Ann O'Maly

The only problem with this claim is that the newspaper got it wrong. The Bible Students had NOT been claiming that the Day of Wrath would dawn in 1914 for a quarter of a century. In that past quarter of a century before 1914, the Bible Students had been claiming that the Day of Wrath had ALREADY dawned and that it would END in 1914. (According to the Watch Tower.)

I am not an expert on this but I would like to stipulate that it most probably sealed a message that was never sent out as it was found in the rubbish dump.  It could have been a diplomatic letter to Egypt and we are not sure if it was the particular seal for a diplomatic mission to this specific country - letters would have had different seals to identify letters going out to different parts of the world. So it would not be the ONLY seal of the king - it would designate it to be official diplomatic business.
Just as the international diplomatic language originally was Akkadian, then Aramaic, then Greek and then Latin - there were also certain international symbols that had universal meaning.  The horn came to symbolize suzerainty (power) and wings symbolized the extent of the power.  As I said I am not an expert on this but it gives one something to investigate and follow up on.
Consequently - one must not be quick to jump to conclusions about the unfaithfulness of Hezekiah.  Remember that he was not a perfect servant of Jehovah and he was definitely not living in a vacuum. Most probably he regularly had diplomats from countries around him (even from afar for trade agreements and security for the transport of goods to his country etc) and sent diplomats to countries around him to maintain good relations.  
The world was a complicated place and international relations just as difficult to maintain as today.  Wars could suddenly come from unforeseen places, especially those empires with imperialistic tendencies and Sennacherib was terrifying (he was exceptionally cruel to the subjected peoples (cutting off body parts and flaying) and also cut off all the fruit trees and stopped up wells wherever he prevailed.  He ruled with terror - leaving the conquered areas with no food resources.
One could even speculate that this was a letter asking Egypt to assist Hezekiah - because the surrounding countries and cities had already been invaded long before Sennacherib came to Jerusalem.......   Hezekiah could have planned to sent out a secret message but decided to trash it and to trust only in Jehovah instead.  He had already paid tribute to Sennacherib but this king wanted total humiliation and most probably would have expected him to bow to his gods.  His name indicates moon worship.
 A few years back I read a translation of a tablet wherein it was written that the Assyrian army suddenly died out from 'pestilence'.  That was their explanation for what happened to their soldiers.  It also was faith strengthening to realize that this really happened.
The Insight book under 'Sennacherib' gives a fascinating insight into the history of this battle.  It must have been a nightmare for king Hezekiah and one can understand his fear and humility when he went before Jehovah to pray for help.  I love this prayer he made.
 
The seal would be indicating that the message came from a peaceful king.
 

It would've been nice to know the wording and context. Perhaps the writer was thinking that Sodom was the city (singular - not Gomorrah) that had the mob. But it doesn't say how extensive the mob was. We are also told that Sodom was a wicked city, but was homosexuality the only thing that made it wicked, or was it corrupt in other ways? That's what I'm wondering. If you come across the article again, please post a link as I'd like to read it.
It could well be that more information comes to light about Hezekiah's bullae and the reason for symbol choices.
But your comments prompt some musings:
Is it a case of only believing archaeological finds that harmonize with our interpretations/ understandings of Bible accounts while rejecting those finds that don't?
Are you thinking that the bullae might be fakes?
Also, if our confidence in the Bible isn't backed up by historical evidences, then couldn't it be argued that we might as well have faith in Aesop's fables?
 

Why?
 "The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction." - Par. 12, https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-february-2017/who-is-leading-gods-people-today/
Different thread, I guess.
 
These are merely assertions. On what scriptural or archaeological evidence were these assertions based?
The writer(s) of Kings and Isaiah didn't refute it either - and he/they could have done. Perhaps the claims were true. And we have the seals that are suggestive of an alliance.
Well, if Hezekiah was keeping pro-Assyrian king Padi locked up in a Jerusalem prison, then Hezekiah must have been "in coalition with other kingdoms in revolt"! Why was Assyria punishing Judah if Hezekiah had been meekly submitting to the Assyrian yoke all that time? 

@John Lindsay Barltrop  and  @Ann O'Maly  Thanks  for  your  interesting  comments !

"We estimate at about 100 billion the number of galaxies in the observable Universe, therefore there are about 100 billion stars being born and dying each year, which corresponds to about 275 million per day, in the whole observable Universe." - Source.
Wow. That'll be a lot to keep up with!

You might want to show that this topic was re directed to here from this topic, so that people can follow on
"what does it mean with the April 2017 study edition of the wt? Are all who were/are baptized still bound to this vow"?

And Jesus' words "a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you see that I have" - how would the disciples have understood this? 
That was not what I was suggesting, of course. I had in mind the term 'Mighty God' - as in Isa. 10:21 and Jer. 32:18 - applying to the 'only Potentate.' 
It looks like your next response is one of 'throwing in the towel' and pretty much saying that holy spirit will have to reveal to me the 'truth' as you see it so I can align with your, or present JW, interpretation. Yes, I understand the official JW concepts of earthly and heavenly resurrections for Christian-era Christians, but I question the validity of two separate destinies on scriptural grounds. (Acts 17:11, anyone?)
So far, the questions that are as yet left hanging in the air are:
Given that Paul likened Abraham's being declared righteous by faith to 1st century Christians' being declared righteous by faith, on what basis is there a tangible difference between being 'declared righteous as Jehovah's friend' (understood to be one Christian group of prospective recipients of God's saving grace) and 'declared righteous for life' (understood to be another group of Christians who are recipients of God's saving grace now and into eternity)? If all true Christians in the 1st century had been promised one kind of everlasting reward, how and when did that change?  And the sidebar that keeps being sidestepped: How would the disciples have understood Jesus' words "a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you see that I have"?  Anyway, if those questions provoke further private thought, reflection and research, even if one doesn't feel like discussing them at the moment, it's all good. 

We have no inherent right to approach Jehovah due to our sinful nature and his holiness. I think it's just as easy to read that this was the very purpose and meaning of Jesus' mediatorship -- the exact same purpose of the ransom. Only by imputing undeserved righteousness on all Christians, covering over our sins, does Jesus make it possible for all of us to approach Jehovah's throne of Majesty through prayer. This was the argument being made by some of the "murmurers" in 1979. This was the reason that F W Franz seemed about to yell at all of us at the breakfast table one morning in November 1979. It wasn't yelling so much as loud and deep sarcasm when he said that people who questioned it would just "merge everyone together and make Jesus Christ the mediator of every Tom, Dick and Harry!"
From this and other things he said all through that week at breakfast, I believe he was concerned that the anointed were losing their "specialness." He seemed to take it very personally, and it must have been for this reason that a lot of people who knew him continued to act like this doctrine was his own private interpretation. The idea, as summarized to me in a gossipy way by someone who was very close to him, was that people used to trust his every word when he was Vice-President, and as soon as he was about to become President (1977, while I was at Bethel) he seemed to take it very personally that the very office of President was losing its meaning. He indicated in his September 1975 talk that the office of President was about to become the office of a mere "figurehead" or of a "do-nothing-President" as he called it. He said this during one of those times that he publicly fought against the idea of a "Governing Body" and simultaneously cast aspersions on those who wanted leadership by "committees" (in the same talk).
Please excuse the excessive background info that follows, but I think it helps make a point about why some people thought FWF was so personally tied to this doctrine:
Separately, I happened to learn that FWF reacted with similar consternation apparently from early 1978 right up through 1980 over some comments ("a few letters") questioning his latest book "Our Incoming World Government -- God's Kingdom" (1977). The book had claimed some prophetic date fulfillments around the 1920's that merely confused most of us, I think, but some evidently had a real problem with it. He sounded angry that anyone thought they had a right to question it. I thought his attitude was a little bit like saying "Who do they think they are?" but I think that what he actually said was more like "This is exactly what they [the publishers] need right now . . . it's a time to be studying these things, and not a time to be questioning these things!" The reason I had come to him was that I had brought him a couple of "footnote" questions while proofreading the "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years" (ka) book and he somehow thought my question was tied to some of these letters he had gotten (or heard about) since the time of the "World Government" book study in 1978. This "interview" was around April 1980 and I figured from what he said that we might actually re-study the "World Government" book even though I was then under the impression that we were going to re-study the ka book again.
There had been a scramble to replace the Congregation Book Study book because, although we had studied the "World Government" book in 1978, three or four of the last five books since then had been written by so-called "apostates" even though you wouldn't know it with titles like:
"Life Does Have a Purpose" [January - June 1979] "Is This Life All There Is?"  [July - December 1979] "Making Your Family Life Happy" [January - June 1980] "Choosing the Best Way of Life" [July - December 1980] "Commentary on the Letter of James" [scheduled book study use cancelled] The primary writers of the books listed above were mostly dismissed from Writing and from Bethel by mid-1980.
As I know you know, we don't talk about the authors of the publications, but the last three books FWF had been widely associated with personally were "The Nations Shall Know" [Ezekiel, 1971] "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years" ("ka") [WTS history, 1973] and the "Incoming World Government" [1977].
We rarely studied a book twice, but we did study the "Nations"/"Ezekiel" book twice (72 & 75), and of course the "ka" book ended up being studied twice, too, and it took all of 1981 to do it. (In 1983 we re-studied the "Man's Salvation" book from back around 1975, although I had never known whether FWF authored it.)
Anyway, ka won out over the "apostate" James commentary which we never studied at the book study, although I do remember giving several "Instruction talks" from it. The "Choosing" book had been considered even more blatantly apostate, but slipped through.
Although the decision to re-use the ka book in 1981 had already been made, and presses were already re-printing it for a couple months to gear up for the book study, the "World Government " book did come up again in the month before the ka book came back. Just notice what the primary point to highlight was supposed to be (in the quotes below). It was a theme that several people had been able to pick up on over and over again from FWF, from his talks and in personal conversation. There was a strong hint that Christ's "brothers" were not expected to be "sheeplike" as if there was a difference between "sheep" and "brothers." This sometimes comes across in other expressions that the Governing Body still use mostly in private conversations like: "the publishers need this" or with expressions that refer to the rest of us as "the rank and file."
*** km 11/80 p. 2 Meetings to Help Us Make Disciples ***
Ask all to bring book Our Incoming World Government—God’s Kingdom to meeting next week. Prepare from page 162, paragraph 6, through page 166, paragraph 16.
*** km 11/80 p. 2 Meetings to Help Us Make Disciples ***
Discussion by qualified teacher with congregation of highlights of material in Our Incoming World Government—God’s Kingdom, page 162, paragraph 6, through page 166, paragraph 16. Highlight difference in position, but unity of work done by King’s “brothers” and “sheep” class. ...
Paragraphs 11-13: Read Matthew 25:37-40. Whom did Jesus refer to as “my brothers”? How do “sheep” show their support of the King’s “brothers”? What circumstances have the King’s “brothers” had to endure?
Paragraphs 14, 15: How are the sheeplike Kingdom supporters rewarded? What must each one do to show he is a Kingdom supporter? See also page 173, paragraph 31.
Paragraph 16: How do “sheep” “inherit the Kingdom”? How is hope of the King’s “brothers” different?
 
 
 

There have been several references like this, but the one that created the most "noise" at Bethel was in 1979. It created some internal discussions, which F W Franz considered the same as murmuring, and probably was the single biggest catalyst to the "apostasy" inquests. None of those who were known to "murmur" the loudest were affected by the questionings, however, but it did reveal a related problem. Anyway, here is the original one:
*** w79 4/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
● Is Jesus the “mediator” only for anointed Christians?
The term “mediator” occurs just six times in the Christian Greek Scriptures and Scripturally is always used regarding a formal covenant.
Moses was the “mediator” of the Law covenant made between God and the nation of Israel. (Gal. 3:19, 20) Christ, though, is the “mediator of a new covenant” between Jehovah and spiritual Israel, the “Israel of God” that will serve as kings and priests in heaven with Jesus. (Heb. 8:6; 9:15; 12:24; Gal. 6:16) At a time when God was selecting those to be taken into that new covenant, the apostle Paul wrote that Christ was the “one mediator between God and men.” (1 Tim. 2:5) Reasonably Paul was here using the word “mediator” in the same way he did the other five times, which occurred before the writing of 1 Timothy 2:5, referring to those then being taken into the new covenant for which Christ is “mediator.” So in this strict Biblical sense Jesus is the “mediator” only for anointed Christians.
The new covenant will terminate with the glorification of the remnant who are today in that covenant mediated by Christ. The “great crowd” of “other sheep” that is forming today is not in that new covenant. However, by their associating with the “little flock” of those yet in that covenant they come under benefits that flow from that new covenant. During the millennium Jesus Christ will be their king, high priest and judge. For more detailed information, see Aid to Bible Understanding, pages 1129 and 1130 under “Mediator”; also God’s “Eternal Purpose” Now Triumphing for Man’s Good, page 160, paragraph 10; also The Watchtower issues of February 15, 1966, pages 105 through 123; November 15, 1972, pages 685 and 686, under the subheading “Leading the Way to a New Covenant”; and April 1, 1973, pages 198 and 199, under the subheading “The New Covenant.”
Then when F W Franz fell sick for a bit, his life story was printed in the Watchtower, and I'm told that a few people began saying that this doctrine would change as soon as he died. Within 2 years of Franz' life story, however, a new article was prepared that said the same thing as in 1979. It was printed about 3 years before Brother Franz died. Only a portion of it is quoted here:
*** w89 8/15 p. 30 Questions From Readers ***
□ Is Jesus the Mediator only for spirit-anointed Christians or for all mankind, since 1 Timothy 2:5, 6 speaks of him as the “mediator” who “gave himself a corresponding ransom for all”?
The Bible contains both basic teachings and deep truths, which are solid food for study. One such study involves Jesus Christ’s role as Mediator. . . .
Does this mean that there is a specific legal sense involved in Jesus’ role as Mediator? Yes. . . .
Clearly, then, the new covenant is not a loose arrangement open to all mankind. It is a carefully arranged legal provision involving God and anointed Christians.  . . . The people of all nations who have the hope of everlasting life on earth benefit even now from Jesus’ services. Though he is not their legal Mediator, for they are not in the new covenant, he is their means of approaching Jehovah. Christ said: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6) All who will gain life on earth must direct their prayers to Jehovah through Jesus. (John 14:13, 23, 24) Jesus also serves as a compassionate High Priest who is able to apply in their behalf the benefits of his sacrifice, allowing them to gain forgiveness and eventual salvation.—Acts 4:12; Hebrews 4:15.

The most recent article that repeated these thoughts more succinctly was here:
*** w08 12/15 pp. 13-14 pars. 12-14 Appreciate Jesus’ Unique Role in God’s Purpose ***
12 The original-language word translated “mediator” is a legal term. It refers to Jesus as a legal Mediator (or, in a sense, an attorney) of the new covenant that made possible the birth of a new nation, “the Israel of God.” (Gal. 6:16) This nation is composed of spirit-anointed Christians, who form a heavenly “royal priesthood.” (1 Pet. 2:9; Ex. 19:6) The Law covenant, with Moses as mediator, was not able to produce a nation like that.
13 What does Jesus’ role as Mediator involve? Well, Jehovah applies the value of Jesus’ blood to those being brought into the new covenant. In this way, Jehovah legally credits them with righteousness. (Rom. 3:24; Heb. 9:15) God can then take them into the new covenant with the prospect of their becoming heavenly king-priests! As their Mediator, Jesus assists them in maintaining a clean standing before God.—Heb. 2:16.
14 What about those who are not in the new covenant, those who hope to live forever on earth, not in heaven? While not participants in the new covenant, these are beneficiaries of it. They receive forgiveness of their sins and are declared righteous as God’s friends. (Jas. 2:23; 1 John 2:1, 2) Whether we have a heavenly hope or an earthly hope, each one of us has good reason to appreciate Jesus’ role as the Mediator of the new covenant.
 
Also, a lot of less direct references, including the following partial list:
*** w15 1/15 p. 16 par. 14 Why We Observe the Lord’s Evening Meal ***
Jesus is the Mediator of the new covenant, and loyal anointed ones taken into it receive a heavenly inheritance.
*** w03 2/15 p. 22 par. 19 What Does the Lord’s Evening Meal Mean to You? ***
The parties to the new covenant are God and anointed ones. (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 12:22-24) Jesus is the mediator.
*** w00 11/15 p. 11 par. 8 Christians Find Happiness in Serving ***
Jesus mediated a new covenant, which made possible the birth of a new nation, “the Israel of God,” composed of spirit-anointed Christians from many nations.
*** w93 1/1 p. 5 New Creations Brought Forth! ***
Thus, the man Christ Jesus was the first of a new creation, anointed to do God’s will. Later, on the basis of his sacrificial death, Jesus became the Mediator of a new covenant between God and a select group of men. Each of these has become “a new creation,” begotten by God’s spirit to a heavenly hope, with the prospect of ruling with Jesus in his heavenly Kingdom.
[WT could have used a bit of editing or proofreading on this last one, because the wording appears to emphasize the idea that they are all male.]
*** w87 4/1 p. 17 par. 6 Worldwide Security Under the “Prince of Peace” ***
His counsel is always wise, perfect, and infallible. As the Mediator between Jehovah God and those who have been taken into the new covenant, he has been serving indeed as a wonderful counselor for these past 19 centuries. Now, since 1935, “a great crowd” of his “other sheep” has been taking in his wonderful counsel and is getting the finest instruction and guidance.
*** w84 2/15 p. 20 par. 18 The Recent Pen for “Other Sheep” ***
18 When, in God’s due time, the remnant of the spiritual Israelites finish their earthly course and pass off the scene to enter their heavenly reward, the new covenant that was based on the blood of the Mediator, the Fine Shepherd, Jesus Christ, will cease to apply, it having successfully served its purpose. With this the observing of the Lord’s Evening Meal on Passover Day of each year will stop. Then, too, “this fold” for the flock of spiritual Israelites will cease to exist.
*** it-2 p. 858 Sanctification ***
However, Moses as God’s appointed mediator could draw nearer. In this, Moses prophetically foreshadowed Jesus Christ, the great Mediator for anointed Christians, as they approach heavenly Mount Zion.—Heb 12:22-24.
 

Was it here?
*** 2015 nwt[study] Glossary of Bible Terms ***
Mediator. One who intercedes between two parties in order to reconcile them. In the Scriptures, Moses and Jesus are the mediators of the Law covenant and the new covenant respectively.—Ga 3:19; 1Ti 2:5.
Just kidding. A mediator is the same thing as an intercessor, and the new 2015 glossary, just quoted, accidentally points that out. In the NWT the words, intercede, intercedes, intercessor, interceding are never used in the Greek Scriptures of the NWT.
But you can see some of what was done in the NWT with a good NT-Greek dictionary, or even by looking at the footnotes in the NWT. I'll give both the NWT reading and the NWT footnote reading for the following verses.
(Hebrews 7:25) Consequently he is able also to save completely those who are approaching God through him, because he is always alive to plead for them. (NWT)
(Hebrews 7:25) Consequently he is able also to save completely those who are approaching God through him, because he is always alive to be interceding for them. (NWT footnote)
(Hebrews 6:17) In this manner God, when he purposed to demonstrate more abundantly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of his counsel, stepped in with an oath,
(Hebrews 6:17) In this manner God, when he purposed to demonstrate more abundantly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of his counsel, he mediated [mesiteuo] with an oath . . . [mesiteuo is merely the verb form of mediator]
In other words, the term mediator [mesites] is not strictly used with a legal application to Jesus between the heirs and Jehovah. Here, Jehovah himself is the mediator. In fact, I think the very context of 1 Timothy 2:4,5 makes this clear:
(1 Timothy 2:1-6) First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving be made concerning all* men, 2 concerning kings and all those who are in high positions, so that we may go on leading a calm and quiet life with complete godly devotion and seriousness. 3 This is fine and acceptable in the sight of our Savior, God, 4 whose will is that all* people should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all**. . . [NWT with two words left out of v.1 and v.4]
If we follow the Watchtower's claim that there is on "mediator between God and "some" men" rather than all, then we lose the logic indicated by the word "For" (or "because") that ties verse 4 and verse 5 together. We also lose the logic of the context where it included the fact that we should pray for Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Kim Jong-un, Angela Merkel and Vladimir Putin, etc. These are included in "all men" (or "all people"). Of course, I put an asterisk after the word "all" in verse 1 and 4 because the NWT changes the phrase "all people/men" by changing it to "all sorts of people/men." The original Greek is very consistent here in using the term " πάντων ἀνθρώπων" or "panton anthropon" (all men) each time in verses 1 and 4. In verse 6, the NWT footnote indicates that even the "all" in verse 6 could be translated "all sorts of people." Translating it this way in the actual text of the translation, rather than just in the footnote, might have hinted at an equivalence between the "all" who have a mediator, and the "all" for whom the ransom was given.

The Royal Commission's full report can be read/downloaded at,
http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/getattachment/c2d1f1f5-a1f2-4241-82fb-978d072734bd/Report-of-Case-Study-No-29
I'm working through it now. Will the Org. humbly acknowledge and act on the Commission's findings? Let's hope so. It's a pity that 'Satan's world' has to chastise 'Jehovah's earthly organization.' But then, if it happened in Bible times, it can happen in modern times too, right?

How many JW's like to debate / discuss the doctrines and/or practices of the WBTS? Or is it safe to say "Sadly, most JW's do not want to hear such things"
Funny, but as it is a tradition in the JW community to be very date focused (1874, 1879, 1914, 1918/1919, 1925, 1975 etc), many JW's believe that for the outside world the date of 25 December is essential. Well, as the date was set by people who are not alive anymore, most people today either believe the date is correct and those that do not, do not really mind. In all cases, the date was not set by any of the people who live today. Therefore, the date has become more a so-called given and people just act accordingly. Compare that behaviour to JW's who act according to the dates the gb has set for the so-called invisible enthronement of Jesus in 1914. A date that is not found in the bible. As most JW's will likely say that they do not mind the accuracy of that date but more the meaning they attach to that event, so do most people who celebrate Christmas
Are the customs linked to Christmas found in the bible? No,not in the sense that it has evolved to. But then again, is that relevant? Are these people dishonoring God because they give presents? They give food to the poor? They spend time with family and friends? They think about Christ?
What is more a way to dishonor God? Impose doctrines on people in the name of talking on behalf of God and at the same time revising these doctrines many times, like the use of blood, organ transplant etc? Or is it to shun even you children because they are, according to 3 men, not repentent (enough), for which you cannot find any scripture in the bible to support that shunning practice?
My point, do not look upon people who celebrate Christmas because they like to use that even to put more effort into helping others. Yes, in many western countries it has become a commercial event. But that is the commercial world, not all who participate in Christmas would support that.
 

(Colossians 2:16) 16 Therefore, do not let anyone judge you about what you eat and drink or about the observance of a festival or of the new moon or of a sabbath.
I think that this would mean that even a Christian, at least in the first century, should not feel too badly about celebrating Chanukkah with their family, assuming their family is steeped in Jewish tradition and they do not wish to offend them, or actually believe themselves that there was still some value to the Jewish tradition that should be respected.
I don't apply this to Christmas in any way, but at least I don't think it means we need to harshly judge those persons who believe Christmas is wonderful time to enjoy family, food and gifts, etc.
 

There are a couple of at least neutral examples of dogs, although the vast majority are very negative. Pigs fare a little worse.
Another example is the fact that an indoor bathroom is only mentioned as being used by a pagan, and the one time it was mentioned, someone was murdered there.
(Judges 3:20-25) 20 And Eʹhud came to him as he was sitting in his cool roof chamber that he had to himself. And Eʹhud went on to say: “A word of God I have for you.” At that he rose up from his throne. 21 Then Eʹhud thrust in his left hand and took the sword off his right thigh and plunged it into his belly. 22 And the handle kept going in also after the blade so that the fat closed in over the blade, for he did not draw the sword out of his belly, and the fecal matter began to come out. 23 And Eʹhud proceeded to go out through the air hole, but he closed the doors of the roof chamber behind him and locked them. 24 And he himself went out. And his servants came and began looking, and there the doors of the roof chamber were locked. So they said: “He is just easing nature in the cool interior room.” 25 And they kept waiting until they were ashamed, and, look! there was no one opening the doors of the roof chamber. At this they took the key and opened them, and, look! their lord was fallen to the earth dead!
Christians should therefore avoid indoor bathrooms.

So, the date of so-called invisible enthronement of Jesus is also not mentioned in the bible by JW's still think it is October 1914.
For most people who in same form participate in the Christmas celebrations do this not because of the date but because of the meaning of the event itself.
If the birthdate would be in the bible, would JW's be allowed to celebrate?

The illustration of the tourists is not really analogous.
"IMAGINE that an experienced guide is leading you on a tour of a wondrous and beautiful city"
Jesus. Fine.
"Would the premature ideas and eager questions of the tourists cast doubt on the reliability of their guide? Hardly! Similarly, although God’s people sometimes try to work out details of Jehovah’s purpose before it is time for the holy spirit to guide them to such truths, it is clear that Jesus is leading them."
That's not quite how it's been in the Organization, though, has it? I suggest that it has been more like a scenario where some of the more dominant tourists start guiding the other tourists, loudly and authoritatively explaining details about the city's features that are a mishmash of fact and falsehood. The experienced guide is shaking his head, trying to speak above the few dominant tourists and waving the group back on track but they're all wandering off after the loud, 'knowledgeable' ones.
Eph. 4:14, 15.
 

Tenuous? Hardly. The whole (alleged) distinction between being 'declared righteous for life' versus being 'declared righteous as Jehovah's friend' is centered on the two destiny concept. Given that the vast majority of Christian believers over the past (nearly) 2000 years are dead and awaiting resurrection ... somewhere - some to 'heavenly' immortality and others to 'earthly' probation-pending-permanence (as WT teaching goes) ... the discussion about resurrection is very much on topic.
Are they contemplating a resurrection to heaven? Or just the resurrection per se?

I really didn't know whether to laugh, cry or throw my hands up in despair when we discussed this at last night's meeting. The answers that were given during these paragraphs and the response of the study conductor really showed to me how, as a general rule, we are such a non-thinking and illogical group of people.
 
5 As we saw in Chapter 2 of this book, the Bible Students spent decades pointing out that the year 1914 would be significant in fulfilling Bible prophecy. However, at that time they believed that Christ’s presence had begun in 1874, that he had begun to rule in heaven in 1878, and that the Kingdom would not be fully set up until October 1914. The harvest would extend from 1874 to 1914 and would culminate in the gathering of the anointed to heaven. Do mistaken ideas such as these cast doubt on whether Jesus was guiding those faithful ones by means of holy spirit?
6 Not at all! Think again of our opening illustration. Would the premature ideas and eager questions of the tourists cast doubt on the reliability of their guide? Hardly! Similarly, although God’s people sometimes try to work out details of Jehovah’s purpose before it is time for the holy spirit to guide them to such truths, it is clear that Jesus is leading them. Thus, faithful ones prove willing to be corrected and humbly adjust their views.
 
It is also upsetting that the governing body, in instances like this, always speak in the third person. How much more humble would it be for them to say ;
 
"Similarly, although we, the faithful and discreet slave sometimes try to work out details of Jehovah’s purpose before it is time for the holy spirit to guide us to such truths..."
 
Any comments ?
 

Really? *Runs off to look* Holy blunders! You're right! 
I think so too. It was poorly worded. It would have been better phrased, "The 2,520 years began in October 607 B.C.E., when  after Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians and the Davidic king was taken off his throne."
Or better yet, insert the real year (587 B.C.E.) ... and delete the '2,520 year' part. But that's another discussion. 
The October thing is to do with Gedaliah's assassination in the 7th month (September/October) and when the remaining Jews fled to Egypt. Russell and Barbour maintained right from the beginning that the '70 years' related to the period when the land was 'desolate, without an inhabitant' and that only happened, according to their interpretation, once the remnant Jews fled to Egypt.
Of course, as we know, Jeremiah's '70 years' related to the nations' servitude to Babylon which began long before Jerusalem's destruction. Not only that, but according to Ezekiel, there were still people living in Jerusalem's ruins in December:
Ezekiel 33:21 - At length in the 12th year, in the tenth month, on the fifth day of the month of our exile, a man who had escaped from Jerusalem came to me and said: “The city has been struck down!”
Ezekiel 33:23-29 - Then the word of Jehovah came to me, saying: 24 “Son of man, the inhabitants of these ruins are saying concerning the land of Israel, ‘Abraham was just one man, and yet he took possession of the land. But we are many; surely the land has been given to us as a possession.’
25 “Therefore say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says: “You are eating food with the blood, and you lift up your eyes to your disgusting idols, and you keep shedding blood. So why should you possess the land? 26 You have relied on your sword, you engage in detestable practices, and each of you has defiled his neighbor’s wife. So why should you possess the land?”’
27 “This is what you should say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says: “As surely as I am alive, those living in the ruins will fall by the sword; those in the open field, I will give as food to the wild beasts; and those in the strongholds and the caves will die by disease. 28 I will make the land an utterly desolate wasteland, and its arrogant pride will be brought to an end, and the mountains of Israel will be desolated, with no one passing through. 29 And they will have to know that I am Jehovah when I make the land an utterly desolate wasteland because of all the detestable things that they have done.”’
 

How does 1 Cor. 15 support the idea of two different destinies for Christians? Why would one, who is rewarded with a 'heavenly' body, only be able to enjoy their new life in heaven? The point Paul was making was that the present body is corruptible and perishable, whereas the resurrection body will endowed with incorruptibility and immortality.
--------------
That's a given. Earnest and prayerful scriptural research may lead to new perspectives that are at odds with one's previous understanding.
The question still remains: on what scriptural basis is the idea that Christian believers have two different destinies. If all first century Christians were (for the sake of argument) heaven-bound, where does the idea come from that there would be a subset of Christian believers who were not heaven-bound? After the 'inspired' Bible books were written, finalized and canonized, what changed?
There is nothing there that even hints there will one set of Christian believers being rewarded in heaven while another set of Christian believers get rewarded someplace else. All the Ephesian believers were called heirs in Christ (1:11) and given the holy spirit as a token of that future inheritance (1:13,14).
Again, how do you come to that assumption?
Sure. But we are talking about the vision given to John. To be faithful to the vision's details at Rev. 7, the 'great crowd' are in the same location as the angels, four living creatures and elders. What textual warrant is there to arbitrarily remove them to somewhere different?
I agree you have to see the whole picture. The thing is, we are seeing different pictures - or rather, yours has some pieces of the puzzle jammed into the wrong places, imho

The ones who inherit the earth are the same ones to whom "the Kingdom of the heavens" belong, who will "see God" and "will be called sons of God," surely (Matt. 5:3, 8-10). Or was Jesus addressing two classes of people in the audience listening to him that day? (Eoin, this was the reason for that question.)
Also, to be able to inherit something, doesn't one have to be an heir?
Contextually, according to the vision, the 'great crowd' are in the same location as the angels, elders and four living creatures. So where would that be?
The tribulation was on earth. The 'great crowd' has come out of it and taken their place in the peaceful presence of God and the heavenly court - according to the details of the vision.
You've read different destinies into the text. There is nothing in Jesus' words that suggests two destinies. Two groups, yes, but cp. Eph. 2:11-18, especially noting v. 14.
No mention of whether the destiny is heaven or earth here.
Where else would humans have been bought from, irrespective of final destiny?
But Rev. 7:9 has the 'great crowd' being comprised of people "out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues" too, and yet you used this to argue for an earthly group. How does Rev. 5:9 argue for a heaven-bound group?
Can one not rule 'over the earth' while on the earth? Cp. Gen. 1:28.
Please see my and Eoin's exchange(s). I've yet to reply to his latest post.
The scripture says nothing of the location here.
The following verses (as you quoted) have heaven and earth being gathered together in Christ. It doesn't indicate that some Christian believers will have their everlasting reward in one or the other location.

I would agree that this refers to an earth-based destiny.
Earlier I made a list of some topics that were more often used during a time when the Watch Tower publications often took a special note of the differences between the spirit-anointed class and those who were not spirit-anointed. As you might recall, Matthew 5:5 was often included in this same type of discussion. I should have included it.
I became a publisher in 1962 according to my Publishers Record Card and I remember my first door-to-door sermon was always Psalm 37:10, 11 and 29. Then I'd flip over to read Matthew 5:5, make a quick comment, and finish with Revelation 21:3,4. I used it almost the same way probably 1,000 times until I started "vacation pioneering" ("auxiliary pioneering") in the summers starting in 1968, the year after I was baptized. That year, I worked with a Circuit Overseer who told me that I could still use Matthew 5:5, in "principle," but that I shouldn't say that Jesus was addressing people who would live forever on the earth. He said that Matthew 5:5 referred to the anointed who had a heavenly hope.
I was shocked. This had been published since long before I was baptized, but I had missed it. According to the Watch Tower publications he was right, of course:
*** w66 9/1 p. 538 Do You Remember? ***
Who are the mild-tempered ones referred to in Matthew 5:5, who will inherit the earth?
Jesus Christ and his 144,000 anointed followers.—P. 451.
*** w66 8/1 p. 451 “Happy Are the Mild-tempered Ones” ***
Who are the mild-tempered that will inherit the earth? Certainly they would include Jesus Christ himself, for, above all men that ever lived on this earth, he was mild-tempered. As he himself said: “Come to me, . . . for I am mild-tempered.” Concerning him and his triumphal ride into Jerusalem, it was written: “Look! Your King is coming to you, mild-tempered.”—Matt. 11:28, 29; 21:5.
That Jesus Christ, as the preeminent mild-tempered one, will inherit the earth other scriptures make clear. Jehovah God has appointed him to be “heir of all things,” including this earth. In fact, ‘the nations are to be his inheritance, and the ends of the earth his possession.’—Heb. 1:2; Ps. 2:7, 8.
This inheritance Jesus Christ shares, even as he does his Kingdom rule, with his anointed footstep followers, for they are to be “heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ.” These are the ones the apostle John saw in vision standing upon heavenly Mount Zion and who number 144,000.—Rom. 8:17; Rev. 14:1.
*** w59 8/1 p. 479 Questions From Readers ***
When Jesus said, as recorded at Matthew 5:5, “Happy are the mild-tempered ones, since they will inherit the earth,” of whom was he speaking?—H. S., U.S.A.
Jesus here applied the expression “mild-tempered” or “meek” to his disciples of that time who were in line for the heavenly kingdom.
*** w58 3/1 p. 139 “Blessed Are the Meek” ***
Inheriting the earth is part of his reward for his meek and faithful course while a man.—Matt. 5:5, AS; Ps. 2:8.
Sharing this inheritance with Jesus Christ will be his “bride,” those footstep followers of his, limited to 144,000, who will receive a heavenly reward.

Point taken, thank you very much for that info. I actually purchased "The Two Babylons" from the Society many years ago (early seventies) along with "The Works of Josephus"..........now there is some nice heavy reading!!! Again thanks for that, it will be locked away firmly in my mind now.

Except for a couple of points about Easter, priestly celibacy, and a few other points which are also very likely untrue, the Watchtower stopped quoting Hislop about Christmas in 1978, and the Awake! stopped referencing these points in 1973.
It's true that Alexander Hislop's book, The Two Babylons, has been almost thoroughly debunked. You can easily find this claim in Wikipedia and other sources. I think the most credible "witness" in this regard is a man who had once believed in Hislop's book, and who wrote a book of his own that piggy-backed on the ideas from Hislop. Yet, even though this man continues to believe that much of Catholicism is based on false origins, he honestly realized that he could no longer, in good conscience, make money off the falsehoods claimed by Hislop. So he pulled his book from publication and criticized his own book.
I'll quote some relevant parts his article from here, where he explains some of his reasons:
Message from Ralph Woodrow regarding the book BABYLON MYSTERY RELIGION
For a number of years my book BABYLON MYSTERY RELIGION was very popular, enjoyed a wide circulation, and was translated into various languages. To this day, we do not cease to receive orders and inquiries about it. Despite its popularity, several years ago we pulled it out of print and now offer a replacement book . . .
Because misinformation about this decision persists on the Internet, and in other ways, the aim of this article is to set the record straight.
According to one rumor, “the Catholics” put so much pressure on me, I had a heart attack and almost died! Consequently, I “recanted” and wrote the other book. There is no truth to this!
Another rumor is that my motives were financial—my desire was to be popular and make more money. To the contrary, BABYLON MYSTERY RELIGION was extremely popular and provided more income to our ministry than all other books and offerings put together! We have faced much financial loss because of the decision to pull the book out of print.
Some letters we have received have been very warm, commending me for honesty and integrity, expressing appreciation for the clarification provided by the replacement book THE BABYLON CONNECTION? But other letters have been mean-spirited—that I am “stupid,” “scum,” “scared of the truth,” a “low down coward,” a “traitor to Christ,” following “a false god,” and am an “undercover Jesuit”! One even said, “I hope you die soon, I want you dead!”
It puzzles me how some can be so fanatical against one set of errors—or what they perceive to be errors—only to develop greater errors: becoming judgmental, hateful, and dishonest.
My original book had some valuable information in it. But it also contained certain teachings that were made popular in a book many years ago, THE TWO BABYLONS, by Alexander Hislop. This book claims that the very religion of ancient Babylon, under the leadership of Nimrod and his wife, was later disguised with Christian-sounding names, becoming the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, two “Babylons"—one ancient and one modern. Proof for this is sought by citing numerous similarities in paganism. The problem with this method is this: in many cases there is no connection.
...
So is it with the claims about pagan origins. What may seem to have a connection, upon further investigation, has no connection at all!
By this method, one could take virtually anything and do the same—even the “golden arches” at McDonald’s! The Encyclopedia Americana (article: “Arch") says the use of arches was known in Babylon as early as 2020 B.C. Since Babylon was called “the golden city” (Isa. 14:4), can there be any doubt about the origin of the golden arches? As silly as this is, this is the type of proof that has been offered over and over about pagan origins.
By this method, atheists have long sought to discredit the Bible and Christianity altogether—not just the Roman Catholic Church.
By this method, one could condemn Protestant and evangelical denominations like the Assemblies of God, Baptist, Church of Christ, Lutheran, Methodist, Nazarene, etc. Basic things like prayer, and kneeling in prayer, would have to be rejected, because pagans knelt and prayed to their gods. Water baptism would have to be rejected, for pagans had numerous rites involving water, etc.
By this method, the BIBLE itself would need to be rejected as pagan. All of the following practices or beliefs mentioned in the Bible, were also known among pagans—raising hands in worship, taking off shoes on holy ground, a holy mountain, a holy place in a temple, offering sacrifices without blemish, a sacred ark, city of refuge, bringing forth water from a rock, laws written on stone, fire appearing on a person’s head, horses of fire, the offering of first fruits, tithes, etc.
By this method, the LORD himself would be pagan. The woman called Mystery Babylon had a cup in her hand; the Lord has a cup in his hand (Psa. 75:8). Pagan kings sat on thrones and wore crowns; the Lord sits on a throne and wears a crown (Rev. 1:4; 14:14). Pagans worshipped the sun; the Lord is the “Sun of righteousness” (Mal. 4:2). Pagan gods were likened to stars; the Lord is called “the bright and morning star” (Rev. 22:16). Pagan gods had temples dedicated to them; the Lord has a temple (Rev. 7:15). Pagan gods were pictured with wings; the Lord is pictured with wings (Psa. 91:4).
Here is a list of the some of the unsubstantiated claims that are made about the religion of ancient Babylon:
• The Babylonians went to a confessional and confessed sins to priests who wore black clergy garments.
• Their king, Nimrod, was born on December 25. Round decorations on Christmas trees and round communion wafers honored him as the Sun-god.
• Sun-worshippers went to their temples weekly, on Sunday, to worship the Sun-god.
• Nimrod’s wife was Semiramis, who claimed to be the Virgin Queen of Heaven, and was the mother of Tammuz.
• Tammuz was killed by a wild boar when he was age 40; so 40 days of Lent were set aside to honor his death.
• The Babylonians wept for him on “Good Friday.” They worshipped a cross-the initial letter of his name.
It is amazing how unsubstantiated teachings like these circulate—and are believed. One can go to any library, check any history book about ancient Babylon, none of these things will be found. They are not historically accurate, but are based on an arbitrary piecing together of bits and pieces of mythology.
Hislop, for example, taught that mythological persons like Adonis, Apollo, Bacchus, Cupid, Dagon, Hercules, Janus, Mars, Mithra, Moloch, Orion, Osiris, Pluto, Saturn, Vulcan, Zoraster, and many more, were all Nimrod! He then formed his own “history” of Nimrod! He did the same thing with Nimrod’s wife. So, according to his theory, Nimrod was a big, ugly, deformed black man. His wife, Semiramis—also known as Easter, he says—was a most beautiful white woman with blond hair and blue eyes, a backslider, inventor of soprano singing, the originator of priestly celibacy, the first to whom the unbloody mass was offered! This is not factual history—it is more in the category of tabloid sensationalism.
...
The concern about not wanting anything pagan in our lives can be likened to a ship crossing a vast ocean. This concern has taken us in the right direction, but as we come to a better understanding as to what is actually pagan and what is not, a correction of the course is necessary in our journey. This is not a going back, but a correction of the course as we follow “the shining light, that shines more and more unto the perfect day” (Prov. 4:18).
---------end of quote---------
I remember when we used to tell people at the door that the cross came from Nimrod who was also Tammuz and the the first letter of Tammuz looked like a cross. Did you ever see what a "T" or the word "Tammuz" looks like in Babylonian cuneiform?
Anyway, it looks like Hislop was just another fanatical liar who hated the Catholic religion so much that he probably thought it didn't much matter whether what he wrote was true or not, and he likely just made up a lot of it himself. Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard and others seem to have come from the same ilk.