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

[Arauna]

Thanks!  Yes, the breaking up of the Ottoman empire WW1 has also set the stage for the problems now being experienced in the Middle east.  The second world war was also as a result of the Germans being aggrieved about the conditions of the  Armistice ending WW1.

[JW Insider]

7 hours ago, Arauna said:

I do not have time to respond to all comments but it is absolutely clear to me that NONE of you have taken the time to really study the entire sections on Chronology as set out in the Insight book.   And -"NO"- the Sumerian, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronologies are NOT firmly established! ... There is too little reliable evidence for that.  I read some of the (translated) lists and I was not impressed when I investigated these things......... .. .  The Insight book also gives good reasons WHY they are not trustworthy..... while the Bible chronology is very well set out. 

One does not need secular dates to establish bible chronology - but some people are not happy if they do not receive this. One can count the years from the date of creation of Adam until today......(go and look in the Insight book!  it is all there! ) As I said before - we do not need any secular dates to corroborate the Bible because one can pinpoint the date of the start of Jesus' baptism in the year 29 CE (because there was no year 0) and work BACK! as well -  and it still gets one to the same numbers and dates!

I think you are enamored of you own scholarly endeavors and pushing your own ideas above those of a groups of researchers from our organization who have all contributed to these articles and who have been looking at all possible evidences.  Yes they are fallible but their arguments are more acceptable to me than the ones I have seen here on these pages.

And I said before the bible chronology is part of Jehovah's PURPOSE.... see how the chronology fits in with his purpose....

OK.. done. I have read it again. As always, I deeply appreciate the good research that has gone into the Insight book. When this book first came out under the name "Aid to Bible Understanding" I was just as amazed, especially at the "Chronology" section. It took me nearly four years of scratching out an hour or so each day to completely read the Aid book while still at Bethel. I have never completed the Insight book yet, although I recognize that most of the old entries have remained intact, verbatim, from the older Aid book.

That said, I would love to comment on many items of interest that I found in the "Chronology" article in Insight including everything I agree with and appreciated. First, I will try to limit my comments to those that are relevant to this discussion and the statements you have made above.

So here goes . . .

First, you said: "And -"NO"- the Sumerian, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronologies are NOT firmly established! ... There is too little reliable evidence for that."

I can say that you have understood very well the basic premise of the the first half of the Chronology article. It is clearly intended to make us us think that the Babylonian Chronology is not firmly established, when it really is, as I said above, one of the MOST firmly established of all ancient timelines. By mixing the Neo-Babylonian in with the Sumerian and Assyrian chronologies, especially by mentioning the much earlier mythical portions of those chronologies, we can easily get confused into thinking the Neo-Babylonian is just like the others. It's always easy to think that if something is wrong with part of something then something must also be wrong with the whole. But we should keep in mind that the Watch Tower publications are so sure of the accuracy of the Neo-Babylonian chronology, hat they take ONE of the dates from it (539) and for many years called it an ABSOLUTE date, and used that date as an anchor for the 1914 doctrine that has been repeated over 6,000 times, according to the current updated WT-Library CD. In fact scholars refer to the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology as ABSOLUTE dates, therefore the Watch Tower publications now only refer to 539 as a "pivotal" or "assured" date, rather than an absolute date..

*** it-1 p. 448 Chronology ***
The histories of the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, and others are, in the main, fragmentary; their earlier periods are either obscure or, as presented by them, obviously mythical.

A true statement "in the main" especially about their "earlier periods" but we are interested ONLY in the Neo-Babylonian period.

*** it-1 p. 448 Chronology ***
What is known from secular sources of these ancient nations has been laboriously pieced together from bits of information obtained from monuments and tablets or from the later writings of the so-called classical historiographers of the Greek and Roman period.

Notice that all these nations have still been mixed together, rather than marvel at the amazing completeness of the Neo-Babylonian period, based on literally THOUSANDS of interrelated, interlocking, dated tablets and monuments. It's true that it has been laboriously pieced together from bits of information. This is as we should expect, and it turns out that all these THOUSANDS of bits of information support the "accepted chronology." And we should note that the Watch Tower publications do refer to the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology as the "accepted chronology" -- not because one man named Carl Olof Jonsson accepts it, but because ALL the known Neo-Babylonian scholars accept the overwhelming evidence.  Obviously, these experts don't accept it just because it supports the Bible's timeline, yet it is easy to show that it really does.  And these same scholars are the ones that the Insight book relies upon for the 539 date. These THOUSANDS of pieces of evidence actually support the Bible's timeline much better than the Watch Tower's timeline.

*** kc p. 187 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
Business tablets: Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets have been found that record simple business transactions, stating the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets of this sort have been found for all the years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in the accepted chronology of the period.

This doesn't mean that the Watch Tower accepts the "accepted chronology," of course, but the reasons that the Watch Tower gives are not real reasons. It is very easy to show that they are just pretend reasons. The Insight book inadvertently admits that these are just pretend reasons, if you look at it closely enough.

*** it-1 pp. 448-449 Chronology ***
While archaeologists have recovered tens of thousands of clay tablets bearing Assyro-Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions, as well as large numbers of papyrus scrolls from Egypt, the vast majority of these are religious texts or business documents consisting of contracts, bills of sale, deeds, and similar matter. The considerably smaller number of historical writings of the pagan nations, preserved either in the form of tablets, cylinders, steles, or monumental inscriptions, consist chiefly of material glorifying their emperors and recounting their military campaigns in grandiose terms.

Notice the contradictory reasoning here. TENS OF THOUSANDS of clay tablets bearing inscriptions are supposedly minimized for being religious texts or mundane business documents. Notice what is left out, however: they are EACH ONE DATED to the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Also, by throwing some Egyptian papyrus scrolls into the mix, it's possible to imply that many of the TENS OF THOUSANDS of business documents might be religious documents -- and this very likely makes us think they are reduced in value in determining a chronology. We are also supposed to get the idea that the historical writings are reduced in value because they glorify their emperors and military campaigns. We are supposed to think if "myth" and "exaggeration" here. These are the bad apples that are supposed to spoil the whole bushel.

*** it-1 p. 449 Chronology ***
Engraved in stone or inscribed in clay, some ancient pagan documents may seem very impressive, but this does not ensure their correctness and their freedom from falsehood. Not the material written on, but the writer, his purpose, his respect for truth, his devotion to righteous principles—these are the important factors that give sound basis for confidence, in chronological as well as other matters. The great age of the secular documents is certainly outweighed by the vastly inferior quality of their contents . . .

Yes, these contemporary documents will never be the Bible. But let's at least admit to what they are. In fact, these TENS OF THOUSANDS of business documents about mundane matters do not contain any of "myth" or "religion" or "exaggeration" and they are all dated. Not only that, but these dates are interconnected not just through the year of each king, but they include a second name, the name of the current "company president" always including who his father was, and sometimes even who his son was who would become the next president when his father died or retired. In addition to a complete timeline of the kings, you can also double-check it with a complete timeline of the firm's presidents and their sons, grandsons, great grandsons, etc. Thousands of the tablets come from the largest "financial firm" of that time, which handled real estate, banking, loans, and commerce contracts.

It's as if you had a great-grandmother you never met who claimed to live to be 120 years old, and then you went into an attic and found that she had left 10,000 checkbook receipts, loan receipts, deeds, etc., which are not only dated with the day and month, but she also added the year of each U.S. President to each check, so that they would say for example: Lincoln's 3rd year, Johnson's 1st year, Grant's 2nd year. But they also had the name of the bank president, and the bank president's son. So now you could see how long each U.S president served and even synchronize it with how long each bank president served. But the main thing is that she had several checks for each and every year of each president. And you would have no trouble putting them in order because she also had a memo on each check where you could double-check the father and son currently running the bank in every year, too. This way if there were two presidents named Johnson (Andrew and Lyndon) in her check receipts, you could know which was which.

But there is one more thing about the TENS OF THOUSANDS of business documents -- not mentioned. There are enough of them to show exactly what month of the year a given king died, because whenever a king was living the month and day and year of that king's reign was inscribed, but when he died the new king was shown sometimes in tablets of the same month just days after the new king was inaugurated, and the new king would be inscribed as being in his "0" year, or "accession" year.

There is one more point that is just as important. Some of these tablets match up with customer's names on preceding tablets, or some tablets refer to transactions that cut across the time period of two kings. This could be a loan made in the time of one king, but paid off three years later in the time of another king. Or it could be a payment for an item during the last months of one king, and another for the delivery of those items in the early months of another king.

In every case, we not only have tablets for every year of the timeline, but there is no way to claim the kings are in the wrong order, or that one might refer ambiguously to a different king of the same name. (This actually comes close to happening when some usurpers named Nebuchadnezzar show up, but their attempts lasted only a few months at a time, and happened long after the dates we are concerned about between Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus.)

Without mentioning any of these facts, the Insight book goes on with a quote from Ceran "The Secret of the Hittites." If you have the book you will know the true context of the quote.

*** it-1 pp. 449-450 Chronology ***
Well illustrating why secular histories do not qualify as the standard of accuracy by which to judge Bible chronology is this statement by archaeological writer C. W. Ceram, commenting on the modern science of historical dating:  ". . .For as we examine the sources of ancient history we see how scanty, inaccurate, or downright false, the records were even at the time they were first written. And poor as they originally were, they are poorer still as they have come down to us: half destroyed by the tooth of time or by the carelessness and rough usage of men.” —The Secret of the Hittites, 1956, pp. 133, 134.

There are so many things wrong with this type of quotation when you realize that it is almost all geared toward accepting 539 (capture of Babylon) and not accepting 587 (destruction of Jerusalem). Yet both dates are from the same experts. Also there is no conflict between the Neo-Babylonian dating and the Bible, the only conflict is the Watchtower's interpretation -- which was only found necessary as a way to reach the 1914 date. But this book is talking about the Hittites. In fact, in just the next couple of paragraphs he uses an example of King Menes in Egypt from 2900 BCE! The purpose appears to be in order to mix up the problems of the early Egyptian timeline with the Neo-Babylonian. But it also leaves out the very next paragraph after King Menes. In fact, back in a Watchtower article that tried to bolster more faith in the predictions made about the 1975 time period, it actually used this same book to say that 539 was "assured."

*** w68 5/1 pp. 270-271 pars. 2-3 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
" . . . the book The Secret of the Hittites, by C. W. Ceram, in the chapter entitled “The Science of Historical Dating,” states:  . . . “But as we go even deeper into the subject, our respect for the achievements of historical detective work returns. We learn that the scholars have been careful to distinguish between ‘assured’ and ‘assumed’ dates. And we discover that the chronological framework of ancient history rests upon at least a few firm points. Certain key dates, around which other dates are mustered, can be determined almost without error. They are ‘assured.’”
³ Hence, outside the Bible’s timetable, most dates set by historians are unreliable. Only a few “assured,” or absolute, dates, such as 539 B.C.E., . . .

Ceram didn't mention 539 here, the Watchtower added that. As far as the Egyptian chronology goes, note that the Watch Tower is only pushing for about a 100 year difference through much of it, and only a 20 year difference by the time of Josiah.

*** it-1 p. 450 Chronology ***
The difference between the above dates and those generally assigned by modern historians amounts to as much as a century or more for the Exodus and then narrows down to about 20 years by Pharaoh Necho’s time. The following information shows why we prefer to hold to the chronology based on the Biblical reckoning.

That 20-year difference was necessary in order to make Jerusalem's fall change from 587 (accepted date) to 607 (the date required for 1914 to work). It's not that there is any evidence for it. There is none. But what is extremely ironic is that the entire discussion of why the Egyptian dates are not accepted is almost a precise description of the same exact reasoning about why 587 is not accepted. But here's the real irony: every one of these factors that supposedly weakens the unaccepted dates are exactly the factors that were used in order to get the 539 date. In other words the Watch Tower Society doesn't really think these are weakening factors at all; we accept them all perfectly for 539, and even call 539 an ASSURED date because of the same factors. This is how we know that the reasons given are only "pretend" reasons.

Under Assyrian Chronology no attempt is made to synchronize:

*** it-1 p. 452 Chronology ***
The information above points to the conclusion that Assyrian historiography either is not correctly understood by modern historians or is of very low caliber. In either case, we do not feel compelled to attempt to coordinate the Biblical chronology with history as presented in the Assyrian records.

For now, we can leave it at that because nothing there is critical to the points of discussion under Babylonian chronology. Twice as much space is devoted to the Neo-Babylonian and Persian chronologies and the issues surrounding their accuracy. This is the most interesting to this discussion, so I will continue some comments for discussion in the next post.

[Arauna]

I think you keep on trying to prove you are right because you are not happy with what you have in the truth.  Why spend hours trying to get someone to agree with you.  What is the purpose of it?   If hypothetically I agree with you - then what will the next step be for us?  We go and make our own happy little group separate from other Witnesses - and pat ourselves on the back that we are smarter than the slave? or what?

It has nothing to do with being smart or scholarly or even being RIGHT - it has to do with recognizing Jehovah and the channel he is using to preach the Kingdom as the only hope for mankind.  I honestly believe that we must have Jehovah's spirit to stay connected with Him and stay in the truth.  I have enough knowledge of other history to firmly believe that WW1 was a major change in world affairs and that the year 537BCE is a reasonably good year (take a year of two) for the building work to restart in Jerusalem......and this will easily bring the date of Jerusalem's fall to 607 (70 years in Babylon ) - which makes 1914 not a mirage at all! 

And the other arguments that Jehovah will not use a wicked king and his 7 periods of madness as a symbol of the inhumane nations ruling the earth until Jesus kingdom starts to rule does not tread water at all.  Jehovah used prophets whose wives were unfaithful to illustrate the situation that his people were in..... Yes I have seen the things you took a lot of time to write and I honestly do not think it is worth my time to reply because  think that you are determined to promote your own way of thinking......  

It so happens that I do not agree with you.  In your mind you are the expert on this.   So be the expert and where will it get you? You need to serve Jehovah together with his servants or stay behind.  You need to be actively helping others to come closer to Jehovah - but with this expert fault finding scholarship you will not have enough time or enough of Jehovah's spirit to do this.

I learnt Jehovah's name, the fact that the immortality of the soul is a lie from satan, that Jesus really died for me (soul died) and that Jesus is not God - I learnt all from the Witnesses.  There is no other religion which stands up for the vindication of Jehovah's name like the slave does.  In fact our persecution will start because we proclaim this name and took it for ourselves to be identified by...

Most churches accept the name Jesus but not Jehovah's name.  Even Muslims accept a form of Jesus.... so this should tell you to appreciate the fact that Jehovah in his graciousness allowed both of us to be part of this group of people. ..... While it is good to investigate what you believe so you can stay strong - one should not go beyond/ or brazenly go ahead - where is the unity in that?  I have on occasion not agreed with small things and later came to this conclusion:-  it sorts itself out......  The really important stuff is all there and is understood....

I started writing a book about the intrinsic  LOGIC of the Bible and how everything fits in perfectly - a few years back and decided to stop..... because I decided that I do not want to be competition for the slave..... Jehovah gave them the job to advertise the kingdom.... and I will not use what I learnt from the organization (even if I have a lot of my own ideas - to make money for myself.   I may later finish it and ask them if I can publish..... and if they do not like  ..... it is OK with me.  I am participating in the greatest work on earth - to teach others about Jehovah. 

There is a thin line which one can overstep.  Think of Adam and Eve - it was a very simple test...... and such a small thing.... which actually shows the level of obedience and cooperation which Jehovah really expects from us.  This is why the bible shows we must be in unity and in cooperation when he finds us.....  We can use our powers to sow discord and doubt..... which is not the way Jehovah wants us to be.  We must be slaves...... of others ....not scholars.  Jesus knew all the knowledge there is all to know in heaven and on earth but not once did he show that he knows more than other people.  He stayed lowly until his death. We all - me included - can learn from this! for sure!

[Arauna]

I agree with you brother -  Europe is a boiling cauldron and the longer it boils the bigger the explosion.   They are in denial about the financial and other problems related to immigration but when it sinks in they will act in a crazy way.... the lady is heavy pregnant - all the signs are there - the birth is eminent - the day an hour is unknown.  However, we should all be found working hard for a warning and a witness to the nations... in unity, cooperation and in peace - who of us will stand?

[JW Insider]

21 minutes ago, Arauna said:

I think you keep on trying to prove you are right because you are not happy with what you have in the truth.  Why spend hours trying to get someone to agree with you.  What is the purpose of it?   If hypothetically I agree with you - then what will the next step be for us?  We go and make our own happy little group separate from other Witnesses - and pat ourselves on the back that we are smarter than the slave? or what?

When evidence piles up against something very overwhelmingly, we really have no choice but to either accept the evidence or dismiss it. The easiest thing to do is to dismiss new evidence and go along as we always have. If we can dismiss evidence then we don't have to think about it. In this world, of course, especially modern news media and in social media, the most common method of dismissing evidence is to go after the person instead of the evidence. This is why you often see people making assumptions about motives.

If you think I'm saying this is what you are doing, I'm not. You have gone beyond the idea of merely dismissing evidence. You are rightly concerned about the motive behind it, and you are rightly concerned about what it would really mean to us if the evidence were accepted. This is not a simple dismissal of evidence in your case. I can see that you are not simply bringing this up  for a diversion to avoid thinking about it. 

So I'm glad you asked the questions:

"Why spend hours trying to get someone to agree with you? What is the purpose of it?"

Getting someone to agree is not the point. Many people already agree. But we learn not to worry when people don't agree with us in the field ministry. Yet our responsibility to present truth to the best of our ability does not change.

(John 4:23) 23 Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him.

Spending hours on a subject is not the preference for everyone, but there are persons for whom the opportunity for this kind of research is a joy and a privilege. For one thing, it helps me see first-hand the accuracy of the Bible, and how even secular sources of archaeology and history support the Bible account. Questions that produced contradictions in the past, now show the Bible to be harmonious, even on this very topic of chronology during the Neo-Babylonian period. And you get a better sense of the historical Babylonian world in which the Jews were exiled. There are about 4 of these questions that produced contradictions in the past. I've brought up 2 of them on the forum before, such as:

(Haggai 2:3) 3 ‘Who is left among you who saw this house in its former glory? . . .

(Ezra 3:12, 13) 12 Many of the priests, the Levites, and the heads of the paternal houses—the old men who had seen the former house—wept with a loud voice when they saw the foundation of this house being laid, while many others shouted joyfully at the top of their voice. 13 So the people could not distinguish the sound of the joyful shouts from the sound of the weeping, for the people were shouting so loudly that the sound was heard from a great distance.

The question on these scriptures was about how many of these 95 to 105 year old people could have outcried the sounds of joy according to the Watchtower chronology? But the "accepted chronology" that fits both the Bible and secular evidence shows that this was the 75 to 105 year olds, not just those over 95 years old.

Another question was the meaning of the phrase "these 70 years" at a time that was 90 years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and 92 years, at least, after the deadly siege against it:

(Zechariah 1:12) 12 So the angel of Jehovah said: “O Jehovah of armies, how long will you withhold your mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with whom you have been indignant these 70 years?”

(Zechariah 7:4, 5) 4 The word of Jehovah of armies again came to me, saying: 5 “Say to all the people of the land and to the priests, ‘When you fasted and wailed in the fifth month and in the seventh month for 70 years, did you really fast for me?

Why does the scripture say they were fasting for 70 years if the Watchtower says that this was 90 years later? The "accepted chronology" answers that exact question.  There are two more similar questions that I will get to later.

Of course, some will probably end up believing in the evidence and in the Bible's support for that evidence based on what I have presented. But it won't be just because I said it. On the Internet people say whatever they want and pretend to be whoever they want, so no one is going to accept it because I presented it. They will only do so after evaluating the evidence for themselves, and I'm guessing that 99% won't look at the evidence anyway. Still, we don't impugn each other for spending hours trying to get someone to agree with us, if we are convincing them to believe in 1914. If we are doing this because we are passionate for truth, then we have an obligation to support what we know to be true, if asked.

(Philippians 4:8) . . .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.

If hypothetically I agree with you - then what will the next step be for us?  We go and make our own happy little group separate from other Witnesses - and pat ourselves on the back that we are smarter than the slave? or what?

The next step is to continue to focus on all the things that Philippians 4:8 just mentioned. Nothing significant should change. One of the points of this is that we don't have to make our happy little group separate from other Witnesses. But, in time, as more persons are aware of the evidence, we won't have to be ashamed and cower at the idea of speaking out boldly and fearlessly about the things we have learned. Currently, most Witnesses, including myself, have to hold back from certain conversations even when they come up with other Witnesses we trust, for fear we will say something that will be interpreted as presumptuous, haughty, or stumbling. So in the meantime, there are 1,000 other true things we can focus on. 1,000 other serious concerns, righteous, chaste, lovable, virtuous, praiseworthy things that we can focus on. Against such things, there is no restriction. Also, this doesn't make us "smarter" than the slave. This is merely evidence, which is merely "knowledge." Knowledge pales into non-importance when compared, with love, justice, mercy, kindness, faith, hope, etc. In my own case, I learned about these things from members of the slave and members of the anointed who were just as concerned about truth, but had no way of presenting this information without getting into trouble from those who believed that nothing should be said that did not fully support the doctrines that Frederick Franz believed. (But it's also easy to understand why Brother Franz believed in the importance of this doctrine.) Several of these other brothers that I knew were concerned about losing their positions in Writing, and other positions of responsibility. Some have since died and some have evidently still not said much about it except to close friends. I don't think there is anything new here that the "slave" is not aware of. I don't know for sure, but I honestly guess that to many people in positions of responsibility in the organization, there just isn't a good way or opportunity to make adjustments yet. There is probably a fear that this will be very disruptive and may result in a great loss of publishers. I think the evidence shows that most of us would welcome the evidence if it were shown how it coincides with the message of Matthew 24, the stated meaning of Daniel 4, etc. And I would also guess that there are a few questions that remain that would be too difficult to answer immediately. This doesn't mean they can't be truthfully answered with "we don't know yet." The main thing is that I'm sure all of us would be more comfortable with humility and discretion in these matters as opposed to signs of presumptuousness and a tendency to claim full knowledge.

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

t has nothing to do with being smart or scholarly or even being RIGHT - it has to do with recognizing Jehovah and the channel he is using to preach the Kingdom as the only hope for mankind.  I honestly believe that we must have Jehovah's spirit to stay connected with Him and stay in the truth.

That is absolutely correct. I hope no one misunderstands.

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

I have enough knowledge of other history to firmly believe that WW1 was a major change in world affairs and that the year 537BCE is a reasonably good year (take a year of two) for the building work to restart in Jerusalem......and this will easily bring the date of Babylon's fall to 607 (70 years in Babylon ) - which makes 1914 not a mirage at all! 

WWI was definitely a major change in world affairs. And 537 is a reasonably good year for the building work to restart in Jerusalem. And 607 as the date of Jerusalem's fall (not Babylon's, of course) is not so far off either in the overall scheme of things, either (+- 20 years). Of course, there is no need to review why these ideas are never connected in the Bible. Even if Jerusalem fell in 607, the Bible does not connect a period to 607 as the start of the Gentile Times. Also, the Bible does not connect any period of 2,520 years to be counted from Jerusalem's fall.

Then we still have to discuss the meaning of the sign. The Jews were looking for the Parousia to be a time when war, earthquake, fire and famine would bring destruction. You can see this in the books that the Jews were using at the time to prepare for the end of the age. But Jesus appears to tell his disciples that even though they have heard that it was said that these signs would help them recognize the end-time, Jesus said to them not to be misled by wars, earthquakes, and famine. So the one thing we would NOT want to look for as a sign of the end would be a major war of any kind, or major earthquakes, or food shortages. I won't go too far into that subject here, but we should at least be able to see that this is a possible way to read Jesus' words in Matthew 24.

2 hours ago, Arauna said:

And the other arguments that Jehovah will not use a wicked king and his 7 periods of madness as a symbol of the inhumane nations ruling the earth until Jesus kingdom starts to rule does not tread water at all.  Jehovah used prophets whose wives were unfaithful to illustrate the situation that his people were in.....

No argument was made that Jehovah will not use a wicked king and his 7 periods of madness as a symbol of the inhumane nations ruling the earth until Jesus kingdom starts to rule. In fact, I believe the dream can help to give us faith in exactly that prospect. After all, even though it was fulfilled in Nebuchadnezzar the point was that Jehovah is the universal sovereign and can repeat this any time, or as many times as he wants. No empire can overpower Jehovah's will. And we pray for that Kingdom to come and for God's will to be done as in heaven also upon the earth. I agree that it teaches exactly the lesson Daniel 4 says it teaches. But we do know that it creates a lot of contradictions to try to make a type/antitype illustration out of Nebuchadnezzar's experience.  And the biggest contradiction is the one we rarely even think of, that if interpreted the way we do, that it provides a framework for the time-table of the parousia, something that only the presumptuous would try to figure out after Jesus said that the times and seasons were in the Father's jurisdiction, and after Paul said that about the Parousia and about the times and seasons we need nothing to be written to us, BECAUSE it is coming as a thief.

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

Yes I have seen the things you took a lot of time to write and I honestly do not think it is worth my time to reply because  think that you are determined to promote your own way of thinking......  

Understood. I wasn't necessarily expecting a reply unless someone could think of a Biblical reason to dismiss any of the evidence anyway. If anyone thinks the subject is of serious concern and knows of a Biblical reason to dismiss any of the evidence, then I'll probably hear about it sooner or later. And besides, you did respond with some Biblical ideas about Daniel 4 that I am not dismissing at all.

2 hours ago, Arauna said:

so this should tell you to appreciate the fact that Jehovah in his graciousness allowed both of us to be part of this group of people. ..... While it is good to investigate what you believe so you can stay strong - one should not go beyond/ or brazenly go ahead - where is the unity in that?  I have on occasion not agreed with small things and later came to this conclusion:-  it sorts itself out......  The really important stuff is all there and is understood....

I appreciate this and all of the obvious truths that I didn't requote from you because I believe them just as you do. Naturally I disagree somewhat on our responsibility to present truth when we are asked. I don't think it gets us in trouble if we handle our responsibilities seriously. There is no need for any of this to cause disunity. It's just not that important. As you say the important stuff is all there and is understood. I sometimes wonder though, what a Bible Student should have done starting in 1919 and all up well into 1925 when Rutherford was embarrassing himself and the organization. (His own words about embarrassing himself.) What appears to be extreme haughtiness and presumptousness was amazing if you go back and read the words written back then. If you knew that 1925 was based on flimsy evidence would you have said something? Would you have written Rutherford or kept it to yourself? If you were an elder minding the congregation's business and keeping your concerns to yourself, yet you knew there was something wrong, how would you counsel someone else who came up to you for advice? What if that person was a lowly person who also knew exactly what was wrong with the reasoning behind 1925? Would you be humble enough as an elder to learn from that person and realize that these were serious concerns? As a matter of fact there were many Bible Students who went through exactly that back in 1925. And of course, the same goes for any who happened to see the weaknesses and problems with all the other dates predicted from 1881 through 1918, including 100% of the predictions made for the year 1914. Is it our responsibility to make sure and question or is it our responsibility to follow without questioning?

I know your statement above is a way of answering that question, and up to a point I agree. I can even stay quiet in my congregation. But for me it's still a matter of understanding our true responsibility and our conscience. 

BTW, from what I know of you and your experience, (and yes I can read things about you in several places on the Internet), your book would be very interesting to many. I understand the hesitation, don't now if I would do it, even if I had your experiences. Would also be concerned about making money off the good news. But I know that you have some especially good ideas for the Muslim audience, for example, that you have some expertise at. And I do know that there are probably many ways to share good upbuilding thoughts and experiences in good conscience. Perhaps @TrueTomHarley has some ideas here.

 

[TiagoBelager]

Zechariah 7:5 expressly relates that there were lamentations and fasts that the Jews had practiced in the 5th and 7th months as commemorations of events that had occurred in those calendar months, events that began an absence from Jerusalem of sacrifices being made to Jehovah. During just those 70 years, sixty-eight (68) 7th-month memorial fasts might have seemed appropriate, because the land had remained desolated without sacrifices offered to Jehovah in Jerusalem. But even when conditions were as they had been for the 70 years, were the fasts and wailings, which occurred ritually in the 5th and 7th months within the 70 years that the Jews were absent from the land, really observed  by most Jews out of repentant hearts? No, and now that the 70-years desolation had ended, it should be apparent to all right-hearted inhabitants in Judea that continuation of the annual, commemorative rituals now for a grand total of “O how many years” (Zechariah 7:3; thus a total of even more than whatever was the total number of times they were observed during the 70 years of exile, for those fasts were observed during an additional period of 19 years ending in 518 B.C.E., Darius Hystaspis' 4th year) had become entirely perfunctory with no basis for even a hypocritical pretext of fasting and lamentation out of sadness, this since restoration had already occurred after the 70 years exile. After all, even during the 70 years of real loss to the Jews (the loss of the temple, and loss of Jerusalem as habitation for anyone who might want to use the site for sacrifices (compare Jeremiah 41:5)), the displays of ritual sadness were, for the most part, not done out of godly sadness/repentance—not so for most Jews, anyhow, but had become rituals done perfunctorily. The 5th month’s ritual of hypocrisy was commemoration of Nebuchadnezzar’s razing of the temple (see Jeremiah 52:12, 13) and the emptying of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 40:1-13); and the ritual of hypocrisy in the 7th month was commemoration of the last time for 70 years to come that any Jews might have gone back into Jerusalem for sacrifices. The site would not become available for sacrifices until the end of 70 years of the Jews being off the land, for nobody was in the environs of Judah for 70 years following the destruction of the city (see events recorded in Jeremiah 41:1ff). It is therefore significant that the fast of every 4th month and the fast of every 10th month were not fasts in commemoration of events that meant a period of 70 years defined as the period of time during which Jerusalem was without inhabitants and was no longer a place where sacrifices to Jehovah were being performed. Those sacrifices were resumed upon restoration of the Jews to the land of Judah (Ezra 3:1-6). That is why Zechariah 7:5 does not mention the 4th and 10th months’ ritual fasts, for they were not commemorated as events that had brought about the beginning of the 70 years of absence of Jews from Judah. After 70 years of loss of sacrifices in Jerusalem, then were sacrifices resumed, right on time in the 7th month. 

What do the angel's words "these 70 years" in Zechariah 1:12 mean? The angel's words were spoken about 18 years and 7 months after sacrifices had been resumed in Jerusalem; however, at the time he spoke, work on the temple had been suspended and outlawed, this so that no temple had been rebuilt in Jerusalem. Nobody, then, can make the argument that '"these 70 years" were words indicating that there had come into existence a real passage of time, a real period of time (of denunciations from Jehovah) that had finally become a total of 70 years only about the time when finally the angel spoke out of his sadness of heart about the situation in Jerusalem.'

Now, what follows is my reflection on what the I believe the angel likely intended by his words, which is that the angel's words are a simile spoken in hyperbolic fashion. If so, then the angel's words were his way of making it known that the temple's having yet to be rebuilt put him in mind of Jehovah's judgment against Jerusalem that really had stood in place for 70 unbroken years. For the angel, the situation in Jerusalem made him feel like it was still a matter of an on-going, unbroken punishment, as though 'the foretold 70 years for deserved punishment must not have already been fulfilled.' Although the foretold 70 years of judgment really had come to their end, yet the angel still felt for the same reasons the same sadness that had come upon him at the commencement of the 70 years desolation, as though he had yet to see "these 70 [foretold] years [of punishment]" come to their end.  Because sacred service to Jehovah in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem had yet to occur, then that let enemy nations draw the wrong conclusions about Jehovah and whether His eye really was on Jerusalem. Jehovah let the angel know that He (Jehovah) would soon act in a way that would sanctify Him in Jerusalem in the sight of enemy nations that He would set a-trembling by events that He would bring about in Jerusalem. 

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Watchtower September 1, 1922 Page 262 as incorrectly cited by JWinsider

Thanks for the correction. I have fixed the quote. I had left out the one I intended to put from 1924 first, also added below, and then fixed the one from 1922, which as you can see, is where the conflation was based upon:

 "The year 1925 is a date definitely and clearly marked in the Scriptures, even more clearly than that of 1914; . . ."  — The Watchtower, July 15, 1924, p. 211.

"The physical facts show beyond question of a doubt that 1914 ended the Gentile Times. . . . The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures [than 1914] because it is fixed by the Law God gave to Israel." — The Watchtower, September 1, 1922, p. 262.

In the second quote I had also left out the brackets in the bracketed words "[than 1914]."  This time, I added the prior sentence that made this point clear. 

[TrueTomHarley]

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

I started writing a book about the intrinsic  LOGIC of the Bible and how everything fits in perfectly - a few years back and decided to stop..... because I decided that I do not want to be competition for the slave..... Jehovah gave them the job to advertise the kingdom.... and I will not use what I learnt from the organization (even if I have a lot of my own ideas - to make money for myself.   I may later finish it and ask them if I can publish..... and if they do not like  ..... it is OK with me.  I am participating in the greatest work on earth - to teach others about Jehovah. 

The other way to look at it is that everyone writes about what they know best. I do. You, presumably, would be with your book. It seems silly that only JW writers should not be able to write about their topic of expertise. 

I can and do write of other things but it typically comes down to the same conclusion: 'such-and-such is a mess because we need God's kingdom to straighten things out." 

Write in such a way that you are not in competition - either offer personal accounts, anecdotes, current news items and how they relate - research that they would not likely do.

You said: "and I will not use what I learnt from the organization (even if I have a lot of my own ideas - to make money for myself"

I wrestled with this, too. But I am not Bethel and I have to pay the light bill. it's either write or Mickey D for me. Believe me, book proceeds do not make a significant dent, unless you hit mainstream, which is unlikely. It's just a hobby. A university professor  who has written a tome about Witnesses, as well as other books, tells me he is glad he did not quit the university - they don't exactly fly off the shelf.  Nonetheless, conscience of the moneymaking concern, I am working on a book "Dear Mr. Putin - Jehovah's Witnesses write Russia." It will be free for some months. 

(I tried to put this in a thread b/c I think what's-her-name would want me to do, but I can't figure out where to do it. It seemed obvious at one time)

[Anna]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

OK.. done. I have read it again. As always, I deeply appreciate the good research that has gone into the Insight book. When this book first came out under the name "Aid to Bible Understanding" I was just as amazed, especially at the "Chronology" section. It took me nearly four years of scratching out an hour or so each day to completely read the Aid book while still at Bethel. I have never completed the Insight book yet, although I recognize that most of the old entries have remained intact, verbatim, from the older Aid book.

That said, I would love to comment on many items of interest that I found in the "Chronology" article in Insight including everything I agree with and appreciated. First, I will try to limit my comments to those that are relevant to this discussion and the statements you have made above.

So here goes . . .

First, you said: "And -"NO"- the Sumerian, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronologies are NOT firmly established! ... There is too little reliable evidence for that."

I can say that you have understood very well the basic premise of the the first half of the Chronology article. It is clearly intended to make us us think that the Babylonian Chronology is not firmly established, when it really is, as I said above, one of the MOST firmly established of all ancient timelines. By mixing the Neo-Babylonian in with the Sumerian and Assyrian chronologies, especially by mentioning the much earlier mythical portions of those chronologies, we can easily get confused into thinking the Neo-Babylonian is just like the others. It's always easy to think that if something is wrong with part of something then something must also be wrong with the whole. But we should keep in mind that the Watch Tower publications are so sure of the accuracy of the Neo-Babylonian chronology, hat they take ONE of the dates from it (539) and for many years called it an ABSOLUTE date, and used that date as an anchor for the 1914 doctrine that has been repeated over 6,000 times, according to the current updated WT-Library CD. In fact scholars refer to the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology as ABSOLUTE dates, therefore the Watch Tower publications now only refer to 539 as a "pivotal" or "assured" date, rather than an absolute date..

*** it-1 p. 448 Chronology ***
The histories of the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, and others are, in the main, fragmentary; their earlier periods are either obscure or, as presented by them, obviously mythical.

A true statement "in the main" especially about their "earlier periods" but we are interested ONLY in the Neo-Babylonian period.

*** it-1 p. 448 Chronology ***
What is known from secular sources of these ancient nations has been laboriously pieced together from bits of information obtained from monuments and tablets or from the later writings of the so-called classical historiographers of the Greek and Roman period.

Notice that all these nations have still been mixed together, rather than marvel at the amazing completeness of the Neo-Babylonian period, based on literally THOUSANDS of interrelated, interlocking, dated tablets and monuments. It's true that it has been laboriously pieced together from bits of information. This is as we should expect, and it turns out that all these THOUSANDS of bits of information support the "accepted chronology." And we should note that the Watch Tower publications do refer to the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology as the "accepted chronology" -- not because one man named Carl Olof Jonsson accepts it, but because ALL the known Neo-Babylonian scholars accept the overwhelming evidence.  Obviously, these experts don't accept it just because it supports the Bible's timeline, yet it is easy to show that it really does.  And these same scholars are the ones that the Insight book relies upon for the 539 date. These THOUSANDS of pieces of evidence actually support the Bible's timeline much better than the Watch Tower's timeline.

*** kc p. 187 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
Business tablets: Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets have been found that record simple business transactions, stating the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets of this sort have been found for all the years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in the accepted chronology of the period.

This doesn't mean that the Watch Tower accepts the "accepted chronology," of course, but the reasons that the Watch Tower gives are not real reasons. It is very easy to show that they are just pretend reasons. The Insight book inadvertently admits that these are just pretend reasons, if you look at it closely enough.

*** it-1 pp. 448-449 Chronology ***
While archaeologists have recovered tens of thousands of clay tablets bearing Assyro-Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions, as well as large numbers of papyrus scrolls from Egypt, the vast majority of these are religious texts or business documents consisting of contracts, bills of sale, deeds, and similar matter. The considerably smaller number of historical writings of the pagan nations, preserved either in the form of tablets, cylinders, steles, or monumental inscriptions, consist chiefly of material glorifying their emperors and recounting their military campaigns in grandiose terms.

Notice the contradictory reasoning here. TENS OF THOUSANDS of clay tablets bearing inscriptions are supposedly minimized for being religious texts or mundane business documents. Notice what is left out, however: they are EACH ONE DATED to the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Also, by throwing some Egyptian papyrus scrolls into the mix, it's possible to imply that many of the TENS OF THOUSANDS of business documents might be religious documents -- and this very likely makes us think they are reduced in value in determining a chronology. We are also supposed to get the idea that the historical writings are reduced in value because they glorify their emperors and military campaigns. We are supposed to think if "myth" and "exaggeration" here. These are the bad apples that are supposed to spoil the whole bushel.

*** it-1 p. 449 Chronology ***
Engraved in stone or inscribed in clay, some ancient pagan documents may seem very impressive, but this does not ensure their correctness and their freedom from falsehood. Not the material written on, but the writer, his purpose, his respect for truth, his devotion to righteous principles—these are the important factors that give sound basis for confidence, in chronological as well as other matters. The great age of the secular documents is certainly outweighed by the vastly inferior quality of their contents . . .

Yes, these contemporary documents will never be the Bible. But let's at least admit to what they are. In fact, these TENS OF THOUSANDS of business documents about mundane matters do not contain any of "myth" or "religion" or "exaggeration" and they are all dated. Not only that, but these dates are interconnected not just through the year of each king, but they include a second name, the name of the current "company president" always including who his father was, and sometimes even who his son was who would become the next president when his father died or retired. In addition to a complete timeline of the kings, you can also double-check it with a complete timeline of the firm's presidents and their sons, grandsons, great grandsons, etc. Thousands of the tablets come from the largest "financial firm" of that time, which handled real estate, banking, loans, and commerce contracts.

It's as if you had a great-grandmother you never met who claimed to live to be 120 years old, and then you went into an attic and found that she had left 10,000 checkbook receipts, loan receipts, deeds, etc., which are not only dated with the day and month, but she also added the year of each U.S. President to each check, so that they would say for example: Lincoln's 3rd year, Johnson's 1st year, Grant's 2nd year. But they also had the name of the bank president, and the bank president's son. So now you could see how long each U.S president served and even synchronize it with how long each bank president served. But the main thing is that she had several checks for each and every year of each president. And you would have no trouble putting them in order because she also had a memo on each check where you could double-check the father and son currently running the bank in every year, too. This way if there were two presidents named Johnson (Andrew and Lyndon) in her check receipts, you could know which was which.

But there is one more thing about the TENS OF THOUSANDS of business documents -- not mentioned. There are enough of them to show exactly what month of the year a given king died, because whenever a king was living the month and day and year of that king's reign was inscribed, but when he died the new king was shown sometimes in tablets of the same month just days after the new king was inaugurated, and the new king would be inscribed as being in his "0" year, or "accession" year.

There is one more point that is just as important. Some of these tablets match up with customer's names on preceding tablets, or some tablets refer to transactions that cut across the time period of two kings. This could be a loan made in the time of one king, but paid off three years later in the time of another king. Or it could be a payment for an item during the last months of one king, and another for the delivery of those items in the early months of another king.

In every case, we not only have tablets for every year of the timeline, but there is no way to claim the kings are in the wrong order, or that one might refer ambiguously to a different king of the same name. (This actually comes close to happening when some usurpers named Nebuchadnezzar show up, but their attempts lasted only a few months at a time, and happened long after the dates we are concerned about between Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus.)

Without mentioning any of these facts, the Insight book goes on with a quote from Ceran "The Secret of the Hittites." If you have the book you will know the true context of the quote.

*** it-1 pp. 449-450 Chronology ***
Well illustrating why secular histories do not qualify as the standard of accuracy by which to judge Bible chronology is this statement by archaeological writer C. W. Ceram, commenting on the modern science of historical dating:  ". . .For as we examine the sources of ancient history we see how scanty, inaccurate, or downright false, the records were even at the time they were first written. And poor as they originally were, they are poorer still as they have come down to us: half destroyed by the tooth of time or by the carelessness and rough usage of men.” —The Secret of the Hittites, 1956, pp. 133, 134.

There are so many things wrong with this type of quotation when you realize that it is almost all geared toward accepting 539 (capture of Babylon) and not accepting 587 (destruction of Jerusalem). Yet both dates are from the same experts. Also there is no conflict between the Neo-Babylonian dating and the Bible, the only conflict is the Watchtower's interpretation -- which was only found necessary as a way to reach the 1914 date. But this book is talking about the Hittites. In fact, in just the next couple of paragraphs he uses an example of King Menes in Egypt from 2900 BCE! The purpose appears to be in order to mix up the problems of the early Egyptian timeline with the Neo-Babylonian. But it also leaves out the very next paragraph after King Menes. In fact, back in a Watchtower article that tried to bolster more faith in the predictions made about the 1975 time period, it actually used this same book to say that 539 was "assured."

*** w68 5/1 pp. 270-271 pars. 2-3 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
" . . . the book The Secret of the Hittites, by C. W. Ceram, in the chapter entitled “The Science of Historical Dating,” states:  . . . “But as we go even deeper into the subject, our respect for the achievements of historical detective work returns. We learn that the scholars have been careful to distinguish between ‘assured’ and ‘assumed’ dates. And we discover that the chronological framework of ancient history rests upon at least a few firm points. Certain key dates, around which other dates are mustered, can be determined almost without error. They are ‘assured.’”
³ Hence, outside the Bible’s timetable, most dates set by historians are unreliable. Only a few “assured,” or absolute, dates, such as 539 B.C.E., . . .

Ceram didn't mention 539 here, the Watchtower added that. As far as the Egyptian chronology goes, note that the Watch Tower is only pushing for about a 100 year difference through much of it, and only a 20 year difference by the time of Josiah.

*** it-1 p. 450 Chronology ***
The difference between the above dates and those generally assigned by modern historians amounts to as much as a century or more for the Exodus and then narrows down to about 20 years by Pharaoh Necho’s time. The following information shows why we prefer to hold to the chronology based on the Biblical reckoning.

That 20-year difference was necessary in order to make Jerusalem's fall change from 587 (accepted date) to 607 (the date required for 1914 to work). It's not that there is any evidence for it. There is none. But what is extremely ironic is that the entire discussion of why the Egyptian dates are not accepted is almost a precise description of the same exact reasoning about why 587 is not accepted. But here's the real irony: every one of these factors that supposedly weakens the unaccepted dates are exactly the factors that were used in order to get the 539 date. In other words the Watch Tower Society doesn't really think these are weakening factors at all; we accept them all perfectly for 539, and even call 539 an ASSURED date because of the same factors. This is how we know that the reasons given are only "pretend" reasons.

Under Assyrian Chronology no attempt is made to synchronize:

*** it-1 p. 452 Chronology ***
The information above points to the conclusion that Assyrian historiography either is not correctly understood by modern historians or is of very low caliber. In either case, we do not feel compelled to attempt to coordinate the Biblical chronology with history as presented in the Assyrian records.

For now, we can leave it at that because nothing there is critical to the points of discussion under Babylonian chronology. Twice as much space is devoted to the Neo-Babylonian and Persian chronologies and the issues surrounding their accuracy. This is the most interesting to this discussion, so I will continue some comments for discussion in the next post.

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

Out of interest, when I was studying “what does the Bible really teach” with my student, a biologist (the ex atheist I already mentioned on here before) when we came to the appendix about 1914 I also gave her the two articles in the WT “When was Ancient Jerusalem destroyed” part 1 and 2. She found the articles interesting but unconvincing. We never went into any detail of those two articles, as both of us agreed that it was more important to go back to the Bible and see what it had to say on what God expects from us, and how to live our life to please him. 

[Anna]

On 8/5/2017 at 8:06 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

If there is one thing I would gingerly suggest we do wrong, it is the frequently repeated admonition to stay away from any 'apostate reasoning' because it is like poison. I see why they do it - because the scriptures state they should - and yet it leads to almost a superstition among some of us that mere ideas are poisonous. In fact, the ideas are not poisonous; what is poisonous is many of the people who are pushing them.

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

[Arauna]

I just want to know what "Bigly" world events happened in 1925 which outweighs 1914.... ... or any other date for that matter.  Any date which brought forth the world changing events of 1914.  Please help me out here!  You can change the date to whatever date you like with astounding reasonings and many quoted scriptures etc...... but I want to see the evidence on the ground!... and it must be really more significant than the events in and from 1914.  I am prepared to look at something I feel is really credible - otherwise you do not deserve  my attention!

Also - how much time is spent in teaching others about the Kingdom as instructed by Jesus.  This is our obligation.  We can spend all day in searching the scriptures and when we do not DO what Jesus said - all is in vain.  Our obedience is more important than knowledge because knowledge can puff us up and make us lose focus of bringing praise to Jehovah and warning  and informing our fellow humans on earth.  The attention of the focus can be ourselves if we indulge our own pleasures too much - whatever it is.

As you possibly may know my first language is not English and when I write fast I sometimes fail to check my sentences and my language... ..  I realize I am at a little disadvantage here! LOL  I am going to bow out gracefully now.  I have much preparation to do and I have been rushing in and out to return visits today..... so singing off in Sweden!

Good night.

[Anna]

11 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The other way to look at it is that everyone writes about what they know best. I do. You, presumably, would be with your book. It seems silly that only JW writers should not be able to write about their topic of expertise. 

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