I do] for thy sake, O Adam." To Him be praise, and majesty, and dominion, and glory, and worship, and hymns, with His Father and the Holy Spirit from this time forward and for ever and ever. Amen.

In several apocalyptic books (non-canonical) a day is 1,000 years, so this is interpreted to mean that Christ would appear 5,500 years after Adam. Again, however, these were parts of predictions about Christ's first appearance and second appearance. The Ethiopic probably was trying to work out a second appearance of Christ within 500 years of Jesus' birth. It was not about 7,000 year creative days. The 6,000 years of mankind with a 1,000 year millennial reign idea began popping again up in many places after Christopher Columbus used it, and later Martin Luther and many other reformers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Actually, I'm pretty sure that Josephus did not mention it, because it was not an ancient Jewish idea. If you have anything on that I'd appreciate knowing where it comes from. And if Josephus had said it, we would not have gotten it from him, anyway. The first known mention of the possibility of man being on the earth exactly 7,000 years appears in Pseudo-Philo which would have been written about the same time as the Greek Scriptures, and this would make it contemporaneous with Josephus and Philo, but neither one wrote the work. They think it might have started out in Aramaic/Hebrew but is only known in Latin, although a Hebrew translation was made of the Latin. Of course, this has nothing to do with the length of the creative days.

It says the following in chapter 28, in a kind of "creation" account ( 

    Hello guest!
):

  • Hearken now, ye that dwell on the earth, even as they that sojourned therein prophesied before me, when they saw this hour, even before the earth was corrupted, that ye may know the prophecies appointed aforetime, all ye that dwell therein. 7. Behold now I see flames that burn not, and I hear springs of water awaked out of sleep, and they have no foundation, neither do I behold the tops of the mountains, nor the canopy of the firmament, but all things unappearing and invisible, which have no place whatsoever, and although mine eye knoweth not what it seeth, mine heart shall discover that which it may learn (or say). . . . And when the foundation was laid, I beheld, and from that spring there was stirred up as it were a boiling froth, and behold, it changed itself as it were into another foundation; and between the two foundations, even the upper and the lower, there drew near out of the light of the invisible place as it were forms of men, and they walked to and fro: and behold, a voice saying: These shall be for a foundation unto men and they shall dwell therein 7000 years. 9. And the lower foundation was a pavement and the upper was of froth, and they that came forth out of the light of the invisible place, they are those that shall dwell therein, 
      Hello guest!
     and the name of that man is <Adam>. And it shall be, when he hath (or they have) sinned against me and the time is fulfilled, that the spark shall be quenched and the spring shall cease, and so they shall be changed.

The Talmud from sometime around the 2nd to 5th centuries also mentions 6,000 years with chaos during the last thousand, but this was based on the length of the entire creative week, not that each day was 7,000 years long, but usually that all things were literally created at the beginning in literal days, but that this time count started from creation, and since then "a day is 1,000 years" so that every thousand years since then has been part of the creative week starting with Sunday, so that the 7th millennium is a rest day, a sabbath.  (Babylonian Talmud Rosh Hashana 31a and Sanhedrin 97a). I think there are about 222 years left before "Year 6000" in the common A.M. Jewish calendar. An entry in Wikipedia called "Year 6000" gives some of the sources.

In the book "Life of Adam and Eve" the book Testament of Adam is quoted where the end and  was prophesied by Adam in chapter 3, verse 5. A book on the subject words it like this:

  • Next Adam predicts the Flood because of the daughters of Cain 'who killed your brother Abel because of passion for your sister Lebuda, since sins have been created through your mother, Eve.' The end of the world will be 6,000 years after the Flood.

That was actually a so-called Christian book, at least it was redacted in all the known versions to be a Christian book, and the end of the world referred to Christ coming. In the Ethiopic version the 6,000 year prediction for Christ is missing.

  • Furthermore, thou must know, O my son, Seth, behold a Flood shall come and shall wash the whole earth because of the children of Kâyal (Cain), the murderer, who slew his brother through jealousy, because of his sister Lûd. And after the Flood and many weeks the latter days shall come, and everything shall be completed, and his time shall come and fire shall consume everything which is found before God, and the earth shall be sanctified, and the Lord of Lords shall walk about on it." A

Although the 6,000 year prophecy is gone, there is a mention in the verses leading up to it where God tells Adam that even though he sinned and would have to die that God would come down to earth in flesh and die on the Cross in five and one-half days to save him.

  • And besides [these things] God spake unto me, saying, "Be not sorrowful, O Adam, for thou didst wish to become a god and didst transgress my command. Behold, I will stablish thee, not at this present, but after a few days." And again He spake unto me, saying, "I am God Who made thee to go forth from the Garden of Joy into the earth, which shall shoot forth thorns and brambles, and thou shalt dwell therein. Bend thy back, and make thy knees p. 247 to totter in old age, and I will make thy flesh food for the worms. And after five days and half a day
      Hello guest!
    I will have compassion upon thee, and shew thee mercy in the abundance of my compassion and my mercy. And I will come down into thy house, and I will dwell in thy flesh, and for thy sake I will be pleased to be born like an [ordinary] child. And for thy sake I will be pleased to walk in the market place. And for thy sake I will be pleased to fast forty days. And for thy sake I will be pleased to accept baptism. And for thy sake I will be pleased to endure suffering. And for thy sake I will be pleased to hang on the wood of the Cross. All these things [will I do] for thy sake, O Adam." To Him be praise, and majesty, and dominion, and glory, and worship, and hymns, with His Father and the Holy Spirit from this time forward and for ever and ever. Amen.

In several apocalyptic books (non-canonical) a day is 1,000 years, so this is interpreted to mean that Christ would appear 5,500 years after Adam. Again, however, these were parts of predictions about Christ's first appearance and second appearance. The Ethiopic probably was trying to work out a second appearance of Christ within 500 years of Jesus' birth. It was not about 7,000 year creative days. The 6,000 years of mankind with a 1,000 year millennial reign idea began popping again up in many places after Christopher Columbus used it, and later Martin Luther and many other reformers.

I'll try to do some research on it. It has been about 30 years since I have on this particular subject and I don't remember and am quite busy with pioneering and stuff. The Watchtower I believe has not said anything about it since about 1987 questions from readers if I recall...but nothing since so it is not probably an area of interest anymore anyway. Although they never have said it was untrue or changed. {Although the type/antitype may come to mind here}  But like I said we may never know if it is true until we get there and perhaps not even then since the Bible does not directly mention it. And it dosent' actually matter to gain everlasting life. But it is fun to research anyway. I do remeber it going back over 2,000 years to time of Philo {a Jew} and he got it from somewhere earlier and ill try and find some resources for that. {Point is it's origin was not Christian but predated Christianity as Philo died in 50 C.E.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bruceq said:

I'll try to do some research on it. It has been about 30 years since I have on this particular subject and I don't remember and am quite busy with pioneering and stuff. The Watchtower I believe has not said anything about it since about 1987 questions from readers if I recall...but nothing since so it is not probably an area of interest anymore anyway. Although they never have said it was untrue or changed. {Although the type/antitype may come to mind here}  But like I said we may never know if it is true until we get there and perhaps not even then since the Bible does not directly mention it. And it dosent' actually matter to gain everlasting life. But it is fun to research anyway. I do remeber it going back over 2,000 years to time of Philo {a Jew} and he got it from somewhere earlier and ill try and find some resources for that. {Point is it's origin was not Christian but predated Christianity as Philo died in 50 C.E.]

Actually I wrote a book [never published] dealing with the over 500 versions of flood legends all around the world and the connection that God used a comet [Like the flood comet mentioned by Whinston] to bring about the Flood ,very extensive book about 10 years ago and I believe I do recall some mention of a 7,000 year calendar in some ancient civilizations from thousands of years ago that were associated with the Flood of Noah's day that came from their stories as told throughout eons of time. The book is called "The Harbinger of Doom - Evidence of a Global Flood Caused by the Progenitor of Encke's Comet". I think there is mention in some of my research books on the Flood I have hundreds so it may take a while to find something. Here is a photo of my Flood library:                Footnote: Did you know the origin of the word "Disaster" means "evil star" - di = evil and aster = star interesting hey !!! 

DSCN1469.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bruceq said:

(Philippians 4:8) 8 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. :D:D:D

I don’t think you realize what Phil 4:8 is telling you.  What is of serious concern, righteous, chaste, lovable, well-spoken of, virtuous and praise-worthy  to God, appears to be off the table; that being,  God’s justice and righteousness.  ? 

 

That this is a rebellious people,
Lying children,
Children who will not hear the law of the Lord;
 Who say to the seers, “Do not see,”
And to the prophets, “Do not prophesy to us right things;
Speak to us smooth things, prophesy deceits.
1 Get out of the way,
Turn aside from the path,
Cause the Holy One of Israel
To cease from before us.”  Isa 30:9,10

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bruceq said:

Footnote: Did you know the origin of the word "Disaster" means "evil star" - di = evil and aster = star interesting hey !!! 

Spiritism and astrology have had in influence on a lot of our words. Speaking of "influence," consider how the word "influenza" was also a reference to how a certain illness was due to the "influence" of bad stars. And speaking of "consider," the word comes from Latin for concerning oneself "with the stars" con=with + siderial=star, although that one could have been made up by some "lunatic" (influenced by the moon). And even "chronology" is from the god Saturn who was "Chronos" in Greek, the god of time.  Ultimately we even get words like martial from Mars, and more obvious ones like mercurial, saturnine, capricious (Capricorn), jovial (Jove/Jupiter), venerial (Venus)

Love your library.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Witness said:

:(:(:(

(Philippians 4:8) 8 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. :D:D:D:D

Don't leave plenty of emotes to use yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JW Insider said:

Spiritism and astrology have had in influence on a lot of our words. Speaking of "influence," consider how the word "influenza" was also a reference to how a certain illness was due to the "influence" of bad stars. And speaking of "consider," the word comes from Latin for concerning oneself "with the stars" con=with + siderial=star, although that one could have been made up by some "lunatic" (influenced by the moon). And even "chronology" is from the god Saturn who was "Chronos" in Greek, the god of time.  Ultimately we even get words like martial from Mars, and more obvious ones like mercurial, saturnine, capricious (Capricorn), jovial (Jove/Jupiter), venerial (Venus)

Love your library.

Yes and to the ancients who did not understand science a visiting comet would be quite a spectacle even more than an solar eclipse would be. And bolides making impact or even a close call like the one in Russia a couple years ago may have caused a "DI ASTER" or even a Global Deluge. B|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Librarian said:

 please do some splitting off of separate yet interesting topics.... your thread has been hijacked. ;-)

You think I can control this thing? I'm at least half the problem!

[edited to add:]

Notice: Since this thread is so long. I might be splitting off some of the unrelated topics to other threads. I just learned that I can do this, so I will only move my own at first to get used to this awesome power. xD Also, I have no interest in moving around every little comment that people make just because it's off topic. There would be no point to breaking off to a musical-themed thread, for example, because I don't think anyone expected to start a full-blown discussion on that topic. But there have been a few topics that might be interesting as stand-alone topics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1914  is not a count from Jehovah !  Its only from elders, humans. Like 1975 etc. etc.  We NOT shall making our own counts, bec. it was so often wrong !  Many JW left the truth after that wrong counts :(  Made NO sense...  Jehovah's counts are okay,  but not human counts.  Why humans / elders, always want counting this and that?  So often it was wrong...  awkward for JW and the world-people laughing over us !  Thats not what we want. I have spoken with different brothers and elders too. I realized, the elders not want, that special things coming to public,  hmm...   not just honestly.  We're a jw. humanely org. and making mistakes, imperfect, thats it. Jehovah knows that.  HE  is watching all, we're today HIS  loving children???

My laptop has again since some hours NO internet by my stick and camping area ;-(   Only my iPad flatrate is working !  I hope, tmw again little better !

So I say Good night to all, bec. its late enough... ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

The battle of Opis is insignificant to the argument for the date 539BC.

Not entirely. The battle occurred in the same year as Cyrus conquering Babylon. @Arauna commented that the year 539 BCE is "the only secular date which is truly verified," and that "you" (whomever she was directing this to) cannot accept that it's "the only secular date which is truly verified" because "you use mainly Babylonian sources to try to verify the date and their dates are all over the place - not reliable" and that Persian and Greek sources are more truthful [Arauna's full quote in context]. It was at this point she mentions the battle of Opis - apparently unaware that the record of this battle is found on a Babylonian source.

Quote

Their own historians show Cyrus entered the city of Babylon without incident in OCT of 539BC. Line (17).

Indeed. However, seeing as Arauna took it on trust that the correct year for both the battle of Opis and Babylon's fall was 539 BCE, even though none of the ancient sources give modern-day BCE dates but have their own methods of keeping track of time (e.g. regnal years and Olympiads), I was wondering if she knew how the BCE dates were arrived at; how we know it was 539 BCE as opposed to, say, 541 BCE or 535 BCE or any other year. I'm still interested in what Arauna has to say about this.

Regarding your piece about Cyrus and his wife dying and his decree and the Jews' preparation to leave, yadda, yadda - we discussed all that already in another thread which can be summarized in this post.

Quote

So, if BM 90920 is in question, then the "rest" of the chronicles are also suspect. Can't pick and chose what one is willing to accept and argue! 

The Cyrus Cylinder isn't really one of the chronicles - it's classed as a royal inscription. But that nitpicky detail aside, you are quite right! We have to take on board all the evidence and not just the parts we like.

 

pltamf9y7mfz.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Nana Fofana said:
10 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

How can you say that the world isn't Jewish .. when the Sun's first name is Sol ?

That's a deceptive partial quote of  respected scholarship.^

“And Tar Heel fans liked it so much they bought, in a barely a year, about 3,000 ‘Duke Is Puke…’ stickers, a figure that rivaled ‘If God Is Not a Tar Heel, Why Is the Sky Carolina Blue?’ (and topped ‘Teach a Young Child to Hate State.’)”

— From The Charlotte Observer (Nov. 30, 1980)

I am completely missing how  the references you made have anything to do with what I knew as a comedy line off of an LP comedy album in the 1960s.   Of course, my entire sense of humor was formed in my early years by MAD Magazine, which upon refection had at least as many "Universal Truths" as most of the drivel today that is only self-aggrandizing fluff pieces.

But, a great piece of philosophy embedded itself into my psyche from MAD Magazine ....

"WHAT, ME WORRY?"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:

The ladies seem to stick to the hard work as in their daily lives, while the gentlemen, sometimes like rambunctious kids in older bodies, veer off to speak of other interesting things like musicals, poems, etc., to rest their brains from the hard grind of the topic. They know how to relax, even if it means shooting at another, using strange language (TTH, JTR)

Now you've got it!

11 hours ago, bruceq said:

Yes and to the ancients who did not understand science a visiting comet would be quite a spectacle even more than an solar eclipse would be.

That sun that went behind the moon the other day - shouldn't it have emerged by now? Have I done anything wrong? Is it from @The Librarian? No more musical poems, I promise.

Image result for black

Do I have cause for concern? Stop citing music LPs, @James Thomas Rook Jr., or you may have to learn the hard way, as I have!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nana Fofana said:

[Wikipedia quote] Similar problems face other attempts to revise secular dating (such as those of 

    Hello guest!
 and 
    Hello guest!
) and mainstream scholarship rejects such approaches. Where and how the Gregorian or Julian calendric differential gets factored in, remains another argument entirely."...

It should be noted that James's revisions are for years before 950 BCE (the time of Solomon), and Rohl's revisions concern years prior to 664 BCE (Assurbanipal's sacking of Thebes). Both these researchers agree with the established neo-Babylonian chronology of the 7th and 6th centuries BCE - the very chronology that, along with the scriptural evidence, is problematic for 'all aspects of the 1914 doctrine.'

 

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

The cross over with reliance from Persian to Greek to Babylonian is centered with the opposition not being able to answer a simple question on the discrepancy between the Babylonian Historical facts, between Nebuchadnezzar 1 (1125BC toward his supposed chronicled son Belibni of Nubuchadnezzar1 born in 685BC. A 440-year difference.

The simple answer to the simple question is that Belibni is not recorded as being the son of King Nebuchadnezzar I, so there is no discrepancy. So I'll ask again, what is the source for the information indicating otherwise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree: It is remarkable that Israel won their wars under almost impossible circumstances just after the creation of their own country 1947.  I admire them as a people. They are on the forefront of new technologies and have turned Israel into a agricultural productive country where it was a wasteland before. I also see that the Muslim lobby has created hate groups against Jews at present.....(They believe Jews are apes and pigs).    However...., What I do not agree with is: that most Christians tout this as the reason why they think that Israel is still the true nation of God and send them large donations.

Very few people go back in history to look for the  links with the  Rothschild family (promises to them that Israel shall receive their own state after the break up of the Turkish Empire).   The Belfour declaration and its links with a certain letter written by the then British Prime Minister (Wilson) to Mr. Rothschild after he (Rotschield) made promises to get America included in the war. This was at the time Germany called for an armistice - before America came into the war.  

The entire situation before the first world war with Lenin and Trotsky (real name: Lev Davidovich Bronstein) and the fall of the Russian king etc. and the call from the Jews to boycott Germany so that they could not sell any of their products produced in a labor based economy in any other country of the world. It was also in this time that the FEDERAL Bank was created 1913.  Money and war colluding!  This is the history of the world.... and the innocent suffer.

Similarly at present: there are rich people behind the scenes backing their groups on the ground with big money, who in turn pressure the governments in certain ways (far-left and far-right groups).  Then there are religions who are now riding the beast....and also receiving large amounts of money from the middle east etc..

So it helps to find out the history behind the history  - then you will not be gullible to believe that any government is innocent or people of God.    They are all  "beastlike".

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BCE - The Greeks figured time by means of four-year periods called Olympiads, starting from the first Olympiad, calculated as beginning in 776 B.C.E. Additionally, they often identified specific years by referring to the term of office of some particular official. More accurate and more sources than the Babylonian chronology. However, evidence will be stronger if one uses  BOTH  - not just one set of evidences!

539 BCE is the most accurate date because not only do the Babylonian sources agree but also when one takes the death of Cyrus (confirmed at 530 BCE from many sources.  + 9 years rule -   gives one 539 BCE for fall of Babylon. (battle of Opis given in same year.... so there are many additional  'indications' that this date is good...... and the proof is still on the ground!!regarding 1914 as the date which Jesus started ruling amidst his enemies! and the first resurrection took place.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know who wrote the Wikipedia article about David Rohl you are quoting but it is not accurate.  Rohl's dates are closer to the dates given by the Witnesses.  Most atheists say there is no evidence of the exodus in the bible.  Rohl is of the contention that they are looking in the wrong time-line for it because the evidence is there!   Many of these contentious Egyptian chronologists (Rohl included) say the ancient Egyptian history is out by 200 years and closer to the time of Nebuchadnezzar they are out by 20 years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They moved some of the threads - sorry do not know where to find them!

I wanted to talk about the thoughts expressed by Insider.   After reading your experiences in Bethel you were on my mind - lets say - a lot. Was I shocked by your feelings and revelations?  NO.  People are people and Jehovah allows persons to choose their way and behavior.  Unfortunately, there are people who like to dominate others and as I said before - this is not a Christ-like quality. There are also those who like to sow doubt while they are busy with wicked things themselves.  So these persons were an instrument - not to break your faith BUT to break your trust.  However,  I do not distrust Jehovah when my neighbor does something bad to me - so the same when I brother does not act in a way we would expect. 

I can imagine the effect this can have on a young, eager mind.  But also remember - you do not know the inside story. He may have been seen - hence the rumors - and everything said and done in secret was revealed at once..... .

 I have read articles about the re-wiring of the brain or the strengthening of connections. Every time you re-live an emotion or a bad past experience your are re-wiring the memory again.....  So in order to look forward ... and not look back too much - do not think about bad experiences too much.  Jehovah told Cain to not let his bad thoughts control him.  He was expected to get control over it.  He did not listen to this advice direct from Jehovah. If your trust was shaken - sufficient time has now passed for you to get a more mature perspective of what happened.  If he was humble enough for correction would he not have come back later?  So did Jehovah withhold his spirit for a reason? 

My husband and I often talk about the earlier generations - they were more harsh because they were punished quite severely in school and most of them grew up in very strict (obedient to parents/teachers) environments.  The two world wars also had a great effect on society - more rigid.  So while I do not apologize for this behavior it is always good to look for mitigating circumstances and remember the Jehovah is the final judge.

It just worries me to think that it is still so vivid in your mind.  The restructuring of the GB and committees has made it less likely to happen again.  Now they pay much more attention to "reviling" than before.  If the dis-fellowshipped group displayed any form of defiant behavior - I  can understand why they then would quickly dis-fellowship them. Wicked people, often play on peoples feelings by playing the 'victim'. It is just another form of deceit.

The GB will definitely be attacked again by Satan and people maybe dis-fellowshipped. ... If there are people who can be used by satan to sow doubt or other behaviors which can break trust - he will do so - of this I am certain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

NO amount of opposition will EVER remove the “FACT” that Pastor Russell, made a spot-on prediction concerning 1914AD.

Really? And what was that spot-on prediction that Russell made? Please provide a reference if you have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Really? And what was that spot-on prediction that Russell made? Please provide a reference if you have it.

I'm going to venture he's referring to 1914 being the start of The Great War (WWI)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Noble Berean said:

I'm going to venture he's referring to 1914 being the start of The Great War (WWI)?

Of course that could be part of what he has in mind, but Russell never predicted the start of the Great War we now call World War I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

I don't see it in the thread now - [probably just incompetence, for which I hope I can partially plead inexperience with this site]- but JWInsider said that Caroline Waerzegger's putting "Series" in quotes, in lieu of “Babylonian Chronicle Series”, was simply for brevity's sake, but  my previous quote along with this one I believe, help to demonstrate that her purpose is really to dispute that what is referred to  by Grayson and others , as the “Babylonian Chronicle Series” can be properly called a "series"

It's back on your post in this thread from Monday, 8/21/2017 time-stamped at 5:20pm in my time zone (EST). In that post you asked: " Should "series" always be in quotes, when referring to these clay tabs of Babs?"

On 8/21/2017 at 5:59 PM, JW Insider said:

This was from your post about Grayson's book. (Which is excellent, btw) The reason this book review uses the term "Series" like this is to avoid the repetition of the longer phrase, "Babylonian Chronicle Series."

You can tell from the context (of your original post) that she is discussing the fact that Grayson calls ALL of them a part of the "Babylonian Chronicle Series" which she sees as appropriate only up to a point, but does not see the same continuity especially between certain of the chronicles and major eras represented in the "Series" with such a long gap in between. Grayson almost always refers to the entire set of chronicles as the "Babylonian Chronicle Series:" And Grayson defends the use of the term "series."

image.png

So, you are right. And I did not catch the full gist of your question. I thought you were asking about the grammar of requiring quotation marks when referring to the "Babylonian Chronicle Series." You can see that the answer to the grammar question is 'NO' by her use of quotation marks only in the capitalized word, and comparing it with his use, without quotation marks, in the non-capitalized word. But if you were referring to the point of her argument itself, then it's obvious you already know that she takes exception his continued use of the term "Babylonian Chronicle Series" because she thinks the word "Series" connotes too much continuity.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Arauna said:

They moved some of the threads - sorry do not know where to find them!

I wanted to talk about the thoughts expressed by Insider.   After reading your experiences in Bethel you were on my mind - lets say - a lot. Was I shocked by your feelings and revelations?  NO.  People are people and Jehovah allows persons to choose their way and behavior.  Unfortunately, there are people who like to dominate others and as I said before - this is not a Christ-like quality. There are also those who like to sow doubt while they are busy with wicked things themselves.  So these persons were an instrument - not to break your faith BUT to break your trust.  However,  I do not distrust Jehovah when my neighbor does something bad to me - so the same when I brother does not act in a way we would expect. 

I can imagine the effect this can have on a young, eager mind.  But also remember - you do not know the inside story. He may have been seen - hence the rumors - and everything said and done in secret was revealed at once..... .

 I have read articles about the re-wiring of the brain or the strengthening of connections. Every time you re-live an emotion or a bad past experience your are re-wiring the memory again.....  So in order to look forward ... and not look back too much - do not think about bad experiences too much.  Jehovah told Cain to not let his bad thoughts control him.  He was expected to get control over it.  He did not listen to this advice direct from Jehovah. If your trust was shaken - sufficient time has now passed for you to get a more mature perspective of what happened.  If he was humble enough for correction would he not have come back later?  So did Jehovah withhold his spirit for a reason? 

My husband and I often talk about the earlier generations - they were more harsh because they were punished quite severely in school and most of them grew up in very strict (obedient to parents/teachers) environments.  The two world wars also had a great effect on society - more rigid.  So while I do not apologize for this behavior it is always good to look for mitigating circumstances and remember the Jehovah is the final judge.

It just worries me to think that it is still so vivid in your mind.  The restructuring of the GB and committees has made it less likely to happen again.  Now they pay much more attention to "reviling" than before.  If the dis-fellowshipped group displayed any form of defiant behavior - I  can understand why they then would quickly dis-fellowship them. Wicked people, often play on peoples feelings by playing the 'victim'. It is just another form of deceit.

The GB will definitely be attacked again by Satan and people maybe dis-fellowshipped. ... If there are people who can be used by satan to sow doubt or other behaviors which can break trust - he will do so - of this I am certain.

Thanks for showing such true concern. It's deeply appreciated. Those old posts are still in this thread. The ones that were moved to a separate thread (so far) made up 6 or 7 of the 20 pages of this thread. So those posts are still here, and in the same order, but by moving so many near-adjacent posts, they fall on different pages now. 

Regarding Bethel experiences, I look back on all of it overall with fond and happy memories. I know there was an initial shock, not so much at the existence of cursing and abusive behavior, but at the pervasiveness and acceptance of it among those with high levels of responsibility. I just typed up two cases that I thought were informative to your point but removed them to avoid raising new topics. The point was that I sometimes mistook mildness and meekness for humility, when it could also be paired with the height of egotism. And in another case where a brother ranted loudly and even slammed a newly published book across the room, I came to appreciate that he really thought he was protecting the worldwide congregation from error. As a young person, I didn't have the tools to understand people very well, and for many years still we continue to learn from new experiences that shed light on old ones.

But when we realize and accept that some negative type of behavior is widespread, we also tend to accept it ourselves too easily, I think. And I'm sure the level of privilege has something to do with that. I had excellent and wonderful assignments, and I wouldn't have risked them to give any kind of feedback to someone who could control my assignments. I would expect an argument here and there in the bindery or pressroom, and yet I heard they were rare. I wondered if they were worse among persons of greater responsibility. These weren't daily occurrences, of course, because we always tend to remember and highlight the exceptions. Even if those exceptions are negative.

Obviously, when it comes to doctrinal questions, I do the same thing here on the forum. I could go on and on about why our stance on war, hell and Trinity, for example, is such a good thing in that doesn't just set us apart, but also produces a much healthier Christianity than we could expect from those who see things differently. But instead, I assume we all know that alrady and try to share something that I think we probably do wrong, and which I believe can hurt our Christianity and spirituality unless we look into it.

(By the way, I mostly push the idea that we look into something even if my reasons appear too strongly promoted. I don't usually have a specific solution about exactly what we must do to resolve the issues that arise. I think that's what a Governing Body is for. I might have ideas but don't think it's my place to push a specific solution when there are multiple choices of solutions. However, I always think that discussions can help prepare us for change, and will promote less dogmatism, and therefore more humility in the meantime. This helps us empathize with those we meet in field service and other interested persons.)

On the issue of false rumors starting from nothing, I know it doesn't make much sense. We'd rather believe there was a kernel of truth to them. But in this case, I think I was there to watch the germination of a different kind of  phenomenon. I saw brothers and sisters change from being loving to almost literally "spitting" in a split second when they heard about the "apostasy" charges that several persons received. It was the incongruent variety of extra charges that were heaped upon some of the brothers and sisters that got to me. Within days, these might have coalesced into only one or two charges that were finally settled upon, but even these were clearly far-fetched and sometimes contradictory. I think it's more of a matter of our own minds not being able to manage the "justice" of casting out brothers and sisters that were so loving and kind and would do anything for you yesterday, but were called a disgusting cancer today. I think the mind just needs to create a story to solve the dissonance.

Your point about looking forward instead of back is so apt. I have three children, and in raising them, we often made the mistake of trying to draw out every detail of a conflict between any two of them. We wanted the whole story each time. Each person's version, and then as parents we know doubt imposed on our own compromised versions on top of it to make it coherent. What a waste of time! Your counsel to look forward, and focus on what we'll all do in the future to help each other avoid conflict creates on-going trust and therefore misconceptions and imputed bad motives don't have so much "breeding" room.

I have a feeling that the current GB get along many times better than the 17 at once during my tour of duty. I hear from a friend that these kinds of issues are more likely only from the more competitive among the "helpers." I visited Patterson early last year (and Brooklyn Bethel, too, but it doesn't tell you as much any more) and I see a much more professional group who appear less likely to let education levels, class differences, and various insecurities get in the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AllenSmith said:
On 6/24/2017 at 1:49 PM, JW Insider said:

Even before C.T.Russell was born, commentaries on Bible prophecy included  dozens of potential dates. A couple of them even included 1914 as potentially significant time, nearly 200 years ago, now. The "1914 presence" doctrine, however, is only about 75 years old.

This is interesting. What publication before Russell specified 1914AD? show the reference publications, please!

You and I have already shared photocopies on this forum showing how John A Brown pointed to the 1914 period as a potentially significant time.  What I said above is based on the Proclaimer's book:

  • *** jv chap. 10 p. 134 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth ***
  • As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in London, England, calculated the “seven times” of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520 years in length. But he did not clearly discern the date with which the prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did, however, connect these “seven times” with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. In 1844, E. B. Elliott, a British clergyman, drew attention to 1914 as a possible date for the end of the “seven times” of Daniel

Those were the two sources from Christendom where Nelson Barbour would have picked up on 1914, at least indirectly for the first, and evidently directly for the second.

I think you already know that John A Brown said that the Mohammedan Imposture started in 622 and ends 1,260 "days" later in 1844. The 1,290 ending in 1873, and that the 1,335 days ending in 1917. Therefore the three-and-one-half Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. ended in 1844, per Brown. (For these he used "lunar" years.) But the 7 times of Daniel 4 (not the Gentile Times)  would run from 604 BC to 1917 AD. (Starting at approximately the beginning of the Babylonian empire, 18 years before Jerusalem was burned, and claiming that the "destruction or first captivity of the Jewish nation" started even before Nebuchadnezzar became king, back in 606, the same year that Russell mistakenly took for the destruction of the Temple.

Brown said:

  • "This second judgment synchronises with the war of Gog of Magog, at the close of the 1290 years, and extends until the close of the 1,335 years of Daniel. This attended by the general judgment . . . " (page xxxvii).

In other words the prophecy for this war ran from 1873 until 1917, not only including 1914, but covering almost the exact time period of Nelson Barbour's harvest, in this case 1873-1917. × Page 130 and 131 mention that this is the time for the sitting in judgment of the beasts, especially "Rome," and the period of gradual decay and burial of Gog of Magog. 

As you must be aware, it was not Miller but E. B. Elliott in Horae Apocalypticae, who first in the 1844 edition, and also in the 1847 edition, included the following: (text version here:

    Hello guest!

  • And, 1st, on the seven times of Nebuchadnezzar's insanity and state of bestialism: {1} These calculated after the year-day system, on the hypothesis of the Babylonish king's insanity figuring that of the great empires which he then headed, in their state of heathen aberration from God, (an hypothesis on the truth of which I do not myself entertain much doubt,) terminate, -- if dated from the time, B.C. 727, . . . -about the year 1793; . . .  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;  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Insider,  I agree with you that the GB seems more calm and kinder now and more mature BUT this does not mean that they will not fall foul of some other sinful quality!  And it is not always Satan - it is just the sinfulness and wrong desires (dominance/competitiveness/ ego) in each of us which leads to bad behavior. Satan will also use any flaw in a person if he sees a gap.

This is why I always caution that we must all of us watch ourselves when it comes to ambition (even in the truth); do not believe that you have the only way of doing something; and ANY form of control over others must be avoided.  If we do not cooperate - we are abusing our power.  A child can abuse the power he has over the family when he does not cooperate.  He can make his parents life difficult.  and.... where there is no peace.... then righteousness cannot grow.  One must keep peace at all costs ..... but many have not learnt that yet because we are all at different levels of development.  Some also learn some things faster than others.

I have been on field service with sisters that are so controlling that I actually want to avoid them the next time - but force myself to be impartial and overlook this DEADLY quality because it destroys unhypocrytical love..   They are usually older sisters and set in their ways - so I try to find the good in them.

I think the shouting match that Paulus had with Barnabas is a good reason for us to not expect people to be perfect and where ever people are - imperfection is sure to follow - and there is always that EGO to a stronger or lesser degree. The anointed man who slept with his own mother and then was later accepted back into the congregation just shows the level to which Jehovah can forgive and what we must be prepared to forgive..... I also believe to speak my mind openly but always try to do it in a loving way.  When in doubt - show love. Sort things immediately in a nice way.... and it has worked for me.  When I was younger I was afraid to speak out but as Paul said: the older sisters also have a role to play to inspire the younger ones and teach the young wives to love their husbands.

The new meeting materials that focus on Christian living - I was very happy when this new feature was brought in because I thought this was really a facet of our Christian living which was neglected before... yea - so we all have our little peeves....  but I honestly believe we must overlook this and get on with only focusing on Jehovah.

My brother - when he was in prison for the truth ( 3 years) told me that he saw some seriously nasty things amongst the brothers (people are just people and immature) and it caused divisions - while they were all trying to keep their integrity to Jehovah.... so yes... I do think that we may in future be thrown into prison together and then we will have to cope with each other..... this will not be a piece of cake.... but if we can do it we will get the crown of life!  Sometimes out tests come from within the congregation!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Of course that could be part of what he has in mind, but Russell never predicted the start of the Great War we now call World War I.

Yes he did. I have read it several times in my own Studies in the Scriptures and Watch Towers of that era He said in 1914 there would be worldwide "turmoil" "universal anarchy" "war" "time of trouble"  and many other words to describe that year as different than any previous. 

These 2520 years we believe will expire with October, 1914; at that time we believe the Gentile lease of power will expire, and that the God of heaven will set up his Kingdom in Israel. We do not expect universal peace to immediately ensue because Christ is styled the Prince of Peace. On the contrary, to our understanding the collapse of the nations will be through a fierce strife, "a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation," in which "there shall be no peace to him that goeth out, nor to him that cometh in," because God will set every man’s hand against his neighbor. Our belief is that the warfare between capital and labor, emperors and peoples, will be short, sharp, decisive, and bring untold calamity upon all concerned. If people could only discern it, they would avoid it, but their eyes are holden; they see not, neither do they understand. All the parties to the conflict are plunging into it, each intent on gaining its point, and each oblivious to its own best interests. -- "Times of the Gentiles", The National Labor Tribune, July 11, 1909.

I believe October, 1914, is the time when we may expect that great time of trouble, because it seems to our judgment, as far as we can understand the Scriptures, that is the time when the Gentile period of lease, or tenure, will expire, and when, therefore, we may expect that the time of trouble shall be ushered in; and that time of trouble we understand is the one the Scriptures tell about–a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation, a time of trouble which shall overwhelm all sorts of government, and every institution of the present time; and a time of trouble which thus will make ready and prepare mankind for the glorious reign of Christ and his Church, for the blessing and uplifting of all the families of the earth. -- What Pastor Russell Said, Question 555:4 (1910).
 

He even admits he does not know what exactly will happen in 1914 but that there will be a time of trouble in that year:

Nineteen hundred and fourteen is the time when the "Gentile Times" will end. What does that mean? I do not know, but I think it is when God lets go in a general sense of the world, and permits things to take their course; and we can readily suppose, as the Apostle says, that the course of nature would be set on fire, because of strife.which the Bible marks out as having its beginning about October, In the world of mankind, I shall expect a time of great trouble, 1914. -- What Pastor Russell Said, Question 76:1 (1910).

Our readers know that for some years we have been expecting this Age to close with an awful time of trouble, and we expect it to break out with suddenness and force not long after October, 1914, which, so far as we can understand the Scriptures, is the date at which the Times of the Gentiles –the lease of earth’s dominions to the Gentiles–will expire. -- "Loosing the Four Winds of Heaven", May 15, 1911, page 146, Reprints 4822.

He was humble enough to even admit that if he was wrong then it will come sometime:

We are expecting in October, 1914, that a great change will be due. Now, how quickly will it come? Whether on the stroke of the clock or not we do not know. We believe that it will land upon humanity by that time. Perhaps some of it will come before that, but we believe it will be stayed off until that time. Now, dear friends, what if it does not? We are just as well off as the rest. That is what the Bible states. If it does not state that to you, we have no quarrel. And if it does not come we will not try to bring it about. But, on the contrary, we will try to practice peace and holiness withal. We are children of peace and peacemakers, not strife breeders. But we believe the Bible teaches October, 1914, as the time. If that is incorrect for a year, or five, or one hundred years, no matter, it is coming some time, whether we have it right or not. -- Convention Sermons Report.
 

And there are literally hundreds more quotations that he made showing that 1914 would stand out as a unique date in Bible prophecy and would be indicated with a War. 

Right after Jesus was enthroned as King as the rider of the White Horse the Red horse is said to "take peace away from the EARTH" not just one or two nations but a Global War which history testifies as 1914 being the very first Global War which is why it is called "World War 1" Revelation ch. 6

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

However, I always think that discussions can help prepare us for change, and will promote less dogmatism, and therefore more humility in the meantime.

Do they? Or do they not remind us of journalists who all day, every day, identify problems for others to fix. And when the fix is in, they point out what is wrong with that, too. It's a great job to have.

 

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

This helps us empathize with those we meet in field service and other interested persons.

Possibly. But does it not just as equally provide fuel for those with flame throwers?

I don't think it has worked that way on this forum. People leave with approximately the same level of empathy they had on arrival. It is a fruit of God's spirit (you can probably tease it out of the list somehow) not dependent or necessarily helped by public airing.

When they devise a new Bible training school there at headquarters, they put themselves through it first. This indicates to me that they are not devising material to 'control the masses' - (I can hear some making that accusation now) Instead, they recognize that all are to be 'taught by Jehovah,' themselves foremost. It is a recognition of their own shortcomings, as descendants of Adam, and a renewed determination to seek what is higher.

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I have a feeling that the current GB get along many times better than the 17 at once during my tour of duty

To whatever extent it is true that the new ones are having a love-in and the old ones fought like cats and dogs, should we attribute it to public discussions? Or to being taught by Jehovah?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Arauna said:

I think the shouting match that Paulus had with Barnabas is a good reason for us to not expect people to be perfect and where ever people are - imperfection is sure to follow - and there is always that EGO to a stronger or lesser degree.

A local brother with a flair for dramatization used to tell of a first century publisher unknowingly calling on a disgruntled former member. 

"You call yourselves Christlike!" the latter accused. "I was there at that meeting between Paulus and Barnabas. You see those two kids over there? They do not fight like I saw your two 'leaders' fight!" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

 

Will you agree that there is such a person called Belibni? Would you agree that this subking was given his title by “Sennacherib”?  Will you agree that he is one of Merodach-Baladan’s grandson?

 

There were many persons called 'Belibni.' But, regarding the 'Belibni' who was made Sennacherib's puppet king over Babylon in 703 BCE, where do you get that he was Merodach-Baladan's grandson, and where do get that he was Nebuchadnezzar I's son? Are you suggesting now that Nebuchadnezzar I was Merodach-Baladan's son? O.o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

    I am so sorry insider that you have been sour and bitter because of the experience of imperfect men. But this is still Jehovah's Organization and Jesus is the head of the Congregation and that is why we must believe EVERYTHING Jesus as head teaches us including the teachings on 1914 and EVERYTHING else. You must have faith that Jesus is head and not you or any man or woman. If Jehovah's Witnesses is the True Religion then Jesus is head and whatever teaching he allows is truth until HE tells us otherwise. People in Christendom pick and choose what to believe from their human clergy. We cannot just pick and choose weather to believe certain doctrines from our head Christ. He requires exclusive loyalty and devotion not a picky person who thinks they know more than our head Jesus. John 6:68

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Arauna said:

BCE - The Greeks figured time by means of four-year periods called Olympiads, starting from the first Olympiad, calculated as beginning in 776 B.C.E.

How was it calculated that the beginning of the Olympiads correspond to 776 BCE?

14 hours ago, Arauna said:

Additionally, they often identified specific years by referring to the term of office of some particular official. More accurate and more sources than the Babylonian chronology. However, evidence will be stronger if one uses  BOTH  - not just one set of evidences!

539 BCE is the most accurate date because not only do the Babylonian sources agree but also when one takes the death of Cyrus (confirmed at 530 BCE from many sources.  + 9 years rule -   gives one 539 BCE for fall of Babylon. (battle of Opis given in same year.... so there are many additional  'indications' that this date is good......

Yes, the regnal years are part of the calculation. But their timelines are hanging mid-air, so-to-speak. So how does one nail down a particular regnal year to a particular BCE year? How is it confirmed Nabonidus' 17th regnal year corresponds to the year 539 BCE?

If only there was some kind of universal clock to be able to synchronize these different floating chronologies. Do you have any ideas on where such a 'clock' could be found and how these two loose ends can be fixed together?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Arauna said:

Don't know who wrote the Wikipedia article about David Rohl you are quoting but it is not accurate.  Rohl's dates are closer to the dates given by the Witnesses.  Most atheists say there is no evidence of the exodus in the bible.  Rohl is of the contention that they are looking in the wrong time-line for it because the evidence is there!   Many of these contentious Egyptian chronologists (Rohl included) say the ancient Egyptian history is out by 200 years and closer to the time of Nebuchadnezzar they are out by 20 years. 

As I said before, Rohl and James both agree with the established neo-Babylonian time-line, which is the one relevant to the 1914 calculation: That means they agree with 605 BCE for the accession of Nebuchadnezzar II and 587 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest J.R. Ewing

Wouldn’t that be like the kettle calling the pea black, since the same can be attributed to someone maligning others with imperfection with their own bitter criticism?

So, who should be sorry then! The imperfect men or the imperfect MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!

Evil deeds have no excuses!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bruceq said:

I am so sorry insider that you have been sour and bitter because of the experience of imperfect men.

I am so sorry @bruceq if you think such experiences would need turn someone sour and bitter. I am happy for all the experiences I've had in the organization, and a few eye-opening experiences can enhance our appreciation. A look at our history might cause some embarrassment now and then, but look what Jehovah has been able to accomplish. We look at the history of God's people in the Scriptures the same way. There is no reason for responding the way you describe. Such things are easily dismissed by those who focus on the more important things. There were legalistic men leading the Jewish religion in Jesus' day, and they bound heavy burdens on people, telling them that they must follow them. But Jesus said to go ahead and do whatever they tell you to do.

  • (Matthew 23:3-4) 3 Therefore, all the things they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds, for they say but they do not practice what they say. 4 They bind up heavy loads and put them on the shoulders of men, . . .

We don't "grouse" about such burdens but come to love and respect all our brothers, because none of us expect perfection from each other. Besides, such burdens are to be considered as "nothing" among the true Christian congregation. Activity properly motivated is a joy. Our load is light and we find daily refreshment in spiritual things.

Do you ever see someone read about David and Uriah, and say, "Oh No! Now I'm bitter and sour"? Instead it makes us all the more aware that Jehovah can allow grave imperfections and still love us, and all the injustice that goes on in this life is easily made up for in Jehovah's timetable. Anything happening to us now can be overcome with Jehovah's help. Everything that ever happened to us, happened to us in the past. We should not be so self-centered as to think that we need to carry issues from the past and pretend that we still need to carry them today.

  • (Matthew 6:34) . . .So, never be anxious about the next day, for the next day will have its own anxieties. Sufficient for each day is its own badness.

We can certainly LEARN from past problems, and we should. All things can be for our instruction and discipline. If we see lessons in these experiences, we can help others learn from those experiences and lessons.

On your points about doctrine, well that is just a philosophy that works for you. There are certain traditions that are strongly entrenched, and some of these can make the word of God invalid. If you lived in a congregation in the first century and the the body of elders taught that the resurrection had already occurred, you really think you would be obligated to believe it, just because the Bible said that you must be obedient to those taking the lead among you? Following the lead referred to imitating the faith of those whose examples strengthened faith. It meant following the instructions of those who took the lead in good works. When it comes to doctrine, we are required to use our powers of reason, we are required to test it, we are required to question, if we wish to be noble-minded. We have the Bible itself to speak in agreement about, not someone's specific or current interpretation. One of the reasons I bring up past issues with doctrines is so that we can remember the lessons learned. For example, you can replace the date 1914 with the date 1925, since the Governing Body taught that as an undeniable truth, even more sure than 1914. During those years are you really saying it was your obligation to believe and teach and promote 1925, or was it your obligation to "make sure of all things"?

I'm really interested in your answer to that question. Are you willing to respond to it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

. There were legalistic men leading the Jewish religion in Jesus' day, and they bound heavy burdens on people, telling them that they must follow them. But Jesus said to go ahead and do whatever they tell you to do.

  • (Matthew 23:3-4) 3 Therefore, all the things they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds, for they say but they do not practice what they say. 4 They bind up heavy loads and put them on the shoulders of men, . . .

We don't "grouse" about such burdens but come to love and respect all our brothers, because none of us expect perfection from each other. Besides, such burdens are to be considered as "nothing" among the true Christian congregation. Activity properly motivated is a joy. Our load is light and we find daily refreshment in spiritual things.

 

Agree Jesus is head of the Christian  Congregation, not the Jewish one who killed him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

, . . .

On your points about doctrine, well that is just a philosophy that works for you. There are certain traditions that are strongly entrenched, and some of these can make the word of God invalid. If you lived in a congregation in the first century and the the body of elders taught that the resurrection had already occurred, you really think you would be obligated to believe it, just because the Bible said that you must be obedient to those taking the lead among you?

 

Of course since Jesus is the head of the Congregation not you or any of the brothers back then. Try to look at it spritually instead of physical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, JW Insider said:

When it comes to doctrine, we are required to use our powers of reason, we are required to test it, we are required to question, if we wish to be noble-minded. We have the Bible itself to speak in agreement about, not someone's specific or current interpretation.

If Jehovah's Witnesses is the true religion then their teachings are true since Jesus is the head of those teachings, not ANY human. Noble - minded means being humble. We should humbly accept that Jesus is in control of the Chariot. When someone starts to learn the "elementary things" {such as 1914] they ask questions to find out why things are TRUE not to ask them in a critical way - that is a sign of elementary thinking - such a person is not humble and is not attracted to the Truth that sets one free from the haughty world of criticism..

Why do you call yourself jw "insider". Don't you think many may take that as a rather haughty name that you have something others do not or as you put it in one of your posts " I have special interpretation".{Col. 2:18,19}.  Quote is :"And I could even defend my special interpretation" taken from thread : 

Matthew 24. Is the INVISIBLE PAROUSIA doctrine based on less likely, special definitions of SIGN, PAROUSIA, CONCLUSION, LIGHTNING, GENERATION, and "GENTILE TIMES"?

 

  On 8/19/2017 at 10:01 AM, JW Insider said:

 

And I could even defend my special interpretation

And where does your "special interpretation" come from? O.oO.oO.o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

 One of the reasons I bring up past issues with doctrines is so that we can remember the lessons learned. For example, you can replace the date 1914 with the date 1925, since the Governing Body taught that as an undeniable truth, even more sure than 1914. During those years are you really saying it was your obligation to believe and teach and promote 1925, or was it your obligation to "make sure of all things"?

I'm really interested in your answer to that question. Are you willing to respond to it?

 

I am willing to obey my LORD and Master Jesus who is the head of the Congregation and all teachings therefore come from him not any man. Imagine picking and choosing what to believe based on your high-minded "make sure that Jesus is right attitude. Of course Jesus is right IF you are a true Christian.

    Hello guest!
  No wonder some left Jesus when he said to eat his flesh and blood. It is not by my authority to question truth. Jehovah has given all authority to Jesus not any man, internet blogger or anyone else. Think spiritual nor physical.(1Co 12:27; Eph 4:15, 16; Col 2:18, 19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW try limiting your responses like I have to 30 sec or less as the brothers have told us. It is rather haughty to have to read 10- 15 min of material that you could have summoned up in one paragraph or a couple of sentences. Try one point at a time please. I cant imagine have a brother in the Watchtower Study say the comments you write as it would take up all the time and no one could say anything else. Our time is of value to us as well. James 4:10. One time one of your responses to someone literally took me 15 min just to read it !!! I'm not kidding.