ComfortMyPeople

I think I've read that in some older works, maybe Alexander Hislop? Might've been referring to even more ancient practices. Here's a short version at https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/akitu/ that you might find interesting too. It's only officially a 7 day festival in this version, but who knows how long it was for those who had to prepare and travel.
True. There were persons in the royal court of the Assyrians who seemlessly meshed right into the Neo-Babylonian courts. Seemed a bit like the way so many European courts "shared" royalty through marriage, or even other reasons, so that for many years around WWI, half a dozen heads of state in different European countries were all cousins. And the queens and princesses were "traded" and "sold" to create a kind of human bond between states that had windows of peace with one another.
Well, the proposition here is that the 70 years of nations serving Babylon ran from ABOUT 607 to about 537. I don't fret over the exact years because I don't think it matters all that much to the prophecy of the 70 years. There's a good chance it ran from ABOUT 609 to about 539, too. In other words, the Assyrian world power waned, and the Babylonian world power gained. They were granted about 70 years of dominance over the nations around them, before the Medo-Persian empire gained ascendancy. As the Isaiah's Prophecy book states:
*** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***
Isaiah goes on to prophesy: “It must occur in that day that Tyre must be forgotten seventy years, the same as the days of one king.” (Isaiah 23:15a) Following the destruction of the mainland city by the Babylonians, the island-city of Tyre will “be forgotten.” True to the prophecy, for the duration of “one king”—the Babylonian Empire—the island-city of Tyre will not be an important financial power. Jehovah, through Jeremiah, includes Tyre among the nations that will be singled out to drink the wine of His rage. He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble.
If you read the resources that Cesar has begun to recommend here, there is no claim among any of these new recommended historians that 607 was the date for the fall of Jerusalem in any of them, but that this date is considered a fairly close date for the beginning of the Babylonian domination that apparently ended around 539. Cesar has stated that he is OK with this "new chronology" even though it dates the fall of Jerusalem (Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year in 587) not 607.
This is why I say that the date 607 can be right for the beginning of the 70 years, even without any reference to 1914.
This is not correct that it is a letter at the end of the word that indicates the difference. That's why we also see the example in Acts 28:6 where "theon" means "a god."
In this case both words are just different cases of the same lexical word theos. It's the context of the whole sentence that let's us know that there are two different types of divine beings or divinity being referenced. And Greek does have the definite article "the" but does not have an indefinite article "a." Since John 1:1 creates a distinction between a use of the definite for "God" we can tell that the distinction must be on purpose so that the second one IMPLIES "a god" or perhaps just the quality of being "divine." A being that has a quality of being divine, but is not "THE" God, might effectively be called "a god." Therefore this is not a bad translation at all. (In spite of a ton of criticism because it spoils a verse that is otherwise quite useful for Trinitarians.) 
But it's not those endings at the end of the word in this case. It's the fact that one "theos" has a "THE" in front of it and the other doesn't. The argument by Trinitarians and some Greek linguists, is that you don't NEED to always put a "THE" in front of "theos" to mean GOD. And even when you do, it doesn't mean that you always need to translate "THE" God each time. You wouldn't need to say "In the beginning, THE God created the heavens" because it sounds right to just say "In the beginning, God created the heavens."

Uh oh! Now look what I've done by bringing this up. Actually TheoN can mean "a god" or "God" and theoS can mean "a god" or "God."
Look at the Interlinear for Acts 28:6, for example, which uses "theon" here:
(Acts 28:6) . . .After they waited for a long time and saw that nothing bad happened to him, they changed their mind and began saying he was a god. [theon]
Look at the Interlinear for Matthew 22:32, for example, which uses "theos" here:
(Matthew 22:32) 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob’? He is the God, not of the dead, but of the living.” [theos x 4]
Lexically, it's the same word in both cases, and it's the context and sentence structure that makes a difference. If it's something God has, such as "the Word of God," it will be in the genitive case, or if something is given to god such as "prayer to God" or "you should love your God," it's usually in the accusative case. If it's the topic of the sentence, such as "God is love," then it is in the nominative case, etc. If you speak any German, there are many similarities you might recognize. I don't know any Arabic as you do, but I do know that Hebrew keeps some of these types of variations where the same word is changed depending on how it's used in the sentence.

If you believe that what I posted was nonsense, then I feel much better that I posted the clarification.
You are claiming now that you stated both words mean the same in the lexicons. It's good that you see that now. But you said the opposite before, so I'm glad it's straightened out. You said it was unfortunate that the lexicons use the same meaning for both, and this is exactly what the lexicons were supposed to if they are honest and correct. I don't think it's unfortunate when lexicons are honest and correct.
What you said was:
The distention made in Psalms is the same distention made in Matthew. YHWH is one, the son is another. Unfortunately, some lexicons use the same meaning for both (Kurios).
Therefore, there needs to be a separation between κυρίῳ noun dative masculine singular from κύριος.
The statement was, and is, completely untrue. We should hope that ALL lexicons use the same meaning for both kurios here, not just some of them. There needs to be no distinction in the lexical meaning of the two cases of the same word.
Seriously, this should have been seen as a favor to you. I was hoping that you'd be able to see a problem in starting out a post with statements like the following:
The insult seemed unnecessary and all the more ironic when you then went on in the next sentences to show that you thought the two words for "Lord" had different lexical meanings, when they have the same lexical meaning.
OK. You should know by now that I don't have the ability to ban anyone and don't even know the people who do have that ability. I hope you stay on without being upset and so defensive about everything.
Believe me! From past experience I never expected you to admit a mistake here or anywhere else. I probably sound haughty too to many people, but for a mistake I will gladly change my view wherever there is contrary evidence.
None of us needs to research anything just because someone brings a disagreement. But I keep posting that I don't care about the secular dates every year because I don't think these secular issues are relevant to a good understanding of the scriptures. I continue to engage in discussions about them because over time more and more Witnesses are going to be able to access the evidence that will make us look like we don't even care about honesty. Hopefully, the evidence we can go over now, will help us avoid bringing such reproach on our ministry. If I'm wrong about this evidence, I definitely want to know the "what, where, how and why."
 

You are treading on dangerous ground, even if you have already considered that Cesar, is Allen, is . . . . etc. Expect a lot of diversions -- and insults if you don't let the diversions work.
Actually you, Arauna, definitely did mention it during that discussion, and the comments you made about it there indicated that you were NOT aware that it doesn't change a thing. (Assuming you go along with the rest of the WTS assumptions about 538/537.)
The festival of Akitu was not just celebrated in 538 BCE, but EACH and EVERY year for centuries prior and centuries afterwards. I know you already knew that, but the way you worded it above could have implied to others that this festival took place only in 538. (The WTS evidently believes there was another Akitu/NewYear's celebration in 537 and this would have been just as possible.) Or at least you were implying that there was some special evidence that only allowed for this particular year 538 to be the time when Cyrus declared the Jews to be free to go home.
Turns out this is just a guess with no real evidence behind it, if you think it forces the decree to be only possible in 538. But I agree that it's possible (though a little less likely if the WTS is right about 537). You might recall from the other discussion, I didn't care whether your preferred SECULAR date was 539 or 538 or 537 for the declaration/release because any of of those dates is a close enough fit for the Bible record, and any of those dates supports the historical facts surrounding the prophecies of Jeremiah. Any of those dates would be a fair fit for the dominance of Babylon for 70 years. (A dominance and servitude that led to a very greatest level of desolation Israel had ever seen, associated directly with those same 70 years given to Babylon for domination as a "World Empire.")
Apparently you also didn't realize that you were using it in a way to push the first regnal "year" of Cyrus to a date that even the Watchtower doesn't necessarily push for. The Watchtower would have loved to move the decree as late as possible after 539 because of the 3 year gap between 539 and the 536 date that Russell had used for Cyrus overtaking Babylon. Changing 606 to 607 back in 1943 had only bought them 1 of those 3 years, but that still left 2 years to account for. Russell/Barbour had not really accounted for communication time, preparation time and travel time back to Judea, so adding a year for this bought the Watchtower 1 more of those 2 years, still unaccounted for. So to get that extra year they also needed to push the decree of Cyrus (freeing the Jews) to a time that was a year or even more than a year after Babylon was overtaken.
So, to that end, the Insight book hints that it is possible, and that some commentators have inserted Darius for that first year without Cyrus, but continues to use a date that shows it's more likely they were co-rulers. You are pushing for an idea that would put Cyrus' accession year and first full regnal year (Nisannu to Nisannu) to a point one year later than the Watchtower admits.
*** it-1 p. 568 Cyrus ***
The Bible record at Daniel 9:1 refers to “the first year of Darius,” and this may have intervened between the fall of Babylon and “the first year of Cyrus” over Babylon. If it did, this would mean that the writer was perhaps viewing Cyrus’ first year as having begun late in the year 538 B.C.E. However, if Darius’ rule over Babylon were to be viewed as that of a viceroy, so that his reign ran concurrent with that of Cyrus, Babylonian custom would place Cyrus’ first regnal year as running from Nisan of 538 to Nisan of 537 B.C.E.
In view of the Bible record, Cyrus’ decree freeing the Jews to return to Jerusalem likely was made late in the year 538 or early in 537 B.C.E.
But making such a big deal out of the importance of the Akitu (New Year's celebration) did not help your claim in the slightest.
The Akitu celebration was indeed at least a week-long celebration that was officially ran from Nisannu 4th through the 11th. With preparation and travel to the two main temples and back, it's probably fine to count it from the 1st to the 14th as you did above.
But, as stated, it was not just celebrated in 538 of course. It was celebrated in 540, 539, 538, 537, 536, 535, etc., not just in 538.
I do agree that this New Year's celebration was probably considered an appropriate time for a king like Cyrus to make that kind of legal announcement to free the Jews from exile. I'm fine with your date, but it has no real solid evidence, only conjecture, and the declaration might have even been even more likely in 539. Either way it plays no part in 1914. Even if 607 had been correct, it would have nothing to do with 1914, from a scriptural perspective. You are only arguing from a secular perspective.

Blaming the GB et al for not using our brains is just another example of not using our brains. Each person is responsible for their own spirituality. When we stand in front of the judgment seat of God, there isn’t going to be an elder holding our hand, or telling us how to think or what to say.
Yes, indeed. So we will let God be the judge of who stumbled who. There are also a scriptures which tell us what to do in order NOT to be stumbled.
When I say questioning, that doesn’t necessarily mean literally questioning them by putting pen to paper or calling them, or causing a ruckus in the congregation.  It means that we can be on the alert to make sure of all things, and make sure (question) that all things are in harmony with the scriptures. That is why G. Jackson said anyone who has the Bible would be able to do so, and would be able to see if certain direction (from the GB) measured up, and would see if it was right or wrong direction. If we discern it’s wrong direction then we act on our own behalf, and not tell others what to do, because everyone else has a Bible too.
Yes, the anointed are baptized with HS and there are various ways each unique to them as to how they “know”. However the Bible says the miracles would cease.
The WT on this topic merely points out some important facts, and it is good that it has been written. We had a sister in our hall who never looked up a scripture, never sang any songs, never answered, she just sat in the KH, would jiggle her car keys, walk around after the meeting telling people she is watching them. At one time she approached the platform during the meeting flicking a lighter in her hand. She was mentally ill. She also partook of the emblems each year. You judge for yourself whether she was of the anointed or not.
The WT was not demeaning any of the anointed. One of the GB’s own sons is of the anointed, and everything the WT said applies to him too. We already talked about why there is no need for the anointed to form some kind of special club, just for the anointed. The reason for that is because we are all one flock. Any building up and sharing of thoughts is done in each congregation. I very much appreciated the thoughts of the anointed couple I used to know before they died. 
The idea is that just as Jesus distributed the loaves to his disciples and his disciples fed the crowds, so the other sheep would be fed at the hands of a few. I imagine it is a practical reason too, because who knows who really is anointed or not if one does not know them personally. It would mean that TTH for example, could claim to be of the anointed, and then imagine the kind of stuff he would be sharing via the internet! (just kidding @TrueTomHarley 😄) 
Of course not! And neither does @b4ucuhear.
See, this is another instance where the obvious needs to be explained to you. I understood exactly what bc4ucuhear was saying, because I know, and he knows, and all Witnesses know, that Jesus does NOT make mistakes. Therefore in that context, b4 was merely saying that IF it appears that Jesus is making a mistake, (because he oversees the congregations) then we know it’s NOT Jesus,  in fact this brings me to what else b4 said regarding Jesus’ oversight: "Jesus and Jehovah have provided direction in his Word as guidelines for how the congregation should be run. sometimes men in authority go "beyond what is written" and we should use our "clear thinking faculties" to be able to discern the difference. The fact is, that if one is too lazy to study and read God's Word or are gullible, you can start acting like you are in a cult - even when you are not". Also " So, if Jesus controls all the elders like some sort of spiritual remote control by means of holy spirit, (as some may think), then everything that takes place within the organization should be perfect, because Jesus is perfect and would use holy spirit in a perfect way. Why is that of interest? Because too many things happen within thes  organization (even the early Christian congregation), that are clearly not "controlled" by Jesus - unless he is deliberately controlling them to do bad things..(logic alert for Mr. Butler!!!  b4 is not here implying that Jesus would do that, it's just to show the absurdity of that notion)  I won't get into detail, but things happen that shouldn't happen and even very unscriptural things happen. My description of the factors that come into play regarding that interplay, attempted to explain the discrepancies that clearly exist if you are not living in a "snow globe." I had mentioned 1 Tim. 5:24 because it plays an important role in helping to understand why bad things can go on within the congregation for decades. All one has to do is look at the way that scripture is true historically to get a better understanding of how it applies today. The fact that elders have a measure of autonomy is hinted at by the phrase: "By heeding his words to each of the seven congregations, present-day elders see how they can handle similar situations." So elders make their decision based on "heeding his words" which are contained where? In the Bible - and so are accountable to Jesus as to how they use the authority he gives them". 
Although b4ucuhear was giving the example of elders in the congregation, by extension the same principles apply to the GB, they are elders too.
(For some reason you thought it was funny as you gave it a laughing emoji).
But you still didn't answer my question. Bible in hand, what have you found that the GB are doing wrong?

Your whole idea of another 10 years is irrelevant. Jesus was telling them that in the time period between the question and the fulfillment (turned out to be about 34 to 37 years) that it would be too late to try to prepare based on a sign. They should not start getting all excited about a war here, or a war there, an earthquake here or there, or a famine here or there, and to think that these might be signs of the END. So many of these things, even GREAT earthquakes, for example, might scare them half to death, might even kill some of them. But, stiil, they should not get all excited or alarmed into thinking it's a sign of the END, because there will be no sign of the end. At least not until it's too late to prepare, when the "strikingly visible" sign is already obvious in the skies -- and it's immediately after that point when the end of the age (synteleia of the aion) is upon them. 
The application for the end of that age was pretty obvious, that it would NOT be heralded by signs. And the application for the end of this age should be just as obvious, that it would NOT be heralded by signs. No one should get excited even by a publication from an apostle or an angel, that the end is near due to some sign someone thinks they are seeing. Because it could come at any time as a surprise. It needs no signs. There are certain things expected to happen that we shouldn't get too excited about, and wars, earthquakes are included. Even a letter from an apostle saying the end is upon us, should not get us too excited or alarmed that the end is upon us.
There have already been many times in history when Christians were killed by earthquakes, wars, and persecutions, and it was not a time to go off into the mountains to start waiting. Remember what Paul said:
(1 Thessalonians 5:1, 2) . . .Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night.
(2 Thessalonians 1:7-2:3)  But you who suffer tribulation will be given relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels 8 in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. 9 These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength, 10 at the time when he comes to be glorified in connection with his holy ones and to be regarded in that day with wonder among all those who exercised faith, because the witness we gave met with faith among you. 11 To that very end we always pray for you, that our God may count you worthy of his calling and with his power perform completely all the good that he pleases and every work of faith. 12 This is so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you and you in union with him, according to the undeserved kindness of our God and of the Lord Jesus Christ. 2 However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here. 3 Let no one lead you astray in any way, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction.
(2 Peter 3:10-12) 10 But Jehovah’s day will come as a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar, but the elements being intensely hot will be dissolved, and earth and the works in it will be exposed. 11 Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 as you await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah, through which the heavens will be destroyed in flames and the elements will melt in the intense heat!
Translating 2 Peter 3 and 2 Thess 2:2 as "day of Jehovah" instead of "day of the Lord" has resulted in a conflict that produces some confusion to explain away. Note:
*** w94 2/15 p. 21 par. 24 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” ***
That day of Jehovah, when he executes vengeance, will come as a grand finale to the conclusion of the system of things that has marked the day of the Lord Jesus from 1914 onward.
We now have TWO different "days of the Lord." (There was no evidence that the word "Lord" in 2 Peter 3:12 should have been changed to "Jehovah." This is especially true of 2 Thess 2:2 where the context identified that day of the Lord, as the "the revelation of the Lord Jesus." ) Worse than that, it gives us TWO different "parousias." One "parousia" starts in 1914, and the "parousia of the day of Jehovah" in 2 Peter 3:12 hasn't started yet.
Notice that the day of the Lord, his presence, is the time when the heavens are destroyed and the elements will melt. In other words, it's a time of unmistakable destruction of the age. It's also the time when the living holy ones are taken up and the time when those holy ones who had died are taken up.
Also, these writings indicate that the apostles took Jesus words to mean that the end of the entire world system (age) would come as a thief just like the end of the Jewish age. But no one should be able to excite us with the idea that the day of the Lord is already here. (Yet, we have claimed that the day of the Lord already started, in 1914.) If it were already here it would be too late to prepare. Thus Christians are always prepared so they are not overtaken. We should never try to prepare based on a sign someone claims is already upon us. Jesus knew that this produces a kind of false Christianity and even the temptation to "lord it over" one another because we can imagine that we live in a time when "the Master is delaying" and we think that we should be something MORE than just a servant who continues to do things the way we did when the Master was here with us.
This is why the idea of a Governing Body believing they are the embodiment of the Faithful Slave can be so dangerous. It can be the same as falling into the temptation to say "my master is delaying" and try to become a "leader" or "rabbi" who can claim they know things that Jesus never claimed. If it was never OK to try to set oneself up as a leader or rabbi when Jesus was on earth, then why would it be OK to do that when he is "delaying."
 
Should also note that the Watchtower publications teach us that Kingdom was BORN in 1914, so all these birth pangs should have been in the years leading up to 1914.
(Revelation 12:1, 2) 12 Then a great sign was seen in heaven: A woman was arrayed with the sun, and the moon was beneath her feet, and on her head was a crown of 12 stars, 2 and she was pregnant. And she was crying out in her pains and in her agony to give birth.
That's supposed to be 1914. So we have the birth pangs starting after the child is born.

I think it's pretty obvious the world "changed" because of WWI around 1914 to 1918. Many things changed for the better and many things changed for the worse. Historians always look for, and try to explain certain historical turning points to mark off which eras of history their specific chapters will cover, and sometimes the eras that their entire books will cover. A book on US history, for example, will nearly always cover the colonial period up to 1776 (the War), then from that war up to 1861 (the War), then from that war up until 1914-1918 (the War), then from that war up until WWII, then from that war up until the Vietnam War, Iraq, etc.
Therefore it should not be hard to find as many quotes about 1914 as there are books about historical periods that touch on WWI. And all of them should defend how this era marked a change. When writers talk about the "Civil War" in the US, they often discuss how it was the first war where technology (aircraft/balloons, submarines, iron battleships, Gattling guns) REALLY began to replace hand-to-hand combat (although arrows, canons, firearms and dynamite) had similar effects on war for many years before.
Still, you can't argue against the fact that these technologies had their first major effects around the world until around WWI, just as historians will argue the first major effects of nuclear technology around WWII.
It is no surprise then that --when looking for a sign-- that people are going to do exactly what Jesus said they would do. In Matthew 24, Jesus said that people would be looking at war and earthquakes and famines and pestilence and MISTAKING these things for signs. In fact, C.T.Russell appeared to be exactly correct when he indicated that such things would NOT be signs, but would be the kinds of things that people have suffered for these past 18 centuries (now nearly 20 centuries) since Jesus told us not to be FOOLED into thinking such things are signs.
Jesus' warning about the kinds of things we should not get fooled by, seems ever more apt now that technology has brought war and rumors of war to nearly every continent on earth.
But we should also note how, in trying to prove 1914, we are so "happy" that there was a great war in that year, that we have been very sloppy about how we read Matthew 24, and we give not a thought to the idea that Russell and many other Bible commentaries indicated. 
Also, we have to admit, what would be happening right now if the Watchtower had KEPT the dates 1915, 1918, or 1925 as the replacement dates for events once predicted in 1914  that failed to come true. Only after all those other dates also failed for the events expected for 1914, the Watchtower turned back all its emphasis on 1914 again, emphasizing the "war" part of the sign. But if it hadn't gone back to that date for the "sign" it's easy to realize that we would right now be arguing for why things actually changed in the world in 1918, for example, and we (Witnesses) would be arguing against 1914. We might even be talking about how all those secular historians were wrong and blinded by their constant quotes about 1914, when persons with eyes of faith realized that the Bible had pointed to 1918 all along. (We might even make fun of them for how they had truly missed the sign in Matthew that was so obvious when it was 1918 that saw both WAR, and FAMINE, and PESTILENCE (Spanish Influenza) and an 8.3 EARTHQUAKE in the Philippines, just months after an 8.5 in Samoa and just months before an 8.1 in Tonga.)
And if the false chronology we depended on for 1914 had been seen in advance to give us 1934 or 1944 or 1954, you can be sure that we would be now be arguing for those years instead.
But of course a focus on 1918 (or 1954) would be just another way to ignore Jesus' warning about being misled. It is because 1914 was a really truly pivotal date in modern history that we have been so easily misled. It's the very reason we have usually ignored Jesus' warning not to be misled when we see wars, earthquakes, pestilence, persecution, etc.
We forget that Jesus' disciples asked him for a sign so they would know WHEN the impending judgment day on Jerusalem's temple would be ABOUT to occur. (Not as a sign to know when something had invisibly occurred in the past.)
Jesus' answer indicated that impostors and false prophets would be going around declaring that a sign had already occurred and he indicated that people might mistakenly point to wars, earthquakes, and famines as their evidence. People might say they know it happened even though it was invisible to the people they were trying to convince, claiming Jesus had returned to an inner room somewhere, or it was over here, or over there. But Jesus said that it would be easy to know that these people were wrong because the parousia/synteleia (judgment day) would be as unmistakable as a lightning strike that instantly crosses from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth. There would be no advance warning signs, because it had to come as a thief in the night. Thieves don't give advance warning signs. Only after it was too late to prepare, THEN THE SIGN WOULD APPEAR IN THE HEAVENS. 

It has been put in writing, but no it so many words as he said at the ARC. Not black and white. Many JW's don't think beyond what is black and white, and need everything not only served up, but already digested. This is why many, like you, are under the wrong impression that the GB are supposed to make no mistakes, and cannot be questioned. And then, like you, when they find out they have made mistakes, their faith is shaken, and they throw out the baby with the bath water.
So then you keep talking about the "real anointed"....
What do you think the identifying mark of these "real anointed" is?  What should these "real anointed" be like? Like the anointed in the first century? Perhaps like impulsive Peter, who denied Christ three times, and was hypocritical when it came to impartiality or perhaps like Paul, who had outbursts of anger, or Barnabas who was swayed by others to act pretentiously? The Bible does not mention every detail of the lives of the anointed, and the mistakes they made, but it is obvious that they were imperfect and did make mistakes. Should we expect any less from the "real anointed" today? Because you seem to be stuck on the idea that the true anointed would never make any mistakes. But that is not a Biblical teaching at all. Why else were the anointed of the 1st century admonished to continue putting up with one another? Why did James say to his fellow anointed that they were to confess their sins to one another? Why did Paul admit it was a battle to do the right thing, and that sometimes he failed? The anointed of those days were baptized with holy spirit, the HS helped them to speak languages they never knew before, it helped them to perform miracles. All that was finished and done when the last of them died, and wasn't going to happen again. Jesus said that the HS was going to guide the anointed into all the truth. There is no indication that this was going to be an instantaneous revelation. On the contrary it was going to be gradual, just like the dawning of a day. (according to the scriptures).  Not only that, but "all the truth" is a relative term, as according to the Bible we will never know all the truth. So "all the truth" means what Jehovah wants us to know, and when he wants us to know it.
@b4ucuhear hit the nail on the head when he said regarding those taking the lead:  "People need to know the difference. "Whole-souled devotion" to Jehovah does not mean whole-souled devotion to imperfect men - even when we respect what authority they have as part of Jehovah's arrangement and offer scriptural obedience. " One reason is that some of these men are not who they appear to be (whether they be "wolves in sheep's clothing," "wicked men and imposters," "rocks hidden below the surface..." There is no level of authority within the organization where such men have not been found.) Should we be obedient to them? We need to know the difference when such men (i.e.. apostates or immoral men) direct things not in harmony with Jesus' direction as recorded in the Bible. Also, that way we won't be stumbled when Jesus apparently gets dates and teachings wrong and has to back-track on what he directed/controlled before. No, the reality is that we still have to use our brains".  (emphasis mine).
The above sentiments apply not only to apostates and immoral men, but to anyone in the position of leadership (just in case you don't know, that means the GB too). This is why G. Jackson was able to say that (paraphrased), "anyone who has the Bible can check whether the GB is doing things according to the Bible". That means YOU too! So please tell, Bible in hand, what have you found?
 

I used to have a medical alert bracelet- I better get it fixed. Here in Georgia they do not respect the DPA - unless you are a foreigner. 

What I used to do is go to an army surplus store, here in the United States often called an "Army Navy" stores, and have a set of military identification "dog tags" stamped for me, IN ENGLISH.
  If memory serves there is a max of 16 characters per line.
NAME
STREET ADDRESS
CITY AND ZIP CODE (NO STATE LISTED)
NO BLOOD OR
BLOOD FRACTIONS
Carry both dog tags on a stainless steel beaded ball chain around your neck. (Standard practice). After they warm up, you will forget they are there.
No doctor anywhere in the world, smart or stupid, will violate THAT.
They will NOT give you blood without first looking for a medical alert bracelet, or necklace. When they see YOURS, in this format, they will not give you blood.
If they do not speak the language, they will look it up.

It's easy to understand why you wouldn't care. In the overall stream of things I do not care either. I know you might not have been directing your comments at me, but in defense of the person who brought it up here, he seemed to think it was important, and I respect his reason for making the point. Believe it or not, this is NOT a teaching from our past. The Watchtower considers it relevant to our CURRENT teachings, and it has been repeated several times in the last few years. The importance of this point to the CURRENT Watchtower teachings is the reason I wanted to make sure we knew whether this current teaching is based on facts.
Note this very recent Watchtower, where the teaching about what Russell discerned in 1914 was important enough to repeat here and in many other places in our publications:
*** w17 February p. 25 par. 8 Who Is Leading God’s People Today? ***
To help them disseminate Bible truth in various languages, Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society was legally incorporated in 1884, with Brother Russell as president. . . . He discerned that Christ would return invisibly and that “the appointed times of the nations” would end in 1914.
Also note how this is current teaching from another perspective:
*** w14 1/15 p. 31 par. 15 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***
In his detailed prophecy about the conclusion of this system of things, Jesus said: “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.” (Read Matthew 24:33-35.) We understand that in mentioning “this generation,” Jesus was referring to two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was on hand in 1914, and they readily discerned the sign of Christ’s presence in that year.
*** w10 6/15 p. 5 United in Love—Annual Meeting Report ***
How comforting it is to know that the younger anointed contemporaries of those older anointed ones who discerned the sign when it became evident beginning in 1914 will not die off before the great tribulation starts!
You do not think it is important, and I agree. I was only dealing with the fact that the Watch Tower publications indicate that the GB believes it is something we should currently care about.
Also, when Cesar Chavez brought this up, it was likely primarily in the context of defending this current teaching.
And we know that the Watchtower CURRENTLY teaches that this idea refers especially to Russell and his associates. (See the books "God's Kingdom Rules" and "Pure Worship.")
Of course, Cesar may also have had in mind a parallel discussion here about whether it is still "FAITH" when it leads us into a false teaching, a false doctrine.
*** sl chap. 16 p. 287 par. 12 Awaiting the “New Heavens and a New Earth” ***
Russell calculated that Christ’s “presence” had begun in the year 1874 C.E., unseen to human eyes and seen only by the eye of faith.
The implication from the above article is that it is OK to have FAITH in a false teaching, or false doctrine. As long as the false teaching also contains some important element of truth. This topic might not interest you, and that's OK. But I just wanted to explain why he seemed to have brought it up and why I responded for any who might be taking the topic seriously.
For me, as I've said, there is also a matter of "making sure of ALL things" and the need to pay attention to ourselves and to our teaching. This is because we all need to HONEST teachers with nothing to be ashamed of. And I agree with you, that this "shame" should have nothing to do with past teachings, but is about our CURRENT teachings.
Here's where the issue of honesty comes in. Almost every one of these statements about what was discerned "decades in advance" is almost always written ambiguously in such a way that it could give us, or our Bible students, the impression that Russell had actually had faith and insight, sometime before 1914 that Jesus would return invisibly in 1914. In fact, we know that Russell didn't even have faith or discernment that Jesus would EVER return invisibly at any date in the near future, because when Russell accepted this teaching, it included the "fact" that Jesus had ALREADY returned invisibly in the PAST, not that he would return invisibly in the future.
If we were not aware of the way almost all these statements are made ambiguously, then how easy it would be to give our Bible students the impression that something like the following was true.
*** w98 9/15 p. 15 par. 1 Waiting in “Eager Expectation” ***
By linking the “seven times” of Daniel 4:25 with “the times of the Gentiles,” they anticipated that Christ would receive Kingdom power in 1914.
This is very obviously a false statement, since they did NOT believe Christ would receive Kingdom power in 1914. Christ had already received Kingdom power in 1878, and 1914 was the time for the Jews to receive Kingdom power in Jerusalem, and the time for a resurrection, not of any Christians, but beginning with Jewish, faithful men of old. Most statements have been more careful to provide just enough ambiguity to imply what that quote states without making a false statement. But several false statements have still slipped through. Use the Watchtower Library and look up the term "decades in advance" or "decades before 1914" (adding the quotation marks) and you should see several examples of this.
*** yb75 p. 37 Part 1—United States of America ***
Russell said: “The seven times will end in A.D. 1914.” He had correctly linked the Gentile Times with the “seven times” mentioned in the book of Daniel. (Dan. 4:16, 23, 25, 32) True to such calculations, 1914 did mark the end of those times and the birth of God’s kingdom in heaven with Christ Jesus as king.
Notice how the same false implication is there, but it was worded ambiguously so that it only implies that Russell correctly calculated the birth of God's kingdom in heaven.
*** w13 2/15 p. 18 par. 4 Stay in Jehovah’s Valley of Protection ***
Decades before 1914, Jehovah’s worshippers declared to the nations that the end of “the appointed times of the nations” would come in that year and that the world would enter into an unequaled period of trouble.
Here's another recent teaching which states that decades before 1914, we taught that the world would enter into an unequaled time of trouble. What would you do if you had a Bible study who believed this statement. Would you correct him or her? Should you? In truth, decades before 1914, Jehovah's worshippers declared that the world would finally enter an unequaled period of peace, because the time of trouble would END in October 1914: Decades in advance, Russell said in Studies in the Scriptures, V.5, p.604:
". . . the time of trouble, or “day of wrath” which began October 1874 and will end October 1914."
 

Yes, and that according to Bible chronology, the FDS was appointed in 1919. So if 1914 was questioned, when were the FDS appointed? It would remove that whole aspect of what we have been taught, including the brothers being in prison. 
I agree though that in reality it shouldn't change much about the authority of those taking the lead, because the scriptures say to be obedient to them. And I agree with the sister, I thought it was nothing new either (regarding the FDS only being the GB). But still, everyone is aware that Jesus was supposed to have appointed a specific group to provide spiritual food. If 1914 was removed, that small specific group would be dispersed and would include anyone who was feeding others spiritually, as you have suggested. All this would remove the thought that the GB are the only channel God is using, although G.Jackson admitted that it would be presumptuous to think that they were the only chanel. However I don't think he, or any of the others have put this in writing in any of our publications though. So unless someone has read Jackson's ARC deposition, they will be under the impression that the FDS, therefore the GB  are the ONLY chanel God is using, and therefore to question anything they say is tantamount to going against God himself. A few know this is not true, and the GB themselves think it's not true, but most  r&f believe it. (As you know, this was the reason why I got kicked out of one forum*. And this is  also why it appears that we "worship" the GB, because anything and everything they say is gold and must not be questioned, even if it could be wrong....because they are not infallible and can err...). 
*Questioning God is allowed, but questioning the GB is not! How strange is that?

Of course, there's also an implication throughout the context of Acts, that God does not give that holy spirit to those who obey men. That's one of the reasons for this very topic of 1914, as uncomfortable as it might seem to even question it.
Of course, obeying God as ruler and not men, doesn't preclude us from "obeying" our congregation elders (Heb 13:17). But there is no contradiction here, because the word used for the word obey here has a range of meaning. And that range of meaning is pinned down in the very context of Hebrews 13 and elsewhere. 
In fact, we might as well deal with it because there will be some who think it is "disobedient" to even consider the questions about 1914. It's the same as questioning God's arrangement, some say. Just like questioning 1925, or the hourly quotas for publishers and pioneers, would have been the same as 'questioning the Lord himself' in Rutherford's day.
When Hebrews 13 says "Be obedient to those taking the lead among you" it's obvious that the term "among you" referred to congregation overseers/elders. We extend this to mean the elders who preside in a "headquarters" arrangement from the various Branches, especially the Governing Body residing in the United States Branch. But the word here does not mean "obey" in the sense of "you must obey God as ruler." In Acts 5:29 that term includes the idea of submission to a ruler or magistrate (i.e., God).
The definition of "obey" in the context of Hebrews 13:17 is perfectly summed up in this verse that doesn't even use the word obey:
(Hebrews 13:7) . . .Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith.
The root meaning of the term is actually "persuade." Hebrews 13 uses the verb "peitho" here, and Peitho was the goddess of persuasion. That's actually the first meaning in Thayer's Greek Lexicon:
1. Peitho, proper name of a goddess, literally, Persuasion; Latin Suada or Suadela.
2. persuasive power, persuasion: 1 Corinthians 2:4 ἐν πειθοι — accusative to certain inferior authorities.
Strong's NT Definition is:
πείθω peíthō, pi'-tho; a primary verb; to convince (by argument, true or false); by analogy, to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means); reflexively or passively, to assent (to evidence or authority), to rely (by inward certainty):—agree, assure, believe, have confidence, be (wax) conflent, make friend, obey, persuade, trust, yield.
Note that "obey" hardly makes the list.
Even the NWT doesn't say in Hebrews 6:9 that "in your case we are obedient to bettr things." Instead it says:
(Hebrews 6:9) 9 But in your case, beloved ones, we are convinced of better things. . .
In the very verse after Hebrews 13:17, the word "trust" is used, in these of being "persuaded" or "convinced" that we have a good conscience.
(Hebrews 13:18) . . .Carry on prayer for us, for we trust we have an honest conscience, as we wish to conduct ourselves honestly in all things.
I know you didn't say that this type of obedience contradicts our Christian duty to question and therefore to make sure of all things. But Hebrews 13 often comes up by some as a reason to deflect from that Christian duty.

You are saying that they (GB) hang on to 1914 because if they get rid of it, they relinquish a Biblical base of authority. It's "nice" to have a Bible passage that talks about you and it's even "nicer" when that particular passage mentions a measure of authority and trust in advance of even greater authority and trust.
I'm just saying that the reason they see the passage as speaking about themselves is because of 1914 first. Based on the importance given to that date, they expect to see certain actions that Jesus must have taken, or that it would seem reasonable for him to take. So it's kind of backwards to imply that they hang on to the date because of the authority. They hang onto the authority because of the date.
But I'm also saying that this authority would be there anyway. Sure, they lose a little if they give "FDS" back to all the anointed, or even if they spread that authority around to include all the elders, or all Witnesses who support [feed] other Witnesses in any way, materially or spiritually or emotionally. (Recall that the verse once meant the anointed feeding the anointed, because the domestics were the anointed, too.)
Common sense tells us that the purpose of elders in a congregation is to provide teaching and examples to follow and good judgment when it comes to dealing with difficult matters that might arise. We follow their lead. We listen. We copy their example. They persuade us to follow with good teaching and good examples.
How much more would we think that the ones we consider qualified as elders over the global congregation would be worthy of even more respect. And we would be just as willing or more to follow their lead, listen, copy their example, etc.
This is why it really came as no surprise to many Witnesses that the GB took upon themselves the entire role they interpreted to be the role of the FDS. To most Witnesses, the FDS always meant the GB anyway. The GB already represented the rest of the anointed in general, who had no say anyway. It was the GB, as head of the departments for Writing, Teaching, Service, Correspondence, etc., who were already considered the top of the "Bethel" headquarters hierarchy. It didn't matter if a certain thing was written by a member of the "other sheep," it was still considered to be under their direction. I actually asked a pioneer sister at the time if she had heard about the new GB=FDS doctrine right after that point from the Annual Meeting was announced on the website. She honestly thought that this was nothing new.
In other words, something like this same respect for their teaching and example would have happened naturally as a matter of course. It has probably happened in every religion known to man. There have even been other religions that speak of their leadership councils as governing bodies. The level of agreement by the "rank-and-file" Witnesses (as Anthony Morriss III calls us) is just like other religions: a function of the emphasis given on the importance of this level of agreement.

Russell was an excellent student of the Bible. He knew it well. He wrote about the Bible very capably. He preached it. He clearly had insights into many of its teachings and principles. He could use scripture to explain scripture. He could show excellent rational insight along with spiritual insight. He showed faith and he showed discretion and wisdom. And he was one of the most interesting men of his time, because was very aware of the world around him and used this knowledge to help explain some of these insights, but usually without getting too bogged down in the secular, political or scientific arguments of the day.
But, faith or no faith, he had absolutely no insight or understanding about the end of the gentile times. He made no prediction about a world war. He made absolutely no prediction about 1914 that came true. He made absolutely no prediction about the gentile times that came true.
Russell thought the "end of the gentile times" was the equivalent of the FULL ESTABLISHMENT of a Jewish government in PALESTINE, and the FINAL END of the United States government and economy, the FINAL END of the United Kingdom's government and economy, the FINAL END of the Turkish government and economy, the FINAL END of the Chinese, Japanese, Russian, German, French, Norwegian, and Mexican governments and economies, too. ALL HUMAN GOVERNMENTS would fall in 1914/1915 and it would be the FULL establishment of a divinely backed Jewish government in Jerusalem, with the re-establishment of Israel in Palestine.
We can only pretend that he got something right, because he predicted that the chaos of the complete fall of all these non-Jewish governments, along with the rise of Israel in Palestine, would result in a time of trouble that would END in 1914, and then around 1904, he changed it to BEGIN in 1914, and indicated that this chaos in the vacuum of any human political institutions would end in a matter of months after 1914, most likely ending in 1915.
Which part of his "insight" or "understanding" of this matter came true? Which part was correct?
It's true he started some backpeddling on his understanding in 1904 (mentioned above), then 1910, then 1913. That's because his view included some expectations that he considered unlikely in view of the time left. 
Russell didn't think Jesus' invisible presence would start in 1914. Russell didn't think that Jesus' kingship would start in 1914. Russell didn't think a great battle would be fought between Jesus and Satan in 1914. There's NOTHING that we NOW think happened around 1914, that Russell predicted, and he NEVER thought that any of those things (that we now believe about 1914) had happened even after he saw the events of 1914 for himself.
So where does anyone get the idea that Russell got even one thing right about 1914 prior to 1914?

We raised issue on some other level. They witnessed to their faith and hope, and to some literal manifestations. But precisely said, they not witnessed in a way that we consider as word "witness" primatly means. It would be as someone today gave testimony as witness on Court about something, and he say to Judge: "I didn't saw what happened but I believe i know what happened because this was promised to me that will happen. And things that i saw are exactly that."   
Religious people today depending on testimonies made by people in the past who not witnessed to some events, to some they did. Also, people today put trust on people who wrote about this things and also to translators. And finally, people put their trust on spiritual mediators aka church leaders, who are strong force that drive faith and hope of people in particular direction. 
People in Jesus' days was under promise and expectations that day will SEE supernatural events as Proof how individual who doing this is Send By God. I think how WT Society take this position in their explanations. So, miracles are of important things that surrounding life and faith of people in Israel from the very beginning. Without miracles, many of events described in Bible, would never happened and history will be different and present will be different. No matter did such miracles really happened or not. Christian faith, before and today, would be in some other format without miracles. Christians in 1 century was totally in miracles of all kind. Today, things are different. 
faith gave a person insight to understand the end of the gentile times in 1914 way before the event of WW1 happened.
If i understand what i read before about this correctly, faith he had (Russell) gave him wrong insight and understanding. Other people' faiths, around Russell, also accepted same things that made them to be in wrong expectations too.
It seems how "faith" (own or other' people) is not trustful. It is not what makes things come true. Faith of man, who is blind, who believe he will see, not makes him cured of blindness because of mere faith. Someone who has power to do miracle, have to cure him from blindness. Than, this man' faith have value and justification. Otherwise is superstition, empty hope. Faith (to believe something) not need knowledge. Because knowledge would say, miracles are not possible. Do we have some "special" knowledge? WT Society teaches how 1 century miracles are not possible today. 
Russell had some "special" knowledge and some "special "faith". And that ended in past. His legal heirs wants to make all that as progress on a way to "ultimate knowledge and faith".  

You exaggerate a bit, in implying that the rest of the anointed might get nothing. But this is really the perfect question that shows what's wrong with this theory. Even if you think the Jerusalem Council was a governing body, you can't square this particular outcome of events with the Bible. There are several principles that it goes against.
(James 2:1-4) . . .My brothers, you are not holding to the faith of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ while showing favoritism, are you? . . .  4 If so, do you not have class distinctions among yourselves, and have you not become judges rendering wicked decisions?
(Galatians 2:6) . . .But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, . . .
(Matthew 23:6-10) . . .They like the most prominent place at evening meals and the front seats in the synagogues 7 and the greetings in the marketplaces and to be called Rabbi by men. 8 But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ.
 

SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
POINT #1
Conversation this morning with a brother from my congregation. (A = me, B = brother)
B: The Governing Body is guided by the spirit of God. All it teaches us is what Jehovah makes them see or understand. A: So, how do we change from saying one thing about the 1914 generation, to a totally different one, and soon in yet another. Does Jehovah transmit errors? POINT #2
Conversation that I’ve had with a brother with decades serving in Bethel, (A = me, B = brother):
A: The Governing Body makes extended applications of Scripture without notifying what it is doing, to the extent that we forget the original meaning. B: Also, Paul and others, when quoting from the OT introduced new approaches that were not in the original intention of the writer. A: True, but the big difference is that they were inspired, but the GB is not. POINT #3
This week's conversation with a veteran brother from my congregation. (A = me, B = brother)
B: The "disgusting thing in the holy place" was that religions embraced the League of Nations in 1919 A: You did not remember, but in 1999 this approach was modified, and it was explained that this event is still future, and we do not know exactly how it will be. POINT #4
"Don't talk about my mother", says one spouse to the other during an argument. Touching the mother is a very serious matter. For many, the Organization is like a mother. Any criticism or negative observation is considered the result of lack of faith, little spirituality or influence of apostates.
CONCLUSION
About POINT # 1. As we consider the GB not inspired or infallible, but guided by the holy spirit, we are reluctant to admit doctrinal errors on your part. We call them adjustments, progress in understanding or with other euphemisms. Why have we this view? Do we remember having read in one of our publications the term: rectification, error, we were wrong, we apologize for ...?
About POINT # 2. We give the GB an authority similar to the apostles. If these apparently "twisted" the OT to achieve a good end (to prove that Jesus was the Messiah for example), why the GB cannot take some licenses with the Scriptures so that we can preach more, so that we respect the established order, so that we promote the unity, or so that we continue to have a sense of urgency.
On the way in which Christian writers used the OT very flexibly, until they seemed to distort the original meaning, the book “Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation”, by Gregory K. Beale is very enlightening.
In relation to POINT #3 it often happens that many doctrines that we have learned for decades and then have proven to be inadequate, we have studied many times in the obsolete format, to the extent that this comes to mind before the new one. In addition, with so many changes, it is sometimes difficult for us to remember the "right thing" (yeast, generation ...)
About POINT #4. I like this moral of the story "the new clothes of the emperor"
·        It is often used to describe a situation in which people are afraid to criticize something because everyone else seems to think it is good or important. It is the title of a fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen about an emperor who pays a lot of money for some new magical clothes that only wise people can see. The clothes don't really exist, but the emperor doesn't admit that he can't see her, because he doesn't want to look stupid. https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/emperor-s-new-clothes
 
APOCALYPTIC GENDER’S INTERPRETATION SCHOOLS
Daniel, especially in the OT, and logically Revelation, are known as apocalyptic because they share a style characterized, among others, by these common elements:
Symbology before literal language. Visions Encrypted language Clear temporary allusion to the "end times" Well, to address the correct exegesis or study of these books, there are the so-called schools or interpretation approaches, mainly from the book of Revelation:
PRETERIST: the writer describes what was happening at that time or even in the past. He preferred a cryptic language to avoid the persecution of Rome. There is no prophecy but a description of the past. HISTORICIST: It is believed that the revelation is about the history of the Church from the first to the last coming of Christ. IDEALIST: Revelation, instead of talking about the future, contains teachings about the situation of the Church in the world. FUTURIST: the content of the book will be fulfilled at the end of time. And there are other variants. With all of the above, I would like to reach this conclusion: it is difficult to arrive at a correct understanding of that part of Scripture. If the GB claims to have the "key", it is interesting what the mysterious book itself says:
(Revelation 5: 2-4). . And I saw a strong angel proclaim loudly: "Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?" 3 But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or look into it. 4. I gave way to a great deal of weeping because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it.
   But, finally, if Jehovah inspired that content, it would be more than simply filling the pages of His Book. So, at least something, a part, of the meaning of the book should be useful to us, but due to the POINTS # 1 to # 4 mentioned above, we, the JW, have a special difficulty in understanding apocalyptic literature.
(to be continued…)
 

In all discussions about how inspired of Holy Spirit different ones are, I have not seen the verse (nor have I thought to bring it up myself) Acts 5:32
“And we are witnesses of these matters, and so is the holy spirit, which God has given to those obeying him as ruler.”
It is simply left out of the equation, and it probably shouldn’t be. “Obey God as ruler” and one may expect a measure of Holy Spirit. Drag one’s feet on obeying him and that will not be so. To my mind, the GB do obey him as ruler—they do their best.

SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
POINT #1
Conversation this morning with a brother from my congregation. (A = me, B = brother)
B: The Governing Body is guided by the spirit of God. All it teaches us is what Jehovah makes them see or understand. A: So, how do we change from saying one thing about the 1914 generation, to a totally different one, and soon in yet another. Does Jehovah transmit errors? POINT #2
Conversation that I’ve had with a brother with decades serving in Bethel, (A = me, B = brother):
A: The Governing Body makes extended applications of Scripture without notifying what it is doing, to the extent that we forget the original meaning. B: Also, Paul and others, when quoting from the OT introduced new approaches that were not in the original intention of the writer. A: True, but the big difference is that they were inspired, but the GB is not. POINT #3
This week's conversation with a veteran brother from my congregation. (A = me, B = brother)
B: The "disgusting thing in the holy place" was that religions embraced the League of Nations in 1919 A: You did not remember, but in 1999 this approach was modified, and it was explained that this event is still future, and we do not know exactly how it will be. POINT #4
"Don't talk about my mother", says one spouse to the other during an argument. Touching the mother is a very serious matter. For many, the Organization is like a mother. Any criticism or negative observation is considered the result of lack of faith, little spirituality or influence of apostates.
CONCLUSION
About POINT # 1. As we consider the GB not inspired or infallible, but guided by the holy spirit, we are reluctant to admit doctrinal errors on your part. We call them adjustments, progress in understanding or with other euphemisms. Why have we this view? Do we remember having read in one of our publications the term: rectification, error, we were wrong, we apologize for ...?
About POINT # 2. We give the GB an authority similar to the apostles. If these apparently "twisted" the OT to achieve a good end (to prove that Jesus was the Messiah for example), why the GB cannot take some licenses with the Scriptures so that we can preach more, so that we respect the established order, so that we promote the unity, or so that we continue to have a sense of urgency.
On the way in which Christian writers used the OT very flexibly, until they seemed to distort the original meaning, the book “Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation”, by Gregory K. Beale is very enlightening.
In relation to POINT #3 it often happens that many doctrines that we have learned for decades and then have proven to be inadequate, we have studied many times in the obsolete format, to the extent that this comes to mind before the new one. In addition, with so many changes, it is sometimes difficult for us to remember the "right thing" (yeast, generation ...)
About POINT #4. I like this moral of the story "the new clothes of the emperor"
·        It is often used to describe a situation in which people are afraid to criticize something because everyone else seems to think it is good or important. It is the title of a fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen about an emperor who pays a lot of money for some new magical clothes that only wise people can see. The clothes don't really exist, but the emperor doesn't admit that he can't see her, because he doesn't want to look stupid. https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/emperor-s-new-clothes
 
APOCALYPTIC GENDER’S INTERPRETATION SCHOOLS
Daniel, especially in the OT, and logically Revelation, are known as apocalyptic because they share a style characterized, among others, by these common elements:
Symbology before literal language. Visions Encrypted language Clear temporary allusion to the "end times" Well, to address the correct exegesis or study of these books, there are the so-called schools or interpretation approaches, mainly from the book of Revelation:
PRETERIST: the writer describes what was happening at that time or even in the past. He preferred a cryptic language to avoid the persecution of Rome. There is no prophecy but a description of the past. HISTORICIST: It is believed that the revelation is about the history of the Church from the first to the last coming of Christ. IDEALIST: Revelation, instead of talking about the future, contains teachings about the situation of the Church in the world. FUTURIST: the content of the book will be fulfilled at the end of time. And there are other variants. With all of the above, I would like to reach this conclusion: it is difficult to arrive at a correct understanding of that part of Scripture. If the GB claims to have the "key", it is interesting what the mysterious book itself says:
(Revelation 5: 2-4). . And I saw a strong angel proclaim loudly: "Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?" 3 But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or look into it. 4. I gave way to a great deal of weeping because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it.
   But, finally, if Jehovah inspired that content, it would be more than simply filling the pages of His Book. So, at least something, a part, of the meaning of the book should be useful to us, but due to the POINTS # 1 to # 4 mentioned above, we, the JW, have a special difficulty in understanding apocalyptic literature.
(to be continued…)
 

... place  keeper for reply after my nap ..... my eyelids are slamming shut.
 
OK...back.
I was only making the illustration about how things changed from the Kaiser Germany, to the Hitler Germany to give a generic example of how things change in one's surrounding environment over time.  I was NOT alluding to the WTB&TS, Jehovah's Witnesses, or the GB being anything like Nazi Germany, or Hitler.
I am very disappointed in what has happened in the "Truth" over the years, and do not try to defend what should not be defended, but that does not mean I am going to "jump ship".
Years ago there was a TV show called "Slattery's People", about a congressman's adventures and escapades  living and working in the swamp that is Congress, and the opening of each show a deep male voice said "It's not that Democracy is the best system of government, it's that the others are so much worse" ( or something to that effect).  That made a hell of an impression on me, and other than Richard Crenna playing the congresscritter, that's all I remember about it.
That's the attitude I have about Jehovah's Witnesses as practiced as ordered by the WTB&TS.
There is a LOT wrong ... but there is a LOT that is right
And besides, there will be clueless officers and crew on that ship to make you miserable ... but if you "jump ship", you better have a better place to go.
When you look at that "sea of humanity " .... that's only the top.
With all of its fantasys and foibles, being one of Jehovah's Witnesses is the best thing that ever happened to me ...and I appreciate that.
ANY OTHER WAY AND I WOULD BE DEAD OR IN PRISON.
I hope that gives you my perspective.
 
 

Slatterys People Intro.mp4

When I say that I am tired of talking so much about dates, I do not mean that I do not find everything related to our background that has led to the birth, development and death of our numerical doctrines very interesting. It is part of the history of my religion, that is, it is part of the history of my life. And I am especially grateful to the explanations that  @JW Insider  has been happy to share with us. I have learned a lot from his knowledge, both from these spheres and from other plots in which he has exploded. Now that I think, I think he knows a lot of everything. I envy him.
Before anyone thinks that I am a kind of idolater or flatterer of JWI, I want to say that I often learn from the comments of children and anyone. Everyone can enrich our life and spirituality. With how much more reason who has had so many experiences and contacts within our organization.
Now, what I wanted to say with my comment that I would like to give this subject another approach (1914) is that I would like to share in the forum related portions of the Bible that address certain eschatological issues.
This doctrine (1914) I think that sooner or later it will fall like ripe fruit. In the meantime, I find myself like those Students of the Bible of the 20s who might have been very disillusioned with the Pyramid theory and its influence on our religion. At the moment these teachings were part of the official teaching. Less and less was mentioned, but it was still part of the doctrine. I suppose that these Christians would not make the Pyramid their great teaching focus, their great concern. They would not waste time showing interest in something they saw was nonsense. When Rutherford said that instead of being an instrument of Jehovah to teach, it was simply a funerary monument with demonic influence, they would not be disappointed, but relieved.
Well, it's the same with 1914
So, in the following posts, I would like to bring up approaches on Daniel 7 and 11, Revelation 6, 11 and 12 among others and may be enlightening about what we are discussing. I hope

SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
POINT #1
Conversation this morning with a brother from my congregation. (A = me, B = brother)
B: The Governing Body is guided by the spirit of God. All it teaches us is what Jehovah makes them see or understand. A: So, how do we change from saying one thing about the 1914 generation, to a totally different one, and soon in yet another. Does Jehovah transmit errors? POINT #2
Conversation that I’ve had with a brother with decades serving in Bethel, (A = me, B = brother):
A: The Governing Body makes extended applications of Scripture without notifying what it is doing, to the extent that we forget the original meaning. B: Also, Paul and others, when quoting from the OT introduced new approaches that were not in the original intention of the writer. A: True, but the big difference is that they were inspired, but the GB is not. POINT #3
This week's conversation with a veteran brother from my congregation. (A = me, B = brother)
B: The "disgusting thing in the holy place" was that religions embraced the League of Nations in 1919 A: You did not remember, but in 1999 this approach was modified, and it was explained that this event is still future, and we do not know exactly how it will be. POINT #4
"Don't talk about my mother", says one spouse to the other during an argument. Touching the mother is a very serious matter. For many, the Organization is like a mother. Any criticism or negative observation is considered the result of lack of faith, little spirituality or influence of apostates.
CONCLUSION
About POINT # 1. As we consider the GB not inspired or infallible, but guided by the holy spirit, we are reluctant to admit doctrinal errors on your part. We call them adjustments, progress in understanding or with other euphemisms. Why have we this view? Do we remember having read in one of our publications the term: rectification, error, we were wrong, we apologize for ...?
About POINT # 2. We give the GB an authority similar to the apostles. If these apparently "twisted" the OT to achieve a good end (to prove that Jesus was the Messiah for example), why the GB cannot take some licenses with the Scriptures so that we can preach more, so that we respect the established order, so that we promote the unity, or so that we continue to have a sense of urgency.
On the way in which Christian writers used the OT very flexibly, until they seemed to distort the original meaning, the book “Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation”, by Gregory K. Beale is very enlightening.
In relation to POINT #3 it often happens that many doctrines that we have learned for decades and then have proven to be inadequate, we have studied many times in the obsolete format, to the extent that this comes to mind before the new one. In addition, with so many changes, it is sometimes difficult for us to remember the "right thing" (yeast, generation ...)
About POINT #4. I like this moral of the story "the new clothes of the emperor"
·        It is often used to describe a situation in which people are afraid to criticize something because everyone else seems to think it is good or important. It is the title of a fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen about an emperor who pays a lot of money for some new magical clothes that only wise people can see. The clothes don't really exist, but the emperor doesn't admit that he can't see her, because he doesn't want to look stupid. https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/emperor-s-new-clothes
 
APOCALYPTIC GENDER’S INTERPRETATION SCHOOLS
Daniel, especially in the OT, and logically Revelation, are known as apocalyptic because they share a style characterized, among others, by these common elements:
Symbology before literal language. Visions Encrypted language Clear temporary allusion to the "end times" Well, to address the correct exegesis or study of these books, there are the so-called schools or interpretation approaches, mainly from the book of Revelation:
PRETERIST: the writer describes what was happening at that time or even in the past. He preferred a cryptic language to avoid the persecution of Rome. There is no prophecy but a description of the past. HISTORICIST: It is believed that the revelation is about the history of the Church from the first to the last coming of Christ. IDEALIST: Revelation, instead of talking about the future, contains teachings about the situation of the Church in the world. FUTURIST: the content of the book will be fulfilled at the end of time. And there are other variants. With all of the above, I would like to reach this conclusion: it is difficult to arrive at a correct understanding of that part of Scripture. If the GB claims to have the "key", it is interesting what the mysterious book itself says:
(Revelation 5: 2-4). . And I saw a strong angel proclaim loudly: "Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?" 3 But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or look into it. 4. I gave way to a great deal of weeping because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it.
   But, finally, if Jehovah inspired that content, it would be more than simply filling the pages of His Book. So, at least something, a part, of the meaning of the book should be useful to us, but due to the POINTS # 1 to # 4 mentioned above, we, the JW, have a special difficulty in understanding apocalyptic literature.
(to be continued…)
 

SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
POINT #1
Conversation this morning with a brother from my congregation. (A = me, B = brother)
B: The Governing Body is guided by the spirit of God. All it teaches us is what Jehovah makes them see or understand. A: So, how do we change from saying one thing about the 1914 generation, to a totally different one, and soon in yet another. Does Jehovah transmit errors? POINT #2
Conversation that I’ve had with a brother with decades serving in Bethel, (A = me, B = brother):
A: The Governing Body makes extended applications of Scripture without notifying what it is doing, to the extent that we forget the original meaning. B: Also, Paul and others, when quoting from the OT introduced new approaches that were not in the original intention of the writer. A: True, but the big difference is that they were inspired, but the GB is not. POINT #3
This week's conversation with a veteran brother from my congregation. (A = me, B = brother)
B: The "disgusting thing in the holy place" was that religions embraced the League of Nations in 1919 A: You did not remember, but in 1999 this approach was modified, and it was explained that this event is still future, and we do not know exactly how it will be. POINT #4
"Don't talk about my mother", says one spouse to the other during an argument. Touching the mother is a very serious matter. For many, the Organization is like a mother. Any criticism or negative observation is considered the result of lack of faith, little spirituality or influence of apostates.
CONCLUSION
About POINT # 1. As we consider the GB not inspired or infallible, but guided by the holy spirit, we are reluctant to admit doctrinal errors on your part. We call them adjustments, progress in understanding or with other euphemisms. Why have we this view? Do we remember having read in one of our publications the term: rectification, error, we were wrong, we apologize for ...?
About POINT # 2. We give the GB an authority similar to the apostles. If these apparently "twisted" the OT to achieve a good end (to prove that Jesus was the Messiah for example), why the GB cannot take some licenses with the Scriptures so that we can preach more, so that we respect the established order, so that we promote the unity, or so that we continue to have a sense of urgency.
On the way in which Christian writers used the OT very flexibly, until they seemed to distort the original meaning, the book “Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation”, by Gregory K. Beale is very enlightening.
In relation to POINT #3 it often happens that many doctrines that we have learned for decades and then have proven to be inadequate, we have studied many times in the obsolete format, to the extent that this comes to mind before the new one. In addition, with so many changes, it is sometimes difficult for us to remember the "right thing" (yeast, generation ...)
About POINT #4. I like this moral of the story "the new clothes of the emperor"
·        It is often used to describe a situation in which people are afraid to criticize something because everyone else seems to think it is good or important. It is the title of a fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen about an emperor who pays a lot of money for some new magical clothes that only wise people can see. The clothes don't really exist, but the emperor doesn't admit that he can't see her, because he doesn't want to look stupid. https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/emperor-s-new-clothes
 
APOCALYPTIC GENDER’S INTERPRETATION SCHOOLS
Daniel, especially in the OT, and logically Revelation, are known as apocalyptic because they share a style characterized, among others, by these common elements:
Symbology before literal language. Visions Encrypted language Clear temporary allusion to the "end times" Well, to address the correct exegesis or study of these books, there are the so-called schools or interpretation approaches, mainly from the book of Revelation:
PRETERIST: the writer describes what was happening at that time or even in the past. He preferred a cryptic language to avoid the persecution of Rome. There is no prophecy but a description of the past. HISTORICIST: It is believed that the revelation is about the history of the Church from the first to the last coming of Christ. IDEALIST: Revelation, instead of talking about the future, contains teachings about the situation of the Church in the world. FUTURIST: the content of the book will be fulfilled at the end of time. And there are other variants. With all of the above, I would like to reach this conclusion: it is difficult to arrive at a correct understanding of that part of Scripture. If the GB claims to have the "key", it is interesting what the mysterious book itself says:
(Revelation 5: 2-4). . And I saw a strong angel proclaim loudly: "Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?" 3 But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or look into it. 4. I gave way to a great deal of weeping because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it.
   But, finally, if Jehovah inspired that content, it would be more than simply filling the pages of His Book. So, at least something, a part, of the meaning of the book should be useful to us, but due to the POINTS # 1 to # 4 mentioned above, we, the JW, have a special difficulty in understanding apocalyptic literature.
(to be continued…)