ComfortMyPeople

This Youtuber has Phd in Theological Studies and offers his personal opinions throughout.
I thought it interesting to see how others view us....

First of all. Thanks for the sentiments in the previous post. I don't plan to focus much on things said here anymore, so you're right that it isn't really going to matter much whether those details about 2016 are explained to me or not. 
I've read what the editors of "DTIB" have said about genealogy and it's easy to understand. I also understand what it says about "generations" in those pages you referenced and in other parts of this same "Bible Dictionary." Also, I know that if someone did a search on the term "overlapping generations" among all the Bible commentaries and Bible dictionaries, the term almost never comes up at all except in this particular one: "Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible" (DTIB). And it only happens on page 244, the first page you quoted. Yes, it's "cool" and "unique" that someone can find a person with academic credentials who used the term "overlapping generations" but its very use here undermines the Watchtower teaching instead of helping to support it.
The problem, of course, is that the editor you recommended here (pp. 244-246), doesn't really believe the Bible's genealogies are trustworthy and accurate as actual genealogies. He prefers to see many of them as unhistorical. But that's typical of modern critical commentaries. However, he quotes Rendsburg who actually does argue that the genealogies of the Pentateuch are reliable and historical. And in that paragraph, he uses the phrase: "overlapping generations." He says that:
Rendsburg "has based his conclusions in part on the observable pattern of overlapping generations so that people of the same age need not be of the same generation."
But it's quite easy to see that this goes completely against what the Watchtower publications have tried to say about generations. In fact, it directly opposes what the Watchtower publications say.
The Watchtower publications NEVER use the expression "overlapping generations" with respect to the generation teaching, because our current teaching is the opposite. Our teaching is that even persons of widely different ages NEED to be part of the SAME GENERATION because Jesus said that "THIS GENERATION" (not "these generations") would not pass away. Our current teaching is that almost all of the people in the first part of the generation do not need to have their lives overlap with most of the people in the second part of that same generation. In fact, our current teaching is supposed to work out even if only ONE person among the thousands in that first part has a lifespan that overlaps with at least ONE person in the second part of that SAME generation. The infamous Splane chart even mentions the possibility that this ONE person might be, using a known example: Brother Frederick W. Franz. If FWF was indeed the last living person from the first group, then his lifespan, in the end, would only need to have overlapped with ONE remaining person from the second part of that same generation by the time the end of this system arrives. Our definition of the current teaching could allow for this even if that overlap had happened for only a few seconds and the overlapping person in the second group had never met or even known about FWF while FWF was alive. And then, by definition, this ONE GENERATION Jesus spoke of can only go on for as long as at least that ONE person from the second group, is still alive.
That might sound complex and I'm using an extreme example. But it's an example that fits the current teaching.
I'm personally not too concerned with whether this teaching is going to hold true, time-wise. It very well might. If it does, I don't think it's necessary that it was because the teaching was right. It could just be a coincidence if the end of this system comes tomorrow.
One reason I'm not too concerned is just based on the very nature of speculative teachings. If the teaching is now correct, then this means that it is the "truth." Yet, if someone believed and promoted this "truth" back in 2004, for example, then it would have been an apostate teaching at that time. Speculative teachings are always this way: they could be an apostate teaching, then a true teaching, then they might become an apostate teaching again in the near future.
I'm not saying the Watchtower is wrong. But I'm not personally concerned with our more speculative teachings. And this one is the kind that creates a range of dates, which, to my conscience, goes against what Jesus and Paul said about not needing anything to be written to us about the times and seasons. These things are in the Father's jurisdiction, not ours.
We should be more concerned with what type of person we ought to be knowing that the end could come at any time.

I probably haven't kept up enough with things being said recently, so I don't really know what you're asking about.
A few months ago, I always tried to read almost everything that everyone would write on this forum. I did this for a few years here but decided it was a bit excessive even though this forum is relatively small. I have read only a very small percentage of posts for about two months now. So I don't really know what you are talking about when you ask if I and BroRando did the numbers. I don't know anything about the significance of 2016 or the "Alpha Generation." I've read that the Alpha generation refers to people born after the year 2000, who are therefore currently about 23 years old or less. I don't recall reading anything from BroRando about 2016 or the Alpha Generation.
I am hopeful that the end of this wicked system comes soon, but I have never believed in trying to tie the future fulfillment of prophecies to specific dates. I'd go so far as to say it's unchristian to get overly involved in such speculation about the times and seasons. But I do understand the desire to peer into such things and always want to learn more about the fulfillment of prophecy. I'm intrigued about whatever you mean about me "doing the numbers" "2016" "Alpha Generation" and whatever you meant by my "reference." I'm sure I didn't refer to any of those things, so I wondered what you meant by that. 

You make your point based on rejection of 1914 as the beginning of the "parousia" and Jesus' reign as king. I also can't see how that idea fits the Biblical references to the parousia. But I believe Jesus was already enthroned much earlier, so it doesn't matter what happened specifically in 1914. Jesus WAS king in 1914 because he had already been raised up much earlier as the Davidic Messiah.
I noticed an earlier comment you made elsewhere where you reject the idea that Jesus became king when he sat down at the right hand of majesty. I understand that there are different ways to interpret "kingship" and "authority." But it's still a legitimate interpretation that Jesus already held his position as "king of kings and lord of lords" because he was given "all authority" at that time including a name which was above all rulers and principalities whether they be in heaven or on earth. Hebrews says that he had a crown at this time, a sceptre at this time, and a throne at this time, and that he was already of the order of Melchizedek who was both king and priest at the same time.
Revelation calls Jesus the "ruler of the kings of the earth." Paul shows that when Psalm 110 used the expression "sit at my right hand" that one should interpret that phrase as "rule as king." 
For Christ must reign [as King] until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
The examples of Jewish persons who worked for and supported gentile governments is not necessarily seen again in Christian times, where Christians owed their citizenship to the heavens and believed they were just temporary residents in this world.

And the propaganda machine for the lies go on. .... And a good scientist finds blood vessels in dinosaur bones (which shows they are not millions of years old) and this is hidden from the public..... not talked about..... cancelled.... until reproduction of the same experiment proves the point.  Then they try to refute it in a silly way that cannot happen in nature .... and they go on with the propaganda and money-making machine. 

Just read up about the Cambrian explosion and you will not believe in evolution.  This cambrian "explosion" is never talked about by evolutionists  because all animals suddenly appeared in one layer / strata of the earth.......the animals were not partially formed in any previous layers but suddenly appeared  ....fully formed.
There are so many flaws in the logical thinking of evolution. One example is the development of Male and Female genders over millions of years..... while still proliferating?????  Different genuses often have different looking organs...... and all the different sex organs just magically by chance  know how to develop to compliment each other  and fit perfectly.  There was definitely some pre-knowledge and accounting in nature......(intelligence) involved....because half the chromosomes are with the Male and half with the female.... in mammals. Nature can obviously count. Lol. 
Then the matter of DNA - which is an operating system - comprising of DNA -  4 letters-  and a new language which was developed which gives instructions. When computers came out (e.g.windows), they took some time to develop the computer language with 2 letters....working to straighten out all the problems. ... then they  systematically put each sentence of the operating system in sequence with "instructions".  If the instructions had one mistake the system crashed.  So:  Nature  developed an entire intricate language randomly by chance and then logically step by step developed and put in sequence the intricate and logical instructions in this fully developed language... for instance  to develop a baby. 
This is like winning the lottery for millions of years one second after another - one would have to come to the conclusion that there is as outside source manipulating the lottery. ... 
There are so many logical flaws in evolution that those who are blinded by it have never thought it through. 
Another flaw:  the eye needs the brain to interpret what it sees.  Who "coordinated" the simultaneous growth of the two ifferent organs over millions of years in such a focussed way so that the two organs  would both have all the right parts and messages to work with each other so perfectly?
The same can be said for many other organs which work together- this is proof if intelligent design..... not random chance over millions if years..... who did the "thinking" for nature....random selection is the jackpot. 
If millions of years went by with a "nutricious soup" floating around - was there never ever a storm to disturb the "goldilocks conditions"?  How did the right chemicals stay together without a membrane?  The membrane of a cell itself is  intricate....keeping so many functional parts within its pocket and only letting select items through. How did this suddenly appear?  And how did nature know to divide the acidic and alkaline parts of the cell. How did it "know" to develop the transportation system,  and factories within the cell... the two kinds of DNA? 
These are just a few questions one can ask someone who believes in evolution. 
"Peer review" at universities is such a farce. A group of professors review  works for publication. Friends approve each others papers and cut out anyone who disagrees with their theories.
One does not need a degree or smartness to understand these things.  That is why the bible says we must walk in humbleness / modesty with jehovah. He gives insight to the humble.
Regarding the dating of things in the field of geology, anthropology, archeology, evolution etc.  This is also a farce as it is all manipulated.  But that is another subject on it's own.  

I messaged her earlier. She says they are OK. Sent our love to them and anyone they know affected by the tragedy. 

Alex Berenson has been known to stretch the truth, but is often on the right track.  I also read the paper he refers to and he's only slightly stretching it.
Here's his latest "bombshell" about a paper Fauci co-authored very recently:
Dr. Anthony Fauci now admits the mRNA Covid vaccines hardly work and might not be approvable
In fact, a bombshell paper he co-authored last month suggests ALL vaccines for common respiratory viruses may face intractable hurdles. And that's not even the worst news. I'm not exaggerating.
Alex Berenson Feb 8 Last month, three scientists pointed out flu shots barely work and couldn’t be approved based on the standards used for vaccines like measles:
“After more than 60 years of experience with influenza vaccines, very little improvement in vaccine prevention of infection has been noted… our best approved influenza vaccines would be inadequate for licensure for most other vaccine-preventable diseases.” [emphasis added]
True. Several rigorous papers have proven that flu shots are placebos masquerading as public policy.
But the same scientists then compared our beloved and groundbreaking Covid vaccines to those pointless flu jabs:
As variant SARS-CoV-2 strains have emerged, deficiencies in these [Covid] vaccines reminiscent of influenza vaccines have become apparent.
Just who are these vicious anti-vax rebels?
Three researchers at the National Institutes for Health. Including one whose name may ring a bell: the now-retired Dr. Anthony S. Fauci.
Yet the Covid/flu shot comparison is only one of the article’s bombshells.
At its core, the piece raises the question of whether any vaccines can ever work well enough to matter against bugs like common coronaviruses, influenza, and RSV.
And that question hides an even more troubling one, one the authors do not ask: have our efforts to beat Sars-Cov-2 by driving our immune response in ways it was not designed to go caused dangers we are only beginning to understand?

The most common explanation for how the number χξϛ would have been calculated as a man's number by Jewish Christians who heard or read Revelation is this:
To see it, go to https://www.gematrix.org/?word=csr+nrn and type in the following if you have or can switch to a Hebrew keyboard and type this person's name:
נרון קסר
Calculate the man's number and it will show this:

 
For fun, you can also type in the alternate spelling of the same name in Hebrew characters:
נרו קסר
You will get this:

It just happens, of course, perhaps by coincidence, that those were the two most common ways to spell the name of the first "beast" said to "stand on land and sea" (from the city on 7 hills) who also persecuted Christians in the first century. He was the emperor who falsely blamed the Christians for the burning of Rome, and which resulted in the immediate persecution and torture and murder and burning alive of thousands of Christians.
The two ways to spell his name were pronounced Caesar NERON (666) or Caesar NERO (616).
[Compare "Solomon:" Hebrew SHLOMO and Hellenized form SOLOMON.]

It's a little easier for modern readers to accept our theory than it would have been for readers and listeners at the time Revelation was written. It's very easy for modern readers who use Arabic numerals like we do in Western and Arabic-influenced nations.
In European languages or Arabic, the number six-hundred-sixty-six would look like this: 666.
But in the Greek of Revelation the number was written to look more like χξϛ  or in the oldest manuscript of Revelation and a couple of others the number is XIC. which is not 666 but 616. 
In Latin, just as an analogy, it would look like DCLXVI. One of the oldest Latin translations, however, has it as DCXVI. And to show that this wasn't just a copyist error, the number was also spelled out in the Latin words for "six hundred and sixteen" not just the Roman numerals for 616.
Irenaeus knew about the 616 reading as early as 180 CE, which is even earlier than any known Bible manuscripts of Revelation, but he preferred the number 666, and considered 616 to be a copyist's error. 200 years later (380) Jerome made a new translation into Latin and "corrected" the DCXVI to DCLXVI.
In Hebrew it could look like this: (MSV or TRSV).  [Mem [600] Samekh [60] Vav [6] or Tau [400] Resh [200] Samekh [60] Vav [6] ]
But what's even more interesting is that we can't take a number like 616 and make it mean the same thing no matter how we position the numerals. (661 does not equal 166 does not equal 616) But in Greek you could write the number as XIC, CIX, IXC, XCI etc, and it would always say 616. Same in Hebrew. In fact, in old Hebrew documents and even now, certain order exceptions are common or preferred. Note this from  https://smontagu.org/writings/HebrewNumbers.html
The numerical value of each letter is fixed and not determined by position, so reordering a number will not change its value. This may be done when a number spells out a word with negative connotations (e.g. 298: RESH TSADI HET is the Hebrew for “murder” so it is sometimes written as RESH HET TSADI), or when the reordered form has especially positive connotations (e.g 18: YUD HET is often written as HET YUD, the Hebrew for “alive”). Unlike the previous exception, using the regular form in these cases is not considered an error.
If the last two digits of a number are 15 or 16, they should be expressed not as YUD HE (10+5) and YUD VAV (10+6), but as TET VAV (9+6) and TET ZAYIN (9+7). This is done to avoid a close resemblance to the Tetragrammaton (four-letter name of God) YUD HE VAV HE. Although this convention is originally derived from religious practice, it is universally used even in completely secular contexts.
It's obvious, then, that readers of Greek and Hebrew were even more alert to recalculations of numbers, or the words that might be conveyed. After all, most words could also just be a more convoluted way to convey a number. For example, some say that Matthew is putting special emphasis on the Davidic line when he breaks up the generations from Abraham to Jesus into groups of 14. In Hebrew, the word "DAVID" is also a way to write the number 14. Other Jewish writers did this type of thing regularly.
Here's some info from Wikipedia:
... the appearance of the figure 616 in the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C; Paris—one of the four great uncial codices), as well as in the Latin version of Tyconius (DCXVI, ed. Souter in the Journal of Theology, SE, April 1913), and in an ancient Armenian version (ed. Conybeare, 1907). Irenaeus knew about the 616 reading, but did not adopt it (Haer. V, 30). In the 380s, correcting the existing Latin-language version of the New Testament (commonly referred to as the Vetus Latina), Jerome retained "666".[13][14]

  Fragment from Papyrus 115 (P115) of Revelation in the 66th vol. of the Oxyrhynchus series (P. Oxy. 4499).[15] Has the number of the beast as χιϛ, 616. Around 2005, a fragment from Papyrus 115, taken from the Oxyrhynchus site, was discovered at the University of Oxford's Ashmolean Museum. It gave the beast's number as 616 (χις). This fragment is the oldest manuscript (about 1,700 years old) of Revelation 13 found as of 2017.[2][3]Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, known before the Papyrus 115 finding but dating to after it, has 616 written in full: ἑξακόσιοι δέκα ἕξ, hexakosioi deka hex (lit. "six hundred and sixteen").[16]
Papyrus 115 and Ephraemi Rescriptus have led some scholars to regard 616 as the original number of the beast.[17] According to Paul Louis, "The number 666 has been substituted for 616 either by analogy with 888, the [Greek] number of Jesus (Gustav Adolf Deissmann), or because it is a triangular number, the sum of the first 36 numbers (1+2+3+4+5+6+...+36 = 666)".[18]

The is no record in the Bible that there is any punishment whatsoever for suicide, and many people go on “Suicide Missions” , knowing for a certainty that they are going to die, in duty to some perceived concept of the “greater good”.
Often we as bystanders view this a an honorable thing of courage and a sound mind, as well as a lamentable tragedy.
Jesus, of course, was the perfect example.

When someone commits suicide, it's because they are not of sound mind, if perhaps only for that moment. Jehovah is not going to punish them for that. 

It used to be even more common in the Truth  and in the general population in the 60’s before it became universal to put up guardrails before the approaches to bridge underpasses to deflect vehicles from the concrete supports.
I suspect loneliness and unrequited love kills at least as many people each year as Covid does now, especially among men and boys.
I feel sad for his family, but at least he is not in anguish, anymore.

Last September, our congregation lost a loving, exemplary sister, aged 61, when she gassed herself to death in her car!
She had struggled with bi-polar disease her entire life. When she and her Elder husband attempted a permanent Bethel assignment, her illness prevented them from staying. They were happily married and zealous for 30-some years. He died of cancer in September of 2019.
Then her JW mother died w dementia in Feb 2022. I thought: “Now she’ll see what life is like for single sisters w no family in Truth (she did have JW bro and sis-in-law in Oregon).” She was left not needing to work secularly, but the losses played along with her illness and she caved.

I just found out yesterday that a brother who used to date one of the sisters from our hall killed himself two days ago. They had got in trouble and were both disfellowshipped. Then they both got reinstated but the sister started dating someone else and 3 months ago got married. Apparently he just couldn't get over it. He was only 23.

….. which brings up the question …. If Santa and Jesus got into a fist fight at the school playground, who would the kids root for to win?

Exactly. I don't think that can be justified unless the behavior is so outrageous that even you would want someone banned for unjustifiable personal attacks on yourself or calls for violence against your religion's leading representatives or some other outrageous forms of speech, imagery, etc. I don't think we should be dishing it out, but I think all of us should learn to handle some name-calling and ad hominem attacks. It's the nature of religious, political and otherwise ideological discussion these days. If we can't handle it, it's something we should discuss with others, because we're just going to see more and more of it in this world.  
I agree with this too. Although I would hate to be the one involved in meting out warnings and suspensions, I think that the worse that should happen is a temporary suspension for those who have OBVIOUSLY broken the rules. Perhaps the suspensions should get a bit longer if a person breaks the rules more often. But the problem is about being fair, because two people may cause just as must dissension and disruption, but one might be more liked or disliked and people would be quicker to suspend the one they dislike. I don't like the fact that a person who is banned forever can't get their posts back, and most of those posts just disappear. If only a couple of posts deserved warnings and suspensions, that's no reason to destroy a history of work by that person.
The only kinds of accounts I would like to see banned are those that come on here like "bots" just to sell a product, where you can't interact with the person about their product. Some software bans them automatically, but a few have slipped onto this forum just to spam with links to advertisements of products.
There's also the idea of private sub-groups. I like these, but they can be overused. I belong to a couple of small mostly JW Biblical discussion forums where you have to be invited. This is fine as far as it goes, and if someone could just come on there to disrupt it would make no sense to invite them. Like having a discussion forum about cats where someone comes on there just to talk about how they hate cats.

Of course 1866 was important in the defeat of the Confederate States of America.
What significance does that have in Bible prophesy?
Nothing whatsoever.

Not sure, but this kind of reasoning remember me to another person very tidy [not sure if this is a correct word] you used to have long talks with him

Not sure, but this kind of reasoning remember me to another person very tidy [not sure if this is a correct word] you used to have long talks with him

True. I used your number. Makes me wonder what date you thought your number would lead you? You might be able to see your mistake for yourself if you could answer that. Where did you think your 653 date would lead? 
 
It just means that either you can't see it yet, or if you can, you prefer to pretend that you can't see it so that you don't have to admit a mistake. You would probably get a better understanding of Brown's theory if you would try to answer any of the questions that have been raised. For example, try these three questions that can now be put in a simple YES or NO format:
1. Did John A Brown EVER say that the Gentile Times were of a length different from 1,260? Yes or No. 2. Did John A Brown EVER say that the Gentile Times were 2,520 years in length? Yes or No. 3. Did John A Brown EVER say that the Gentile Times would end in 1917? Yes or No. If you think the answer is YES to any question, then simply quote the reference.
I suspect that you know the answer but will dodge the question and, if past is prologue, you might even claim that I'm the one dodging the question. Still, they are simple questions, and if you can't or won't answer, people can just make a note of that and move on. Perhaps more serious persons would be interested in the topic.

I have a very simple test to determine whether or not Moise Racette’s pseudo analysis is correct or not.
I just look out the window.
Reality is what it is.
…. and the fact remains that everyone in the history of the human race that is trying to interpret these prophecies has been wrong, and there’s no exception.
 

More or less what I expected you to say based on past experience in this type of a discussion. Reminds me of a scene from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie_the_Pooh_and_the_Blustery_Day
OK, if there's a 1 to 2 year "play" then why do you prefer 1865 then? Are you able to answer that question, at least?
Why would this be about the United States?
What game?

Of course I don't accept what he wrote in his book. It all turned out to be wrong. For example, here are a couple of snippets in the paragraphs just following the page you quoted.


And, as you must be aware, he interpreted dozens of political events, especially in Turkey and Europe, to be fulfillments of nearly every trumpet and vial and quake and beast and other symbol he could find in Daniel, Revelation and Ezekiel. All of them are to be rejected because none of his expectations about any of them turned out to be true.
But I'm not in denial that J A Brown actually wrote such preposterous and presumptuous interpretations. What you posted twice is still part of the same valid evidence we have that J A Brown did NOT believe the 3.5 Gentile Times ended in 1917. He ended them in 1844.
The entire history of all nations from the Head of Gold in the image of Daniel 2 down to the time when God's Kingdom would crush and put an end to all these nations would therefore start with Nebuchadnezzar's reign and end in 1917, according to Brown. Therefore, every political thing that ever happened after Nebuchadnezzar began his reign would have to fall somewhere between 604 BCE and 1917 CE.
Therefore the 1290 years falls within that range of time, but that doesn't mean that the Gentile Times are the 1290 years. The 1335 years must also fall within that range and cannot extend beyond it, but that doesn't make the 1335 years the same as the Gentile Times either. The entire range of 2520 years must fall exactly within that same range from 604 BCE to 1917 CE, but that doesn't make the 2520 years the same as the Gentile Times either, according to Brown. The 391 year period that Brown speaks about, from (1453 CE to 1844 CE) must also fall within that same range, but that doesn't mean that those 391 years are the Gentile Times either. Same goes for the 2,300 days.
In fact, only one of those periods, the 1,260 days, is the one that Brown said was the Gentile Times, because it was the 1,260 year period, he said, where the Mohammedan Abomination was standing where it ought not, around Jerusalem, and which therefore got in the way of Israel creating a nation. But there would be a first judgment upon the Mohammedan impostiture in 1844, at the end of the 1,260 "days" of the Gentile Times. (And Brown expected Jews to begin returning to Palestine in the 7 years leading up to that date, starting in 1837.) Then there would be a total extirpation of the Muslim presence in 1873, the 1290 days. Then of course, total "happiness" would come to all who are able to wait the 1,335 days to that final second judgment upon all nations.
Notice that the parts you quoted from Even-Tide above is what I had pointed out before, that Israel can finally be established when the Gentile Times end in 1844, "the RISE of the Jewish kingdom." Then they become an Empire by 1873. Then they become the transcendent Glory of Israel in the world at the time of the last judgment in 1917.

"That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach".
Aldous Huxley