Jump to content
The World News Media

A Difficult Doctrine. With an easy explanation.


Recommended Posts

  • Member

Looking at today's scripture text, I see that there is a fairly good reference to the concept of "core doctrines" in the commentary. Some have questioned whether this concept of core doctrines is correct, with the alternative being that we should accept ALL doctrines, great and small, with equal vigor. In other words, we should be ready to die for the our current teaching concerning "whether people of Sodom would be resurrected" just as strongly as we should be ready to die for the doctrine of the Ransom.

The day's text is about the resurrection, and the commentary speaks of the importance of including this among our key doctrines, as if it might not have been "up there" with the rest.

*** Text for Tuesday, December 10, 2019 ***
What are the key teachings of your faith? Surely you would stress that Jehovah is the Creator and Life-Giver. You would likely mention your belief in Jesus Christ, who died as a ransom. And you would happily add that an earthly paradise is ahead, where God’s people will live forever. But would you mention the resurrection as one of your most cherished beliefs? We have good reasons to include the resurrection as a key teaching even if we personally hope to survive the great tribulation and live on earth forever. The resurrection is central to our faith. Had Christ not been resurrected, he would not be our ruling King, and our teaching about Christ’s rule would be in vain. (1 Cor. 15:12-19) However, we know that Jesus was resurrected, and we hold firm to our belief in the resurrection.

Note that the text reminds us a few things that the great crowd, perhaps, do not get reminded of enough: We might die. The great hope is that "You May Survive Armageddon into God's New World." But since the book of that title came out, most of us who studied that book as JWs are now dead. The key teachings mentioned above are therefore:

  • Jehovah is the Creator,
  • Jesus' Ransom,
  • Living Forever in an Earthly Paradise
  • The Resurrection
  • The Teaching about Christ's Kingdom

I would agree that these are definitely the core teachings.

Of course that final one might be a nod to "1914" as a key teaching, but it is worded here in such a way that no one could dismiss Christ's Kingdom as a key teaching. This is true whether one focuses on the

  • Kingdom preaching beginning in 29 CE through 33 CE,
  • or the Kingdom's beginning in 33 when Christ began to rule as king (1 Cor 15, Colossians 1, Acts 2, Revelation 1, etc.),
  • or the historical outworking of the Kingdom with renewed emphasis on preaching since WWI,
  • or the focus on what that Kingdom will bring to the new heavens and new earth.

But the fact that 1 Cor 15 is quoted above as the context to the teaching about Christ's rule, and that Paul goes on in verse 25 to indicate that "sit at my right hand" is the equivalent of "rule as king" tells me that 1914 might have been left off on purpose. (Because Jesus sat at God's right hand in 33 CE., therefore he began ruling as king in 33 CE. --1 Cor 15:25)

That's an easy solution to all the current difficulties and contradictions in the 1914 teaching. But it's not the "difficult teaching" I had in mind.

If you look at the text through the Watchtower Library, you will also see that it is somewhat related to the material for the Midweek meeting (December 9-15), which starts out with a discussion of Revelation 11.

*** Text for Tuesday, December 10, 2019 ***
TREASURES FROM GOD’S WORD
• “‘Two Witnesses’ Are Killed and Brought Back to Life”: (10 min.)
Re 11:3—“Two witnesses” prophesy for 1,260 days (w14 11/15 30)
Re 11:7—They are killed by “the wild beast”
Re 11:11—The “two witnesses” are brought back to life after “the three and a half days”

I'll explain later today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Views 3.5k
  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The old method of handling this was to use the expression "present truth." Many adventists including Seventh Day still use the expression. It's based on a mistranslation of 2 Peter 1:12 where the KJV said: Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. The tendency among 19th century Adventists was to see a "chronology" element or "time" element in the English expression that did not exis

"We "MUST" obey God as ruler rather than man." To me, Jesus' words here sound like more than just a general "standpoint" (or point of view by definition) that can change depending on the opinion/situation of the observer. I don't want to get into an endless semantic debate of what "standpoint" means to you or to me, since I may be misunderstanding your line of reasoning here. (I am assuming English is not your first language and so while you may have what you are thinking clear in your mind, it

Nice and lively here today 😀   Now don't lie JTR, there was definitely a point   I am sorry. I should have prefaced it with "no need to read" . I really just posted it to illustrate that we don't do this anymore and that we have progressed as with the "WT 66 Question from readers" @b4ucuhear posted, about changes in truth where it says "at times there may be changes in viewpoint. Our basic belief may be sound Scriptural truth, but there may be some details that we did not

Posted Images

  • Member

It looks as though it should be a surprise if, faithful witnesses experience death. Nothing has changed since the time of Christ. Salvation has always been as though we are already dead. We are now working within a spiritual life.

There should never be an assumption that anyone will live to see the Day of Judgment. That’s not the point. The point is, to have personal salvation even unto death. Revelation 2:10

Therefore, if someone is thinking, those in Sodom and Gomorrah will be resurrected, think of it this way. They were judged by God directly. Their destruction was made by their sinful and ungodly ways. To them, the judgment of the second death already applies.

So, no one should harbor any ideals about what the “core doctrine” is perceived to be. God’s value through his son ransom sacrifice.

If it wasn’t, then those given judgment before Noah would have the possibility to be resurrected. That’s not going to happen given the fallen angels exploit on this earth with earthly women. Angels that chose to support Satan, will have an end. There is no forgiveness to a higher being that experienced at one point, creation.

In that understanding, there is no contradiction with the AD1914 unless an independent understanding not supported by scripture is given to make it a controversy. That should never be an exploit of a witness.

Perhaps a better and easier explanation without controversy can be posted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
33 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

You made good points. I would like to reformulate idea in question you put in focus: 

Are you ready to die for beliefs ?

Nothing about to die for core doctrines or less important doctrines. Because they can be changed. They can be truth, of course, but they can be useless fantasy, too.

Are you ready to die for faith?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member

@JW Insider Quote " The day's text is about the resurrection, and the commentary speaks of the importance of including this among our key doctrines, as if it might not have been "up there" with the rest. "

That seems rather strange to me. But then they are getting short of things to say. 

However, i would have thought every Christian, no matter what ever 'sect' or  pigeon hole you put them in, would definitely believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and put it up near the top of important beliefs. 

However making Bible Facts, doctrines, seems unfair to God and to the Bible itself. 

doctrine
a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.
 
It's as if the JW Org tries to 'own' such things. @TrueTomHarley quite often goes on about the things that the JW Org teaches. As if those things 'belonged to the JW Org'.  Whereas a lot of the same beliefs are held by thousands of people, and they not all being of the same organisation.  
 
Quote " The Teaching about Christ's Kingdom - 
Of course that final one might be a nod to "1914" as a key teaching, but it is worded here in such a way that no one could dismiss Christ's Kingdom as a key teaching. "
 
Now here we see a difference between Bible truth and JW doctrine. 
 
Christ's Kingdom is Bible truth.   1914 is JW Org doctrine.
 
(This would bring us back to. Would a person be d/fed or 'watched' if they did not believe the 1914 doctrine?) 
 
Matthew 22 v 44 
 
‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet”’?
So if Jesus was to sit at Gods right hand, until God had put Jesus' enemies beneath Jesus' feet.  Then Jesus could not have had the power to do it himself. Therefore surely Jesus was not ruling as King immediately ? 
 
As for 1914, we know that no one of the Bible Students or JW leaders, were or are inspired of Holy Spirit. So maybe 1914 is just another guess or misuse of scriptures. 
 
What is your view of the difference between 'Core doctrines' and Key teachings ? 
 
And you seem to keep swapping expressions from Core doctrines, to Core teachings, to Key teachings.  Can you explain the difference please ?
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

It looks as though it should be a surprise if, faithful witnesses experience death. Nothing has changed since the time of Christ. Salvation has always been as though we are already dead. We are now working within a spiritual life.

There should never be an assumption that anyone will live to see the Day of Judgment. That’s not the point. The point is, to have personal salvation even unto death. Revelation 2:10

I like that. It's an excellent explanation of one of the points made in the day's text and commentary.

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Therefore, if someone is thinking, those in Sodom and Gomorrah will be resurrected, think of it this way. They were judged by God directly.

Perhaps. And so were all the 1 year old babies destroyed in the Flood. And so were the 185,000 of Senacherib's troops. I used that one because it's one for which most of us would be the least surprised if we discovered that the WT changed the teaching again. 

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

So, no one should harbor any ideals about what the “core doctrine” is perceived to be. God’s value through his son ransom sacrifice.

Not sure what you mean. I already believe that the primary core doctrine is God's value through his Son's ransom sacrifice. Other doctrines are also just as necessary, though. 

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

In that understanding, there is no contradiction with the AD1914 unless an independent understanding not supported by scripture is given to make it a controversy. That should never be an exploit of a witness.

There actually is a contradiction between the Bible and AD 1914. And we don't need any independent understanding not supported by Scripture, such as the independent understanding of John Aquila Brown, or more specifically, that of Nelson H Barbour, neither of which were supported by Scripture. It should ALWAYS be the exploit of any faithful Witness to uncover truth and try to resolve any contradictions that can be resolved by Scripture itself, not anything independent of Scriptural support. 

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Perhaps a better and easier explanation without controversy can be posted.

On the matter of the 1914 doctrine, an easier explanation with human controversy --but no scriptural controversy-- has already been posted. Easier isn't proof that it's better, but it's definitely easier. Here it is:

Jesus came to earth to preach about a God's Kingdom through Christ and give himself over to death as a perfect ransom for sin, to fulfill the Law, and SIT AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING since the time of his resurrection in 33 CE.

That's it. Simple. No contradictions with any Scripture.

From that point on, in 33 CE he SITS AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING ruling in the midst of enemies, including war, famine, sickness, and will continue ruling as king until God has put all enemies under his feet, including the last enemy: death. 

The current belief in 1914 creates a contradiction with this very point, because we are currently forced to ignore 1 Cor 15:25, which indicates that "sitting at God's right hand" is the same as "ruling as King." Right now, our current teaching is that Jesus sat at God's right hand in 33, and THEN LATER began ruling as king in 1914. Paul says that Jesus began ruling as king WHEN he sat at God's right hand.

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

And you seem to keep swapping expressions from Core doctrines, to Core teachings, to Key teachings.  Can you explain the difference please ?

I'm swapping them because they mean exactly the same thing to me. No difference. Doctrine means teaching.

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:
Matthew 22 v 44 
 
. . .  “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet”’?

True but notice the words that Paul used instead of "sit at my right hand" here:

(1 Corinthians 15:25) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet.


Turns out that when a king sits on a throne, this is actually an expression meaning rule as king. Just like when we say that a man "sat on the throne" starting in AD 1066, for example. Turns out that a king does not have to stand up from a throne to begin ruling as king. Turns out that sitting on a throne is not a synonym for just waiting around.

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

So if Jesus was to sit at Gods right hand, until God had put Jesus' enemies beneath Jesus' feet.  Then Jesus could not have had the power to do it himself. Therefore surely Jesus was not ruling as King immediately ? 

By that logic, Jesus is not even NOW ruling as king, because God has not yet put the last enemy Death beneath his feet.

(1 Corinthians 15:25,26) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Are you ready to die for beliefs ?

Nothing about to die for core doctrines or less important doctrines.

Wouldn't a core doctrine be one in which we put "unwavering" faith. This is the whole reason I mention "core" or "key" doctrines. If we were to be killed unless we publicly renounced our faith in Jehovah God as the Creator, and Jesus Christ as the one through whom the Ransom comes, we should be willing to die for that doctrine.

I would not be willing to die over my certainty that Jesus was only using hyperbole when he said that the men of Sodom would do better in a resurrection of the unrighteous on Judgment Day, than persons in towns that rejected Jesus during his earthly ministry. (Only the most diabolical of inquisitors would ask such a question anyway. I think I would go for "theocratic war strategy. 😉 )

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Perhaps. And so were all the 1 year old babies destroyed in the Flood. And so were the 185,000 of Senacherib's troops. I used that one because it's one for which most of us would be the least surprised if we discovered that the WT changed the teaching again. 

Would this mean supernatural babies would not have received judgment because they are babies? Babies that turned into giants that caused the deaths of countless humans, including babies by a power given to them, they shouldn’t have received?

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

There actually is a contradiction between the Bible and AD 1914. And we don't need any independent understanding not supported by Scripture, such as the independent understanding of John Aquila Brown, or more specifically, that of Nelson H Barbour, neither of which were supported by Scripture. It should ALWAYS be the exploit of any faithful Witness to uncover truth and try to resolve any contradictions that can be resolved by Scripture itself, not anything independent of Scriptural support.

Does everyone that possess the Holy Spirit have the ability for prophecy? No! That is made by design by God. 2 Peter 1:20-21, Romans 12:6

It would be unusual for a witness to be distinct to such honor and speak of prophecy as though it was relayed directly from God to that individual. Countering the written words of Paul. God gives that privilege, it is not taken by man. John 3:31-35

With that said, faithful witnesses should understand the meticulous groundwork that Pastor Russell laid-out for everyone to see. There are 2 instances within scripture of 1260. Revelation and Daniel. What witnesses shouldn’t do is project their independent understanding of prophecy, when they are not given that power of prophecy by God.

However, I have seen where some people use genesis and Ezekiel as a reference guide. Therefore, there is no contradiction to Paul's words since the understanding of being enthroned in 1914 versus having taken control are two separate issues. Then, AD 1914 stands on its own Biblical merit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Would this mean supernatural babies would not have received judgment because they are babies?

I was referring to natural babies. The Bible says that in the days before the Flood, men were marrying, and women were being given in marriage. A natural outcome of such natural marriages includes natural children.

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

It would be unusual for a witness to be distinct to such honor and speak of prophecy as though it was relayed directly from God to that individual.

Every Christian should let their reasonableness be known:

(Philippians 4:5) 5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men.. . .

If a doctrine produces a contradiction then it is reasonable to question that doctrine. It is unreasonable not to question it.

There is no need to claim uniqueness, or to make an unreasonable claim that prophecy was relayed directly from God to any individual who notices the contradictions. And there is no need to pretend that noticing the 1914 problems is something unusual. I'm sure that THOUSANDS of Witnesses have seen these contradictions. I'm hoping that more of those thousands will be able to freely question because it is our Christian duty as Witnesses, to show our reasonableness, be noble-minded, keep testing, keep proving, and to make sure of the more important things, and hold fast to what is fine.

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

With that said, faithful witnesses should understand the meticulous groundwork that Pastor Russell laid-out for everyone to see.

Exactly! And when we understand it, we can see where he made such far-reaching mistakes when it comes to his published chronology, almost ALL of which we have now abandoned. This is why the Watchtower has abandoned the very groundwork for the faulty system that Barbour laid out for Russell to accept. The basic groundwork was the "double" (Hebrew, "mishneh") found in Jeremiah, Isaiah, Zechariah, etc. It was understood that this referred to a duplication of time:

Thus understood, the Prophet's declaration is, that from the time of their being cast off from all favor until the time of their return to favor would be a repetition, or duplication in time, of their previous history, during which time they had enjoyed divine favor. (Studies in the Scriptures, V.2, p.218)

In this now-abandoned scheme, natural Israel had received favor for 1,845 years, from 1813 BC to AD 33. Events in this period would exactly parallel events from the new dispensation for another 1,845 years from AD 33 to AD 1878. Adding the 37 years from Jesus death to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70, meant that Russell could add 37 years from 1878 and reach 1914/1915, as the farthest extent of man-made rule by the nations.

As shown in the accompanying diagram, the period of their favor, from the commencement of their national existence at the death of Jacob, down to the end of that favor at the death of Christ, A.D. 33, was eighteen hundred and forty-five (1845) years; and there their "double" (mishneh) —the repetition or duplication of the same length of time, eighteen hundred and forty-five (1845) years, without favor —began. Eighteen hundred and forty-five years since A.D. 33 shows A.D. 1878 to be the end of their period of disfavor. A.D. 33 plus 1845 = A.D. 1878. (p.218)

.  . until the Times of the Gentiles be fulfilled," and hence, though favor was due and began in A.D. 1878, the Jew will not be received back into full favor until after 1915. Thus their rise again to favor will be gradual, as was their fall from it. It is remarkable, too, that these two periods of their falling and rising are of exactly the same length—the falling was gradual, with increasing momentum, for thirty-seven years, from A.D. 33, where their national favor ceased, to A.D. 70, where their national existence ended, the land was desolated and Jerusalem totally destroyed. History thus marks the beginning and ending of their fall, while prophecy marks both ends of their rising—1878 and 1915 —showing an exact parallel of thirty-seven years. (p.221)

So, yes, it was "meticulous" but it was meticulously false, which is why we now consider it to be just a lot of numerology for the trash heap.

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

There are 2 instances within scripture of 1260. Revelation and Daniel. What witnesses shouldn’t do is project their independent understanding of prophecy, when they are not given that power of prophecy by God.

I agree. No Watchtower writers nor Governing Body members, nor any other Witnesses, should have ever projected their independent understanding of prophecy when they are not given that power of prophecy by God. Well-phrased. That would have saved much embarrassment over all the failed dates, failed explanations and failed predictions for 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925, etc. 

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Therefore, there is no contradiction to Paul's words since the understanding of being enthroned in 1914 versus having taken control are two separate issues.

If Jesus being enthroned was so different than when he took (or takes) control, then when does Jesus take control? If you are saying it wasn't in 1914, then when do you say it was? Or will be?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member

I have carefully considered all of the above points, and concerning the willingness to die for one's beliefs, I have this to say about that:

Actor, comedian, and film producer, etc., Woody Allen said it best when asked about one of his latest movies, and the body of movies he had made in the past, either as star, producer, director, or all three ...

"Would you, through your movies, like to live forever in the hearts of your many fans?"

He replied "I would like to live forever, in my apartment in Manhattan."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If we were to be killed unless we publicly renounced our faith in Jehovah God as the Creator, and Jesus Christ as the one through whom the Ransom comes, we should be willing to die for that doctrine.

Yes, that is core thing in a individual faith vs collective faith. Collective faith power is visible from some WT magazine paragraph as in one who speaking about teachings that are unique to JW organization. WT Society said how Salvation is only possible inside Organization and inside respecting whole spectar of Teachings presented by GB.

Here i see contradiction that exists when JW facing with difficult situations. You made good point how issue of Salvation is on other side of spectar, and not in respecting teachings that is questionable or periodicaly changed.

But as it was already said, core faith (not core doctrine/doctrines) is Jesus. Faith in Jesus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I was referring to natural babies. The Bible says that in the days before the Flood, men were marrying, and women were being given in marriage. A natural outcome of such natural marriages includes natural children.

If speculation of children before the flood was made as though, God was an evil God, it would perceive those children had not succumbed to the evils that existed at that time. Genesis 6:6

There would have been no need for the flood, the ark, and the salvation of just a few. We wouldn’t be having this conversation. It was clear to God, children didn’t just inherit sin, but became embroiled in that sin out of their own will.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Every Christian should let their reasonableness be known:

(Philippians 4:5) 5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men.. . .

If a doctrine produces a contradiction then it is reasonable to question that doctrine. It is unreasonable not to question it.

Indeed. Perhaps by reading further in Philippians it becomes more apparent and enlightened by Paul’s words. Once again, a witness should not reflect on prophecy if prophecy is not made known to that individual. There is a reason why God guides humanity. This is why God exerts obedience.

Surely, we can’t claim to be above God in order to use his words in controversy. A well-established prophecy has divine providence.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Exactly! And when we understand it, we can see where he made such far-reaching mistakes when it comes to his published chronology, almost ALL of which we have now abandoned. This is why the Watchtower has abandoned the very groundwork for the faulty system that Barbour laid out for Russell to accept.

I believe Russell also rejected some understandings of Barbour especially after the public disagreements they had and the "separation" of their works.

I will not speculate on the assumptions of others. Personally, I understand the path Pastor Russell was following as well as the path the Witnesses accepted. I have no need to further my studies on a subject that is well known and accepted even by other Christian sects as it has become known to them. Will they credit the Watchtower? I don't see how they could.

I will leave that to divine decision by God, not man. We can be desperate to find answers and Satan can entice our knowledge with the fruit of the tree of knowledge. I, much rather seek Gods divine guidance.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I agree. No Watchtower writers nor Governing Body members, nor any other Witnesses, should have ever projected their independent understanding of prophecy when they are not given that power of prophecy by God. Well-phrased. That would have saved much embarrassment over all the failed dates, failed explanations and failed predictions for 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925, etc. 

Therefore, I suspect the embarrassment comes from those that blindly seek their own independent understanding, and fail to trust in God those sinful men God has chosen and entrusted with prophecy.

However, if someone is inclined and brazen to use such as these dates as substance, they should include 1975 and 2000.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If Jesus being enthroned was so different than when he took (or takes) control, then when does Jesus take control? If you are saying it wasn't in 1914, then when do you say it was? Or will be?

I will let John 7:6 answer your query.

I won't further the discussion. I have seen where only the privileged here can speak without retribution. Since I’m neither an ex-witness that is given that privilege, nor am I a conflicted witness, I don’t wish to upset anyone here. By the tone of your "harsh" words, I am confident that is exactly where we are heading.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Similar Content

    • By JW Insider
      We know that dates like 1513 BCE, 606 BCE, 587 BCE, 539 BCE, 70 CE (or AD), don't occur in the Bible, nor in the ancient astronomical diaries either. If we can pin a specific astronomical event to a record of any of Nebuchadnezzar's years, it would help. But we don't need those kinds dates yet. We can get them later.
      The first thing we need to do is to figure out where the variously listed kings fit in our timeline relative to each other. If we knew the order of the kings in succession and knew how long they each ruled for, we could at least create a "relative" timeline.
      So. To begin. Do ancient records provide an agreed upon list of kings, their order of succession, and the lengths of their rule?
      Yes.
      Do all ancient records agree?
      No. (Most would argue that they agree in all the important areas, and minor disagreements are easily fixed, but we should still admit that not all records are 100% in agreement.)
      So. Can we find two or three that do agree with each other, or perhaps even the majority of the records, in order to start a tentative timeline, and then deal with the disagreements later?
      Yes. The most important of the ancient records from Babylon itself and from those who made use of Babylonian records for astronomical purposes all agree anyway (Babylonians, Persians, Greeks). We would expect the most accurate records to relate to works for predicting or understanding eclipses (for example) or various lunar cycles  and planetary movements. We know that certain types of astronomical phenomena were predicted in advance, or even known to be occurring even if invisible behind thick clouds, or because it occurred below the horizon, or invisible because some events relative to stars and planets could not be seen in the daytime. So  we should expect records accurate enough to be used to actually calculate and predict a future eclipse even if it would be invisible.
      OK. So we'll put into our chart an example where two of these records agree with each other. For now, we'll pick the Royal King List that must have been available to Ptolemy's Almagest as a kind of "look-up table" and the writings of Berossus a Babylonian historian/priest from the Seleucid Period. They both agree on the following:
      Nabopolassar        21 years Nebuchadnezzar  43 years Awel-Marduk         2 years Neriglissar             4 years [Labashi-Marduk  9 months]* Nabonidus            17 years So, we have two "witnesses" (so far) to the names, years, and order of succession for these kings, which I will place in the chart below. To save space and give us a fairly legible font size, I only put in the last few years of Nabopolassar's 21 year reign. And we haven't discussed the length of position of Cyrus reign yet, but both Berossus and the Royal King List give him 9 years starting immediately after the 17th year of Nabonidus.
      So this, so far, becomes an 81-year span (arbitarily) from the 16th year of Nabopolassar up to the 9th year of Cyrus as King of Babylon. It might not be right, but it's a version that we can begin to test against the data to see if it holds up. E-M by the way, is short for Evil-Merodach (Awel-Marduk).

      1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Nabopo-lassar N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S C Y R U S 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  
      *Labashi-Marduk reigned only a few months, but we would NOT expect his name included in a timeline used for counting the number of years between any points on the timeline. And we definitely would not expect it to be included for any purposes related to astronomy calculations. That's because if a reign was so short that it started in a year already counted as "Neriglissar 4" and it ended before the start of "Nabonidus 1" then it should not be inserted because those full years were already counted. In fact, it would be considered a mistake then to include it in an astronomical reference, because it would have thrown off all calculations. predictions and cycles by a full year, making the entire king list worthless. In this case, Berossus, in the role of historian mentions him, but in the Royal King List used for astronomical purposes as a reference for Ptolemy's Almagest, for example, it should NOT be listed, and it wasn't.
    • By Witness
      This is a serious conversation between an individual and an elder, concerning Jesus’ apparent cleansing of the organization between the years of 1914-1919. (WT 7/15/2013 pg 11)
       He asks the elder a legitimate question, “what was this inspection and cleansing work that took place between 1914 and 1919”?
      I hope all JWs here, will take time to listen in.
       
      After 1919, the organiztion...
      Still celebrated Christmas until 1926
      Believed in the cross until late 1920’s
      Celebrated birthdays until 1951
      Still immersed in pyramidology teaching until 1928
       
       
       
       
    • By Israeli Bar Avaddhon
      Everything we read about the "70-Week" prophecy reported in the book "Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy!" (Chapter 11) is worthy of attention and demonstrates how accurate and reliable the word of God is even when pronouncing prophecies very distant in time. The historical accuracy and the numerous Scriptural references that gave weight and authority to the whole speech were also evident. Anyone who approaches the Word of God without preconceptions can not but be struck by this demonstration of power and wisdom on the part of God. The explanation of the 70 weeks is unexceptionable but can be said to be the same as other prophecies? What about those calculations on which many of us have based the hopes of a lifetime and that clashed with the criticism of the majority? We are talking about 1914. Is this also a prophecy of Daniel? Was this also treated with the same marvelous accuracy of the seventy weeks we have just read? Although it may not be easy, we try to be truly objective because understanding or not understanding the prophecy, like the rest of God's Word, can make much difference to our eternal future - John 17: 3; 2 Thessalonians 1: 8   WHAT DID OF 1914?   The book "Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy" on pages 85 to 97 explains in detail the dream of Nebuchadnezzar and the 7-time prophecy asserting that it indicates the coming of the Kingdom of God in 1914. It would therefore be profitable to take the book and compare it with what will be read below. Does Nebuchadnezzar's dream really prophesy the coming of the Kingdom of God in 1914?   THAT'S IT? Let's try to examine what is written in the book without prejudices. At a first reading it seems that Jehovah God wanted to give a lesson of humility to Nebuchadnezzar, which happened. The "seven times", at least for him, were seven years and this is confirmed by the whole story. Reading all this without preconceptions, it does not seem that we should look for other explanations more or less hidden. However, let us take the thesis that "the tree indicates a dominion and a sovereignty much greater than those of the king of Babylon. It symbolizes the universal sovereignty of Jehovah, the King of the heavens, especially with respect to the earth ". This means, first of all, that the Kingdom of God is comparing, in a certain way, to the kingdom of Babylon and this strides with many biblical passages describing Babylon as the greatest enemy of God's people. It also means that the "vigilante" (ie an angel of Jehovah) decides to overthrow the Kingdom of God and this is, to say the least, strange. Some will object that we must not look for similarities in every aspect of the prophecy but also decide which part of the prophecy must have a second fulfillment and which one could be arbitrary enough. After all, we have no other scriptural references to show us which details to focus on and which to leave out. So it is being said that the prophecy of the tree applies entirely to Nebuchadnezzar while only a small part would apply to the Kingdom of God. For the prophecy of the "seventy weeks" we did not need to break the prophecy to try to understand who was applied or if it applied to more than one person because the subject was clear and recognizable from the beginning. On the contrary, all the 7-day prophecy is built on a single verse that is what it says ... "The tree grew and became strong, and its same height finally reached the heavens and was visible to the end of the whole earth" (Daniel 4:11). Meanwhile, the writing says that the tree "becomes visible" to the end of the earth and not that "embraces the end of the earth" and the meaning is very different. The aforementioned book says: "the great tree represents the 'domain that reaches the end of the earth', which embraces the whole realm of mankind. Thus it symbolizes the universal sovereignty of Jehovah, particularly in relation to the earth. - Daniel 4:17 ". "Reaching the end of the earth" means that it extends the domain to the end of the earth while "being visible to the end of the earth" means that it is known, famous. AnyhowÂ… is not it a bit fragile, let's say risky, to build a series of prophecies (all linked together) on this single explanation? Note that the specification "particularly in relation to the earth" is due to the fact that the universal sovereignty of Jehovah is, indeed, universal, for which the tree should have been seen not only in the whole earth but throughout the universe. By specifying, instead, "in relation to the earth", we can exclude the skies from the vision and take the application for good. Anyway, we should ask a question. Is the fact that the tree reaches the heavens or the end of the earth itÂ’s a demonstration or even an indication of the fact that we are talking about the Kingdom of God? We always leave the Bible to enlighten us. Notice what Jehovah told Ezekiel in reference to the Pharaoh. Ezekiel 31: 1-8 says Â… “In the 11th year, in the third month, on the first day of the month, the word of Jehovah again came to me, saying: Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  “Son of man, say to Phar?aoh king of Egypt and to his hordes,Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. ‘Whom are you like in your greatness?  Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  There was an As·syr?i·an, a cedar in Leb?a·non,With beautiful branches like a shady thicket, lofty in stature;Its top was among the clouds.  Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  The waters made it grow big, the deep springs of water caused it to grow high. Streams were all around where it was planted;Their channels watered all the trees of the field.  Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  That is why it grew taller than all the other trees of the field. Its boughs multiplied, and its branches grew longBecause of the abundant water in its streams.  Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  All the birds of the sky nested in its boughs,All the wild animals of the field gave birth under its branches,And all the populous nations were dwelling in its shade.  Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  It became majestic in beauty and in the length of its branches,For its roots went down into abundant waters.  Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  No other cedars in the garden of GodHello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. could compare to it. None of the juniper trees had boughs like it,And none of the plane trees could match its branches. No other tree in the garden of God could rival its beauty”. Do we note some similarities with the vision of Nebuchadnezzar? Both are compared to tall and mighty trees. Both reach high heights, up to the sky in fact the expressions "reach the heavens" or "reach the clouds" are equivalent - Compare Job 22:14; Isaiah 14:14; Daniel 7:13 Of both we notice the big difference with the other trees. Of both it is said that all the flying creatures and all the wild beasts find food and shelter. Now if we apply the principle that the tree that "reaches the clouds" must represent the Kingdom of God, then even the Egyptian empire should be an antitype of the Kingdom. Unfortunately, however, in this story there is no mention of the "times" and consequently it is not possible to count anything. If you think it's ridiculous that the Egyptian empire will represent the Kingdom of God, why should it be acceptable to the Babylonian empire? Jehovah goes on to say ““Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says: ‘Because itHello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. became so tall, lifting its top among the clouds, and its heart became arrogant because of its height, Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  I will hand it over to the mighty ruler of the nations.Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. He will surely act against it, and I will reject it for its wickedness”. The Pharaoh was exalted, just as Nebuchadnezzar did, and for this reason God decided to humiliate him - Matthew 23:12 Nebuchadnezzar escaped with seven years of madness while Pharaoh's empire was besieged. Also this verse remarks the fact that God takes away and gives "the kingdom to whom he wills" (and in this case He gave the kingdom of Pharaoh to the "despot of nations"). Ezekiel 31: 12-14 continues Â… “And foreigners, the most ruthless of the nations, will cut it down, and they will abandon it on the mountains, and its foliage will fall in all the valleys, and its branches will lie broken in all the streams of the land.Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. All the peoples of the earth will depart from its shade and abandon it. Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  All the birds of the sky will live on its fallen trunk, and all the wild animals of the field on its branches.Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  This is so that no tree near the waters should grow so tall or lift up its top among the clouds and that no well-watered tree may reach up to them in height. For they will all be given over to death, to the land down below, along with the sons of mankind, who are going down into the pit.Â’. Even this tree is cut down and humiliated (Jehovah will do this through the king of Babylon). Because of the many similarities with the kingdom of Egypt, are we really certain that the tree that "reached the heavens" refers to the Kingdom of God?   When we talk about 1914, are we really like the Bereans? Or are we "Bereans" only when we have to refute the doctrines of Christianity?   There is another interesting detail that should make us reflect. The Bible compares the heavens to governments, be they human or celestial. Applying this concept to the tree that reaches the heavens and whose other trees do not stand comparison with it, it would simply mean that this tree has the kingdom over the other (smaller) kingdoms and of Babylon the Great is said to have " the kingdom over the kings of the earth "- Revelation 17:18 The only legitimate parallel that you can do with Babylon, without fear of taking corners, is related to Babylon the Great because it is the parallelism that makes the Bible. Indeed, all the world empires mentioned in the Scriptures had, for a time, the kingdom over the other kingdoms. Cyrus, in fact, said of himself ... "I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king, legitimate king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four extremities (of the earth), son of Cambyses (Ka-am -bu-zi-ia), great king, king of Anzan, nephew of Cyrus ,. . . descendant of Teispe,. . . of a family (that) has always reigned ". (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 1974, p.37). Undoubtedly humility was not a characteristic appreciated by the Persians as well as by the Babylonians but in fact the kingdom had power over the other known kingdoms (so to be called "king of the four ends of the earth") and so it could be said that its height had reached the heavens and was visible or known to the ends of the earth. In the story of Ezekiel and in that of Daniel there is no reference, just anyone, to the Kingdom of God, on the contrary ... both accounts mention a judgment from God on enemy nations, proud and violent. Any chronological calculation should respect the subject in being and in fact this part of the Scripture is very different from what is said about the "seventy weeks" - Daniel 9: 24-27 In the account of Daniel chapter 9, one speaks clearly of the Messiah (see Daniel 9:25) and it is not necessary to read what is not written. Anyone who wanted to be polemical could discuss the start date from which to count the "weeks" or even the adduct method * (one day for a year) but certainly we can not discuss the subject in existence (the Messiah). It could also be absurd to discuss who the Messiah really was (which Jews are still discussing) but certainly we can not argue that Daniel chapter 9 speaks of the arrival of the Messiah! Instead, Daniel chapter 4 speaks of Nebuchadnezzar and his kingdom, while all the "understanding" concerning the Kingdom of God is built on four lines in the book "Pay attention to Daniel's prophecies!" That read: "But the great tree represents the domain that reaches the end of the earth, which embraces the entire kingdom of mankind. Thus it symbolizes the universal sovereignty of Jehovah, particularly in relation to the earth. - Daniel 4:17 "(chapter 6, page 87 of the Italian edition of the book). Does not this seem like a very firm statement with a very weak base? Let us try not to tell Daniel 4:17 what he does not really say because it is enough to know the basic rules of grammar so as not to be distracted by the subject. The subject is Nebuchadnezzar and God makes him understand that, because of the fact that he is exalted, he would have taken away his kingdom and given it to whoever He had wanted (exactly as He did to Pharaoh). In practice the one who really rules is the Creator and the other kingdoms exist only because He allows it - Compare Romans 13: 1 So there is no reason to believe that the tree (that is, one of the many governments that Jehovah has permitted in the history of mankind), actually represents the Kingdom of God. If someone wants to imply that the fact that God mentions His dominion is indicative that the tree itself represents His dominion (and is an incredible semantic acrobatics) then we can take the story reported in 2 Kings 19: 14-19 and do it same reasoning. “Hez·e·ki?ah took the letters out of the hand of the messengers and read them. Hez·e·ki?ah then went up to the house of Jehovah and spread themHello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. out before Jehovah.Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  And Hez·e·ki?ah began to prayHello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. before Jehovah and say: “O Jehovah the God of Israel, sitting enthroned aboveHello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. the cherubs,Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. you alone are the true God of all the kingdoms of the earth.Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. You made the heavens and the earth. Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  Incline your ear, O Jehovah, and hear!Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. Open your eyes,Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. O Jehovah, and see! Hear the words that Sen·nach?er·ib has sent to taunt the living God. Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  It is a fact, O Jehovah, that the kings of As·syr?i·a have devastated the nations and their lands.Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  And they have thrown their gods into the fire, because they were not godsHello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. but the work of human hands,Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. wood and stone. That is why they could destroy them. Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  But now, O Jehovah our God, please save us out of his hand, so that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you alone are God, O Jehovah.” Hezekiah knew very well that Jehovah was "the true God of all the kingdoms of the earth" and he prayed that Sennacherib would be stopped in his intent to destroy Jerusalem. We know very well what was the answer of Isaiah which last part reads Â… “Because your rage against meHello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. and your roaring have reached my ears.Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. So I will put my hook in your nose and my bridleHello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. between your lips,And I will lead you back the way you came.” - 2 Kings 19:28 If we did the same reasoning as for chapter 4 of Daniel, then we might suppose that the "reign of Sennacherib" was also an antitype of the kingdom of God because he too had to learn (at his own expense) that Jehovah is "the true God of all. the kingdoms of the earth "or, in other words, "dominates over all mankind ". Unfortunately, even in this story there are no numbers, days, weeks or months to be calculated and therefore no reason to read "the coming of the kingdom of God" even where no mention is made of it. Is it possible that the strong desire to see the prophecies fulfill has influenced the intention and therefore pushed to read what was not actually written? This means that if you really want to see a second fulfillment of the story reported in Daniel chapter 4, you should respect the subject in being and that is Babylon. It is likely that the story of Daniel is simply telling the humiliation of Nebuchadnezzar and that the "seven times" mean only seven years but we can not be categorical. In this regard it is useful to reflect on the fact that even the humiliation of the Pharaoh, reported in Ezekiel, could have a second fulfillment as Jehovah says that he will "shake the nations" and this could be a reference to the Armageddon war.   So, without fixing ourselves too much with a specific date, in case the story of Daniel wanted to show us a second fulfillment of the prophecy, the report is actually saying: "Babylon will fall, will remain inactive for seven times and then rise again". This can only bring our mind back to the last mention that the Bible makes of Babylon - Revelation 17:5 The clues about Babylon the Great brought us to the nation of Israel so the question we should ask ourselves is ... "From what year we should start counting the 2520 years (ie 360 * 7) until we see the rebirth (if any) of Babylon? " From the story of Daniel the possible dates from which to count the seven times are two: 1) Since Nebuchadnezzar has had the vision or has fallen into "misfortune" (in fact, Daniel says "the tree is you" - Daniel 4: 20-22) 2) From the death of Nebuchadnezzar (if Nebuchadnezzar represents the kingdom of Babylon, his death is the moment when the tree is "knocked down" but it is to be noted that there is no reference to this in the narration of Daniel who, indeed, he says that the kingdom would be assured - Daniel 4:26) As far as the first hypothesis is concerned, it is impossible to have an accurate date because neither the Bible nor the secular history tells us in which year Nebuchadnezzar was expelled from his kingdom. This happened, obviously, after 597 a.E.V. (year in which Nebuchadnezzar brings the first Jewish prisoners to Babylon according to the secular date, there is a difference of 20 years with that of the slave who, in fact, puts 617 a.E.V.) and within 570 a.E.V. (if Nebuchadnezzar dies in 562 BCE - always according to the secular date - and the period of "captivity" lasts 7 years and the kingdom is returned to him presumed to have reigned for at least a year, 570 is the last useful year) . However in the first four chapters of Daniel we mention Daniel, Sadrac, Mesac and Abednego first as children (Daniel 1: 3, 4) and later as robust men (Daniel 3:12, 27) and all this before Nebuchadnezzar has the famous dream tree. This means that, from their deportation until the day when the king erected the image of gold, at least 15, 20 years passed. So if the Jews came to Babylon in 597 a.E.V. but they pass 20 years before the construction of the golden idol and having taken for good the secular date (562 a.E.V) it is possible to restrict the period from 577 a.E.V. up to 570 a.E.V. Obviously they are only estimates but the important date is the maximum time limit (570 a.E.V) so if from the deportation until the construction of the image had passed 15 years instead of 20, the starting date would be 582 a.E.V. but the last possible useful date would always be 570 a.E.V. The eventual rebirth of Babylon, if Daniel is talking about this, would have happened between 1943 E.V. (2520-577) and 1950 E.V. (2520-570). To reinforce this hypothesis there would also be the fact that the narration of his expulsion is the last story reported to Nebuchadnezzar. Few verses later, in fact, we no longer speak of him but of Baldassarre (Daniel chapter 5). It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that Nebuchadnezzar had the vision in the last years, perhaps during the last decade of his reign.   The second hypothesis concerns the death of Nebuchadnezzar, which takes place, according to the secular sources, in 562 a.E.V. According to the slave, in 582 a.E.V. (see the book "Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy" chapter 7, page 99). Counting 2520 years we arrive at 1958 E.V. in the first case and to 1938 E.V. in the second case.   Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. "Babylon will fall, remain inactive for seven times and then rise again"   What does recent history tell us? If, as we have seen, Babylon the Great is the nation of Israel, this would corroborate the first hypothesis. The first hypothesis places the rebirth of Babylon between 1943 and 1950. Indeed, the "resurrection" of Israel took place in May 1948.   Knowing the fixation of human beings for dates and calculations, however, it is prudent to pay attention to the most important things. The secular dates can not be secure, based on findings and comparisons more or less incomplete, and certainly we can not base our faith on this - 2 Corinthians 5: 7 What would happen if the 597 a.E.V., as well as 607 or 537 or any other date on which we based much of the biblical prophecies (without there being a real reason for doing so) tomorrow proved to be completely wrong? The consequences could be very serious and not just from a human point of view - Amos 3: 1, 2 We must not take Jehovah's mercy for granted, so we must be cautious in our statements. Since we have no certainty that the "seven times" do not simply represent seven years, we should not lose ourselves in these speculations. Is not the most important thing to understand the identity of Babylon the Great? Those who have truly studied the Bible without preconceptions have understood that Babylon the Great is indeed Israel and this has understood it regardless of dates and calculations. This is a crucial aspect of prophecy because it is the clues that guide us in the subjects and times in which we are living, such as road signs, and not the calculations - Compare Matthew 24:32, 33 and 2 Timothy 3: 1-5 and do a contrast with Matthew 24:36 There is no temporal indication for the killing of the two clothed witnesses (see Revelation chapter 11) but we know that they are revealed at the end of the war. We know that the city called "Sodom and Egypt" is Babylon the Great, hence Israel, and as a result we also know which nation and events to watch carefully. That the Bible actually prophesises the year of his "resurrection" or not, is certainly interesting but not fundamental for those who believe that it is indeed the inspired Word of God. Fundamental, if anything, will be "get out of it" when the UN prepares to destroy it.   * However the Bible confirms the "one day for a year" method and also that this was the same method used by God's people - Ezekiel 4: 6; Luke 3:15 ** The Bible allows us to be "fully competent" then all the speeches made on 607 a.E.V. pro and contra, they are absolutely useless. Nebuchadnezzar's dream, as we have seen, has nothing to do with the Kingdom of God    
    • By The Librarian
      A proclamation, declaring the start of war in Europe, is posted up in Whitehall, in London in 1914. Getty Images
    • By The Librarian
      Austro-Hungarian and Royal Prince of Hungary and of Bohemia, and from 1889 until his death, heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne. His assassination in Sarajevo precipitated Austria-Hungary's declaration of war against Serbia. This caused countries allied with Austria-Hungary (the Triple Alliance) and countries allied with Serbia (the Triple Entente Powers) to declare war on each other, starting World War I.
      The bullet that killed the Archduke; sometimes referred to as "the bullet that started World War I"
      --------------------------------------
      Franz Ferdinand ignored warnings that Serbian terrorist group the Black Hand — still reeling from Austrian annexation in 1908 — was plotting to assassinate him during his state visit to Sarajevo.
      Plus, the day of his tour was Serbia’s National Day. Sophie pleaded with him not to go.
      So why did he? Death was better than humiliation, said Lebow. It was a matter of honor.
      Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie riding in an open carriage at Sarajevo shortly before their assassination on June 28, 1914. Photo by Henry Guttmann/Getty Images
      On June 28, 1914, Franz Ferdinand and Sophie were riding in the third of a seven-car convoy when a bomb bounced off their hood, exploding as the fourth car passed.
      At this point, said Lebow, “any security detail worth its salt would have rushed these people out of town immediately.”
      But they didn’t. Franz Ferdinand insisted that they pay a visit to an officer wounded in the bombing. On the way, the driver took a wrong turn, and happened to reverse right in front of one of the conspirators, Gavrilo Princip, who, said Lebow, was sipping a drink outside.
      Pointing his pistol at the car, Princip fired two shots.
      When Sophie was shot alongside Franz Ferdinand in 1914, these were his last words to her, as published in “Archduke of Sarajevo”: “Sopherl, Sopherl, don’t die. Stay alive for the children!”
      And the rest, as they say, is history.
    • By The Librarian
      Eruption of Sakurajima volcano, the most powerful in twentieth-century Japan, with Kagoshima, Japan in foreground, 1914

      Via
    • By PeterR
      So if this is the basis for your belief, then probably what you'll want to do is first of all find out which bible book your foundational scripture is in. (It's Exodus by the way.)
       
      Ex 1:6 - Eventually Joseph died, and also all his brothers and all that generation.
       
      It's not a complicated scripture.
      Let me ask you this. If you die in 2017 and all your brothers and all your generation also die at some point, what does "generation" mean if you don't impose any weirdness on the text? Do your precise birth and death times change the fundamental meaning of the word generation?
      Of course there are overlaps in a "generation". The only possible way for there not to be overlaps would be for each generation to have a batch of children be born at the same minute of a certain year, and die at a simultanous minute of a later year.
      But does your grandfather suddenly become part of your generation just because your life overlapped with him? Does that overlap of a few years between you and your brothers give latitude to distort the language to allow for President Kennedy to be of your generation even if your life overlapped with him?
       
       
       
       
    • By The Librarian
      Part of the series on:

      See attached images
      Anyone by chance have a PDF of these images combined? 
       
       
       
      See also:

       












  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Eric Ouellet

      Sauve-moi, ô Dieu, car les eaux menacent ma vie.
      Je m’enlise dans la boue profonde, où il n’y a pas de sol ferme.
      Je coule dans des eaux profondes,
      et le courant m’emporte.
      Je suis fatigué d’avoir crié ;
      ma gorge s’est enrouée.
      Mes yeux se sont épuisés à attendre mon Dieu.
      Ceux qui me haïssent sans raison
      sont plus nombreux que mes cheveux.
      Ceux qui voudraient me supprimer,
      mes ennemis sournois, sont devenus nombreux.
      J’ai été forcé de rendre ce que je n’avais pas volé.
      Ô Dieu, tu connais ma bêtise,
      et ma culpabilité ne t’est pas cachée.
      Que ceux qui espèrent en toi n’aient pas honte à cause de moi,
      ô Souverain Seigneur, Jéhovah des armées !
      Que ceux qui te recherchent ne soient pas humiliés à cause de moi,
      ô Dieu d’Israël !
      Car je subis la honte pour toi ;
      l’humiliation me couvre le visage.
      Je suis devenu un inconnu pour mes frères,
      un étranger pour les fils de ma mère.
      Le zèle pour ta maison brûle en moi,
      et les insultes de ceux qui t’insultent retombent sur moi.
      Je me suis humilié en jeûnant,
      ce qui m’a valu des insultes.
      Je me suis habillé d’une toile de sac,
      et je suis alors devenu pour eux un objet de mépris.
      Les gens assis à la porte de la ville parlent de moi
      et les ivrognes font de moi le thème de leurs chansons.
      Mais que ma prière vienne jusqu’à toi,
      ô Jéhovah, en un temps où tu y es favorable.
      Dans ton immense amour fidèle, ô Dieu,
      réponds-moi par tes infaillibles actes sauveurs.
      Sauve-moi de la boue ;
      ne me laisse pas m’enliser.
      Sauve-moi de ceux qui me haïssent
      et des eaux profondes.
      Ne laisse pas le courant m’emporter,
      ni les profondeurs m’engloutir,
      ni le puits fermer sa bouche sur moi.
      Réponds-moi, ô Jéhovah, car ton amour fidèle est bon.
      Dans ton abondante miséricorde, tourne-toi vers moi
      et ne détourne pas ton attention de ton serviteur.
      Réponds-moi vite, car je suis dans la détresse.
      Approche-toi de moi et sauve-moi ;
      rachète-moi à cause de mes ennemis.
      Tu sais qu’on m’insulte, qu’on me couvre de honte et qu’on m’humilie.
      Tu vois tous mes ennemis.
      L’insulte m’a brisé le cœur, et la blessure est incurable.
      J’espérais de la compassion, mais rien ;
      des consolateurs, mais je n’en ai pas trouvé.
      Ils m’ont plutôt donné pour nourriture du poison,
      et pour apaiser ma soif, du vinaigre.
      Que leur table devienne pour eux un piège ;
      et leur prospérité, un filet.
      Que leurs yeux s’obscurcissent pour qu’ils ne voient pas,
      et fais trembler leurs hanches constamment.
      Déverse sur eux ta fureur,
      et que ton ardente colère les atteigne.
      Que leur campement soit désert ;
      qu’il n’y ait pas d’habitants dans leurs tentes.
      Car ils poursuivent celui que tu as frappé,
      et ils ne cessent de raconter les souffrances
      de ceux que tu as blessés.
      Ajoute de la culpabilité à leur culpabilité,
      et ne les considère pas comme justes.
      Qu’ils soient effacés du livre des vivants
      et qu’ils ne soient pas inscrits avec les justes.
      Moi, je suis affligé et je souffre.
      Que ton pouvoir de sauver, ô Dieu, me protège.
      Je veux louer le nom de Dieu par des chants
      et je veux le glorifier par des remerciements.
      Cela plaira à Jéhovah plus qu’un taureau,
      plus qu’un jeune taureau ayant des cornes et des sabots.
      Les humbles verront cela et s’en réjouiront.
      Vous qui recherchez Dieu, que votre cœur reprenne vie.
      Car Jéhovah écoute les pauvres
      et il ne méprisera pas son peuple captif.
      Que le ciel et la terre le louent,
      les mers et tout ce qui y vit.
      Car Dieu sauvera Sion
      et rebâtira les villes de Juda ;
      son peuple y habitera et le possédera.
      Les descendants de ses serviteurs en hériteront
      et ceux qui aiment son nom y résideront

      · 1 reply
    • Eric Ouellet

      L'amour de Jéhovah nous modèle vers l'excellence de notre être 
      Ô Jéhovah, tu es notre Père. Nous sommes l’argile, et tu es notre Potier ; nous sommes tous l’œuvre de ta main. Isaie 64 :8  » Un potier a le pouvoir de faire avec l’argile le récipient qu’il désire. L’argile n’a pas son mot à dire. Il en va de même de l’homme par rapport à Dieu. Il n’est pas plus en droit de contester les actes de Dieu que l’argile du potier, qui, de ses mains, lui donne forme (lire Jérémie 18:1-6).
      Jéhovah a montré sa capacité d’agir sur l’Israël antique comme le potier agit sur l’argile. Nous notons cependant une grande différence. Le potier peut transformer sa motte d’argile en n’importe quelle sorte de récipient. Mais Jéhovah façonne-t-il arbitrairement les personnes, ou les nations, faisant les unes bonnes et les autres mauvaises ? D’après la Bible, ce n’est pas le cas. Jéhovah a doté l’homme d’une faculté très précieuse : le libre arbitre. La manière dont il exerce son autorité souveraine ne nous prive pas de cette faculté. Chacun doit décider s’il se laissera façonner par le Créateur (lire Jérémie 18:7-10).
      Et si un humain refuse obstinément de se laisser modeler, comment le Grand Potier exerce-t-il son autorité ? Pense au sort d’une argile qui devient impropre à l’usage que le potier veut en faire. Eh bien, il peut soit en faire un autre récipient soit la jeter ! Toutefois, quand l’argile est inutilisable, c’est généralement de la faute du potier. Mais en ce qui concerne notre Potier, ce n’est jamais le cas (Deut. 32:4). Quand une personne ne cède pas au modelage de Jéhovah, c’est toujours de sa faute à elle. Le Grand Potier exerce son autorité sur les humains en s’adaptant à la manière dont ils réagissent à son modelage. Ceux qui réagissent bien sont façonnés en récipients utiles. Par exemple, les chrétiens oints sont des « vases de miséricorde » qui ont été façonnés en « récipient[s] pour un usage honorable ». En revanche, ceux qui s’opposent obstinément à Dieu finissent par être des « vases de colère devenus dignes de destruction » (Rom. 9:19-23).
      Jéhovah modèle les humains notamment en les conseillant ou en les corrigeant. Voyons comment il exerce son autorité sur ceux qu’il façonne en nous intéressant aux deux premiers rois d’Israël : Saül et David. Quand David a commis l’adultère avec Bath-Shéba, il a causé du tort tant à lui-même qu’à d’autres. Jéhovah ne s’est pas retenu de le reprendre avec fermeté, il fut ainsi avec les hommes qui furent sous Sa direction. Par le prophète Nathân, il lui a adressé un message sévère (2 Sam. 12:1-12). Comment David a-t-il réagi ? Touché en plein cœur, il s’est repenti et a bénéficié de la miséricorde divine (lire 2 Samuel 12:13).
      Par contre, Saül, le roi qui a précédé David, a mal réagi aux conseils. Par l’intermédiaire du prophète Samuel, Jéhovah lui avait formellement ordonné de vouer à la destruction tous les Amaléqites et tout leur bétail. Mais Saül a désobéi. Il a épargné le roi Agag ainsi que les meilleures bêtes. Pourquoi ? Notamment pour s’attirer des louanges (1 Sam. 15:1-3, 7-9, 12). Quand il a été conseillé, il aurait dû être malléable, se laisser façonner par le Grand Potier. Mais il a résisté. Il s’est justifié, prétextant qu’il avait agi à bon droit parce que les bêtes seraient offertes en sacrifice. Il a minimisé le conseil de Samuel. Il a donc été rejeté par Jéhovah. Il ne méritait plus d’être roi et n’a jamais retrouvé de bonnes relations avec le vrai Dieu (lire 1 Samuel 15:13-15, 20-23).
      DIEU N’EST PAS PARTIAL
      Jéhovah offre la possibilité d’être façonné non seulement à des individus mais aussi à des nations. En 1513 av. n. è., les fils d’Israël, libérés de l’esclavage en Égypte, sont entrés dans une relation d’alliance avec Dieu. Étant sa nation choisie, Israël avait l’honneur d’être modelé par lui, d’être en quelque sorte sur le tour du Grand Potier. Cependant, le peuple n’a pas cessé de faire ce qui est mauvais aux yeux de Jéhovah, allant même jusqu’à rendre un culte aux dieux des nations voisines. Maintes et maintes fois, Jéhovah a envoyé des prophètes pour le ramener à la raison, mais il n’a pas écouté (Jér. 35:12-15). Son obstination lui a valu d’être sévèrement repris. Comme des « vases » devenus « dignes de destruction », le royaume du Nord, formé de dix tribus, et celui du Sud, formé de deux tribus, ont été vaincus l’un par l’Assyrie et l’autre par Babylone. Quelle leçon puissante ! Nous ne tirerons profit du façonnage de Jéhovah qu’à condition de bien y réagir.
      Jéhovah a également offert aux habitants de Ninive, la capitale assyrienne, la possibilité de tenir compte de ses avertissements. Il a dit à Jonas: « Lève-toi, va à Ninive la grande ville, et proclame contre elle que leur méchanceté est montée devant moi. » Ninive était vouée à la destruction (Jonas1:1, 2 ; 3:1-4).
      Cependant, quand Jonas a annoncé son message de condamnation, « les hommes de Ninive se mirent à avoir foi en Dieu ; ils proclamèrent alors un jeûne et se revêtirent de toiles de sac, du plus grand d’entre eux au plus petit d’entre eux ». Leur roi « se leva de son trône, ôta son vêtement officiel de dessus lui, se couvrit d’une toile de sac et s’assit dans la cendre ». Réceptifs à la tentative de modelage de Jéhovah, les Ninivites se sont repentis. Jéhovah n’a donc pas fait venir le malheur sur eux (Jonas 3:5-10).
      Bien qu’étant une nation choisie, Israël n’a pas été exempté de la correction. Les Ninivites, quant à eux, n’étaient pas dans une relation d’alliance avec Dieu. Pourtant, Jéhovah leur a adressé un message de condamnation et leur a fait miséricorde quand ils sont devenus de l’argile malléable entre ses mains. Ces deux exemples ne prouvent-ils pas que Jéhovah « ne se montre partial envers personne » ? (Deut. 10:17).
      JÉHOVAH EST RAISONNABLE ET SOUPLE
      La manière dont Dieu est disposé à nous modeler indique qu’il est raisonnable et souple. Témoin des situations où il prononce des jugements justes mais les révise ensuite selon la réaction des concernés. Au sujet du premier roi d’Israël, les Écritures déclarent que Jéhovah a « regrett[é] d’avoir fait régner Saül comme roi » (1 Sam. 15:11). La Bible dit encore que, lorsque les habitants de Ninive se sont repentis et sont revenus de leur voie mauvaise, « le vrai Dieu regretta le malheur qu’il avait parlé de leur causer ; et il ne le causa pas » (Jonas 3:10).
      Le terme hébreu traduit par « regretta » se rapporte à un changement de point de vue ou d’intention. Jéhovah a changé de point de vue à l’égard de Saül : il l’avait choisi pour être roi, mais il a fini par le rejeter. Ce changement s’est produit non parce que Jéhovah avait fait un mauvais choix, mais parce que Saül a manqué de foi et est devenu désobéissant. Le vrai Dieu a éprouvé du regret dans le cas des Ninivites : son intention à leur égard a changé. Quel réconfort de savoir que Jéhovah, notre Potier, est raisonnable et souple, compatissant et miséricordieux, prêt à réviser son jugement quand un transgresseur se réforme !
      NE REJETONS PAS LA DISCIPLINE DE JÉHOVAH
      Aujourd’hui, Jéhovah nous façonne principalement par sa Parole, la Bible, et par son organisation (2 Tim. 3:16, 17). Ne devrions-nous pas accepter tout conseil ou toute correction que nous recevons par ces moyens ? Quelles que soient les années que nous avons passées à servir Dieu, ou nos attributions de service, continuons d’accepter les conseils de Jéhovah, laissons-nous façonner en vases pour un usage honorable. 
      Le Grand Potier est notre Père. Et ne l’oublions jamais, « celui que Jéhovah aime, il le reprend, comme un père reprend le fils en qui il prend plaisir ». Alors, « ne rejettons pas [...] la discipline de Jéhovah, et n’ayons pas son blâme en aversion » (Prov. 3:11, 12).

      · 0 replies
    • folens  »  Eric Ouellet

      Hello Eric, merci pour tes bons sujets. Bonne journée Michel
      OUI certains jours.mp4
      · 1 reply
    • Eric Ouellet

      Bâtissons chaque but de notre vie avec amour
      L'homme à toujours chercher le sens véritable de l'amour. L'homme réfléchissant à cette vertu, il sépara cette qualité en trois phases et uni en une seule.  Les millénaires passèrent et l'homme à compris que les trois phases de l'amour sont des étapes que l'on ne peut trépasser.
      La première partie est appelé" L'Éros."
      L'éros fut le premier chemin que Dieu entama dans son Esprit ( pensée en action) (verbe) intérieur avant de faire ce monde magnifique que nous vivons. L'Éros est le feu qui nous anime dans le début d'une pensée qui nous traverse l'esprit.
      L'Amour éros est une énergie très puissante, car d'elle, d'une seule image non réalisée, l'éros active cette image en rêve, uni à notre pensée et propulse dans notre vision, un rêve ultime qui nous pousse à chercher au fond de nous, le sentiment qui nous anime puissamment.
      Nous recherchons en nous d'autres images pour connaitre d'avantage cette vibration qui se manifeste, telle un feu ardent.
      D'un rêve, l'amour de ce but te pousse à créer et fonder ce rêve dans ta réalité, construire le but ultime de ta vie.
      La flamme de Yah, s'anime en toi ( Chant de Salomon)
      Le désir sexuelle ne fait pas parti de cet Amour.
      L'Éros te propulse dans tout les côtés des variantes d'un but non réalisé, dont tu ne connais point comment construire ce but qui s'anime en toi; et même comment pourrais-je réaliser ce but?
      Quand le rêve d'un projet d'avenir est dans l'Éros, il ne faut pas qu'il devienne en nous une obsession intense. Nous ne savons pas comment contrôler notre feu intérieur de ce but, de cette vision qui anime nos pensées, jour après jour et souvent dans les images de notre sommeil, elles peuvent envahir nos nuits.
      L'amour " Éros" nous confrontes à plusieurs désirs qui nous anime et qu'avec le temps nous apprenons à assembler le casse tête de la réalisation de notre vie, les pièces maîtresses de notre rêve qui nous poussent sans cesse à trouver les outils et l'instructions nécessaires à notre cheminement qui s'accomplit pendant une grande période de notre vie, pour atteindre l'objectif premier de notre vie, le vrai but que nous voulons accomplir.
      Quand notre but est assemblé, telle un film intérieur, de sa première image (début), à son dénouement et cela jusqu'à son accomplissement , alors notre rêve se voit construit dans notre esprit alors nous sommes prêt; nous pouvons commencer la deuxième étapes de l'amour qui construit notre but.
      L'AMOUR PHILIA UNE ÉTAPE TRÈS IMPORTANTE DE L'AMOUR
      La connaissance de l'amour apporte à réaliser le rêve de notre but vers la réalisation de notre projet en ce monde au bonheur de chacun.
      Les étapes de réalisation de chaque but, doit être construit avec l'Amour philia à (suivre)...

      · 1 reply
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      63,533
    • Total Posts
      130,284
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      16,882
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Juan carlos Sanchez
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.