Jump to content

JW Insider

A Difficult Doctrine. With an easy explanation.

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

JW Insider -
b4ucuhear -
116
2746

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post

@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 ?
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 😉 )

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post

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."

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

as though . . .  it would perceive those children had not succumbed to the evils that existed at that time. Genesis 6:6

(Genesis 6:5-7) 5 Consequently, Jehovah saw that man’s wickedness was great on the earth and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time. 6 Jehovah regretted that he had made men on the earth, and his heart was saddened. 7 So Jehovah said: “I am going to wipe men whom I have created off the surface of the ground, man together with domestic animals, creeping animals, and flying creatures of the heavens, for I regret that I have made them.. . .

If we have faith like that of Abraham, then we will ask questions about this. Just as we have asked questions about what Jesus meant when he spoke of a resurrection on Judgment Day for those who were destroyed in Sodom. Abraham asked:

(Genesis 18:22-33) . . .Then the men left from there and went toward Sodʹom, but Jehovah remained with Abraham. 23 Then Abraham approached and said: “Will you really sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 Suppose there are 50 righteous men within the city. Will you, then, sweep them away and not pardon the place for the sake of the 50 righteous who are inside it? 25 It is unthinkable that you would act in this manner by putting the righteous man to death with the wicked one so that the outcome for the righteous man and the wicked is the same! It is unthinkable of you. Will the Judge of all the earth not do what is right?” 26 Then Jehovah said: “If I find in Sodʹom 50 righteous men in the city, I will pardon the whole place for their sake.” 27 But Abraham again responded: “Please, here I have presumed to speak to Jehovah, whereas I am dust and ashes. 28 Suppose the 50 righteous should lack five. Because of the five will you destroy the whole city?” To this he said: “I will not destroy it if I find there 45.” 29 But yet again he spoke to him and said: “Suppose 40 are found there.” He answered: “I will not do it for the sake of the 40.” 30 But he continued: “Jehovah, please, do not become hot with anger, but let me go on speaking: Suppose only 30 are found there.” He answered: “I will not do it if I find 30 there.” 31 But he continued: “Please, here I have presumed to speak to Jehovah: Suppose only 20 are found there.” He answered: “I will not destroy it for the sake of the 20.” 32 Finally he said: “Jehovah, please, do not become hot with anger, but let me speak just once more: Suppose only ten are found there.” He answered: “I will not destroy it for the sake of the ten.” 33 When Jehovah finished speaking to Abraham, he went his way and Abraham returned to his place.

In Christian parlance, even Abraham and Noah were NOT intrinsically righteous, but they were counted as if righteous due to their faith. Jehovah as the Giver of LIfe has a right to destroy everyone. He may also save persons, or bring them back from the dead. And we were made to ask questions in order to understand Jehovah better.

6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

It was clear to God, children didn’t just inherit sin, but became embroiled in that sin out of their own will.

It is clear to me that you have never had a five-month old son or daughter, or grand-son or grand-daughter. We can accept that Jehovah knew what would become of those babies in their circumstances of the time. But Jehovah also knows that only those with haughtiness and no natural affection will stop questioning and stop investigating.

(Psalm 10:4) . . .In his haughtiness, the wicked man makes no investigation;. . .

Just an aside, but that reminds me of how the psalmist almost turns the judgment imagery of the Flood "on its head" in these poetic lines:

(Psalm 36:5-8) . . .O Jehovah, your loyal love reaches to the heavens, Your faithfulness up to the clouds.  6 Your righteousness is like majestic mountains; Your judgments are like vast, deep waters. Man and beast you preserve, O Jehovah.  7 How precious your loyal love is, O God! In the shadow of your wings, the sons of men take refuge.  8 They drink their fill of the rich bounty of your house, And you cause them to drink of the torrent of your delights.

Like Noah, we are in effect "deluged" with the watery depths of Jehovah's bounteous delights and judgments.

But by blaming the young babies, don't you end up losing the natural meaning of Jesus' words about the innocence and humility of children, or what Paul meant when he said:

(1 Corinthians 14:20) . . .but be young children as to badness; . . .

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

It was clear to God, children didn’t just inherit sin, but became embroiled in that sin out of their own will.

I think how another fact is also clear to God. Noah and their family didn't produced better humankind after Flood. According to JW preaching, today's humankind is on top of list in badness. 

According to idea you explained, best solution would be, what god once expressed in his thinking - 7 So Jehovah said: “I am going to wipe men whom I have created off the surface of the ground,- to destroy all people and to release himself from this agony :)))

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

A well-established prophecy has divine providence.

True, but a well-established, misinterpretation of a prophecy has no divine providence.

6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Once again, a witness should not reflect on prophecy if prophecy is not made known to that individual.

Over the years here, Allen, I've often seen you attack the Bible when you think the Bible contradicts the Watchtower, but here you are attacking both the Bible and the Watchtower: 

*** ws17 June p. 13 par. 16 Set Your Heart on Spiritual Treasures ***
At times, our understanding of a Bible prophecy or a scripture may be adjusted. When that happens, it is important to take the time to study the adjustment and meditate on it. (Acts 17:11; 1 Timothy 4:15) We not only need to understand the main differences between the old understanding and the new one, but we also need to pay attention to the details of the new understanding. Such a careful study will guarantee that the new truth becomes part of our collection of Bible truths. Why is it good for us to make such efforts?

6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

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

Russell did not reject Barbour's chronology. Years later, after their split, when Barbour began rejecting his own chronology and numerology, Russell continued to accept it and doubled down on it. The split was primarily over variations in their understanding of the ransom, but I was talking about his chronology and numerology.

6 hours ago, César Chávez said:

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.

Conflicted or not, I think you should feel welcome to express your opinions, whether they are for or against me, for or against others, the Watchtower, or even the Bible. I have not seen any indication that you are breaking any rules. Controversial discussions might upset people, but that's the value of discussion: it can upset long-established traditions (strongly entrenched ideas/things) and some people have a large emotional investment in these traditions. Some level of "upset" or "disturbance" should be expected. Neither you nor I should be expected to deal with these issues totally devoid of emotion. At least we are mostly trying to stick with the scriptures, the facts and the evidence.

 

 

Because of the way that posts are being merged (again) I will take up the subject of the 1260 days and 3 1/2 days in Revelation under another topic heading.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

If we have faith like that of Abraham, then we will ask questions about this. Just as we have asked questions about what Jesus meant when he spoke of a resurrection on Judgment Day for those who were destroyed in Sodom. Abraham asked

I believe the action of the people made it to where the angels sent by God did not find any good hearts to sway that decision. I don't believe Abraham or anyone else was speaking as though they were higher than God. Even though Jesus had that ability to speak out, he also did not question the decisions of God since he would have seen that as an angel, firsthand to be just and a righteous judgment.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

True, but a well-established, misinterpretation of a prophecy has no divine providence.

True. However, I have not found any misinterpretation of prophecy by the Watchtower given to them by God to warrant a redefinition of that interpretation. Divine providence if not given to all disciples of Christ. No different from earlier prophets. However, just like those earlier prophets, the people didn't also like or accept the message given to them by the prophets just as witnesses question the findings given by the Watchtower. This of course will be settled with a judgment.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Russell did not reject Barbour's chronology. Years later, after their split, when Barbour began rejecting his own chronology and numerology, Russell continued to accept it and doubled down on it. The split was primarily over variations in their understanding of the ransom, but I was talking about his chronology and numerology.

I believe, certain Bible Student congregation continued to follow the advent timeline, however, Russell determination to understand chronology made a conservative effort with God's help to finally understand his own chronology. I believe not even the Edgar's pyramid scheme influenced Russell even though he found it helpful. Perhaps, that is where the confusion lies, the distinct separation of the Bible Student Association and their separate ideologies.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Conflicted or not, I think you should feel welcome to express your opinions, whether they are for or against me, for or against others, the Watchtower, or even the Bible. I have not seen any indication that you are breaking any rules. Controversial discussions might upset people, but that's the value of discussion: it can upset long-established traditions (strongly entrenched ideas/things) and some people have a large emotional investment in these traditions. Some level of "upset" or "disturbance" should be expected. Neither you nor I should be expected to deal with these issues totally devoid of emotion. At least we are mostly trying to stick with the scriptures, the facts and the evidence.

I believe the action of another differs from the comment expressed here. I have seen the disappearance of many, at times without uttering a word but adding an emotion as a “like” or “dislike” manner on a subject or post. It appears certain people are just not tolerated, that any means to silence and violate an individual’s right afforded to them under the first amendment bill of Rights which at issue to be, have some kind of decorum that is not exercised by others that have no limitation.

While I appreciate the thought, I cannot go beyond the action and limitations imposed to people that speak and find truth on their side.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

*** ws17 June p. 13 par. 16 Set Your Heart on Spiritual Treasures ***
At times, our understanding of a Bible prophecy or a scripture may be adjusted. When that happens, it is important to take the time to study the adjustment and meditate on it. (Acts 17:11; 1 Timothy 4:15) We not only need to understand the main differences between the old understanding and the new one, but we also need to pay attention to the details of the new understanding. Such a careful study will guarantee that the new truth becomes part of our collection of Bible truths. Why is it good for us to make such efforts?

I would like to expand on the above quote.

New truth/old truth......in the same WT in the preceding par (15) it says; "We discovered some priceless truths when we first began to associate with God’s people. These could well be described as “old,” in that we have known and appreciated them from the beginning of our Christian course. What do such precious truths include? We learned that Jehovah is our Creator and Life-Giver and that he has a purpose for mankind. We also learned that God lovingly provided the ransom sacrifice of his Son so that we might be freed from sin and death. We further learned that his Kingdom will end all suffering and that we have the prospect of living forever  in peace and happiness under Kingdom rule".

So the "old" truths here are defined as old from the point of view of age. These are the backbone, basics, elementary, fundamental or key doctrines as JWI describes at the outset of this thread. These have not changed. Then there is the "old" as defined in par 16; "old understanding". So we are not talking about any new truth as in newly discovered truth, but an adjustment or new understanding of what has already been taught previously. In this case it really doesn't make sense to call something old truth and new truth because truth can only be one. If it's not truth, its falsehood.

image.png

So in my opinion, unless something is "old" established truth, the backbone of our Biblical doctrine, then anything else that falls into the "viewpoint" category of "truth" (or the shadow that is thrown) should not have to be accepted as the "absolute Truth", and should it really become "a part of our collection of Bible truths"?

(Of course with any kind of truth, whether relativism, universalism (absolute truth) etc. one can go into great depths of the philosophy behind these concepts:

    Hello guest!

(Interestingly, JWI WT quote is from the simplified version. The normal study version does not say "a part of our collection of Bible truths" , but "our own treasure store".)

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

I believe the action of the people made it to where the angels sent by God did not find any good hearts to sway that decision. I don't believe Abraham or anyone else was speaking as though they were higher than God.

I think that's exactly correct. But we know that as Christians we are still under under a duty to question, reflect, test, prove, meditate, and "make sure of all things." We must do this even if it were an angel out of heaven giving us the interpretation, according to Galatians 1 and 2. And Paul specifically applied that thought to the way the Galatian congregation(s) should have tested and made sure of the incorrect counsel coming from council of elders at Jerusalem, because evidently some were too quick to accept that counsel just because it came from those who seemed to be pillars in the congregation. To Paul, he said, it didn't matter who those men were, or what they seemed to be, and he even included Peter, James and John in that idea of who to question. John himself later wrote that we should test the inspired utterances (1 John 4:1).

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

However, I have not found any misinterpretation of prophecy by the Watchtower given to them by God to warrant a redefinition of that interpretation.

I have. And the Watchtower has also claimed to have found MANY previous misinterpretations of prophecy which interpretations they said came from God, and yet warranted a redefinition of that interpretation. In fact I quoted you one of several places where the Watchtower has admitted exactly what you say you have not found:

*** ws17 June p. 13 par. 16 Set Your Heart on Spiritual Treasures ***
At times, our understanding of a Bible prophecy or a scripture may be adjusted. When that happens, it is important to take the time to study the adjustment and meditate on it. (Acts 17:11; 1 Timothy 4:15) We not only need to understand the main differences between the old understanding and the new one, but we also need to pay attention to the details of the new understanding.

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

However, just like those earlier prophets, the people didn't also like or accept the message given to them by the prophets just as witnesses question the findings given by the Watchtower.

I've seen you accuse others here of blasphemy, when they defended the Bible, and yet you are able to make a statement such as that!

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

I believe, certain Bible Student congregation continued to follow the advent timeline, however, Russell determination to understand chronology made a conservative effort with God's help to finally understand his own chronology. I believe not even the Edgar's pyramid scheme influenced Russell even though he found it helpful. Perhaps, that is where the confusion lies, the distinct separation of the Bible Student Association and their separate ideologies.

Yes, certain Bible Student congregations continued to follow the Barbour/Russell advent timeline, which included Rutherford and the Watchtower editorial board, up until about 1927, with some intermediate adjustments over time to what Russell had said about 1914, and 1915, and with some brand new ideas about 1918, and 1925.

Russell's concerted effort to "finally understand his own chronology" barely changed a thing, except for a few changes to some Great Pyramid measurements, and some vacillations between 1914 and 1915, and a change around 1904 to push the period of tribulation to the few months after 1914 instead of the few months (or years) before 1914.

I would agree that Edgar's pyramid scheme hardly influenced Russell. That's because Edgar only wanted to get even more details on the subject, and completed most of this work after Russell had already published all he had to say on the Pyramid. Also, Russell was already satisfied enough with the details he had borrowed from Joseph Seiss.

You say: "Perhaps, that is where the confusion lies" but there is no need for any confusion at all. Russell's works include all the necessary details, and they are all easy to find. If we wish to discuss Russell's own published views, we don't need to worry about the many other groups that sprung from Barbour's and Russell's teachings.

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

I have seen the disappearance of many, at times without uttering a word but adding an emotion as a “like” or “dislike” manner on a subject or post.

I think I know what you are talking about. I think the admins or moderators here consider it spamming when someone overuses a long string of a dozen or more dislike emojis at the rate of one per minute on the posts of people they dislike, and a string of a dozen or more "like" emojis at the rate of about one per minute on their own accounts of different names. I think once a person is caught doing this once, it's dangerous to keep doing this with even with a smaller string of up-votes and down-votes. Sometimes the give-away to the game is when the down-vote is simply a negative response to a Scripture or a direct quote from the Watchtower.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Anna said:

In this case it really doesn't make sense to call something old truth and new truth because truth can only be one. If it's not truth, its falsehood.

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 exist in the original Greek. Therefore, the idea was that: even when in the midst of learning or teaching falsehood, it was still "present truth" at the time, and what is now "present truth" could turn out to be false in the future, but it will always have been "present truth" because it's always the best we had at the time.

From the Greek, this is better translated as "the truth that is present in you" (American Standard and NWT). 

A similar rush to see a time element in the English translation was done by Barbour and Russell and others who had been associated with Adventists. Here's an example from Leviticus:

(Leviticus 26:28) 28 I will intensify my opposition to you, and I myself will have to chastise you seven times for your sins.

This was originally the primary source for Russell's 7 times = 2,520 years, and the 7 times of Nebuchadnezzar's dream about his own insanity was only a secondary source. But we have since learned that Leviticus here didn't refer to chronological "times" but the sense was "7 times as much" as in "I will hit you twice as hard, or three times as hard, or seven times as hard." This was already in the context, but chronologists and numerologists rarely notice the context until they have already formed a time related doctrine.

(Leviticus 26:18-21) . . .“‘If even this does not make you listen to me, I will have to chastise you seven times as much for your sins. . . . 21 “‘But if you keep walking in opposition to me and refuse to listen to me, I will then have to strike you seven times as much, according to your sins.

Now that we have noticed this, we have been stuck with using Nebuchadnezzar as if his wicked Gentile kingdom somehow represented Christ's Messianic non-Gentile kingdom. (Another contradiction between 1914 and the Bible.)

We still tend to make a "chronology word" out of things having to do with time when we translate the Greek word for time as "appointed time" instead of what might better be translated as "opportune time."

Note that it's the exact same word "time" in these two verses:

(Ephesians 5:16) 16 buying out the opportune time for yourselves, because the days are wicked.

(Luke 21:24) . . .and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.

Neither the word opportune nor appointed is found in the Greek, only the word time. But the more typical meaning is "opportunity" as in:

  • Will you find the opportunity to do this?
  • Will you find the time to do this?

Not:

  • Will you find the appointed day and hour to do this?

We have added a more specific chronological sense that usually isn't necessary in the Greek.
 

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I think that's exactly correct. But we know that as Christians we are still under under a duty to question, reflect, test, prove, meditate, and "make sure of all things." We must do this even if it were an angel out of heaven giving us the interpretation, according to Galatians 1 and 2. And Paul specifically applied that thought to the way the Galatian congregation(s) should have tested and made sure of the incorrect counsel coming from council of elders at Jerusalem, because evidently some were too quick to accept that counsel just because it came from those who seemed to be pillars in the congregation.

True, however, testing the spirit does not include drawing one's own conclusions outside scripture. I have not found an insistence where the Watchtower has gone beyond what is written. Do they try to simplify certain things, yes they do. That doesn’t mean they are stepping away from the context.

Another thing is with the comparison made. The GB are following the true spirit of God like the apostles. Therefore, they have NOT taken the position of the Jerusalem counsel.

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I have. And the Watchtower has also claimed to have found MANY previous misinterpretations of prophecy which interpretations they said came from God, and yet warranted a redefinition of that interpretation. In fact I quoted you one of several places where the Watchtower has admitted exactly what you say you have not found

If you have, then you sit in Moses seat. Matthew 23:2

If the passion is to correct, as God corrected his people, Then I would suspect there is a resemblance to be equal to Christ as the Pope seems to indicate. The GB do not hold themselves in that high regard as to think, they can question God's motives for humanity.

I would recommend studying the issue further. There are areas that haven’t been included with many presentations here. Since you claim the Watchtower is misrepresenting an issue that has become an obstacle to your personal faith, then I would make light of JTR and TTH comments about contacting the Watchtower directly.

Feeding an assumption only emboldens the God of this world, no one else.

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I've seen you accuse others here of blasphemy, when they defended the Bible, and yet you are able to make a statement such as that!

Correct. There is only one way to view scripture. Anyone deviating from that is causing personal harm to the spirit of others. It doesn’t matter if those individuals hate the Watchtower, it’s by their own spoken words and actions of clear and concise misinterpretation of scripture, and misapplication of the Watchtower literature where they fail to see the difference. Removing themselves from the context of scripture to argue with the strength of hate and discourse is the sole definition of scripture when Christ clearly stated not to and to stay away from.

Those are the dangers when we engage in an open forum. We like to think it is to discuss issues. However, the ever present danger will always be, the influence of the devil.

It is one thing to defend the truth, but quite another thing to defend the truth when one’s heart is conflicted. Merely following that conduct disqualifies anyone from stating they are Christian. That is the kind of Christian Jesus spoke of as a danger.

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Yes, certain Bible Student congregations continued to follow the Barbour/Russell advent timeline, which included Rutherford and the Watchtower editorial board, up until about 1927, with some intermediate adjustments over time to what Russell had said about 1914, and 1915, and with some brand new ideas about 1918, and 1925.

The confusion would lie with how the public perceives the Watchtower under the direction of the bible Student association. The word “association” should give anyone, pause to rethink, Russell and Rutherford belonged to the International Bible Student Association.

A reason, Rutherford dismissed the edger pyramid scheme straight up. Russell, used it as a comparison, nothing more.

Another thing that witnesses should consider, those works were made by not allowing Christendom’s view of scripture. Therefore, Russell essentially started from scratch. There are far more reasons why those dates were accepted. Mainly, by events of that time.

Bible Students still believe, the Jewish nation has a pivotal role in the last days. According to Christ everyone became relative in the last days including the Jews. They are not the sole reason for the last days as Christendom exerts.

Remember, even the most conservative view which is Bishop Ussher, his calculation referenced 586BC as the 3rd instance of judgment by Nebuchadnezzar. The third, not the first nor the second as historians and scholars claim, but the third. This is why history itself is flawed, since they continue to insist, there were only 2 campaigns against Judea and Jerusalem. Mainly 597-587BC.

creation.jpg
12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I think I know what you are talking about. I think the admins or moderators here consider it spamming when someone overuses a long string of a dozen or more dislike emojis at the rate of one per minute on the posts of people they dislike, and a string of a dozen or more "like" emojis at the rate of about one per minute on their own accounts of different names.

I will not beat on the bush with this one. I am confident we both know what limitations are imposed and previous actions taken.

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

I have not found an insistence where the Watchtower has gone beyond what is written.

Sounds like you disagree with what Brother Splane said when he admitted that over 100 teachings that had turned Bible parables and Bible historical narratives into specific prophecies were examples of going beyond the things written.

But if you think about it, almost every single past error where the Watchtower has made an interpretation that was later changed was also a matter of going beyond the things written. Whenever there was a changed teaching where the Watchtower had said "this is what it means" instead of "this is what it might mean" was a matter of going beyond the things written.

Therefore, there are hundreds of additional examples. And we should be very happy for this kind of progress.

5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Another thing is with the comparison made. The GB are following the true spirit of God like the apostles. Therefore, they have NOT taken the position of the Jerusalem counsel.

Yes. You've said this same thing previously, and I questioned you about it. Thanks for repeating it so I know it wasn't a mistake. You have compared the current Governing Body as a group much closer to modern-day Apostles than merely a modern-day version of the Council of Elders in Jerusalem. I still think this is a dangerous mistake, no matter how much we appreciate their work for the world-wide congregation. It sounds like you might disagree specifically with recent humble remarks made by Brother Herd. Sounds like you believe this was only "mock humility."

5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

If you have, then you sit in Moses seat. Matthew 23:2

No, it merely means that I have seen what the Watchtower has said (and admitted) about this topic, and you apparently do not wish to accept what they have said on the topic..

5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

If the passion is to correct, as God corrected his people, Then I would suspect there is a resemblance to be equal to Christ as the Pope seems to indicate.

That would be quite an accusation against the Watchtower, since the point made was about the desire of the GB to make corrections for us in the Watchtower. Obviously you don't believe this as can be seen in the sentence you wrote right after that one. If their passion is to correct, I see this as a very good thing, not trying to be equal to Christ (or the apostles, for that matter).

5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Since you claim the Watchtower is misrepresenting an issue that has become an obstacle to your personal faith, then I would make light of JTR and TTH comments about contacting the Watchtower directly.

I believe the Watchtower is misrepresenting a couple of issues, but these have not become an obstacle to my faith. I was fortunate enough to be given some heads up and preparation for things that would have otherwise been painful to discover on my own. I was happy to know that others had already discovered these things and still wanted to continue associating and encouraging their brothers and sisters to accept our situation and navigate through it with faith intact. And I think that exposure of such issues has had a very positive impact on the doctrinal changes we have seen in the last couple of decades especially.

I skimmed over what JTR and TTH said about contacting the Watchtower directly. I have done this several times myself with surprisingly good answers at times. It's nothing to make light of in my opinion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/10/2019 at 10:34 AM, 4Jah2me said:
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 ? 

For he must reign until he puts all his enemies under his feet. 1 Cor 15:25

This is the declaration of the LORD to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool." 2 The LORD will extend your mighty scepter from Zion. Rule over your surrounding enemies.  Ps 110:1,2

Then Pilate went back into the headquarters, summoned Jesus, and said to him, "Are you the King of the Jews? ""My kingdom is not of this world," said Jesus. "If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight, so that I wouldn't be handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here. "You are a king then? " Pilate asked. "You say that I'm a king," Jesus replied. "I was born for this, and I have come into the world for this: to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice." John 18:33,36,37

 Now when they drew near Jerusalem, and came to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Loose them and bring them to Me. And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of them,’ and immediately he will send them.”

[

    Hello guest!
]All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying:

“Tell the daughter of Zion,
Behold, your King is coming to you,
Lowly, and sitting on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey.’ ”  Matt 21:1-5

All of the above scriptures show action performed by a ruling king – a King of Truth.  John 14:6

Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through us. We plead on Christ's behalf: "Be reconciled to God." 2 Cor 5:20

Can anyone be an ambassador for a king of a nation,  if the King is not in power?

He has been putting his enemies at his feet since the first century, when the harvest began.  John 4:35

 

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Sounds like you disagree with what Brother Splane said when he admitted that over 100 teachings that had turned Bible parables and Bible historical narratives into specific prophecies were examples of going beyond the things written.

Was Brother Splane speaking against the Watchtower or of Christendom? I would imagine all the older witnesses should now understand, the revisions made that are now understood while it was in its infancy back then.

Therefore, I’m not the one disagreeing with the Watchtower. That determination is being made here by a few, it’s just not me. I understand scripture, as well as prophecy.

50 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Yes. You've said this same thing previously, and I questioned you about it. Thanks for repeating it so I know it wasn't a mistake. You have compared the current Governing Body as a group much closer to modern-day Apostles than merely a modern-day version of the Council of Elders in Jerusalem. I still think this is a dangerous mistake,

Incorrect, The GB as presented by opposers believe the GB are like the apostles. I happen to believe, they are following the apostles lead to continue Christ works with the same vigor as the apostles. The GB are simply fellow workers that have accepted to a greater degree of responsibility.

I have no confusion as to the role God has given those that accept that responsibly. Therefore, it would be a presumption to think otherwise on how they perceive someone's words.

52 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

No, it merely means that I have seen what the Watchtower has said (and admitted) about this topic, and you apparently do not wish to accept what they have said on the topic..

I appreciate the push that is drawn. Countless areas are made known how flawed the Watchtower is. But are they all factual enough to sit in Judgement.

What I accept is looking for deviations from scripture. I have from none in principle with that by the Watchtower. Therefore, it’s not that I refuse to see human errors, it’s that we all do human errors every day. I just don’t dwell on them as it is done here. What I care about is linkage to false presentations as its made by Christendom (i.e. trinity etc.) Substance if for a better word.

57 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I believe the Watchtower is misrepresenting a couple of issues, but these have not become an obstacle to my faith. I was fortunate enough to be given some heads up and preparation for things that would have otherwise been painful to discover on my own. I was happy to know that others had already discovered these things and still wanted to continue associating and encouraging their brothers and sisters to accept our situation and navigate through it with faith intact.

I will leave that to your conscience. Frankly, I'm not the one bearing weight on issues, as it is constantly and frequently done here with the same worldly issues.

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, Witness said:

Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through us. We plead on Christ's behalf: "Be reconciled to God." 2 Cor 5:20

Can anyone be an ambassador for a king of a nation,  if the King is not in power?

He has been putting his enemies at his feet since the first century, when the harvest began.  John 4:35

You finally posted something substantive. Good for you. Yes those baptized should consider themselves as ambassadors to Christ. Therefore, the GB are also considered ambassadors with a responsibility of a Shepherd.

47 minutes ago, Witness said:

All of the above scriptures show action performed by a ruling king – a King of Truth.  John 14:6

You might want to rethink the wording and framing of this sentence. If both comments were of substance, they would disagree with each other.

8 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

What?!!! Never do that again!!

I wonder if you will get the same response from JTR! 😊

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, César Chávez said:

A reason, Rutherford dismissed the edger pyramid scheme straight up. Russell, used it as a comparison, nothing more.

This is quite strange. Russell didn't dismiss the Edgar pyramid scheme. He dismissed Russell's pyramid scheme that Russell had mostly plagiarized from Joseph Seiss. If you think Russell used it as a comparison and nothing more then you probably have not read all the things Russell said about the Great Pyramid. He even called it "Jehovah's Witness" (with a capital "W" no less).

7 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Therefore, Russell essentially started from scratch. There are far more reasons why those dates were accepted. Mainly, by events of that time.

Obviously not! If he had started from scratch, he would not have simply copied the dates that Barbour had published. These were not plagiarized, because Russell ADMITTED clearly where he copied them from. Barbour ADMITTED that he based his dates on a readjustment of William Miller's dates. The primary events of the time that Russell was influenced by were "New England's Dark Day of 1780, and a spectacular meteor shower in 1833." The meteor shower was considered by Russell (and Adventists) to be the "stars falling." Russell admitted this in the Watch Tower, and in Studies in the Scriptures.

7 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Bible Students still believe, the Jewish nation has a pivotal role in the last days. According to Christ everyone became relative in the last days including the Jews.

I'm not sure why the particular mistake that Russell and Rutherford made concerning the Jewish nation is still so important to you. Rutherford corrected this mistake around 1930.

7 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Remember, even the most conservative view which is Bishop Ussher, his calculation referenced 586BC as the 3rd instance of judgment by Nebuchadnezzar. The third, not the first nor the second as historians and scholars claim, but the third.

This is false.

7 hours ago, César Chávez said:

This is why history itself is flawed, since they continue to insist, there were only 2 campaigns against Judea and Jerusalem. Mainly 597-587BC.

This is false.

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

we have been stuck with using Nebuchadnezzar as if his wicked Gentile kingdom somehow represented Christ's Messianic non-Gentile kingdom.

Yes, that is true. I can't think right now, but are there any other instances where we have used someone, or something wicked to represent something good?

In any case, now that you bring it up, it does sound odd. But I never looked at it from that angle before, I was always just focusing on the timeline only. (Although I did wonder what Christ had do with Neb, who was forced to acknowledge the true God. Where was there a parallel to that?)

-----------------------------------------

"The tree that you beheld, that grew great and became strong . . . , it is you, O king, because you have grown great and become strong, and your grandeur has grown great and reached to the heavens, and your rulership to the extremity of the earth.” (Dan 4:18-22)

WT comment: "Like the immense tree of his dream, Nebuchadnezzar had “grown great and become strong” as the head of a world power. But “rulership to the extremity of the earth,” involving the whole kingdom of mankind, is represented by the great tree. It therefore symbolizes Jehovah’s universal sovereignty, particularly in its relationship to the earth".

    Hello guest!
. (Pay attention to Daniels prophesy ch6, pp 82-97)

A little bit of a stretch to say what the tree symbolizes when Daniel already clearly says it symbolizes Nebuchadnezzar rulership. But I guess if we did try to stretch it as far as it would go then we could say that because ultimately everything belongs to God, then the rulership was God's too. But is it what the bible book of Daniel meant....?

 

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Brother Splane said when he admitted that over 100 teachings that had turned Bible parables and Bible historical narratives into specific prophecies

Do you have a reference for that?

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Anna said:

I can't think right now, but there any other instances where we have used someone, or something wicked to represent something good?

Because wicked persons can become Jehovah's executioner, persons like Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, and Cyrus could be considered to be Jehovah's "servants." But we have really had to stretch ideas in the tree parable. In the past we said that Nebuchadnezzar represented Christ, but the Watchtower has now explicitly stated that this is not the type of parallel. Still, we have tried to explain that Nebuchadnezzar's low beastly state of insanity somehow parallels the fact that Jesus was "low" in the sense of being humble, born as a human [in a manger], etc. I haven't seen that negated, but it hasn't been used in quite a while.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Anna said:

Yes, that is true. I can't think right now, but there any other instances where we have used someone, or something wicked to represent something good?

The steward that robs his master blind and the master ends up commending him.

The unrighteous judge that will not grant justice until the widow nags him half to death and that judge is used to illustrate the Father.

Just now I am spinning others (on the TDS thread) regarding current politicians who will provide my own underpinnings as Sect Leader. I know I will have at least one follower—JTR.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

in the past we said that Nebuchadnezzar represented Christ, but the Watchtower has now explicitly stated that this is not the type of parallel.

I hate being a bother but do you have the reference for that at hand? Also the reference for Br. Splane saying we have 100 teachings that had turned Bible parables and Bible historical narratives into specific prophecies. ( I had typed that up after I posted my previous comment and it got merged, so I don't know if you noticed it..)

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The unrighteous judge that will not grant justice until the widow nags him half to death and that judge is used to illustrate the Father.

If that kind of comparison were intended to create a representative analogy, then the Devil represents "glorious" congregation elders in Jude, where, according to one interpretation, we shouldn't speak abusively of "glorious" elders in the congregation just as Jesus/Michael wouldn't speak abusively of "glorious" Satan when arguing over Moses' body. 😎 (Note: I still don't believe this was the intent of the comparison at all.)

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

This is quite strange. Russell didn't dismiss the Edgar pyramid scheme. He dismissed Russell's pyramid scheme that Russell had mostly plagiarized from Joseph Seiss. If you think Russell used it as a comparison and nothing more then you probably have not read all the things Russell said about the Great Pyramid. He even called it "Jehovah's Witness" (with a capital "W" no less).

I will leave it to each persons understanding. I wouldn't force anyone to accept my opinion. Since Russell didn't care for the Pyramid scheme since he already had a good handle on chronology, the pyramid scheme simply endorsed Russell's established chronology.

Since Russell didn't need the Pyramid scheme, then Rutherford certainly didn't need it. That's a good reason to reject it.

40 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Obviously not! If he had started from scratch, he would not have simply copied the dates that Barbour had published. These were not plagiarized, because Russell ADMITTED clearly where he copied them from. Barbour ADMITTED that he based his dates on a readjustment of William Miller's dates. The primary events of the time that Russell was influenced by were "New England's Dark Day of 1780, and a spectacular meteor shower in 1833." The meteor shower was considered by Russell (and Adventists) to be the "stars falling." Russell admitted this in the Watch Tower, and in Studies in the Scriptures.

Once again, I will leave it to well grounded researchers to come to their own conclusion. If I had a mind to, I would also add much more past instances as "guides" to what will ultimately be my own conclusion.

I believe that is exactly what Russell did.

40 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I'm not sure why the particular mistake that Russell and Rutherford made concerning the Jewish nation is still so important to you. Rutherford corrected this mistake around 1930.

I'm not the one citing "all" the flaws of the Watchtower. I will let the public decide what is important to me versus what is important to others.

40 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

This is false.

I agree. History has made a false claim, after the Babylonian Chronicles came out. A well grounded researcher will not accept the finding of an ex-witness Carl Olof Jonnson. Even now, there is much more information that, historians continue to deprive the public with honest research.

This is why prophecy is not given to everyone. But I see where you are becoming angered again. Just think about, asking someone else, when accepting something, while we fail to apply it to ourselves.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

You finally posted something substantive. Good for you. Yes those baptized should consider themselves as ambassadors to Christ. Therefore, the GB are also considered ambassadors with a responsibility of a Shepherd

No matter what identity you may go with at the moment Allen, you are blind not only to the truth of God's word, but also to many of the WT's teachings.  You truly fit the identity of "rogue" JW.  Just as you choose and mix many different avatars, believing you will deceive those here that you are "new", you pick and choose what you like from WT's teachings and mix with your own interpretations of it as well as truth in scripture.  

Accordingly, you condemn almost all JW "brothers and sisters" in this forum, along with exJWs.  Your answers support confusion and deception.   That is the only coincidence I see that you share with the Watchtower.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Since Russell didn't care for the Pyramid scheme since he already had a good handle on chronology, the pyramid scheme simply endorsed Russell's established chronology.

Russell obviously cared for it deeply enough to write many articles and chapters about it. He visited Egypt to see it in 1892 and 1910. He NEVER rejected it, but kept referring to it from his very first books, especially Volume 3, right up until the year he died.

In fact, in the year he died he updated Volume 3 with the following dated ONE MONTH before his death:

"The Great Pyramid of Egypt discussed in this Volume has not lost any of its interest to the author. . . . We . . . still believe that the structure of this Pyramid . .. was designed of the Lord and intended to be a Pyramid and a witness in the midst and on the border of Egypt (Isaiah 19:19.) . . . It's wonderful corroboration of the Divine Plan of the Ages is astonishing to everybody who really grasps it."

And of course, it turned out to be a lie that it had ever endorsed even ONE date in Russell's "established" chronology -- which has now been "established" to be false anyway, of course.

When you say Russell didn't care for the Pyramid scheme you seem to ignore some of the things that Russell said about it. Russell said that Christians don't build their faith around it of course, but that it's purpose was to make believers out of non-Christians by leading them to the truth of God's plan of the ages through a "rational" means. Therefore Russell could say things like the following in several different places (references available upon request):

"It has well been called 'A Miracle in Stone,' and it commends itself to us a work of God and not planned by men, for it seems in every respect to be in perfect accord with God's plan as we are finding it written in His Word; and this it is, that causes our respect for it."

"The Pyramid corroborates scripture ... "

"The ancient structure being thus repeatedly referred to in the Scriptures, we cannot doubt that, if questioned, this 'Witness' of the Lord in the land of Egypt will bear such testimony as will honor Jehovah, and fully correspond with his written Word."

"[God] placed the Great Pyramid 'in the midst and in the border of Egypt,' for a sign . . ."

"So striking and clear are its teachings that some of the foremost astronomers of the world have unhesitatingly pronounced it to be of Divine origin."

It doesn't pay to try to rewrite, twist and spin historical facts, because Russell already documented his thinking in many different places.

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, Witness said:

No matter what identity you may go with at the moment Allen, you are blind not only to the truth of God's word, but also to many of the WT's teachings.  You truly fit the identity of "rogue" JW.  Just as you choose and mix many different avatars, believing you will deceive those here that you are "new", you pick and choose what you like from WT's teachings and mix with your own interpretations of it as well as truth in scripture.  

Accordingly, you condemn almost all JW "brothers and sisters" in this forum, along with exJWs.  Your answers support confusion and deception.   That is the only coincidence I see that you share with the Watchtower.  

I hope that release did you some good. I will revise when I see witnesses conducting themselves as witnesses, not before. That would go against't Christ teachings. Since I happen to strongly believe in scripture, then that determination will not be reached, solely on rants and a campaign of misinformation.

19 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Russell obviously cared for it deeply enough to write many articles and chapters about it. He visited Egypt to see it in 1892 and 1910. He NEVER rejected it, but kept referring to it from his very first books, especially Volume 3, right up until the year he died.

In fact, in the year he died he updated Volume 3 with the following dated ONE MONTH before his death:

For confirmation, sure. If you look further, you will find most of the articles you post don't convey the hole truth. I left the (W) out as a personal joke to me for the word whole.

 

19 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

It doesn't pay to try to rewrite, twist and spin historical facts, because Russell already documented his thinking in many different places.

I sincerely hope not. I hope you're not getting paid for a campaign of misinformation. I hope you are an honest researcher in order to get to the truth, not your truth, but the truth in general.

Usually, when I start to prove people wrong is when people get banned from this forum.

CHRONOLOGY--Pyramid Re 1910.
Q77:1:: QUESTION (1910)--1--What event is to take
place in 1910, which is pointed out in the Pyramid?
ANSWER--I do not know. There are many people who
can tell you a great deal more about 1910, 1911, 1912 and
1913 than I can. All I know is there are certain dates that
seem to be well fixed as far as we understand the Scriptures--1874,
1878, 1881 and October, 1914. I do not know about
anything between at all. If other people do, they have a right
to talk about it.
But do you not say something in the third volume of
Scripture studies about 1910? Yes, I said we might take a
measurement up over that step. We do not know whether
there is anything to be measured that way or not, but suppose
we do take a measurement over the top of that step: It would
indicate about the year 1910. But I do not know whether God
meant something to be marked for 1910 or not. I think by the
time we have passed that time, we might see something
perhaps for 1910. Perhaps we have gotten up on that step
now, for all I know. Things are going along pretty rapidly
just now, dear friends.

Far be it from me to be accused of rewriting history to benefit my thoughts. Far from it, people need to learn to think for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

If you look further, you will find most of the articles you post don't convey the hole truth.

That's false. I did look further, several times, and found that all the articles I posted conveyed exactly the truth of what Russell said. If you are saying he was being dishonest when he said these things, that is a different matter that I cannot speak to. I personally believe Russell was sincere on this issue. Rutherford was also a very strong believer in the Pyramid doctrines, according to his own words. (Until about 1927/1928.)

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

I hope you're not getting paid for a campaign of misinformation.

LOL! Then someone would surely be wasting money if they paid for misinformation, but ended up getting only real and truthful information.

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

I hope you are an honest researcher in order to get to the truth

Thank you very much.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

A well grounded researcher will not accept the finding of an ex-witness Carl Olof Jonnson.

No one needs to read a word of what Carl Olof Jonsson wrote. For the most part all he did was corroborate what the majority of the most well-grounded researchers already had said well before he agreed with it. If there was any added value in what Jonsson wrote, it was that he showed how neo-Babylonian archaeology supports the Bible record.

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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 exist in the original Greek. Therefore, the idea was that: even when in the midst of learning or teaching falsehood, it was still "present truth" at the time, and what is now "present truth" could turn out to be false in the future, but it will always have been "present truth" because it's always the best we had at the time.

From the Greek, this is better translated as "the truth that is present in you" (American Standard and NWT). 

A similar rush to see a time element in the English translation was done by Barbour and Russell and others who had been associated with Adventists. Here's an example from Leviticus:

(Leviticus 26:28) 28 I will intensify my opposition to you, and I myself will have to chastise you seven times for your sins.

This was originally the primary source for Russell's 7 times = 2,520 years, and the 7 times of Nebuchadnezzar's dream about his own insanity was only a secondary source. But we have since learned that Leviticus here didn't refer to chronological "times" but the sense was "7 times as much" as in "I will hit you twice as hard, or three times as hard, or seven times as hard." This was already in the context, but chronologists and numerologists rarely notice the context until they have already formed a time related doctrine.

(Leviticus 26:18-21) . . .“‘If even this does not make you listen to me, I will have to chastise you seven times as much for your sins. . . . 21 “‘But if you keep walking in opposition to me and refuse to listen to me, I will then have to strike you seven times as much, according to your sins.

Now that we have noticed this, we have been stuck with using Nebuchadnezzar as if his wicked Gentile kingdom somehow represented Christ's Messianic non-Gentile kingdom. (Another contradiction between 1914 and the Bible.)

We still tend to make a "chronology word" out of things having to do with time when we translate the Greek word for time as "appointed time" instead of what might better be translated as "opportune time."

Note that it's the exact same word "time" in these two verses:

(Ephesians 5:16) 16 buying out the opportune time for yourselves, because the days are wicked.

(Luke 21:24) . . .and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.

Neither the word opportune nor appointed is found in the Greek, only the word time. But the more typical meaning is "opportunity" as in:

  • Will you find the opportunity to do this?
  • Will you find the time to do this?

Not:

  • Will you find the appointed day and hour to do this?

We have added a more specific chronological sense that usually isn't necessary in the Greek.
 

Quote "Neither the word opportune nor appointed is found in the Greek, only the word time. But the more typical meaning is "opportunity" as in: " 

Isn't this then ADDING to the scriptures ?  Just using the word time would surely have done the job.

And to use the phrase 'appointed times' is surely wrong as it suggests a pre-planned time / a set time. 

Isn't it a sin to add to the scriptures ?  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate comment.  Quote @JW Insider

Sounds like you disagree with what Brother Splane said when he admitted that over 100 teachings that had turned Bible parables and Bible historical narratives into specific prophecies were examples of going beyond the things written.

Quote "But if you think about it, almost every single past error where the Watchtower has made an interpretation that was later changed was also a matter of going beyond the things written. Whenever there was a changed teaching where the Watchtower had said "this is what it means" instead of "this is what it might mean" was a matter of going beyond the things written."

WOW ! This should be put up in lights outside every Kingdom Hall, for all Witnesses and members of the public to read. 

And that in itself is good enough reason for not being a JW, because the GB and it's Writing Dept GO BEYOND THE THINGS WRITTEN, and they admit to not being inspired.  

But, they say that one has to be a baptised JW to gain salvation. 

That is so funny when you consider it all. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/10/2019 at 10:39 AM, JW Insider said:

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.

I have not noticed 1914 diminishing in importance. It gets aired anytime there is a reference to the times of the end, and its closeness (in publications, convention talks and Broadcasting). But you are right, there seems to be a certain hesitancy in directly including 1914 as being part of our "core doctrines". At least in the above mentioned days text. There is also no reference to it in the questions for baptism. Under Christian beliefs, Question 19 asks: How do you know that Kingdom blessings will soon be here? The answers are references to Matthew 24 and 2 Timothy (last days critical times..). IF 1914 was to be mentioned, what scripture references would be used? We can all see it would get very complicated, hence as you rightly called it, it is a difficult doctrine. But the irony is, it is a very fundamental doctrine, so it should be explained (with all the dozens of scriptures) and be a part of the questions for baptism, strictly speaking. So I wonder, why is it not there? 

 

33 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

GB and it's Writing Dept GO BEYOND THE THINGS WRITTEN,

That's fine with direct and obvious scriptures and Bible books. But how would you explain (interpret) books such as Revelation, Ezekiel, Daniel etc?

And I thought we already established that no one would any longer be inspired after the last of the apostles died.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Anna said:
7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Brother Splane said when he admitted that over 100 teachings that had turned Bible parables and Bible historical narratives into specific prophecies

Do you have a reference for that?

It was Splane's "historic" (they called it) Annual Meeting talk in October 2014, especially when he referred to how Brother Bert Schroeder had counseled exactly this, many years earlier. Schroeder's statement was kind of a "motto" that Brother Splane repeated as the primary takeaway for this new way of looking at these portions of Scripture.

That point was rewritten in the March 15, 2015 Watchtower, p.18 as follows:

“Humans cannot know which Bible accounts are shadows of things to come and which are not. The clearest course is this: Where the Scriptures teach that an individual, an event, or an object is typical of something else, we accept it as such. Otherwise, we ought to be reluctant to assign an antitypical application to a certain person or account if there is no specific Scriptural basis for doing so.

The original video is now here:

    Hello guest!
"Types and Antitypes." It starts at about 2 hours:8 minutes into the video. At 2h:13m:07s he says:

"Now we know that these [ones spoken of by Jesus and Paul] are genuine types because the word of God says they are. But here is the question: Who is to decide if a person or an event is a type, if the word of God doesn't say anything about it? Who is qualified to do that? Our answer? We can do no better than to quote our beloved Brother Albert Schroeder who said, 'We need to exercise great care when applying accounts in the Hebrew Scriptures as prophetic patterns or types if these accounts are not applied in the Scriptures themselves." Wasn't that a beautiful statement! We agree with it.

After giving several examples of this "typology" (as he called it) from several different religions, including religions the Bible Students had been part of. And these religions often applied these types to themselves, just as the Watchtower applied many of them to Bible Students and Witnesses in modern times.  Brother Splane repeats that the most important problem with them is that these applications were not found in the Scriptures themselves. He even asks, "If the study of a certain subject makes chills run up and down your spine, could it possibly be mistaken?' And the answer was YES!" Then at 2h:19m:22s he repeats this idea again, and says:

"Well, in recent years the trend in our publications has been to look for the practical application of Bible events and not for types where the scripture themselves do not identify them as such. We simply cannot go beyond what is written!"

There's a funny thing Splane does in the video where he almost makes it look like the Pyramid idea came from a Brother A. Smith who wrote the Society from time to time to tell them his ideas about how the Pyramid told of God's purpose. He gives the impression that Russell only mentioned it once, but that this brother was so "emotionally" involved with the idea that he wrote to the Society about it several times. You can compare this to the actual things that Russell and Rutherford said about the Pyramid, and draw your own conclusion as to what Brother Splane is doing here. I also think it's curious that Albert Schroeder had died many years before, and this particular idea had been first expressed by others and finally by Brother Schroeder, too, several years before he died. Evidently not enough members of the Governing Body agreed with it at the time. But, even though it was now several years later, Brother Splane in 2014 can say it was a beautiful statement, and that 'we agree with it.'

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Anna said:

I have not noticed 1914 diminishing in importance.

Probably depends on the book or article and the particular writer assigned. For example, 1914 is mentioned in Chapter 8 but the whole big section on 1914 with charts and diagrams in "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" were moved to the Appendix, whereas they had previously been in the main text.

  • The 2018 Watchtower Study edition never mentioned 1914 once.
  • The 2018 Watchtower Public edition only mentioned 1914 once.*
  • The 2019 Watchtower Public editions never mentioned 1914 once.

*And only as a fulfillment for Jesus' prophecy about wars and reports of wars, NOT as a fulfillment related to Christ's enthronement.

Compare this to 76 mentions in the Watchtower for 2014.

This is not enough to measure a trend yet, but it's something to watch for.

4 hours ago, Anna said:
4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

in the past we said that Nebuchadnezzar represented Christ, but the Watchtower has now explicitly stated that this is not the type of parallel.

I hate being a bother but do you have the reference for that at hand?

*** w79 9/15 p. 23 par. 8 The “Cup” That All Nations Must Drink at God’s Hand ***
Why did Jehovah call King Nebuchadnezzar “my servant”? Because He used him to punish the people of Judah for their refusal to listen to His prophets. Punishment through this king of Babylon also extended to the neighboring countries that maliciously exploited Jehovah’s people out of contempt for Him. This does not mean, however, that Nebuchadnezzar was a type of Jesus Christ, who worshiped Jehovah alone as God. Rather, it is the executional work that Nebuchadnezzar performed for Jehovah upon the guilty nations that is typical. It prefigures the world-conquering work that Jesus Christ as Jehovah’s Chief Executional Officer carries out during the approaching “great tribulation,” in which all the enemy nations will be reduced to dust under the feet of Jehovah’s topmost Servant.

*** w50 11/15 p. 444 par. 17 Subjection to the Higher Powers ***
So it must be remembered that both Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus were used as types. In destroying Jerusalem in 607 B.C. and taking the Jews captive to Babylon Nebuchadnezzar was being used as Jehovah’s executioner against the unfaithful Jewish nation. For this reason Jehovah spoke of him as “my servant” and gave him the domination over other nations of this world. In this capacity Nebuchadnezzar was a type of Jesus Christ.

The 100 plus teachings that would be impacted by the October 2014 Annual Meeting talk, and the subsequent Watchtower in March 15, 2015 would include these 42 from the book "You May Survive Armageddon into God's New World":

image.pngimage.png

80 more of these were included in a 1981 Watchtower:

*** w81 3/1 p. 27 Do You Appreciate the “Faithful and Discreet Slave”? ***
OVERWHELMING CREDENTIALS
The “faithful and discreet slave” has abundant credentials. Following is a partial list of Scriptural and prophetic designations applying to or being represented in the remnant of Jesus Christ’s anointed followers since the notable year 1919:
(1) Noah’s wife, Gen. 7:7; (2) angels sent to Lot, Gen. 19:15; (3) Rebekah, Gen. 24:64; (4) Joseph and Benjamin, Gen. 45:14; (5) gleanings left behind, Lev. 19:9; (6) two spies to Rahab, Josh. 2:4; (7) Barak, Judg. 4:14; (8) Jephthah, Judg. 11:34; (9) Naomi and Ruth, Ruth 2:2; (10) David’s Israelite warriors, 2 Sam. 18:1; (11) Jehu, 2 Ki. 10:11, 15; (12) Mordecai and Esther, Esther 4:13; (13) Job, Job 42:10, 13; (14) King’s daughter, Ps. 45:13; (15) men of loving-kindness, Ps. 50:5; (16) intimate group, Ps. 89:7; (17) Shear-jashub, Isa. 7:3; (18) light of the nations, Isa. 60:3; (19) big trees of righteousness, Isa. 61:3; (20) ministers of our God, Isa. 61:6; (21) cluster preserved, Isa. 65:8; (22) servants called by another name, Isa. 65:15; (23) men trembling at God’s word, Isa. 66:5; (24) new nation born, Isa. 66:8; (25) Jeremiah, Jer. 1:10; (26) Jehovah’s people in the new covenant, Jer. 31:33; (27) enduring watchman, Ezek. 3:16-27; (28) man in linen, Ezek. 9:2; (29) cleansed people, Ezek. 36:29-32; (30) dwellers in center of earth, Ezek. 38:12; (31) the host of heaven, Dan. 8:10; (32) sanctuary restored (cleansed), Dan. 8:14; (33) they that are wise, Dan. 11:33; (34) the happy one who is keeping in expectation, Dan. 12:12; (35) all flesh receiving the spirit, Joel 2:28; (36) Jonah, Jon. 3:1-3; (37) apple of Jehovah’s eye, Zech. 2:8; (38) liberated remnant, Zech. 2:7; (39) a Jew, Zech. 8:23; (40) sons of Levi, Mal. 3:3; (41) wheat, Matt. 13:25; (42) sons of the kingdom, Matt. 13:38; (43) workers for the vineyard, Matt. 20:1; (44) those invited to marriage feast, Matt. 22:3-14; (45) chosen ones, Matt. 24:22; (46) eagles, Matt. 24:28; (47) faithful and discreet slave, Matt. 24:45; (48) discreet virgins, Matt. 25:2; (49) brothers of the king, Matt. 25:40; (50) little flock of sheep, Luke 12:32; (51) beggar Lazarus, Luke 16:20; (52) sheep in “this fold,” John 10:1-16; (53) branches of the vine, John 15:4; (54) royal palace of David, Acts 15:16; (55) heirs with Christ, Rom. 8:17; (56) the remnant, Rom. 11:5; (57) branches in the olive tree, Rom. 11:24; (58) holy ones or saints, 1 Cor. 6:2; Rev. 16:6; (59) temple, 1 Cor. 6:19; (60) new creation, 2 Cor. 5:17; (61) ambassadors for Christ, 2 Cor. 5:20; (62) congregation of God, Gal. 1:13; (63) part of Abraham’s seed, Gal. 3:29; (64) Israel of God, Gal. 6:16; (65) body of Christ, Eph. 1:22, 23; (66) soldiers of Christ Jesus, 2 Tim. 2:3; (67) house under Christ, Heb. 3:6; (68) holy priesthood, 1 Pet. 2:5; (69) holy nation, 1 Pet. 2:9; (70) association of brothers, 1 Pet. 2:17; (71) seven congregations, Rev. 1:20; (72) twenty-four persons of advanced age, Rev. 4:4; (73) spiritual Israel, Rev. 7:4; (74) locusts, Rev. 9:3; (75) two witnesses, Rev. 11:3; (76) two olive trees, Rev. 11:4; (77) seed of the woman, Rev. 12:17; (78) New Jerusalem, Rev. 21:2; (79) the bride of Christ, Rev. 22:17; 19:7; (80) Jehovah’s witnesses, Isa. 43:10.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Usually, when I start to prove people wrong is when people get banned from this forum.

Watch out, you just admitted that it was you who got people banned from this forum. And up until now, I'm sure no one had any idea that it was you getting yourself banned all those times. 🙄

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

CHRONOLOGY--Pyramid Re 1910.
Q77:1:: QUESTION (1910)--1--What event is to take
place in 1910, which is pointed out in the Pyramid?

You said: "Russell didn't care for the Pyramid scheme" and now it appears you wish to give, as evidence, the fact that Russell wasn't sure if the Pyramid indicated anything for the year 1910. If you read what Russell said, however, he claimed that the Pyramid perfectly supported 1874, 1878, 1881 and 1914. He had several times predicted related events timed to about 1910, but he could not distinctly find them in the Pyramid, as he claimed to have found for other dates.

Even in 1911, just months after this 1910 question was answered, Russell said in the March 15, 1911 Watch Tower:

"No doubt all of our readers have read STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES, Vol. III, the last chapter of which describes the Pyramid and sets forth much of the wonderful symbolic teachings shown in its construction. It shows the Pyramid to be in exact harmony with the Bible. Indeed, some, after reading this volume, have referred to the Great Pyramid as 'The Bible in Stone.'"

Just because Russell didn't care for how well the scheme supported 1910, doesn't mean he didn't care about how it was in EXACT harmony, he claimed, with 1874, 1878, 1881 and 1914.

The 1917 Finished Mystery book bragged about how Russell's chronology was written before he ever saw the Pyramid, and before he even saw any of Edgar's abundant evidences of the accuracy of Bible chronology in the Pyramid.

In 1920 Rutherford went to see it, and the Watch Tower in Dec 15 reported that all the other pyramids were built under the direction of Satan except "the Great Pyramid, which was built under the Lord's supervision."

In the June 15 1922 Watch Tower Rutherford published that the "present-truth chronology . . . the correspondency of dozens of measurements proves that the same God designated both pyramid and plan. . ."

By 1924, it was claimed of course in the May 21, 1924 Golden Age that the Pyramid, the "Scientific Bible" verified the importance of 1874, 1914 and 1925. (This addition of the 1925 date is actually kind of hilarious if you have carefully read Charles Piazzi Smyth and Joseph Seiss, and see how Russell had re-used their material.)

Also in 1924, The Way to Paradise, showed the Pyramid with the caption "GOD'S PLAN WRITTEN IN STONE." Here, it was conjectured that Shem probably built it. Russell had conjectured it was Melchizedek.

This was repeated in 1925, and as late as 1926, the Watch Tower said that "advanced Bible Students believe that the Great Pyramid at Gizeh is the witness to the Lord in the Land of Egypt mentioned by the Prophet. (Isa. 19:19)"

It was not until 1928 that it became a monument built "under the direction of Satan the Devil." It was now Satan's Bible and no longer "Jehovah's Witness" in stone. This was one of the reasons for the controversy when Rutherford insisted that this false information in Volume III, continue to be sold and advertised in 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, etc. And still made available for sale by the Society even in the 1940's. Special deluxe editions of the Studies in the Scriptures were still mentioned in the Kingdom Ministry as late as July 1967.

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Watch out, you just admitted that it was you who got people banned from this forum. And up until now, I'm sure no one had any idea that it was you getting yourself banned all those times.

Nice try! Nothing has changed with word manipulation. Face it, its was you, JTR, TTH, Anna that get people banned. But here we go, I prove you wrong, and now you're using it as an excuse to ban. So, let's not contradict yourself, why people get banned because of spamming. It doesn't have anything to do with being rude or anything else. It has to do with people here not wanting to be proved wrong.

28 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

ou said: "Russell didn't care for the Pyramid scheme" and now it appears you wish to give, as evidence, the fact that Russell wasn't sure if the Pyramid indicated anything for the year 1910. If you read what Russell said, however, he claimed that the Pyramid perfectly supported 1874, 1878, 1881 and 1914. He had several times predicted related events timed to about 1910, but he could not distinctly find them in the Pyramid, as he claimed to have found for other dates.

I don't wish to give anything. I just don't like manipulating other peoples words to come out with a false claim. I could go even further about Russell's spoken words. Put you're the researcher and ranking expert here. Your supposed to know all that already.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

For example, 1914 is mentioned in Chapter 8 but the whole big section on 1914 with charts and diagrams in "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" were moved to the Appendix, whereas they had previously been in the main text.

  • The 2018 Watchtower Study edition never mentioned 1914 once.
  • The 2018 Watchtower Public edition only mentioned 1914 once.*
  • The 2019 Watchtower Public editions never mentioned 1914 once.

*And only as a fulfillment for Jesus' prophecy about wars and reports of wars, NOT as a fulfillment related to Christ's enthronement.

Compare this to 76 mentions in the Watchtower for 2014.

You are right. I was equating the importance not so much in the number of times it is mentioned, but that it is mentioned at all!

I just tried to create a graph, but alas, since I've never done one either in word or excel, I failed miserably. I got the horizontal axis right, but I just can't find how to create the vertical axis and how to change the data (numbers) for the vertical axis so I completely messed up. In any case, the chart would show that since 1950 Watchtowers, the mention of 1914 has a sharp downward trend. During 1950 to 1959, it was mentioned 891 times, and during 2000-2009 it was mentioned 216 times. I don't have data for the years 2010 to 2019. So comparatively there is a big difference, but it still seems like too many mentions, if we are thinking along the lines of it slowly being phased out. In my opinion anyway....

 

45 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Face it, its was you, JTR, TTH, Anna that get people banned. But here we go, I prove you wrong, and now you're using it as an excuse to ban.

coffee lol GIF

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Anna said:

During 1950 to 1959, it was mentioned 891 times, and during 2000-2009 it was mentioned 216 times. I don't have data for the years 2010 to 2019.

For 2010 to 2019, it was 213 times for those years. But this includes the superspike for the 100 year anniversary when both 2013 and 2014 included 121 between them, representing more than half of the decade in just those two years. If those two years had been normal years, the total would have been just 213-121+9+9=110.

2013 and 2014 included the preparation and finale of a big push for a 1914 centennial. And maybe it's just me, but I have a feeling that it fell kind of flat.

There was another of these "anniversaries" (70th) that was built up in 1983 and 1984, where that decade's yearly average was doubled in '83 and tripled in '84 -- very similar to what happened in 2013 and 2014 when that average was quadrupled in 2013 and then septupled in 2014.

(BTW, if you made a chart that broke this into 5 year intervals, a trend would seem much more obvious.)

Still, I don't think it's being slowly phased out. I think that it gets mentioned less as it seems less important, and less practical to our current issues. It is no longer a field service "draw" based on the generation that would not die out as it would have been in 1983/4 when the generation meant something else. Once something has lost some of its importance, someone will start reconsidering whether it was ever that important at all, and this might encourage a reconsideration of the Gentile Times doctrine into a simpler, more Biblical teaching. (Just my opinion of course.)

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Nothing has changed with word manipulation.

My sentiments exactly!

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

I don't wish to give anything.

I noticed. I was speaking about giving evidence.

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

I could go even further about Russell's spoken words.

You should have. It would provide even more evidence for what I was saying.

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Put you're the researcher and ranking expert here. Your supposed to know all that already.

You are the only one I know who repeatedly tries to call me an "expert." I have never claimed this about myself. I just happen to have had several assignments that gave me an opportunity to read all of Russell's writings in the Bethel Library between about 1977 and 1982. And I have enjoyed reading further and refreshing my memory on some of this now that almost everything Russell wrote is so easily accessible online, and checkable against my physical library that contains most (but not all) of Russell's writings.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

(BTW, if you made a chart that broke this into 5 year intervals, a trend would seem much more obvious.)

 

I'm not going to make a chart, coz I don't know how. I could always draw one by hand I suppose,lol.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

For 2010 to 2019, it was 213 times for those years...... If those two years had been normal years, the total would have been just 213-121+9+9=110.

Thanks!

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

2013 and 2014 included the preparation and finale of a big push for a 1914 centennial. And maybe it's just me, but I have a feeling that it fell kind of flat.

I got the same impression too...

I don't think the new generation of Witnesses (my son's age) attach such great importance to it as the older generation did (heck, I'm not even sure they would know how to explain it).  And the older generation is kind of tired now, I think.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Still, I don't think it's being slowly phased out. I think that it gets mentioned less as it seems less important, and less practical to our current issues. It is no longer a field service "draw" based on the generation that would not die out as it would have been in 1983/4 when the generation meant something else. Once something has lost some of its importance, someone will start reconsidering whether it was ever that important at all, and this might encourage a reconsideration of the Gentile Times doctrine into a simpler, more Biblical teaching. (Just my opinion of course.)

I agree. I listened again to Br. Splane's talk ( 

    Hello guest!
  starting at 2 hours:8 minutes mark) that you posted a link to and noted that toward the end he said "Our love should be for the truth, and not for a particular doctrine or teaching". And of course that's very true. So how dear do we hold the 1914 doctrine? And since the topic heading is "A difficult doctrine, with an easy explanation" I am posting one of the difficult explanations  from  "Bible questions answered" "What Does Bible Chronology Indicate About the Year 1914?"  (
    Hello guest!
)
And lets see how easy we can make it, following the "new way" for Bible interpretation regarding types and antitypes as per Br. Splane.  You go first  😎.

The Bible’s answer

Bible chronology indicates that God’s Kingdom was established in heaven in 1914. This is shown by a prophecy recorded in chapter 4 of the Bible book of Daniel.

Overview of the prophecy. God caused King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon to have a prophetic dream about an immense tree that was chopped down. Its stump was prevented from regrowing for a period of “seven times,” after which the tree would grow again.—

    Hello guest!
    Hello guest!
.

The prophecy’s initial fulfillment. The great tree represented King Nebuchadnezzar himself. (

    Hello guest!
) He was figuratively ‘chopped down’ when he temporarily lost his sanity and kingship for a period of seven years. (
    Hello guest!
) When God restored his sanity, Nebuchadnezzar regained his throne and acknowledged God’s rulership.—
    Hello guest!
.

Evidence that the prophecy has a greater fulfillment. The whole purpose of the prophecy was that “people living may know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that he gives it to whomever he wants, and he sets up over it even the lowliest of men.” (

    Hello guest!
) Was proud Nebuchadnezzar the one to whom God ultimately wanted to give such rulership? No, for God had earlier given him another prophetic dream showing that neither he nor any other political ruler would fill this role. Instead, God would himself “set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed.”—
    Hello guest!
.

Previously, God had set up a kingdom to represent his rulership on earth: the ancient nation of Israel. God allowed that kingdom to be made “a ruin” because its rulers had become unfaithful, but he foretold that he would give kingship to “the one who has the legal right.” (

    Hello guest!
) The Bible identifies Jesus Christ as the one legally authorized to receive this everlasting kingdom. (
    Hello guest!
) Unlike Nebuchadnezzar, Jesus is “lowly in heart,” just as it was prophesied.—
    Hello guest!
.

What does the tree of

    Hello guest!
represent? In the Bible, trees sometimes represent rulership. (
    Hello guest!
    Hello guest!
) In the greater fulfillment of
    Hello guest!
, the immense tree symbolizes God’s rulership.

What does the tree’s being chopped down mean? Just as the chopping down of the tree represented an interruption in Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship, it also represented an interruption in God’s rulership on earth. This happened when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem, where the kings of Israel sat on “Jehovah’s throne” as representatives of God himself.—

    Hello guest!
.

What do the “seven times” represent? The “seven times” represent the period during which God allowed the nations to rule over the earth without interference from any kingdom that he had set up. The “seven times” began in October 607 B.C.E., when, according to Bible chronology, Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians. 

    Hello guest!
    Hello guest!
    Hello guest!
.

How long are the “seven times”? They could not be merely seven years as in Nebuchadnezzar’s case. Jesus indicated the answer when he said that “Jerusalem [a symbol of God’s rulership] will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.” (

    Hello guest!
) “The appointed times of the nations,” the period during which God allowed his rulership to be “trampled on by the nations,” are the same as the “seven times” of
    Hello guest!
. This means that the “seven times” were still under way even when Jesus was on earth.

The Bible provides the way to determine the length of those prophetic “seven times.” It says that three and a half “times” equal 1,260 days, so “seven times” equal twice that number, or 2,520 days. (

    Hello guest!
    Hello guest!
) Applying the prophetic rule “a day for a year,” the 2,520 days represent 2,520 years. Therefore, the “seven times,” or 2,520 years, would end in October 1914.—
    Hello guest!
    Hello guest!
    Hello guest!
.

image.png

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, Anna said:

You go first  😎.

Do you mean go first to explain 1914 as a true possibility in a simpler way? Or do you mean go first to explain Daniel 4 in a simpler way (with or without 1914)?

The funny thing is that Brother Splane without realizing it, I think, already gave a very appropriate analogy for what's wrong with the 1914 doctrine when he decided to point out some particularly ridiculous "typologies" that did things like try to make something out of the number of fish caught by the disciples after Jesus was resurrected, namely, 153. Then he went on to show the ridiculousness of trying to read too much into the story of Jacob and Esau and the bowl of stew. Brother Splane said:

One scholar made much of Jacob’s purchase of Esau’s birthright with a bowl of red stew. Very significant that the stew was red. To him, the red stew pictured the red blood of Christ. The inheritance pictured the heavenly inheritance. It’s all… By that reasoning, Jacob pictures Jesus, Esau’s birthright pictures the heavenly inheritance, and the red stew pictures Jesus’ precious blood.

Now on the surface that might sound plausible to some, until you think about it. When you think about it you see three problems. First of all, Jehovah didn’t design the type. Jehovah did not tell Esau to sell his birthright. Selling his birthright was wrong, and Jehovah never tells us to do something that’s wrong. Second, who ate the stew? Esau did. So are we to conclude that, by giving up his inheritance, Esau put himself in line for the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ? That doesn’t make any sense. And most importantly, nowhere in Scripture do we read that the event was a type.

The temptation to go for chronological numerology over 153 fish should remind us of how we take 7 times and turn them into 7x360 to get the number of Jewish prophetic days using a 360 day year, and then turning each of those 2,520 days into solar years of 365.25 days apiece so that we can get 2,520 solar years, to reach from the fall of Jerusalem down to modern times. And then we must readjust the archaeological dates by about 20 years to make them reach 1914 instead of 1934. 

But the biggest problem is the same as the sentences about Esau above, which we can correlate with a similar problem with Nebuchadnezzar:

Second, who ate the stew? Esau did. So are we to conclude that, by giving up his inheritance, Esau put himself in line for the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ? That doesn’t make any sense. And most importantly, nowhere in Scripture do we read that the event was a type.

Now we can have the same situation regarding Nebuchadnezzar in Splane English

Second, who was forced to lose his kingdom and then became insane? Nebuchadnezzar did. So are we to conclude that, by giving up his kingdom and acting insane for a time, that Nebuchadnezzar put himself in line to represent the Messianic kingdom of Jesus Christ? That doesn't make any sense. And most importantly, nowhere in Scripture do we read that this event was a type.

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

do you mean go first to explain Daniel 4 in a simpler way (without 1914)

Yes

20 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

already gave a very appropriate analogy for what's wrong with the 1914 doctrine... try to make something out of the number of fish caught by the disciples after Jesus was resurrected, namely, 153.

That immediately crossed my mind too!

And also when talking about the pyramids, he quoted Rutherford who said "Jehovah doesn't need a stone monument built by pagans to accomplish his purpose" it made me think why would he use pagan Nebuchadnezzar to illustrate Christ's rulership?

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Anna said:
10 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

do you mean go first to explain Daniel 4 in a simpler way (without 1914)

Yes

That's already been done. Just read nearly any Bible commentary on Daniel 4 written during the last 300 years or so.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

That's already been done. Just read nearly any Bible commentary on Daniel 4 written during the last 300 years or so.

Could you post the link to one?

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Anna said:

Could you post the link to one?

There are dozens. When I mentioned going back 300 years I was thinking that a lot of people start with Matthew Henry's from the 1700's.

    Hello guest!

But there are many more modern ones these days that might appear too long, but that's partly because they also reprint the entire Bible text, split up into sections.

    Hello guest!

    Hello guest!

    Hello guest!

The Chapter 4 portion of this one, above, includes the following supposition:

The seven times are probably a year and three quarters. Referring to the summer, fall, winter, spring, rather than seven years. And so for a year and three quarters, king Nebuchadnezzar was to be insane. He was to live with the ox and out in the field. He was to eat grass like a wild animal. This was to continue until he realize that the God in heaven is the One who rules over the earth as far as establishing kingdoms and setting in power those whom He will. God still rules in the overall sense. And sometimes God puts evil men into power in order to bring judgment upon the people. But God rules over all. So after Daniel interprets, he said, "Now look, king, straighten up, man. Live right. You know, it may be that you can increase the days of your peace because you know this is going to come on you. But maybe by living right you can forestall it a bit."

[Others have guessed 7 "time periods" were 7 months. But the point is, that we don't know for sure]

    Hello guest!

That one, above, includes the idea that if there is any further prophetic significance to the dream, that it could mean this:

Some find prophetic significance in this account. Since Babylon is used in the Scriptures as a figure of the world system in general, we can say:

· Nebuchadnezzar’s madness foreshadows the madness of Gentile nations in their rejection of God.

· Nebuchadnezzar’s fall typifies Jesus’ judgment of the nations.

· Nebuchadnezzar’s restoration foreshadows the restoring of some of these nations in the millennial kingdom.

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Life is one continuous comedy .... then you die.

The good thing, some people go first! 😊

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

My sentiments exactly!

I'm glad you agree. Your word manipulation needs some serious polishing.

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I noticed. I was speaking about giving evidence.

Exactly, I'm still waiting on evidence without ex-witness manipulation.

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

You should have. It would provide even more evidence for what I was saying.

It really would. It would prove more in the sense of facts, not self indulged fantasies.

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

You are the only one I know who repeatedly tries to call me an "expert." I have never claimed this about myself. I just happen to have had several assignments that gave me an opportunity to read all of Russell's writings in the Bethel Library between about 1977 and 1982.

Only because you claim to be. Not that you are. The thing about a good researcher, is learning how to do, good research. Since Russell's writings are exactly the ones I submit without bias.

Share this post


Link to post

Here's a start. But I can't get into Daniel 4 without something like the following as a "preamble:"

 

"What Does Bible Chronology Indicate About the Year 1914?"

The Bible’s answer

I will come again and will receive you home to myself, so that where I am you also may be. (John 14:4)

For the creation is waiting with eager expectation for the revealing of the sons of God. (Romans 8:19)

Bible chronology is a topic that has intrigued many Bible readers for centuries. The desire to see Jesus return has driven many to focus on combinations of Biblical numbers and dates so that these combinations will usually point to Jesus' return in their own lifetime, or at least the very near future.

Now that we are 2,000 years from the time that Jesus walked the earth, preached, and died, there are very few ways to manipulate prophetic numbers so they will reach our own time period. There are the 1,260 days of Revelation and Daniel, which are also called "three and one-half times." And there are some other periods mentioned in Daniel including the 1,290 days, 1,335 days, and 2,300 evenings and mornings.

The common method for making such periods end in our own day has been to turn each day into a year. But this leaves us in the "middle of nowhere" if we were to count back from today. For example, 2020 minus 1260 brings us to 760 C.E. somewhere in the Middle Ages. Adding 1,260 to the date of Jesus' birth, baptism, death or resurrection would similarly bring us to dates in the 13th century C.E. Using the number 2,300 from any event in the lifetime of Jesus life would point to a time nearly 300 years in the future, and this would have very little appeal to a Bible chronologist or anyone with an "eager expectation." And pointing back 2,300 years from today takes us to 280 B.C.E., another point that is nearly 300 years before Jesus and as much as 300 years after any major event in the kingdom of Israel or Judea. 

Other "clever" methods have been used to reach modern times. In the 18th and 19th centuries it was common for Protestants to point back only about 1,260 years to reach some seemingly important events in Catholic history. (For example, 1799 CE minus 1,260 years brings us to about 539 CE., when the Holy Roman Empire was losing its grip on Europe.) Another method was to look at the number of years between the time of Jesus and a "modern" date, and then look at that same period of time in the B.C.E. period, looking for a potentially significant event. In other words, if it were nearly 1843 C.E., for example, they would look to see if anything interesting might have happened around 1843 B.C.E. If this method pointed near to any significant time (like the birth of Jacob/Israel or the death of Jacob/Israel) then there was only a need to adjust a few years in either direction to find many other potentially significant dates that were "exactly" a certain number of years before events in Jesus' life. Counting forward that same number of years might be expected to result in dates of parallel significance in their own modern times.

A natural goal would be to find a Biblical time period that was either closer to 2,000 to reach events in Jesus' lifetime on earth, or as high as 2,600 or more to reach back to the end of the kings of Israel or Judea.

In the 19th century, several writers and preachers began looking for just such a period of time, and they found it in the "seven times." After all, if "three and one-half times" was 1,260 days, then "seven times" would a period that was twice that long: 2,520 days, i.e., 2,520 years. This was an ideal way to reach from the 19th century back to the final kings of Jerusalem. Some found that 2,520 years reached back to King Josiah and found some significance in that. Some found it reached back to the time when Babylon began attacking the people of Judea and Jerusalem and found some significance there, too. Ideally, it would seem more significant if the event were even more spectacular, such as the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple which almost all scholars in the 19th century were dating to about 586 BCE. Today, more than a century later, this is still considered to be about the most accurate date by almost all scholars of that period, especially after literally thousands more pieces of evidence have come to light.

Any date 2,520 years from the destruction of the Temple (the end of the line of kings in Jerusalem) was too far in the future for most Bible chronologists of the 19th century. It reached as far forward as 1934, which was 90 years after 1844, the peak time of speculation in the United States. But after 1844 had failed, there were still small groups who had continued their speculation. One of these groups had focused on a version of the BCE-to-CE "parallel dispensations" method and had a chronology system that therefore already included 539 CE, 1799, 1844, 1874, 1878, 1881 and 1914. With only a 20-year adjustment to the 586 date that nearly all scholars pointed to, they used the date 606 BCE for Jerusalem's destruction, which therefore made it fit the 1914 date which was already part of their chronology system.

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/10/2019 at 1:59 PM, JW Insider said:

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. 

I don’t see any backing off of 1914 whatsoever. It was pedal to the metal at last nights meeting where the assigned reading was Revelation 10-12. Moreover, I thought of talks I had put together over the years, using some of the details in those verses. I thought of how I had made a big deal of Rutherford & crew unambiguously ‘advertise, advertise, advertising’ the King and his Kingdom at almost the exact same moment that the Federal Counsel of Churches was hailing the League of Nations as the political expression of the kingdom on earth today—each side publicly parting ways at the fork in the road.

I read that background WT of how 100 years ago it could not even have been conceived that humans might “ruin the earth,” yet how that manifestly is a great  threat today, as humans invent & implement new technologies without regard or ability to control the consequences. (I finally figured out why my wife had been able to get the Research Guide on her IPad but not me on mine—I had thought it was @James Thomas Rook Jr. messing with me from afar.)

And now you propose that it should all go? What would be the effect of this strange new teaching of yours that Jesus began to rule in 1933–period, end of story—and that WWI was just “boys will be boys?” How will it affect “last days,” ‘urgency of the end,’ ‘the end of all things has drawn close’ ‘ridiculers will come with their ridicule’ and so forth?

Do I understand this correctly? (Maybe I don’t) We have been living in the last days since 33? Constantine lived in the last days and should have been keeping on the watch? Napoleon lived in the last days? George Washington lived in the last days? Sleepy Rip Van Winkle lived in the last ‘Keep on the watch’ days? People couldn’t even read that there were last days that they were supposed to be keeping on the watch for until 3-400 years ago when the Bible began to appear in languages other than Latin!

I think the “33 doctrine” effectively waters down the urgency of keeping on the watch to the point where the practical response is—why do it at all?

I can envision several historic Watchtowers, to run in successive weeks:

1) We are out of harmony with the majority of ancient date scholars. Therefore, let us acknowledge that they must be right, and kick 1914 to the curb—Advertising, League, WWI, Atlanta—it all goes.

2) We are out of harmony with the majority of scientists. Therefore let us concede that Darwinian evolution is the bee’s knees and let us consign Adam and Eve to fairy tale.

3) Let us work on giving our children a “good education” so that they can get a “good job” and turn their talents to making a difference in the world—let us get in there and fix those problems! We can do it!

4) Let’s get Trump out of office and the sooner the better! He spreads meanness. Of course, we realize that some in the congregation will feel another way. They can buy another building and meet there.

5) Let’s focus more on love. Why should we care about what gender people are attracted to? The Bible was written a long time ago when people had different sociological needs and were less enlightened than now.

6) Let’s lighten up on the kingdom preaching work. Who knows how far off it is? I mean, if you have time on your hands and nothing else to do, that’s okay, but don’t let it get in the way of anything important. Let’s have our religion but keep it in its place. There are many roads and they all lead to heaven.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Any date 2,520 years from the destruction of the Temple (the end of the line of kings in Jerusalem) was too far in the future for most Bible chronologists of the 19th century. It reached as far as 1934, which was 90 years after the peak time of speculation in the United States: 1844. But after 1844 had failed, there were still small groups who had continued their speculation. One of these groups had focused on a version of the BCE-to-CE "parallel dispensations" method and had a chronology system that therefore already included 1844, 1874, 1878, 1881 and 1914. With only a 20-year adjustment to the time when all scholars were pointing to 586 BC, they decided to use the date 606 BC for Jerusalem's destruction and therefore made it fit the 1914 date which was already part of their chronology system.

That highlights it all.

Funnily enough, before you posted this, I had already written a draft of my "1914 musings" last night and thought of this::

"1914 is such an attractive doctrine. The the numbers from Daniel 4 add up quite nicely, and then when applied to 607 BCE we arrive at a momentous and significant world event, which could be said to be the time when Jesus fought with Satan, (as per Revelation) throwing him out of heaven, to the the vicinity of the earth, causing him to be so mad that he arranges for an Archduke to be shot, setting in motion the beginning of a world wide war (pretty significant). Also he (Satan), has a short period of time before all his evil shenanigans are brought to an end by a warrior king, Jesus, and thereby a specific time period, with a beginning and end, is set in motion (the last days) and those days were to start and end within one generation.

(As we know, there are complications with 607, but if we were to apply Daniel's numbers to 20 years later, then nothing major or significant happened on the world scene in 1935..although if we were to apply it, then a generation would fit quite nicely in there, making those who were born in 1935, eighty five years old today. This could still buy us another 10 years, and it could still be said that it was one generation. (If we call the lifespan of man a generation). If I remember right though, wasn't it 1935 that SOMETHING significant did happen for the Witnesses? Wasn't it when the great crowd was identified?" )

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The desire to see Jesus return has driven many to focus on combinations of Biblical numbers and dates so that these combinations will usually point to Jesus' return in their own lifetime, or at least the very near future.

Yes, a logical conclusion and we have seen this with our own (Russell, then Rutherford, then Franz, and now the current GB....always within in each respective groups lifetime" )

Of course we all know that if the 1914 doctrine was ever changed because of our "love for the the truth and not for the doctrine" (if indeed it turned out to be erroneous) it would be quite significant because it would automatically nullify 1919 when the FDS was supposedly appointed. It brings to mind something else that Br, Splane said in the video. He said something like would we allow an adjustment to previous understanding "touch our spiritual nerve". Good question, especially with regard to 1914.

I don't mean to be skeptical, but I wonder if an alternative to 1914 is already being carefully studied....just in case the end is not here yet in 50 years....

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I don’t see any backing off of 1914 whatsoever.

Yes, of course. And this issue of the 1,260 and Revelation 11 from this week's meeting was actually the real reason I started this topic. But I do not expect that any trend is being looked at for the purpose of backing off from 1914. I think that this is a bit backwards. I think that the fewer and fewer discussions of Jesus' kingship and presence in 1914 will result in a rethinking of this particular use of the 1914 date.

Also, 1914 will ALWAYS have a place in our preaching, just because it helps us to mark the times we live in now as a fulfillment of prophecy for a time when men will become faint out of fear and expectation, and a time when the creation is groaning for release.

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I can envision several historic Watchtowers, to run in successive weeks:

1) We are out of harmony with the majority of ancient date scholars. Therefore, let us acknowledge that they must be right, and kick 1914 to the curb—Advertising, League, WWI, Atlanta—it all goes.

2) We are out of harmony with the majority of scientists. Therefore let us concede that Darwinian evolution is the bee’s knees and let us consign Adam and Eve to fairy tale.

3) Let us work on giving our children a “good education” so that they can get a “good job” and turn their talents to making a difference in the world—let us get in there and fix those problems! We can do it!

4) Let’s get Trump out of office and the sooner the better! He spreads meanness. Of course, we realize that some in the congregation will feel another way. They can buy another building and meet there.

5) Let’s focus more on love. Why should we care about what gender people are attracted to? The Bible was written a long time ago when people had different sociological needs and were less enlightened than now.

6) Let’s lighten up on the kingdom preaching work. Who knows how far off it is? I mean, if you have time on your hands and nothing else to do, that’s okay, but don’t let it get in the way of anything important. Let’s have our religion but keep it in its place. There are many roads and they all lead to heaven.

Now you're getting silly!

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Anna said:

Now you're getting silly!

I don’t think so. 

I’m playing a bit, I admit, but not to the point of being silly.

Any historian will say that early Christians lived in expectation of the immanent end of this system. The Great Reawakening, or whatever it is called, from which Russell eventually emerges, invariably features expectations of just when the Lord will return. Branches of Christianity that do not concern themselves with this go an entirely different direction. They focus their efforts on improving the present world through education and charity. They abandon their resolve to stay separate from it.

It may be part of the equation that the two—expectations of the short time till the end, and kingdom proclamation with the unique teachings that are JW alone—must always go together. Maybe it is the great Carrot and Stick game of God, knowing how we are. At any rate, I think it most unlikely they will ever tinker with the formula much.

Is the 33-doctrine tinkering with the formula? By moving the beginning back in time, I think it will be hard not to also move the day off into the vague future. It may be that some are gingerly poking at the foundation, as JWI seems to think, but I would not expect any wholesale change.

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/13/2019 at 12:15 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

Moreover, I thought of talks I had put together over the years, using some of the details in those verses. I thought of how I had made a big deal of Rutherford & crew unambiguously ‘advertise, advertise, advertising’ the King and his Kingdom

To coin a phrase: Me too!

The 1914 doctrine has a lot going for it in terms of creating urgency and creating a dramatic interlocking picture of our times. The only thing it doesn't have going for it is a consistent Biblical picture (in my opinion).

But that urgency --based on 1914, specifically-- is already leaving the picture. The urgency for the world is based on a more common sense look at the "critical times" we live in. We often mention the nuclear age, and this is what Brother Bert Schroeder had in mind when he proposed we change the beginning of the generation to 1957. We are looking at climate-related crises that result in wars and migration from lack of fresh water, lack of arable land, soon-to-be food shortage fears just like those of 1975, fires, and more frequent and powerful storms.  

We can still point back to 1914 as a time when the "spirit" of the world took a turn, became more selfish, more violent, and the stability of nations was proven to be illusory.

I don't think we will lose as much as we currently fear.

On 12/13/2019 at 12:15 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

I thought of how I had made a big deal of Rutherford & crew unambiguously ‘advertise, advertise, advertising’ the King and his Kingdom at almost the exact same moment that the Federal Counsel of Churches was hailing the League of Nations as the political expression of the kingdom on earth today—each side publicly parting ways at the fork in the road.

I'm not sure why this would no longer have importance, either. Still, Jesus did not have to just begin ruling just 4 or 5 years prior to our stance on the League of Nations for this to still be a significant turning point in the historical path of our ministry. Jesus did not need to have only been ruling for 8 years when Rutherford made an advertising splash to focus on the idea that Jesus had returned in 1874 and would begin a very visible resurrection in 1925. (As you might recall, 1914 was only a small part of the overall picture that Rutherford was pushing at Cedar Point, OH in 1922.)

And of course, the Watchtower had only very recently (1918) hailed the League of Nations as a very positive political expression of Christ's kingdom on earth, while other groups, including those whom Rutherford might refer to as the "Evil Slave" were already warning against this kind of fellowship with the world.

But none of those errors negate what you said. There was indeed a very public parting of the ways between mainstream religion and the Bible Students starting around 1919 which reached a culmination over the next decade.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But this leaves us in the "middle of nowhere" if we were to count back from today. For example, 2020 minus 1260 brings us to 760 C.E.

Have you not read of Trutom Harley, an underappreciated luminary who lived from 722-795 CE? Call him a “nowhere man”?

9 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

We often mention the nuclear age, and this is what Brother Bert Schroeder had in mind when he proposed we change the beginning of the generation to 1957.

Did he? Forgive me if it has already been mentioned. On what basis? The bomb was dropped in 1945–or is it that Sputnik is 1957? A hard sell, I would think.

As for Nebuchadnezzar, so far my suggestion that he is the pre-type of Ralph Kramden has been unwisely ignored, and I hope the brothers survive the egg on their face when they come to realize how right I was.

Ralph—just like Neb:

1) Unbearably boastful and obnoxious.

2) Absolutely abased each time with the greatest humiliation.

3) Learns absolutely nothing. The beginning of each new show has him at his blowhard worst.

 

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Did he? Forgive me if it has already been mentioned. On what basis? The bomb was dropped in 1945–or is it that Sputnik is 1957? A hard sell, I would think.

Sputnik specifically. (Or perhaps he knew my birthday was in 1957. His own son's birthday was in 1958.) Yes, it's a hard sell when FWFranz was still the strongest voice on the GB, but he managed to get two other members of the GB to sign on with him in order to present the idea. The basis of the idea comes from a combination of factors, some from the older "yw" Daniel book (Your Will Be Done on Earth), which discussed signs in the heavens from things like Sputnik, and nuclear fears. And some from the then-current explanation of Matthew 24 in the "ka" book which broke the prophecy into 3 different parts, so that the beginning of "this generation" didn't have to be directly tied to the part about the beginning of the parousia with its wars and earthquakes, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Yes, of course. And this issue of the 1,260 and Revelation 11 from this week's meeting was actually the real reason I started this topic.

One unanticipated personal consequence of going digital is that I read nothing until the week it is to be considered at meeting. I have not read the new Ezekiel book yet. Back in the day of subscriptions, I would read that entire Watchtower at the nearest opportunity. Doesn’t happen anymore. I never think to download the latest until I need it.

In recent years I’ve come to think a lot about Paul’s counsel to follow the pattern of the healthful words. At first, the healthful words are retrieved and spit out verbatim—it is the nature of much of our research. But if you’ve been around long enough, you soon to learn to pick up on the pattern and you can originate them yourself. 

It is as Mike Tussin used to say, a real person from No Fake News whose name I changed with the most sordid upbringing and the most telling common sense. He would explain how it was with the GB (in the 1970s). “They study and study and one of them notices a point and discusses it with the others. After subsequent discussion reaches agreement, it gets into print. Now, in your own personal study, you may have noticed that point, too,” I can hear him explaining now, “and if this was Christendom, you’d go out and start your own religion over it.” 

For a brief time, he was a roommate of mine. He drove me nuts in taking literally the admonition to read God’s Word “in an undertone day and night.” In time, he learned that he had better not do it in my presence.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

And now you propose that it should all go? What would be the effect of this strange new teaching of yours that Jesus began to rule in 1933–period, end of story—and that WWI was just “boys will be boys?” How will it affect “last days,” ‘urgency of the end,’ ‘the end of all things has drawn close’ ‘ridiculers will come with their ridicule’ and so forth?

Since you are asking, I'll take a cue from 1 Peter 3:15 and let you know what I'm thinking here.

First of all we already believe that Jesus began to rule in 33. (I hope that was a mistake where you said 1933.)

(Colossians 1:13-20) . . .He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist, 18 and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might become the one who is first in all things; 19 because God was pleased to have all fullness to dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all other things by making peace through the blood he shed on the torture stake, whether the things on the earth or the things in the heavens.

There is no indication here that the Kingdom of God's Son is any different than the Kingdom of God which had now become the Kingdom of his Christ. In fact, you might notice a couple of other parallels between Colossians and Revelation, including the hurling down of Satan (rescuing us from the authority of the darkness). Also, perhaps by coincidence, the immediate context of Colossians also discussed the salvation and the power and the Kingdom and the authority and the conquering through the blood of the Lamb.

(Revelation 12:10, 11) . . .Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the Kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God! 11 And they conquered him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their witnessing, and they did not love their souls even in the face of death.

The idea that Satan was cast down in 33 is also repeated several times in the Greek Scriptures.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Another sinister feather in the cap of the northern king. Did he want to tie in the Daniel prophesy?

No idea. The primary point was that people would tremble at such signs in the heavens. A space race with military implications was already hinted at in part of the yw book, which was already about Daniel and therefore had the king of the north in its sights.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Do I understand this correctly? (Maybe I don’t) We have been living in the last days since 33? Constantine lived in the last days and should have been keeping on the watch? Napoleon lived in the last days? George Washington lived in the last days? Sleepy Rip Van Winkle lived in the last ‘Keep on the watch’ days? People couldn’t even read that there were last days that they were supposed to be keeping on the watch for until 3-400 years ago when the Bible began to appear in languages other than Latin!

Like you, I find it difficult to envision Christ's enthronement in 33 CE, for pretty much the same reasons as you. The urgency and keeping on the watch would almost seem cruel, if it was to last nearly 2000 years. Unless you think about those who have been waiting since the end of the 1800's and that have now died. Well for them, it was a lifetime of waiting anyway, so pretty much we could say that there would be no difference between someone waiting their whole lifetime in the middle ages and dying, than someone waiting their whole lifetime and dying now. I mean with respect to the individual. It seems like the scripture "Therefore, beloved ones, since you are awaiting these things, do your utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished and in peace"  would have practical meaning for both individuals. I am assuming that most ordinary folk (at least in Christianized nations) were aware that if they lived a good and godly life they would land in heaven. That was the reward. But you do make a good point when you say that the holy writings were not accessible to ordinary folk, and most couldn't read so would they even know  what Peter wrote about in 2 Peter ch3?

On top of that, "Christian" religion, Catholicism, did not advocate millennialism much, if at all. It wasn't until the protestant reformation in the 16 the century that millenialism was revived.

Excerpt from the Catholic encyclopedia: (I don't expect you to read it all, just here for info) " Protestant fanatics (lol) of the earlier years, particularly the Anabaptists, believed in a new, golden age under the sceptre of Christ, after the overthrow of the papacy and secular empires. In 1534 the Anabaptists set up in Münster (Westphalia) the new Kingdom of Zion, which advocated sharing property and women in common, as a prelude to the new kingdom of Christ. Their excesses were opposed and their millenarianism disowned by both the Augsberg (art. 17) and the Helvetian Confession (ch. 11), so that it found no admission into the Lutheran and Reformed theologies. Nevertheless, the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries produced new apocalyptic fanatics (lol) and mystics who expected the millennium in one form or another: in Germany, the Bohemian and Moravian Brethren (Comenius); in France, Pierre Jurien (L'Accomplissement des Propheties, 1686); in England at the time of Cromwell, the Independents and Jane Leade. A new phase in the development of millenarian views among the Protestants commenced with Pietism. One of the chief champions of the millennium in Germany was I.A. Bengel and his disciple Crusius, who were afterwards joined by Rothe, Volch, Thiersch, Lange and others. Protestants from Wurtemberg emigrated to Palestine (Temple Communities) in order to be closer to Christ at His second advent. Certain fantastical sects of England and North America, such as the Irvingites, Mormons, Adventists, adopted both apocalyptic and millenarian views, expecting the return of Christ and the establishment of His kingdom at an early date. Some Catholic theologians of the nineteenth century championed a moderate, modified millenarianism, especially in connection with their explanations of the Apocalypse.

So it would appear that anyone living from 33 C.E  up to the 16th century (apart from the disciples and early Christian congregation, and some early church fathers) would have no idea about even the existence of the coming of Christ as king of a 1000 year kingdom...

 

Share this post


Link to post

It's a difficult doctrine, with an easy explanation.

The Earth is about 3.5 billion years old.

Each creative day is (3.5 billion divided by 7 = 500,000,000) about 500 million years..

Armageddon will occur at the "End of Days".

Therefore ... "Stay Alive, 'till 500,001,975".

See?

The math works out perfectly, AND it agrees with fossils !

TA DA!

Plus! --- the .ORG gets a LOT of "wiggle room".

As Marvin Webster sez: "Ya'll think about it."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Sputnik specifically.,,,Yes, it's a hard sell...which discussed signs in the heavens from things like Sputnik, and nuclear fear

What year did robocalls from the cloud begin besieging every man woman and child on earth, causing them to look to the heavens and curse, day and night?

Share this post


Link to post

2019-12-14_032417.jpg

 

2011, after the Nation realized they could NOT keep their doctor, they could NOT keep their health plan, and the $2500 every person was going to save on their Health Care, was going to cost them about $10,000 more, and if they did not buy it, the IRS would add a whopping fine to their Income Tax return.

On a related note, in 1980, the Governing Body in considering the "signs in the heavens ..." actually considered declaring Sputnik to be the fulfillment of Bible Prophesy, Schroeder, Karl Klein and Grant Suiter proposed moving the beginning of the "generation" to the year 1957, to coincide with the 1957 Sputnik event,  and it almost became "new light", except a 66-2/3 majority vote was needed to adopt that policy, and one member of the Governing Body went to the restroom, and when he came back, he changed his vote, and it failed by one vote.

In retrospect, perhaps the Brother should have held his water.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Also, perhaps by coincidence, the immediate context of Colossians.......

 

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him.

I am not so sure that Colossians speaking about coincidence. 

I never thought this way, but questions comes after reading this Colossians verses. What sort of "created lordships or governments or authorities" already existed in the heavens and on earth, especially in time period before, in the moment and after Adam and Eve were created? Have some idea? 

New born human society was made of two. I see, in Genesis, how Adam had sort of "power" over animals. Eve had free will and autonomy, just like Adam. Only after Cain's crime we see how he had big fear over his life because there was possibility, that some people (who they are, where they lived, what structure they created??) will kill him because of what  he has done. 

I see here some issues. God didn't punished Cain (God is Lord, Government and Authority). Adam didn't punished Cain (Adam was his father, but he didn't show he had any power over his son). Some unknown people, living who knows where have some thoughts about killing Cain, because he murdered Abel. Why would they be interested in this Adam's family "business"? And why they were interested in "punishing" Cain? 

What sort of structure, legislative (lordships or governments or authorities) existed inside this outside group, tribe, society, that show us how they had something what Adam and Eve family, tribe hadn't ?

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Some unknown people, living who knows where have some thoughts about killing Cain, because he murdered Abel. Why would they be interested in this Adam's family "business"? And why they were interested in "punishing" Cain? 

Answer:

Hatred borne of jealousy ...

.... because the people  covering the Earth, outside of Adam and Eves' family, were NOT directly created beings of Jehovah, and did NOT have an opportunity to live forever ...

...and they KNEW that to be the case.

That is why Cain was afraid that wherever he went in his enforced exile to wander the Earth, those evolved  humans would kill him.

I do not "have Polaroids", but that idea solves a LOT of problems, including millions of tons of hard fossil evidence, all over the Earth, that only the willfully stupid would say means nothing ... and it solves the problem of who Cain married.

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

but he managed to get two other members of the GB to sign on with him in order to present the idea [Stutnik]

It is worth a simulated launch, I guess—presenting the idea—but I’m glad that it blew up on the pad.

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The primary point was that people would tremble at such signs in the heavens. A space race with military implications

It would have been lost on most people. Relatively few catch the implications of anything. They take it at face value—“Space: The final frontier: these are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise—it’s continuing mission: to seek out new world’s, to boldly go where no man has gone before.”

On a flight to Damascus, Bill had a vision of such. Some odd fellow that he took for an angel presented the idea to him right there on the Shatner wing. Like Paul, it disoriented him completely for a time, and the other passengers heard of the disturbance, sure enough, but witnessed nothing themselves.

As a boy, I never once trembled when they launched a rocket from Cape Canaveral. I always took it in the spirit of advancing technology, advancing exploration. It’s one of the few accomplishments of men that has NOT been quickly put to military use, as airplanes were. 

In contrast, WWI was not only perceived by just about everyone, but it was instantly perceived as a negative. Probably that’s what the other—how many were there then—GB members pointed out, sending Bert and his co-astronauts scuttling off to the pantry for a donut.

Robocalls from the cloud, on the other hand, ARE perceived as an instant evil, as any time-share owner in the Everglades knows.

Share this post


Link to post

Good start. Just noticed the latest post.

Does Russell make any distinction for 1844 other than to suggest it was a great disappointment for the second coming churches? Did he use 1844 to further his calculation? Does he mention 1844 to be part of his calculation? Does he stipulate 1910-1911 is referenced in scripture?

It far more interesting, that some continue to project Russell as an Adventist, when Russell was “clearly” criticized for having a negative view of Adventist. It speaks volumes to those that continue to portray a false narrative.

So today, when prophetic time or anything relating to the Lord’s Second Advent is mentioned, many Cry ‘Adventist,’ as if to say, ‘Can any good thing come out of Adventism?"- even though they admit that many prophecies containing time are not yet fulfilled, and that the second coming of the Lord is the most prominent topic of Scripture." "We have great sympathy for both the First Adventists (the Jews) and the Second Adventists, though only a few of either realized the truths they So nearly apprehended, yet failed to grasp, each being blinded by false expectations. Our Adventist friends have failed to recognize both the manner and the object of the Lord’s return as taught in the Scriptures; consequently they have not been expecting to ‘see him as he is,’ but as he was. They consider the object of his coming one which will fill the hearts of all except the saints with dismay and terror; that his object is to gather the elect, destroy all others of mankind, and burn up the world."

 

Interesting how conflicted people start with William miller’s account of chronology, 1844. I wonder if Brown and Miller were the only ones to make calculations on the 1260 days, 2520 days.

CHRONOLOGY--Prominent Dates.

Q76:1: QUESTION (1910)--1--Should we consider it necessary to call attention to other Prominent dates than 1874, 1878, 1881 or 1914? Should 1911 be included?

 

ANSWER--I am glad that question is there, my dear brothers and sisters. You will notice that in my own teachings and writings I am careful to avoid any other dates than these. I know nothing about other dates. In the third volume of Scripture Studies there is a suggestion, but it is offered only as a suggestion, merely that a certain measurement in the Pyramid (not in the Word of God)

Looks as though it might point down to 1910 or 1911, but we do not say that it does mean anything, but merely throw out a suggestion. Don't anticipate, don't say things are to occur, for we do not know, at least I don't, and don't believe anyone else does. My advice is to follow the Apostle when he says, "We speak those things that we know." Don't say anything about those things that you do not know. Quite likely you will wish you had not after a while. Nineteen hundred and fourteen is the time when the "Gentile Times" will end. What does that

mean? I do not know, but I think it is when God lets go in a general sense of the word, and permits things to take their course; and we can readily suppose, as the Apostle says, that the course of nature would be set on fire, because of strife. In the world of mankind, I shall expect a time of great trouble, which the Bible marks out as having its beginning about October, 1914, but I think, dear friends, that it is more important, instead of telling of the time of trouble, to tell

about the good things. The poor people who get into the time of trouble will have all they want of it then. I have enough now, and so have you. The Scriptures say that through much tribulation shall we enter the kingdom, and if we pay attention to our duties, we will get enough without taking time to tell them about the time of trouble. The world will not be profited by our telling, either. We do not wish to scare anybody.

It is indeed a spectacle, when that kind of suggestion is made by a conflicted person. Were there any earlier works of Miller 1844 disappointment?

History shows, there were some. Some that paint a more precise picture than that of Miller. Therefore, Russell did not have any influence with Miller’s 1844 prediction nor did Russell use it as basis for comparison.

"When the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat; when the earth and the works that are therein shall be burnt up."

 

At the present time the blessings of peace seem to be nearly general throughout the nations of the earth. This I deem a very favourable sign. War, however, with its train of abominations, may not finally terminate till about A. D. 1914, or perhaps A. D. 1956; neither do I think that the seventh thousand years, or great Sabbath of the world, or the beginning of Christ's third day, will commence before A. D. 2046 ; and this belief or conclusion I take to be no less deducible from a variety of the prophetic numbers, than from the figurative language employed by Christ concerning the three days, and the three measures of meal, during the time of which the whole world shall be gradually leavened by the kingdom of God.

 

As I have calculated the prophetical numbers, it will be 206 years from A. D. 1840, before the beginning of the seventh thousand years, or the great Sabbath of the world, when God's rest shall begin to be glorious, and when Christ, that glorious Sun of Righteousness, by the brightness of His coming into those temples,

It is indeed sad when people try so hard to end up empty. As stated earlier by an architect of misrepresentation said, it’s an embarrassment. I agree it is.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

As a boy, I never once trembled when they launched a rocket from Cape Canaveral. I always took it in the spirit of advancing technology, advancing exploration. It’s one of the few accomplishments of men that has NOT been quickly put to military use, as airplanes were. 

You know, I can see how the idea might come up for discussion at Bethel. Despite my innocuous take expressed about it—a take that has mostly played out (but may someday not)—there certainly were military overtones in JFKs speech rallying Americans to support a moon launch. 

We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say that we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.

There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again. But why, some say, the Moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask, why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

We choose to go to the Moon! We choose to go to the Moon...We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Does Russell make any distinction for 1844 other than to suggest it was a great disappointment for the second coming churches?

Yes, Russell does make a distinction for 1844 that goes a little beyond just suggesting it was only a great disappointment for the second coming churches.

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Did he use 1844 to further his calculation? Does he mention 1844 to be part of his calculation?

Yes. He absolutely does. He says that according to the Lord's prediction it was 1844 when the Wise Virgins went out to meet the Bridegroom, 30 years before his arrival in 1874. In the parallel dispensations, of course, this mapped to the time when Jesus was born until his baptism at age 30. 1878 mapped to Jesus' death and resurrection.

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Does he stipulate 1910-1911 is referenced in scripture?

No. Russell was definitely going beyond the scriptures when he spoke of what may be expected around 1910. (But then, he was going beyond the scriptures with all the other dates, too.) 

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

It far more interesting, that some continue to project Russell as an Adventist, when Russell was “clearly” criticized for having a negative view of Adventist.

True. They probably do that just because so many of his early associates were Adventist leaders, preachers and publishers. It's important to note that Russell himself claimed to be embarrassed and ashamed by Adventists, not only for all their failed dates, but for exactly what they were expecting on those dates. It was pretty much ONLY in the area of chronology could we say that Russell remained trapped in Adventist thinking for his entire life after the 1870's. For this reason, Russell had some trouble distancing himself from the failures of Adventism, especially after beginning an early publishing venture with NH Barbour, who had been a Millerite Second Adventist and continued to use Miller's chronology as a foundation for his own, including the year 1844.

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Therefore, Russell did not have any influence with Miller’s 1844 prediction nor did Russell use it as basis for comparison.

He absolutely used it as a basis for comparison. He published that it was the wise virgins who came out in 1844, at the same time that the foolish virgins came out in 1844. But he compared the wise and the foolish by saying that those who only stayed stuck on 1844 were foolish, but those who went ahead and began believing that 1874 was the actual date for his arrival (after 30 years of tarrying) were the wise virgins. Being WISE meant accepting the 30 years from 1844 to 1874. Being FOOLISH meant only accepting 1844 and giving up, letting their oil lamps burn out. The LIGHT in their LAMPS was the truth about 1874.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

It is indeed sad when people try so hard to end up empty. As stated earlier by an architect of misrepresentation said, it’s an embarrassment.

If I didn't know better, I'd say you are being too hard on yourself. It's a common tendency we all have to just look for things that fit an agenda, and then we miss a lot more evidence that would have given us a more complete picture.

 The 1840 book you quoted: A Treatise on the Chronology and the Prophetical Numbers of the Bible, in a letter addressed to William Cuninghame by Duncan MacDougal is available here:

    Hello guest!

So yes, it's true that others before Barbour and Russell had already mentioned possibilities for 1914 and dates not that far from it. By one estimate there had been a "[pseudo-]Biblical" prediction for at least half the individual years between 1850 and 1925. You can see some of this in B W Schulz book on Barbour, his other on ZWT, and some comments by Jonsson in GTR, too.

Russell doesn't appear to acknolwedge any of these others directly, but focuses his predictions on those related to William Miller. In fact Russell believed:

  • 1,260 days of Daniel ended in 1799
  • 1,290 days of Daniel ended in 1829 - because this is when William Miller's adventism got into full swing.
  • 1,335 days of Daniel ended in 1874 - also because William Miller's 1844 date corresponded with the Jewish Advent of Jesus, but 1874 with the Christian Advent of "Christ" baptized and anointed (made Christ).

As late as 1925 (Feb 15), the Watch Tower said:

"No doubt Mr. Miller was correct in locating 1844 as a Bible date."

Russell had said the following in Studies in the Scriptures; from the very first 1891 editions, on up to the 1927 editions:

Mr Miller's application of the three and a half times (1260 years) was practically the same as what we have just given . . . It was nevertheless the beginning of the right understanding of the prophecy; for after all, the 1260 period, which he saw correctly, was the key;

In 1881, Russell said:

. . . we believe that this much of this parable met its fulfillment in 1843 and 1844, when William Miller and others, Bible in hand, walked out by faith in its statements . . . . As the former movement in the parable had been represented by Miller and others, so to this second movement we give a similar application. A brother, Barbour of Rochester, was we believe, the chosen vessel of God through whom the "Midnight Cry" issued. . . . proving that the night of the parable was 30 years long, and that the morning was in 1873, and the Bridegroom due in the morning in 1874.

I should mention that just because something was disappointing and included mistakes, it didn't indicate to Russell that God wasn't behind the events and the dates. After all, I think the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem was a disappointment, too.

Also, one should note that it was a large majority of Russell's early influencers who had been associated with the Millerite movement: Jonas Wendell, George Storrs, George Stetson, N. H. Barbour, B. W. Keith, J. H. Paton, and H. B. Rice. This is why his vocabulary and topics and several doctrines continued to reflect Second Adventism for the rest of his life.

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/13/2019 at 12:35 PM, Anna said:

1914 is such an attractive doctrine.

Very much!

On 12/13/2019 at 12:35 PM, Anna said:

The numbers from Daniel 4 add up quite nicely

The only numbers in the text of Daniel 4 are "7" and "12" (It's 12 months later when he is struck down to the state of a beast) and although we have fairly good Biblical reasons to turn "7 times" into 7 years and therefore 2,520 days, we have very few if any good reasons to turn those 2,520 days into 2,520 years. Remember that the Watchtower NEVER uses 1,260 days to mean a day for a year, so why should 2,520 days mean years?

I have a feeling that if we had not already accepted this particular inconsistency, we would laugh to ourselves if we found out that the Mormons or Catholics or some other religious group had told us: "Well it says 7 years, but it really means 2,520 years." Or, "It says 12 months, but in the greater fulfillment this means 360 years after the dream."

We would think it just as crazy as if they told us that when Jacob worked for Laban to pay the bride-price for Leah for 7 years, and then another 7 years for Rachel, that there was a "greater fulfillment," where the "greater Jacob" must work 2,520 x 2 = 5,040 years, and this means that the end of the millennium will be 5,040 years after the initial fulfillment, or let's say, for example, from 1750 BCE until the "greater promised land," the New World at the end of 1,000 years in 3290. (Therefore the beginning of the 1,000 year reign will be in 2290 CE.) Had this particular year landed some time between 1878 and 1914, instead of 2290, Barbour (and therefore Russell, too) might have latched onto it and made it fit into their chronology.

On 12/13/2019 at 12:35 PM, Anna said:

and then when applied to 607 BCE we arrive at a momentous and significant world event

(Decided to play Bible's Advocate on your post, even though you weren't asking.)

But nothing of that much import actually happened in 607, since this would have been almost 2 years before Nebuchadnezzar became king. At best, it might be within a few months of when Nebuchadnezzar, as a general of his father's army, took a few exiles from Judea to Babylon. And these exiles might have included Daniel. It would also have been within a couple years of the time that Babylon took over from Assyria as the new "world power" with respect to the Middle East. Babylon's hegemony really was of Biblical prophetic significance, but this is a prophecy that the Watchtower is forced to ignore because it would mean that the Bible already corresponds completely with the secular/historical evidence. We need for it NOT to correspond so that we can say it's off by 20 years. Only then can we make it reach 1914.

But you are right in that we do arrive at a momentous and significant world event. (Russell and Barbour had actually used 606 and didn't realize that this actually brings them to October 1915.) But 1915 was also part of a significant world event.

On 12/13/2019 at 12:35 PM, Anna said:

which could be said to be the time when Jesus fought with Satan, (as per Revelation) throwing him out of heaven, to the the vicinity of the earth

Satan is already seen falling from heaven in Luke 10, referring to the defeat of his power over Jesus and his disciples. Then Satan is defeated from heaven in 1914 where he is angry because he has a short period of time. (Has he accepted defeat? Because he nearly had the Bible Students back in 1918/19, but has apparently barely hindered the rate of expansion since the 1940's without any significant persecution among at least 92 percent of Witnesses today. Is his time less short now? Is he tired? Has he changed his methods? Have we changed our understanding of his methods? Was he roving about the earth seeking to devour Christians in Paul's day?)

On 12/13/2019 at 12:35 PM, Anna said:

causing him to be so mad that he arranges for an Archduke to be shot, setting in motion the beginning of a world wide war (pretty significant).

For some reason, we still like Russell's "October 1914" chronology. (See the chart you copied earlier.) Yet, the archduke was shot in July. July, interestingly, was actually much closer to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, which might indicate just how loathe anyone is to tweak the 1914 doctrine. Probably because we need for Russell to be right about something in his chronology, even though he never predicted a war of this kind. He only predicted the fall of all Gentile institutions on earth, while the Jewish Zionist nation would rise unhindered -- therefore it was called the End of the Gentile Times. It's also partly why, when this failed in 1914, he moved the predictions to 1915.

On 12/13/2019 at 12:35 PM, Anna said:

Also he (Satan), has a short period of time before all his evil shenanigans are brought to an end by a warrior king, Jesus,

This will be a little repetitive. According to the scriptures, Jesus defeated Satan through his life and sacrifice and resurrection. Then in 1914, it's not really much of a defeat, I guess, mostly just sending him down to earth where he needed to be anyway, to be closer to Jesus' disciples in order to persecute them, to walk about like a roaring lion, seeking to devour, just as he was doing in Paul's day. But can we think of any evil shenanigans that Satan tried after 1914 that he had not tried prior to 1914? After Jesus defeats him in 1914, does he defeat him again at Armageddon, perhaps in an even greater way? Then does Jesus defeat him again at the end of the 1,000 years when he is let loose from an abyss.

Most of this makes Biblical sense, except that the 1914 defeat seems the most redundant to me. The kind of defeat he received in the first century has brought Satan to the place where he continues to wage war with the seed of the woman all these centuries since. The "short period of time" phrase is odd, but then even 100 years is an odd short period of time. How long did that battle with Satan last? What changed after that battle? The Bible tells us what changed after he was thrown down in the first century.

What if one of Satan's most clever tactics was to get us to think of 1914 as the beginning of the parousia, so that we would begin to ignore Jesus words about no one knowing the day or the hour? After all the parousia was to arrive at a time when no one expected.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't bother to visit here so often as I'm too busy, but the last 4 or 5 pages here are heavy reading that's for sure.  But it seems that most of you JWs are saying, as some of us 'opposers' say anyway, that the Soc/Org/ GB et al, have got it all wrong. 

I've been saying to Mr Harley that there must be another ten years left, if not more... And I note that one or two of you have said that the GB and others always expect the 'end' to come within their lifetime. 

Selfishness of course. Many people 'serve God' and / or join JW Org just to survive the Judgement, so they want it in their lifetime. 

1914 ? The choosing it / using it as a pivotal date/time wasn't inspired, we know that much. 

But keep it up, it gives me more confidence in what I believe. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

I've been saying to Mr Harley that there must be another ten years left, if not more... And I note that one or two of you have said that the GB and others always expect the 'end' to come within their lifetime. 

Anna says 10 years and she’s just being speculative, just putzing around, with the existing arrangements.

You say 10 years, I think in earnest, with a brand spanking new anointed from somewhere or other—everything new from the ground up.

You are both wrong. It is ten days. Be ready.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Anna says 10 years and she’s just being speculative, just putzing around, with the existing arrangements.

You say 10 years, I think in earnest, with a brand spanking new anointed from somewhere or other—everything new from the ground up.

You are both wrong. It is ten days. Be ready.

Well Mr Harley 'No one knows the day or the hour',  so why oh why have your Soc / GB / Writing Dept pretended so much to know so much ?  

And yes, I think it is years away yet, 10 years or more. There is so much to put right, or a new Org to build. 

But I never said a  " brand spanking new anointed ". Because there are members of the Anointed already available to do the job. It's just that they are not allowed to do it, because your GB pretend to be the F&DS. I won't take it any further than that for fear of being disfellowshipped from here. 

If Almighty God decides to use the JW Org then He will have the Org there ready and He will adjust it for His own purposes. So it won't have to be "everything new from the ground up".  It will be God, through Christ, putting people in their place, and making people show humility. Be ready for it Tom. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

we have very few if any good reasons to turn those 2,520 days into 2,520 years.

We do have very good reasons, the math for 1914 wouldn't work out otherwise xD

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I have a feeling that if we had not already accepted this particular inconsistency, we would laugh to ourselves if we found out that the Mormons or Catholics or some other religious group had told us: "Well it says 7 years, but it really means 2,520 years." Or, "It says 12 months, but in the greater fulfillment this means 360 years after the dream."

Yes, I think we would laugh. After all, messing around with numbers to "fit something you want it to fit" sounds pretty cultish. When looking at this subject again, in light of Br. Splane's talk about types and antitypes, and how he said that (paraphrased) we have to make sure that when we are talking about types, that they are genuine types, because the word of God says they are puts a whole different slant on it. Then the idea is enforced even further when he says who is to decide if a person or event is a type, if the word of God doesn't say anything about it and he quotes Br. Shroeder: ( We need to exercise great care when applying accounts in the Hebrew Scriptures as prophetic patterns or types if these accounts are not applied in the Scriptures themselves).

Therefor reading the account in Daniel 4 without any preconceived ideas, I see these main lessons:

verse 17  "This is by the decree of watchers, and the request is by the word of the holy ones, so that people living may know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that he gives it to whomever he wants, and he sets up over it even the lowliest of men.”  Lesson: (quite self explanatory really) Jehovah can do what he wants because he is the ultimate sovereign.

verse 27  "Therefore, O king, may my counsel be acceptable to you. Turn away from your sins by doing what is right, and from your iniquity by showing mercy to the poor. It may be that your prosperity will be extended". Lesson: Listen to Jehovah and do right, otherwise Jehovah will discipline you.

verse 37  “Now I, Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, am praising and exalting and glorifying the King of the heavens, because all his works are truth and his ways are just, and because he is able to humiliate those who are walking in pride. Lesson: similar to above, and also proof that Jehovah carries out his discipline. 

----------------

The reasoning put forward as to why this particular chapter of Daniel (4) has greater meaning (paraphrased from WT October 2014) is that the book of Daniel has a central theme, that of God's Kingdom, and keeps pointing forward to the establishment of that Kingdom under the rulership of his Son, Jesus. For example what it says in Daniel 2:44: "“In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. And this kingdom will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone will stand forever.”

I can see that Daniel Ch 2 is talking about Neb's. dream of the statue, representing subsequent rulerships, and that during the feet period God's Kingdom will come. In my opinion this is one valid and definite description of when the Kingdom will come. Then Chapters 7 and 8 are full of cryptic beasts, Chapter 9 prophesy about the coming of the Messiah including his cutting off, chapter 11 more cryptic descriptions, this time involving the king of the north and south, and the last chapter (12) the time of the end with Michael standing up. I need an encoder! I must admit, because of my more practical disposition, when we studied the Daniel book, I did not pay enough attention. My son was quite small and I had my hands full, and I can't even remember if we studied it again after that?

For example what are these numbers about?: Daniel 12:11  “And from the time that the constant feature has been removed and the disgusting thing that causes desolation has been put in place, there will be 1,290 days. 12  “Happy is the one who keeps in expectation and who arrives at the 1,335 days!" (It's ok, no need to answer, I can look it up myself).

 

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:
On 12/13/2019 at 12:35 PM, Anna said:

and then when applied to 607 BCE we arrive at a momentous and significant world event

But nothing of that much import actually happened in 607,

,Sorry, I was being confusing. I didn't mean 607 was special. I meant what happened when counting 2520 years from that date, I meant that 1914 was a very significant year.

(have to go, will carry on later)

Share this post


Link to post