Evacuated

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I do not think the same battle happens again in the life of each Christian. 

The "short time" explanation sounded right.

Thanks for clarifying your position. It appears that by removing the anchoring notion of 607 BCE to 1914 CE as a 2520 year, free run for the "Gentile" nations under Satan's dominion, you are then abe to "rearrange" the significance of other components of our belief, thus, as it were, changing the perception without altering the picture. A bit like those optical illusions..........  

22 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I have a couple of questions related to this if you don't mind.

This is my question (re. questions) quoted by you.

What a volume of response generated by this!!

Cuttting through all the information and comments,  it appears that in response to my question 1(essentially) When did the war  between Michael and Satan take place? ,  you present the view that, rather than a chronologically defined event, this war takes place during the life of the individual Christian. First, for Jesus, and his successful mission completion signified the Devil's defeat in his case. Then, for the individual Christian, from when they renounce Satan's influence, successfully endure, and untl they complete a faithful life course.

For my question 2, When is the short period of time?. You are saying that this is the short period of time of life we as imperfect humans individually enjoy, from the time when we became beleivers, until the time of our death, faithfull or otherwise. Particularly as related  to Satan's life, this is relatively a short period of opportunity he has in which to attempt to corrupt us (war against us) individually.

Acknowledging your comment that "this is not the ONLY way to look at these things.", have I got this right?

On 6/28/2017 at 0:22 PM, JW Insider said:

I feel the announcement in Revelation 12:10 did not take place in 1914

On 6/28/2017 at 0:22 PM, JW Insider said:

Clearly, at the latest, it was the year when Jesus died and was resurrected.

I have a couple of questions related to this if you don't mind.

1. Are you saying that the war between Michael and Satan and the casting out of Satan and his angels preceded the event referred to at Rev.12:10,  and by this reckoning took place earlier than "the year when Jesus died and was resurrected"?

2. What do you think  "the short period of time" mentioned at Rev 12:12 refers to?

53 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Our current understanding is that this fourth beast must be Rome, and yet, during the time of this beast was also the time when Jesus was given the kingdom.

Lot's of info to go through but I couldn't overlook this one. What would you say the particular "horn" making war with the "holy ones" represents?

On 6/27/2017 at 3:41 AM, JW Insider said:

we can't always just rule out every idea that appears unreasonable to human minds.

Indeed, because "a foolish thing with God is wiser than men, and a weak thing of God is stronger than men" 1 Cor:1:25. (No dissertation on the specific context required here, the principle holds good). I don't want to stray into the "overlapping generation" topic, so will keep to 1914CE.

There is a great deal of background information in this thread, not least thanks to @JWInsider in pulling together relevant quotes and anecdotes.

The basic proposition that we have is set out clearly at Rev.12:10, which says (in part): "Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the Kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ,".

Jehovah's Witnesses have stated unequivocally that this event took place in 1914CE. To support that view, they cite a chronological explanation; an assessment of world affairs; their own history and development; the response to, and the results from, their activity. An abundance of written material is available in support of these elements. Superceeded only, it would seem, by the abundance of material written in refutation.

Is there no one here who can state succinctly why they feel that the announcement of Rev.12:10 did not take place in 1914CE? 

5 hours ago, Anna said:

A recent example of a sad state of affairs regarding child sexual abuse and the paranoia it has raised:

And the result of posting libelous unproven claims on line.

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

After all, whether 1914 is a necessary doctrine or not:

• We still know that we are living in the time of the end, or the "last days" even if that phrase had the same meaning to Christians in the first century.
• We still know that Satan has been cast down and walks about like a roaring lion, seeking to devour someone, because his time is short. This is also true even if it had the same meaning in the first century. We also wait for his final abyss and subsequent final demise.
• We still have a preaching work that is just as important as ever.
• Jesus is still "King of Kings" and ruler of those who rule the earth.
• The kingdom is still our focus, and continues to be the theme of our hopes and prayers.
• We still know that we must overcome critical times, hard to deal with, just as Paul warned Timothy that he would meet up with.
• We still know that Jesus is present, wherever even two or three are gathered in his name.
• We know that Jesus will be with us right up until the conclusion of the system of things.
• We don't live for a date, or serve for a date anyway, so whether or not the end comes in our lifetime or we find out about it after a moment of "sleep" in death, the important thing is still our love for God and neighbor, and "what sort of persons we ought to be."

This I agree with.

The idea that a chronology dependant on the corroboration of secular academia would be essential to our faith seems to me to violate the principle at 2Tim 3:16-17. So either side of a debate for or against the significance of the year 1914 on that basis seems (also to me) to be only of mild interest.

However, the application of Matt.24, Mk.13, Lu.21, Rev.6 (Horsemen), 2Tim.3:1-5 etc., to events and conditions since the early part of the 20th Century and the tying of these to the arrival Satan and his "angels" to eke out their desperate "short period of time" after their humiliating, heavenly defeat as described in Rev.12:12 is entirely plausible to me, and of far more interest than anything I have heard yet, au contraire.

5 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

the correct and basic meaning,

Come now, surely we all can see the basic meaning there in Pr. 4:18 of the improving path of the righteous ones in contrast with the ever darkening road to destruction v19?  Even the cross reference to Ps. 119:105 makes it clear that God's Word lights the path, and to see this light as becoming brighter, as knowledge, understanding, and application of the same word increases, is no textual stretch.

1 hour ago, ARchiv@L said:

it is amazing that the bible verses are already in the bible for years now, but our understanding changes !! (for some topics).

I agree with this entirely! Compare Pro.4:18; 1Cor.13:12 

2 hours ago, PeterR said:

you and the writing committee

You flatter me!

2 hours ago, PeterR said:

downplaying JWInsider's explanation because it was shared with a Baptist minister.

Not at all. I just find it curious how widespread these views are. I used to think (back in the day of course), they were just the province of people who had been Jehovah's Witnesses .

2 hours ago, PeterR said:

it's "us" with truth, and "them" who need to be taught.

 I  don't believe any human has a monopoly on "truth"per se. But I do believe I have some particular "truth" to share with, for example, my minister acquaintance. And I am more than happy to consider "truth" that he may be aware of, particularly of a spiritual nature.

2 hours ago, PeterR said:

I'm outa here!

Refers to the fact that I am (at this time) not inclined to get into protracted, repeat discussion on the bullet-pointed, off topic list in the post I was responding to.

6 hours ago, PeterR said:

So Satan is cast down. Again our difference is probably only over timing

Why? When do you think this takes place?

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

counters the common idea that if something is believed by non-Witnesses or ex-Witnesses it must be wrong.

I'm glad you edited out the reference to born again, Baptist clergymen which was far too specific. And I agree. Such prejudicial stereotyping is indefensible. 

4 minutes ago, PeterR said:

If so how do you support your understanding of the timing?

This the other topic bit. I just answered the question "what is it that you feel Jesus gained in the 20th century that he didn't already have?"

3 minutes ago, PeterR said:

BTW - do you realize that many references to scholars and commentators in JW publications are references to the work of clergymen?

Strange question that. But in case you are asking it genuinely, Yes.

And my clergyman acquaintance has shared a few of his insights on Scripture with me, as he has a respect for God's Word too. That's why we continue to have a constructive dialogue.

6 hours ago, PeterR said:

what is it that you feel Jesus gained in the 20th century that he didn't already have?

Rev.12:12

You know something @JWInsider? Your arguments here  have great similarity to the views of one of my return visits, who is actually a clergyman. He is a born-again, evangelical Baptist and is able to reference these views to quite a variety of other "scholars" of a similar persuasion.

I thank you for verifying the accuracy of my cited scriptures at least.

There isn't much more to say really, other than to echo the rather sad refrain of the two Rogers, a British songwriting duo from the 60's : (slight euphemism here): "You've got your faith, I've got mine".

I'm outa here! 

4 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:

But does loving discipline include a parent’s use of spanking?

Wikipedia reports that "As of July 2016, corporal punishment of children by parents (or other adults) is banned in 49 countries"

The term "spanking" does not seem to appear in Jehovah Witnesses literature since the mid 1980s. A search of jw.org does not return any reference to the term at all.

Have we modified our view on this matter? 

No it is not to OK hit children, particularly with a belt.

If parents are unable to prevent their children' disturbing others for whatever reason in the auditorium, then they should remain outside the auditorium, with their children, until the children are able to behave in a manner that does not disturb others.

Check the date and time of this posting.

Is this really the only piece of JW News today????

OMG! I must be on the wrong channel!

3 hours ago, PeterR said:

If my wife burns it or adds way too much salt I don't pretend that God did the cooking.

Sorry to hear that your wife may be culinarily challenged!. However, you took the bait and came out, so I at least applaud your belated honesty.

3 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

or as many as we need to keep the whole thing from unraveling.

You have probably hit the nail on the head here James. (Not sure who the "we" is for you). Anyway it doesn't make a blind bit of difference what "we" think because the reality will unfold anyway. Until it does, "we" can explain, rationalise, adjust as "we"wish. The way things turn out, however, is not the province of "we", and if "we" want to be there when the whole thing does resolve (or unravel depending on your point of view), then "we" had better be sure "we" are rootin' for the right side.

Ah do declare!...Ah think ah've got it!! 

1 hour ago, PeterR said:

why do our publications say "Jesus evidently meant ..." and then go on to give a meaning that is outside all acceptable norms?

"Evidently meant" to me implies "we understand by inference". I'm not writing these publications so do not choose the specific wording, but that's how I understand it anyway. I can't speak for what others do or don't understand, but I can't really see why there is an issue. I certainly don't find myself disputing with any of the JWs I know on these matters or that it is a bone of contention for them. Perhaps (as@JWInsider suggests) they ARE all hiding behind avatars and the like. Perhaps I'd better get one myself!  

1 hour ago, PeterR said:

outside all acceptable norms

Now that is simply not true. Outside norms that maybe you define for yourself as acceptable, and likely this is what many others feel. But I haven't noticed that the way in which we understand the concept of the "generation" Jesus spoke of is in any way unique. It may well be a unique application of that particular scripture verse, but the concept behind our understanding of the term is not.

1 hour ago, PeterR said:

why promote it as something given by God?

I thank God for any meal prepared by my wife, and I thank her as well. I don't understand your problem with this, really.

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Jesus was using the word “generation” with reference to humans whose lives would in some way be associated with the foretold events.—Mt 24.

This was the section (in both Insight books) that interested me, because it reflects an understanding of the word "generation" to apply to a group of people that is not necessarily limited by a finite period of years, more by a shared experience. (Unreferenced post-publishing date editing of JW publications is another subject entirely).

I do not pretend to be a Greek scholar and @PeterR has suggested a word study of the use of the word genea which appears at Matt.24:34 as a starting point for this discussion. Whilst this would be very interesting, greater minds have obviously chosen the English word "generation" as a suitable translation for this term. As this is reflected in 25 English translations listed at biblehub.com, then reinventing the wheel at this stage seems to me unnecessary.

There's nothing particularly innovative about the "shared experience" view and seems to reflect the more recently defined "social generation" concept (itself only an observation of an existing phenomenon). However,  the detachment from a clear, chronological anchor is a bit more unusual, though not unique. Not that this detachment is absolute, as there is a start point, the year 1914CE, but that's where the specific, chronological association ends...for now. Another significant and fairly unusual aspect includes the grouping of more than one "biological" generation. Again unusual, but not unique.

So, without excessive references to easily obtained examples, it appears that JW's "official" and "current" understanding of the term "generation", as used in Jesus's end-time prophecy, differs from the more common understanding of this (English) word held in general (reflected in a number of postings presented here).  In terms of it's use by sociologists and historians, (with whom the word apparently has greater currency), there is a departure from more usual application, but the understanding is not unique.

The pith of this matter is, of course, what did Jesus specifically mean when he used the term? The honest answer to this? We do not specifically know. We can only infer.

9 minutes ago, PeterR said:

trying to prove your conclusion

I don't need to prove a conclusion on the meaning of a word in current usage. I just observe the facts. My reference was to an earlier observation of the same thing, not offered as proof for a stand alone fact.

13 minutes ago, PeterR said:

Do you really not understand, or are you trying to string this out now?

Ungracious assumption. I can see...you have indeed been damaged. 

1 minute ago, PeterR said:

I hope I don't need to give you references for that.

Don't patronise. It's a sure way of closing doors. I shouldn't have to tell you that. (There you go!)

2 minutes ago, PeterR said:

I would simply be accused of betraying confidences.

Good that you appreciate the need to keep a confidence. There's no need to elaborate. Abstract discussions are too inconclusive on this kind of thing so I'll move on from this subject.

29 minutes ago, PeterR said:

You're in danger of begging the question Eoin

So to prevent losing the thread, how was I in danger of begging the question?

3 minutes ago, PeterR said:

It's effectively self-referential.

Not so much the meaning of terms, but how you think they apply.