How a Christmas song would lead me to believe that our 1914 teaching must be right after all.

[Pudgy]

59 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Wrong again. These days, at the urging my wife. I have become a dishwasher repairman. In fact, I am busy as a beaver (very clever animals, all of them graduates of Dam U.) reworking the Beatles’ Paperback Writer into something more personal:

’It’s a steady job but he’ll be a dishwasherrepairman…..

DISHWASHERREPAIRMANNNNNNN.”

Did you know if the fill pump goes you might as well buy a new unit, since even with self-install you’ll pay over 40% of a spanking brand new machine that doesn’t require you to start and wait 12 minutes to add the soap in because the automatic dispenser doesn’t work and now you are vindicated in not fixing it like your wife wanted you to because if you had it would all be for naught?

 

… I sympathize with you, but being a cartoon dog, My dog dish somehow cleans itself.

[xero]

30 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The topic itself is easy as pi. I did enjoy that movie, quirky though it was, or maybe I enjoyed it due to that reason.

I liked the garden = 144 thingy. 144 x 10 x 10 x 10 = 144,000

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Rutherford, as he did many times in the years 1916 to 1929, had to carefully acknowledge that Russell alone had been the one and only faithful and wise servant (faithful and discreet slave), and therefore the sole distributor of spiritual truths up until his death in 1916. Since Russell and/or the Watchtower was the one and only channel of truth in the minds of Watchtower readers, Rutherford had to be very careful when explaining how and why Russell got things wrong.

 

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

He very cleverly keeps the 3,960 years of the Genesis 15 "prophecy" intact, but he changes the starting date from 2045 BCE to 2035 BCE, ten years later.

 

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

And by 1917, Rutherford had already gone ahead and started promoting a new date of 1925 for the "realized" end of the Gentile Times,

What does all this show to a sensible person ? 

It shows what a massive con it all is. First of all this worship of Russell as being the F&DS. Then this worship of the Watchtower.  Then Rutherford 'being careful' not to upset Watchtower readers.

Then Rutherford changing dates and as you state, 'going ahead'.  Ahead of any guidance from Yeshua. 

BUT you people love them both. You idolise (idolize) them. You pretend that they were important. 

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I think I can edit people's posts, but I won't do it. I know I can delete a post entirely.

Yes I'm sure you can and probably do JWI.  It's a sure fact that JWs cannot be trusted with anything 'truthful'. 

 

 

[xero]

@JW Insider Where did the extra 2 years come from? 1943+100=2043. 2043-3960=1917 (adjusted no zero is 1916)

[Anna]

22 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Not exactly a joke, TTH, and, yes, Anna, it was something a little more akin to an experiment. Not so much about gullibility, but about human nature and the way we protect our belief systems

I thought as much after I deliberated over it for a few days.

It was an interesting experiment. It made me realize that rather than the actual content, which I merely skimmed over like Tom, I was more concerned with the reputation or status of the person who wrote it. This was interesting because I see this mentality today. It's not only that we want to protect our belief system, but it goes deeper than that.  It highlighted that many times it's not what is said but who says it. Perhaps this explains why some of us embrace some beliefs which we don't really understand fully, (or cannot explain ourselves) without bothering to really understand them because ... ahem.....because we trust those who put forward these explanations. If 1914 had been explained by an Indian Guru, I doubt anyone of JWs would be interested. Or perhaps it would be adopted, but its origins would be buried, just like John Aquila Brown and others who made 1914 calculations.

So I hesitated, (although my instinct told me otherwise) because I know you like to dig deep but of late you also try not to stir the pot. My instincts told me you are trying to illustrate a point. The point that if we try hard enough, we can pick a few scriptures and make them fit something that we want support for. And if you have already built a certain reputation, especially trustworthiness, it will most likely convince others too. That just seems to be the rule as you say with people in general.

Tom was more on the ball, being suspicious that you would make a 180 turn. And Pudgy the old dog realist heard a ring of the "cat thesis" (which I did too actually, and I do know you have a wicked sense of humour).

My hubby and me have finished the one docu series and now we have started another Netflix one called the Family, this time about a Christian group (you've probably seen that too). It's amazing what people are capable of doing and believing. Of course when watching these documentaries I always compare our belief system, not so much the content but more the way we apply it, and thankfully, I always see how superior our application is to even so called Christians.

One thing that struck me and gave me an idea, although this is off topic here but I don't think it matters now because we have all veered off since your "experiment" is over.  Anyway, most will know that I am skeptical about Governments turning on religion, especially in the United States where it plays such an integral part of society and the constitution. Something that was said in the Family made me think of another angle. The journalist whose story this is, overhears Doug Coe, one of the leaders of the Family, saying to another member that "putting labels on religions such as "Muslim", "Christian" gets in the way of your prayers to Jesus .....organized religion detracts from Jesus...we've got to take Jesus out of the religious wrapping". This is IT! It's not that religion per say will be destroyed, but organized religion will be. One of the episodes is called One World Order. Arauna would be proud of me.
 

[Pudgy]

To paraphrase from the first issue of the Watchtower the words of Charles Taze Russell, “if Satan himself tells you the truth, it’s still the truth.“

Which presumes if I trusted angel of light tells you a lie, it’s still a lie.

And a lot of mature wisdom is merely evidence of being too tired.

And brilliant humor is wasted on the willfully stupid who can be identified easily as they only take offense at being confused.

If there is any question about that, reread paragraph three.
 

[Matthew9969]

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Wrong again. These days, at the urging my wife. I have become a dishwasher repairman. In fact, I am busy as a beaver (very clever animals, all of them graduates of Dam U.) reworking the Beatles’ Paperback Writer into something more personal:

’It’s a steady job but he’ll be a dishwasherrepairman…..

DISHWASHERREPAIRMANNNNNNN.”

Did you know if the fill pump goes you might as well buy a new unit, since even with self-install you’ll pay over 40% of a spanking brand new machine that doesn’t require you to start and wait 12 minutes to add the soap in because the automatic dispenser doesn’t work and now you are vindicated in not fixing it like your wife wanted you to because if you had it would all be for naught?

 

Maybe you can find a way to baptize Walter with that thing?

[Witness]

1 hour ago, Anna said:

The journalist whose story this is, overhears Doug Coe, one of the leaders of the Family, saying to another member that "putting labels on religions such as "Muslim", "Christian" gets in the way of your prayers to Jesus .....organized religion detracts from Jesus...we've got to take Jesus out of the religious wrapping". This is IT! It's not that religion per say will be destroyed, but organized religion will be.

 

Where does your own religious organization fit in?

I know Catholics who are aware I believe in Jesus Christ.  They treat me as if I am a “sister”.

I know Mormons.  As a Catholic I grew up with their children.  They treat me as if I am their “sister”. 

My Baptist neighbor tells me I am her “sister in the faith”, although she knows I would never step foot in her church after my experience with “organization”. 

I know JWs.  They treat me as if I’m dead. 

Which organization, that touts “organization” more so than any other, do you believe Jesus needs to be removed from first?

“Whoever does not do what is right is not of God, especially the one who does not love his brother. ¹¹ For this is the message you have heard from the beginning: We should love one another, ¹² unlike Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil, and his brother’s were righteous. ¹³ Do not be surprised, brothers, if the world hates you. ¹⁴ We know that we have passed from death to life because we love our brothers. The one who does not love remains in death. ¹⁵ Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.”  1 John 3

The “world” that hated the disciples of Christ, was the world of the Jews.  Jesus rejected that organization for rejecting TRUTH.  Today’s “Jews” are in the organization that believe it belongs to God.  They tolerate falsehoods and reject truth from those whom Jesus has sent.  (Matt 5:11,12; 23:34; Rev 18:4-8)

1 hour ago, Anna said:

organized religion detracts from Jesus.

Who gets more press; Jesus Christ, the GB or "organization" in the Wt? Why not leave Jesus totally out of it and let the GB sail along as captains of their own organization, their own idol?  Wait, they're already doing that!  (Rom 1:25) So again, what organization does Jesus need to be removed from, first? 

Is it not true that it is said, the Wt is the greatest, the best, and will survive Armageddon?  What other religion is like that organization, what can make war with it?  (Rev 13:4)

Organized religion is physical.  Jesus said, in the last days there would NO physical "mountain", as Wt's "mountainlike organization", that God would approve.  John 4:21-24

By your example, at least there are some in the world who get this.  God's people have hardened hearts, and refuse to worship only, in spirit and in truth.  (2 Thess 2:9-12)

 

 

 

 

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, xero said:

@JW Insider Where did the extra 2 years come from? 1943+100=2043. 2043-3960=1917 (adjusted no zero is 1916)

Good catch! The original dates that Russell used for the Abrahamic covenant would be 2045, and the "Thousand Year" book (ka) only explains the 100-year difference (giving us 1945 BCE), not the other two years (to make it 1943 BCE). There have been a few adjustments to account for minor year adjustments over the years. For example, see "The Truth Shall Make You Free" (1943), "The Kingdom is at Hand" (1944), "Life Everlasting in Freedom . . ." (1966), Watchtower 8/15/1968 p.498, etc., "Chronology" article in Insight or Aid Book, etc.

[There are actually quite a few of these one to two year adjustments (e.g. Russell had Jesus born, per Ussher, in 4 BC, and today we use 2 BC, etc.). I think we currently start the validation of the Abrahamic covenant when Abraham crosses the Euphrates, just after the death of his father, and we place this in 1943 BCE.]

But the basic difference started out with Russell's chronology from "The Time is at Hand" (SiS, Volume II):

Notice that the date from the end of the 70 years desolation was considered to be the decree of Cyrus, considered to be at the start of his first regnal year, 536 BCE. In the same book just quoted, p.79, Russell said:

the first year of the reign of Cyrus is a very clearly fixed date — both secular and religious histories with marked unanimity agreeing with Ptolemy’s Canon, which places it B.C. 536.

This is why both Russell and Rutherford said that 606 BCE was a date that could never be changed. They became part of the set of "God's dates, not ours." In Government, Rutherford said:

The date of the overthrow of Zedekiah is positively fixed by the Scriptures and also by profane history as 606 B.C.

The final (late) acknowledgement of the lack of a zero year meant that they would need to change the positively fixed date from 606 to 607 BCE.

But, then you will note that it was ALSO discovered that Russell had date wrong for the first year of Cyrus. Ptolemy's Canon actually had it right all along, but Russell had the destruction of Babylon in 537, and the first year of Cyrus, counting from Nisan 1, in 536. When forced to acknowledge that this was two years off, and it was really 538, the Society had the choice to change the date of Jerusalem's fall one more time, this time to 608 to match the 70 years. But the whole point was to make 1914 work, not to actually care so much when Jerusalem had really fallen. So the 536 day was corrected to 538, and since this was still a year off, we changed the date of the decree to sometime much closer to Cyrus' 2nd year, 537 BCE. After all, 536 is now known to be the THIRD year of Cyrus, not the FIRST year as Russell had calculated. Insight now agrees with Ptolemy here:

*** it-1 p. 577 Daniel ***
During the third year of Cyrus (536 B.C.E.)

4 hours ago, xero said:

=1917 (adjusted no zero is 1916)

To save space in the original post, I hadn't explained yet that I had purposely moved the date in the wrong direction to give 1914 instead of 1916. I think it was my fault therefore that I led you to say that 1917, adjusted for no zero year is 1916. It's actually 1918! But this is similar to the mistake made in the presentation of the original math in the 1907 Watch Tower, too. It was correct to point out that 536 BC is actually 536 years prior to AD 1 (instead of the non existent AD 0). But then the additional 1915 years should have been added to 1 to make 1916. No one seemed to notice this error. Not even the ultra-fastidious C. J. Woodworth, who wrote his famous "Theocratic Calendar" article in the Golden Age showing that he knew about the no-zero-year issue long before any other Watchtower publications acknowledged it.

[TrueTomHarley]

45 minutes ago, Witness said:

I know Catholics….They treat me as if I am a “sister”.

I know Mormons. …They treat me as if I am their “sister”. 

My Baptist neighbor tells me I am her “sister in the faith”,

For someone who is the bee’s knees in so many places you sure do like spending time in a place where you aren’t.

[Anna]

19 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

For someone who is the bee’s knees in so many places you sure do like spending time in a place where you aren’t.

I was a bit surprised that JWI posted his "experiment" in the open forum because here they are already convinced of what the experiment "proved".  Plus anything here just gets mashed up by the likes of Allen Smith and his multiple personalities, or Witness whose only interest is to turn every scripture anti GB regardless of the topic, or patiently sitting on his hands who sees a conspiracy in all that the GB do and say.....

[Anna]

1 hour ago, Witness said:

Organized religion is physical.  Jesus said, in the last days there would NO physical "mountain",  that God would approve.  John 4:21-24......

 

That's what Doug Coe in the documentary was insinuating. He also compared Jesus to Lenin, Hitler and Bin Laden, as examples of leaders who change the world through the strength of the covenants they had forged with their 'brothers'.

 

1 hour ago, Witness said:

By your example, (of Doug Coe) at least there are some in the world who get this.

I don't think I would want to agree with any of his sentiments .