JW Insider

21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

#4. It is based on a false premise about a supposed belief in 1914 that didn't even exist in 1914.

Just another small point on #4 before moving on to point #3.

There have also been many times when our publications stated that for several decades in advance of 1914, Russell and his associates predicted that in 1914:

• Jesus would return as King,
• or would begin his presence,
• or that his presence would begin invisibly in 1914,
• or that the "time of the end" or "last days" would begin in 1914,
• or that 1914 would be the beginning of a time of great trouble on the earth.

None of those statements are true. And for the last couple decades, these false statements have no longer been repeated in our publications. The only remaining prediction that can rightly be stated as having been predicted several decades in advance is this:

• 1914 would mark the "End of the Gentile Times"

All the latest publications only focus on this one point now, since it is generally admitted that, long after 1914, we still taught that:

• Jesus had returned as King in 1878,
• had begun his presence in 1874,
• that the invisible presence in heaven had begun in 1874 and the visible effects upon the world would begin to be seen just after 1914,
• and that the "time of the end" had begun in 1799,
• and that 1914 would be the END of the great trouble on the earth, not the BEGINNING.
  • (About a decade before 1914, this last idea was adjusted to push the time of trouble before 1914 to a time beginning in October 1914 and ending around or just after 1915.)

But now that the teaching is better grounded in the idea that the prediction was that 1914 would be the "End of the Gentile Times" it would be good to know if we are talking about the same belief.

It's not the same.

The End of the Gentile Times referred to the fact that Palestine would see an Israeli government beginning in 1914 because the governments and institutions of the Gentile kings and governments would all collapse during a period of several months beginning in October 1914 with some likely holding on until the end of 1915.

The expression End of the Gentile Times, was the equivalent of saying that the non-Gentile Kings have had their day. The U.S. government was therefore set to collapse within months of October 1914. The government of Great Britain would also collapse. There would be no more Russian government, no more Chinese government, no more Mexican or Canadian governments. No League of Nations, no United Nations, no more banks, no more "Wall Street." This all collapses in the 1914 time period, because all gentile governments and institutions would collapse with only a blessing on the Israeli government in what is now Palestine. 

In Russell's view the blessings on the earth would come through the fact that true Christians would make up Christ's bride and rule simultaneously from heaven while the Israeli government ruled from earth out of the city of earthly Jerusalem.

It was a true Zionist movement, which is why the primary magazine was called Zion's Watch Tower.

54 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Thank you @JW Insider You are probably one of the very few here that feel that way. I am very concerned.

Actually, I think you are engaging in exaggerated thinking again. I am surely one of many who is very concerned. But not all of us wish to speak up. It's not our nature. The kind of person who goes online to look at a forum such as this is probably already showing a level of concern about others, and the possibility that not all is right and that this could hurt others.

I'm sure there are several here who are also concerned about people like me, too, and they show it by speaking up to make sure that I don't go too far in pushing a view that could stumble others. But if you look closely, almost everyone here, even those most active in defensive of the GB, will show signs of not being 100 percent in agreement with all the current teachings. I'm sorry he's not here to defend himself, but even the famous Allen Smith spoke of ideas he had that he might send in to the Watchtower Society that would adjust a certain defense of their chronology. He even spoke of having addressed a question related to Mexico/Malawi to Raymond Franz about a claim in his book. So I think you are seeing different kinds of Witnesses on this forum that you weren't seeing in your congregation. Hopefully, if you were not satisfied with the level of effort in "making sure of all things" in your own congregation, you might find it in a loosely webbed community such as this. I see a lot more interest in scripture, prophecy, and world events here than I see in the average Witness in the Hall. I think a lot of the interest shows up as "crazy" speculation, but I'm sure that's how my own interests show up to others, too.

54 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

We should be willing to give our lives for others. But i don't see that love in the JW Org. 

Indeed, it's probably a rare thing in most situations. But it has already happened under severe us vs. them circumstances. And I'm sure that as a group we are beyond the majority when it comes to trust of one another, the ability to work with other races, nationalities, and material classes.

• (Romans 5:7) 7 For hardly would anyone die for a righteous man; though perhaps for a good man someone may dare to die.

I know it's probably not quite as far ahead of others as some of us would like to think, but I've stayed with Witnesses all over the world that I barely knew, and vice versa. I've trusted many Witnesses with material things, and they with me. I hardly give a second thought to the idea of trusting another Witness. (Yes, I know. Please start another thread if you wish to bring up how trust can lead to child sexual abuse.)

I see an unusually successful attempt to show love to others among millions of other persons. It's refreshing to meet and greet others with so much in common, and invariably find people we know in common.

54 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Has the Revelation book been officially withdrawn now ?  Wherein it states on page 9

"It is not claimed that the explanations in this publication are infalible" 

The Revelation book is still very much available on JW.ORG, WOL and the WT-LIB CD/DVD, also available online in desktop format. It's still the truth that these explanations are not considered infallible.

54 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And does it prove now to be false teachings ? How far wrong am I  ?

I'm sure much of it will prove false, just as most of everyone's explanation of Revelation in the entire world has proved false when the time for fulfillment of those explanations finally came. We just have to learn not to speculate unless we label it as speculation.

54 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Would you judge me worse than those that pretend to be God's 'Faithful slave' ?  

There is a difference in believing that you have a terrible and awesome responsibility, having been asked and assigned to work on the Governing Body, and "pretending" to be God's faithful slave. It's a traditional concept among most JWs that the GB represent the rest of the anointed and that this is Jehovah's only arrangement that makes sense. The types of persons on the GB who ask others to join them as replacements and helpers are exactly the types of persons who also think this is the only arrangement that makes sense - and that they shouldn't even consider the possibility of another arrangement because it would be 'doubting' Jehovah. So it never happens that they are actually 'pretending' they are just believing.

8 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

How does the wt get away with postponing this until 1874/1914/1919/1925 or whatever? 

The loophole is in Colossians:

• (Colossians 1:13) . . .He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son. . .

In earlier versions it was preferred to translate this to make it sound like something so unique and special that it didn't sound like Christ has the Messianic Kingdom yet, as in "the kingdom of the son of his love." In fact, this introduction is much like that of Revelation in proclaiming the unique position of Jesus Christ in the entire universe:

• (Colossians 1:13-17) . . .He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist, . . . He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might become the one who is first in all things; 19 because God was pleased to have all fullness to dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all other things by making peace through the blood he shed on the torture stake, whether the things on the earth or the things in the heavens.

Being over all other thrones and lordships and governments and authorities, while simultaneously saying that Jesus already has a Kingdom, is pretty much the same thing as saying that Jesus is already King -- in fact, already "King of Kings."

But the loophole was found in the 10 words I skipped from verse 18, where it adds ". . . and he is the head of the body, the congregation." So all that needed to be done, was to ignore all the talk of Jesus position and authority, and focus on this idea of "and he is head of the body, the congregation." The "kingdom" is therefore not Christ's Kingdom, not the Messianic Kingdom of God through Christ, but merely Jesus headship over the congregation as a kind of "kingdom."

But this "kingdom" cannot have a capital "K" as in "Kingdom" because that would remind us of God's Kingdom through Christ. In the rest of the NWT, every mention of God's Kingdom, sons of the Kingdom, the Kingdom of heaven, the Son of man coming in his Kingdom, sitting at the right of Jesus in his Kingdom, this good news of the Kingdom, the Kingdom of the Son of the Most High, eat and drink at the table in my Kingdom, Jesus' Kingdom, etc., etc., are all capitalized. Although there is no Greek support to capitalize some of these and not others, the NWT chooses NOT to capitalize Colossians 1:16. It is the only exception in the Greek Scriptures when referring to God or Christ's Kingdom. (Clearly because it is one of the few references to the word that cannot be pushed to the future, but is already in the present.)

9 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

And I agree with your supporting scriptures (1 Tim 6:15 and Rev 1), the only caveat is that Rev is what John saw in the future. 

John saw the future, but Revelation 1 is not yet writing about visions of the future. In fact it is about the past, present and future. In the introduction to Revelation, it is about how the revelation had just been given to John who would write it down. In fact it clearly states that Jesus Christ was ALREADY the Faithful Witness, and was already the "Firstborn from the dead" and therefore already the Ruler of the kings of the earth. In other words, King of Kings. Therefore, he had already made Christians to be a kingdom (v.6). The introduction is to show the current authority of the one who gave him the visions, not his future authority. And I agree, of course, that he was already given "all authority" according to Matthew 28.

• (Revelation 1:1-6) . . .A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John, 2 who bore witness to the word God gave and to the witness Jesus Christ gave, yes, to all the things he saw. 3 Happy is the one who reads aloud and those who hear the words of this prophecy and who observe the things written in it, for the appointed time is near. 4 John to the seven congregations that are in the province of Asia: May you have undeserved kindness and peace from “the One who is and who was and who is coming,” and from the seven spirits that are before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “the firstborn from the dead,” and “the Ruler of the kings of the earth.” To him who loves us and who set us free from our sins by means of his own blood— 6 and he made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father—yes, to him be the glory and the might forever. Amen.

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I cannot understand why God would allow His "chosen faithful slave" to make so many mistakes. It makes no sense to me.

I'm not judging you, but these questions sound legitimate with an element of true concern for people.

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Why would you let them get it all wrong ?

But you still, in my opinion go overboard with expressions like "so many mistakes."  How many is "so many"? Or, for example, when you speak of them getting "it all wrong." Is it really ALL wrong? When people think in polarized terms, it's difficult to get anywhere.

I think it's easiest get this point of view if you think of what was going on in the 2nd and 3rd chapters of Revelation. We don't know what all these doctrines and sectarian views were that were being picked up in various congregations, but there were several, as we also know from the letters of John and letters to Timothy, Titus, etc. -- and this was right back there when the last of the apostles hadn't even died yet. (It's also of interest that there is no mention of a GB of any kind in Revelation, but that each of these congregations appears to be taking on their own responsibility in front of Jesus as judge.)

Some of these congregations had it right, and some wrong, and some partially wrong. I assume that they had the major things right, but it must have been easy to get several things wrong.

• (1 Corinthians 11:18, 19) . . .. 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident.

5 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Are you saying that the GB are telling lies ? Are making mistakes ? Are not guided by God's Holy Spirit ?

I would say that the GB are making mistakes. I don't know why this should be so surprising; they have admitted to dozens of mistakes over time, and some are more obvious than others.

This does not mean they are not guided by Holy Spirit. Even the apostles, who were more obviously guided by Holy Spirit made mistakes. Paul mentions some of them rather explicitly in the first two chapters of Galatians, and mentions more examples of the same types of mistakes in both First and Second Corinthians.

Being guided by Holy Spirit does not mean inspiration or perfect knowledge, but it should always move us in the right direction. Not all decisions are guided by Holy Spirit. Even if they are absolutely correct, it does not mean that Holy Spirit guided them. Some are just common sense business decisions. Some decisions accepted by the WTS have even been outsourced to worldly companies. It doesn't make them wrong, and it doesn't make the decision to outsource them wrong.

5 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Are you saying that the information that Witnesses go out on the ministry with is false information ? 

Are you saying that you disagree with the GB on this matter ? 

Yes, for me it is wrong. For me, I disagree with the GB on a couple of such matters. Doesn't make me better or 100 percent certain that I am right and they are wrong. Personally, I just think it means that there are strongly entrenched things. I don't insist on these issues in a congregational setting because there are easy ways to find agreement and speak in agreement. I just don't THINK in agreement all the time. For example, I have no trouble teaching that we are living in the last days, because Hebrews 1:1 and the letters of John show that we are in the last days since the first century. I don't have any problem with the idea that Jesus was in power as King in 1914, because I believe he was already King of Kings in the first century (because of 1 Tim 6:15, Revelation 1, etc.). The list could go on.

• #4. It is based on a false premise about a supposed belief in 1914 that didn't even exist in 1914.

The simplest Watchtower explanation of the teaching is found here:

*** ws14 1/15 pp. 30-31 pars. 15-16 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***

• Jesus said: “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.” (Read Matthew 24:33-35.) When Jesus mentioned “this generation,” we understand that he was speaking about two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was present in 1914 and understood that Christ began ruling as King in that year. Those who made up this group were not only alive in 1914, but they had also been anointed by holy spirit in or before that year.—Romans 8:14-17.     All those in the second group included in “this generation” were not simply alive but were anointed with holy spirit during the time that some members of the first group were still alive on earth. So not every anointed person today is included in “this generation” whom Jesus spoke about. Today, those in the second group are getting older. Yet, Jesus’ words at Matthew 24:34 make us confident that at least some of “this generation will by no means pass away” before seeing the start of the great tribulation. This convinces us even more that soon . . .

It only makes sense that this first group must have discerned the sign as it was occurring in 1914. Especially because the phrase in the Watchtower was "readily discerned." The above was from the Simplified version of the 2014 Watchtower. The version from the main Watchtower, where slightly different, is included below:

*** w14 1/15 p. 31 pars. 15-16 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***

• 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.   . . The second group included in “this generation” are anointed contemporaries of the first group. . . . This should add to our conviction that little time remains . . .

The Simplified version of the Watchtower said that the first group understood that Jesus Christ began ruling as King in 1914.

The regular version of the Watchtower said that the first group discerned the sign of Christ's presence in 1914.

But that first group did not actually discern either event in 1914. In 1914 that first group of anointed still only "discerned" that Jesus had begun his reign as king in 1878. They continued to believe that Jesus had begun his presence in 1874. Nothing changed in 1914 regarding the discernment of either event.

In fact, it was until 1943 that the Watchtower continued, officially, to teach that Christ's presence had begun in 1874:

*** ka chap. 11 pp. 209-210 par. 55 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” ***

• In the year 1943 the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society published the book “The Truth Shall Make You Free.” . . . Naturally this did away with the year 1874 C.E. as the date of return of the Lord Jesus Christ and the beginning of his invisible presence or parousia.

But, the teaching about when Jesus became King is a little different. Years after 1914, the Watch Tower Society was still publishing that Jesus began his reign as King in 1878. And they continuing promoting that date in literature campaigns until 1933 or so. By 1922 there were already statements, not 100 percent explicit, but hints that the official doctrine might change, perhaps even as early as 1919. By 1925, the doctrine had officially changed that Jesus became King, not in 1878, but in 1914.

To review, today the official doctrine is as follows:

• 1914: Jesus' presence began
• 1914: Jesus' Kingdom reign began

From 1879 to 1922, and 1933, and even 1943, the teachings  were:

• 1874: Jesus' presence began - (changed in 1943)
• 1878: Jesus Reign as King began - (changed between 1922 through 1933)

14 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I believe you are the one that pointed to 1874 as an absolute instead of a transition or inspection as it were.

I managed to move all the other posts on this topic to a new thread, already mentioned. I didn't move this particular one, however, because it includes more about the topic of emojis than about chronology.

14 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

The other, you must admit it’s a normal emoji used by everyone.

True it's a normal emoji used by everyone. I'm happy with it, and I use it myself.

14 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

That’s better than downvotes I would think.

Not necessarily. Some people are probably very concerned about the number of upvotes and downvotes they get. Personally, if someone wants to downvote a post of mine, I'm interested in what they are downvoting. Sometimes, I might post only Scripture and I get downvoted by another Witness. I know this doesn't necessarily mean they don't like the Scripture, but it must mean they don't like my application of it. If I say something in a post that is wrong or needs correction, I'm even more interested in a downvote, and I hope the downvoter will explain themselves.

But using the normal "HaHa" emoji as an alternative to a downvote is more ambiguous. Of course, if something was meant to be funny, then the HaHa emoji is perfectly understandable, and that's not an alternative to a downvote. So it's interesting that you admit that the HaHa emoji is being used as an alternative to a downvote. When a post is completely serious and a person uses a HaHa emoji as a downvote, then it sounds more like a snide, scornful sneer, right? But if they truly thought that something serious actually sounded funny to them, then the emoji is ambiguous unless the person explains their use of it.

14 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I really didn’t experience AllenSmith34 perhaps as well as you, but given the atmosphere here, I can’t understand why this person was removed. That’s my point in this.

I can understand easily why he was removed. It was clearly stated by the admin/moderator and was very much related to the verse I quoted:

• (Proverbs 22:10) . . .Drive away the scornful man, And contention will disappear; Disputes and insults will cease.

But I disagree that it should have been done, permanently at least, considering, as you say, the atmosphere here. I've already explained why under previous topics. Mostly because it's too difficult to be consistent and fair to every participant. And I don't think it's fair to wipe away someone's "good" history, along with their "bad." It's almost a perfect analogy to the proverb about the baby and the bathwater.

14 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Nevertheless, by you personally posting my comments with emoji’s, doesn’t that constitute poking fun at my expense?

I merely went to your profile and displayed exactly what was showing up there at the time. It doesn't constitute poking fun unless you think that what you were doing was ridiculous. For all I knew you might have been very proud of your posts and reactions to other posts.

14 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

With that, Why single me out?

It wouldn't have been fair to AllenSmith34 to imply that he was the only one who used the "HaHa" as an alternative to a "downvote" to such an extent. As I recall, he used this method at least TEN TIMES more often than anyone else here. At present, I'd say that you use this method at least TEN TIMES more often than anyone else here. At the rate you are going, there is a good chance you may even pass his record.

..

Because @JOHN BUTLER brought up some speculation that Armageddon is likely far off, I mentioned the following:

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

And it must be just as wrong to speculate that it must happen before the deaths of the entire second group of anointed who overlapped with an earlier group of anointed who would later admit that they misunderstood what they saw happening in 1914.

@BillyTheKid46 responded:

15 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Perhaps there are older JW’s that have understood what 1914 represents and has always represented. That’s why it’s necessary to demonstrate the difference between early Zion Watchtower works with what the Watchtower is today. Totally different understanding with the same goal of 1914. 😉

When I responded to BillyTheKid, I ended up taking a part of this discussion far off the original topic, and there were several more posts that veered to this topic. Some contained intriguing content. However since they are off topic, I am going to move them under new topics. The original topic about the problem with the updated definition of the "generation" is in one new topic, here, and these other points by BillyTheKid will be under another topic:

For reference, these are the responses from THIS topic that will be discussed in the new topic here:

14 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Then you have plenty of work ahead of you. Not that it’s going to matter, but if you really were a faithful witness, the generation referred in the Zion Watchtower talked about before and after 1914 with the earthly saints.

Some critics back then thought Russell was only looking to fulfill a literal amount of 144,000 then quit looking. A question arose as to what would happen to the faithful after the 144,000 saints were acquired.

It’s not that difficult to understand. But as you stated” Perhaps, but it's not obvious yet to me.” This is cynicism that doesn’t prove anything by personal opinion.

This is why there is a difference between Jesus presences in 1874 to that of enthronement, taking his rightful seat in 1914.

No one before 1914 would literally see judgment day. That doesn’t mean they wouldn't be included as the other sheep with an earthly hope after 1914. The teaching back then as a backdrop was and still is, once you die, you go to heaven. Where is your adjustment on that? 

And this one:

13 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I believe you are the one that pointed to 1874 as an absolute instead of a transition or inspection as it were.

And this one:

12 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I hope to God you will one day understand the significance of 1914. The misapplication of The Bible Students analogy however different end up being the same, but with less clutter.

In order to understand, you would have to investigate what the prelude was in 1874, 1878, 1881, 1898, 1901, 1904, 1906, 1910, 1911 or wait that’s a firearm, 1913, 1914, 1915, and their correlations. What was the experience between 1916-1919?

Russell, while still learning was insightful. There are many publications to research.

-----

Be not surprised, then, when in subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in A.D. 1878, and that the "battle of the great day of God Almighty" (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1915, with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced. The gathering of the armies is plainly visible from the standpoint of God's Word.

STUDY IV

THE TIMES OF THE GENTILES

What are Gentile Times?—Their Beginning; Their Length; Their End A.D. 1914—Attendant Events—Events to Follow—Literal and Symbolic Time—A Remarkable Type—Present Indications—God's Kingdom to Overthrow Gentile Rule—Therefore Organized Before It Ends—Before A.D. 1914—Why Opposed by Gentile Kingdoms—How and Why All will Finally Accept it Joyfully—"The Desire of All Nations Shall Come."

Was he talking about an earthly kingdom? No that came from opposers in his time. Did it mean the world would end in 1914, No, that’s an ex-WJ’s excuse and those that oppose the Watchtower? The coined phrase " SETTING UP OF THE KINGDOM" means what?

The time stamp, meant, preparation for Christ to take his rightful place in Heaven and enthroned at the appropriate time.

---

But if you are one of those that only believe in one 1260, then it won't make a difference, and there's no reason to debate it here or in a closed forum.

There are evidently FOUR basic problems in the latest explanation of the "GENERATION" teaching. Of course, this is the teaching based on Jesus' words in Matthew 24:34 where he says that "This generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur." The latest update to the explanation is that Jesus was referring to two groups of anointed persons: the first group who could discern the meaning of the sign they witnessed in 1914, and a second group of anointed persons, whose lives overlapped with that first group.

• #1. It creates a set time limit for Armageddon to occur.
• #2. It is based on the idea that the date 1914 was predicted in the Bible.
• #3. It is based on a false definition of the word "generation."
• #4. It is based on a false premise about a supposed belief in 1914 that didn't even exist in 1914.

If we're serious about:

• paying constant attention to ourselves and our teaching, (1 Tim 4:16)
• handling the word of God aright, having nothing to be ashamed of, (2 Tim 2:15)
• not paying attention to false stories, (1 Tim 1:4-7)
• making sure of all things, (1 Thess 5:21)
• knowing that teachers will receive heavier judgment, etc., (James 3:1)

then we would not be very good Christians if any of us taught something that we were not sure about.

On this forum, participants have already dealt extensively with #1 and #2 above, but there has not yet been a thorough discussion and focus on points #3 and #4.

38 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

This is why there is a difference between Jesus presences in 1874 to that of enthronement, taking his rightful seat in 1914.

Not much of a difference from 1874 to 1878, though, was it?

The recent Watchtower stated:

*** ws14 1/15 p. 30 par. 15 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***

• When Jesus mentioned “this generation,” we understand that he was speaking about two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was present in 1914 and understood that Christ began ruling as King in that year.

But when Bro Rutherford gave his famous 'Advertise, Advertise, Advertise' talk at Cedar Point, Ohio in 1922 (nearly a decade after 1914) he said this:

“Do you believe it? Do you believe that the King of glory is present, and has been since 1874? Do you believe that during that time he has conducted his harvest work? Do you believe that he has had during that time a faithful and wise servant through whom he directed his work and the feeding of the household of faith? Do you believe that the Lord is now in his temple, judging the nations of earth? Do you believe that the King of glory has begun his reign? . . . Behold, the King reigns! You are his publicity agents. Therefore advertise, advertise, advertise, the King and his kingdom.” – Watchtower, November 1, 1922, p. 337.

There was not yet an official change that Jesus had become king in 1914, nor that Jesus presence had begun in 1914. The presence was clearly still dated to 1874. The beginning of his kingship was still dated to 1878, and this was still being published in service campaigns at least until 1933. Finished Mystery, published in 1917, and sold until 1933, put it like this:

1 hour ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I believe they eliminate AllenSmith34.

I really miss AllenSmith34. For reasons I've explained before, there should be no such thing as "permanent" disfellowshipping on a forum such as this one. The rebuke of the majority should be sufficient.

I miss the comments that he often put a lot of thought into, and that honestly revealed what he was thinking. One thing I don't miss about him was his constant habit of taking serious posts and tacking a "HaHa" emoticon on them. It seemed like a lazy person's mischievous way of showing derision and scorn, and trying to stir up contention instead of taking time to explain his view in a mature manner. Many days AllenSmith would produce more "HaHa" responses than actual posts.

• (Proverbs 22:10) . . .Drive away the scornful man, And contention will disappear; Disputes and insults will cease.

Fortunately, we don't have as much of that any more. Oh...wait, sorry...what's this:

20 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I tend to think that God lets people know what He is doing and when. So I also tend to think that the Spiritual Jews will be clearly seen long before Armageddon occurs.

In the past, God let people know what he is doing and when. Jesus said that this time would be different. He said we would be warned about WHAT he was doing, but not WHEN.

*** w03 1/1 p. 18 par. 2 “Keep on the Watch”! ***

• On this account you too prove yourselves ready, because at an hour that you do not think to be it, the Son of man is coming.” (Matthew 24:42-44) A thief does not announce in advance when he is coming.

20 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

One of the questions is, does a person have to be inside the JW org to survive Armageddon ? 

One person cannot produce a teaching that gets advertised to the entire world. Even if the rocks had to cry out, it would not have been just one rock. An organization provides the efficiency to get a message out in such a way that it is generally appealing, or understood. The members of the organization are willing to explain it if it is not understood. We all stand on our own in the end. The organization is a tool or means to declare that message in an efficient and consistent manner, to help people understand it and therefore accept or reject it.

• (Romans 10:14-18) 14 However, how will they call on him if they have not put faith in him? How, in turn, will they put faith in him about whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach? 15 How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent out? Just as it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who declare good news of good things!” . . .  Why, in fact, “into all the earth their sound went out, and to the ends of the inhabited earth their message.”

I think Paul speaks in general terms here that the message has gone out through God's actions toward Israel, and God's obvious backing of the early Christians, so that Gamaliel would say:

• (Acts 5:38, 39) . . .For if this scheme or this work is from men, it will be overthrown; 39 but if it is from God, you will not be able to overthrow them. Otherwise, you may even be found fighters against God himself.”

Like you, and like Brother Jackson of the GB, I would also not be so presumptuous as to claim that God is using only one group of 8 men as his mouthpiece or channel. But you'll notice that the important thing is not the so-called "inspiration" or "perfection" of those who preach. It's the message.

What would those rocks be saying if they were needed to cry out, instead of Christians?

18 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Along those lines, is one reason that i think Armageddon is a long way off. Because God has to either clean out the JW Org fully, or, God has to build a new org.

That's the same kind of mistake I was referring to above. We can't base our beliefs about the timing of Armageddon on anything we think might have to happen first here on earth. Jesus wove the first century parousia on Jerusalem right into the parousia on the entire earth using the word immediately to tie the two together.

• (Matthew 24:29-31) 29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity.

It was in Peter that we have the explanation that "immediately" could easily be 1,000 years or more, because:

• (2 Peter 3:4-9) . . .“Where is this promised presence of his? . . .  8 However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 9 Jehovah is not slow concerning his promise. . .

22 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Obviously, there is something you haven’t considered.

Perhaps, but it's not obvious yet to me.

22 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

So, I would expect an active JW to understand it and not minimize it and dismiss it with personal opinion.

You haven't been clear about what "it" is that active JWs understand, and do not minimize or dismiss.

22 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Perhaps there are older JW’s that have understood what 1914 represents and has always represented.

Perhaps there are, and perhaps the current understanding of what 1914 represented is 100 percent correct. But the Watchtower does not speak of a first group of the this generation who merely "have understood what 1914 represents and what has always represented" does it? No, the Watchtower speaks of those who understood the sign that they were seeing in 1914, at the time they were seeing it.

*** ws14 1/15 p. 30 par. 15 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***

• When Jesus mentioned “this generation,” we understand that he was speaking about two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was present in 1914 and understood that Christ began ruling as King in that year. Those who made up this group were not only alive in 1914, but they had also been anointed by holy spirit in or before that year.

This doesn't fit the current Watchtower explanation that they had it wrong at the time. They didn't even teach that this supposed sign in 1914 meant that Jesus had begun his presence. (His presence had begun in 1874, and this was still the official teaching until 1943/1944. No one we know recognized this in 1914.) So it would be difficult to claim that anyone saw the sign and understood it in 1914, unless you happen to know of someone who understood it that way. Fred Franz admits that he misunderstood it until 1943, and he is used as a primary example of a person in the first group.

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

The shunning problem, the blood issue / blood fractions, the misuse of scripture, the changing of meaning of many scriptures. The denial that Elders are a Clergy Class. The 'Clergy privilege'  excuse for hiding pedophiles within the Org.  There are lots of things that are wrong with the GB and it's JW Org.  Accusing two adults of fornication when NO witnesses are available. Allowing 3 year olds to put in Report slips as a means to make up the drop in numbers of JW's in the Org. Just a few there to start with.

For what it's worth, I noticed that you did bring up several other issues besides child abuse. Child sexual abuse (CSA) seemed to be the issue that remains most unresolved for you, and it spilled over into discussions of elders, GB, the congregation fear of elders, two-witness rule inconsistency, clergy privilege, etc. To be fair these other topics were often already related to the CSA issue.

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And I still believe in Armageddon but think it will be a long while yet. I even think it is possible for God to cleanse the JW Org and use it.

Jehovah can use any of us, and any government, ruler or organization to accomplish his will. He can use our mistakes to accomplish his will, and he can use our feeble and foibled attempts to minister to him, too, of course. I think Jehovah continues to cleanse "JW Org" every time we show humility as an organization and show ourselves malleable to his will. (Like the potter's vessel illustration from @Bible Speaks you commented on.) You made a comment under that topic to the effect that Jehovah does not "mold" us to his will through congregation elders. This made no sense to me, because the utilization of congregation elders is very much a part of Jehovah's will as we can see in the Biblical direction given to congregations. Of course, if there are specific things elders do, you could address those things, but the generalization is not scriptural.

On the issue of Armageddon, there is a range of belief among Witnesses, so I assume you mean the standard idea that Jehovah destroys all the wicked, especially the wicked organizations, and only Jehovah's people survive. That range of belief might include questions about who really get counted as "wicked," who really get counted as Jehovah's people, or whether a large number of JWs actually do not survive, too. What happens with children and those who remain innocent by lack of hearing, or inability to comprehend? What happens with those who would gladly have joined us, but who were stumbled at haughty elders, or false prophecies, or issues of child abuse that seemed to them to be the fault of an organization, rather than just the perpetrators?

Also on the issue of Armageddon, you know that while it might not be dangerous to think that it might be a long way off, it is dangerous to live our lives according to the idea that it might be a long way off. The point is to keep it close in mind because it could come at any time, without further warning. We are warned that it will arrive, but we have absolutely no warning as to the times and seasons. This makes me wonder about what several members have done on this forum by speculating about what things are "obviously" going to happen in the near future that will prove this or that scripture to have been accomplished. I think this is also a mistake, because even if we think a certain action on the part of a government, a person, the UN, or anything else must happen first to fulfill some Bible prophecy before the end, then I think we have failed to understand that Armageddon can actually arrive 5 minutes after you fall asleep tonight. And it must be just as wrong to speculate that it must happen before the deaths of the entire second group of anointed who overlapped with an earlier group of anointed who would later admit that they misunderstood what they saw happening in 1914. This is just as un-Biblical and therefore un-Christian because it claims we know something about the times and seasons with respect to the time of the end.

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

So, ok sometimes I rant, but it is out of pure frustration, because so many JW's are blind to the faults of the Org.

An organization is not a person with motives you can judge. Yes, many JWs are blind to the faults of the Organization. But you should know members of the "Private" club for JWs as opposed to the "Public" club for JWs (now called "Open") is just as apt to discuss faults of the Organization as it is in the Open Club. As TTH pointed out, it has actually become easier to discuss these criticisms without people changing the subject at will, or asking people to defend their choices on some barely related topic.

1 hour ago, The Librarian said:

Looks like all of her poems are now gone sadly. 😒

I'm finding a lot of the poetry here:

The last link is this:

http://ww.delightfulpoetry.com/introduction-4.html

(which resolves with www  or the "ww" as the subdomain.)

There are many poems from both Cynthia Becker and Grace Straley. For example:

http://www.delightfulpoetry.com/broken_reed.html

The other links in the list might be resolved through the "waybackmachine" or "web archive." For example:

Life Everlasing is Promised

from the above list is not available: http://www.poetsbranch.com/PPT/LifeEverlasting/LifeEverlasting.html

But an earlier version of it is available here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20160327223513/http://www.poetsbranch.com/PPT/LifeEverlasting/LifeEverlasting.html

Didn't test any others.

I should add that some scientists who study these things agree that the time when dinosaurs and other contemporary animals and plants were on earth was a time when the atmosphere was very thick and heavy, atmospheric pressure at the earth's surface was much higher than now, and water vapor must have filled the air so that the sun's energy was fairly equally diffused, and those "thermals" that large birds seem to "float" on would have been a constant phenomenon. 

Some interesting thoughts on the pterosaurs and their ability to fly are found here:

http://theconversation.com/pterosaurs-should-have-been-too-big-to-fly-so-how-did-they-manage-it-60892

But pressure alone would not explain it, because continuous flight without flapping is really a matter of the difference in pressure above and below the wing, creating lower pressure above the wing; it's therefore not a factor enhanced by higher pressure above the wing.

And the entire book of several chapters, found here, provides some very interesting reading as an attempt to bring in a lot of available evidence on the topic.

https://dinosaurtheory.com/big_dinosaur.html

The book is well done from a didactic point of view, and the link above is only to chapter 2: The Paradox of Large Dinosaurs and Flying Pterosaurs. Chapter 3 is called, The Science of Flight and the Paradox of Flying Pterosaurs. The book should be read at least through Chapter 7, but the book gets uncomfortably "evolutionary" after that until the end at chapter 11. The last chapter (11) is about the age of fossils, however, tying back to the subject.

5 hours ago, Arauna said:

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

That the entire earth was a temperate, tropical climate is also unprovable.

Actually there are fossils in the remotest parts of the earth that are now totally uninhabitable areas.

To be clearer, I should have said that the idea that the earth was a temperate, tropical climate just before the time of the Flood is also unprovable. It very well may have been temperate and tropical for many thousands of years, or even for many millions of years. However, without accepting the methods of dating the various eras and eons on earth, we can't tell if this state of climate was true in all parts of the earth at the same time. We can only theorize. And it might be a very good theory.

When Genesis describes Adam and Eve leaving the Garden of Eden, it describes an immediate time of hardship in planting and cultivation, trying to eke out produce amidst thorns and thistles. This is not the state of affairs usually associated with a temperate and tropical climate and it was likely meant for a time more than 1500 years before the time of Noah.

• (Genesis 3:17-19) 17 And to Adam he said: “Because you listened to your wife’s voice and ate from the tree concerning which I gave you this command, ‘You must not eat from it,’ cursed is the ground on your account. In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life. 18 It will grow thorns and thistles for you, and you must eat the vegetation of the field. 19 In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.”

5 hours ago, Arauna said:

My brother did write a paper for his friends (he is a nerd in math and physics - he is the one that was a brilliant toxicologist before he went to prison) which proves that the detrimental radiation after the flood built up in the atmosphere very quickly and was the cause for the sudden drop in the age of people after the flood.

It's a very common claim that has been theorized by fundamentalist authors for many years. And it might be true, but is still only a theory. I would love to be able to communicate with your brother, but no paper can "prove" anything about radiation levels before and after the Flood. Nor can anyone determine a specific reason for the sudden 90% drop in human lifespans.

5 hours ago, Arauna said:

He wrote a mathematic formula which proves the time period (he says that the bible is accurate when it comes to the time period) it took for mankind to degenerate.

That's interesting, but it's still not possible to use the word "prove" even when matching a formula to the Biblical time period.

5 hours ago, Arauna said:

If I remember correctly,  it brings all the electrical powers, gravitation, as well as magnetism together in one theory.

It's a kind of holy grail for scientists. When working from one set of "true" non-quantum assumptions you can get one good answer, and when you work from a set of "true" quantum assumptions you get another good, sensible answer. The problem is that those answers are several orders of magnitude apart from each other. Other methods of mixing the math from the small scale energies of the electro-magnetic world and trying to map them to the large scale energies from the the gravitational space-time world will devolve into string theories. Not just one string theory, but several different string theories, some of which result in a "necessary" postulation of several simultaneous universes. So there really is no string theory, or at least it has gotten nowhere.

My son graduated from Harvard with a degree in theoretical physics (also music) and we have discussions about this quite often, and of course it's over my head. But he claims that many scientists have tried it, even attempting to use the ideas to "prove for God" as the source of the dynamic energies that would explain dark matter, and poorly understood energies -- even gravity itself.

5 hours ago, Arauna said:

The scriptures in the bible also state that there"  had never been rain before " but a mist watered the earth.  This indicates a much different earth before the flood than after.

You'll notice that the WTS does not teach us that this condition lasted until the Flood, implying that it is likely it was a condition limited to the context (day 3) in the creation account summary of Genesis 2.

*** it-2 p. 728 Rain ***

• At an early point in the history of the preparation of the earth, “God had not made it rain upon the earth,” but “a mist would go up from the earth and it watered the entire surface of the ground.” The time referred to is evidently early on the third creative “day,” before vegetation appeared

I'm sure you are aware, as you have already mentioned several of these points, but for those who don't know that these same theories have been common in Christendom for many years, one need only look at various commentaries of Genesis. Here's some excerpts from one example, which will take up the rest of the post:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_685.cfm
. . .
Water Vapor Canopy
. . .
Astronomer Donald B. DeYoung lists the arguments in favor of a water vapor canopy.
. . .

2.Genesis 2:5,6 hints that the early earth did not experience rain. A canopy would have greatly affected weather patterns, very likely limiting precipitation.
. . .
5.There is abundant evidence of a warmer earth in the past. We have found fossils of palm trees in Alaska, crocodiles in New Jersey, and petrified wood in the desert. A canopy would have warmed the entire earth like a blanket. Seasonal cold and heat are first mentioned after the Flood in Genesis 8:22.
. . .
6.A canopy would have increased atmospheric pressure, perhaps doubling its present value. This may explain the mystery of the flying reptiles, such as the pteranodon with its seventy-foot wingspan. In today's world it is doubtful that such creatures could fly. With higher air pressure in pre-Flood time, however, they may have been buoyed up by the increased air pressure. These magnificent creatures were certainly created and designed to fly above the early earth.

7.The canopy may hold the key to understanding the longevity in Old Testament chronologies, and also giantism of plants and animals in the fossil record. Increased air pressure can be very beneficial to health, as evidence by experiments with hyperbaric or high altitude pressure surgery. The healing process is sometimes found to accelerate when the patient is placed under higher than normal air pressure. The vapor canopy may also have increased the human lifespan by absorbing harmful radiation. The aging process is still not well understood today, so it is difficult to speculate on the beneficial effects of a pre-Flood canopy.

. . . . (Donald B. DeYoung, Weather And The Bible, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1992, pp. 110-112).

@BillyTheKid46 made some statements in another thread that claimed the necessity of demonstrating the difference between early Zion's Watch Tower views and current Watchtower views. He says it was a totally different understanding with the same goal of 1914:

15 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Perhaps there are older JW’s that have understood what 1914 represents and has always represented. That’s why it’s necessary to demonstrate the difference between early Zion Watchtower works with what the Watchtower is today. Totally different understanding with the same goal of 1914. 😉

To get a fair context of the discussion, I'll show the entire relevant portions of each response from the original topic here:

The above response from BillyTheKid was because @JOHN BUTLER brought up some speculation that Armageddon is likely far off, and I mentioned the following:

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

And it must be just as wrong to speculate that it must happen before the deaths of the entire second group of anointed who overlapped with an earlier group of anointed who would later admit that they misunderstood what they saw happening in 1914.

After BillyTheKid's response to that, already shown at the top of this post, I said:

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Perhaps there are ["older JW’s that have understood what 1914 represents and has always represented"], and perhaps the current understanding of what 1914 represented is 100 percent correct. But the Watchtower does not speak of a first group of the this generation who merely "have understood what 1914 represents and what has always represented" does it? No, the Watchtower speaks of those who understood the sign that they were seeing in 1914, at the time they were seeing it.

*** ws14 1/15 p. 30 par. 15 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***

• When Jesus mentioned “this generation,” we understand that he was speaking about two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was present in 1914 and understood that Christ began ruling as King in that year. Those who made up this group were not only alive in 1914, but they had also been anointed by holy spirit in or before that year.

This doesn't fit the current Watchtower explanation that they had it wrong at the time. They didn't even teach that this supposed sign in 1914 meant that Jesus had begun his presence. (His presence had begun in 1874, and this was still the official teaching until 1943/1944. No one we know recognized this in 1914.) So it would be difficult to claim that anyone saw the sign and understood it in 1914, unless you happen to know of someone who understood it that way. Fred Franz admits that he misunderstood it until 1943, and he is used as a primary example of a person in the first group.

To that @BillyTheKid46 responded:

14 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Then you have plenty of work ahead of you. Not that it’s going to matter, but if you really were a faithful witness, the generation referred in the Zion Watchtower talked about before and after 1914 with the earthly saints.

Some critics back then thought Russell was only looking to fulfill a literal amount of 144,000 then quit looking. A question arose as to what would happen to the faithful after the 144,000 saints were acquired.

It’s not that difficult to understand. But as you stated” Perhaps, but it's not obvious yet to me.” This is cynicism that doesn’t prove anything by personal opinion.

This is why there is a difference between Jesus presences in 1874 to that of enthronement, taking his rightful seat in 1914.

No one before 1914 would literally see judgment day. That doesn’t mean they wouldn't be included as the other sheep with an earthly hope after 1914. The teaching back then as a backdrop was and still is, once you die, you go to heaven. Where is your adjustment on that? 

I have not yet responded to BillyTheKid's other points, which I may attempt to do here. But I did respond to his statement, "This is why there is a difference between Jesus presences in 1874 to that of enthronement, taking his rightful seat in 1914."

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Not much of a difference from 1874 to 1878, though, was it?

The recent Watchtower stated: 

*** ws14 1/15 p. 30 par. 15 “Let Your Kingdom Come”—But When? ***

• When Jesus mentioned “this generation,” we understand that he was speaking about two groups of anointed Christians. The first group was present in 1914 and understood that Christ began ruling as King in that year.

But when Bro Rutherford gave his famous 'Advertise, Advertise, Advertise' talk at Cedar Point, Ohio in 1922 (nearly a decade after 1914) he said this:

“Do you believe it? Do you believe that the King of glory is present, and has been since 1874? Do you believe that during that time he has conducted his harvest work? Do you believe that he has had during that time a faithful and wise servant through whom he directed his work and the feeding of the household of faith? Do you believe that the Lord is now in his temple, judging the nations of earth? Do you believe that the King of glory has begun his reign? . . . Behold, the King reigns! You are his publicity agents. Therefore advertise, advertise, advertise, the King and his kingdom.” – Watchtower, November 1, 1922, p. 337.

There was not yet an official change that Jesus had become king in 1914, nor that Jesus presence had begun in 1914. The presence was clearly still dated to 1874. The beginning of his kingship was still dated to 1878, and this was still being published in service campaigns at least until 1933. Finished Mystery, published in 1917, and sold until 1933, put it like this:

 

To which BillyTheKid responded:

13 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I believe you are the one that pointed to 1874 as an absolute instead of a transition or inspection as it were.

And BilyTheKid also responded in another post:

12 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I hope to God you will one day understand the significance of 1914. The misapplication of The Bible Students analogy however different end up being the same, but with less clutter.

In order to understand, you would have to investigate what the prelude was in 1874, 1878, 1881, 1898, 1901, 1904, 1906, 1910, 1911 or wait that’s a firearm, 1913, 1914, 1915, and their correlations. What was the experience between 1916-1919?

Russell, while still learning was insightful. There are many publications to research.

-----

Be not surprised, then, when in subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in A.D. 1878, and that the "battle of the great day of God Almighty" (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1915, with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced. The gathering of the armies is plainly visible from the standpoint of God's Word.

STUDY IV

THE TIMES OF THE GENTILES

What are Gentile Times?—Their Beginning; Their Length; Their End A.D. 1914—Attendant Events—Events to Follow—Literal and Symbolic Time—A Remarkable Type—Present Indications—God's Kingdom to Overthrow Gentile Rule—Therefore Organized Before It Ends—Before A.D. 1914—Why Opposed by Gentile Kingdoms—How and Why All will Finally Accept it Joyfully—"The Desire of All Nations Shall Come."

Was he talking about an earthly kingdom? No that came from opposers in his time. Did it mean the world would end in 1914, No, that’s an ex-WJ’s excuse and those that oppose the Watchtower? The coined phrase " SETTING UP OF THE KINGDOM" means what?

The time stamp, meant, preparation for Christ to take his rightful place in Heaven and enthroned at the appropriate time.

---

But if you are one of those that only believe in one 1260, then it won't make a difference, and there's no reason to debate it here or in a closed forum.

Hopefully, I'll get a chance respond to BillyTheKid here, and to understand how he thinks we should understand the idea that there was more than one 1260, among many other points made.

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

Thanks for your input.  I hope I did not create a "careless" impression by my choice of words.  I am never surprised at the wonderful diversity and abundance Jehovah has created.

To me, you do not give the impression of being careless at all. I get the impression you have not only been careful but very thorough in looking for evidence defending creation. And not just from a single source but clearly by being selective among some of the best ideas from many sources, which also means rejecting bad ideas.

I think this is great!

What I did hope to convey was the difficulty we have in simply re-interpreting every bit of existing evidence into a simple version of creation. All of us tend to do this because most of us want simple answers. A good scientist should look at ALL the evidence related to her or his branch of science and continue to readjust an overarching theory that fits every bit of it, including all the anomalies. We can't really make a good counter-claim in defense of our own position until we have done the same. As TTH above has said:

10 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Many things ‘settled’ have been settled by decree. Many things ‘proved’ have been proved by ignoring evidence to the contrary.

More importantly, we can't "judge" the conclusions of individual scientists, if they are based on a cache of thousands of pieces of evidence that we have not ourselves been able to explain.  As TTH aleady added:

10 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The average person has not the time, patience, or often interest to investigate.  

Creationists have unprovable theories, too. We often invoke the problems of the unknown antediluvian atmosphere to counter evidence from Carbon 14 that appears to measure things fairly well back to 50,000 years. But our counter theory is not proved at all. It's just our own conjecture (actually the conjecture of previous fundamentalists). That the air pressure was different during a time of pterodactyls is also an unprovable theory. That the entire earth was a temperate, tropical climate is also unprovable.

We do have a small piece of evidence in favor of our theory in the Bible, but there are no details provided in the Bible, so some Witnesses and a lot of Fundamentalists simply impose a lot of conjecture upon the "water canopy" theory. 

In fact, the water canopy theory is very weak. From the standpoint of physics, the claims made for it are not even possible. So we are really invoking a kind of "miracle" that held a theorized "band" of water in the sky. Even the evidence from the Bible on the "water canopy" is not definitive. For one thing, you can see from the footnotes in the NWT that the word translated heavens is actually the same word for "sky." Genesis 1:1 is really saying: "In the beginning God created the sky and the earth." And this word for "expanse" in Genesis 1:7 is apparently just a reference to the visible sky that holds the rain clouds above us. We can't really say for sure that this separation of the waters and the waters is any more than just the fact that Jehovah made it possible for water to be both on the surface of the earth and also high above our heads in the form of water vapor in the form of clouds. A reason for saying this is that Proverbs apparently replaces the idea of this water separation, merely with the word for "clouds" when referring to the major milestones of the earth's creation:

• (Proverbs 8:28) . . .When he established the clouds above, When he founded the fountains of the deep,

And rather than support the theory that this separation of the waters disappeared at the time of the Flood, Psalms says it's still there:

• (Psalm 148:3-7) . . .Praise him, sun and moon. Praise him, all shining stars.  4 Praise him, O highest heavens And waters above the heavens.  5 Let them praise the name of Jehovah, For he commanded, and they were created.  6 He keeps them established forever and ever; He has issued a decree that will not pass away.  7 Praise Jehovah from the earth, You great sea creatures and all deep waters,

In fact, just like Proverbs referring to these waters as clouds, Psalms (see also Job) also credits these waters from above as the "rain" that continued to make things grow during the days of the Psalmist:

• (Psalm 104:12-14) . . .Above them roost the birds of the sky [heaven]; They sing among the thick foliage. 13 He is watering the mountains from his upper rooms. With the fruitage of your works the earth is satisfied. 14 He is making grass grow for the cattle And vegetation for mankind’s use, To grow food from the land.
• (Job 38:36, 37) 36 Who put wisdom within the clouds Or gave understanding to the sky [heaven] phenomenon? 37 Who is wise enough to count the clouds, Or who can tip over the water jars of heaven?
• (Psalm 147:8) . . .The One who covers the heavens with clouds, The One providing rain for the earth, The One making grass sprout on the mountains.

In fact, based on similar texts and language used in other near eastern ancient documents the idea of this sky/expanse was the vault or dome that held the clouds above, and allowed the stars to shine through at night. Amos, too, shows it had not disappeared, and that it included the process by which sea water was turned into rain water.

• (Amos 9:6) . . .‘The one who builds his stairs in the heavens And establishes his [dome, vault] over the earth; The one who summons the waters of the sea, To pour them out on the surface of the earth —Jehovah is his name.’

On 1/6/2019 at 3:34 AM, Arauna said:

The bone structure of the dinosaurs fall in two categories.  Those of birds and those of reptiles.  It has never bothered me that dinosaurs with hollow bones like birds may have had feathers and would have been beautifully colorful.

I agree that it should not bother us that dinosaurs may have had hollow bones like birds and may have had feathers, and may have even been beautifully colorful.

But it can be misleading to claim that the bone structure of dinosaurs falls into two categories: birds and reptiles. Dinosaurs themselves are categorized into "bird" and "non-bird" dinosaurs, but not their bone structures. In fact, the bone structures of the most reptilian theropods have three birdlike toes/claws and hollow bones, and many of them show evidence of feathers, even though they did not fly. The Tyrannasaurus Rex was a theropod.

Wikipedia shows the following theropod, stating that it has three toes and hollow bones:

And here is the Anchiornis, also a theropod, with the skeletal structure of other theropods, but with feathers:

Here is the approximate bone structure of the Anchiornis. It could not fly, just as many species of birds cannot fly.

Of course, even if this idea of feathers on dinosaurs doesn't bother us, it sure bothered researchers at Bethel. This is because claims were made that created a kind of logic trap. If you look up feathers and dinosaurs in the Watchtower Library you will find this one reference:

*** g 7/07 p. 24 Feathers—A Marvel of Design ***

• FORGED “EVIDENCE”  Some fossil “evidence” that was once loudly hailed as proof that birds evolved from other creatures has since been shown to have been forged. In 1999, for instance, National Geographic magazine featured an article about a fossil of a feathered creature with a tail like a dinosaur’s. The magazine declared the creature to be “a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds.” The fossil, however, turned out to be a forgery, a composite of the fossils of two different animals. In fact, no such “missing link” has ever been found.

Clearly, the Awake! wasn't ready for a feathered dinosaur. (The forgery was created in China, where true feathered dinosaur fossils would soon be discovered and studied. It was unveiled by National Geographic in October/November 1999, and NG announced the investigation into the probability that it was a forgery about 4 months later, and took until October 2000, a year later, to publish the results of the investigation, with an apology.)

The same article also said:

• Feathers give no indication that they ever needed improvement. In fact, the “earliest known fossil feather is so modern-looking as to be indistinguishable from the feathers of birds flying today.” Yet, evolutionary theory teaches that feathers must be the result of gradual, cumulative change in earlier skin outgrowths. Moreover, “feathers could not have evolved without some plausible adaptive value in all of the intermediate steps,” says the Manual.

• Further, if feathers developed progressively over a long period of time, the fossil record should contain intermediate forms. But none have ever been found, only traces of fully formed feathers. “Unfortunately for evolutionary theory, feathers are very complicated,” states the Manual.

• The perfection of feathers is just one problem for evolutionists, for practically every part of a bird is designed for flight. For instance, a bird has light, hollow bones . . .

• The fossil feather is from archaeopteryx, an extinct creature sometimes presented as a “missing link” in the line of descent to modern birds. Most paleontologists, however, no longer consider it an ancestor of modern birds.

Of course, contrary to the above claim, most paleontologists do consider the "bird-dinosaurs" to be an ancestor of modern birds. Those necessarily lighter, hollow bones have also been verified throughout many dinosaur species, and now even the evidence of only partially formed feathers has been seen, which the Awake! magazine had called "intermediate forms" and suggested that such a find, if it ever happened, would indicate evidence of evolutionary theory.

It would have been better to just accept that there might be hundreds of new discoveries indicating a variety of life created for purposes we cannot yet understand.

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

These days one can find anything on Youtube....  type in  carbon dating debunked or carbon dating i is false and pick and choose to watch (some will be credible and some will not be).

Not that libraries or science-related databases will always be perfect, but "research" is so different now from when I was in school or getting research assignments at Bethel. Today, interest in a topic starts with a link that is usually purposely worded to attract attention by being provocative. Even major newspapers now use "click-bait" to get someone to read an article about a scientific report or discovery. A serious report about the effects of various carbohydrates on various types of cancer would get a title like: "New Report Shows Sugar Causes Brain Cancer." Maybe it does, but things like this happen even if that idea was never in the report at all. And then it will get repeated in other newspaper and television reports and YouTube channels and long advertisements on websites that purport to be from a respected doctor. Almost no one will actually read the report, sometimes not even other scientists who will also need to make "educated guesses" and assumptions, because they would get nowhere these days if they had to read every word on every subject that came before them.

Getting to the truth of the matter in research is sometimes harder now than it was back in the days when research required a lot more legwork.

56 minutes ago, Arauna said:

No c14 is used in dating artifacts and fossils - not used ito determine 607 BCE

Good catch! I noticed that too, but did not want to start a 607 discussion. The Watchtower has accepted C-14 to get within about 100 years for some manuscripts, including the DSS, and to defend a more Biblical date for Hezekiah's tunnel, and also accept the limits of C-14 dating only for things in the last few thousands of years, etc. But it is rarely accepted as the only piece of evidence on which to draw a conclusion:

*** w13 2/1 p. 14 What Is the “Gospel of Judas”? ***

• Carbon-14 dating authenticated the codex as likely coming from the third or the fourth century C.E. However, the scholars surmised that the Coptic text of the “Gospel of Judas” had been translated from its original Greek at a much earlier period. What was that original period and setting in which the “Gospel of Judas” was composed?

*** w59 4/15 p. 243 Christianity’s Origin and the Dead Sea Scrolls ***

• Not without good reason these scrolls have been described as the “greatest manuscript discovery of modern times.” They have been definitely dated as of the second century B.C. by experts in the fields of archaeology, paleography (the science of deciphering ancient writing) and the carbon-14 process. Previously the oldest-known Hebrew witness to God’s Word had been the Nash papyrus  . . . .

*** w09 5/1 p. 27 Did You Know? ***

• Dr. Amos Frumkin of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem says: “The carbon-14 tests we carried out on organic material within the plaster of the Siloam Tunnel, and uranium-thorium dating of stalactites found in the tunnel, date it conclusively to Hezekiah’s era.” An article in the scientific journal Nature adds: “The three independent lines of evidence—radiometric dating, palaeography and the historical record—all converge on about 700 BC, rendering the Siloam Tunnel the best-dated Iron-Age biblical structure thus far known.”

*** w97 6/15 p. 10 Jerusalem in Bible Times—What Does Archaeology Reveal? ***

• Did they exist in David’s time? Was this the water tunnel used by Joab? Dan Gill answers: “To test whether Warren’s Shaft was in fact a natural sinkhole, we analyzed a fragment of calcareous crust from its irregular walls for carbon-14. It contained none, indicating that the crust is more than 40,000 years old: This provides unequivocal evidence that the shaft could not have been dug by man.”

The WTS general position on carbon dating is still described here:

*** g86 9/22 p. 21 The Radiocarbon Clock ***

• The Radiocarbon Clock

There was also a discussion started here:

Can we trust carbon 14 dating?